20 total posts
I think it's interesting that, in the last part of his
second term, Obama is now bringing up programs that he was going to make a priority during his first. I'm suspicious enough to think that he knows about how far additional spending requests will go and that his real plan is one to create more divisiveness in order to turn people away from those controlling the pocketbook.
I think it's a great idea
When I was going to college, the community college and state universities didn't have any in-state tuition. I would love to see at least that come back. I mean we theoretically pay for the state schools just like the k-12 schools. We don't pay tuition for k-12 (I wonder how long that will last), why should we pay for state schools for over 12?
It just an old tradition that most kids
didn't get any more education than needed to be competent in the basics. Most went to work in the family business and often worked during school anyway. College was for academic study and not deemed necessary just to find work. There were trade schools where kids apprenticed either while in school or after finishing the minimum requirements. These filled the skilled labor force. Some, such as engineering, did require a higher level of math and colleges offered that. Many of the first colleges were agriculture based anyway. Even the first medical schools were separate from colleges and universities.
I went to college in the 60s and didn't pay any tuition
"Free College" and/or government paid grants
are nothing but a ponzi scheme for colleges.......the more guaranteed money coming from the State or Federal coffers, the higher the tuition can keep climbing. It 'might' be different if colleges actually would work with companies and guarantee those graduating a job at the end of that scholastic road. A degree no longer means you will get a job so why have free college except to get a vote for the party that gave it to them, keep the kids deaf, dumb, and blind to the real world and how it works by 'cooking the classes' with bias, and turn out 'professional students' who see school as a free ride for as long as they desire. All of us, in our lifetime, have run into kids who never even think about getting a job.......because they stay in school taking course after course with no results to show for any of it.
No, that's what happened when student loans came out
Tuition, even for out of state, was fairly reasonable when I went to college. Now it's outrageous because the university can raise the tuition and figure the student will just take out more loans. And, if they can steer the student to the right loan company, they can get a cut.
That is the Ponzi scheme.
I didn't know which party was in favor of no tuition and didn't really care. I just figured the state and county paid for the school costs just like they did in k-12. Even in the 70s, I took classes at community college at night and they were free.
And just where in hell do you think
the money even for K-12 comes from, Diana? TAXES and State/Federal funding.....which in turn means MORE taxes. College tuition that is 'free' is going to be paid by SOMEBODY PAYING HIGHER TAXES.......and as long as the Federal Government guarantees the funding, colleges will continue to raise tuition to get that guaranteed money. THAT has nothing to do with Student Loans......why should a student take out a loan in the first place, if the tuition will be FREE? Do you honestly think that the Feds won't be getting bills for the tuition that they are providing? Or do you think people like Buffett and BO will be donating billions out of their pockets for those kids to go to school for 'free'?
Where did the money come from in the 60s and 70s?
From taxes. Does this mean that the Feds and state are spending the money elsewhere? Is where they are spending the money more important than an educated population? Maybe they, and you, don't want an educated population.
I have a better idea
the govt will match an employer's contribution who feels a worker deserves or needs a college education to rise to higher levels in their company, or provides college as an incentive, tied to years of work owed back to the company. We could call it "workfare".
why not pay for school for a lifetime?
and never have them go to work to repay the debt? We could call it "Schoolfare".
My greater concern is that free higher education will
become an opportunity for young people to either delay becoming independent or take courses that won't be of value to prospective employers. Any public money used should offer some value to those who pay the bill. I don't mind if a program could be put into place where businesses in need of certain skills could fund scholarships that would be offset by tax credits. Students who apply for such scholarships would be required to at least apply for jobs with the sponsoring companies. If they didn't, they should be made liable for the tuition costs. I can't be for some government bureaucratic organization having control of such a program. What might be free for the student isn't going to be without cost to someone.
Living off the public dole, taking courses in foolishness that is useless in the real world of employment. Govt paying for nothing degrees that are little better than toilet paper, and less honest. Theoretical this or that, political claptrap, junk passed off as art, social hoo-hah doo-dah stupidity, so many ridiculous and useless courses, a waste. Just pick up any college courses book from local community college and start looking through it. A huge number of junk courses.
More arguments against........
One statement of note from the article.....
>>>>Not only do we need a more educated workforce, but we also need more educated citizens.>>>>
And who is actually doing that education? 60% of the Weathermen (an anti-American/terrorist organization from the 60's) are our college professors or political activists........
You can't teach an old dog new tricks....
Needs a title change
something like "Why All Public Higher Education Should be Funded by the Taxpayer"
unless the guy expects an all volunteer force of educators, donated brick & mortar, teaching materials, etc., it's not free as in "without burden".
They weren't paid by the keystroke
so they used "free" instead of "Funded by the Taxpayer"
Which would have cost an extra 15¢ they don't pay for spaces.