The Debate on Free College for America

[All are Equal]

I was reminded yesterday that Japanese high school students graduate with the equivalent of an American Associates Degree.

[Page]

We should have free college, but we should also have a living wage so not everyone feels like they have to go to college or else they will inevitably live paycheck to paycheck. Not everyone is interested in a college education, but many people feel that they have no choice because they think they will have no upward mobility without a degree.

[UniversalCommons]

Many of the jobs are not in colleges, they are in the trades and functional jobs. The money for free education is not being distributed correctly representing the jobs that are becoming available. This means that some of the money should be used for trades, certification in technology, and practical jobs like police, fire, and paramedics. There needs to be a closer look at the type of free training for professions that are being offered.

Trade programs need to be expanded in addition to college programs. Many of the college programs are poorly designed for filling the jobs of the future. There are too many colleges that are there for a profit, not an education. We should rein in some of the for profit universities and programs.

There are other problems going on as well. There is often artificial scarcity in job markets being created by encouraging a large pool of unemployed individuals. Employment needs to increase even if it is nonsense employment. When there is competition for jobs, training people becomes more of a reality.

Free college and training should be offered where there is demand and jobs.

[Ifreann]

The collected knowledge and wisdom of our species should, as much as possible, be available to anyone who wants it, and therefore we should socialise the costs of seeing to that. Whether people use what they learn to advance their careers shouldn't be a consideration.

[Velkaralia]

Two issues with single-payer "free" college.
1. Not all degrees are created equal. Someone with a liberal arts degree won't be as helpful to the us economy as a stem major. Why should taxpayers pay for not very useful degrees.
2. Does this proposal nationalize private colleges? If it does the cost would only be even more enormous. If it doesn't that would put almost every private university out of business. No one's paying 15 grand to go to a private college when you can go to a state school for free.

[-Ocelot-]

No, colleges in the US should drown people into 6 figure debt, cripple their futures and create a dangerous bubble so they can be more profitable.

[Geneviev]

Two issues with single-payer "free" college.
1. Not all degrees are created equal. Someone with a liberal arts degree won't be as helpful to the us economy as a stem major. Why should taxpayers pay for not very useful degrees.
2. Does this proposal nationalize private colleges? If it does the cost would only be even more enormous. If it doesn't that would put almost every private university out of business. No one's paying 15 grand to go to a private college when you can go to a state school for free.

I'm assuming private universities stay private. They wouldn't be put out of business because a lot of private universities are much better than public.

[Velkaralia]

Two issues with single-payer "free" college.
1. Not all degrees are created equal. Someone with a liberal arts degree won't be as helpful to the us economy as a stem major. Why should taxpayers pay for not very useful degrees.
2. Does this proposal nationalize private colleges? If it does the cost would only be even more enormous. If it doesn't that would put almost every private university out of business. No one's paying 15 grand to go to a private college when you can go to a state school for free.

I'm assuming private universities stay private. They wouldn't be put out of business because a lot of private universities are much better than public.

About 74% of college-goers go to public universities already. Many people ignore the better education for what is cheaper. That number would only go up. Not all certainly, but it would put several private schools out of business and hurt all.

[Conexus]

You cannot put a price on knowledge! We must have this for achieving a brighter future, expenses be damned!

Our institutions must be the highest of quality with the best teachers, small classes, and all the educational materials and equipment for students to work with!

[Petrolheadia]

You cannot put a price on knowledge! We must have this for achieving a brighter future, expenses be damned!

Our institutions must be the highest of quality with the best teachers, small classes, and all the educational materials and equipment for students to work with!

Maybe you can't put a price on knowledge, but you can put a price on all the things you can buy with the money...

[Jebslund]

Two issues with single-payer "free" college.
1. Not all degrees are created equal. Someone with a liberal arts degree won't be as helpful to the us economy as a stem major. Why should taxpayers pay for not very useful degrees.

I don't know. Why should taxpayers pay the salaries of people who are too busy squabbling like schoolchildren and kissing corporate ass to do their fucking jobs?

Granted, that's not to say you don't have a point *at all* here. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, it would make sense not to cover degrees for which there is no demand, but the problems that presents are 1) the fact that degrees that we thought would practically guarantee finding a job have become worthless before many of the people who started on them even got out of school, and 2) the fact that there are degrees that, to the layman, have no worth at all (art degrees are a common example) that are actually very useful, but are seen as worthless by people who think of them only as a hobby or only take the term they are named for at face value, and so the question becomes, "Who makes the call whether or not a given degree is actually worthless, and how do they make that determination?".

2. Does this proposal nationalize private colleges? If it does the cost would only be even more enormous. If it doesn't that would put almost every private university out of business. No one's paying 15 grand to go to a private college when you can go to a state school for free.

Wow... You're totally right! We all know there are no private schools in the K-12 range due to the prevalence of public schools! I mean, like you said, no parent would pay $14,205 per year to send their kid to a private high school when they can send their kid to a state school for free!

Any argument to continue predatory practices because, "But that would put people out of business!!!", usually falls flat on its ass due to two factors:
1: It assumes that all business practices are equal (and usually throws out the concept of ethics in the process), and/or
2: It's patently untrue, or, at best, the result of a GROSS oversimplification, whether through ignorance or through maliciously manipulative intent.

[Velkaralia]

You cannot put a price on knowledge! We must have this for achieving a brighter future, expenses be damned!

Our institutions must be the highest of quality with the best teachers, small classes, and all the educational materials and equipment for students to work with!

It's not putting a price on knowledge. Except for confidential information, all knowledge is free to be obtained. Education, what is being discussed, is a service. You can learn anything you want, you cannot force someone to teach you. Therefore, the debate on whether their should be free college tuition is distinct from access to information.
Also, if college tuition was "free" it's still being payed for by taxpayers, so if education is a right then one pays for it either way. However, it is unfair to force those who did not attend or do not wish to attend college to pay for another person.

[Ifreann]

You cannot put a price on knowledge! We must have this for achieving a brighter future, expenses be damned!

Our institutions must be the highest of quality with the best teachers, small classes, and all the educational materials and equipment for students to work with!

It's not putting a price on knowledge. Except for confidential information, all knowledge is free to be obtained. Education, what is being discussed, is a service. You can learn anything you want, you cannot force someone to teach you. Therefore, the debate on whether their should be free college tuition is distinct from access to information.
Also, if college tuition was "free" it's still being payed for by taxpayers, so if education is a right then one pays for it either way. However, it is unfair to force those who did not attend or do not wish to attend college to pay for another person.

Only as unfair as forcing someone who has never been a victim of crime to pay for the police.

[Jebslund]

You cannot put a price on knowledge! We must have this for achieving a brighter future, expenses be damned!

Our institutions must be the highest of quality with the best teachers, small classes, and all the educational materials and equipment for students to work with!

It's not putting a price on knowledge. Except for confidential information, all knowledge is free to be obtained. Education, what is being discussed, is a service. You can learn anything you want, you cannot force someone to teach you. Therefore, the debate on whether their should be free college tuition is distinct from access to information.
Also, if college tuition was "free" it's still being payed for by taxpayers, so if education is a right then one pays for it either way. However, it is unfair to force those who did not attend or do not wish to attend college to pay for another person.

Is it also unfair to force someone who has never had a housefire to pay for the fire department? For someone who has never been a victim of a crime to pay for the police department? I didn't vote in the last election (for stupid, petty reasons, I admit). Does that mean I should get out of paying the idiots in Congress and the White House? (Very important, that last one, because, even if you don't go to college yourself, you still reap the benefits of an educated populace). If I had been homeschooled, should I have been given a discount on my taxes when I was old enough to start paying them so I wouldn't be paying for the schools I never attended?

[Petrolheadia]

It's not putting a price on knowledge. Except for confidential information, all knowledge is free to be obtained. Education, what is being discussed, is a service. You can learn anything you want, you cannot force someone to teach you. Therefore, the debate on whether their should be free college tuition is distinct from access to information.
Also, if college tuition was "free" it's still being payed for by taxpayers, so if education is a right then one pays for it either way. However, it is unfair to force those who did not attend or do not wish to attend college to pay for another person.

Only as unfair as forcing someone who has never been a victim of crime to pay for the police.

I wish criminals cared as much about consent as colleges do.

[Conexus]

Also, if college tuition was "free" it's still being payed for by taxpayers, so if education is a right then one pays for it either way. However, it is unfair to force those who did not attend or do not wish to attend college to pay for another person.

Stuff is never free nor fair, that is why the only things in life are death and taxes.

[Oil exporting People]

No, colleges in the US should drown people into 6 figure debt, cripple their futures and create a dangerous bubble so they can be more profitable.

Except free college led to worse academic outcomes and overwhelmingly benefited the upper class while student debt is largely held by that same upper class. Free college is basically first world problems by spoiled upper middle class kids.

[Geneviev]

I'm assuming private universities stay private. They wouldn't be put out of business because a lot of private universities are much better than public.

About 74% of college-goers go to public universities already. Many people ignore the better education for what is cheaper. That number would only go up. Not all certainly, but it would put several private schools out of business and hurt all.

I can't imagine a world where people would choose UC Davis over Stanford, not that I have anything against UC Davis. There's still people who go to private schools before university even though it's expensive because they're better, too.

[Forsher]

I have not read the thread and may or may not follow up on the previous discussion... I was motivated to post by this and this (paywalled, indeed I haven't read it myself), which turns out to contrast somewhat with the OP's intro but... as I said... I haven't read the thread.

In New Zealand we have something of a similar concern. In fact, I would go as far to say that it's become a concern because it has developed into an American pre-occupation. You see this year we had the first part of a "fees free" policy many commentators have described as an election bribe on the Labour government's part. This policy is broader than just university fees and obviously doesn't include the whole thing but it's raised several of the same arguments. The reason I mention it is because previously all that existed was Studylink, which you can basically think of as a government department whose only job is to give students interest free loans paid directly to tertiary education providers. That's not wholly true but it's true enough.

Something like Studylink is what I understand the OP's "median" path to mean or, at least, look like. So, with this in mind, the points raised in and/or by the OP:

“Free college across America would be nationally beneficial” he said,”everyone would have equal opportunity( )

I remember once in Craccum an argument was advanced that the introduction of student loans greatly increased the accessibility of a university education since it made the universities take in more students. This idea of access is the usual conceptualisation of the fees free policy I just described and I have to agree with the OP in that it's complete bunk... if that's what the OP actually means by this (I may be projecting my concerns and contexts on to this statement).

I'm not sure if anyone's ever seen the Australian television series Rake. It's an interesting exercise in this discussion because the society that it wants people to believe in suggests the upper echelons of local government in New South Wales basically consists of a bunch of people who all know each other from either university, their brothel of choice or their law practices. It's that first point which is important. Universities themselves stress the relevance of "networking" to the university experience and its role in later life success. And it may well be these ideas that the quote above is getting at with "equal opportunity". Yet, this still boils down to the question of access in my view.

Labour's fees free policy might not be about access, it must be said.A quick sanity check look finds they only ever attach the word "affordable" to it. But this is deceptive since we'd only care about affordability if it makes university more accessible and hence allows the same opportunities to more people. Yet, why don't people go to university? Why, when they get there do they find things falling apart? The answer isn't fees but rather living costs. If student loans had interest... and in NZ they do not remember... then getting rid of the fees would help because it would remove an ongoing expenditure. But the lump sums for fees aren't the issue: it's the interest and the costs of living. Geographical proximity... as seen in primary and secondary schools is the best way of dealing with the costs of living (it's not clear to me just what the density of universities in the US but imagine what the same for high schools would be, right?).

To summarise:

• University education really does open doors to people.
• Fees themselves aren't the actual barrier to university. (At least when they're not exorbitant.)

“Do you realise how much free college on a national scale would cost?” I asked. After all, ”nothing is truly free.”

There are essentially two arguments to note here.

The first argues that investment in education in general and particularly tertiary education is investment in human capital. That is, yes, there are costs but you don't judge an investment by how much it cost you: you judge it by its returns (usually relative to its cost and other alternatives). Essentially, therefore, the full logic of the argument argues that education actually materially changes its inputs, i.e. students, and adds value... same as processing logs into timber.

The second argues that education is basically a way for already good types who are valuable to signal their good type status. To this point of view it doesn't actually matter if education does anything at all... it could all be a scam, the timber that comes out is, in fact, still logs (probably with branches on). Rather, education has value for the future employee (and employer) because while bad types might enter the factory they all bail before getting the certificate that says their timber. An education in a field marks the student as possessing employable qualities rather educated qualities. This is naturally enough called signalling.

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure how to value the impact of signalling. I suppose if it improves the efficiencies of labour markets sufficiently, the cost would be worth it. Which bring us to (since the other part of this point is really not worth discussing at all) this next point rather naturally:

Our nations’ college dropout rate is bad enough when college isn’t “free”. Making it free if anything will just worsten our drop out rates. “It’s all good, it’s free. I can always come back if I want to.” (Never comes back.)

By the signalling argument, and that's not mutually exclusive with the other argument, this is, in fact, a good thing.

By the human capital argument, more education is better than no education.

So... in other words... why should we care?

Consider the COST of paying for such a mass influx of students in every single institution nationally. From books to dormitories to classes. It would bankrupt this nation.

More consumer demand is usually seen as a good thing (if, perhaps, inflationary... although, in this case, a larger market should allow for lower per unit costs since more can be sold).

It would also lessen the value of a college degree.

Not if everyone is dropping out and not if people are actually improved by education. Degrees have absolute and relative values... and anyone who can't leverage a degree except by saying, "It's better than a GED" is probably just a bad type who managed to stick it out.

The other response here is... what if society has "evolved" and it's now inherently valuable to have a tertiary education in the same way a secondary education was made necessary sometime between 1800 and 2000 (and probably more like 1870 and 1945)? Well, then what? And how would one tell if this is now the case?

[Nettunia]

I'm fully in favour of free education, at least up to Bachelor's level. Further than that I'm open to discussion(but well, still in favour of it being free ofc).

But regardless, the current cost of university in the US is just ridiculous.

[Saiwania]

But regardless, the current cost of university in the US is just ridiculous.

And this "free college" rubbish, isn't going to help on this front in my view. It'll only put more of a tax burden on everyone whilst universities keep spending like crazy. The money is never ever enough for those places.

[Gesster]

I am studying in college now. But I have one problem. I can not write an essay, it is very difficult for me. I just can’t solve some problems. What to do?