Right Wing / Non-Trump supporters (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

So, no one wants to take a shot at this?  @matuski ?

Sure thing.. just my opinion:

But when we talk about extending support of education another 4 years to those that are interested, it's the most radical, absurd idea ever concocted.  Of all the topics we discuss in politics it is probably THE MOST arbitrary of all the lines we draw.  It makes zero sense at all to me.  

I am all for extending support - reigning in tuition costs, more access to grants and scholarships for those whom college and post grad make sense.

All of these things are a far cry from the "free college for everyone" platform.  This would be nuts.  College isn't for everyone in the first place.  Having waited tables and bartended through school to pay for it myself, I tend to think having skin in the game is important.  Life crushing debt levels of skin?  No.  More like a car loan, in line with the level of education/degree you pursue.  You can work and pay it off as you go, or take a reasonable loan, or some mix of the two.

The "free tuition for all" isn't my line and it line isn't arbitrary.. that is what is being presented as a platform.  

Tuition should certainly be brought back into reasonable realms of prices along with opportunities to receive assistance.  It should NOT be free... nor should it be for everyone.

eta - none of this even gets in to how you would pay for it, what a free college education even means (community college, everyone gets into Harvard, everyone gets the same college curriculum, engineering degree versus underwater basket weaving?).

 

[The Commish]

Sure thing.. just my opinion:

I am all for extending support - reigning in tuition costs, more access to grants and scholarships for those whom college and post grad make sense.

All of these things are a far cry from the "free college for everyone" platform.  This would be nuts.  College isn't for everyone in the first place.  Having waited tables and bartended through school to pay for it myself, I tend to think having skin in the game is important.  Life crushing debt levels of skin?  No.  More like a car loan, in line with the level of education/degree you pursue.  You can work and pay it off as you go, or take the more reasonable loan, or some mix of the two.

The "free tuition for all" isn't my line and it line isn't arbitrary.. that is what is being presented as a platform.

You know the most popular position is free tuition for anyone who wants it, right?  I agree that college isn't for everyone and I don't see why people would go that weren't cut out for it.  As I said before, high school isn't for everyone either, but I see virtually no one labeling that concept "nuts".  I think the skin in the game is being able to buy your books, your meal plan, your room/board...tuition is but a piece of the pie.  I agree 100% with reigning in tuition costs and I would submit that you're splitting hairs with the grants/scholarship angle.  Would it help if the position was "grants/scholarships to all who want to go to college"?  That seems like a minor marketing change of little significance.  I have not seen a single proposal yet that doesn't have a list of criteria for qualifying for the money.  Even the socialist Bern dog had qualification criteria in his last proposal.

Though, now I think I am beginning to see the disconnect.  Thanks for the reply  

 

[matuski]

You know the most popular position is free tuition for anyone who wants it, right?  I agree that college isn't for everyone and I don't see why people would go that weren't cut out for it.  As I said before, high school isn't for everyone either, but I see virtually no one labeling that concept "nuts".  I think the skin in the game is being able to buy your books, your meal plan, your room/board...tuition is but a piece of the pie.  I agree 100% with reigning in tuition costs and I would submit that you're splitting hairs with the grants/scholarship angle.  Would it help if the position was "grants/scholarships to all who want to go to college"?  That seems like a minor marketing change of little significance.  I have not seen a single proposal yet that doesn't have a list of criteria for qualifying for the money.  Even the socialist Bern dog had qualification criteria in his last proposal.

Though, now I think I am beginning to see the disconnect.  Thanks for the reply  

No, I did not know that was the most popular position.. but then that has never really been a consideration for me when forming my opinions (maybe why I appear contrarian so often). 

LOTS of people already enroll in college when they aren't cut out for it... what would be the downside of trying it out for free?  Speaking for myself.. I couldn't have told you whether I was cut out for it before I did it. 

Not all grants and scholarships are 100%.  The solution can be tackled from more than one side.. pull back tuition a bit on the institutions part, increase availability of assistance (whether it is a $2k scholarship or 100%), regulate the loans to low interest rates, etc.

There are ways to take bites out of it without saying "here government, you do it".

 

[matuski]

You know the most popular position is free tuition for anyone who wants it, right?  I

Going back to this - what does this even look like?

What is a free degree?  All degrees are free? UCLA is free?  San Antonio Community college is free?  Are you going to tax me after I have already paid for my education?  Does this give government control of curriculum?  Control of who gets to enroll in what major/minor?  What if I want a dual degree?  What if I change majors?  Standardized testing?  Do private schools then double their tuition because public college degrees are just another high school diploma?

What if college isn't for me, will you pay for my training for a career in plumbing or HVAC or mechanic?

 

[The Commish]

No, I did not know that was the most popular position.. but then that has never really been a consideration for me when forming my opinions (maybe why I appear contrarian so often). 

LOTS of people already enroll in college when they aren't cut out for it... what would be the downside of trying it out for free?  Speaking for myself.. I couldn't have told you whether I was cut out for it before I did it. 

Not all grants and scholarships are 100%.  The solution can be tackled from more than one side.. pull back tuition a bit on the institutions part, increase availability of assistance (whether it is a $2k scholarship or 100%), regulate the loans to low interest rates, etc.

There are ways to take bites out of it without saying "here government, you do it".

All these steps require government intervention.  The institutions aren't going to simply reduce rates on good faith.  Loan rates would also have to be mandated by the government.  And I think there's plenty of downside to going to college when you aren't cut out for it.  Again, we are talking about tuition in most proposals.  The student would still have skin in their books, housing, food, activity fees etc.  In the current environment, altered to account for the government paying tuition on your behalf once you actually got into the school of your choice, the downside of wasted money on books, housing, activity fees etc would still be real.  There would be no tuition burden though.

However, to combat the concern of "being cut out for it" wouldn't a simple compromise of having a probationary period of the first two years and requirements for performance be appropriate.  "Hey, we'll give you this dough for your schooling, but you have to meet/exceed this standard we've set for you.  If you don't, you won't be eligible for further assistance in your major's course work your junior/senior years.  You'll have to fund those on your own".  You know....like a scholarship/grant

 

[matuski]

All these steps require government intervention.  The institutions aren't going to simply reduce rates on good faith.  Loan rates would also have to be mandated by the government.  And I think there's plenty of downside to going to college when you aren't cut out for it.  Again, we are talking about tuition in most proposals.  The student would still have skin in their books, housing, food, activity fees etc.  In the current environment, altered to account for the government paying tuition on your behalf once you actually got into the school of your choice, the downside of wasted money on books, housing, activity fees etc would still be real.  There would be no tuition burden though.

However, to combat the concern of "being cut out for it" wouldn't a simple compromise of having a probationary period of the first two years and requirements for performance be appropriate.  "Hey, we'll give you this dough for your schooling, but you have to meet/exceed this standard we've set for you.  If you don't, you won't be eligible for further assistance in your major's course work your junior/senior years.  You'll have to fund those on your own".  You know....like a scholarship/grant

I don't remember how long a o I read this or where I read it.  Something along the lines of 40% who enroll today do not get degrees.  Out of the other ~60%, a solid chunk take 5 and 6 years.  No way free tuition helps here.. if anything it is a further colossal waste of money and time.  

I am also not sure if it is the "free" part or the "for anyone" part that bothers me more.  Combined it is a simply nutty proposal imo.

 

[Dedfin]

What if college isn't for me, will you pay for my training for a career in plumbing or HVAC or mechanic?

0% of the free college supporters would be against free vocational training.

 

[matuski]

@The Comish

The level of government involvement between my suggestions and the proposed are apples and oranges.

Setting a limit on tuition, adding assistance, and regulating loans for students who apply and are accepted at public schools is VASTLY different than "free for anyone".

 

[matuski]

0% of the free college supporters would be against free vocational training.

Of course.  

But what if I am not cut out for vocational school either?

Will you pay some of my bills if I want to flip burgers?

 

[The Commish]

Going back to this - what does this even look like?

What is a free degree?  All degrees are free? UCLA is free?  San Antonio Community college is free?  Are you going to tax me after I have already paid for my education?  Does this give government control of curriculum?  Control of who gets to enroll in what major/minor?  What if I want a dual degree?  What if I change majors?  Standardized testing?  Do private schools then double their tuition because public college degrees are just another high school diploma?

What if college isn't for me, will you pay for my training for a career in plumbing or HVAC or mechanic?

Again....government paid for tuition.  You are still required to qualify for admittance to a school.  I don't know why government would have control over curriculum.  The schools would maintain their admittance criteria.  Dual degree?  Good question.  Perhaps they say "the first one's on us.  after that you're on your own".  I don't know why testing would be altered.  College degrees are already the standard now, and no I don't agree with that being the case, but I can't change that.  In this country, college degree is the new high school diploma from when I was in school.  I'm all for training at technical schools and I haven't seen a proposal yet that doesn't include them if one wants to go into a trade.

The schools are already equipped to take payment from the government.  They do it through pell grants, scholarships etc daily.  Them taking that money doesn't impact any of the things you raise here.  None of these issues raised are addressed by the funding source currently and I wouldn't expect them to be addressed by the funding source in the future.

 

[matuski]

Again....government paid for tuition.  You are still required to qualify for admittance to a school.  I don't know why government would have control over curriculum.  The schools would maintain their admittance criteria.  Dual degree?  Good question.  Perhaps they say "the first one's on us.  after that you're on your own".  I don't know why testing would be altered.  College degrees are already the standard now, and no I don't agree with that being the case, but I can't change that.  In this country, college degree is the new high school diploma from when I was in school.  I'm all for training at technical schools and I haven't seen a proposal yet that doesn't include them if one wants to go into a trade.

The schools are already equipped to take payment from the government.  They do it through pell grants, scholarships etc daily.  Them taking that money doesn't impact any of the things you raise here.  None of these issues raised are addressed by the funding source currently and I wouldn't expect them to be addressed by the funding source in the future.

The level of government involvement between my suggestions and the proposed are apples and oranges.

Setting a limit on tuition, adding assistance, and regulating loans for students who apply and are accepted at public schools is VASTLY different than "free for anyone".

 

[The Commish]

I don't remember how long a o I read this or where I read it.  Something along the lines of 40% who enroll today do not get degrees.  Out of the other ~60%, a solid chunk take 5 and 6 years.  No way free tuition helps here.. if anything it is a further colossal waste of money and time.  

I am also not sure if it is the "free" part or the "for anyone" part that bothers me more.  Combined it is a simply nutty proposal imo.

I am familiar with many studies of this nature.  Do you remember the reason they don't get their degrees mentioned in the article you read by any chance?

 

[matuski]

I am familiar with many studies of this nature.  Do you remember the reason they don't get their degrees mentioned in the article you read by any chance?

I am sure it is for many reasons.  We already established college isn't for everyone.

I am going out on a limb and guessing you want to focus on cost.  Which brings us full circle to our first engagement this morning. 

 

[matuski]

You are still required to qualify for admittance to a school. 

This is very different to my ears than "for anyone who wants one".

If it isn't really for anyone and everyone, this is immediately more appealing to me.  It addresses half of the two part nutty idea.

 

[The Commish]

Again....government paid for tuition.  You are still required to qualify for admittance to a school.  I don't know why government would have control over curriculum.  The schools would maintain their admittance criteria.  Dual degree?  Good question.  Perhaps they say "the first one's on us.  after that you're on your own".  I don't know why testing would be altered.  College degrees are already the standard now, and no I don't agree with that being the case, but I can't change that.  In this country, college degree is the new high school diploma from when I was in school.  I'm all for training at technical schools and I haven't seen a proposal yet that doesn't include them if one wants to go into a trade.

The schools are already equipped to take payment from the government.  They do it through pell grants, scholarships etc daily.  Them taking that money doesn't impact any of the things you raise here.  None of these issues raised are addressed by the funding source currently and I wouldn't expect them to be addressed by the funding source in the future.

The level of government involvement between my suggestions and the proposed are apples and oranges.

Setting a limit on tuition, adding assistance, and regulating loans for students who apply and are accepted at public schools is VASTLY different than "free for anyone".

I think the current candidates are doing themselves a great disservice by reducing their plans to the "free for anyone" soundbyte.  If you take the time to go back and read the comprehensive plan Sanders had for the 2016 election, you'll see it's not an accurate description.  I haven't seen any detailed proposals from the new group jumping on board, so time will tell with them, but reducing this to a simple soundbyte, while it can be beneficial to some, it's clearly a turn off to people like yourself who hold the concerns you do.  That's why I thought I'd ask here about the disconnect...now I am getting it.

 

[The Commish]

I am sure it is for many reasons.  We already established college isn't for everyone.

I am going out on a limb and guessing you want to focus on cost.  Which brings us full circle to our first engagement this morning. 

No, I asked you if you remembered what your article gave as it's primary reason.  I don't want to focus on anything but the article you read.  There are thousands of them out there and the reasons aren't as many as you think.

ETA:  By the way, this is sort of something I grew up with.  My dad was a financial aid director for 30+ years, so I lived in this topic for my entire life and while it would mean my father's job basically goes away, he was always one that thought that government funded education was a no brainer.  His premise was based purely on the amount of overhead that schools had to absorb in dealing with the government, rules, regulations, etc.  The process eats itself and is a constantly growing problem.  His opinion was based simply on the  of what it costs to "do education" in this country.

 

[matuski]

I think the current candidates are doing themselves a great disservice by reducing their plans to the "free for anyone" soundbyte.  If you take the time to go back and read the comprehensive plan Sanders had for the 2016 election, you'll see it's not an accurate description.  I haven't seen any detailed proposals from the new group jumping on board, so time will tell with them, but reducing this to a simple soundbyte, while it can be beneficial to some, it's clearly a turn off to people like yourself who hold the concerns you do.  That's why I thought I'd ask here about the disconnect...now I am getting it.

I will certainly spend more time researching these plans as they are narrowed down.

 

[matuski]

No, I asked you if you remembered what your article gave as it's primary reason.  I don't want to focus on anything but the article you read.  There are thousands of them out there and the reasons aren't as many as you think.

I don't recall.. it was the numbers of enrolled kids that waste 1-5 years paying for school and came out with nothing that struck me.

 

[matuski]

Have a good one @The Commish

I appreciate the patience.

 

[The Commish]

I don't recall.. it was the numbers of enrolled kids that waste 1-5 years paying for school and came out with nothing that struck me.

Yep...and the primary reason this happens is because the schools know the money is guaranteed to them.  Federally funded student loans cannot be erased via bankruptcy so the school has no skin in the kid graduating.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yep...and the primary reason this happens is because the schools know the money is guaranteed to them.  Federally funded student loans cannot be erased via bankruptcy so the school has no skin in the kid graduating.

This part is inaccurate.  From a financial standpoint, every student who drops out without graduating is a student that's no longer paying tuition.  Universities have a very strong incentive to keep students enrolled and making timely progress toward their degree. 

 

[BigJim®]

This part is inaccurate.  From a financial standpoint, every student who drops out without graduating is a student that's no longer paying tuition.  Universities have a very strong incentive to keep students enrolled and making timely progress toward their degree. 

I probably should not jump in when I don't know enough on a topic, but my assumption is the need to apply for college indicates there's always someone to fill a chair when another student falls out. Is that not generally true?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I probably should not jump in when I don't know enough on a topic, but my assumption is the need to apply for college indicates there's always someone to fill a chair when another student falls out. Is that not generally true?

It depends on the school.  If somebody walks away from Harvard, there are scores of people lined up to their place.  If somebody walks away from Middle Tennessee State (for example), their enrollment is now just one student lower.  There are way, way, way more Middle Tennessees than their are Harvards.  (And that's not even considering community colleges, which enroll far more students than what most people realize).

 

[The Commish]

This part is inaccurate.  From a financial standpoint, every student who drops out without graduating is a student that's no longer paying tuition.  Universities have a very strong incentive to keep students enrolled and making timely progress toward their degree. 

I agree with the first part...but can you explain why they care if they are making progress toward a degree?

 

[huthut]

I agree with the first part...but can you explain why they care if they are making progress toward a degree?

Isn't graduation rate something that is tracked as well from an enrollment perspective? I would think that having a poor graduation rate would lower enrollment, which would lower the amount of money they get. There are probably plenty of ways to cheat that system though, such as not failing people when they deserve to fail, but I don't have a solution for that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I agree with the first part...but can you explain why they care if they are making progress toward a degree?

There are two reasons for that.  First, students who circle the drain tend to drop out, which again is bad from a crass dollars-and-cents standpoint. 

Second, our accrediting bodies (and less often parents) look at four- and six-year graduation rates, and we get dinged if they think that we aren't doing enough to help students get graduated.  For example, my university is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, which is one of the major regional accreditors in the US.  If we lost our HLC accreditation, we would no longer be eligible to accept federal financial aid, which would mean that we might as well shut down.  One of HLC's requirements for accreditation deals with student success:

4.C. The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

The institution has defined goals for student retention, persistence, and completion that are ambitious but attainable and appropriate to its mission, student populations, and educational offerings.

The institution collects and analyzes information on student retention, persistence, and completion of its programs.

The institution uses information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs to make improvements as warranted by the data.

The institution’s processes and methodologies for collecting and analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs reflect good practice. (Institutions are not required to use IPEDS definitions in their determination of persistence or completion rates. Institutions are encouraged to choose measures that are suitable to their student populations, but institutions are accountable for the validity of their measures.)

 It's a fact of life that students are going to drop out of college and fail to graduate, especially at schools that have less-competitive or non-competitive admissions policies.  But most schools really do want their students to stick around for four years (or five or six) and graduate.

 

[The Commish]

Hadn't thought about accreditation.  I've been soured by the multitude of examples where the schools didn't care what was happening to the student as long as they kept paying and the kid kept paying as long as they could get a loan.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hadn't thought about accreditation.  I've been soured by the multitude of examples where the schools didn't care what was happening to the student as long as they kept paying and the kid kept paying as long as they could get a loan.

To be fair, many for-profit schools exist for the purpose of taking advantage of the college loan system and do exactly what you're talking about.  They're essentially scams.  

(Note that "for-profit" isn't the same thing as "private."  There are a ton of not-for-profit private universities that are perfectly legitimate and operate similarly to publics).

 

[matuski]

To be fair, many for-profit schools exist for the purpose of taking advantage of the college loan system and do exactly what you're talking about.  They're essentially scams.  

(Note that "for-profit" isn't the same thing as "private."  There are a ton of not-for-profit private universities that are perfectly legitimate and operate similarly to publics).

Where do you stand on the Free College For All plans?

 

[BigJim®]

It depends on the school.  If somebody walks away from Harvard, there are scores of people lined up to their place.  If somebody walks away from Middle Tennessee State (for example), their enrollment is now just one student lower.  There are way, way, way more Middle Tennessees than their are Harvards.  (And that's not even considering community colleges, which enroll far more students than what most people realize).

"The acceptance rate at Middle Tennessee State University is 59.3%. For every 100 applicants, 59 are admitted."

https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Middle-Tennessee-State-University-admission-requirements

ETA: Your point on community colleges is valid as I'm sure most would take nearly anyone, and you're probably right that represents a large % of secondary ed students. Not trying to argue really, but my instinct is colleges don't care (actionably) if they get 1 or 2 years of tuition and someone flops.