<p>Cayuga, that’s sort of how the privates are able to give as much aid as they do – from endowments collected from alumni and invested except, of course, it’s voluntary.</p>
<p>Since the title of this thread is “should college be a right” I’ll bring it back around to that for a moment since I’ve been thinking about the us Ed system for several years and am gravely concerned about our future capability a few generations hence.</p>
<p>From the standpoint of collective good, I honestly think it should be right – meaning a fully funded right – for about the top 2-5 percent of the student body in terms of cognitive ability. there’s a lot of research that shows our most gifted students receive LESS in terms of educational resources, which is completely backwards. In addition, curriculums at high schools have become so watered down so that “everyone can go to college” that gifted students are actually dumbing down (look at the drop in sat scores since the 50s).
in my scenario, whether a family makes 150k a year or 50, top students really should have a full ride and access to the best schools. Think of the productivity we loose when a top student from a 150k household in md doesn’t get the best education possible.</p>
<p>The rest of the population should continue to receive as much assistance as possible to educate those able, and the community college system already exists to offer more vocational or practical skill training (although this too would benefit from enhancement.)</p>
<p>And of course if there existed this tippy top free access to the most advanced education possible, to be truly accessible to all socioeconomic walks of life, every public school system would and should have robust resources and curricular for top performers – it’s every bit as necessary as special education – with even higher stakes.</p>
<p>We are a society made up of a very wide spectrum of capabilities, and to offer up the cookie cutter college for all concept is not only disingenuous, it’s dangerously short sighted. If the concept of regression to the mean continues, we will lose our leadership position in innovation and eventually in terms of economic power. and nothing I’ve said means that anyone from anywhere can’t do anything their heart desires. Streaming is voluntary and self-selecting in many of the countries that use it.The level of rigor sorts the rest. Our social policy around education needs closer examination.
While 4th college remains a privilege, not a right, that privilege should not be so daunting to those students most able to make the greatest intellectual contributions to America.</p>
<p>In the past 20 years, the Cal State system increased its student population by about 3% and it’s number of faculty about the same (roughly 12,000 faculty). However, administrative staff grew by 221% and now exceeds faculty. There are considerable sources of expense bloat in our post-secondary educational system. Were this not the case there would be no need for discussion about tithing, massive indebtedness, etc. Hope that technology can disintermediate the current educational establishment as it has the big music companies and retailers for instance. Who wants to be a lifelong vassal to a bunch of educrats?</p>
<p>Also, there’s no such thing as a right to a scarce resource. What you’re saying when you say that is that students have the “right” to compel other people to pay for their education. It is absolutely compulsion with force behind it when you’re talking about something delivered via taxation.</p>
<p>It seems that this idea of “college being a right” is inherently tied to the brilliant ideal of the American. College should not be something you are directly entitled to. You have to work hard to get there though, granted, this is easier for some than for others considering the doors that money can open for you. Nevertheless for those of low-income families who decide that working hard is the way to go college should be more affordable. And I don’t mean just the Ivy League universities that grant full-rides to those of lower-income earnings. All universities, both public, and private should attempt to reward those students that have committed academically, to those who have worked hard, so that their work does not go to waste.</p>
<p>@jesu65: I can’t think of anything more likely to ensure someone’s failure than his having a sense of entitlement. There’s some of it wafting through this whole thread. </p>
<p>There is no question that inflation in the cost of university has far outstripped the inflation in the general economy for several decades now. Some of the “bloat” I described in my earlier post is precisely because of this sense of entitlement and public policy designed to hurl dollars into the abyss to support arbitrary targets for college matriculation. It’s the same policy that HUD pursued with regard to home ownership and it created a massive bubble. Guess what? We have a higher education bubble too for precisely the same reason. That’s one reason there are so many college graduates with huge debt working jobs that don’t require a degree. Ouch!</p>
<p>That may be true, but not every society feels obligated to subsidize or even grant admission to the late bloomers when they feel the most effective use of public education resources is to concentrate it on the best academic achievers. As for hating that idea…that’s your opinion and right…but it does not provide a convincing rebuttal to those who agree with the system. </p>
<p>Especially when their K-12 and sometimes even their undergrad systems are considered by many international educational and policy critics to be surpassing the US model. It also doesn’t help that several international grad students I’ve encountered who TA undergrads at elite universities…including a few Ivies were astounded at how many US-born first-year students…even those from topflight private schools have serious issues with basic grammar/writing and/or mathematics(Even arithmetic/basic algebra) were admitted to their respective universities. They’ve said that there was no way such students would have made it into any college in their home countries as they’d be taken off the “academic track” by the end of junior high at the latest or prohibited from taking the college entrance/diploma/school leaving exams at the end of high school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To many foreign observers and some Americans, the US holistic admissions model seems too open to be “gamed” by those with more money/connections and favors those who may have more “irrelevant” factors such as athletics or charismatic social skills over academic ones. Most foreign students/parents I’ve talked with abroad and on campus would be horrified if the US holistic admissions model was implemented in their home countries. </p>
<p>It is one big reason why many East Asian grad students at two Ivy campuses looked down upon undergrads from their own country. It is seen by them as a “backdoor route” for “less intelligent” children from wealthy families to gain “easy prestige” after failing to gain admission to topflight or even second tier colleges back in their home countries. The “preferred route” is to do undergrad at a topflight institution in the home country with the “more objective/standardized/rigorous” admissions process and go to the US/Europe for grad school.</p>
<p>That’s not to say I necessarily completely agree with the foreign models for college admission/education. I agree that one big flaw is they don’t allow for late bloomers or second chances if one screws up at a young age. Only consolation for those two groups is if their families or a benefactor is wealthy and willing to allow them to go abroad to get a “second chance” from more flexible educational systems like the US.</p>
<p>vlines… you have a point there… my S also got into CMU and their scholarship offer was MUCH lower than Stanford, Cornell, and CalTech. Our aid package had a bunch of loans and our EFC was about $40k if I remember correctly. Just understand that not all schools use the same calculator and the schools I mentioned gave terrific aid. You might want to give it a shot… you never know, you may be surprised. Good Luck.</p>
<p>It’s hard to turn the census numbers into what we think of as poor/middle/rich. Almost everyone, when asked, will say they are middle.
I tend to think of it this way:
poor - lacking all resources and stability - those who are homeless, living in shelters, perhaps in a trailer or gov. housing
middle- having some stability, building up some long term resources - those who live in apartments, houses, have jobs with some future, have some (highly varying) savings for college and retirement
rich - generally stable , having long term resources but not limitless freedom - still generally working, having savings for college and retirement, and owing a house or maybe two unless they like renting more
superrich - very stable, nearly limitless freedom - they work because they like to , generally.</p>
<p>College should not be a right. College only seems expensive if you are looking at top tier colleges. If you have the grades to get in then either you deserve a scholarship or have to afford it. I haven’t seen one decent argument as to why it should be a right. Why should I have to pay for the neighbor kids tuition if their parents was a lazy, unintelligent bum who never attended college. America is a capitalist society, you go to college if you want a better salary, and then you pass on that better life to your kids so they can go to a better college. You don’t rely on your rich neighbor to pay for your kids degree. I understand that you think because it is education it should be a right, and you are correct, and there are plenty of affordable state and community colleges. However if you want a top-flight education you are going to have to pay for it one way or another, unless of course you are a genius.</p>
<p>College shouldn’t be as much of a right as basic necessities of life, but it should definitely be made easily accessible and affordable to the population.</p>
<p>Wait, DarkWalrus…who’s a communist, those who think college is a right, or those who do not? There are a mix of opinions on here. We cant all be communists! LOL</p>
<p>Definitely should not be a right.
Because thanks to inflation and crap… There is no way I can even pay to an ivy league.
It’s so messed up. because thanks to the tuition… Ill probably attend a in-state school for a cheaper education, and the same education that doesn’t have the major I want to major in…
Which is BME.
:(</p>
<p>Wow. Nice debate. But i still dont get how it turned into communists vs capitalists. I guess I agree most with the college bubble theory. It will eventually reach a time where people decide not to pay the outrageous fees and these colleges will find ways to cut costs and bring tuitions down</p>
except, of course, it’s voluntary.</p>
because thanks to the tuition… Ill probably attend a in-state school for a cheaper education, and the same education that doesn’t have the major I want to major in…