Fully tax supported public colleges and universities.

[AthenaAwakened]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

Here we go back to the question of academic freedoms and the relationship of the state to the University. Laughing dog can probably better explain, but I work for the University system and he works for the State University system. Mine is a quasi-independent of and his is directly dependent on the legislature. In the University system because of the land-grant nature and our establishment clause we are required to be open to all who wish to attend and thus have a quasi status of "non-degree" meaning a student who is not admitted to the University who takes courses. They do not qualify for financial aid and are free to study (for the most part) what they wish. Unfortunately, many students who would be better served by a community college (LD's system) come here and flunk out as it is not an end run around admission. I've had students as young as 12 and old as 95.

 

[ksen]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

yes

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

Public college should be affordable. Additionally, people shouldn't have to pay a fortune for a degree that isn't worth the price. A Business Degree should start coming with concentrated educations that make them actually worth a dime.

 

[dismal]

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

yes

My magic 8-ball says "Ask Again Later".

 

[laughing dog]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

In Mn, there is a state law saying that the state shall pay at least 2/3 of the cost of a public university's operations. That law has not been followed for over 20 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Free, no. They should be cheap (something you can pay for with an on-campus job) but when there's no skin in the game people don't behave as well.

 

[Togo]

Free.

 

[Toni]

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

Here we go back to the question of academic freedoms and the relationship of the state to the University. Laughing dog can probably better explain, but I work for the University system and he works for the State University system. Mine is a quasi-independent of and his is directly dependent on the legislature. In the University system because of the land-grant nature and our establishment clause we are required to be open to all who wish to attend and thus have a quasi status of "non-degree" meaning a student who is not admitted to the University who takes courses. They do not qualify for financial aid and are free to study (for the most part) what they wish. Unfortunately, many students who would be better served by a community college (LD's system) come here and flunk out as it is not an end run around admission. I've had students as young as 12 and old as 95.

If you are talking about Minnesota's dual system, your description is a little inaccurate. There is the U of Minnesota with its main campus in the twin cities and its satellite campuses in Morris and Duluth and the mostly tech outlet in Rochester. Then there is a separate system of state universities which along with a different system of community colleges and tech schools are under one giant bureaucracy separate from the U of M. The state universities grant 4 year degrees and some graduate degrees. The community colleges and tech schools have 2 year programs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Free, no. They should be cheap (something you can pay for with an on-campus job) but when there's no skin in the game people don't behave as well.

Is money the only way to have skin in the game?

For example

Loren,

You are a great proponent parents taking responsibility for turning out good citizens, right? Couldn't these same miraculous child rearing techniques that you tout but never outline, turn out good students as well?

 

[ronburgundy]

Complicated.
Non-profit University still costs a lot. Someone has to pay. Should an 18 year old high school grad with a "blue collar" labor job pay for the MBA education of another 18 year old that will become his future much higher paid boss?

Also, plenty of college students already screw off and put no effort into it, barely graduating or dropping out. That's a lot of wasted money other people are paying for zero benefit to society. That would get much worse with completely free tuition.

Here are a couple of uncommon suggestions that could address these issues:

1) Higher grades and graduation get students tuition refunds up to potentially "full refund" levels, which will incentivise effort and disincentivise students just wasting everyone's time and money spending years in school without real effort or direction.

2) Loan repayment is conditional on future income. Graduates pay back % of their loans, depending upon income during the years after graduation. This has a number of benefits. First, it allows education to serve its other important societal functions above and beyond just creating a skilled workforce. Second, graduates that get more financial benefit from their education will pay for more of that education.

 

[Axulus]

Free, no. They should be cheap (something you can pay for with an on-campus job) but when there's no skin in the game people don't behave as well.

Is money the only way to have skin in the game?

For example

Loren,

You are a great proponent parents taking responsibility for turning out good citizens, right? Couldn't these same miraculous child rearing techniques that you tout but never outline, turn out good students as well?

How would you reward people for completing their 4-year degree in 4 years vs. taking 5 or 6 years to complete (which is more expensive)? Cost is a good motivator to get someone to finish their degree on time. In countries where college education is free, on time graduation rates are lower and failure to finish degree rates are higher. Furthermore, shouldn't the primary beneficiary of the university education (the student themselves) share some of the burden of the cost of that education? Finally, when you make something free, you remove the cost to provide that something from the equation in the decision on whether or not to utilize it. Community college for the first two years of education is a better fit for some. One of the things that make it a better fit is a lower tuition cost. Community college is also a less expensive service to provide. If you make university education free, then someone who may not be fully committed to finishing a 4 year education may decide to go to a University anyway (because why not?) who would otherwise go to a community college, will now enroll at University and be far more likely to fail to complete the 4 year degree (dropout rates will increase). The additional amount of money required to go to the University vs. a community college is therefore essentially thrown away.

What are you proposing to add on top of the free at point of entry University education to mitigate these problems? How much additional money is going to be required to be raised from the taxpayers to support this?

 

[ksen]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

 

[dismal]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

If your goal is to educate everyone as much as they can be educated why not send everyone on a free ride to Harvard for life?

With enough money we can build all the buildings we need and hire the best professors in the world to teach everyone.

 

[Axulus]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree? Those less committed will be more likely to choose community college, which is less expensive. This doesn't mean it's not possible for them to attend a university, just that they aren't committed enough to part with the additional out of pocket.

If you have all of these less committed students attending university, a large part of that money is being thrown away.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree?

Bank account.

 

[Axulus]

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree?

Bank account.

Taking on a loan or otherwise being willing to part with $ is a pretty strong sign of commitment.

I don't think one needs to have a lot of money in a bank account to obtain a loan.

Do you think it is a worthwhile use of taxpayer funds to pay for someone to attend university (who may have a high chance of not completing the degree) where a two-year community college would've been a better fit for them?

No one spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.

 

[ksen]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

If your goal is to educate everyone as much as they can be educated why not send everyone on a free ride to Harvard for life?

With enough money we can build all the buildings we need and hire the best professors in the world to teach everyone.

I'll just file that under the "let's make minimum wage $1 million/hr" and "if you don't like it just go start your own business" list of ridiculous non-answers.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree? Those less committed will be more likely to choose community college, which is less expensive. This doesn't mean it's not possible for them to attend a university, just that they aren't committed enough to part with the additional out of pocket.

If you have all of these less committed students attending university, a large part of that money is being thrown away.

In that case we should forbid parents from paying for their kid's college. After all, if the kids themselves don't have skin in the game then how can we be sure they'll be committed to finishing the school they are not paying for directly?

 

[Axulus]

If your goal is to educate everyone as much as they can be educated why not send everyone on a free ride to Harvard for life?

With enough money we can build all the buildings we need and hire the best professors in the world to teach everyone.

I'll just file that under the "let's make minimum wage $1 million/hr" and "if you don't like it just go start your own business" list of ridiculous non-answers.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree? Those less committed will be more likely to choose community college, which is less expensive. This doesn't mean it's not possible for them to attend a university, just that they aren't committed enough to part with the additional out of pocket.

If you have all of these less committed students attending university, a large part of that money is being thrown away.

In that case we should forbid parents from paying for their kid's college. After all, if the kids themselves don't have skin in the game then how can we be sure they'll be committed to finishing the school they are not paying for directly?

The difference with the parents paying for it is that the taxpayers don't lose money on a noncommittal student - it's the parents who are out the money.

 

[Toni]

I am in favor of affordable--which might mean free of charge--education through at least a 4 year degree for those who are qualified to attend institutions of higher learning. At the same time, I actually agree somewhat with Loren: those who are willing to invest their own funds might be more committed to completing their degree in a timely fashion. Or at least be more committed to completing their degree. I tend to believe that if you live your life well, one never completes ones education but is actively learning new things all our lives.

However that begs an entirely set of questions:

1 A.Why do some students take longer than 4 years to complete their degree?
1.B. Why do some students drop out before completing their degree?

Are universities admitting students who are not qualified? Are students just slackers? Do students enter university knowing exactly what degree and career paths they wish to follow or do they change their minds? Should they be penalized for changing their minds (more than the extra tuiton/delayed earnings)? Are some students juggling greater responsibilities (jobs,families of their own or helping to support parents/siblings) than what we think of when we think 'college student?'

2. Who should pay and how much should they pay for a post secondary education? (I am purposely including tech/trade schools and community colleges as well as 4 year universities.)
A. Is the amount of tuition a student is expected to pay dependent upon their GPA and/or test scores?
i. If so, does this create an additional barrier to students who live in less high performing school districts or attend less high performing schools? If so, is this just and fair and should taxpayers be subsidizing a system which furthers inequality of opportunity?
ii. If tuition is means tested (i.e. dependent upon student's family income) will it do the same thing: serve to reinforce inequalities of opportunities by making it even harder for students of poor families to attend universities and climb to higher social economic status?

B. How fair is the current system of student loans? There is an entire generation of U.S. adults who are more or less crippled by student loan debt. This includes students who are gainfully employed in the field they intended to work, at salaries and wages which are greater than the national mean and/or average. What this means for society as a whole is that these young adults are postponing marriage, child bearing/rearing, home ownership and living much longer with their parents--and being ridiculed for that.


In my opinion, universities do not exist in order to provide a well trained workforce. Or even a well educated workforce. They exist in order to provide a well educated citizenry, which benefits not only the individuals who are so educated but even more so, society as a whole.

As a nation, as a society, we all benefit from having a well educated population, no matter how they are employed. We need everyone to be as well educated as possible in order to make good decisions. We need our citizens to be math and science literate, to have a good understanding of the foundations of our democracy and society, to have an understanding of other countries and cultures, to understand and appreciate art, literature and music. Well educated people also enjoy a higher satisfaction in their life, enjoy better health and a higher socioeconomic status. We all benefit. This isn't even counting the benefit to society of having doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, musicians, artists, accountants, plumbers, mechanics, architects, engineers, and so on.