FIVE Reasons why FREE Community College is a Terrible Idea

[actaeon277]

Those men that put people on the moon, didn't have college given to them.

 

[Alpo]

You don't know that.

The GI Bill was widely used, as an example. Where are your facts?

edit: I did a bit of further research on 1955, a year that might yield graduates into the engineering sciences. Tuition at an Ivy League school like Princeton had just increased from $850 per year to $1000. A student could earn much of the tuition over the summer break. Princeton today is about $60,000 per year. Certainly, some get financial aid of some sort (about 68% of the students) but the remainder pay full fare...which is, in essence a "tax" on the wealthy.

 

[Twangbanger]

Those men that put people on the moon, didn't have college given to them.

But, if it had been given to them - and everyone else - by government decree - it would employ a lot more people like Alpo. It's a full-employment bill for the education industry. The point he dodged around is that in California, with pretty much the exact system he advocates, qualified applicants are turned away every year, because the state does not have enough money to educate them. Why, with Democrats running the state, and the rich economy attributed to their educational system, can California not apply the funds to live up to their promise of the "free lunch" for all?

Because the professors aren't willing to work for "slave" wages, that's why. "You are entitled to the work of others"...until that work has to be provided by educators with state pensions who expect to be well-paid. In fact, Alpo himself admitted in a previous thread on this subject, that he considered the money offered him by the Cal system to teach a class to be unworthy of his efforts.

I think if educators believe free education should be a right for all, then they need to put their money where their mouth is, and be willing to work for approximately the same wages as a US combat soldier in order to provide it. With that caveat, then yes, I absolutely agree we should un-deploy all those people in the sandbox and put the money to better use stateside, educating productive workers (or trying to).

But I don't think that's where this concept is directed. This idea will end up the same as California: a lot of good, productive people educated by a good, thriving state university system (just like Indiana)...along with a bunch of people who simply consumed public resources at a high rate to keep employees of the Cal state education system in their pensions (not so much like Indiana).

 

[Alpo]

What other people are "like Alpo"? I've had a job either part time or full time since I was 15 1/2 (and a paper route before that). Other than funds provided by the GI Bill, I paid 100% of my education costs for bachelors and post grad. Your syllogism isn't working methinks.

Those are very broad claims that appear to lack a specific time period to be tested for accuracy. Ronald Reagan and the GOP ran the state for many years. Republican administrations followed with Deukmajian, Wilson and Arnie.

The cost of the soldier isn't the cost of the Defense department. False equivalency.

 

[actaeon277]

The GI Bill isn't "given" to someone free for just breathing/existing.
They worked for it.

 

[jamil]

I'm for education vs bullets into Afghanistan and Iraqi hillsides.

Talk about immoral.....

Just because you have a point of view doesn't give your thoughts intrinsic value. You could be wrong from many standpoints: economic, philosophic, scientific, etc.

As to the California system, it seems to have worked pretty well for those of us who went into high-tech. Silicon Valley is largely the result of the education system resident there, not because San Francisco is "pretty".

Talk about a ridiculous dichotomy. So in the World of Commander McAlpo, it's either free education or bullets?

 

[Alpo]

The GI Bill isn't "given" to someone free for just breathing/existing.
They worked for it.

True. To a degree. But it is a legislated benefit. And all taxpayers fund it, much like we fund public education at various levels through taxation today even when we have no kids in the school system.

 

[jamil]

BOR: The thread is an indictment of the collegiate system and in particular free community college. I disagree. While I think "cultural studies" is largely a waste of time and money except for those who have an anthropologic bent, I do think that some of the other majors mentioned by Actaeon (professional nanny, pop culture, gunsmithing, fermentation sciences, Canadian studies, decision making, bakery science and management, costume technology, Entertainment Engineering & Design, and Turfgrass science) could provide measurable value to society at large. There are trades (and therefore economic impact) associated with them in the real world. In addition, electives are generally thought to be a good aspect of an education to "round out" the student. So, while art history might not be "useful" to a software coder, it might help make that person more social.

As to home schooling, I'm sure it can be successful in a microcosm. On a macro level, it is entirely disruptive to the economy. A parent is pulled out of their otherwise busy work cycle to provide instruction to each individual child, thereby lowering their economic impact. It also assumes that 30 parents home schooling is better than one teacher. I'd argue that observation as specious. In any group of 30, I doubt that all of them have the intellect, patience and discipline to educate their children. If you know better, please cite your sources. And to those commenters who cite the "exception" of male/gay home schooling to the general way things get done in our society, the task of child-rearing is still primarily a responsibility of the mother. Arguing exceptions ad infinitum isn't helpful.

Ultimately, it isn't difficult to see that the level of education of future generations would suffer, the economy would be disrupted by the refocus of adult time toward child-rearing, particularly the female parent, vectoring society once again toward a patriarchy.

So, if I sound trollish, it's because the idea (and commentary support) that the education system provided to all is a bad use of our resources is unsound for a variety of reasons.

Yes, we put a man on the moon, before a number of "soft" degrees were offered by colleges and universities. But, the guys who put those men on the moon had college degrees, not home schooling. Take any space program or CERN, etc. Degrees. You don't make the first resume cut without an education. It's been that way since I started working in the 70's.

And underneath the success of some very famous companies run by "dropouts" is an organization staffed mostly with engineers and scientists...with degrees. So I say again, I would rather fund the development of the next generation of artists, vinologists, chefs, engineers and mathemeticians than leave spent uranium projectiles littering southeast Asia.

C'mon now. Your free education should have taught you that there are two sides to a balance sheet. Ignoring one side doesn't make **** free.

But on with the indictment of the collegiate system and in particular free community college. People who can pay for college, should pay for college. People who can't afford to pay, yeah, we should have a way to help them get a college education if they are fit for college. Not everyone is fit for college.

I used to tutor computer science students at a community college. Frankly, 1/3 of them were wasting either their parents' money or, for the low income students, the tax payer's money. They just couldn't get it. Computer science isn't like rocket surgery or brain science, but it does require a pretty good aptitude with discrete math and abstract thinking. They should have failed but the college just passed them through. That's not helping anyone.

So first, there's nothing about "free" that makes a college system better. NPR reported on this while fact checking Bernie Free-**** Sanders. There is not a strong correlation between the best educated nations and having free tuition. I think if you want something in life, you shouldn't make other people provide it for you. That is immoral.

 

[jamil]

True. To a degree. But it is a legislated benefit. And all taxpayers fund it, much like we fund public education at various levels through taxation today even when we have no kids in the school system.

non sequitur

 

[eldirector]

So, where does it stop?

We have a minimum wage for minimum work. Folks want more. Why stop at $15? Why not $100?

We have tax-funded education. Up to 12th grade, and even a LOT college. Why stop there? Why not Harvard Law for everyone?

We have State-mandated health care. Why stop there? Why not State-mandated diets, gym memberships, and preventative care? And why is all that not free?

Just think how great this nation would be if we all held advanced degrees, all earned $100/hr, and all were as healthy as possible. All we have to do is mandate it!

 

[Woobie]

True. To a degree. But it is a legislated benefit. And all taxpayers fund it, much like we fund public education at various levels through taxation today even when we have no kids in the school system.

The freely educated receive all the value of a free education. The GI Bill involves the direct exchange of value: education for work.

 

[poptab]

I don't have anything to add except I pretty much agree with Actaeon here mostly

Obligatory "get to the choppa"
Lol

 

[Alpo]

non sequitur

Sorry, but it's not.

I won't respond to each and every comment you've made, but I will observe that education of the next generation should be a high national priority. The literacy rate in Colonial America (in the north...sampling was of "whites") was 96%. Huffington Post recently reported 34,000,000 Americans can't read and about 70% of the prison population was illiterate.

Obviously, these folks are not ready for any college curriculum and a "free" collegiate education is meaningless to them. I would also assume they would be screened out by the registrars/admissions departments.

That leaves a good portion of people who might benefit from a higher education that cannot afford it. I don't think we "owe" anyone a college degree, but we ought to do what we can to assist those who have the intellectual capacity and desire to succeed. Other Western nations do so.

It's a matter of choice in how we prioritize our spending. We've allowed the banks to impoverish the participants in the education system for over $1 trillion. Before we get into "argument by exception" once again, I'd say that something is very wrong with a system where a student is indentured to a bank in order to receive an education.

 

[HoughMade]

How about a more efficient system where we engage in extensive aptitude testing and based upon the predicted workforce needs and the aptitude testing, we assign students to certain disciplines, and pay for their education only if they pursue that discipline. Of course, the same aptitude testing will identify non-college material and bar them from higher education. That's the only way a "free" higher education system could work. economically.

 

[eldirector]

 

[Alpo]

General aptitude and prior transcripts yes. I don't think our system is sufficiently deep enough to determine strategic needs other than STEM. Who could have predicted the iPhone 10 to 20 years ahead? I've been in high-tech for 40 years and I'd say that most companies missed the impact of a whole slew of needs, including the internet and distributed personal computing. That includes many of the best and brightest in the industry.

I can't predict what we'll need in 15 years. Futurists like Kurzweil have been somewhat accurate in the past, but he's also missed things. I also doubt any of our legislators would listen to him or those like him in any event.

"Free community college" isn't something we should avoid, however. Many jobs are a lot more technical than they were in the past. Even welding and machining have advanced to the point to require significant aptitude to be successful in those fields.

Steve Jobs cited our lack of 65,000 technicians and engineers required for the iPhone to be produced in the USA. I believe he was probably correct.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, but it's not.

Sure it is.

True. To a degree. But it is a legislated benefit. And all taxpayers fund it, much like we fund public education at various levels through taxation today even when we have no kids in the school system.

You're trying to say that funding public education at various levels through taxation is ideologically the same as the G.I. bill because it's a legislated benefit and whether we have kids in the school system or not, the G.I. Bill is paid for by tax payers. The presumption is that if that's true then it's inconsistent to favor the GI bill and not free tuition for all.

But it doesn't follow because the purpose for the GI bill was to help GIs returning from the war have something to come back to. They left their jobs and families to fight on the nation's behalf. The nation owed them. We owe today's GIs for similar reasons. It is part of a pact, that if young people will set a few years of their lives aside to serve in the military, the nation that benefits from their service will help pay for their education. It is an earned benefit. The nation owes tomorrow's generation nothing because tomorrow's generation has earned nothing.

[...] but I will observe that education of the next generation should be a high national priority. The literacy rate in Colonial America (in the north...sampling was of "whites") was 96%. Huffington Post recently reported 34,000,000 Americans can't read and about 70% of the prison population was illiterate.

Obviously, these folks are not ready for any college curriculum and a "free" collegiate education is meaningless to them. I would also assume they would be screened out by the registrars/admissions departments.

That leaves a good portion of people who might benefit from a higher education that cannot afford it. I don't think we "owe" anyone a college degree, but we ought to do what we can to assist those who have the intellectual capacity and desire to succeed. Other Western nations do so.

It's a matter of choice in how we prioritize our spending. We've allowed the banks to impoverish the participants in the education system for over $1 trillion. Before we get into "argument by exception" once again, I'd say that something is very wrong with a system where a student is indentured to a bank in order to receive an education.

Education of the next generation should be a high priority for the next generation. It's THEIR future. To an extent it is a collective concern, but the collective can't make a person want to succeed, and then follow through with doing the things that make one successful. The next generation is a bunch of whiny fools who think observing the 58 official genders of facebook is of high importance. And given the sorry state of American progressive learning institutions I don't think giving them THAT for "free" is going to pay off like "free-education" may have in your day.

But if America is conned into furthering this nonsense of collective rights, it should at least be responsible and make sure it's getting what it's paying for. I certainly agree with you that illiteracy is a problem. But we've thrown free **** at problems for decades and the problems have only gotten worse. The problem of illiteracy isn't a nail that the universal hammer of free **** can always solve.

Do you want to solve the problem? It is a fact that kids who come from intact families of a father and mother are much more successful in life than kids from broken homes and single parents. Let's fix that and a lot of the other problems will just fade away.

 

[Twangbanger]

...We've allowed the banks to impoverish the participants in the education system for over $1 trillion...

No. We have allowed the UNIVERSITIES to impoverish students with 8~10 percent year-over-year tuition increases. The banks are willing enablers to policies zealously pursued by the Education Industry and their patrons in the Government.

The Schools have sucked the students dry. Now, having exhausted that "host," they seek to disengage and re-attach their lamprey mouths to the US Taxpayer, via "Free College."

 

[jamil]

No. We have allowed the UNIVERSITIES to impoverish students with 8~10 percent year-over-year tuition increases. The banks are willing enablers to policies zealously pursued by the Education Industry and their patrons in the Government.

 

[Alpo]

I see you've convinced yourself of the "rightness" of the way you think about the matter. As I said before, just because you think it, doesn't make it so.

There are numerous demands on the government for funds. Just because a GI gets a benefit (which I did) does not make it a higher priority than some other worthy endeavor. All programs compete for resources. Just because you believe that GI benefits has a higher priority than education of our workforce doesn't mean that the citizenry believes that prioritization is valid.

In many respects, GI's are underfunded. Medical costs of deployment are never fully factored into wars. Families receive limited death benefits, nothing for pain and suffering, and less than necessary for the long term medical consequences of war. You seem satisfied to express your ideology. Have you worked toward improving the situation for veterans in support of those beliefs?

On a personal basis, I funded private college education for both of my sons. My contribution at this point is solely from property taxes.