Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Free tuition at US public Universities?

Personally, I that each person and their family be responsible for that student's college fees. Who else should be more responsible for paying for someone's education than the person who is receiving it? In this manner, people are much more likely to make the best use of the education they're getting and select an area of study that is marketable to pay the loan they've taken out for that education (if any)

I may be a little tainted of mind as recently one of the state colleges where I live came under fire because nearly 25% of tuition costs from each student were being redirected to fun scholarships of different types. You can imagine the push back from middle class families working multiple jobs to send their child to school learning this.

So now having said that, I have to point the finger at myself and say that we're currently taking advantage of multiple academic scholarships which pay for our eldest DS's tuition. If we can legally use money offered to us by others without needing to pay it back, yes, we're going to and likely so will nearly everyone else.

So what is the most "fair" way? Well, the way I look at it, everyone who "gets ahead" either worked for it or had someone or numerous people in their family who worked for it / invested wisely / made wise decisions. It's not "fair" to force others to pay for the education of someone / some family who didn't work for it / didn't make wise investments / didn't make wise decisions. The most fair way is for each person who attends college to pay for their education themselves or their family to supply the means to do so. Notice I didn't say equal, I said fair.

Well, I think that there's no question that "free" results in the problems outlined by Old Dad and Bostonian-- and while we might (and have, as I recall ) debated the truth of the statement that SES is a good proxy for the cognitive ability distribution...

but what about making it affordable rather than a "windfall" is untenable?

It's still a personal sacrifice to attend, that way-- because I also agree that students who do best tend to be those who have skin in the game THEMSELVES, not just their parents' skin or that of the taxpayers. To a point, I mean-- it's also true that students who are on the verge of homelessness tend also to not do as well.

Societally, we really need to do something about the fact that college is becoming unaffordable to everyone but the highest ~5% (who pay out of pocket and money isn't really a problem) and lowest ~20% (who get need-based aid which covers full costs) of households at all but a slim percentage of institutions. THAT is not helpful in terms of our future as a nation.

So what percentage of the population would we consider "college material" to start with? Is it 20%? 50%? 80% Some states now have a target which is more than 60% of the population, and I'm not sure that such a thing can truly be justified, myself.

What differentiates a "college education" from other kinds of education, anyway? Why isn't secondary education doing more to prepare students for work or further advanced study??

I have many questions-- but few answers.

That's what we have in the current system. How is that working out?

That's part of the debate, it depends on who you ask. In the eyes of many, college material is proportionate with any special interest that wishes to attend rather than what rank / percent one gets on test(s)

For many if not most, it took multiple generations of passing on inheritance / family wealth building / legacy before the first in the family could attend college. Redistribution of that hard eared wealth so that someone who doesn't have a family who did so can have the same opportunities I don't see as the answer nor "fair" To attempt to make opportunities equal we'd have to be unfair.


That's a very fair question. Right now there seems to be a thought pattern that public K-12 schools have the goal of preparing EVERY student for college.....and we all know that's a load of horse hockey. We don't do anyone justice by pretending that's possible.....and we cheat ourselves and others by the thought pattern. Not everyone even WANTS to go to college. Personally I love working with my hands and OJT was a perfectly acceptable option for my profession. As a society we've tossed options other than college after HS way down the ladder when there are plenty of occupations available without 4 year (or more) college degrees.

We have to set aside unfounded a priori assumptions if we're going to have any meaningful dialog here.

- A cursory glance at financial headlines over the past 8 years will indicate that "making it" often has less to do with hard work or good decisions than with taking advantage of others.

- This thread has already demonstrated many reasons why today's runaway university costs have nothing to do with the true costs of providing an advanced education, and everything to do with runaway capitalism.

- The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is healthcare expenses, even for those who are covered by insurance, and poor health is more often the result of losing the genetic lottery or bad luck than "good decisions."

- The current system of paying for college expects teenagers who know nothing about the employment world to make "good decisions" about their future earnings in a marketplace that may have turned upside down four years later.

Etc.

Well, that depends on who you ask, personally I think it's working out fine. Those who are willing to take responsibility for their debt do so or else their family has done so. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility.

There are other options out there for careers outside of a 4 year degree that are less costly. For some reason as a society we're turning to the thought pattern that everyone is "Owed" the means to pursue their desired path even if they themselves can't personally afford to do so. That's resulted in many going into HUGE debt and defaulting on loans backed by our tax money.....how is THAT working out for us so far?

We're getting to the thought pattern of everyone deserves and "Equal" opportunity, wrong, nothing guarantees that nor does anyone own you or I that, we have the freedom to pursue our path, not for our path to be financed by others.

So you're saying you prefer a rigid caste system to a meritocracy?

I wish we could take charge of the "free" high school education the same way we do with college. Living in one of the states with incredibly high property taxes where a huge chunk of it goes to the public school system, I wish we could take that money and put it where we see fit. Especially since we're now homeschooling and paying. On a house valued at about $200K we're paying almost $9000 (and steadily climbing by $300-$800 per year!) in property tax and out of that about $6500 goes to the schools! Being a lower middle class family, that seriously hurts our pockets. If we lived in a state where schools are funded differently and we could keep this $ and put it aside, it would make the whole college education funding situation a lot different. We will definitely need some creative financing figured out by the time our boys are ready for college if they decide to go to college that is. Unless they get GOOD scholarships and work while in college, there's just no way.

Not to mention, my view has always been that the parents responsibility ends at the end of high school. With that in mind, the kids will need to be serious about high school if they ever want more than a high school diploma. My parents paid for my living expenses while I went to college back in Europe because there were no jobs for students and the studying was so intense there just was no way to work while at school, but there was no tuition and it was fairly easily manageable. Then they paid for my plane tickets for me to come and study in the US and that was it. The rest was up to me. I went with the Grad school that gave me the best deal. I never regretted getting a degree from a University in the middle of nowhere because I absolutely loved the people and the atmosphere and unlike many others graduated debt free.

I'm saying I prefer a system in which each individual and / or their family is responsible for providing for that person's education....call it whatever label you wish, I call it responsibility for me and mine.

...and I agree with the post above, there is no shame in a state college education and it costs a considerable sum less.

Old Dad, I tend to agree with you-- but--

there are certainly households for which even a cash outlay of 16-25K annually (which is what most state universities are running these days) is into the realm of "unthinkable."

Now, if the cash outlay were more like 6-10K, well, then-- yes, "work your way through" seems quite fair to me. It's what I managed without much debt, after all.

But no, not everyone's parents can/will pay for college. I don't think that it is either right or societally wise, even, to just shrug and say "oh well" to those students.

Now, if we quit subsidizing the education of those who probably have no business on a college campus to begin with (and I'm sorry-- but 200-400 on an SAT section is just not college material in most instances) then maybe costs wouldn't NEED to be so high. Of course, there are going to be some VERY unhappy UMC parents when they get told that Very Important Son, the fourth, there, had better look into the possibilities that the armed services or local trade schools afford him... but in an ideal world, honestly, I don't see education as a purchased commodity available to the highest bidder. Which is apparently what we have now, I mean.

I prefer a system which sets standards and says "oh, that's unfortunate" to those who can't meet them-- regardless of ability to PAY. Now, no-- I don't think that "free" is necessarily the right thing, either. But this is rather like a pro-sports stadium in some respects. I completely understand why people living in Shasta County wouldn't want to PAY to replace Dodger Stadium with a new state-of-the-art facility with their state tax dollars, and think that the fans and franchise owners should be coughing up the cash. I also understand that folks in Orange and LA counties do want some of it to come from taxes, because they derive direct economic benefit to keeping a franchise there. I think that both considerations are completely relevant here, too-- there is OF COURSE personal economic benefit to an individual for attending college. However, arguing that a free market system will take care of itself ignores the fact that the entire economic engine of a country depends upon innovation and high educational levels in the working population; so public support makes a great deal of sense, too. Clearly some hybrid is the most sensible thing. It's the details that are murky.


I wonder.