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

Agreed!

hypothesis

Ultimately the issue of free tuition at US public Universities may become one of having a single centralized decision-making body, as opposed to the loosely organized, distributed network of need-based and merit-based financial aid channels in place today. A single centralized decision-making body may take it upon itself to decide on the University assignment and field of study in addition to providing tuition payment.

A point in favor of maintaining a de-centralized approach is the opportunity for individuals to transfer colleges, redress grievances, change their majors, and maintain an internal locus of control.

Students from other lands have often shared that they came to the US to gain additional education which would not have been allowed in their country, where they are essentially assigned to an educational and career track at a young age and there are no do-overs. Some have shared that the concept of adults going back to school and preparing to change careers is a freedom limited to the US, and the availability of this option struck them as highly unusual although appealing. Depending upon your own experiences, you may have other information.

Do the US taxpayers on this forum prefer to have a single centralized decision-making body determining the educational and career trajectory for themselves and their children?

That doesn't work either.

It does work in other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union

Note the striking similarities between the two, in particular multiple education pathways, including vocational tracks.

ETA: While one could say that comparing capitalist countries to the former socialist countries is not valid, my impression is that the US system of education is an outlier even in the western world.

ETA 1: I see that I cross-posted with HK.

No-- it seems to me (and, apparently to the others who have posted) that a return to higher standards in both higher ed admissions (and instruction) and also in K-12 is really the only way to make education both appropriate and less costly to individuals without making it unconstitutional.

To do that, however, we need to stop pretending that innate intelligence isn't a factor in academic success, and we also need to stop pretending that academics is all that matters in workplace readiness, or adult life, for that matter.

A return to Vo-Tech for those individuals who are neither college oriented nor college material seems to be unlikely, but it is certainly part of the solution. Currently, we're (as a society) unwilling to admit that no, not everyone can be a rocket scientist... and particularly unwilling to unflinchingly say it to earnest young people. Not everything IS possible for a particular individual. I see this as a huge problem in the system, and one that makes free college education a non-starter in this country unless/until we fix it. We have to be willing to set standards and exclude those that cannot/will not meet them-- not adjust our standards to include everyone. This neglects the reason why the standards exist to start with. We treat education as though it is somehow different than, say, issuing driver's licenses. If you don't pass the vision test, you don't get a license. Sorry, but that's that; there are no adjustments to the vision test in order to make sure that everyone can pass it. The road test, similarly-- if you don't pass, you don't pass. I'm not sure why we see 'education' as something so meaningless that we're willing to apply the label "college education" to pretty much whatever a student wants or is able to do. Doesn't that make the entire enterprise more or less a giant diploma mill? This has consequences-- just as it would if driver's licensing were treated that way.

Funny thing about hypotheses, by the way-- correctly constructed and tested, the answers can be "no, that's not right" as well, but that doesn't mean that the investigation yields nothing useful in a larger sense. Just saying.

I find it rather interesting that we're willing to discuss how education should be distributed based on education type, ability of a person to complete specific classes, and any other number of criteria, however, the criteria of, "Did someone earn the right by paying for it?" is so readily dismissed. That unwillingness to consider, "Can I pay for it?" is why the U.S. is in such a state of financial downfall right now, if we can't currently afford it, we still think we should have it by someone else paying for it and we keep on teaching the next generation that's how it should be. That's a poor education in my eyes and sets the next generation up for failure.

I think that horse already left that barn.

So, we're going to need to come up with a new plan.

I'm not in the U.S. so I have little knowledge of your system admissions requirements. Since there have been a number of references to raising admission standards I'm curious, what are the requirements for a mid level college? (I'm not talking Ivy League or Community College but say something where you could get an Engineering degree with a decent chance of getting a job in an average economy as an example)

That's not how educational finance works.

You *do* pay for it.

Lots of usury is involved, too.