[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Here's my take on your bit about education. Haven't read the rest yet but will do so later.

Looking forward to it. Seriously.

I have quite a few issues with the opinions that you have stated above. In no particular order, here they are:

- I am 32 and graduated back in 2010 in Ontario. Perhaps things in Ontario are different than in the US. Perhaps I live in a sheltered middle-class bubble. With those possibilities acknowledged, I can't think of a single person that I grew up with that was unable to attend post-secondary education because it cost too much. I know many of them were unable to afford it outright, which required them to get student loans, but if they were accepted into university, they managed to get that loan. Poor grades were much more prohibitive to attending post-secondary education than poor finances. So who are these people that want to attend university and are getting turned down for student loans? How many more individuals will be able to attend post secondary education if it were free? Since you are here extolling the virtues of free tuition, I am sure you have this answer, so if you could share it with me, it would be appreciated.

Fair comments, and written from the Canadian perspective. Here's a little more detail that may allow you to understand the challenges. The average cost per credit hour to attend a major university in the USA is $594. That put the average degree at a cost of just under $72K. Here in the desert, that cost is slightly lower with the costs being between $495 and $550 per credit hour. Not much of a savings, but every little bit helps. A little bit different than the cost of education in Canada.

I work in higher ed and I know thousands of students who have not been able to afford to go to university and had to op to got to a community college first (credit hours as low as $100). I know just as many that couldn't afford to do that because they couldn't get funding. On top of that, loans and grants are only good if you are a good student and don't have life happen along the way. The second you withdraw or fail a class is the second your funding goes away. Then you are stuck with student loan debt you can never get out from under, and don't have anything to show for it. It's a very big problem that needs to be addressed.

Now, who are these people? People from all walks of life. People that had good jobs but have seen them outsourced or eliminated and need to go back to school to get back into the workforce. There are all sorts of students coming out of high school who cannot qualify for loans or grants and the scholarships are not covering much. When you have a scholarship that covers $1-2K, that leaves a massive amount of cost the student has to bear themselves. It is not practical.

How many people would take advantage of more education if they had a chance? Probably another 20-30% of high school graduates. That is what our embedded advisers are tell us anyways. It varies from community-to-community, and mostly on ethnic lines, but those numbers are a fair estimation.

- Simply attending university does not guarantee one a better living. No doubt you could post statistics that demonstrate that university grads earn more than non-university grads, but that does not speak to the earning power of someone that obtained a degree in something that has little value in the job market. Some of the most visible Sanders supporters are recent grads that are unable to earn a decent living and pay off their student loans. While free tuition would release them of the burden of paying their debt, it would not change their position in the job market.

Going to university offers a chance to change perspectives and see the world through a completely different lens. You learns new ways of looking at things and the way systems work. To say that going to university is life changing is a gross understatement for students from low economic means. A university degree opens doors. You may not understand that because you already have that key, because of your education, but people who do not struggle to get through those same doors you already have opened and take for granted. And yes, a university degree does change your position in the job market.

- Many people attend university when, if they were acting in the best interests of their personal finances, probably wouldn't. Taking courses that you find to be interesting but possess virtually no transferable value in the job market will not serve you well. For some, university is a period of 4 years of self-discovery and fun that is not particularly concerned with coming out on track for a high earning career. Even with the weight of heavy tuition costs, these people still exist. Perhaps these are people that come from well off families that can afford to pay for their own education. Do you think that by removing all financial skin in the game that people would be more or less likely to take their education seriously?

For most, especially those coming from low economic means, going to school is a means to getting out of their current situation. They take it very seriously. The vast majority of students do. Schools that have the "party school" label are falling by the wayside. ASU, once the top party school in the country, now is recognized as being one of the top innovators and best public schools to attend. Dr. Crow has changed the school for the good, and now you require a 3.4 GPA to get a sniff of attending and staying at school. Not a place you go to enjoy your weekend "ragers".

- I would be very interested to see what the correlation is between the cost of post secondary education and the level of government financial assistance with tuition. It would make sense to me that as government sponsored loans become more available, the cost of tuition would also increase, no? What happens when tuition is paid for entirely by the government? What stops universities from raising the cost of tuition? Would that be regulated too? Surely you understand the economic implications from enacting price ceilings?

That has actually been the result. The government has not regulated it as needed, so yes, that is a problem. Ironic that now regulation is considered a good thing? And yes, I understand the idea of ceilings.

- Certainly there is need for education, but all types of education are not equally needed. If you are obtaining an education so that you can work in a field where it would be nearly impossible for you to pay off the loan that you took to get that education, I would say that would be a poor financial decision. At that point, I don't understand why the government should be actively encouraging this kind of poor financial decision making. Alternatively, if government got out of the business of guaranteeing student loans, people would have to get regular loans from a bank. Banks would only give such loans to those that are pursuing an education that will allow them to get a job well paying enough to pay back the loan. This would naturally lead to much fewer student loans, but it would also force the costs of tuition to come down, making it less financially prohibitive. If we want the cost of tuition to fall and for people to engage in more meaningful education that has higher value to the economy, it seems to be that the government should be less involved, not more.

Banks would never take on this type of risk. A bank's job is to make money, not do what is right for society or its customers. That would be a terrible way to conduct business as the only ones who would qualify for the loans would be the annoying rich white kids who go to school to party. A gross overstatement of the quality of individual, but it would only allow for those with the collateral to get the money to attend. And while you may not agree that a degree in philosophy or religious studies amounts to a helluva lot, those with those degrees would likely disagree. Education opens most minds, and that is the benefit of any degree - philosophy, religious studies, psychology, economics, engineering, or political science - it allows people to think about bigger issues in new and different ways, which benefits all people. Because this is an issue that has great potential to alter society and change the very fabric of the nation, the government is the only institution capable of taking on such a huge task. No private institution could do so without ####ing it up, as we have seen with the economy and healthcare in the United States.