Should higher education be free?
College Should Be Free
Side Score: 46
|
 |
College Should Not Be Free
Side Score: 26
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
Yes, I do believe college education should be free in the US! I believe this should be so for several reasons. One of the first reasons being that, for so many individuals in the US, many have been denied a quality education whether directly or indirectly through institutionalized racism, socioeconomic status or other forms of covert or overt forms classism. I truly believe that all should not only have access to a college education; but all should have the opportunity to obtain a college degree free of charge. Truthfully, I see this as a form of reparations for many whose ancestors/relatives were denied a college education for a host of reasons. Secondly, research has shown that he income gap continues to expand between high school diploma holders and those with college degrees (U.S. News, 2014). Thirdly, with $1.3 million in student debt/loans (Washington Post, 2015), something needs to be done to make education not just more affordable, but economically safe for the US economy as a whole. What I mean by this is that, with the aforementioned amount that US citizens are indebted to financial institutions and the government, is only going to perpetuate the cycle of debt. Many never fully are able to pay off their loans, or are not able to pay their loans off in a timely manner. Now, how we go about making college education free is how I think we should frame the question. Working in the healthcare system, I see firsthand the pros and cons of ACA and the striving for universal healthcare. While great in theory, it can be a nightmare in practice as many were not prepared or equipped with adequate financial or human resources to deal with the influx of patients. I fear this will happen with universal college education-which means that I would promote the need to increase the infrastructure of colleges and universities to handle an influx of students. Also, a free college education DOES NOT translate into a lower quality of education. We need to make sure quality control and academic standards are still adhered too and promoted. Side: College Should Be Free
1
point
Thank you for your arguments Khaliah. I wanted to respond to the major ones, for your consideration. 1 Many individuals in the US, many have been denied a quality education whether directly or indirectly through institutionalized racism, socioeconomic status or other forms of covert or overt forms classism. I think that you are right that there are two different issues highlighted as problematic within our current education system (access and opportunity).
In terms of access, providing free higher education will probably not do much to solve issues of institutional racism, or classism. Primarily, because if we consider the current landscape of higher education, individuals that disadvantaged populations currently have a number of governmental subsidies, grants, etc. that further limit the impact of attendance to college. A change to free public education for all would shift the ability to receive college going benefits to more advantaged students, as they currently already have both access and opportunity (Republic, 2017). This would exacerbate the gap even further to individuals that experience institutional racism, etc. Second, in terms of opportunity - this is often a function of a system that precedes higher education. The current K-12 system is woefully perpetuating an opportunity gap that is a precondition to getting into the best public institutions. The type of competitiveness in a system where higher education would be free, would create even more "opportunities" for free education for groups of individuals that have better opportunity for education in higher income areas. This would limit opportunities and shift funding away from K-12 equity initiatives, particularly in a world where the right to an education K-12 is not even a protected constitutional right (e.g see the Rodriguez Supreme court decision). Secondly, research has shown that he income gap continues to expand between high school diploma holders and those with college degrees. Additionally the student loan debt. Providing free higher education would not shrink the income gap, it would rather normalize education that is required, whereas it would also create a reverse incentive to limit more opportunity, as we are not then focusing on ensuring the quality of k-12 educational systems. Further, in terms of the student loan crisis. Free college tuition will do little to help a single mom leave her job to go to college full time, or will it help individuals with family obligations to leave their family bills to go to college. The free college education for all plan, does not provide latitude for living subsidies that are critical to ensure that disadvantaged populations have equality opportunity and access. My counter policy proposal, would be to provide free public education for individuals that do not meet much higher income thresholds, such as the move in NYS to allow all families that have a combined income less that 100,000 the opportunity to for free education. Tiered programs like these allow there to be mediated restraint, while also ensuring that living subsidies, etc to still be possible. Side: College Should Not Be Free
Khaliah, I agree that college should be a form of reparations for those that were denied a college education. How we finance public higher education is a matter of political will. Universal public higher education recognizes that college must be affordable for all if it is to help drive our economy and our democracy. Lowering prices for students is just the start — it also comes with shared responsibility for funding higher education and ensuring quality. While the income gap continues to expand between those with a high school diploma and those without, the state's flagship universities continue to expand out of state enrollment that segregates admissions policies to the top 1%. I was born and raised in Michigan. I recently went back to Detroit last month, and realized that the city and its surrounding communities will never be able to make it back if the state cannot educate its most neediest potential students. For example, at the University of Michigan, where most of my friends attended, it has become more about blue bloods instead of blue collar. Like many other flagship state universities that were founded to provide an education for the working class in their respective states, U of M has become a school largely for wealthy students (Wermund, 2017). A full 10 percent of its student body comes from families in the top 1 percent of earners, according to data from the Equality of Opportunity Project. Just 16 percent come from families in the bottom 60 percent of earners combined (Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, & Yagan, 2017). The median income of parents of students at the university is $156,000, roughly three times the median income of Michigan families (Wermund, 2017). How can we support narrowing the inequality gap, if our state's universities continue to exclude those that they are meant to serve? Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w23618. Wermund, B. (2017, ). In Trump country, a university confronts its skeptics. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ Side: College Should Be Free
A college degree is the new high school diploma (Sanders, 2015). As a Californian, I have seen firsthand what has happened to our great "flagship" University of California system over the last ten years. Forty-three of the 50 schools known as “state flagships” enrolled a smaller share of freshmen from within their states in 2014 than they had a decade earlier, federal data show. At 10 flagships, state residents formed less than half the freshman class (Anderson & Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). California, like other states, has been following a national trend of flagship state universities, like the UC’s, enrolling increasing percentages of out-of-state applicants to raise revenue post-great recession (Wermund, 2017). In the process, in-state applicants, which means a majority of Latinos and low-income students of color, are priced out of the UCs by international and out-of-state students while bering denied access by the top 1%. Is that what public education should be in a democratic society? A new study by the Stanford economist, Raj Chetty and colleagues, examined college and university access and equity of low-income students. By comparing relevant units – 2, 187 American colleges – in a statistical analysis to determine their “mobility rate” those with the highest upward mobility rates, providing the most opportunities for high earnings after graduation to low-income students, are mid-tier public universities. The true mobility champions of higher education are the colleges that both accept lots of low-income students and send them to the upper quintile of earnings at relatively high rates (Thompson, 2017). These schools are mostly mid-tier public institutions, like California State University in Los Angeles and Glendale Community College in Los Angeles, and other colleges in bastions of burgeoning Latino populations like Pace University in New York, and South Texas College (Chetty et al., 2017). These schools “combine moderate success rates with high levels of access” in which large numbers of students who come from poor families can end up with high incomes (Chetty et al., 2017, p. 27). The challenge becomes ensuring these mobility champions transition from two-year to four-year colleges in under six years to attain the bachelor degrees needed to close the “skills gap.” A skilled workforce is critical to alleviating poverty and maintaining a growing California economy. Unfortunately, California’s higher education system has struggled to keep up with the economy’s changing needs. This is why I agree with Bernie Sanders that it is time to make public colleges and universities tuition-free in the United States. References Anderson, N. & Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2016). Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to out-of-state students. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/nations-prominent-public-universities-are-shifting-to-out-of-state-students/2016/01/30/07575790-beaf-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160story.html?utmterm=.f60fe03df566 Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w23618. Sanders, B. (2015, October 22). Make college free for all [Opinion piece]. Retrieved from the Washington Post website: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ Thompson, D. (2017, August 31). The myth of American universities as inequality-fighters. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ 2017/08/universities-inequality- Wermund, B. (2017, ). In Trump country, a university confronts its skeptics. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ Side: College Should Be Free
College tuition should be FREE! Although opponents of this position believe that lower SES persons should not pay or contribute to the college education of someone in the upper class. However, is not that how we we operate today? Every working person is taxed and some of those dollars are used to fund public education. Some upper class individuals choose to send their children to public school while others send their children to private school. The reality is that all Americans should be afforded the right to attend college for free, just as K-12 education is free. The reality is that not all persons will elect to attend public college/university. However, there should be an opportunity to do so. Side: College Should Be Free
2
points
Fjones, College tuition should be FREE! Nothing is ever free. Somebody has to pay for everything, and it is reasonable for all the payers to benefit from what they pay for. The problem is that much of current higher education does little or nothing to meet the needs of taxpayers. Classes and programs in philosophy, gender studies, religion, physical education, cosmology, etc. are difficult to justify in terms of definable utility in meeting identified societal needs, and that they provide identifiable and measurable benefit to the taxpayers. By contrast, medical training, most hard sciences, engineering, teacher training programs, and other curricula that relate to concrete and definable tasks are of identifiable and measurable benefit to the taxpayers who live in that society. It is possible to demonstrate that we need doctors, engineers, chemists, math teachers, etc. There is a case to be made for publicly supported trade schools, but that is a VERY different concept than supporting the traditionally structured Universities that provide liberal arts educations in both the humanities and the sciences. Moreover, there has to be a set of mechanism that enforces sufficiently high standards for student readiness and capability prior to admission to programs. Approximately half of people who start college programs never finish due to lack of required basic skills and abilities. Not everybody is college material, and this has become expensive as admission standards have slipped over the past two or three decades. There also would have to be a way to enforce the required student effort, and graduate professional behavior to ensure that society is not just wasting money on people who will waste opportunities paid for by taxpayer money. Lots of students major in parties, fail to attend classes, and put less than the required effort into learning the course material. Currently, these folks or their families pay for their wasted opportunities, and that makes it their business. What penalties would you suggest for the people who defraud the taxpayers out of the value we should receive in exchange for paying for tuition? Side: College Should Not Be Free
I hear you and support part of what you are arguing and it seems you support me too. Higher education by my definition includes trade programs as well. Therefore, trade schools are included in my argument. However, this statement, ". Lots of students major in parties, fail to attend classes, and put less than the required effort into learning the course material." is merely conjecture. I believe that education beyond high school should be free to those who complete their programs. Those who do not finish should foot the bill - that's my suggestion. Those who complete their studies in a prescribed amount of time should not have to pay (financially). Nothing in life is free but LOVE and sometimes that costs too. Side: College Should Not Be Free
2
points
Felicia, I like how you differentiated between the types of careers that may seem justifiable for taxpayers money such as chemists, engineers, doctors, etc. That does make sense, and I had not initially considered this. I agree with you that there should be some type of accountability for students not wasting taxpayers' dollars. I recommended that students attend college for free if they meet the college admissions requirements, and if they pass their classes. Once students' begin to fail classes, it becomes their responsibility to reimburse the money or pay to retake the course a second time around. This is similar to what students have to do if they are on the GI for military coverage of tuition. Their tuition is paid for, but if they fail the course they have to repay the money and if they fall below a certain GPA they have to pay for classes until they meet a specific required GPA before the GI Bill will resume payment. Even now for people who receive a pell grant...they no longer qualify for governmental assistance if their GPA drops below a certain point. I am all for assisting people who want to help themselves, but I do not believe in giving out handouts for people who aren't willing to work hard. Side: College Should Not Be Free
1
point
Felicia, Thank you for your comments. However i think that the premise of providing free higher education does not solve the issue that you are wanting to solve (from a policy perspective). First, you note that regardless of income, all individuals should be able to have the opportunity to attend college for free. This is a misnomer, when considering your analogous reasoning comparing the tax code, and the differing levels of choice afforded to those that choose private versus public institutions. This is incorrect because it makes a fallacy of analogous thinking. The assumption that individuals within a low SES bracket and those at the upper ends have the same "opportunity" to attend college is false, as if funds, living subsides, family obligations, etc. are all part of limiting obligations, than a shift to free higher education would be a distributive system that would shift the ability to provide more opportunities to individuals with lower SES. This creates even more inequality and disparity through classism. Be well Jon Side: College Should Not Be Free
2
points
I believe college tuition should be free. The argument presented in the op-ed that it should not be free is a fair one: that making it free may strip a college degree of the exceptionalism it has in America (https://www.washingtonpost. Side: College Should Be Free
In April of 2016, the Brookings Institute published an online article asking, “Who would benefit the most from free college?” (Chingos, 2016). As a single parent who has, in one semester, contributed to the tuition of three different private college tuitions, I can assure you that I, in fact, free public education would benefit. The argument for free college tuition does not come without conditions. The case for pro-college tuition for all, regardless of economic status, would need to be proceeded by a radical taxation shift on the wealthiest individuals in the nation. An increase in taxes for high-income earners needs to be followed by mandatory allocation of federal funding for free tuition. An additional condition of free public college tuition would include providing financial aid package for students, based on income, to cover the living expenses and other cost associated with college. The costs of attending college, besides those of tuition and fees, can excel the cost of the tuition and fees set by the university (Chingos, 2016). Here is what the Brookings Institute found: “students from the bottom quarter of the national income distribution paid an average tuition of $1,673 at community colleges. This group made up 8 percent of in-state students at public colleges and paid 4 percent of all tuition dollars at these colleges, or $1.8 billion. Eliminating tuition thus saves this group $1.8 billion in costs, but they would still have to pay an additional $4.5 billion for living expenses and other college costs (after accounting for existing grant aid sources)” (Chingos, 2016). The full cost and expenses of public higher education are expensive and prohibitive to those in certain income brackets even if tuition were free. Free public education is a goal this nation should and could strive for, but there needs to be a complete analysis of the need for other funding for low and middle-income families. Free tuition for all should not inadvertently set-up another system of economic disparity and failure for families seeking post-secondary education. Chingos, M. M. (2016). Who would benefit most from free college?. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Side: College Should Be Free
Tiveeda, I can't even imagine what it must be like to be paying for your two children, including yourself, as a single mother in today's higher education marketplace. Today’s targeted financial aid provides too little to too few. The onerous and inaccurate Free Application for Federal Student Aid divides American families into two unlucky groups. On the one hand, students deemed deserving of help receive aid that is usually far short of the resources required to effectively pursue their studies and graduate. On the other, students from middle-class families are treated as if they can manage with loans alone, which is what I did, and continue to do. This is both bad politics and bad policy. Side: College Should Be Free
Schneiderman, In the Brookings Institute Report (Chingos, 2016) it discusses who will benefit from free college. Many policymakers have advocated different pathways to free college, some advocate for the elimination of tuition and fees at public colleges and universities while others advocate for increased student aid for students that come from low and middle-income backgrounds (Chingos, 2016). The Brookings Institute Report (Chingos, 2016) found that students from families in higher income brackets would have a 24% more dollar value than other students from less affluent backgrounds. Secondly, the free tuition and fees plan for free college does not take into consideration the cost for other cost related to colleges such as room and board. These costs can add up to more than the cost of tuition and fees. Funding reallocation is necessary to ensure the coverage of all student tuition and fee cost; this would leave students from low and middle-class families forced to find ways to cover the cost for housing, food, and transportation. Overall, the report found that students from high-income families will experience a disproportionate benefit from a free college (Chingos, 2016). Your argument about expanding access to college for students from low-income families may not hold true if students have to face covering additional fees, such as housing, and room and board without access to an additional funding resource. One can say that access to students from low-income backgrounds already exists and that policymakers should allocate more resources to the Pell Grant program to increase the amount of funding to keep with the pace of inflation to improve access to college for students from low-income families. Side: College Should Not Be Free
Absolutely. I have no issue with standards testing, but to allow that morons born with a silver spoon up their rectums get a college education, while the young woman from the slums that might cure cancer has to settle and clean hotel rooms for the rest of her life is counterproductive. A better educated society is needed to compete in the modern world. Side: College Should Be Free
I completely agree that college should be free. As Sanders (2015) articulates, many of our brightest students are either chosing not to attend university due to cost or graduate in enormous amounts of debt. Lane (2015) retorts that this cost is due to the need for highly skilled labor and lack of potential automoticity which could potentially be remedied from the online platform. However, looking at this program alone, online coursework is significantly more expensive, with less potential for funding due to it not being a traditional PhD program. However, as an option to expand educational choices at a lower rate, the online platform could be useful. Given the diversity of students who would be pursuing degrees, providing multiple options will be critical: online or in person. For some, the online model works well, however others genuinely benefit from in-person interaction and ability to immerse themselves into the learning environment. When it comes down to it, every person in this country should be able to make that choice without being skewed by financial burdens. This must, in turn, be coupled with high quality options that offer a diverse array of opportunities. However, as Lane (2015) points out, quality control will be critical to ensure that programs remain rigorous and do not end up favoring the elite, by offering either limited spaces or by allowing students to fail out. Instead, we will need to be sure to provide college readiness courses to mitigate opportunity gaps and support students with the skills they'll need to succeed, such as small group tutoring, mentorships, and coaching. Side: College Should Be Free
I do think that college should be free, but with some stipulations. As Bernie (2015) said, "A college degree is the new high school diploma." With the cost of an education beyond high school on the rise, it is not a realistic opportunity for many low-income students and even leaves many middle-class students in debt for the majority of their lives (I have several friends still paying off their undergraduate student loans). However, I do not think that ALL public colleges and universities should be free. If I were to be able to make this decision, two years of community college would be free for all students (who have either a high school diploma or a GED), given that they maintain at least a 2.0 or higher throughout their two years. The credits from these two years could then transfer to any state college or university where students would then be eligible for a reduced tuition as long as they maintained a 2.7 GPA. As Lane (2015) pointed out, having to pay something helps to keep students motivated and working hard. But, the hope would also be to provide grants and other funding sources (including working on campus) so that students who need it could reduce their tuition costs even further, still providing them the opportunity to attend and complete a four year college program. Side: College Should Be Free
Casey, you and I made similar claims. Any reason why you think community colleges should be free vs. public universities? How would this impact the financial burden on the local and state government? We see students all the time not complete a program even if they are paying for it, so I am not sure payment is motivation for everyone. Side: College Should Be Free
2
points
In my opinion, college should be free for any student who has met the academic requirements to attend college. Of course I do not believe that students should be able to fail classes repeatedly and still enroll in college courses for free; however, I think that all students should be given the opportunity. I believe that is more students are allowed to attend college for free, this will allow fewer people to have to rely on governmental assistance due to living check to check in poverty even if they have the potential to succeed in college if they had the funds. As stated in Sanders (2015), K-12 education was not free for all until the progressive movement beginning in the 1890s. Someone had to fight for the right. At this present time, most people think that there is not an excuse for people not to be able to get a high school education, because it's free. It's free the first time that students take the classes; however, if a student fails a class some schools allow the students to attend Summer school to retake the high school course for a fee. I think that free college should work the same way. If a student is admitted to a college, because they meet academic standards they should have the opportunity to attend college for free initially. However, if a student fails a class, I think that they should have to pay to retake the class. This will debuck Lane's (2015) view that allowing for free college tuition will lead to a sense of entitlement by students. I believe differently. If students appreciate the opportunity that has be afforded to them, they will make sure that they fulfill their obligations by maintaining academic standards. Furthermore, I think that college should be free for all, because this would help the first generation college students and middle class students who work hard to obtain college degrees avoid being in debt after receiving their degree. It is unfortunate for one to work so hard to avoid being lazy to lead to upward generational mobility all for them to continue to live check to check because they are in debt after graduating. We should make sure that those who work hard are able to afford the opportunity to attend college without having to be burden financially. Side: College Should Be Free
Is free college possible? Not only is it possible, we already have it. I have discussed this exact topic at some length multiple times in the past on DTT, without going back into my content history is, the cliff-notes are: -Pell Grants & State Grants cover full cost of Community College -Some Community College programs are free due to private charity grants from organizations, such as the National Science Foundation -Companies like McDonald's pay employees $2500 for College if they work 15 or more hours per week, which covers full cost of CC + left-over cash -Federal loans are granted in the amount of $6000 per semester, no co-signer required -Hence, everyone has the opportunity to go to College for free, and not even have to work or only 15 hours a week to do so and support a comfortable living standard Let us look at one example: Ohio State University is $10,000 a year tuition & fees for in-state residents. Pell Grant & State Grants cover $2000 each, per semester which comes out to $8000 a year. McDonalds provides $2500 per semester to employees that work 15 hours a week or more, which is $5000 a school year plus at minimum $5000 in earnings through hours worked. A person with a room-mate can easily make a $450 a month rent or less which is $5400 per year, say $3000 on food (either independent or meal plans), and walk/bicycle/bus to school & work. Then, we have: Tuition: $10,000 ===================== Pell & State Grants: $8000 Rent & Utilities: $6000 ================= Tuition Assistance: $5000 Food: $3000 ========================== 15 Hr per week Work: $5000 Miscellaneous: $2000 ================== Federal Loan: $3000 --------------------------------------- Total: $21,000 ====================== Total: $21,000 Side: College Should Be Free
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that information is the currency of democracy. In order to have the educated populace required for a successful democracy, higher education should be free for all qualified individuals. We live in an increasingly complex world and a competitive global economy in which more than a high school degree is required to compete (Sanders, 2016). Since college is the new high school, we should join with other developed nations like Mexico and Ireland that provide free public colleges and universities. These nations are our trade partners and competitors in the global economy, and we need to keep up. As a graduate school professor of teaching residents, many of my graduate students have difficulty paying for school. They are smart, competent people and qualified prospective teachers who are doing everything they can have the opportunity to earn a master's degree. These teachers would be better able to focus on their education if they did not need to concern themselves with financial aid, the FAFSA, and the financial burden of graduate school. Dedicated individuals, like the residents I teach, deserve the opportunity for free higher education. Side: College Should Be Free
Deanna, Can you clarify how the vision you have outlined in your argument can become a reality? What trade-offs should the nation be willing to make to make college free for all? How would free-college for all impact the quality of education provided at free colleges and universities when compared to private colleges and universities? Are there fields that our country lags behind in that higher education needs to ensure that we have both the programming and students to fit the growing need and that require special attention; or should we just focus on expanding access for all to all fields regardless of their future financial impact on the country and the individual? Side: College Should Be Free
Yes, but the entire fabric of American education, nay, the entire fabric of American economic and social policy would need to change first. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that people (you know who) can let go of living the "American dream" and having "more" than others. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that an egalitarian social policy, based on individual achievement and potential, rather than the circumstances of one's birth, could become a reality. And not just something we saw in Hamilton. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that a discussion around education can just be about education. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, for better or for worse (Lane, 2015; Sanders, 2015). Great. But let's look at the institution at which these opinions are directed... and the institution that feeds into the former institution. Have we fixed the "achievement gap?" Have we addressed the fact that what happens outside of school matters more than what happens in school (Coleman, 1966)? Have we effectively engaged families and communities to be part of the equation? While asking them what they think helps, have we empowered them to be active thinkers, and part of the solution? Have we made sure that, as an organization, public schools are actually making good on the promise of quality education for all... and are not promoting agendas so entrenched in our society that disfavor the socioculturally or socioeconomically diverse? Are schools, in fact, not resegregated (Orfield, 2012)? Kremer-Sadlik and Fatigante (2013) studied American and Italian family practices around education. In Italy, all universities are public, free, and of the same quality. All who qualify to attend university can. As a result, Italian families approach primary and secondary education with a more relaxed attitude... than American families, whose children must compete for the same number of seats at university as there were 50 years ago... yet with an exponentially increasing number of qualified applicants. Herein lies the setup for the one episode of Law and Order where a Director of Admissions for a NYC preschool is found murdered. "Ugh. They rejected us for this preschool. How are we going to get into the top private high school in NYC now, so they can go to Harvard? It'll never happen." Inequity of access, even among the 1%. Yes, it's Law and Order, but they must have that "fiction mimics fact" disclaimer for a reason. The question of access to quality higher education cannot be answered without addressing the question of access to quality primary and secondary education. So, should higher education be free? This is almost a vacuous question to ask. If we want an informed, engaged society of people who will contribute in a positive way, then yes. But we cannot ask this question in isolation, and expect an answer that considers all the vectors that must be addressed on an organizational or institutional level. Side: College Should Be Free
A college as defined by merriam-webster is "an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree" What is a degree? "a rank or grade of official, ecclesiastical, or social position" You want to be a big fancy pants who gets to maybe wear a funny hat or get called a fancy title... GO AHEAD. Chase after the approval of others. If you want to get a real education, chase after The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Or go to the library.. use the internet.... sneak into lectures... It is not hard to get an education. If you want a piece of paper that alleges that you know something, go ahead and throw unreasonable amounts of money at the mobsters. Side: College Should Be Free
|
I think it's rather wrong to ask working class individuals to pay for the degrees of middle and upper class students. While I wish corporations would pay more tax there are issues with achieving this and thus I feel student loans are presently the best means of financing higher education. Side: College Should Not Be Free
2
points
I think it's rather wrong to ask working class individuals to pay for the degrees of middle and upper class students. In the US, they do not. The bottom 40-50 percent of earners pay absolutely no federal income tax (net of what is withheld and what is refunded upon filing). The percentages are similar for state income taxes, depending on the state. This means that the people who pay for things are the top 50 to 60 percent of earners. They are the ones who pick up the tab for the working class and the welfare class. Property taxes are the exception to this, because those taxes are distributed via rent to those who do not own their own homes. While I wish corporations would pay more tax there are issues with achieving this The problem with the idea of corporations paying taxes is that no matter what the tax rate, the corporation is not who pays the tax, but rather the customers. This is because the tax, (like the labor, equipment, overhead, materials, and of course the profit) is folded into the sale price of whatever product or service the company sells. This is why corporate income tax rates in where a company is based makes such a difference in whether a company can be competitive. If the corporate income taxes are too high in the country where the product is made, the product won't sell because its sale price is too high for customers to choose it over a product made in a country with lower taxes. Obviously, the ability to do business depends on many things paid by taxes, such as infrastructure, security by police and military, and basic educational requirements of the workers (K-12 education). The cost of specialized education of company employees are initially paid by the employee or employee's family. This is then folded into the wage/salary of the employee, which becomes a cost to the company, ultimately paid for by the customer. Adding the cost of specialized education provided to all college students into the corporate taxes means that the customers of that business also have to pay for education and training that contributes nothing to the product they are buying. It makes no sense to separate responsibility to pay from value received. Side: College Should Be Free
"In the US, they do not. The bottom 40-50 percent of earners pay absolutely no federal income tax (net of what is withheld and what is refunded upon filing)." At what income level do you begin to pay tax in the U.S.? I had thought it was around $9K, though I assume tax deductions are how you come to your conclusion. Also, everybody pays certain taxes such as sales taxes. "The problem with the idea of corporations paying taxes is that no matter what the tax rate, the corporation is not who pays the tax, but rather the customers." True, there are other problems too, such as the fact that corporations would simply move business to places with more favorable tax rates. Further there is the issue of tax avoidance. Side: College Should Be Free
In the US, they do not. The bottom 40-50 percent of earners pay absolutely no federal income tax Hello marcus: It's true.. But they pay PLENTY of sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, telephone taxes, use taxes, license fees, and those dreaded other taxes, although nobody knows what they're for.. excon Side: College Should Be Free
Although a free college education for all at 2-year community college, 4-year public college or university or trade school has the potential for expanding higher education access to all, I do not believe that America has considered all the aspects related to improving college matriculation and graduation. Within our current political and economic context, I do not have faith in our federal or state governments that they would devise a system that would allow for a free higher education system that is equitable and has unintended consequences with limited impact. My chief concern regarding the shift to free higher education includes the quality of education a student will receive at a free college or university. If the country moves to a free college model, public higher education institutions will have to deal with larger enrollments with the same limited resources which can in turn raise class sizes, less guidance, and the potential for a low quality experience (Bayer, 2017) Secondly, colleges and university spending per student has a substantive impact on student graduation rates when comparing public free-tuition higher education institution to private colleges and universities. For students In Massachusetts, the Adams Scholarship was given to students in which they received free tuition to attend a Massachusetts public university (Bayer, 2017). However, students that took the scholarship (qualified by assessment score) and attended the public university were less likely than their peers that attended a private university in Massachusetts to graduate from college (Bayer, 2017). Private colleges and universities spend more per students for additional services and amenities than do public colleges and universities (Hinrich, 2016). This spending inequity demonstrates a high level of influence on the college experience, quality, and likelihood of graduation. Until the government and higher education institutions come together to discuss the matters mentioned above, I think it is wise to hold off on voting for free higher education. There is an opportunity for the government and higher education representatives to talk about regulations regarding rising tuition cost, education quality, and in the meantime, there is an opportunity to use other cost-saving strategies to limit the financial burden of college tuition for students such as: 1) Address factors that mitigate time-to-degree-completion by expanding access to developmental education courses that allow the student to take credit-bearing courses while they take developmental courses to improve in areas of skill deficiency while students are working toward certificate or degree attainment (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2015). 2) Implement more programs that allow for competency-based completion. The competency-based approach will enable students to move through coursework or blocks within a particular course by demonstrating competency on assessments. The competency-based approach can reduce cost, and speed up college completion if students that pass the competency-based assessments and are subsequently awarded credit for the related course (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2015). 3) Leverage free courses or cost-effective online courses such as MOOCs to provide low-cost course options for students. 4) Analyze the needed student supports that aid in improving student persistence and graduation from college. References Bayer, C. (2017 January 17). What does free college really mean? Retrieved from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/17/01/ Hinrichs, P. (2016). Trends in Expenditures by US Colleges and Universities, 1987-2013. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Economic Commentary, 10. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2015). 60x30TX: The 2015-2030 higher education strategic plan for texas. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx. Side: College Should Not Be Free
1
point
Remy, You've given me a lot to think about with your recommendations. I think that people should be allowed to attend college for free; however, I do believe that their should be specific stipulations. 1. Student must gain admissions to the university. Remedial courses will be not be covered for free. 2. If a student fails a class that was paid for, they will have to pay out of pocket to retake the course. 3. There should probably be a 4-5 year limit on completing an undergraduate degree. 4. G.P.A. must meet a certain standard to continue to receive free payments. Side: College Should Not Be Free
Briauna, while I strongly agree with your argument that attending college should be free. I disagree with your assertion that remedial courses should not be covered. In California, there is a great debate about remedial courses preventing students from completing college. For example many students pass a course on content in high school (Algebra II), but when they arrive at a community college, more than 80 percent are required to take remedial courses repeating this material if they don’t score high enough on a standardized test. And the problem is, most community college students don’t take just one remedial course. To meet the Intermediate Algebra standard, they are often required to take two years of remedial courses. What this results in is a bottleneck of mostly low-income, students of color that do not complete their remediation requirements in time to complete college. As a result, every year, more than 170,000 California community college students are placed into remedial math based on how well they do on a standardized test in algebra. Over 110,000 of them never complete math requirements for getting an associate degree or for transferring to CSU or the University of California (Henson, Hern, & Snell, 2017). About 80 percent of African Americans required to take more than one remedial class in math do not complete their math requirements within six years, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics and 61 percent of whites, according to the community college system’s Student Success Scorecard (2017). A recent estimate found that, among community college students, 50-60 percent of the racial disparity in degree completion is driven by decisions to place students in math remediation, according to an unpublished study by the RP Group (2017). Because of these reasons, I believe that remediation courses should also be free due to systemic inequities in the system. References Henson, L., Hern, K., & Snell, M. (2017). Up to the Challenge: Community colleges expand access to college-level courses. Retrieved from the California Acceleration Project website: http://accelerationproject. %20the%20challengeweb_v4.pdf The RP Group. (2017). Through the gate transfer study. Retrieved from https://rpgroup.org/All-Projects/ctl/ articleId/180/ Student Success Initiative. (2017).Student success scorecard. Retrieved from http://scorecard.cccco.edu/ Side: College Should Be Free
Good Morning Everyone, One of the major reasons that I stand on this side of the debate is simply because "free college" is never free. What I mean is, the cost is simply shifted from the student to taxpayers. This will translate to an entitlement of over half a trillion dollars! If the generosity of taxpayers does not keep up with the cost of tuition increases, then universities will be forced to either have to ration access or sacrifice quality (Eden, 2016). Either one of those options just would not be acceptable. The best example I can present to support the fact that "free college" is not the answer is to look at England's results when offering free tuition. First of all, England had to ration available spaces for students and when they went away from this model between 2006-2012--tuition increased by 87% yet college enrollment grew by 20% and applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds grew by 53%. What's more, as it stands now in America half of the students in the bottom income quintile pay no net tuition to attend public universities (Eden, 2016). Side: College Should Not Be Free
Yes, free college does inherently cost someone something. However, with state policies shifting from prioritizing education and thereby cutting funding to public universtities, we have seen the burden of student tuition shift from being a relatively balanced tax-payer and student funded system, to the bulk of that burden resting on those who attend those schools (Lane, 2015). As Sanders (2015) reminds us, school used to be close to free because it was a national priority. I am willing to bet that our economy will inherently suffer due to the high amounts of student loan debt, which also, inherently is a disadvantage for the average tax payer. Further, by increasing the number of skilled and trained personnel available we are likely to see an increase in innovation and a shift in the world education ranks for our country. Side: College Should Be Free
Hello, I am not sure that I would look at the American tax system and structure of payment as being based on the "generosity" of taxpayers. There is evidence that the long-term investment in free tuition would far out weight the cost in the short run. The National Education Association (2017) wrote, "one study shows that new spending on public colleges, which would be sparked by an influx of more students, produces more economic activity than a similar-sized tax cut, or similar spending on roads and bridges. And, over their lives, college graduates smoke less, commit fewer crimes, draw less on social welfare programs, and generate more taxes." If we as a nation had made this investment, even a couple of decades ago, we would be seeing the payoff across all segments of society today. Side: College Should Be Free
I do not believe that college should be free. In my city, we have the Kalamazoo Promise, whereby any student who graduates from k-12 time spent in KPS can go to any in-state college for free. Now that we've had it for a decade, the research is alarming: the kids are failing out of college at tremendous rates. Because the students were not prepared for college, the only people that the Promise really benefited were the ones who would have gone to college anyway and could pay for it, but now didn't have to. That money would have been much better spent investing in those kids from birth-age 18 to give them the skills to succeed in college rather than being used to give them yet another failing experience, one that is severe enough to likely impact the rest of their lives. Many Michigan high schools do Early Middle College or Education for the Arts/Employment classes for free, and I do support these. For EMC, students take college classes for half the day junior and senior year and then attend a 13th year of HS and earn their Associate's degree. In EFA/EMC, students attend a trade school for half the day junior year and 3/4 of the day senior year, and then graduate on time with an entry level certification in that trade. Both are not only on the school's dime, but also give non-traditional students an opportunity to get a leg up in the adult world. I would support more of these types of classes for all students before free college. Side: College Should Not Be Free
Hey, Amanda! It sounds like the program you described is a great stepping-stone for students, especially those who may not be college bound (attending a trade school instead). But, I wonder what we can do for students who then finish with their Associate's and have the ability, but not the financial stability or backing to attend a four-year college. Would you consider at least a reduced tuition for these students? Side: College Should Not Be Free
I definitely agree that building students up to be successful in college must be a priority, as many of our students are simply unprepared by the K-12 public education system as it functions now. This is often evident amongst our students coming from low-income backgrounds, furthering the divide between the classes. My fear is, to furth Casey's point, is that we prepare students for college but then they still cannot afford to go, so they will inherently lack the further education and fancy piece of paper necessary to compete in the job market. College preparedness and free college need to go hand in hand. Side: College Should Not Be Free
I believe that there are programs in place already to help students who have the academic skills necessary to succeed. I came to college as a freshman from a life of dire poverty, and I received enough scholarships, grants, and work study opportunities to put myself through school (albeit I did also work). I was still, on intro teacher's salary, not financially well off, and scholarships and a TEACH grant paid for my Master's degree. I do think that there are resources available, but you have to work hard, and it is also helpful if you have guidance. For example, I was able to do the TRiO Student Success Program and I also had excellent advisers, so maybe at-risk students on college campuses can be guaranteed these supports to help them succeed. Side: College Should Be Free
1
point
No, higher education should not be free in the United States. Because college education and the institutions of higher learning are not where we should be putting our reform efforts as a society, because of the massive inequality, access and opportunity issues, and segregation that effects K-12 education. Free higher education, in principle, is a great idea, however in practice, because of the current level of inequality, it does not translate to the type of "ideal" that is implied by the call for education. Without a fundamental change in what we understand as student benefits, making higher education free would most likely boost attendees with securing the normative gains, implicit in calls for free higher education. The primary issue with free higher education is that currently, a majority of students originate from well-off backgrounds and are already reaping the benefits of these futures, which make them un-compelling targets for transfers to public "education" free higher education settings. For example, a recent study by the college board (2016) found that around 20% of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent, the same number is around 90%. The poorer students that attend college, primarily attend two-year community colleges and less selective four-year institutions. Examining four year and two-year colleges, the poorest four already pay no tuition and receive annual living subsidies. Class-based segregation in attendance, institutional selection, and current student benefit levels would, therefore, most certainly cause more of the generous student benefits to skew in a"free higher education" landscape to richer families than poorer ones. Red herrings around student debt crises, confuse the real question about the overall benefit might be, over time, particularly when redistribution economics would actually favor the more well off, in a system of "free college education". I am not discounting that there are real issues with student debt, that often come from the for-profit scheming that exits in the current landscape, but that is a different debate for a different time. Side: College Should Not Be Free
I do not at all disagree that there are other issues that we should be looking at, but I think this is one that could (in theory) be addressed in less time. You mention that in the poorest 2% of families, 20% of students go to college. But what if we could raise that rate. What if we took away the barrier of cost for these students so that, given certain academic criteria, they would have the same opportunity as the 90% of students in the wealthiest 2% of families? How might that start (slowly) to change the socioeconomic landscape and futures of these students? Side: College Should Be Free
1
point
I definitely understand your supposition. I think the fault in the logic comes from the nuance of distributive economics. The barrier for the pooerest 2% of families to go to college is not tuition, as there are already currently subsides that provide tuition at no cost for this demographic. The barrier typically is more focused on the lack of living subsidies (post tuition) that makes it possible to attend college. I agree that it important to change the socioeconomic landscape for these individuals, but as longitudinal research from Dr. Berliner (2015), demonstrates that improving education and access is important, but the key to changing conditions for the poorest 2% is not education (as it is already available for free in our current system) it is the lack of a living wage for families and a number of material conditions that limit their ability to close this gap. Side: College Should Not Be Free
I wonder, also, that if 20% of the bottom 2% income wise go to college, why don't we study what those 20% are doing that allows that and invest our $$ in those programs? That would likely help more kids along the way. For example, not everybody needs to go to college; there are more and more jobs everyday that make more than I do with almost 8 years now of college. But kids can't get those jobs if they drop out, and attrition and low income are closely linked. Investing in the bottom 2% in other ways might help those kids at least attain a HS diploma and also give them college skills if they choose, which would have a potentially greater economic payoff than free college. Side: College Should Be Free
1
point
For example, a recent study by the college board (2016) found that around 20% of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent, the same number is around 90%. The poorer students that attend college, primarily attend two-year community colleges and less selective four-year institutions. Examining four year and two-year colleges, the poorest four already pay no tuition and receive annual living subsidies. Why is there this disparity in attendance? One possible explanation is related to the fact that intelligence (which has a strong genetic component) correlates to where people are on the income spectrum, and how upwardly mobile they are. It makes sense that smarter people are more likely to be rich and to have smart kids who can get into college. Likewise it makes sense that less intelligent people are more likely to be poor and have kids who cannot get into college. What is striking about these statistics is that at the top end 10% are counter to expectations, and at the bottom end, 20% are counter to expectations. This means that for whatever reason, the distribution favors the likelihood college attendance. Side: College Should Be Free
Absolutely! The skilled trades make crazy money and there's a serious shortage right now. Our local community college is offering FREE tuition for the HVAC program because there's such a shortage in the industry. My husband is a contractor and his electricians and plumbers can charge whatever they want per hour (even up to $80!) because there's simply no competition and the work needs to be done. There are so many kids who would really succeed in theses fields, and we are remiss if we don't invest in them as much as we invest in the college-bound crowd, who are at present not using their degrees and living in their parents' basement. Side: College Should Not Be Free
Yes, both sides have pros and cons. However, how would you clarify or rectify college not being free, but trade/technical schools being free? While they ultimately cost much less than a college degree, the financial burden on the government would still need to be figured out (if free)? Also, are there any examples of this being done and the impact of doing so? An increase in enrollment and completion? Paying for such education on a local or state level? Side: College Should Be Free
Because having a doctorate requires a different amount of study than an electrician. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that as a slight against electricians or anyone else in the trade field. Not to mention there is this.....stigma against blue collar workers, they aren't seen as having a glorious or glamorous job even though they are a necessity, so having free trade schools may put more people in that field of work as opposed to something stupid like putting yourself in debt for a worthless degree. Side: College Should Be Free
1
point
|
