The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

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

Heavily subsidized? No, not really. The idea that colleges and universities are getting a ton of money is a wives tale. The most successful schools have a great ability to fund raise, which gives them a competitive advantage. The amount of money given to the schools from the states is a drop in the bucket to what is raised through alumni and private interests. ASU has not turned things around because the State of Arizona gave them money. Just the opposite actually. The State of Arizona, just like states all over the country, have reduced spending on higher ed and forced the schools to find money elsewhere.

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.

That is correct. Those two year degrees are transferable, if you meet admission requirements. Just because you have an associates does not mean you are going to be automatically accepted into another school and the program of your choice. State schools do have the ability to spin up extra sessions, if they can find qualified instructors. There is the rub. In demand programs are usually limited by the availability of instructors, so the programs can only accept so many students. If you are not in the top X% of applicants, you're not getting in. That's just the way things work, and transfers always have a challenge because they don't already have the foot in the door so to speak.

Originally Posted by peter12

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

California's system is quite extensive because it is a very large state. Texas is another that has a very impressive system. All states have similar systems and operate in similar fashions. It's not like they can go way off the road map in how they do things, as the accrediting bodies have a lot of say in how things work. Same with the feds and how the schools interface with them. There are a lot of differences between systems, but because students are becoming more transient in nature you're starting to see a lot more systems find ways to normalize processes and get on board with doing things the same way. California does do things well, but they also have some serious challenges. Same with Texas. Fortunately, everyone is now learning from each other and sharing best practices to make things work better for the student.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Heavily subsidized? No, not really. The idea that colleges and universities are getting a ton of money is a wives tale. The most successful schools have a great ability to fund raise, which gives them a competitive advantage. The amount of money given to the schools from the states is a drop in the bucket to what is raised through alumni and private interests. ASU has not turned things around because the State of Arizona gave them money. Just the opposite actually. The State of Arizona, just like states all over the country, have reduced spending on higher ed and forced the schools to find money elsewhere.



That is correct. Those two year degrees are transferable, if you meet admission requirements. Just because you have an associates does not mean you are going to be automatically accepted into another school and the program of your choice. State schools do have the ability to spin up extra sessions, if they can find qualified instructors. There is the rub. In demand programs are usually limited by the availability of instructors, so the programs can only accept so many students. If you are not in the top X% of applicants, you're not getting in. That's just the way things work, and transfers always have a challenge because they don't already have the foot in the door so to speak.



California's system is quite extensive because it is a very large state. Texas is another that has a very impressive system. All states have similar systems and operate in similar fashions. It's not like they can go way off the road map in how they do things, as the accrediting bodies have a lot of say in how things work. Same with the feds and how the schools interface with them. There are a lot of differences between systems, but because students are becoming more transient in nature you're starting to see a lot more systems find ways to normalize processes and get on board with doing things the same way. California does do things well, but they also have some serious challenges. Same with Texas. Fortunately, everyone is now learning from each other and sharing best practices to make things work better for the student.

Our community colleges have published admission requirements by university that if you meet them you are guaranteed to be accepted to that program. Students are aware of what they are and it generally a better route to go to get into a lot of in demand schools than to try to qualify with high school gpa and SAT scores.

Any kind of expansion of public funding of schools needs to make use of community colleges both as a gateway into 4 year schools and for 1 or 2 year vocational specific programs.

I don't know if there is a bigger waste of public and parent money and student's time than first year students sitting in a lecture hall with 100 other kids listening to a tenured professor who doesn't want to be teaching the class, and is likely not even an effective communicator. I've been told by guidance counselor's that students that start in community college have a higher rate of graduation at 4 year schools than kids who start there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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'

So only rich kids should get to choose vocations they're passionate about?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So only rich kids should get to choose vocations they're passionate about?

You didn't address any of afc's points. Free tuition isn't likely to move the needle a whole lot in terms of poor kids going to the college of their choice.

The problem with all Bernie's ideas is they are all these simple, absolute policies without much thought for how to implement them and they disregard all the potential pitfalls and may end up hurting the people they are trying to help.

How would free college even look? Most universities are pretty tough to get into anyway these days. Even if you fix the bad public schools in poor areas (which is a huge task on its own), the wealthy are probably still going to be in somewhat better public schools. If admission standards go up, then the wealthy are going to be spending even more money on things like Kumon and Mathnasium to get their kids grades up and further drive up admission standards. Do we really even wanted to be doing this to our kids?

Truly poor kids who do very well in school already generally have access to free university, they may end up losing out if they can't keep up with tougher admissions.

There are countless ways this could backfire. It is extremely unlikely that Bernie can get any of these things passed through both houses. So what does he do then? Does he stick to all or nothing and most likely do nothing? Or does he compromise, get called a sellout and go with policies that end up looking a lot like things that Biden is proposing?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You didn't address any of afc's points. Free tuition isn't likely to move the needle a whole lot in terms of poor kids going to the college of their choice.

This is the whole "well if the policy doesn't remove every barrier, then no point in implementing it even it removes some of the barriers" mentality, and I don't buy it.

Also, with regards to food and housing, this is straight from Bernie's platform:

Provide Pell Grants to low-income students to cover the non-tuition and fee costs of school, including: housing, books, supplies, transportation, and other costs of living.

Require participating states and tribes to cover the full cost of obtaining a degree for low-income students (normally those with a family income of less than $25,000) by covering any gap that may still exist after we eliminate tuition, fees, and grants.

You might also see regulations requiring universities to reserve a certain percentage of spots for low-income applicants (similar to affirmative action).

[jayswin]

Please keep this debate going, guys. So tired of most threads being turned to **** by dishonest debate. I've always been completely uninformed on American post secondary and this discussion has been honest and informative.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is the whole "well if the policy doesn't remove every barrier, then no point in implementing it even it removes some of the barriers" mentality, and I don't buy it.

Also, with regards to food and housing, this is straight from Bernie's platform:



You might also see regulations requiring universities to reserve a certain percentage of spots for low-income applicants (similar to affirmative action).

Isn't that basically what a bursary is?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Isn't that basically what a bursary is?

I've never received a bursary, so I can't say I know, but I thought it was strictly a financial thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Any kind of expansion of public funding of schools needs to make use of community colleges both as a gateway into 4 year schools and for 1 or 2 year vocational specific programs.

Or we could do the opposite. Like turning Mount Royal from a perfectly good college for career-focused 2-year programs into just another general 4 year degree-granting university.

Better for students? Nope - now they spend 4 years to get accreditation that used to take 2.

Better for parents or whoever else is paying? Nope - now it costs twice as much.

Better for employers? Nope - now instead of getting graduates who specialized in your field, you're getting generalists who may or may not have expertise and interest in the career in question.

Better for educators and administrators? You bet. More jobs and more money. So I guess we know whose interests these institutions serve.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't know if there is a bigger waste of public and parent money and student's time than first year students sitting in a lecture hall with 100 other kids listening to a tenured professor who doesn't want to be teaching the class, and is likely not even an effective communicator.

It really is incredible that we'll line up to pay for such a degraded experience. I don't know if we even expect the educational experience itself to be of any value - ultimately, everyone is just paying for a ticket that opens some doors 4+ years later.

If there's any sector ripe for tech disruption, it's post-secondary education.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It really is incredible that we'll line up to pay for such a degraded experience. I don't know if we even expect the educational experience itself to be of any value - ultimately, everyone is just paying for a ticket that opens some doors 4+ years later.

If there's any sector ripe for tech disruption, it's post-secondary education.

I've been thinking about that lately. Pretty insane that we still view brick and mortar universities as essential, especially for entry level courses.

Like a lecture that is delivered to 400 students can't just be delivered to 10,000 online students at a fraction of the cost.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It really is incredible that we'll line up to pay for such a degraded experience. I don't know if we even expect the educational experience itself to be of any value - ultimately, everyone is just paying for a ticket that opens some doors 4+ years later.

If there's any sector ripe for tech disruption, it's post-secondary education.

It's that but it's also a lazy private sector that wants to screen applicants the easy way instead of actually doing the legwork to find qualified candidates.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Our community colleges have published admission requirements by university that if you meet them you are guaranteed to be accepted to that program.

Yes, they are called admission requirements for a reason. You meet them, or you don't get in. Just because you complete an associates at a community college does not mean you get accepted into the university. You still must meet admission requirements, then meet the pre-requisites for any class in your declared major. So even if you graduated from a community college, with an associates degree, and they have articulation agreements in place, there is no guarantee you are getting into the school or the major of your choice, and even if you do, you may have to repeat those lower division courses to up the GPA to meet requisites of the major.

Students are aware of what they are and it generally a better route to go to get into a lot of in demand schools than to try to qualify with high school gpa and SAT scores.

Community college is traditionally for students who are not prepared for university. Whether that means needing to take a series of dev ed classes to improve basic skills in areas like math and english, or just get good enough grades to earn entry into a four year program, community college is an option for those who do not earn entry into the university of their choice.

I'm a big advocate of community college for a number of reasons, and saving money is one of them, but going to community college does not properly prepare a student for the learning style required to be successful in university. Community college still has small class sizes, a lot of instructor interaction and tutoring, and a style of teaching and learning more in alignment with that of high school. The exposure to classes over 30 is limited, so the concept of sitting in a lecture theater with 250 other students and being a self-starter is greatly limited. Once a student transfers, there is a significant adjustment period which the student still must go through.

Any kind of expansion of public funding of schools needs to make use of community colleges both as a gateway into 4 year schools and for 1 or 2 year vocational specific programs.

Agreed. Community college is a great place to save some money and gear up for the rigors of a four year program. What is important is picking a school that has clear articulation agreements in place and making sure pathways align so you are not repeating courses at the four year institution to meet the reqs and the minimum grade level. Students must still apply themselves and recognize it is the first step in a longer journey.

I don't know if there is a bigger waste of public and parent money and student's time than first year students sitting in a lecture hall with 100 other kids listening to a tenured professor who doesn't want to be teaching the class, and is likely not even an effective communicator. I've been told by guidance counselor's that students that start in community college have a higher rate of graduation at 4 year schools than kids who start there.

Your guidance counselors are spinning you a massive line of misinformation. Considering that a massive number of students who enroll in community college never get out of community college (70+%), or earn the grades for admission to a four year school, the numbers are not in favor of that statement. National Center for Education Statistics show that students who graduate from community college see only a 13% success rate of earning a baccalaureate degree in the next two years of attendance at a four year institution. The numbers rise to 22% and 28% respectively for years three and four at the four year institution. Only 60% of students who went to a community college will earn a degree in the next six years!

Community college is a stepping stone for students that need remedial classes and to prepare for university. It is not a pathway to success if the student is already prepared for university as it tends to cause the bright students to regress to the mean. If a student proves they are ready coming out of high school, through appropriate measures, they should go to university and get on with meeting the requisites of their degree from the institution they hope to earn their degree from.

Late add. Since nfotiu is using the UVA system as the ultimate example, here is UVA's estimates for cost. https://sfs.virginia.edu/cost/18-19

Additional fees. https://financialplanning.vpfinance....l%207.2.18.pdf

The numbers should give people pause and show that there is much more to the cost of education than just looking at "tuition."

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is the whole "well if the policy doesn't remove every barrier, then no point in implementing it even it removes some of the barriers" mentality, and I don't buy it.

Also, with regards to food and housing, this is straight from Bernie's platform:



You might also see regulations requiring universities to reserve a certain percentage of spots for low-income applicants (similar to affirmative action).

These things are all done already. There are lots of need based scholarships and grants that cover living expenses. Universities take a quota of top students from all low performing districts that wouldn’t otherwise make the cut. The poor have it ok if they can overcome their odds and do reasonably well in school. It’s the lower middle class whose parents can’t really afford school but aren’t poor enough to get the full grants that end up saddled with debt.

It’s a complex problem. The biggest difference I see between the US and Canada is that there is a lot of pressure to go away to school. A lot of the big public schools are in small college towns and require room and board on top of tuition. The In state tuition isn’t drastically more expensive at Virginia tech or uva than U of C or U of A. Most kids in Calgary and Edmonton live at home the first year or two or all the way through and that makes a big difference. I always question whether kids all really are getting a better location at the bigger annex schools. There are often close to home options for lesser named universities and 2 year schools that might make more sense at least for the first couple years that provide five education but with a stigma.

Another anecdotal story here. I’m a mid level IT manager at a large pseudo government org that is generally considered a desirable place to work. Through some executive level horse trading I ended up with a fresh out of college employee who made it through an intern rotational program and got hired on. He’s a young, white guy that I don’t think grew up with much money at all and went to a historically black university that I don’t think anyone in my upper middle class suburb would ever think of sending their kid to and they definitely wouldn’t post on Facebook if they did. So far, he is one of my most impressive employees with all sorts of valuable technical skills and ideas.

There are a lot of opportunities out there for people who want to learn and make the most of whatever school they go to. There is a lot of room for improvement too but I just don’t see free tuition as that magic bullet and think it would cause more problems than it solves. And there are a lot of problems that have much more to do with parents caring about the status of where their kids go than what they are actually getting out of their education.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, they are called admission requirements for a reason. You meet them, or you don't get in. Just because you complete an associates at a community college does not mean you get accepted into the university. You still must meet admission requirements, then meet the pre-requisites for any class in your declared major. So even if you graduated from a community college, with an associates degree, and they have articulation agreements in place, there is no guarantee you are getting into the school or the major of your choice, and even if you do, you may have to repeat those lower division courses to up the GPA to meet requisites of the major.

Do you have first hand knowledge of this or are you just going by what you've researched? I've helped people work through these decisions. My knowledge is strictly for Virginia, so I have no idea how universal it is. The state runs the community college system and runs the Universities. When you sign up to take a transfer eligible 2 year degree, you know exactly where you stand for the various schools. They will tell you which degrees at which universities that particular associates degree will be honored at and what grades you need to achieve to be guaranteed admission. You meet those requirements, you get enrolled and have basically taken all the 100 and 200 level courses that the people who started at the university took. There is a wide matrix of which degrees will transfer where, and which degrees will give you options if you don't know what you want to major in in two years.

Community college is traditionally for students who are not prepared for university. Whether that means needing to take a series of dev ed classes to improve basic skills in areas like math and english, or just get good enough grades to earn entry into a four year program, community college is an option for those who do not earn entry into the university of their choice.

There is going to be a whole wide range of students and reasons they are there. The two year transfer programs are generally pretty academically minded students though. There is a wide range of smart kids whose parents are saving money, kids who couldn't get into the college of their choice. To get into UVA, you need about a 4.3 GPA and 1400+ on your SAT. Are you going to call a kid with a 4.0 GPA and 1300 on his SAT a guy who needs dev ed classes work on his basic math and English skills if he chooses a CC path to try to get into UVA?

I'm a big advocate of community college for a number of reasons, and saving money is one of them, but going to community college does not properly prepare a student for the learning style required to be successful in university. Community college still has small class sizes, a lot of instructor interaction and tutoring, and a style of teaching and learning more in alignment with that of high school. The exposure to classes over 30 is limited, so the concept of sitting in a lecture theater with 250 other students and being a self-starter is greatly limited. Once a student transfers, there is a significant adjustment period which the student still must go through.

Community might be a more gentle transition from high school for a lot of people though. They are not going to baby sit you but you do have access to someone who is likely more accessibly and more interested in teaching. The giant lecture classes are mostly first and second year classes anyway. I did well enough in those classes, but I usually did it by reading on my own, and slept through a good chunk of the actual lectures. I got pretty much nothing out of any of my first year professors.

Your guidance counselors are spinning you a massive line of misinformation. Considering that a massive number of students who enroll in community college never get out of community college (70+%), or earn the grades for admission to a four year school, the numbers are not in favor of that statement. National Center for Education Statistics show that students who graduate from community college see only a 13% success rate of earning a baccalaureate degree in the next two years of attendance at a four year institution. The numbers rise to 22% and 28% respectively for years three and four at the four year institution. Only 60% of students who went to a community college will earn a degree in the next six years!

Her numbers were specific to VA Community college transfer programs and I have no reason to doubt them.

Community college is a stepping stone for students that need remedial classes and to prepare for university. It is not a pathway to success if the student is already prepared for university as it tends to cause the bright students to regress to the mean. If a student proves they are ready coming out of high school, through appropriate measures, they should go to university and get on with meeting the requisites of their degree from the institution they hope to earn their degree from.

That rings as more dated stigma than current reality, at least in this state.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So only rich kids should get to choose vocations they're passionate about?

Yes, only rich kids get to spend a year or two traveling the globe, only rich kids can afford to spend a year or so working for free at Dad's mates law firm at an internship that mostly only get offered to rich kids with the appropriate connections in the first place.

Free tuition does absolutely nothing to help poor kids in practical terms but it does save middle class and rich parents a schtup load of money, if you want to help poor kids help poor kids, don't waste money helping the 75% middle and upper classes that go to college in order to do a piss poor job of helping the 25% of low income kids who will still get screwed by life anyway.

Free tuition is a gift to the middle and upper class, in a country that doesn't even pay health care that's immoral

[rubecube]

I see centrist twitter is trying to smear Bernie as a George Wallace supporter by taking quotes out of context in a piece where Bernie compared Wallace to Hitler. Keep digging your own graves, guys.

What a stupid party.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Do you have first hand knowledge of this or are you just going by what you've researched?

Yes, I have first hand knowledge, having worked in both the Arizona and California public and private systems.

I've helped people work through these decisions. My knowledge is strictly for Virginia, so I have no idea how universal it is.

I can appreciate your efforts and I commend you for them. Students need all the help they can get wading through the complex systems of higher education and especially access and financing. I think you are just not clear on how the actual systems work and the absolute costs of going to school. You're claims of cost to go to "go to school" and using only "tuition" sets an incredibly misleading picture of what the bottom line cost is to a student. It is much easier to give a cost per credit hour for the school (specialized program) they are going to enroll in, and set that expectation. When you only give the basic tuition number, you set an unreasonable expectation, so when students get buried in all the associated fees and support costs, they are left holding the bag so to speak. This is a big problem in higher education and why the student debt crisis is so real for many people. They are sold one product, but not told the ultimate cost.

The state runs the community college system and runs the Universities. When you sign up to take a transfer eligible 2 year degree, you know exactly where you stand for the various schools. They will tell you which degrees at which universities that particular associates degree will be honored at and what grades you need to achieve to be guaranteed admission. You meet those requirements, you get enrolled and have basically taken all the 100 and 200 level courses that the people who started at the university took. There is a wide matrix of which degrees will transfer where, and which degrees will give you options if you don't know what you want to major in in two years.

In a vacuum you are correct. Unfortunately this is not 100% accurate. Each institution will have its own unique flavor and way of doing things that impact courses and content. Things that can influence the variance are accreditation, community needs, department design, course design, academic freedom for the instructor, program needs, and so on. Even with the use of solutions like guided pathways and clear articulation agreements, the outcomes of the designed courses may never perfectly align, making transfer a less than perfect exercise. The articulation agreement can say one thing, but when the transfer takes place and review to honor work done at other institutions is completed, a student may have a number of surprises to deal with. We have clear articulation agreements with institutions from all over the country and students routinely have to pick up a course or repeat a lower division class at the university because it does not meet expected outcomes and properly align with pre-reqs of a class in the four year pathway. It sucks, but when you have so moving parts that can influence course outcomes, perfect alignment is rarely possible.

There is going to be a whole wide range of students and reasons they are there. The two year transfer programs are generally pretty academically minded students though.

This is not accurate in any shape or form. Academically minded students are usually the ones who are prepared for university out of high school and normally go to university right out of high school. Students at this level are the ones that can actually be hurt by going to community college as the classes and style of education are below their performance level.

Many of these over-achievers will actually complete some of their lower division course work while in high school. This is a great cost savings and is the best use of a community college for these students. Community college course work can be completed through a dual enrollment process, where the student takes college level classes in high school, usually co-offered through a local college and school district, with a qualified college level adjunct instructor. Students of this level usually complete the first year's worth of lower division credits prior to leaving high school. This gives them the ability to accelerate their achievement of their degree and spend less money to do so.

There is a wide range of smart kids whose parents are saving money, kids who couldn't get into the college of their choice. To get into UVA, you need about a 4.3 GPA and 1400+ on your SAT. Are you going to call a kid with a 4.0 GPA and 1300 on his SAT a guy who needs dev ed classes work on his basic math and English skills if he chooses a CC path to try to get into UVA?

If a student does not have the grades and SAT/ACT scores to get into the school of their choice, then yes, dev ed classes are needed to close the gap. Developmental education seems to have some stigma for you. Dev ed is the process by which a student takes classes to strengthen areas of weakness. The bottom line is to get the student to the point where they can meet the entry requirements and have the appropriate skills to be successful in the next class in their pathway.

I think you are not seeing the disconnect in what you are saying. Students who do not have the grades to get into a four year program don't automatically develop the skills to be successful in that four year program by going to community college and taking classes at that level. Once a student leaves high school their GPA doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The only GPA that matters once you enter college and university is the GPA you can maintain in college and university. If a student earns a degree in a community college, but still does not have the grades and skill to be successful at the university, these pass-through articulation agreements you are talking about greatly hurt the student. This is why pass-through articulation is not realistic and a bait-and-switch tool to bring students in. I am always honest with students and tell them they need to approach community college with the mindset of the university. Otherwise the student sets themselves up for failure.

Community might be a more gentle transition from high school for a lot of people though. They are not going to baby sit you but you do have access to someone who is likely more accessibly and more interested in teaching.

Compared to university, community college has a big baby sitting component. The difference between teaching a university class and a community college class is night and day. The quality of student is much lower at the community college and that is very evident in the work they submit. Yes, there are some very good students in the community college system, but the vast majority are there because they are not prepared for university.

The giant lecture classes are mostly first and second year classes anyway. I did well enough in those classes, but I usually did it by reading on my own, and slept through a good chunk of the actual lectures. I got pretty much nothing out of any of my first year professors.

The style is very different and requires a self-starter who is also self-motivated to achieve success. If you didn't get something out of a class, that is mostly on you. A teacher can only lay out so many breadcrumbs for you to follow. They can't force feed you. One of the most important facets of university is getting students to work on their own and take ownership of their continued education. This is a stark contrast to high school and the community colleges, where instructors and counselors are much more active in the student's experience. Again, different products for different levels of students. Not all products are suitable for all learners.

Her numbers were specific to VA Community college transfer programs and I have no reason to doubt them.

The National Center for Education Statistics monitors such data from across the country, including Virginia. I would say her numbers are at minimum misleading, and in the larger context not aligned with reality. NCES and Educause numbers are consistent and reliable.

That rings as more dated stigma than current reality, at least in this state.

This is still the way things are for systems all across the country. I guess Virginia is just that unicorn in the sunny meadow of high education. I would say good on Virginia, but the data just doesn't support the narrative. I mean, if UVA has such a high standard for students to get in, why would they allow students to get around that just by enrolling in community college classes and earning an associate degree? This is where all of this falls apart. A student may be successful at the community college level, but they may still not achieve the grades or the skills to be successful in university. A guaranteed entry by going the community college route is setting up most students for failure, and the statistics support this. Going that route, the only way a student is successful in university is if the community college prepares them to achieve the expectations of the university. If this is the goal, then the only measure that matters is the ultimate outcome - achieving the degree from the four year institution.

Community college is a great place for learning to continue. University is not for everyone, and that is why college exists. You can continue your education and get some really good training to make you more useful in the workforce and achieve your career goals. This should continue to be a crucial part of the education system, but acting as a cost saving component for students may not be the best strategy for long term success.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Yes, only rich kids get to spend a year or two traveling the globe, only rich kids can afford to spend a year or so working for free at Dad's mates law firm at an internship that mostly only get offered to rich kids with the appropriate connections in the first place.

Free tuition does absolutely nothing to help poor kids in practical terms but it does save middle class and rich parents a schtup load of money, if you want to help poor kids help poor kids, don't waste money helping the 75% middle and upper classes that go to college in order to do a piss poor job of helping the 25% of low income kids who will still get screwed by life anyway.

Free tuition is a gift to the middle and upper class, in a country that doesn't even pay health care that's immoral

Rich kids don't traditionally go to "state" schools. Free education would only be available through public institutions. Private schools would still be able to charge an arm and a leg, and rich people would still send their kids there. I mean, which would you rather have? A law degree from Harvard or from Weber State?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

Rich kids don't traditionally go to "state" schools. Free education would only be available through public institutions. Private schools would still be able to charge an arm and a leg, and rich people would still send their kids there.

I wish that you would just stop making stuff up.

Plenty of "rich kids" go to State schools, historically, now, and with continue to do so. To say that they don't "traditionally go to state schools" is complete nonsense.

Many state schools offer educations that are comparable to, or even better than, private universities, depending on the major, and offer tremendous value.

And considering that virtually all "rich kids" come from "rich parents" (or, at least, "rich families"), who are the ones that are actually paying the college tuition, such people are, in my experience, rather attuned to getting great value for their money. Which is how they became "rich" in the first place.

Originally Posted by New Era

I mean, which would you rather have? A law degree from Harvard or from Weber State?

Is this a trick question?

Weber State doesn't even have a law school, does it?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I wish that you would just stop making stuff up.

Plenty of "rich kids" go to State schools, historically, now, and with continue to do so. To say that they don't "traditionally go to state schools" is complete nonsense.

Many state schools offer educations that are comparable to, or even better than, private universities, depending on the major, and offer tremendous value.

And considering that virtually all "rich kids" come from "rich parents" (or, at least, "rich families"), who are the ones that are actually paying the college tuition, such people are, in my experience, rather attuned to getting great value for their money. Which is how they became "rich" in the first place.

Making stuff up? I guess the better discussion point would be to define rich. Because going to school is already a "rich kid's" privilege that most poor kids cannot even dream of. Economic segregation is a real problem in higher education and one that this issue resolves. Some stats that will make this very evident.

Median household income of University of Alabama students: $57,928 (only 17% of students are considered "low income" as defined by Pell Grants.)
Median household income of ASU students: $69,074 (28% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of Weber State students: $87,500 (only 18% of students come are considered low income)

Media household income of Columbia students: $150,900 (only 5.1% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of University of Virginia students: $155,500 (only 1.5% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Harvard students: $168,800 (only 4.8% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Yale students: $192,600 (only 2.1% of students are considered low income)

Education remains inaccessible for the poor, and all the stats and demographics support this claim.

What makes these stats even more sobering is the fact that less than 2% (less than 1% at the Ivy league schools) of students will actually transition between the poor to the rich. Education will better an individual's situation, but being born into a rich family is the only sure way of guaranteeing you're going to remain rich, and going to an Ivy League school all but carves it in stone.

Taking that same approach here's the largest community college districts in the country.

Median household income of Miami Dade students: $49,446
Median household income of Houston students: $55,501
Median household income of Maricopa students: $55,144

You can guess where the "poor kids" go to school.

Is this a trick question?

Weber State doesn't even have a law school, does it?

Obviously it was, and no, Weber State does not have a law school.