Fully tax supported public colleges and universities.

[Nice Squirrel]

Bank account.

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 I regularly refer people to community colleges.

 

[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.

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

 

[NobleSavage]

Is Univ of OK a Land Grant college?

 

[dismal]

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.

What's ridiculous about it? Wouldn't I be more educated if I had spent the last 30 years taking classes at Harvard?

Wouldn't anyone?

 

[bilby]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

is your name Loren? If not, I'll just wait for Loren to answer, but thank you for playing our game and Vanna has some fabulous parting gifts backstage for you. Everybody let us give Axulus a round of applause . C'mon everybody!

 

[Toni]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

The system you described is pretty much how I would like to see education function: Subsidized in its entirety with minimal borrowing to cover 'extras.' Books and lab fees, etc. would also be covered and given the times, students should have access to a relatively up to date computer/internet services. I would also like to ensure that there is room in such a system for those who wish to go back to school to either change careers or to be better prepared for a career.

 

[bilby]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

The system you described is pretty much how I would like to see education function: Subsidized in its entirety with minimal borrowing to cover 'extras.' Books and lab fees, etc. would also be covered and given the times, students should have access to a relatively up to date computer/internet services. I would also like to ensure that there is room in such a system for those who wish to go back to school to either change careers or to be better prepared for a career.

I agree entirely.

Oh, and as an aisde: Kids these days don't know they're born. There was no 'Internet' when I was at university; If we wanted to 'google' something we used a card index in the library. Now get off my lawn!

 

[Axulus]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

So you were pretty much on the fence about attending university? Had you needed to take out some loans, that would've pushed you over to not going at all?

 

[bilby]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

So you were pretty much on the fence about attending university? Had you needed to take out some loans, that would've pushed you over to not going at all?

The idea of accruing a large debt, having never held a job and with no assurance that I would even be able to keep up with the interest payments, would have been a far greater hurdle than I was prepared to leap.

Perhaps in your part of society, the idea of taking on debt is perfectly fine (as it is today for me); But where I grew up, borrowing money for any reason was frowned upon as reckless behaviour. It was considered reasonable to borrow money for a car or a house, if and only if you were a working man with a decent paying, long term job. The idea of borrowing to pay for an intangible, illiquid asset was unthinkable; If you lose your job, you can sell your car or your house, and pay off your debt. But you can't sell a BSc in the same way.

I was no more 'on the fence' about attending university than a sports fan outside the stadium on match day is 'on the fence' about seeing the game - If he has no money for a ticket, he can't go, regardless of his desire to do so. Sure, he could buy a ticket on his credit card; But how is he going to pay off a credit card?

Credit is for the wealthy. The poor don't borrow money, unless they are too stupid to realise that it costs far more than it is worth, or they are fraudsters intending to default.

The people who casually discuss loans for students as a viable funding model for higher education are comfortable middle class people, for whom borrowing money is 'leverage', and gets you ahead. Working class people (correctly, from their perspective) see borrowing money as serfdom - it puts you in under the control of the lender for a long, long time.

I use credit cards and loans to my advantage today, and currently owe a figure that would have turned 18-year-old me's hair white. But I have a very good job, and I know that I can and will pay the credit card off in full on the due date, and never pay a single cent of interest; and I have budgeted to pay off other debts rapidly and with minimal interest. At 18, and with no good idea of how the future would pan out, I was nervous about borrowing a couple of quid from a mate, in case I couldn't pay him back. Borrowing tens of thousands of pounds was unthinkable, for any purpose.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So you were pretty much on the fence about attending university? Had you needed to take out some loans, that would've pushed you over to not going at all?

The idea of accruing a large debt, having never held a job and with no assurance that I would even be able to keep up with the interest payments, would have been a far greater hurdle than I was prepared to leap.

Perhaps in your part of society, the idea of taking on debt is perfectly fine (as it is today for me); But where I grew up, borrowing money for any reason was frowned upon as reckless behaviour. It was considered reasonable to borrow money for a car or a house, if and only if you were a working man with a decent paying, long term job. The idea of borrowing to pay for an intangible, illiquid asset was unthinkable; If you lose your job, you can sell your car or your house, and pay off your debt. But you can't sell a BSc in the same way.

I was no more 'on the fence' about attending university than a sports fan outside the stadium on match day is 'on the fence' about seeing the game - If he has no money for a ticket, he can't go, regardless of his desire to do so. Sure, he could buy a ticket on his credit card; But how is he going to pay off a credit card?

Credit is for the wealthy. The poor don't borrow money, unless they are too stupid to realise that it costs far more than it is worth, or they are fraudsters intending to default.

The people who casually discuss loans for students as a viable funding model for higher education are comfortable middle class people, for whom borrowing money is 'leverage', and gets you ahead. Working class people (correctly, from their perspective) see borrowing money as serfdom - it puts you in under the control of the lender for a long, long time.

I use credit cards and loans to my advantage today, and currently owe a figure that would have turned 18-year-old me's hair white. But I have a very good job, and I know that I can and will pay the credit card off in full on the due date, and never pay a single cent of interest; and I have budgeted to pay off other debts rapidly and with minimal interest. At 18, and with no good idea of how the future would pan out, I was nervous about borrowing a couple of quid from a mate, in case I couldn't pay him back. Borrowing tens of thousands of pounds was unthinkable, for any purpose.

beautifully put

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

IF college is to be free (at government colleges and universities) (a proposition I don't agree with though) then there should be very high admissions standards, and the departments should receive funding based on practical instead of political standards. Make the sciences have the largest budget whether or not students would rather get degrees in minority studies.

Lots of students are in college that won't succeed because they've been told they need a college degree. They'll either get a useless degree or they'll drop out. What's the good in that? People who are going to be working blue collar jobs actually do better if they spend that four (or actually five or six) years working and saving.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

 

[untermensche]

IF college is to be free (at government colleges and universities) (a proposition I don't agree with though) then there should be very high admissions standards, and the departments should receive funding based on practical instead of political standards. Make the sciences have the largest budget whether or not students would rather get degrees in minority studies.

Lots of students are in college that won't succeed because they've been told they need a college degree. They'll either get a useless degree or they'll drop out. What's the good in that? People who are going to be working blue collar jobs actually do better if they spend that four (or actually five or six) years working and saving.

The practicality of college, of any education, is to learn how to think better.

There are no known best methods for achieving this.

A person should have as wide an education as possible.

Capitalism has narrowed the roles in society and makes people more like non-thinking animals than something with intelligence. And an educational system built around nothing but the needs of capitalism will do the same thing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Try to address my post next time you respond to my post.

 

[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.

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

What in your proposal would be opposed by the Left?

Of course there would have to be standards and testing to get admitted into university.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Ok, this one just sounds like the "there are too many blacks in America for this to work" argument.

 

[Toni]

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Trying not to do the eyeroll thing at Germany's stance on skin color.

You should probably be working on getting yourself much more up to date on how Germany and other European countries are dealing with the influx of immigrants and persons of color.

 

[ZiprHead]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

I don't understand. Since you didn't have skin in the game, how in the world did you ever complete your education?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

What in your proposal would be opposed by the Left?

It isn't "my proposal", but existing features of some of the successful European education systems that you were referring to. The features that would be opposed by the US left are those they already oppose in even a more modest/limited form, namely standardized testing in general, centralized common core standards, ability-based tracking, and high academic admission standards rooted in objective quantified achievement that is applied equally to all (i.e., no affirmative action in college admissions).

Of course there would have to be standards and testing to get admitted into university.

And there is a massive anti-testing and anti-standards culture in the US that comes almost entirely from the political left.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Ok, this one just sounds like the "there are too many blacks in America for this to work" argument.

No, it is a "there are too many idiots and anti-intellectuals" argument. Of the non-exhaustive list of 6 types of excuses to not try in school that would impact no-cost college, some come from the political right and only 1 had to do with race, and not about blacks or their actual abilities, but rather about the pseudo-intellectuals (plenty of them white) who create a culture and rhetoric that fuels "because racism" as an excuse for minorities to not try as hard, which is ironically responsible for much of the academic performance gap that these pseudo-intellectuals wrongly blame on racism (unless they count their own racism, then it is tied to racism).

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Trying not to do the eyeroll thing at Germany's stance on skin color.

You should probably be working on getting yourself much more up to date on how Germany and other European countries are dealing with the influx of immigrants and persons of color.

Besides being a mindless lefty American analysis of what these countries are dealing with, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that their educational success is directly tied to testing, tracking, and not using non-academic factors (e.g., skin color) as an excuse to lower admission standards below levels that make failure and non-graduation highly likely. Your argument is as invalid as those who argue that we should reject the theory of Evolution because of Darwin's personal failings.