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

[Anonymous]

I had one kid go away for college, and another attend local 4-year and live at home. I feel like I've gamed the system because we're not paying for an overpriced dorm, meal plan that doesn't get used, etc. I know some will say it's not really college without the dorm experience, but so far so good here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fancy stuff isn't what made the colleges expensive--it's what colleges did to attract students in a competitive marketplace. And alum like to donate for the sports and the gyms and the like more than other things. Big costs are research libraries, research equipment, updated classroom spaces, health insurance, administration to deal with ever-increasing regulations/liabilities, support staff needed for the wider array of students going to college (lot easier to educate just UMC kids with adequate resources in the past than a greater swath of the population that attends now). US colleges are highly regarded around the world, we should recognized the public value they hold and just fund them the way we used to.

Research grants pay for research equipment and buildings. Those aren't coming out of undergrad tuition.

Research grants do not pay for buildings.

Yes, they do. For every 1$ of research money l get from NIH, my research university gets .65 cents on top of that as “overhead” — that’s for administration and building maintenance. Harvard gets .75 or close to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I hate to break it to you, but that already exists. Poor kids move off campus and drop meal plans and any optional fees the second they are allowed to

Those on-campus meal plans are expensive - like restaurant take out prices. It's cheaper to cook your own meals at home. Usually poor people know how to stretch a buck. I don't think that the poors are living it up on their student loans. In many colleges, there is food insecurity among students, they even have donated food pantries at some schools.

It's so much harder to go the college now than when I was a student. I was on financial aid, had to work part-time, never had a car at school, but I had food and everything else I needed. I came out with a small amount of student loan debt at 0% which I paid off in a couple of years. I think student loan forgiveness is a great idea to level the playing field for low and moderate income students. Forgive the debt then make tuition free like other civilized countries in the world do.

You do realize that “other civilized countries” where tuition is “free” have much lower college attendance rates than the US? And in most of those countries, the college track kids are sorted out very early and it tends to be a very unequal process in terms of income? If your kid isn’t eligible for the Ivy League or other top-ranked schools that provide generous financial aid, they wouldn’t be attending college in those “other civilized countries.” Also, once in those colleges, there is almost zero additional academic support. Sink or swim. The US has a system that is actually more open to lower-income and first gen students, not to mention late bloomers, and much of the additional cost is generated by support programs to increase the retention rates for kids that may not have been as prepared for college as their peers who went to private and top public schools. You may need to borrow money to access the US system, but it is the most accessible.

That's not the case in all countries. In the US now, poorer kids are less well prepared than wealthier students. Then they may have to get into debt just to attend college. So they are more likely to not succeed at college, but the parting gift is a load of debt. It's sinks the students before they even get a chance to swim. If the US doesn't even out the playing field for the younger generation we may have more resentful people in red ball caps voting for politicians who promise to even out the playing field - an easier playing field like it used to be.

Please name the countries that have free university and have a greater % of the population attending college than the US.

There's a reason the US has such a large number of foreign students -- they can't get into the "free" university at home.

[Anonymous]

Why aren’t tradespeople being given $10K to cover the cost of their tools or work vehicles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I hate to break it to you, but that already exists. Poor kids move off campus and drop meal plans and any optional fees the second they are allowed to

Those on-campus meal plans are expensive - like restaurant take out prices. It's cheaper to cook your own meals at home. Usually poor people know how to stretch a buck. I don't think that the poors are living it up on their student loans. In many colleges, there is food insecurity among students, they even have donated food pantries at some schools.

It's so much harder to go the college now than when I was a student. I was on financial aid, had to work part-time, never had a car at school, but I had food and everything else I needed. I came out with a small amount of student loan debt at 0% which I paid off in a couple of years. I think student loan forgiveness is a great idea to level the playing field for low and moderate income students. Forgive the debt then make tuition free like other civilized countries in the world do.

You do realize that “other civilized countries” where tuition is “free” have much lower college attendance rates than the US? And in most of those countries, the college track kids are sorted out very early and it tends to be a very unequal process in terms of income? If your kid isn’t eligible for the Ivy League or other top-ranked schools that provide generous financial aid, they wouldn’t be attending college in those “other civilized countries.” Also, once in those colleges, there is almost zero additional academic support. Sink or swim. The US has a system that is actually more open to lower-income and first gen students, not to mention late bloomers, and much of the additional cost is generated by support programs to increase the retention rates for kids that may not have been as prepared for college as their peers who went to private and top public schools. You may need to borrow money to access the US system, but it is the most accessible.

+1000

Kids in most countries with "free university" start tracking kids around age 10/11. So the start of MS in USA. If you don't make the cut then, you will never get to university or certainly not with a STEM degree or premed/prelaw. So as PP stated, they make the cuts much earlier and you simply don't have the chance to attend university. I much prefer our system. Anyone can get an affordable education---may just not be the top notch university, but ultimately one can get their Engineering/CS or anything else from CC/Local state U at reasonable costs if cost is a major factor.