<p>Turns out, not that much.</p>
<p>They should look to fully funding K-12 first.
It would be nice if they could do so without pushing sales tax to 10.5%.
[Fully</a> Funding education](<a href=“http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/pressreleases2014/FullFundingProposal.aspx]Fully”>http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/pressreleases2014/FullFundingProposal.aspx)</p>
<p>Try not conducting multiple foreign wars on a credit card. The money saved could be spent on education, universal health care, and infrastructure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Especially since doing so could mean providing a viable alternative for those who aren’t suited or desiring to spend 4+ more years in the classroom. </p>
<p>That and one of the following:</p>
<p>Raise admission standards to ensure public money is being spent on students most likely to graduate within 4-5 years or…</p>
<p>allow for open admission for all in-state students, but allow for college-wide weedout policies to ensure academically weak and/or unmotivated college students are weeded out at minimal cost to said student and the taxpayers. </p>
<p>This would also mean one needs to change the current mindset where institutions with low academic entrance standards are held to the same graduation standards and punished accordingly as counterparts with high initial admission standards.</p>
<p>Ek, I don’t understand. What about K-12 isn’t fully funded?</p>
<p>Cobrat, open admission is foolish for large states like California and Texas. UT and A&M already are two of the largest universities in the nation, and that’s with decent admissions standards. If admissions was made open to all, UT and A&M would both push at least 80k+ students; how could these universities possibly support that, especially when making their universities free? Raising admissions standards is a better idea.</p>
<p>I would like to see this. It would cost much more than that to dismantle the huge machine we now have, fight the lobbiests who will be out there in full force. I would like to see state tuition to be free for state residents with boarding expenses also made available to those who cannot afford them and who do not have options for college locally. Funds should be made available for those students a college feels will benefit by attending there rather than commuting. </p>
<p>In NY, we pretty much have this set up. We have enough state schools in the SUNY system so positioned so that most people do have local options. The cost is not all that high and for those who cannot afford it, the basic tuition is covered for the most part. If you want to go away for school, go to a private school, go OOS, that is your perogative and you have to pay for it. Even those who make top incomes have a cap on what they have to pay, and the local options are available to all students whether their parents will pay penny one, since the tuition costs are about what the Direct loan amounts are. </p>
<p>The sticking point for many, is that kids think, and parents and school authorities as well as the media tend to support this, that THEY SHOULD GET TO GO TO SLEEP AWAY COLLEGE. When we get to that issue, that’s where there is an impasse. Why should room and board be covered for college students unless there is no local option? There was a time when government had to pay for room and board for those students who had no school options locally for 1-12. I think the time has come where the same should be for those who have no local college options.</p>
<p>Tuition-free (or nominal) is a laudable goal, as long as appropriate admissions standards are in place. Otherwise, it’s an inappropriate & inefficient use of resources (IMHO).</p>
<p>Well, North Carolina tries its best…As expatCanuck says, it’s not really possible.</p>
<p>Article IX, Section 9 of the North Carolina Constitution:</p>
<p>“The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of the University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable be extended to the people of the State free of expense.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You obviously didn’t read the entire part of that idea. </p>
<p>I coupled the idea of open admission for in-state to public colleges with the following provision:</p>
<p>While they’re guaranteed the opportunity for a college education, being successful to the point of graduating is not…and thus allow the public college to maintain a reasonably high academic bar. </p>
<p>The academically weak and/or unmotivated students are weeded out in the first two years so they’ve had the opportunity for some free college education and the public can cut their losses on them by not allowing them to advance into upperclass years and graduation.</p>
<p>In fact, this weed-out process is critical in maintaining the viability of open admission and safeguarding public funds and the public college’s academic integrity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This already exists<em>, but with lower cost (for both the student and the state government) community college as the open admission option. The “weed out” is that one must do well enough</em>* at the community college to be admissible to a state university to complete one’s bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p><em>At least in states with decent community colleges and transfer pathways to the state universities, like California.
*</em>In California, this means 2.0 college GPA for the least selective state universities and majors, but probably a 3.7+ college GPA for the most selective state universities and majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NYC’s CUNY system didn’t fully implement the system you described until the end of the '90s when they initiated a resolution to move all remedial instruction to their 2-year community colleges from the 4-year institutions. </p>
<p>Many local education activists who supported open-ended open admission policies which existed in CUNY from '69 until sometime in the '80s feel this is “too elitist” and stated CUNY’s moving of all remedial education to the 2-year community colleges is “the last nail in the coffin of open admissions.”</p>
<p>Ugh. More “free” services provided by the government. No thanks!</p>
<p>^ Yes, the horror that the government want to educate its people! The horror I tell ya!</p>
<p>What part would be FREE? The tuition? (ok if admission standards are SANE) </p>
<p>Room and board? No. That would be crazy.</p>
<p>I think all students should pay some of the cost. They need some skin in the game. Making it free for many devalues the degree and jams up college campuses with students that aren’t really motivated or interested. </p>
<p>Here in CA, tuition at public colleges is pretty affordable. CCs are about $1500, CSUs are about $7k and UCs are about $14k. Sure $14k is real money but we are talking about UCLA and UCB here. Low income students (about half of them on most CSU and UC campuses, more than that at most CCs) don’t pay anything. </p>
<p>So, a student can go to a CC, transfer to a CSU and get a BS in Business for well under $20k total. You can’t get a new Honda Civic for that! And that’s the ‘rich’ kid who has to pay full tuition!</p>
<p>If I had a magic wand, we’d stop financial aid altogether. CCs would cost everyone $1k per year. CSUs $5k and UCs about $8k. Given the % of the student body getting aid, I bet that could be done with the same total budget California spends today. </p>
<p>Given the proven benefits of a college education, and prevelance of CCs in California, that would make a good education financiall viable for virtually anyone motivated enough to earn one.</p>
<p>Slackermom-
You are correct about NC. UNC has the Carolina Covenant and NCSU has the Pack promise. They are the most expensive of the 16 UNC campuses. The others vary in tuition but all do charge less than UNC and NCSU which are still affordable. We moved here from CA 10 years ago for that very reason. More than the top undergrad programs it is the grad school programs that are really, truly a gift.</p>
<p>ECU and UNC Chapel Hill’s med schools have some of the lowest tuitions in the country, I think 1 or 2 schools in TX might be close. But they are tens of thousands per YEAR cheaper than so many other med schools. Same is true for their vet school, MPH programs, nursing, business (MBA)…</p>
<p>With the low tuitions and Pell eligibility, low cost of living the gap left after just federal aid is small. The campuses themselves also add to the awards so the gap becomes even smaller. As far as no Pell eligibility and commuting with a payment plan, 4 year tuition can be paid with not as much as pain as in other parts of the country. Hence our move.</p>
<p>The community college here does track with the 4 year (UNC system) and at $50 a unit many go on to be successful at the 4 year system with an even more affordable price tag. Many of the classes are taught online requiring those in rural areas or with limited transportation to access the community college system. Added to that the high schools around the state bolstering the “early college” where high students take CC class at no cost to them, it again becomes more affordable.</p>
<p>Is it free? No but it can come close. </p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>How, exactly, would a low-income student pay for a UC that is 8k, presumably on top of living costs?</p>
<p>*I think all students should pay some of the cost. They need some skin in the game. Making it free for many devalues the degree and jams up college campuses with students that aren’t really motivated or interested. *</p>
<p>I agree. If kids have to pay something, they’ll be fewer kids going to college just to avoid having to get a job.</p>
<p>And…we can’t have a system that provides 4-6 years of total care (tuition, fees, room, board, books) on the tax-payers’ dime. Heck, if we did that, we’d have a bunch of high schoolers graduating early just to get to go away to college for free and get away from parents.</p>
<p>How, exactly, would a low-income student pay for a UC that is 8k, presumably on top of living costs?</p>
<p>romani…who are you asking?</p>
<p>^^^
nevermind…I see this…</p>
<p>*If I had a magic wand, we’d stop financial aid altogether. CCs would cost everyone $1k per year. CSUs $5k and UCs about $8k. Given the % of the student body getting aid, I bet that could be done with the same total budget California spends today. *</p>
<p>While I agree that the UC tuition shouldn’t be jacked up for others to pay for FA, I don’t agree that the Calif schools should get rid of FA completely. </p>
<p>Keep the Cal Grants, but get rid of the UC grants. B&G promise should consist of Cal Grants and Pell grants period. Some merit awards from donors is fine, too.</p>