Dorming currently comes with more bells and whistles than a kid truly needs.
Parents may have been living in a home large enough to include kids and paying taxes for a “good” school system. Now as they are getting older and worrying about their own futures, they want or need to move to a much smaller space. Maybe they can no longer afford the mortgage or the rent. Maybe one of the parents has some health issues as they age. They may need to move out of state for a new job. There are countless reasons why a student might not still be able to live “at home.”
For those who can, its clearly less expensive. Although as I and several others have said, its not free. Those who can’t still need to find a way to have an education. I’m not saying that the government should pay every penny. But it should be workable to every student through a combination of loans and reduced price.
But we know loans are a burden to too many. And if they don’t finish the degree, they still owe, but without the certification. Even 27k is hard to pay back. I don’t feel education opportunity should come with too big a ball and chain, on the back end.
If parents want to downsize when a kid grads hs, in effect, they aren’t supporting his further ed, if his only viable option is to live at home.
For some, its not a choice, its a necessity. But yes, for some it is a deliberate choice. There are people out there who feel their responsibility is done after supporting a child for 18 years. I’m not voicing an opinion about that decision. I’m clearly making a very different choice as are all the parents on this forum. However, I think that society asks a lot of parents – we bear the financial burden for providing society with a very important resource – a next generation. Kids whose parents step away when they turn 18 should still be able to get an education. I’m not sure how that would work. Clearly, government can’t take on the total cost of room and board for all 18 year olds. Thats why I’m leaning towards some system where tuition is free and room and board can be had with some combination of loans and work.
The concept of downsizing seems to be a middle class, upper middle class phenomenon. You don’t hear about lower income/working class families downsizing…they already live in small places to begin with…
When you’re low income, downsizing is called getting evicted.
@blossom exactly! I’ve known people who’ve had to move to a smaller home after divorce. But otherwise everyone I know who downsized did it by choice…they were retired and wanted to lower their housing costs and didn’t want to manage a big house as they got older.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/nyregion/hunger-college-food-insecurity.html
This is why we need to consider the costs of room and board when we think about how students pay for college. For many, many reasons not all students can simply live “at home” and eat there for free.
I think the college food costs are the worst part of all. IMO there should be no mandatory meal plans.
Expanding the school lunch program to public college should be win-win (for farmers, colleges, and students).
Who much should public college cost? A lot less than it does.
How much are you all willing to pay to get all these kids through college? Out of your own pockets and those of everyone else who pays taxes. 100? 1000? What?
Public education should cost enough to make it something that people should work for and yet, still be reasonable enough that graduates can pay back the cost in about 5 years. Once the federal government got involved in student loans many went to college who otherwise would not have ( myself included). This increased the costs as schools could now charge more ( and they do). The downside is, many people now pay exorbitant costs for high admin salaries, fancy gyms and gluten free food. All these things are important to a small group of people, but it would be best to eliminate mandatory room and board. Make college costs reflect educational costs and let people decide on the frills they want-not make everyone pay for excessive perks.
Don’t even get me started on “free stuff” I have friends who live in countries with cheap college. Their tax rates would make you happy to pay tuition. Not to mention that many of these nations have very limited mobility. Education is not free and never will be. Ask anyone who lives in a good public school system area about their property taxes. It’s likely they are sky high. That’s a choice.
I agree with @Happytimes2001. I grew up in Brazil, and had my formal education there. In Brazil, all federal universities (not state universities) are free of charge. Sounds good, right? In the surface it does… but then there is the question of WHO gets that education. There are only so many “seats” available at each institution, so admission is handled by entrance exams. Think of it as a “National SAT week”, when everyone takes the admission exams at the same time. The top scorers for each program are admitted (per program - no undecided admissions available -, per school). You had a bad week or got sick that week? There is always next year to reapply. But that is not the only issue. I attended private education all the way through HS. Part of that education was taking college prep classes that not only prepared you for college, but also prepared you for the entrance exams. There are also exam prep businesses all over the country (similar to our SAT prep counterparts) that “teach” students how to improve their chances in taking the test. All this costs money, and most kids attending public schools don’t get access to the “extra” care. So who gets to go to college for free? The top scorers, mainly being the students who had access to the best schools and test preparation classes. What seems good on the surface does not translate into “equality”. In Brazil, a disproportionate amount of the upper middle class (who is mostly educated in private schools) attends the free Universities, while the lower and middle classes (who mostly attended public schools) are stuck paying tuition to state and private (and sometimes lower quality) institutions.
There is also the “room and board” situation to be considered. Lunch and dinner is subsidized at Federal Universities. Subsidized meals are cheap and nutritionally sound, but there is only one meal offered per day (not a buffet, or a variety of meals catering to every need or taste under the sun). These are there as an alternative to other full pay options available on campus (and favored by the affluent crowd). And regarding boarding, students are on their own. There is no housing provided. So even though education and basic meals might be very affordable there are other expenses that add to the “divide”. Families tend to stick together to survive. Lower and middle class families support their youth way beyond their 18th birthday, as it is common here in the USA. However, paying for “away” boarding is often not in the budget and students in the lower economic classes choose to work full time and attend evening college classes at state and private institutions if they want to pursue higher education. It never takes them 4 years to graduate, because they attend school part time while contributing to their family household.
All that to say that education (good education) needs to start at grade school. When the more affluent families can provide a better foundation to their offspring, the divide already starts to happen, which will definitely be exacerbated the higher they climb in the education ladder. There will always be a bottleneck at the higher education level. If 4 year degrees were offered to anyone “accepted” to the institution, I predict that those schools would become more “selective”, and the students that would need free education the most would still be the ones benefiting the least from that measure. I am not sure what the right solution is. I tend to like the “free community college” suggestions. It would be a start. It would allow for local access to local schools. But, I am afraid it would not be enough for those who feel that students need “equal” opportunities. I think that is very utopian. Life is not fair. Ideal situations are just that, ideal.
However, imagine if the Brazilian public school students have overcome all obstacles and made it into a Federal University… And then found that in order to attend they had to pay exhorbitant amounts in relation to the family’s income? Because that’s the most common situation for lower income/middle income students at their state flagship right now. Look at the percentage of lower income students at UAlabama, Ole Miss, UVermont, UMass Amherst, Penn State, Arizona State, UTK, UVA, Colorado Boulder, UIUC. Also look at average level of debt even when upper middle class families are a majority (and imagine the debt for lower income students).
The phenomenon is widespread, so I tried to cover most regions in the country.
In addition, Brazil is a BRIC - middle income, economically developing, highly unequal country. While the levels of economic disparity have been growing in the US, it remains the most powerful economy in the world, with a broad middle class and a tradition of higher education access for all started ~70 years ago. You’d think the US could do better and avoid the traps Brazil is stuck into for now.
@MYOS1634 I agree that Brazill’s economic status is no where near that of the US. It was never my intention to put both countries in the same category. However, this is anecdotally, what happened when well intended individuals decided to provide free education to the “academically deserving”, establishing policies that disregarded (or were blind to) the effects of capitalism, free markets, and the power of the purse. Define “equal opportunity”. Where does it start and where does it end? Someone higher up in this thread mentioned how poorly educated are some of our kids coming out of HS. Did they get the same opportunities as say, kids from suburban middle America? Do they even qualify to be admitted into a state flagship (the same state that provided their elementary education, by the way)? That’s all I am saying. We first need to strengthen our basic education and give all the opportunity to COMPETE for cheaper/free education. The field needs to be leveled at the base.
I agree, but k-12 is a very complex problem. We can’t wait for it to be solved.
Yes, few lower income make it to their flagship. My point is that, for these kids to make it, they had to overcome obstacles we can’t even imagine. So, they make it. In Brazil, like in the US, they are very few. But in the US, they then face a choice: crippling debt or not being able to take their rightful place at the flagship.
So, I agree there are unintended consequences, but I doubt free tuition Flagships would result in fewer lower income students and upper middle class kids massively turning down Vanderbilt or MIT or McKenna for UTK, UMass, or UOregon. I really don’t think it can get more unfair and unequal than a lower income kid who’s overcome obstacles and got into their flagship which would really change their life… Unable to attend because costs are just too great.
(Unlike in Brazil, most US elite schools are private so it does change the likely consequences. I agree there’ll be consequences but the situation is so bad right now that even unintended consequences can’t result in a worse situation.)
Is it time for me to say, going to college in a foreign country isn’t the auto solution? Holding up Germany or others or the cream of the UK, isn’t a realistic path for most kids. On one hand, we bemoan US travel costs, but seem to think flying back and forth to a foreign country is easy?
What’s really wrong with community college? Is it honestly that they are stepping stones, not higher prestige end points? You want more than some stripped down cinder block classrooms, you want no cost or perfect finaid, to make paying easy, you want the bells and whistles, (not just the academics, not even just creature comforts, but also the perks,) and now the bigger, more desirable (whatever that means to anyone) institutions have to hand it to you? And offer all the academic support, someone mentioned remedial, now meals?
Sorry about this: the idea we have to continue to educate every single high school grad doesn’t hold water. The idea there are no jobs without a college degree doesn’t fly.
I see apps from amazing low SES kids who deserve whatever they can get and will use the opps to the max. I defend these kids. That doesn’t mean an auto ride for everyone just for making it out of hs. We need to examine who these kids really are, what the right direction is, for them, their futures. And not assume college is it. Or free college. Or loans.
@lookingforward I’m not sure who you think is arguing in favor of all the bells and whistles free to every college graduate. I certainly don’t believe that. There is nothing wrong with community college as a stepping stone as long as it works well. The credits need to be able to transfer and be accepted so that students don’t have to repeat years. Can you get an engineering degree starting from 2 years at CC? Many medical schools won’t accept or look down on pre-requisites taken at CC. These things need to change. And I think everyone here agrees that not every high school graduate should get handed a college education with or without bells and whistles.
Its interesting that you keep arguing against debt but yet also argue against more aid. I’m not sure I quite understand your position. Personally, I think tuition at public universities should be free. Room and board costs should be around 10k per year for bare bones accommodation. AND students should be able to borrow that cost on their own without parental co-sign. Few people would need to take the entire loan. Pell grants and student work could subsidize.
No, I don’t agree with more aid, per se. But I’m against the earlier idea of more loans.
Not every hs grad should be aimed at college. Those with remedial needs or any non competitive academic position, but assessed with potential to benefit from college, should have that opportunity to prepare further. Or have job skills focused on. Call it 13th grade?
But see how some argue now that parents can’t have their 18+ kids at home, they cant feed them, they may want to downsize, how public transportation is too difficult, etc. And so not just an academic chance to grow, but now a room on campus or near. Then meals provided. What’s next?
Meanwhile, what vetting of their true capability? I suggested tying work to education, no buyers. It does seem to me the convo became how to give more…but not how to pay for that. Or how to ensure the max roi for these kids, or their true abilities.
I don’t buy that every hs grad just gets free college, free life for 4 years. I sound harsher than it is. I want us to look at these kids, whi they truly are, not just knee jerk.
And how are they supposed to pay back 10k/year loans? They all won’t end up engineers. Plus, the idea of med school? How do you say these kids need a basic means to become job competitive (as well as more educated) and then pick the most arduous path as an example? Cart before the horse? Most kids don’t make it to even apply to med school.
I think the true goals need to be clarified and the right solutions for individuals, not idealism.