<p>
[quote]
over a dropout's entire working life, he or she receives $71,000 more on average in cash and in-kind benefits than paid in taxes. The societal costs may include imprisonment, government-paid medical insurance and food stamps. In contrast, ** high school graduates pay $236,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and college degree holders pay $885,000 more in taxes than they receive**.
<p>No comment except that America can not go on this way. It’s too costly to the taxpayers and too caustic to the fabric of society. Wish there was a simple answer to this complex problem.</p>
<p>The article’s primarily about HS dropouts so taxpayer funded college educations would have no impact on that.</p>
<p>There’s also nothing in the article that states that it’s only funding that stops people from attending and completing college and in fact there are lots of reasons other than funding that people don’t complete college. </p>
<p>If people want to attend college for a low cost and they have little in the way of means there are already a lot of taxpayer funded and other programs in place to help them achieve that with CCs, state colleges, grants, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t see how you derived your thread title from this article.</p>
<p>You think High school dropouts should go to college? At taxpayers expense???
And that somehow they will be able to graduate from college???
right…</p>
<p>there are careers that dont require a college education. Lots of training, sure, but not a 4 yr degree. Its time parents start recognizing that not everyone can or should go to college.</p>
<p>While the $649,000 lifetime difference in taxes paid minus government services used is a lot higher than a full ride for four years at a university, one has to be careful with such comparisons.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many students, particularly at the least selective state universities, do not ever complete their intended education, so the public subsidy (in the form of in-state tuition discount and financial aid) for such students ends up being less effective or even wasted.</p></li>
<li><p>Remember that the added $649,000 over the person’s life must be discounted to account for the time value of money. Such a discount rate right now is low due to low interest rates, but if interest rates became high, the tradeoff might not be as good, from the state government finance point of view.</p></li>
<li><p>Of course, a more educated population has other benefits (economically and otherwise) beyond just the effect on future state government finances.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>With the large variation in average income by school attended, the cost versus benefit needs much more analysis. I think the value of low quality degrees is sinking fast and high quality degrees are doing just the opposite. Employers are more selective than ever. These average data are useless in any policy discussion.</p>
<p>Taxpayers already support:
100% of K-12 education
Up to 100% of first year of college if student takes enough AP courses in high school to attain sophomore status
At least 75% of the first and second year of college if taken at a community college (due to low tuition fees)
At least 50% of the third and fourth years of college if taken in-state at a state university
Tuition tax credits and deductions
Subsidized interest for needy students
Pell Grants for very needy students</p>
<p>The problem in having the government as the check writer is that you create an industry with artificially inflated prices to milk the system, and not provide useful goods at a competitive price. Think of the exorbitant cost of end-of-life care which is primarily for the benefit of the providers rather than the patient simply because someone else is cutting the check. If K-12+4 is fully funded, you’ll end up with more BS degrees without demand, more people with a BS without skills appreciably higher than today’s K-12, and a requirement for an advanced degree to get the salary advantage.</p>
<p>I strongly agree with Dad of 3 about government causing artificially high prices. </p>
<p>One theory behind the current exorbitant cost of college is that colleges could raise their tuition exorbitantly during two decades of easy credit for students. Colleges kept raising tuition, students kept borrowing more, and now we face a crisis in that graduates are overloaded with debt - a crisis created when government passed a law decreeing that student loans could not be gotten rid of through bankrupcy proceedings, so that every bank thought of these as safe loans, every student could get them, and every college packaged loans as a form of “financial aid”. The college loan crisis, brought to us by those who brought us the housing crisis. </p>
<p>The ease of obtaining loans is currently leading a great many college graduates into graduate school since they can’t find jobs, but they can find banks to loan them money for tuition and living expenses for more years of schooling.</p>
<p>Or, taxpayers can not fund university educations, and still get the dividends. Funny how that works.</p>
<p>Unless you are suggesting that taxpayers fund university educations for kids who are not currently in college, aka kids that can’t hack it? There are colleges for everyone out there that wants to go.</p>
<p>The OP suggests that since middle class people tend to own homes and have college degrees, let’s increase the size of the middle class by making sure that more people own homes and graduate from college. Well, we saw how the first part of that plan worked out. And the college bubble is maybe 10 years behind. All the same causes: government subsidies inflating the cost of a politically correct commodity.</p>
<p>It would be like saying that we need more great basketball players, and since great basketball players tend to own expensive sneakers, let’s give lots of people expensive sneakers.</p>
<p>no, it wouldn’t be like saying that at all. what’s wrong with everybody living comfortably, simply, and having access to quality education? i don’t get the selfishness.</p>
<p>This isn’t anything unique to education. Any governmental service, police, fire, defense. At least with higher education there is some competition, schools are competing with others for students. K-12 doesn’t have that, police doesn’t have that, fire doesn’t have that, defense doesn’t have that.</p>
<p>"Another way to think about this: this is a democracy. In order for democracy to work, there needs to be an educated public. "</p>
<p>Here is another way to look at this: In order for democracy to work, people shouldn’t be able to vote to spend other people’s money on themselves.</p>