Instead of student loan forgiveness, why can’t we have this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or how about making students accountable for the amount of money they take out that is intended for actual school expenses. Lots of student loan debt is for money spent on delivery pizza, cell phones and nights out.

You cannot exceed the college's estimate of the total cost of attendance through student loans.

[Anonymous]

Seems like they should go to community colleges for 2 years and then transfer. No shame in that and same degree at the end.

Or maybe states should pony up the way Florida and Georgia (maybe others I’m missing) already do and make tuition free to smart instate students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally hypothetical here, but…

What if all public colleges and universities had a “basic version” or “no-nonsense version” without all the fancy extras? I truly believe that higher education is a good thing, and being well-rounded and well informed as well as knowing how to think critically is important. It’s also supposed to be the great equalizer, the thing that levels the playing field. I hate how the cost of big-name schools automatically puts kids with rich parents at an advantage when choosing schools that offer more prestige and more connections and career placement opportunities. I also don’t think kids should be financially punished for going out of state. What if someone from a backwater red state wanted to move where jobs and opportunities are, or somewhere with more diversity?

Instead of these huge cost disparities, what if every prospective student had an option: expensive tuition and fees with all the bells and whistles, the fancy dining halls, the swimming pools and lounges, all the luxuries; and then a basic option that just pays for classes, simple dormitories (that have heat and a/c and meet health codes of course, but no other amenities), library access, a limited food stipend, and access to some common rooms for student-run extracurriculars? No crazy state-of-the-art facilities. What if someone just wants a rigorous education and career placement opportunities, but doesn’t want to pay for a four-year country club membership?

That’s called community college and state school.

[Anonymous]

What if the federal gov't only backed loans for colleges where tuition didn't rise faster than inflation and where at least X percent of the students qualified for Pell grants?

That might not be the exact solution but basically the gov't has to start to set prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say get rid of BS classes, aka core classes.

What do you really need to be an accountant? It’s not all 120 credits.

So basically make college trade school? Why not have AA programs that are more trade focused and let folks who want a rounded college education still get that? I see your point but I disagree that college is merely to train students in career knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if we just go back to funding our colleges like we used to?

+1

-1 not supporting that unless you mean public institutions only.

And, op, what you describe is available at community colleges.

[Anonymous]

I think about this quite a bit. I'm from a poor community, and the vast majority of kids go to community college first. For some, it's the end of the line. But a lot of them go on to very good schools to finish their bachelor's degree. It's what they can afford. It's a smarter and saner way to not get yourself into heavy debt.

[Anonymous]

This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

Because a system where poor kids can't eat in the dining hall with their rich classmates or can't use the gym (or are the schools to build two gyms) to exercise, is awful. (And if the rich kids can use the poor facilities but not vice-versa, that's pretty gross, too.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if we just go back to funding our colleges like we used to?

+1

-1 not supporting that unless you mean public institutions only.

And, op, what you describe is available at community colleges.

But many community colleges do not offer degrees bachelors degree, which are required for an enormous number of careers.

You should not need to be able to afford (or go deep into debt) to get the kinds of jobs that now require a 4-year degree (sometimes even a masters). We're talking about civil engineers, librarians, marketing/communications professionals, etc. These are necessary jobs and we needs smart people in them. But most of these jobs don't pay more than 80-90k, and entry level you're talking 50k or less. And that's in a big city -- a municipal civil engineer or librarian in a small town in the Midwest is probably topping out at 60k. But those jobs still require 4 year degrees or more.

We either have to alter what it means to be qualified for certain jobs, or find a way to help people get the required training for these careers without taking on a ton of debt. That masters degree requirement for a lot of jobs ia particularly egregious because even one year of graduate school at a public school can mean 20k of debt. And that's literally just to get your foot in the door for some of these jobs. It's ridiculous.

We need to address college costs AND credentialism. There's a reason a lot of people are pursuing 4-year degrees and graduate school and it's not because they don't want to work -- it's because they DO want to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

Because a system where poor kids can't eat in the dining hall with their rich classmates or can't use the gym (or are the schools to build two gyms) to exercise, is awful. (And if the rich kids can use the poor facilities but not vice-versa, that's pretty gross, too.)

Yes, OP's idea of having a two-tier system at one college is dumb for this reason. BUT there is no reason that public colleges/universities could not take it upon themselves to prioritize keeping college costs down, and prioritize actual learning and skill-acquisition over cushy student life experiences, when they budget for the university. I know some smaller publics do this to some degree, but then degrees from those schools are not as valued.

We need to find a way to decouple cost and quality of learning in higher education (and lower education, for that matter). The ruling class has convinced everyone that the the smartest, most competent people go to the most expensive schools. This is (1) not true, and (2) just reinforces their status and helps them pass it onto their kids in the form of high paying jobs in sought-after fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally hypothetical here, but…

What if all public colleges and universities had a “basic version” or “no-nonsense version” without all the fancy extras? I truly believe that higher education is a good thing, and being well-rounded and well informed as well as knowing how to think critically is important. It’s also supposed to be the great equalizer, the thing that levels the playing field. I hate how the cost of big-name schools automatically puts kids with rich parents at an advantage when choosing schools that offer more prestige and more connections and career placement opportunities. I also don’t think kids should be financially punished for going out of state. What if someone from a backwater red state wanted to move where jobs and opportunities are, or somewhere with more diversity?

Instead of these huge cost disparities, what if every prospective student had an option: expensive tuition and fees with all the bells and whistles, the fancy dining halls, the swimming pools and lounges, all the luxuries; and then a basic option that just pays for classes, simple dormitories (that have heat and a/c and meet health codes of course, but no other amenities), library access, a limited food stipend, and access to some common rooms for student-run extracurriculars? No crazy state-of-the-art facilities. What if someone just wants a rigorous education and career placement opportunities, but doesn’t want to pay for a four-year country club membership?

That’s called community college and state school.

Many CCs don't offer the degrees necessary to enter lots of professions. Many state schools have skyrocketing costs due in part to spending a ton on student life and administration in order to attract more applicants. And employers often view more expensive universities as better (whether private or public) even if the expense is paying for fancy dining halls and luxe dorms. And sometimes the education IS better, because the schools who are charging more and spending it on nice facilities and community can often attract better quality professors and better quality students, which is what makes a university strong in the first place.

We've really backed ourselves into a corner with college costs, and while I don't think OP has figured out the answer, I think they are asking the right questions. Getting a quality education that prepares you for a meaningful career should not bankrupt you. Smart, capable kids without the money or willingness to borrow should not be stuck in community college, which will greatly limit their opportunities -- there need to be better academic options available at an affordable price.

[Anonymous]

I agree with free community college for all majors.

Better funded and far less expensive tuition for state schools.

100% tuition paybacks in tax credits for degrees which are highly needed: engineers, Computer Science, and others.

Tax credits for paybacks for other types of service: military, police, firefighters (yes they should all get more education) and teaching.

Much better outcomes than letting for profit colleges steal money and then compensating the victims with no punishment for the criminals.

[Anonymous]

OP - that's a terrible idea. You don't segregate the rich from the poor in college and expect no conflict or trauma.

I think that the gov't should make public university tuition free to US citizens with good grades. Then offer financial aid for housing/food for lower income people.

Our society will be better off with a well educated population of tax payers. No one who deny a citizen a k-12 education because it's good to have a literate society. College should be free. People who understand history, culture, math and science are better equipt for life and work.

I also think that some colleges should include trades education for automotive, construction, plumbing, cosmetology, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - that's a terrible idea. You don't segregate the rich from the poor in college and expect no conflict or trauma.

I think that the gov't should make public university tuition free to US citizens with good grades. Then offer financial aid for housing/food for lower income people.

Our society will be better off with a well educated population of tax payers. No one who deny a citizen a k-12 education because it's good to have a literate society. College should be free. People who understand history, culture, math and science are better equipt for life and work.

I also think that some colleges should include trades education for automotive, construction, plumbing, cosmetology, etc.

Most community colleges have programs for trades like that, which mostly don't require a four-year degree.