Note that Scotland is tuition-free.
It HAS led to limiting the number of admitted students, whereas the English universities have increased the number of students, admitting many more than previously, with dubious results.
So, there can be a tuition-free model for moderately decent achievers (there are programs that admit C students but in a rigorous curriculum, equivalent to a minimum of 3’s in two AP exams for the moderately selective programs, with a maximum equivalent to the equivalent of 6 5’s for the most prestigious programs ) and free vocational training for the others (for those who don’t get a place because they fail to reach the minimum or wish to learn a non academic subject, there are free training and vocational programs, some of which, called “HND” can lead to a specific major, plus apprenticeships, also free.) Right now they’re talking of creating “Open College”, following the model of the British “Open University” (an online university program, fully accredited), which would offer vocational training and skills education.
I think the question one needs to ask is how viable is a high school diploma for obtaining employment that will pay a living wage and what would the cost to society be if the majority of people did not pursue post-secondary education? When you look at it that way I think it’s reasonable to provide free education to the level that allows an individual to be self-supporting and for them to be able to acquire the skills that are necessary to keep the economy going. It used to be that the majority of people only got a grade 8 education. Then the workforce required people to have greater skills and the mandatory age to be in school was 16. Now in most places it’s 18. The reality is however that most 18 year olds do not have the means to be self-sufficient and are still reliant on their parents for financial support (unless they join the military). They also don’t have the necessary skills to be able to do more than menial labour or service jobs. Society needs it’s workforce to have a higher level of training so it should be free for the citizen’s to acquire the necessary skills to be able to meet the labour force’s needs. Isn’t that the point of the education system? A high school education in many cases is no longer sufficient.
True, but the prestige seekers are not societies collective responsibility. The kids seeking an education are.
I agree totally. But it won’t totally change the college debt burden/crisis. Much of it is a self imposed crisis.
If European education and social-economic structure are ideal to follow then the recent social unrests would have not happened in Europe. We have seen Brexit chaos in England, strikes and riots in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium,… in the last couple months.
^ In the upper middle class, it’s self imposed (or sometimes comes from not knowing how costs and processes had changed).
But for the middle class, working class, and working poor, the crisis isn’t self imposed.
Community college is now necessary to have a livable wage and to truly grow the economy you need more people with college degrees. College has become a common good and a necessity, not just for individuals, but for regions and states.
Free community college should be a no brainer. Tennessee explained it well when they passed their initiative: to increase state revenue, a better educated workforce is essential; it’s a state investment to generate income and attract businesses.
A lower income student who has to overcome lots of obstacles to get into his/her flagship should be able to attend debt-free (yes, subsidizing room&board, as a sort of automatic scholarship: otherwise “able to attend” is empty, applying only to those living within commuting distance of the flagship).
Limiting tuition to Pell Grants levels (whatever they are) would be positive for all, since it’d lower tuition costs for all, and making room/board within federal loan limits for Pell Grant recipients but variable for others.
Hunting for merit and institutional scholarships could still be available but wouldn’t be as necessary since everyone could afford their state flagship if they got into it, and everyone who would get admitted to a university or CC would be able to afford it.
Instate, public university tuition should NOT require debt, period - use Lottery funds like Georgia does, or a last-dollar systems like NYS or state subsidies and state grant like California, or some of the creative ways presented on this thread. 
(Lots of cool ideas).
But it’s clear the current system isn’t sustainable and making sure our young people are educated and debt-free should be a priority.
(I’m talking instate, public universities. Some will want the luxury of out of state public or private colleges, but that’d be their choice. Those without a choice would still have their state’s public universities.)
I think a minimal tax on derivatives exists in the EU and it hasn’t stopped London nor Frankfort from thriving.
True, most jobs that will allow a young person to become independent of parents require some type of post-secondary education (not necessarily leading to a bachelor’s degree; inclusive of skilled trade education and apprenticeships, etc.).
[/QUOTE]
In the US, only 29% of young people in the US are considered eligible for US military service (and about 3% actually do join US military service in an active duty capacity). Note that this is lower than the 35% of 25-29 year olds in the US who have completed bachelor’s degrees.
I generally agree with your post, but I’m not sure why students shouldn’t be asked to take on a small amount of debt. Not all debt is crushing, especially given how a college degree enhances earning potential. Various programs like PAYE + PSLF make that debt even more manageable for people who work in public service jobs or non-profits. I absolutely believe that every student, regardless of family means should have access to an education. I’m not sure it should be free. There is value in having skin in the game. There is value in making an educated decision among majors or even between college and trade school. A fair tuition does all of that.
I don’t really understand why college has become necessary to getting a good job (for almost everyone). Is it because high school grads have no useful skills?
Why is that? Haven’t we collectively already poured ever increasing amounts of tax monies into providing free public K-12 education?
So how will now putting more money into "free"college do anything but duplicate the same problem - will the next problem be that you NEED a post-grad degree to get a good job? Already the case in some industries.
Just keep ratcheting it up?
Something is broken, somewhere else.
It may not be that the high school grads have no useful skills (since a high school diploma theoretically is supposed to indicate that the holder has some skill needed to learn new things), but because employers keep increasing the credential levels needed for entry. Whereas employers a generation ago may have seen a high school grad as someone capable of on-the-job training, employers now are more likely to want to see someone with some sort of credential indicating that the person has already had some training. I.e. pushing the cost of training away from the employer onto the employee. Or, in the case of credential creep (e.g. requiring bachelor’s degrees when neither the general nor major-specific skills indicated by a bachelor’s degree are needed for the job), it may be for reasons like needing an arbitrary way of reducing the pile of applicants, or skewing the eligible applicants to those from higher SES backgrounds.
College has become necessary for a lot of people because employers are far more demanding about what they consider “entry level” requirements. I’m referring to jobs with a wage high enough to allow people fresh out of high school to actually survive on their own.
My first job was a legal secretary at 18 in 2000. I had no professional office or work experience but could type 65 wpm, was proficient with Microsoft Office and a fast learner. Searching for that same type of position now shows many employers want a certain number of years prior experience plus a BA degree is preferred, even though they clearly list the position as entry level.
I look at college as more than a job training institute. I do believe that more of our education funds should go to community colleges or perhaps community centers for job training opportunities. I also believe that a better educated , more knowledgeable , more literate population benefits everyone. I don’t look at it as a waste that someone who is blue collar has a college degree, was an art history major that knows Latin. I’ve known enough people doing low income yielding work by still well educated.
The more people who are exposed to education and access to various courses and disciplines, the fewer skilled workers we need to import from other countries. I’m hearing that we can’t get enough Americans to do Computer sciences , engineering and other such work. We can offer incentives but also need to make pathways so that these studies are easier to undertake.
I don’t believe a boarding college experience is important. The options for them should be there but I don’t think taxpayers should have to subsidize others living expenses. Unless it is beneficial to do so in the case of undersubscribed disciplines.
You are just looking at the student loans and not the Parent Plus loans (also a Federal loan type) that many families take out to help their children go to college. I have watched in amazement as several families that I know with very little income receive loans that I do not believe would ever be given in the private sector (and seemingly can never be discharged in bankruptcy). That government backing is partly to blame (along with parents who can not say no) and the arms race to have the best facilities to attract students has made college unaffordable for all besides athletes, top students hunting for large merit or schools with generous financial aid policies, wealthy households, extremely frugal planners, or live in a state that has found ways to substantially subsidize tuition costs. Personally, I have tried to help my kids and my family get into as many of those buckets as possible.
We are short of workers in welding, in construction in mechanics and the like. CS and engineering degree programs are in hot demand with many applicants both within and outside the country. We have plenty of American programmers they just cost more. How many American IT workers not long ago were training their H1B replacements. There wasn’t a shortage workers there was a shortage of cheap programmers.
Note that CS is not the same as IT (and IT is typically a less technical business-based major). CS graduates tend to go into well paid software development jobs, while IT graduates aim for jobs managing computers and software, not designing and developing them, which tend to be paid less. A CS graduate is much more likely to be able to do the technical aspects of an IT job than an IT graduate is likely to be able to do a software development job.
However, the two areas are often treated as the same by those commenting on H-1B visas, even though there are distinctly different hiring patterns and pay levels. https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2018-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx shows that most of the large H-1B visa sponsors appear to be IT outsourcing companies. A smaller number of companies appear to be hiring software developers. You can tell the difference by the pay levels – one type shows pay levels similar to BA/BS in business, while the other type shows pay levels similar to MA/MS in CS (each for 0-6 years experience).
One of the issues is employers don’t want to train workers. We live in a world of quarterly earnings. Training and investing in workers is expensive.
Then we have bots screening candidates rather than humans. Missing a keyword in your resume and no one will ever review it even though that individual would be perfect. We have taken much of the human component out of the hiring process.
Every job now requires licenses. We have created a world of bureaucracy. Dental assistants need formal education who once had on the job training. Bank tellers were once high school graduates. Retail managers did not have college degrees. Food service workers did not have certificates. Hair salon assistants did not need licenses to wash hair. Licensing and certification is a multi billion dollar industry which creates alot of unnecessary barriers. College diplomas are the new hs diploma for no real rational reason except that there is an over abundance of them. We have become a very narrow minded as a nation where HR departments have decided that if you have done x you couldn’t possibly do y when that is furthest from the truth.
Not that everyone should join the military, but you have to break down the statistic as to why people are ineligible. If you aren’t smart enough to graduate high school, you’re not college material. The military doesn’t want the dumbest 25% of the population, but neither does any college where the diploma is worth the paper it’s printed on. If you have a serious criminal record, the military doesn’t want you but neither do many colleges. Many of those kids could have been eligible if they didn’t commit crimes, didn’t use drugs, spent less time watching Netflix and more time running, and were smart enough not to have a kid in high school. They choose to be ineligible.
- 25% - lack high school diplomas. You can be eligible with a GED with a sufficiently high ASVAB score.
- 10% - have a serious criminal record
- 27% - are too out of shape to pass a pt test
- Drug/Alcohol abuse
- Single Parent
- 32% have medical problems other than weight
@gallentjill
I’ve seen too many students think f loans as “Monopoly money” to think requiring debt gives them skin in the game. What gives them skin in the game is some sort of contribution, typically a job, which makes money “real”.
All in all I agree that federal-level debt to finance room&board is okay.
I made an exception for lower income kids who get into their flagship: they’re clearly among the best students in their school or region and had extra obstacles to overcome, so the university granting them a scholarship to help pay for room/board without loans means they can either take the loan for the rest of expenses (books incidentals) or work (but not an unreasonable number of hours). I guess a way to say " you worked hard, you made it in, welcome". I admit it’s not a policy.
Nothing says you have to grad in 4 years time. Yes, your lifetime earnings can be affected by a later start in the job market. But you still beat being undereducated for jobs.
It may be ideal to have a cozy 4 years. But not if you can’t pay and end up with mega loans. What’s wrong with typing college to working?
Again, this assumes that students can live with parents and that makes room and board “free.” It isn’t free. Its paid for by parents. Many parents are able and willing to do this. But more then you realize are not. They don’t have the space because they need to downsize. They don’t have the funds to keep paying for an adult’s food. They may want to move to be closer to aging parents. They may simply believe that they are “done” caring for a child after the age of 18. Some of those homes are abusive or unsuitable for other reasons.
As was commented above, the jobs available to high school graduates without a college degree are barely sufficient to support someone paying rent, utilities and food. Don’t forget, when you commute, there are also transportation costs which are not trivial. If we really want kids without parental support to be able to get a 4 year degree, these costs need to be accounted for. I agree that a 4 year residential experience is not necessary, but that doesn’t free society from accounting for the costs of feeding and housing college students while they study.