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

It worked with housing...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states-looking-0-community-college-tuition-055227772.html
States looking at $0 community college tuition
By STEVEN DUBOIS
Associated Press
March 18, 2014

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Nothing sparks consumer demand like the word "free," and politicians in some states have proposed the idea of providing that incentive to get young people to attend community college.

Amid worries that U.S. youth are losing a global skills race, supporters of a no-tuition policy see expanding access to community college as way to boost educational attainment so the emerging workforces in their states look good to employers.

Of course, such plans aren't free for taxpayers, and legislators in Oregon and Tennessee are deciding whether free tuition regardless of family income is the best use of public money. A Mississippi bill passed the state House, but then failed in the Senate.

The debate comes in a midterm election year in which income inequality and the burdens of student debt are likely going to be significant issues.

"I think everybody agrees that with a high school education by itself, there is no path to the middle class," said State Sen. Mark Hass, who is leading the no-tuition effort in Oregon. "There is only one path, and it leads to poverty. And poverty is very expensive."

Hass said free community college and increasing the number of students who earn college credit while in high school are keys to addressing a "crisis" in education debt. Taxpayers will ultimately benefit, he said, because it's cheaper to send someone to community college than to have him or her in the social safety net.

Research from the Oregon University System shows Oregonians with only a high school degree make less money than those with a degree and thus contribute fewer tax dollars. They are also more likely to use food stamps and less likely to do volunteer work.

********************************************

College graduates earn more than high school graduates in part because they are smarter and more disciplined. Colleges don't create these qualities, so the analyses of the economic impact of sending everyone to at least community college are overstated. Graduating from high school is not too difficult. Free tuition for all high school graduates, as opposed to merit scholarships for the best students, will further discourage high school students from working hard.

No, college graduates earn more because they've got a piece of paper that often acts as a gateway to higher-paying jobs, so the solution is to print more paper.

Community college is basically remedial high school, so other than printing more paper, I'm not sure what Oregon hopes to accomplish here. Community college doesn't even print the right kind of paper.

Community colleges print the right kind of paper in some circumstances (e.g. paramedic certification, different medical technicians, firefighting), and if tuition is free, they can reduce student loan burden. So IMO, free tuition is a great idea (maybe they'll extend it to the public four colleges, as California used to do back when we were serious about investing in the next generation).

But the real problem is too few jobs for semi-skilled people for whom college isn't a realistic option. The idea that we can fix that by making community college free or by sending more people to college in high school is ludicrous. They still won't do well.

Because we have too much stuff.

The answer is more leisure time!

We have a family member who finally passed all tests to receive free tuition to community college. She works incredibly hard.

To now make it free for anyone really would take that accomplishment and diminish it. It would not be valued by most who drifted in for free, that's for sure!

This proposal is like any other competition between children these days. We just can't stand that there be losers. It's not FAIR if everyone can't win, right?

So when do kids learn what the real world is like? Not the first two years of college if this should pass.

Not sure I understand. How would her hard work be affected by someone else?

Um... okay-- this IS my state.

Understand that there are two Oregons.

1. Urban, well-educated, highly compensated OR-- the Willamette Valley residents of the Silicon Forest, and...

2. Mostly rural people who have low incomes (<35K) and often as not, lack completed college education themselves, and find the entire PROCESS of sending a child to college to be a daunting one.


Three, really-- there is also a minority Oregon that is both rural (Hispanic) and urban (more African-American and Asian) that is underemployed or unemployed and poorly educated.

We also have a HUGE drug (meth) problem that is related to some of these same groups, and nowhere to really "rehabilitate" those people in terms of lifestyle, so the LE/corrections system just keeps recycling them. Mental health services are also SEVERELY limited here-- even if you can pay, you can't find a practitioner to help you, and if you cannot pay, forget even trying.


We lack a lot of private colleges and universities, and our "system" is well over capacity already in the conventional Uni/4y sense. There is the additional problem that the state government is currently not ABLE to fully fund even that part of the system. There is also an idea on the table to create a "pay-it-forward" tuition-free option (or mandate? it isn't yet clear) for THAT part of the higher ed system in order to provide a meritocratic system that has a chance of sustaining itself on something other than non-resident tuition rates (as Washington has apparently chosen to do, meaning that most of THEIR students who are most deserving can no longer even get seats at UW, at any price). Also understand that politically, OR is hard-core progressive, and it's in the DNA here. Nothing here breaks purely along conventional party lines-- so this COULD probably really work here, of all places, because it may get bipartisan support.

Anyhow, that's the other part of the backstory here.

The other bit of this is that in the years since 2000 here there has been deeply entrenched unemployment and underemployment. While MOST of the country experienced a nice recovery from the dot.com bust, only to fall back into recession in 2008, that really didn't happen here-- if anything, that merely serves to have insulated us from the very worst of the real estate bubble, I suppose. But on a less happy note, it means that there are a LOT LOT LOT of unemployed adults who have few job skills that are marketable in any way that promotes even subsistence living, and well, when you look at it that way, free job-retraining vis a vis the community college system (which already exists, in terms of "infrastructure") seems like a MIGHTILY good idea to me as a taxpayer. Hass is absolutely presenting the unvarnished reality there-- it really isn't hyperbole to ask "which is more expensive? Social services for the indigent long-term? Or education and support for the short-term?" Not here.

At least then those people are not a drain on public resources (and food banks, independent non-profit charities, etc), and they can start PAYING taxes again instead of just being beneficiaries for a lifetime, and perpetuating the same un-virtuous cycle in their own kids.

I don't favor reducing the E.F.C. if it means increasing federal loans and grants, because government subsidies are a cause of rising college prices. Maybe the calculation of need used to determine eligibility for grants and loans should be done as if no college costs more than $30K per year for tuition, room, and board. Colleges could charge more, but students and parents would not be eligible for more federal loans and grants because they were charging more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/opinion/a-quick-way-to-cut-college-costs.html
A Quick Way to Cut College Costs
By STEVE COHEN
New York Times
MARCH 20, 2014

...

Consider a family of four, earning $100,000 in income and having $50,000 in savings. The [Expected Family Contribution] says that this family will contribute $17,375 each year to a child’s college expenses. A $100,000 income translates into take-home pay of about $6,311 monthly. An E.F.C. of $17,375 means the family must contribute about $1,500 a month — every month for four years. But cutting family expenses by 25 percent every month is unrealistic.

Alternatively, the family could use its savings. But that would deplete their $50,000 before the start of the child’s senior year, leaving nothing for the proverbial rainy day, or for the second child’s education.

...

Since Congress controls the E.F.C. formula, it makes sense for political leaders who are serious about controlling college costs and student debt to start by making the E.F.C. more realistic. But tinkering with the E.F.C. formula won’t be sufficient because there are so many problems with it. For example, it doesn’t take into consideration geographic differences in cost-of-living, or the lack of liquidity in one’s home.

So let’s get serious instead. Congress and the president should drastically cut the E.F.C. — by around 75 percent, to reflect the fact that since 1980 tuition has risen at nearly five times the rate of the Consumer Price Index. Doing so would force colleges to construct financial aid packages without the artificial price supports of inflated contribution numbers — and make paying for college less agonizing.

Bostonian,

That gets my vote!