Shouldn't university be free for some students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College is free at public colleges in New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the nation. There's no reason other states couldn't do this if they wanted to. Must have a GPA of 2.5 to maintain the scholarship, so a little skin in the game. It's really the only option in a state where childhood poverty edges toward 25%.

That sounds great.

I am from PA, which I think has one of the highest instate public tuitions in the nation. The real state colleges are at least $10k/year tuition and all (except for one) are located in very rural areas. You have likely never heard of any of those schools. Only 2 offer engineering. Pitt, Penn State & Temple are “state affiliated” and receive very little state funding. They are $17k-21k/year tuition (note I said tuition not cost of attendance). Pitt & PSU have among the highest average student loan debts among U.S. universities. There aren’t really any financial aid initiatives or free community colleges in the state. No programs there like Bright Futures, NY’s program for families making under a certain income or Georgia HOPE. Penn States underenrolled satellite campuses function as community colleges for the state, except they charge over $15,000/year tuition & offer zero financial aid. The actual community colleges are spread far apart & charge $6k+/year tuition. Not really any guaranteed transfer programs out of those.

I hear IL, NJ & the New England states are similar. It’s really unfortunate and I don’t know why it’s not a priority for governors in those states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

No need for reparations. Poor people pay very little to attend college. It's called financial aid. They can also join the military. It's called serving your country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

No need for reparations. Poor people pay very little to attend college. It's called financial aid. They can also join the military. It's called serving your country.

I’m curious to know how or why you think anyone has student loan debt if the current system indeed covers everyone (gives enough financial aid to the needy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

The public K-12 schools where I live do more harm than good. They are awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am talking about Black and American Indian students. Don't you think our country owes reparations and we should start at this humble place. Wherever they go, whether it's a highly selective or your local state school, why not just pay for the education of these students, regardless of SES?

I am not sure why the child of a millionaire native american casino owner, or other wealthy people of color should get a free ride, but absolutely, in a a vacuum, a school receiving federal funds, or perhaps simply the public schools, should afford free tuition to certain constituencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

The public K-12 schools where I live do more harm than good. They are awful.

Trust me, they do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

The public K-12 schools where I live do more harm than good. They are awful.

Trust me, they do not.

Yes they do, the opportunity cost of depriving these kids a decent education is enormous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

The public K-12 schools where I live do more harm than good. They are awful.

If by “awful,” you mean low-scoring and populated by low-income & ESOL students. Your solution is to exclude such students from attending school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

The public K-12 schools where I live do more harm than good. They are awful.

Trust me, they do not.

Yes they do, the opportunity cost of depriving these kids a decent education is enormous.

Better than no education.

[Anonymous]

No for-profit school is jumping over itself to enroll special needs, undocumented, ESOL, physically disabled & low-income students. Not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

No need for reparations. Poor people pay very little to attend college. It's called financial aid. They can also join the military. It's called serving your country.

I’m curious to know how or why you think anyone has student loan debt if the current system indeed covers everyone (gives enough financial aid to the needy).

I never said that it covers everyone. A lot of middle class families are paying big bucks to send their kids to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people don’t think K-12 should be free.

Right, poor kids shouldn’t go to school. They should just dig ditches & work in Amazon warehouses all day starting in K.

K-12 could charge tuition and only be free for the truly needy.

+1

We’re the richest country on Earth. There is no need for that.

Public K-12 gets terrible results for most kids and is free. If you charge tuition it could be improved significantly.

Why do you think that would be the case?

Free public K-12 is already a huge failure for the overwhelming majority of kids.

And charging tuition would improve that because…?

Why continue what is already a total failure.

What alternative do you suggest? What should children do instead of attending school?

Keep it free for the truly needy, otherwise charge tuition and let schools compete for students.

What happens to the students too expensive to educate, and who won’t “produce”? What happens to the kids who don’t go to school? What should they do all day?

Free universal education has already failed in K-12. We should be looking to move past that model and not just accept failure.

Yes, we should look to exclude people instead.

The system already excludes most kids from a quality education. This would be more inclusive.

No need for reparations. Poor people pay very little to attend college. It's called financial aid. They can also join the military. It's called serving your country.

I’m curious to know how or why you think anyone has student loan debt if the current system indeed covers everyone (gives enough financial aid to the needy).

I never said that it covers everyone. A lot of middle class families are paying big bucks to send their kids to college.

Yes & taking out significant debt that will never be paid back in full. That’s a statement of fact, not an indictment of anyone. It’s not a good funding system.

[Anonymous]

Middle class families are squeezed & only having 1 kid nowadays. Not sure what the long-term implications of that will be. It is not possible to afford raising multiple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want a permanent, uneducated underclass.

Don’t we already have this?