The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but if college is your thing for legitimate reasons, the cost of college shouldn't be a barrier.



This entire paragraphs is a mess of anecdotal evidence and pure speculation.

Well, yeah, it was just intended to be examples of people who shouldn't have to pay for other people's college tuition. There are plenty of examples of people who would provide more value to society by investing in other things than college and be better off themselves. College makes a big difference in middle class cubicle jobs and certain professions, but that can be a miserable existence for a lot of people. Also the job market for young people seems to be moving away from a lot of those types of jobs. Maybe kids don't want to grow up miserably reporting to their cubicle every day?

I started in Engineering, and I can't for the life of me figure out anything anyone could get out of that program that would make them more worldly or could get anything out of it other than spending 8 hours a day doing math and physics. I am not sure why that is seen as a right, but other trade type work should be paid for by everyone?

12 years of school is enough for a lot of people. Free college would probably just put more pressure on more people to go that probably shouldn't. Not to mention that it would lead to having to find more professors and teachers and probably further water down who is teaching in colleges.

[afc wimbledon]

Free college tuition is just a huge give away to the middle and upper classes, its up there with making mortgages tax deductible in terms of a pointless waste of taxes.

Making certain courses or apprenticeships that a country needs, more nurses or plumbers say, and thus benefits the economy, is very useful but paying for mediocre students to get average degrees in communications or sociology is just a waste of taxes

[Lanny_McDonald]

Hey, since we decided we're not going to pay for education that would better the country, I don't want to pay for other people's kids education at all. #### paying for K-12 as well. Why should I be saddled with the cost to make sure your accidents are able to read and write? You had the unprotected sex, you should pay for all costs associated with making your future juvenile delinquent being somewhat functional in our society. Home schooling for everyone!

/dumb generalizations

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Free college tuition is just a huge give away to the middle and upper classes, its up there with making mortgages tax deductible in terms of a pointless waste of taxes.

Making certain courses or apprenticeships that a country needs, more nurses or plumbers say, and thus benefits the economy, is very useful but paying for mediocre students to get average degrees in communications or sociology is just a waste of taxes

Most office jobs require a post-secondary degree of some kind, even for entry-level positions, and especially if you have ambitions of advancing further up the chain. Unless we're going to start policing the hiring practices of businesses, we need to make sure everyone has a fair shot at these jobs.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Hey, since we decided we're not going to pay for education that would better the country, I don't want to pay for other people's kids education at all. #### paying for K-12 as well. Why should I be saddled with the cost to make sure your accidents are able to read and write? You had the unprotected sex, you should pay for all costs associated with making your future juvenile delinquent being somewhat functional in our society. Home schooling for everyone!

/dumb generalizations

Should the public pay for everyone to take as many degrees and graduate degrees as they want?

You have to draw the line somewhere? Up until the kid is of legal age seems like a good enough place to draw that line.

Some improvements to financial aid should be made to increase accessibility, but college in most parts of the US is pretty accessible to any students who want to go and doesn't have to be nearly as expensive as many in this thread claim.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Most office jobs require a post-secondary degree of some kind, even for entry-level positions, and especially if you have ambitions of advancing further up the chain. Unless we're going to start policing the hiring practices of businesses, we need to make sure everyone has a fair shot at these jobs.

Why do you want everyone working in an office so badly? A lot of people find that a pretty lame existence.

[opendoor]

I don't know where people get the idea that lower or no tuition fees are going to lead to more people going to university; the number of spaces dictates that. Getting in just becomes more competitive.

The US already has one of the highest rates of university graduates per capita in the world, even higher than a country like Finland which doesn't charge tuition at all. The main difference is anyone with money can get into a university in the US while in Finland you have to earn admission through good grades and successful entrance exams.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Obvious take, but this is bad news for Biden.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1222554797720723457

Is it? I dunno... that's basically what he's been polling at in Texas the entire time. I'd more say that it's less bad news for Biden and more good news for Sanders.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Why do you want everyone working in an office so badly? A lot of people find that a pretty lame existence.

Please feel free to point out where I said that anywhere in my post.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't know where people get the idea that lower or no tuition fees are going to lead to more people going to university; the number of spaces dictates that. Getting in just becomes more competitive.

The US already has one of the highest rates of university graduates per capita in the world, even higher than a country like Finland which doesn't charge tuition at all. The main difference is anyone with money can get into a university in the US while in Finland you have to earn admission through good grades and successful entrance exams.

It's the similar Denmark. Basically you get to a certain point in public school where they assess your grades, strengths, interests, etc., and they try to stream in you the right direction from there (e.g. trade school vs. university).

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Should the public pay for everyone to take as many degrees and graduate degrees as they want?

You have to draw the line somewhere? Up until the kid is of legal age seems like a good enough place to draw that line.

Some improvements to financial aid should be made to increase accessibility, but college in most parts of the US is pretty accessible to any students who want to go and doesn't have to be nearly as expensive as many in this thread claim.

Yes, but where does the line get drawn? In recent times the line has been high school education (grade 12 in most places). It wasn't that long ago that a good chunk of society didn't graduate high school. In the meantime, the western world has evolved from being more manufacturing based to information based. Also, more and more jobs that required a human to perform them are transitioning to be automated.

I think free 2 year trade school or junior college certificate (2 year program) may be a reasonable bridge for the next couple decades but eventually we'll likely need our population to be more and more educated to keep up with our changing economy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Free college tuition is just a huge give away to the middle and upper classes, its up there with making mortgages tax deductible in terms of a pointless waste of taxes.

Making certain courses or apprenticeships that a country needs, more nurses or plumbers say, and thus benefits the economy, is very useful but paying for mediocre students to get average degrees in communications or sociology is just a waste of taxes

Yep. Free college won't do anything to help the 50 per cent of young adults who have no interest in (or need for) college.

Free college is a popular idea with the college-educated upper-middle-class - a hugely influential demographic in the Democratic Party. Remember, they're the ones who kiboshed Obama's plans to tax college savings.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yep. Free college won't do anything to help the 50 per cent of young adults who have no interest in (or need for) college.

Most places that have cheap or free university also have cheap or free technical/trades education.

Free college is a popular idea with the college-educated upper-middle-class - a hugely influential demographic in the Democratic Party. Remember, they're the ones who kiboshed Obama's plans to tax college savings.

I'm having trouble following the logic of equating people who hated the idea of removing a tax credit that almost wholly benefited $200K+ earners with those who want to offer free tuition paid for by higher taxes for high earners.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Should the public pay for everyone to take as many degrees and graduate degrees as they want?

Sure, since that number would be incredibly low. I think its absolutely stupid to suggest that this would be a problem when it rarely happens right now. People are still motivated to get educated so they can then get a job to provide for their family. That doesn't change because you allow people an opportunity to get educated for free.

Also, college is not just for getting degrees. College also provides opportunity for many career and technical education (CTE) opportunities, allowing people to re-tool and get back into the workforce when they lose a job. College also has a number of vocational programs and certification programs to make individuals more sale able in their industry.

You have to draw the line somewhere? Up until the kid is of legal age seems like a good enough place to draw that line.

Age shouldn't have anything to do with education. If someone wants to better themselves they should have opportunity. Many young people make the decision to not follow through to higher education after high school, and then find they need further training to get a head in their career, or carve out a career in general. Many of them can afford it after the fact. That is not

Some improvements to financial aid should be made to increase accessibility, but college in most parts of the US is pretty accessible to any students who want to go and doesn't have to be nearly as expensive as many in this thread claim.

Access to college is fairly easy. As is the work. An associates degree really isn't that much of a leg up unless you are looking for just entry level jobs.
Access to university is a completely different story. If you want a degree from a four year degree granting institution it is still a significant challenge to get in and maintain your funding, especially for part-time students. And no, education is not cheap, and because of for profit universities and what they have done to the system, it is unlikely to become less expensive.

The main issue is access and the ability to pay for it. Private universities will always have their place and ability to soak the student for as much as the traffic will bear. There needs to be a public option so people from lesser means can get educated and compete for the best paying jobs out there. Without that leveling of the field with access to education, we just continue to promote the same societal norms that the rich have advantage that the middle and lower classes will never overcome. Education is the great leveler and needs to become accessible to everyone, which means "free" but paid for through the payment of taxes collected on their later success.

[peter12]

Why don't more states attempt something along the University of California system? It seems to me that federal solutions don't scale well in a society/economy the size of the United States, but there does seem to be a real competitive advantage for states with strong public post-secondary institutions. I am asking as I really have no idea about the possible solutions for better education in the United States although I do believe it is one of the most important things (along with reforming their housing market).

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why don't more states attempt something along the University of California system? It seems to me that federal solutions don't scale well in a society/economy the size of the United States, but there does seem to be a real competitive advantage for states with strong public post-secondary institutions. I am asking as I really have no idea about the possible solutions for better education in the United States although I do believe it is one of the most important things (along with reforming their housing market).

All the states have systems similar to California. What about the California system do you think is so different and revolutionary?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sure, since that number would be incredibly low. I think its absolutely stupid to suggest that this would be a problem when it rarely happens right now. People are still motivated to get educated so they can then get a job to provide for their family. That doesn't change because you allow people an opportunity to get educated for free.

Also, college is not just for getting degrees. College also provides opportunity for many career and technical education (CTE) opportunities, allowing people to re-tool and get back into the workforce when they lose a job. College also has a number of vocational programs and certification programs to make individuals more sale able in their industry.



Age shouldn't have anything to do with education. If someone wants to better themselves they should have opportunity. Many young people make the decision to not follow through to higher education after high school, and then find they need further training to get a head in their career, or carve out a career in general. Many of them can afford it after the fact. That is not



Access to college is fairly easy. As is the work. An associates degree really isn't that much of a leg up unless you are looking for just entry level jobs.
Access to university is a completely different story. If you want a degree from a four year degree granting institution it is still a significant challenge to get in and maintain your funding, especially for part-time students. And no, education is not cheap, and because of for profit universities and what they have done to the system, it is unlikely to become less expensive.

The main issue is access and the ability to pay for it. Private universities will always have their place and ability to soak the student for as much as the traffic will bear. There needs to be a public option so people from lesser means can get educated and compete for the best paying jobs out there. Without that leveling of the field with access to education, we just continue to promote the same societal norms that the rich have advantage that the middle and lower classes will never overcome. Education is the great leveler and needs to become accessible to everyone, which means "free" but paid for through the payment of taxes collected on their later success.

Public option? 75% of college students are in public, state run colleges/Universities that are already heavily subsidized.

Most of those 2 year degrees are fully transferable to the first 2 years of public universities and provide a very good gateway to a more affordable and accessible 4 year degree.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

All the states have systems similar to California. What about the California system do you think is so different and revolutionary?

As I said, I'm clueless. It was my understanding that it was the most extensive.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Public option? 75% of college students are in public, state run colleges/Universities that are already heavily subsidized.

Most of those 2 year degrees are fully transferable to the first 2 years of public universities and provide a very good gateway to a more affordable and accessible 4 year degree.

Exactly, this is kind of what led me to my question. I thought the US already had a fairly robust public university system. I just didn't know how extensive.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Most office jobs require a post-secondary degree of some kind, even for entry-level positions, and especially if you have ambitions of advancing further up the chain. Unless we're going to start policing the hiring practices of businesses, we need to make sure everyone has a fair shot at these jobs.

If you are smart and poor you pick a course for a job the country needs and get fully free tuition, hell if we aren't paying for 60,000 English lit grads each year we don't need we can probably throw in rent and food money as well, if you are a middle class dullard pay for it yourself and go become a microserf.

Tuition isn't holding back the poor, under funded low achieving high schools and no way of housing and feeding your self is what keeps the poor out of uni'