thoughts on HRCs free college tuition/loan plan

[Millhouse]

As I said elsewhere I am voting for HRC because I just cant vote for Trump. But this is one thing I completely disagree with her & the Bernie crowd about, and why I am voting Republican for the house & senate seat here. I'll post below directly from her website on what would happen if she wins and Dems win congress back.

"Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.

All community colleges will offer free tuition." - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

I just cant agree with that at all. I am in favor of the government working with universities/colleges to help lower costs of tuition/books/housing for everyone across the board. Or working with students from lower income families on lowering loan interests and providing more grants to help out. And I am also fine with helping out parents going back to school. Thats fine. But this to me is too socialistic in nature when we carry the free world with our military. And not to mention if a family earns $130,000 they are getting ****ed when the family next door that makes $5000 less can send their kids off for free to college.

Anyways this hasnt been talked about much in here, and I know many that post in here went to college, so just like to hear your take on it without  your political party blinders on.

[McC]

(08-09-2016, 05:39 PM)Millhouse Wrote: As I said elsewhere I am voting for HRC because I just cant vote for Trump. But this is one thing I completely disagree with her & the Bernie crowd about, and why I am voting Republican for the house & senate seat here. I'll post below directly from her website on what would happen if she wins and Dems win congress back.

"Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.

All community colleges will offer free tuition." - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

I just cant agree with that at all. I am in favor of the government working with universities/colleges to help lower costs of tuition/books/housing for everyone across the board. Or working with students from lower income families on lowering loan interests and providing more grants to help out. And I am also fine with helping out parents going back to school. Thats fine. But this to me is too socialistic in nature when we carry the free world with our military. And not to mention if a family earns $130,000 they are getting ****ed when the family next door that makes $5000 less can send their kids off for free to college.

Anyways this hasnt been talked about much in here, and I know many that post in here went to college, so just like to hear your take on it without  your political party blinders on.

This would create a really large bill that somebody has to pay, which is the number one reason why socialist notions like this don't work. 

How about the idea that anyone who wanted to own a house should be able to, whether they could afford one or not?  Look where that kind of thinking led.

Everybody doesn't get to live the same life.  That's just the way it is.  Everybody gets equal rights and equal opportunity but there's no guarantee of equal results.

How much control does the gov't get over higher education under this plan?  How much more bureaucracy is created?

[Benton]

What i'd like to see is some kind of reduction or stabilization of cost. The rate education costs are climbing, a middle class family is going to have a hell of a time paying for 2-3 kids to attend a decent school. But outside of that, all I'd really like to see is more money toward scholarships/loan forgiveness in needed areas (math, premed, sciences, engineering, etc) and less for guys like me who basically went to school for an art degree because they didn't have anything else going on or a clue of what to do next (although I did pay for it myself without any scholarships/loans).

[6andcounting]

When it's not your money paying for something you don't worry about the price. Consumers being shielded from facing the total cost just pushes prices higher since demand hardly changes. This problem is most evident in for profit schools. Tuition is set at the amount Federal Pell Grant, subsidized loans and state grants combined, so students go for free - maybe taking out a small subsidized loan. Increase the grants by 10% and students still owe nothing and schools raise their tuition by exactly 10%.

That's the unintended consequence of that strategy. That's not to say the intended outcome of helping students well off in every sense but financially get a better education from a better school hasn't been very successful in its own right. Maybe the benefits do outweight the negatives and continuing without changing how it works now is the best strategy.. But the problem it creates is evident. Making everything free further exasperates the biggest untended consequence that's already cause problems.

Eliminating all government help would make college cheaper than ever, but enrollment would plummet to lowest numbers in forever as well. Making it free would make it more expensive than ever but enrollment would be higher than ever.

Either way, the landscape would stray away from either of these paths in the long run. Enrollment would drop if students got no help, but eventually college grads would be a high demand and get higher pay, making the already cheaper tuition prices more worthwhile to pay. The opposite would happen if college was free. Too many college gads competing for the same job would lower salaries and other industries would be more attractive.

[Beaker]

With the country at $19.4 trillion in debt, nobody has any business talking about the gov't giving away free anything. It's pandering for votes and perpetuating the entitlement mentality. For the first time in my life, I am voting Libertarian...I simply cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton.

[McC]

(08-09-2016, 08:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: With the country at $19.4 trillion in debt, nobody has any business talking about the gov't giving away free anything. It's pandering for votes and perpetuating the entitlement mentality. For the first time in my life, I am voting Libertarian...I simply cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton.

That's exactly what it is.  She doesn't have to deliver on the promise, just make the promise and suck in voters with it.

[Belsnickel]

A couple of things. Let me preface this by saying that while I like the systems in other countries with regards to tuition, it would not work well with our education system.

First, Millhouse, can you elaborate a bit on the whole $130k v. $125k and the costs being covered? I am just curious where you get that mindset from. It can vary greatly from state to state and school to school, but many need based programs rely on Pell eligibility which you can be disqualified from for much lower income than that.

Second, the claim that enrollment would skyrocket is a bit dubious. Enrollment would not skyrocket because admissions standards wouldn't change, especially not overnight. Even at community colleges you would have to have a massive infrastructure expansion to allow for any sort of increased enrollment, and of course many more instructors.

Our education system needs a serious look and just throwing free community college tuition out there doesn't really help anything. I'd just rather look at the actual issues.

[fredtoast]

This plan goes to far.

What needs to be done is guarantee everyone free (or very cheap) degrees at vocational schools or two year training programs.

They could pay for that by limiting the amount of money used to guarantee a 4 year degrees. Reduce the amount of grants and loans available for the degrees that are less valuable to our economy. Also make it possible to become an elementary or middle school teacher with just a two year degree.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2016, 08:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Second, the claim that enrollment would skyrocket is a bit dubious. Enrollment would not skyrocket because admissions standards wouldn't change, especially not overnight. Even at community colleges you would have to have a massive infrastructure expansion to allow for any sort of increased enrollment, and of course many more instructors.

It is not dubious at all.  If the government said they would pay for a home for every citizen there would immediately be a 100 fold increase in the number of homebuilders in the United States.  Same thing would happen with colleges.

There would have to be some limit to who gets to go to college.  Or at least who qualifies for the money.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-09-2016, 08:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Also make it possible to become an elementary or middle school teacher with just a two year degree.

This is something that makes a lot of sense. I have never understood why one has to go to college for 5 years to teach 3rd grade. I think education could take a page from the Nursing industry.

My sister is now an RN and an administrator at a Retirement Community. She worked her way up from CNA (I think it takes about 3 weeks to get certified) cleaning bed pans, up to where she is today.Her schooling was paid every step of the way by the facilities that wanted her services. 

Being a teacher is absolutely ridiculous for what you get paid (no disrespect to educator). I looked at being an ad-hoc Professor at a local College here. To teach undergrad classes; I have to have a Masters (which I have) and then 3 additional classes in the discipline I want to instruct. 

[6andcounting]

(08-09-2016, 08:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Second, the claim that enrollment would skyrocket is a bit dubious. Enrollment would not skyrocket because admissions standards wouldn't change, especially not overnight. Even at community colleges you would have to have a massive infrastructure expansion to allow for any sort of increased enrollment, and of course many more instructors.

Harvard wouldn't change their admission criteria or let more students in, but for profit schools that have no admission standards at all will gladly accept you and the 20k a year the government would pay on your behalf. Smaller schools looking to grow - even those that are actually reputable and worthwhile - would certainly way the costs and benefits of lowering standards by X, but having X number of more students funding the program.

For profits schools aren't going to be slow to adapt if there's money to be had. Phoenix University or whatever it is is all online. Professors are all or mostly paid per diem, so it wouldn't take much for an online professors to teach a class with more students. It also wouldn't take much to convince professors from other universities to teach a few online classes a year and pick up extra money. Basically anyone with a masters degree can teach undergrad courses; there are already plenty of people out there working full time in their field and teaching part time at night or online.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-09-2016, 08:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This plan goes to far.

What needs to be done is guarantee everyone free (or very cheap) degrees at vocational schools or two year training programs.

They could pay for that by limiting the amount of money used to guarantee a 4 year degrees.  Reduce the amount of grants and loans available for the degrees that are less valuable to our economy.  Also make it possible to become an elementary or middle school teacher with just a two year degree.

Applause..

[McC]

In the OP, it says four year colleges and state universities. That's way beyond community colleges.

[*michaelsean*]

I honestly can't complain or maybe I don't know any better about Ohio State. It"s around $10,500 I think this year. Now don't get me started on the rape that is room and board, but you only have to do that the 1st year.

[Beaker]

(08-09-2016, 08:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Also make it possible to become an elementary or middle school teacher with just a two year degree.

From the guy who started a thread about the importance of education to the middle class.

[Millhouse]

(08-09-2016, 08:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A couple of things. Let me preface this by saying that while I like the systems in other countries with regards to tuition, it would not work well with our education system.

First, Millhouse, can you elaborate a bit on the whole $130k v. $125k and the costs being covered? I am just curious where you get that mindset from. It can vary greatly from state to state and school to school, but many need based programs rely on Pell eligibility which you can be disqualified from for much lower income than that.

Second, the claim that enrollment would skyrocket is a bit dubious. Enrollment would not skyrocket because admissions standards wouldn't change, especially not overnight. Even at community colleges you would have to have a massive infrastructure expansion to allow for any sort of increased enrollment, and of course many more instructors.

Our education system needs a serious look and just throwing free community college tuition out there doesn't really help anything. I'd just rather look at the actual issues.

The $125k threshold was straight from her website, link in the op. There wasnt anything else about families making a bit more than that, and it was a hypothetical example based on that. But to add to that, what about kids that come from families that are past that threshold, but the parents make the kids pay their way. Those kids would be getting screwed as opposed to someone that just so happened to come from a poorer family. 

Here is another thing, and this isnt directed at you but for the thread here. What happens to dropouts or those that dont graduate that would get free tuition? Would or should they have to pay the taxpayers back at that point? I dont know what Bernie's model was on all this so just curious because there a ton of people that just drop out for a variety of reasons. 

I just hope she made this deal with Bernie just to get his vote, knowing she wont ever go through with it banking that the Repubs stay in control of Congress.

[Belsnickel]

(08-09-2016, 08:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not dubious at all.  If the government said they would pay for a home for every citizen there would immediately be a 100 fold increase in the number of homebuilders in the United States.  Same thing would happen with colleges.

There would have to be some limit to who gets to go to college.  Or at least who qualifies for the money.  

In the number of homebuilders? That is dubious. There would be an increase in homebuilding, sure, but considering the number of empty homes in some communities, even that wouldn't be as high as many think. But the two are a apples and oranges comparison. The standards wouldn't decrease, which is what would really need to happen to increase enrollment like that.

(08-09-2016, 09:05 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Harvard wouldn't change their admission criteria or let more students in, but for profit schools that have no admission standards at all will gladly accept you and the 20k a year the government would pay on your behalf. Smaller schools looking to grow - even those that are actually reputable and worthwhile - would certainly way the costs and benefits of lowering standards by X, but having X number of more students funding the program.

For profits schools aren't going to be slow to adapt if there's money to be had. Phoenix University or whatever it is is all online. Professors are all or mostly paid per diem, so it wouldn't take much for an online professors to teach a class with more students. It also wouldn't take much to convince professors from other universities to teach a few online classes a year and pick up extra money. Basically anyone with a masters degree can teach undergrad courses; there are already plenty of people out there working full time in their field and teaching part time at night or online.

The writing is on the wall for the for-profits. Their accrediting agencies are losing authority and it will likely result in pulling federal funds in the very near future. We will see the end of those institutions by the time her plans would come to fruition.

(08-10-2016, 01:51 AM)Millhouse Wrote: The $125k threshold was straight from her website, link in the op. There wasnt anything else about families making a bit more than that, and it was a hypothetical example based on that. But to add to that, what about kids that come from families that are past that threshold, but the parents make the kids pay their way. Those kids would be getting screwed as opposed to someone that just so happened to come from a poorer family. 

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was the case now. Admittedly, I haven't looked at her education plan because, well, POTUS candidates are full of shit and because anything like that requires congressional movements.

[6andcounting]

(08-10-2016, 07:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The writing is on the wall for the for-profits. Their accrediting agencies are losing authority and it will likely result in pulling federal funds in the very near future. We will see the end of those institutions by the time her plans would come to fruition.

For-profits were just an extreme example where their entire existence is just exploiting the problem with free government money. Some might go out of business, but many will make the minimum amount of necessary changes to stay in business. And everything still applies to every non-profit school as well.

The whole point of free college for everyone is getting more people into colleges. More applicants to a given school, but the same amount of available spots = prices raise. That's just supply and demand.

[Beaker]

(08-09-2016, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is something that makes a lot of sense. I have never understood why one has to go to college for 5 years to teach 3rd grade. I think education could take a page from the Nursing industry.

My sister is now an RN and an administrator at a Retirement Community. She worked her way up from CNA (I think it takes about 3 weeks to get certified) cleaning bed pans, up to where she is today.Her schooling was paid every step of the way by the facilities that wanted her services. 

Being a teacher is absolutely ridiculous for what you get paid (no disrespect to educator). I looked at being an ad-hoc Professor at a local College here. To teach undergrad classes; I have to have a Masters (which I have) and then 3 additional classes in the discipline I want to instruct. 

That would be assuming that teachers only need to learn the curriculum to teach. In other words, you not only have to know the third grade material, you have to know third graders. Things like their psychological and social development, classroom management, effective teaching strategies, how to integrate technology into classrooms, how to create not only engaging individual lessons, but also how to connect the lessons to previous and future lessons, and how to connect the previous year's curriculum to next year's curriculum. And those are just some of the things that go beyond just knowing the third grade level material.

Secondly, the continuous calls for education improvement have resulted in a paradigm called "highly qualified teachers" which required a teacher to hold a license in the area that they teach. You no longer just hold a teaching license. In Ohio you can be licensed in k-3, 4-9, or 7-12. And once you get into 4-9 or 7-12 licensure, you have to declare and have studied ever more specialized curriculum. In 4-9 you have to choose two of english, social studies, math and science. So for instance you would hold a 4-9 licensure in math and science, or english and social studies, or any combination of the 4. Then when you get to 7-12, it even further specializes. For instance, mine is 7-12 life science.

On top of all that licensure nonsense, there is then renewal. In Ohio you are required to renew every 5 years. You can renew once with a 4 year degree. But to renew a second time, you must have earned a Masters of Education. Again, this is due to the public clamoring for more qualified teachers. So on the one hand you have to be better educated to teach because there is more to know than just the curriculum. Things that most people do not see or consider. And on the other hand, there is the movement for better qualified teachers.

Knowing what I now know. I think a two year degree is a little light. I think a Bachelor's in education is about the correct amount of education needed to be an effective teacher. I think requiring a Masters of Education is a bit of overkill.

[*bfine32*]

(08-10-2016, 10:31 AM)Beaker Wrote: That would be assuming that teachers only need to learn the curriculum to teach. In other words, you not only have to know the third grade material, you have to know third graders. Things like their psychological and social development, classroom management, effective teaching strategies, how to integrate technology into classrooms, how to create not only engaging individual lessons, but also how to connect the lessons to previous and future lessons, and how to connect the previous year's curriculum to next year's curriculum. And those are just some of the things that go beyond just knowing the third grade level material.

Secondly, the continuous calls for education improvement have resulted in a paradigm called "highly qualified teachers" which required a teacher to hold a license in the area that they teach. You no longer just hold a teaching license. In Ohio you can be licensed in k-3, 4-9, or 7-12. And once you get into 4-9 or 7-12 licensure, you have to declare and have studied ever more specialized curriculum. In 4-9 you have to choose two of english, social studies, math and science. So for instance you would hold a 4-9 licensure in math and science, or english and social studies, or any combination of the 4. Then when you get to 7-12, it even further specializes. For instance, mine is 7-12 life science.

On top of all that licensure nonsense, there is then renewal. In Ohio you are required to renew every 5 years. You can renew once with a 4 year degree. But to renew a second time, you must have earned a Masters of Education. Again, this is due to the public clamoring for more qualified teachers. So on the one hand you have to be better educated to teach because there is more to know than just the curriculum. Things that most people do not see or consider. And on the other hand, there is the movement for better qualified teachers.

Knowing what I now know. I think a two year degree is a little light. I think a Bachelor's in education is about the correct amount of education needed to be an effective teacher. I think requiring a Masters of Education is a bit of overkill.

It is not assuming a teacher only need to know the ciriculum. As contrary to a TV show adults already know more than a 5th grader. I approach this subject with apprehension as I do not wish to mitigate the knowledge required of a Teacher, even at the most elementary level. This is why I used my sister's progression as a Nurse as example. base qualifications should be required and continued study, certification would be mandatory to keep or increase your rating.

WTS, I will defer to the expert and if you assert 4 years of college is required; who am I to say differently.