To the OP. You definitely have some radical thoughts. I doubt the government would want to take on all these new people. The era of bloated government is coming to an end. It is best to allow the market forces to work this all out.
Actually, with a few exceptions, the ones who offer a free education do tend to allow it for all institutions within the society concerned or sometimes even abroad provided the student concerned qualified for admission to said institution.
Granted, two major differences which account for that are:
- The most prestigious/elite colleges in those societies tend to be public whereas most private colleges are regarded as "last resorts" for those whose academic record/exam results didn't qualify for admission to the public colleges.
- Admission and academic tracking from the end of middle-school onwards means university admission overall tends to be much more selective in those societies than is the case here in the US where anyone who wants to attend college can usually find one to attend provided s/he has the finances to pay for it or qualifies for generous FA/scholarship/"merit aid".
Hear, hear.
And if you want this to continue to be a good option, support politicians and policies that help the public universities grow and improve. There’s no reason in the world the publics can’t be as good as the Ivies (well, there’s one reason: people don’t think education is worthy of their tax dollars).
@twoinanddone With the exception of the Federal Service Academies, there is no such thing as “socialist” education in the United States. Most public universities now only get a fraction of their budgets from the state, and financial aid is largely paid by endowment income. At places like Michigan, most financial aid for OOS students comes from private funds.
There have also been a number of interesting studies of financial aid recipients at top tier private universities. Most recipients go on to donate back multiples of what they received in aid. I know many FA recipients who feel morally obligated to donate so that others can benefit too.
One interesting thing about America’s reliance on student loans is that it actually increases the risk and cost to the taxpayer. Student loan debt now exceeds mortgage debt. If there is a default crisis, the effects will be far worse than the mortgage crisis. Congress is holding hearings on this now, but the student debt crisis is a national crisis.
@katliamom Public universities are, for the most part, woefully underfunded in the US. That’s one reason they’ve had to raise tuition and why many are becoming almost unaffordable for middle income families. Other public universities, like University of Michigan and University of Virginia, are gradually becoming “privatized” as they move to a model where more of their income comes from endowments, donations and tuition.
One consequence of this is that for many high achievers, the elite LACs and top-tier private universities are now more affordable than public ones. High achieving low- and middle-income students will leave these universities with little debt, whereas they would face considerable debt if they went to state universities.
The real problem is for students with financial need but you don’t have stellar academic records. They and their families face some real financial challenges.
@exlibris97 – I’m very well aware of the fiscal realities of public universities. I’m also aware of the kinds of FA high strivers can get at privates that bring the costs down.
It doesn’t change the fact that MOST students who have money issues end up in public schools, manage to get educated and find jobs. What won’t change any facts is the woe-is-me mentality I see among some parents and students on this forum. As if they’re owed something they’re not getting.
Agree, though unfortunately that situation is changing. Witness what is happening in Louisiana. “Public university” is rapidly becoming an oxymoron. You need now to be careful where you live.
@exlibris97 – that’s for sure. And not just where access to education is concerned.
Very ironic considering the US HAD a “socialistic” education in the form of free/exceedingly nominal cost public colleges for in-state/locality students up until the mid-1970’s.
One good example of this was CCNY/CUNY which was free for city residents up until 1975 when the combination of the negative effects of a sudden implementation of open admissions in 1969 combined with NYC’s fiscal crisis in the '70s meant they had to start charging tuition for city-residents.
We have an exchange student whose schooling is being funded by the corporation he has already been hired by. In the automotive industry. I guess it’s kind of like a coop but he was hired first, then getting his degree straight out of high school, so a bit different. Do you think if American companies did this they would get a loyal work force and would it pay off for them?
They don’t want a loyal work force. They want a cheap, plentiful, mobile, dependent work force.
@cobrat The other irony is that in the European countries with truly “socialized” higher education, tuition has historically been charged (as it has in Canada where all the universities are actually ‘public’). Socialized education does not mean “free”. This is a common American misunderstanding. Socialism refers to the ownership of assets.
Some countries such as Germany* and Mainland China before the end of the '90s had free tuition for most/all university students who qualified for admission.
However, the corollary to that was that both systems not only have competitive admissions for applicants, both systems also aggressively tracked students so the applicants applying to colleges were already somewhere between the academically top 20-50% among students in their age group.
- Germany did/does* have fees, but they're extremely nominal....especially by American public U full-sticker standards.
** Germany briefly instituted tuition, but strong political opposition within the country caused the government to reconsider as many German citizens regard free-tuition as a good long-term investment in their country’s youth/human capital.
@Germany had free tuition in SOME lander. It only restored its nationwide “no tuition” policy a few years ago. Mainland China is interesting but I don’t believe it is in Europe.
[quote]
One interesting thing about America’s reliance on student loans is that it actually increases the risk and cost to the taxpayer. Student loan debt now exceeds mortgage debt. If there is a default crisis, the effects will be far worse than the mortgage crisis. Congress is holding hearings on this now, but the student debt crisis is a national crisis.[/quotr]
The student loan debt is not widespread among insured banks. It is very concentrated among a few institutions (Wells Fargo) and the government. Sallie Mae failing is possible. Most student loan debt is unsecured. If a bank holding a lot of student loan debt fails (but Wells Fargo is ‘too big to fail’), the oversight agency will bundle that unsecured debt, sell it for pennies on the dollar, and private collectors will take over. The borrower will not be released by turning over the ‘deed’ to the education or declaring bankruptcy. It is much different than secured debt.
OP is a perfect example of poor students who get penalized for having affluent or apparently affluent parents and why it’s unfair to discriminate against them.
I think most of us feel for students in that position. However, if you change the rules and say someone like that qualifies for FA, don’t you think there would be a lot more parents “refusing” to pay for college?
This is an example of a student whose family does not qualify for financial aid and the parents will not help him pay for college. The student is not being discriminated against. If the rules changed then a lot of parents would choose not to pay.
@SugarlessCandy, By those standards vietually all students are poor. Colleges have a finite amount of money. If they don’t consider parental income, how do you suggest they determine who gets aid?
I don’t have all the answers. This is a job for policy makers to make sure that government is giving equal opportunities to every student. You can’t hold the fact against them that since their parents pay more income tax so they need to be squeezed some more. If parents refuse to play along then these kids have no choice, they have no control over their parents and no rights over their government.