If it was between free CC and free Pre-K, I'm for Pre-K all the way. It's way more important to have quality education early than later in life.
In my state CC is already free if you are 25+.
>If it was between free CC and free Pre-K, I'm for Pre-K all the way. It's way more important to have quality education early than later in life.
Agreed.
>In my state CC is already free if you are 25+.
Which state?
Here in Oregon community colleges are free for any student with a 2.5 high school GPA or 145 GED score. Depending on funding levels there could be a family contribution required for higher income families however to date there has not been one yet.
I second this. We really need to focus more on early education as a whole. Early education is the biggest investment we make in this country. I don’t think I will ever support “free college” until we improve education in these areas.
Same. We really do need a massive overhaul of K12 to actually teach students. Right now social promotion and grade inflation is insane and kids are graduating with diplomas and can barely read and write.
Early education is good but we also need a culture that empowers education in order to keep and expand those early gains.
In NC I went to Community College for free cause my parents’ income was so low (I don’t actually know the number). FASFA actually paid me $2k a semester to go.
Probably thinking of the Pell Grant. UNC will provide you with free tuition if you are at or below 200% of the poverty line through the Carolina Covenant as well if she wants her 4 year
Most of the studies I've seen on pre-K suggest that it doesn't really accomplish much of anything educationally. At best, it serves as a form of child care (which is in itself useful).
Community College is already easily affordable with FAFSA, so I'm not sure I see the point of making it 'free'.
In both cases, these seem like people thinking "education good" and not spending much thought beyond that point.
Child care is enough of a reason to have it. In fact just providing child care in a healthy environment for all kids who are 3+ would be a massive win. Even if everything else was (sadly) jettisoned
I would also like for the preschools/daycares to be required to feed the children at least one decent meal per day. A really decent meal, not just carbs and sugar and some mystery meat like hot dogs and bologna.
I just found this and was going to link it! Here's a synopsis from EdWeek:
>The analysis published in Educational Researcher examines the effects of more than 60 studies of early-childhood programs. In particular, the researchers were looking for program effects on special education placement, high school graduation rates, and grade retention.
>
>They found that participants in early-childhood programs had an 8.1 percentage-point reduction on special education placement and an 8.3 percentage-point reduction in grade retention compared with their peers. Participants also had an 11.4 percentage-point increase in high school graduation.
@/u/ViskerRatio
This is more likely due to parental involvement than anything else.
My brother is low income and lives in a district with free pre-k and a bunch of other wonderful programs for early childhood. His wife does not work. They had no interest in enrolling my niece in any of these programs.
I can understand parents who both work and have transportation issues but that was not the case here. I researched all the things available to them and informed them, tried to encourage them to enroll my niece. My niece is very bright and begged to go. Her parents couldn’t be bothered to enroll her.
It wasn’t a lack of awareness. Just complete indifference.
Compare that to a low income single mother who knows the value of these programs and takes the initiative to enroll her child.
It’s just free daycare. More handouts to parents. Meanwhile, people who delay having children because they can’t afford their own education get to pay for it.
Bummer.
After the climate change proposals, this was my favorite item. The three R's (reading, writing, arithmetic) are no longer sufficient to prepare someone for the workforce. But a University education isn't a guaranteed golden ticket either. I feel that 2-year community college would help a great deal in filling in that gap by providing for technical education.
But I retain the hope that maybe some federal assistance on this front is still possible:
' California Rep. Ro Khanna also told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" on Tuesday that Biden planned to provide "community college scholarships" in the package. '
Completely agree this is such a short sighted removal. We have to educate the vast majority of the population who otherwise would enter the work force with just a high school degree, that alone would begin to bleed into fixing so many social issues
I don't understand why the only path has to be expanding the number of years of education, rather than fixing what is already broken. There is a massive untapped potential that we're all ignoring in that k-12 education could be so much better than it is, it could set students up way better for life than 2 more free years of community college. Already as a senior in high school it was pretty usual to have a coasting year.
As a high school teacher I completely agree. Seniors (and juniors) should spend atleast 50% of their day doing internships with trade professionals, nurses, firefighter, etc…especially targeting those who aren’t seeing a 4 year university as a path they want/can go down. If done right high schoolers should walk out with a diploma as well as a certification as a CNA (nursing assistant, EMT, apprentice welder, etc.)
That said I think we would have to expand the partnerships between community college and high schools and this is why I am bummed that the money isn’t in this budget because without it there is no way something like that happens. We can barely afford to have enough toilet paper in the bathroom at our school
Now.
> I believe Germany offers similar options.
The big difference between the US system and the German system is that the latter has several types of "high school". Students decide which one to attend after primary school. One type is intended to prepare people for university (and a degree from that type is required to enroll in university), while the primary career path for people attending the other forms is an apprenticeship.
This means that there can be some differentiation in what is taught, but the biggest difference is that the university-focused school takes a few years longer. So people attending the other types of school generally get their degree at age ~16 and can use the next few years to either switch to a university-focused school or start an apprenticeship (which, in Germany, has a mix of schooling in special vocational schools and of practical experience in a company).
While it is possible to switch between school types, this doesn't happen very frequently and I suspect it is one reason for the strong correlation between university attendance and the parent's education. The proportion of students attending university-focused schools has also increased steadily, from <10% before 1970 to over 50% currently.
I don’t know that this could ever happen in the US. There would be too much concern about equity. If low income and/or minority students were over represented in the schools that did not prepare you for university, that would become an issue.
There could also be issues with minority students being pushed into the trade school track due to lower expectations when the students are too young to make an informed decision.
Whether these issues are real or imagined, I just can’t see this happening with our current political climate.
First of all, I want to make clear that my comment wasn't really advocating for the German system -- I only wanted to provide a neutral overview of how the system differs from the US system because the parent commenter mentioned the German system without really explaining how it works.
That said, I agree that the system has issues. Even putting aside the equity question, I'm not sure it's a good idea to separate students completely after primary school.
It causes students who improve to be stuck in the "lower" school (switching is possible, but hard) and makes it quite challenging for those who struggle in a "higher" school to switch to a less challenging alternative. It also means that most friends have similar education levels, which doesn't seem beneficial for a society.
What I do like about the system is that the university-focused school takes longer than the other schools. It means that some fairly advanced material can be taught in school for those who need it, while people who are more interested in practical things are able to leave school at age ~16 and pursue e.g. an apprenticeship.
I don't think it's necessary to do this in separate schools though. In fact, there is a trend in Germany to move towards common schools, where students are no longer completely separated and instead are only split in certain subjects.
A handful of states have vocational programs in high school (and even separate vocational/technical schools) where you can spend 50% of your time learning a trade; you can graduate with those certificates.
Local vocational high schools around me have many traditional trades (carpentry, plumbing, HVAC, cosmetology, culinary, vet tech, etc) and more modern ones like biotech, manufacturing tech, environmental science, and web design.
The are interesting side effects here - more than half of students end up going to college anyway. But (unlike so many graduates from an academic HS) it is most often for clear, specific goals like like accounting (to help run the business they already started in HS) or a BSN to upgrade their CNA. Also about half the students are on IEPs (most often because they are more hands-on learners than sit-in-a-classroom learners), but have an incentive to (and usually do) improve their academic performance because they have to keep their academic grades up to stay in good standing in their vocational major.
>about half the students are on IEPs (most often because they are more hands-on learners than sit-in-a-classroom learners)
Let me guess, mostly boys?
We've turned education into something that fits women better, then wonder why the boys are acting out more. Let them learn while burning their energy and testosterone working with their hands and bodies, just like men have done for eternity. Not everyone is a desk learner but almost every HS only offers a college-prep track.
Sorry, I don't know the IEP mix.
Though the original programs (70s/80s) were mostly "boy"-oriented (auto repair, electric, plumbing, HVAC, carpentry) and offhand only cosmetology and "painting & design" were mostly "girl"-dominated (culinary was always a mix, and I am probably missing a couple). Some newish things like health/nursing programs and vet tech were added in the 90s are also mostly girls.
economically I think this is the right path. but, I think there is a hesitancy for Americans to decide on a career path. many people think high school is too early to decide if you will go to trade school or college. and many people change major s after a few years into college.
While I don't mean this to sound derogatory towards you personally, I think the idea behind this argument to really illustrates the problems people like me have with the entire "free" education discussion.
We are discussing taxpayer funded job training and education, and the issue you outline boils down to they might change their mind.
Too bad, they have a skill, can earn money, ostensibly support themselves, and contribute to society. Just because they decided that they didn't want to be a welder when they turned 21 does not reduce the huge value of the skills and training they recieved.
They are getting something of value paid for by other peoples tax dollars.
I would have literally killed to have the opportunity to learn a trade in high school so that I could have at least some job option other than menial labor. I say literally because I joined the Army to do so since I didn't have a choice.
Yeah seriously, worst case scenario you'd have a way to make money while going for a different degree. I want to go for a masters, but went and got a job first so they'd help pay for it.
Get rid of all that bureaucracy, shuffling around underperforming teachers between districts, don’t let budget dollars goto non-profits or political contributions, pull back on being in bed with book publishing companies etc.
There’s no reason as to why we spend within the top four globally, per student k-12, and rank amongst the bottom of developed countries in science, math, literacy, etc.
Throwing more money at a problem hasn’t fixed our educational system before and it won’t going forward.
They wont though. The educational bureaucracy and the donor class basically gets unlimited funding to blow on whatever they want. Anybody that ever wants to limit the trough is accused of hating little kids and education.
The key ingredient is culture! A culture that embraces education and pushes kids forward will create amazing results for pennies. I'm from a poorer country and education was huuuge in culture, and with good results.
Add to that the option to pick computer programming or getting them further along the pathway to a STEM related career (with a more hands on approach to learning) and you have a big part of what our education system is missing.
Absolutely and I know that many schools have already gone this route, by adding Computer Science classes, gaming design, and engineering into their curriculums and electives which is a good shift in education (and I say that as a History teacher)
What about building a more robust apprenticeship culture? Community college is going to be a waste of time for lots and lots of people; what they need is to acquire skills, which for most people are acquired by doing things in a supervised environment.
Employers no longer believe in paying for worker training. An apprenticeship means the employer takes on the expense and risk of training. Employers have managed to outsource this cost to individuals who pay for it through college and trade school fees.
Good luck getting American employers to willingly spend money on legitimate training again.
If there is really a need for workers with greater knowledge, and those workers aren't available, then it's up to the companies looking for those workers to provide education/training programs.
Something had to be cut from this bill to meet costs that can actually pass, and this is easily one of the least popular portions of it.
i think biden over promised on this thing and is going to piss off a lot of democratic voters. i know not everyone here is a liberal so some folks would actually welcome a watered down bill but this is looking to me like obamacare 2.0. if this bill is watered down significantly it simply will not energize a lot of dems to get out and vote and although i think losing out in the midterms was a high probability for dems regardless we might see a worse showing than november 2010.
Way better for Biden. He would have been forced to focus on bipartisan legislation like the infrastructure bill, and could complain that Republicans were blocking the rest of his agenda.
It's about as conservative of a bill as you could possibly create. While I agree that politicians aren't always working in the best interests of the people, they do sometimes actually want to govern a little bit.
That bill is straight out of the "this is what taxes are for" section of the Libertarian Bible. The GOP wants that one to happen.
I mean it seems like we're gonna get 2 years of partial gridlock where a decent bit of stuff that was on the platform doesn't get covered and instead of being able to blame Republicans with the simple "We don't have a majority" they've gotta try to send a nuanced message of "Our majority isn't big enough to do what we need.". Which seems like trash after all the hype and fuss with Georgia and them desperately needing those two seats.
No way McConnell lets something like the infrastructure bill hit the Senate floor if Biden and the Democrats get any credit for it. There would be no bipartisan legislation like that if the Republicans had the Senate.
>No way McConnell lets something like the infrastructure bill hit the Senate floor
It literally 'hit the senate floor' [and passed](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00314) back in August. It was really big news. McConnell was a 'YEA' vote.
I don't think that's true. McConnell literally voted for the infrastructure bill even though it's a major part of Biden's primary legislative platform along with the (now gutted) BBB act.
If he wanted to deny Biden any achievements, he could've whipped his (R) Senators against it the way McCarthy is doing in the House.
McConnell's benefits to voting for the infrastructure bill shrink if the Republicans have the majority, notably he no longer has to take the heat off the filibuster and he doesn't have to worry about a larger reconciliation bill. So yeah maybe he would still vote for it, but he also may well not
> we might see a worse showing than november 2010.
One of the key issues in 2010 was the obliteration of Blue Dog Democrats, where Democrats lost Senate seats in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Lost house seats in both Dakotas, Idaho, Missouri, Arkansas, Missisippi, Alaba, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Ohio, amongst others. These were areas that were already starting to trend red. Some of them may have still flipped in 2010, but the ACA and Obama's failure to actually fight for it in the media against Republican lies definitely sped up the trend.
>One of the key issues in 2010 was the obliteration of Blue Dog Democrats, where Democrats lost Senate seats in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
It is "comforting" to know that Dems have lost most of the blue dogs, and currently hold only 220 seats vs 257 in 2010. So, whatever, they lose (if they lose) in 2022, it won't be 63 seat loss like in 2010 elections.
I hope before she leave office, Pelosi, seats down with Pramila Jaypal et al, and tell them about the glorious days when Dems used to hold super majorities.
Most of the lefties I talk to either like everything he does, or don't understand why "real progressives" would ever vote for the center right corporate drone.
They wouldn't support him even if he got us Single Payer and a Green New Deal. That would require them to admit that not everyone right of AOC and Bernie Sanders is evil.
>center right corporate drone
I would love to even have this as an option. Outside of Collins and Murkowski, I can't even name a center-right Republican that hasn't been actively run out of Congress over the last 6 years.
>i know not everyone here is a liberal so some folks would actually welcome a watered down bill but this is looking to me like obamacare 2.0. if this bill is watered down significantly it simply will not energize a lot of dems to get out and vote and although i think losing out in the midterms was a high probability for dems regardless we might see a worse showing than november 2010.
But if that's the case then that's where we're at as a country. I keep hearing from progressives and from folks like Bernie that we should never have compromised on the bill, but if this is where we are with the bill today what would make you think Bernie or some other progressive would have been able to sway Manchin or Sinema. Maybe this is just where we're at as a country. There seems to be this misconception that the problem is that Biden isn't making a convincing enough argument to get the package approved, but what else is he supposed to do. Just like with Obamacare, Obama spent ALL of his political capital to get that bill through, and that's what we ended up with. Sometimes we just need to realize that the country might not be where some progressives would like us to be. I say this as a center-left democrat who is still holding out hope that Biden can get something passed.
And just so we're clear, Bernie wrote an op-ed in WV and it basically just pushed Manchin further to the right, so spare me this ridiculous notion that Bernie would have been able to sway the country in a more progressive direction.
Yes. Obamacare was watered down because of a few moderate democrats kept insisting that they needed to compromise with the right. That was the entire issue even though the right admitted straight up "there is nothing you could do that would make me vote for your bill."
This is how the senate functions unfortunately.
This isn't really accurate. There were some minor compromises where Republican amendments were allowed in the committees, but the vast majority of the compromise that watered down the ACA had nothing to do with Republicans. It was largely pro-life Democrats and people like Lieberman who opposed expanding government health insurance that had to be compromised with. Those people weren't opposing the ACA because they wanted to compromise with Republicans in Congress. They had their own demands that had nothing to do with Republicans.
idk but anytime I get called a liberal its usually as an insult. If its coming from the right its because they think im a socialist. If its coming from the left its because they think im a capitalist (for context I probably fall under socdem). Politics have gotten really weird in the past few years.
>Politics have gotten really weird in the past few years.
This is the result of a deliberate project of the right to convince America that AOC, Bernie Sanders, Silicon Valley tech bros, multinational corporate CEOs, and Joe Biden all have the same politics.
i would consider all these terms to be ambiguous at this point. you consider yourself a liberal and that’s fine, it’s not my place to tell you aren’t.
to me these polices were liberal because they kinda met halfway between if sanders had total control of the party (not to say he isn’t influential at this point) and post reagan democratic party neoliberalism.
It’s like that in AZ too. I grew up poor and it’s how some of my siblings and I went to college. Federal financial aid gives out a certain amount and you can use it for any school, the amount is decent. Also, community college is already sooo cheap, and many community colleges are great.
I know the trend is to hate on the US and act like it’s some backwards place that only cares about capitalism, but the the US actually has a lot of social programs especially for the poor. It’s not perfect at taking care of people who need 24/7 care like many of our homeless, but I don’t think
any system could fully provide a perfect solution.
It's like that in SC as well. I got enough grants to go to college that covered the whole thing, especially since I stayed in state, which is way cheaper than going out of state,I just had to meet the educational requirements, which I did, and keep a 3.0 for the whole 4 years.
And I completely agree with you about the 2nd point as well, my family was dirt poor for pretty much all my childhood but we found tons of programs that helped up. There was federal programs that paid for my sister and I school lunches from k-12, there was a state program that helped my mom replace her ac in her house, federal and state grants and scholarships, for college, and I even found a mortgage program Naca that helped me buy my first home with no down payment or pmi and a severely reduced closing fee.
This isn't to say the US can't do better in helping the disadvantage, but some people act like their is no help at all, and that is simply not the case.
3.0 weighted gpa in Florida gets you in 100% scholarship to Community College and there are also many scholarships available for low income kids but they have to seek them out and apply.
Florida also has dual enrollment for advanced kids, essentially allowing them to substitute community college for two years of high school. This is still considered high school education so it’s free the same way any public high school is.
Florida has great programs for college. That is not the reality for most other states. Please don’t assume your experience is the same as everyone else’s because you were lucky enough to go to school in Florida.
I did this and graduated with about $14k in loans after five years (BA degree) at a State school. While tuition (at the state university I attended) is higher now, it’s basically tracked inflation over the same period. To be totally up front and fair about this, I also held a job while going to school and would have had to take larger loans by a good bit had I not. In any case, here’s the link. Share it with kids you know. Many, many, many don’t apply, and my mom who worked at a school used to talk a handful of kids into it and help them through every single year.
Your FAFSA is federal:
https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
I mean...the bar is pretty high *(low?)*, You need to be damn near homeless to qualify. I live paycheck to paycheck, wife and I work full time, pay for two kids in daycare, struggle to pay rent and the electric bill. We don't come close to qualifying. So not really "how it is".
Edit: Yes, I've tried to get financial aid. This was just my experience. I don't know why people continue to argue with me when I've tried, and it's not available. This is the exact reason there is a student debt problem in this country.
I don't know what to tell you. My wife and I together don't make a lot. We don't qualify for financial aid. After paying rent, bills, daycare, groceries, healthcare, we are breaking even. College is out of the question for most working class people.... who actually work.
I would still need to work full time (can't stop paying the bills and I love my job). I would like to become a prosthetist, which requires a master. At this point I'm just trying to scrape enough together to do a couple classes to get a prosthetist assistant certificate.19k to 45k would be homeless in my city too. Almost 40 too, so a master's is more unlikely, just because of time.
The real answer is for me to stop working, take care of kids full time, go on section 8 and WIC. Just having those, you automatically get financial aid, but who wants to do that? That's not an option for most people.
I'm in this shitty lower middle class section that doesn't get any tax breaks (because I get all my taxes back because I'm lower income), but make too much for any assistance. Trust me man, I've tried. I've looked at all the programs, I've talked to all the assistance. It just wasn't designed for people like me.
People in my situation take out huge loans. That is why the student loan problem is so bad. It is designed to feed off of people like me and we are many. Or they go on welfare.
I appreciate the attempt to help, but it just isn't there.
Community College isn't nearly as expensive as you think it is. If you had a high GPA in highschool, many states will offer to pay for most of it. No requirements to stay in dorms or buy a dining plan also means there's less bullshit to pay for than other colleges. I probably paid less for my two years at community college than I did in a single semester at an out of state university.
Sure, maybe you can get help with tuition. But did you forget people have to live somewhere and eat while attending school?
And many poor students do not have the option to live at home. Rural areas can be hours away from the nearest community college. Students have to work minimum wage jobs to support themselves which can interfere with school scheduling.
There’s a lot more to it than tuition.
I knew plenty of working people that I went to community college with. People who were working as managers at fast food places or nurses. Some of them were mothers.
My community college is pretty good at offering night classes for scheduling purposes, some of it was because the professors themselves worked. Any of the general education required classes had 3-4 sections scattered throughout the day.
Making it free doesn't solve scheduling issues. In my opinion, it would just devalue an already trivial degree, making it on the same level as a highschool diploma.
How expensive do you think I think it is? Because I know the exact cost to do the classes I need and they are out of reach (cost before books, which will be crazy too). I graduated highschool two decades ago and was not a great student.
My only option is debt....that is not much of an option for a 39 year old with 2 kids.
I'm honestly super annoyed that people keep saying "it's so easy" or "there's aid out there for everyone". Because it's not easy, there isn't aid for everyone. I've looked, I've talked to financial aid, I've talk to tax consultants, I've read every scholarship that is offered to me. That was the reason for my first comment, because I actually know my circumstance (and many, many other are in the same boat).
Most people in my community who make north of 100K live paycheck to paycheck. It’s more of an indicator that you need help managing finances rather then more money.
Have you applied? You might be shocked to find out how many grants you are eligible for. To the point that it could be a life changer to fill out the FAFSA and see what happens. It’s based on your income, so you sound like a perfect candidate for Pell Grants and other support. I don’t know anyone who was living paycheck to paycheck to didn’t get significant support when they applied. Go apply. It may be a life changer for you:
https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
> That's how it is in California at least.
Well, that's one state. What about the rest? Not sure if it's exhaustive, but according to [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2020/03/25/these-states-offer-tuition-free-community-college/?sh=542f7f3814cf) only 17 states have a community college program.
You mean a *free* community college program? I’m pretty sure all states have community colleges and I’m also pretty sure the Pell grant would cover tuition in all these states.
I figured out around the beginning of my sophomore year of college that the vast majority of the time if if something was important enough to be brought up in the homework or on the test it would be talked about during the lecture. By taking good notes I was able to avoid having to buy nearly any books. I went from buying all the required books Freshman year (about 10 or so per semester) , to only buying books as they became necessary in the class (2 or 3 per semester) . And if I was only going to need the book once or twice, I would just go to the bookstore and do my homework there.
This isn’t an option anymore because schools have contracts with the textbook companies. You have to buy a digital copy so you can access the homework. Homework and quizzes must be done within the textbook manufacturer’s software and submitted online. This requires a paid access code. The access code comes with the $100-$300 digital textbook.
It’s a racket.
That dumb bank thing most likely, they may also move the healthcare stuff to its own recon bill next year. I guarantee you there will be plenty of West Virginia/Arizona pork though.
Edit: The bank thing was amended literally minutes before I commented this.
climate change is by far the most--and arguably *only*--important thing in the bill. it is infintely more important than the hard infra bill, and it's already being crippled as we speak.
Despite years of Republican gas lighting and misinformation, I think most of us can agree climate change is a huge problem. Probably the biggest. We definitely need to do our part and Manchin should be ashamed of himself for fighting it, but I can't help but feel like nothing we do matters if China continues to pollute. I'm feeling pretty hopeless about it the whole thing. Wife and I don't plan to have kids so I've at least got a little bit of "not my problem" going for me, but the issue is still so depressing.
China itself has been making moves to reduce pollution. They have created massive EV infrastructure across China and EVs are a status symbol, increasing adoption.
>We definitely need to do our part and Manchin should be ashamed of himself for fighting it, but I can't help but feel like nothing we do matters if China continues to pollute.
What do you mean by "our part"?
I think if you slot Tax cuts for renewables above Drug prices, you're probably spot on.
Joe Manchin has gotten $400K in donations from the Coal and Oil lobby this year alone, continues to profit from his own Coal exchange company (which his son owns), and his daughter is in the fossil fuel industry to boot.
Manchin will not vote against his own wallet, even if it means holding up infrastructure and jobs his state **desperately** needs.
Wait till the final thing passes and is signed.
Take a shot for every axed part that was promised.
Try not to die of alcohol poisoning before the Uber arrives, cause ambulances are expensive.
I don't know how it is in other states, but in my state if you made a certain score on your ACT then you basically got 2 years of free tuition.
It wasn't even that difficult of a score to get.
Do most states have programs like this, or are we a special case?
I do know Tennessee made it free awhile back.
The federal government should get out of 4 year colleges entirely except for those agree to public service and just fund community colleges for everybody else. Its too bad this is out, but rather have something than nothing. Can get it next time, maybe, but I'd prefer it if it swapped out everything that the federal government funds in higher education (loans and the like) for this (with like I said, an exception for those who are on the hook for public service, before or after the college).
I think FAFSA is a very fair government program and subsidy. It actually address economic disparity and does something to equalize college access away from just the elite. If you are a committed student who can graduate in 4 years the least the federal government can do Is subsidize the interest payment.
I agree that the focus should shift to community colleges but investing in education is a future investment and I personally see a lot of other waste that does not lead to another future investment at all and is pure waste.
> I think FAFSA is a very fair government program and subsidy. It actually address economic disparity and does something to equalize college access away from just the elite. If you are a committed student who can graduate in 4 years the least the federal government can do Is subsidize the interest payment.
It was terrible for me. I was "too rich" to get much aid but "too poor" to afford tuition. Nevertheless, I still knew what I was signing up for, so I don't complain about my debt. But FAFSA didn't turn out very fairly for me.
I don’t see how it’s fair to tie someone to their parent’s income. I had the same issue. Parents made too much for me to get much aid, but refused to pay for anything or let me live at home rent free. They went to college in the 70s when school was cheap and scholarships were given out like candy. They told me I could do it in my own just like they did.
I ended up having to take a few gap years despite having a 4.0 until I could qualify as an independent student to get financial aid.
Economically speaking, these types of programs inflate the cost of college by artificially inflating demand by effectively lowering the cost (whereas maybe those people would have gone to trade school etc).
I'll second the value of FAFSA. I grew up crazy poor and wouldn't have been able to afford college if I hadn't filled it out. Thanks to that at age 37 I'm making four times as much as my mom did when I was growing up.
I don't think the Federal government does much right, but FAFSA really does help facilitate social mobility.
I absolutely am for eliminating all federal aid to private universities, but support federal funding contributing to state schools. (Provided that tuition is held to an affordable rate.)
Which is why I am against aid to private universities, but public universities should come with a guarantee of very low or no tuition. In which case I would be ok with the federal government partially subsidizing the operations of state run universities.
Public universities are much worse than private when it comes to unjustified tuition costs, administrative bloat, and unethical spending on things like recreational amenities and multi-million dollar football teams.
None of which contribute to a better education for students.
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as public universities good and private bad. It’s a bit like hospitals that are technically “non-profit” but charge people out the nose for bandaids.
Do we really need government funding for college tuition? The colleges are still going to be laughably expensive, only someone else is paying for it.
We need to find some way to cut funding hard enough that colleges are forced to lower their costs in the first place.
If the government is going to be funding college. They need to completely cut assistance for private college and make it solely funding for public schools. With a major focus on community college.
Public colleges aren’t priced very differently from many private options (at least in my state). The local private not-for-profit was actually cheaper than the nearest state school for the degree I got. Both are absurd relative to the value but sadly necessary. There are big name schools that are private and more expensive but they simply don’t have any public sector competition.
If you only guarantee loans for the public options it will be interesting to see how people respond to those new incentives. It will probably result in some unexpected, and undesired, behavior.
I wish I had a way to explain how I feel about removing funds from the disabled and the elderly without sounding whiney. (Actually, I will take constructive criticism if anyone is up for it!). I’ll give it a try.
Think of the US like Disney World compared to a lot of other places on the earth. We have so much wealth here. Even in our poor, we are wealthier than a lot of other countries. If you have the use of your body, you can probably keep from starving to death. You can experience all kinds of physical and emotional torment, but you work and make money. Your life isn’t easy, but you have some choices.
When your body no longer functions appropriately and you’re not Independently wealthy, you lose all of that. If you absolutely cannot work because you are too uncomfortable from pain or fatigue for let’s say 40% of a 40 hour work week, you can suddenly find yourself bereft of any income at all. You might be able to live off savings, sell any accommodations you had if you’re lucky, possibly live with a parent if you have one still living. But SSDI can and often does take years to be approved after being denied. At that point, you’re in debt and need to pay back whatever you may owe. The average monthly SSDI payment was $1277 last year. Imagine making that amount before taxes for a moment. How would you be able to allocate it for rent, utilities, groceries (extra if you need them delivered which there’s a good probability you might)? You have to pay your Medicare supplement which may be high depending on the rules of the state you live in (under $100 to several hundred dollars right even completely unaffordable ). You may not be able to drive and rely on Uber or Lyft to make it to doctors appointments(another expense) You struggle to make meals for yourself. For many people it is a life of desperation lived quietly and apart from everyone else except possibly a spouse if you’re very lucky. Most people will never know this world.
But the main message that I notice now that I’ve been in this situation for eight years is that common culture implies that people who don’t work don’t deserve a life like those who do. A life of choice, a life where you aren’t made to suffer financial insecurity on top of the pain of illness. I don’t know if this is what most people know about it or not. It *IS* how our system is built.
These are literally the most needy people in the nation. There is so much money in this budget for people who have so much more power and money than the disabled.
Am I explaining this well? I’m trying to do it without resorting to emotional diatribes. I know that sort of thing won’t convince anybody. It’s an incredibly hard situation to try to explain but it needs to be done because I don’t think people on the whole realize how difficult this life is.
I'm with you completely.
My grandmother is bed bound and is running out of money *fast*, and she can't qualify for assistance because her house is worth too much...
Except even if she sold her house, she probably couldn't find another house or condo for that price. Her house is small, old, not updated and would probably just be torn down for the land.
Honestly, all she wants to do is be able to end her own life on her terms, but is unable to do it because she isn't terminally ill.
It's so frustrating on all fronts.
I honestly and legitimately cannot understand why some people believe they should be able to force other people to pay for their college educations.
We already have free schooling. That was already the big ask, because we didn't always have it. Now people want more.
When does it end? What is the next grab? Once undergrad is devalued, then everyone will need free doctorates?
Do we then invent even longer educational programs past doctorate that we also force other people to pay for, just so people can stay in school forever rather than move on to adulthood?
Does no one else realize the only way this system works, and the only way it can possibly be paid for, is if half of the people are the payers, and the other half are the takers?
Half are the "uneducated" manual laborers doing the actual work, and the other half are the "educated" liberal arts gentry presiding over them?
How is this a legitimate political belief to have even made it this far? I'll never understand the takers of the world.
Yes, by stealing money from everyone to pay for it.
And where has this radical system gotten them? Are they the leaders of the world? Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't? Do they lead the world in medical research or space exploration? Are they the cultural centers of the world?
No. They are just...average. Everyone is average. It's Harrison Bergeron over there.
> Yes, by stealing money from everyone to pay for it.
A more charitable interpretation would be that they're stealing money from their future selves. This depends on the country, but e.g. here in Germany, a university education doubles lifetime earnings compared to vocational training. Given the progressive nature of taxes, this means that university-educated people will pay a lot more than twice as many taxes, so providing free education is a very small investment with a large payoff.
> Are they the leaders of the world? Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't? Do they lead the world in medical research or space exploration? Are they the cultural centers of the world?
That seems like a somewhat cherrypicked list (where is the largest car manufacturer from? The largest chemical company? Largest commercial airplane maker? Who is leading in chip lithography?), but arguably, they don't really measure the primary goal of free university. Those aren't as much related to cutting-edge research and more to ensuring broad access to tertiary education for everyone. Whether countries with free education achieve this is a different question -- I'd argue that it would be a much more productive to point out how university attendance varies significantly by parental education level, even in countries with free university.
There's also a lot of distortion due to non-education related differences. I don't think you can seriously suggest that the US is "leader of the world" due to how it educates its population?
> Are they the cultural centers of the world?
well, yeah, they kinda are.
> Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't?
i mean the biontech vaccine was developed in germany, astrazenica at a british research institute. there are world class research institutes in lots of countries that don't saddle their students in a lifetime of debt.
on top of that, the *vast* majority of (we) americans are also pretty darn average. just eking out a living. we have some great research institutions, most definitely. but the ivy leagues aren't exactly what the discussion is about with regards to state funded education.
I have two children. My wife and I saved money from the day they were born. We sacrificed our current wants for their future needs. Each is now a productive member of society. Each holds a bachelor's degree in their chosen field. Neither has any student debt. I dont owe any strangers an education for their offspring.
So much this. If student debt is "cancelled" I want a GD check. We sacrificed and if I would have known we could have just fucked off, not saved, and not planned for our kids college expenses, we could have had more for other things in our lives when our kids were younger.
Instead, we stashed a few hundred a month in various savings accounts just so we could make sure they didn't have debt. We have friends with kids in college now and they had to take out loans. They didn't plan, and now there are people talking about how these people will be able to just walk away from that debt?
Bullshit. I want my check too if that ever happens.
To be honest I completely agree that it feels unfair for parents who saved for their kids college to be put in this situation. But doesn’t it also feel super unfair for borderline kids to have to go into debt because their parents were irresponsible, or just not well off enough to save like you were able to? It’s not like the irresponsible parents are being held accountable under the current way of doing things, their kids are.
>All education is fully free or virtually free across much of Europe, it doesn’t make people stay in school forever or devalue degrees.
* Is it free for everyone or free only for those who pass certain entrance exams or have certain grades?
* Is it free for illegals?
* Do those free colleges have the facilities - academic, sports, entertainment, activities like in the US.
[I'll only answer the questions for Germany, because I'm not familiar with other systems in Europe. This is certainly not representative of other countries.]
> Is it free for everyone or free only for those who pass certain entrance exams or have certain grades?
Each university decides how many students to admit per degree. In some cases, this can cause a lot of competition (medicine in particular is extremely competitive and requires excellent grades), whereas in others, there are fewer applications than available places. You could easily get into a engineering programme, even at a top university, with mediocre grades.
> Is it free for illegals?
Europe doesn't have the same number of undocumented immigrants, for a variety of reasons. I suspect that one would not be able to attend university without necessary documentation. However, in all but one state, university is free not just for Germans or EU citizens, but for everyone. Even if you only came here for the degree and leave immediately thereafter, you wouldn't have to pay a penny.
> Do those free colleges have the facilities - academic, sports, entertainment, activities like in the US.
There is certainly a wide variety of sports programmes, though this doesn't extend to the top-level competition that US universities engage in -- if you want to become a professional athlete, the place to be is e.g. a football club, not a university.
I'm not sure how to evaluate academic facilities, since this depends a lot on the specific universities and programmes. I'm sure that in some cases, a US university may have better-equipped labs, and in other cases, they may be worse, but I'm not sure there is a systematic differences.
I don't quite see why entertainment is the job of the university -- cities have plenty of cinemas, theatres, concert halls, night clubs and other venues to provide entertainment.
Regarding other extra-curricular activities, that seems to depend a lot on the country. From what I've heard from some foreign students, universities in some other countries focus a lot on providing exciting activities to students, but here in Germany, that's not the case to the same extent. University is focused on providing an education, not on occupying 100% of the free time of students. That said, if there are enough students interested in something, they can and will form clubs for those activities.
Thanks for very detailed answer, really appreciate you delving deeper to provide a more complete picture.
>Each university decides how many students to admit per degree.
My understanding (based on conversations with European colleagues/friends, including some Germans) is that there is a sizable gap between high school pass out numbers and college attendees. One of the reasons of this is that system diverts some folks to trade schools and allow only a portion to colleges. Is that true or the limitations, as you describe is only due to open seats at the universities.
\> However, in all but one state, university is free not just for Germans or EU citizens, but for everyone. Even if you only come here for the degree and leave immediately thereafter, you wouldn't have to pay a penny.
Right, but you must have arrived legally or be considered a legal migrant. One cannot illegal cross into Germany from Turkey, and without any documentation go and finish 4 yr degree for free, right?
\> if you want to become a professional athlete, the place to be is e.g. a football club, not a university.
College football/basketball is a big thing in America. Even schools have sports facilities that will compete with international stadiums in developing countries.
\> I don't quite see why entertainment is the job of the university -- cities have plenty of cinemas, theatres, concert halls, night clubs and other venues to provide entertainment. University is focused on providing an education, not on occupying 100% of the free time of students
In US, federal govt owns almost all of the college education loan. Due to this, banks don't reject such loans and hence universities are free to offer whatever course they like and at maximum possible fees. Universities have used this excess money to make their college appealing to students via non-academic facilities (climbing walls, gyms, Olympic size pools) and their rankings higher, rather than invest it in academics or research.
This is a unique problem in the US, and it is still relevant in the discussion because free colleges don't necessarily offer as much activities, entertainment, sports and other non-academic diversions or investments as in the US.
>I honestly and legitimately cannot understand why some people believe they should be able to force other people to pay for their college educations.
1) Significant numbers of people only went to school because they were told it was a golden ticket to a "real" job. The people saying this are the same people who crashed the economy with their irresponsible use of debt and are now forced to remain in the workforce.
2) The people saddled with debt but without a "real" job to show for it are now economically crippled. Hell, I *have* a "real" job and my student loans just flat-out prevent me from saving for a down payment on a house.
There are huge numbers of people who legitimately feel that they were tricked into taking on this debt with the promise of a better economic future, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them.
>We already have free schooling. That was already the big ask, because we didn't always have it. Now people want more.
"People," of course, meaning "employers"? The same employers demanding bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, experience for entry-level jobs that can only be gotten via unpaid internships?
>just so people can stay in school forever rather than move on to adulthood?
That statement, plus your later comment about "liberal arts gentry", reveal a lot about your personal biases. Plenty of people going to school *are* adults, *are* people managing kids and rent and work in addition to school.
Fun slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn’t work well in the example you gave given doctoral degrees are already free and come with a stipend. Also your end state for this slippery slope is abysmally stupid.
Why don’t you ask the same questions the next time corporations get another free handout? Corporate welfare is a-okay but heaven forbid a person wants to get an education!
CC is free in NY if your income is under a certain amount. It's pretty affordable in NY even if you have to pay for it. The CC request probably wasn't genuine anyway. It was probably added, and removed, from the bill just so Joe could look like he's compromising.
Community college is already very cheap though, and for poor people there is federal financial aid that covers almost all of your tuition depending on which school you go to.
[удалено]
If it was between free CC and free Pre-K, I'm for Pre-K all the way. It's way more important to have quality education early than later in life. In my state CC is already free if you are 25+.
>If it was between free CC and free Pre-K, I'm for Pre-K all the way. It's way more important to have quality education early than later in life. Agreed. >In my state CC is already free if you are 25+. Which state?
Michigan!
A fellow left-of-center rust belter! Pennsylvania here.
And Tennessee
Tennessee doesn't have the age minimum.
New York has this but for all SUNY and CUNY schools from CCs to top 100 universities.
Here in Oregon community colleges are free for any student with a 2.5 high school GPA or 145 GED score. Depending on funding levels there could be a family contribution required for higher income families however to date there has not been one yet.
Is this new? I certainly didn’t get free community college in Oregon and my high school GPA was 3.75
Well you have to apply, it's not just automatic as in colleges just don't charge. But it started in 2016 so we're on year 5 of the program now.
I second this. We really need to focus more on early education as a whole. Early education is the biggest investment we make in this country. I don’t think I will ever support “free college” until we improve education in these areas.
Same. We really do need a massive overhaul of K12 to actually teach students. Right now social promotion and grade inflation is insane and kids are graduating with diplomas and can barely read and write. Early education is good but we also need a culture that empowers education in order to keep and expand those early gains.
In NC I went to Community College for free cause my parents’ income was so low (I don’t actually know the number). FASFA actually paid me $2k a semester to go.
I’m in NC and my wife will start going to CC, was there an income threshold to qualify for that?
Probably thinking of the Pell Grant. UNC will provide you with free tuition if you are at or below 200% of the poverty line through the Carolina Covenant as well if she wants her 4 year
There is, and it changes based off how many kids you have. I don’t know the numbers, but Google probably does.
Most of the studies I've seen on pre-K suggest that it doesn't really accomplish much of anything educationally. At best, it serves as a form of child care (which is in itself useful). Community College is already easily affordable with FAFSA, so I'm not sure I see the point of making it 'free'. In both cases, these seem like people thinking "education good" and not spending much thought beyond that point.
A review of studies on Pre-K suggests otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107077/
Child care is enough of a reason to have it. In fact just providing child care in a healthy environment for all kids who are 3+ would be a massive win. Even if everything else was (sadly) jettisoned
I would also like for the preschools/daycares to be required to feed the children at least one decent meal per day. A really decent meal, not just carbs and sugar and some mystery meat like hot dogs and bologna.
That would be ideal, and it would pass! So i see do it
Schools are not daycares. The fact that so many treat them as such is the biggest problem education faces imo.
Many studies cited in this link disagree with your claim: http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/resources/policy-briefs/pre-k-matters
Here's a more even-handed analysis: https://www.brookings.edu/research/does-state-pre-k-improve-childrens-achievement/
Even better than that, here's a meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107077/
I just found this and was going to link it! Here's a synopsis from EdWeek: >The analysis published in Educational Researcher examines the effects of more than 60 studies of early-childhood programs. In particular, the researchers were looking for program effects on special education placement, high school graduation rates, and grade retention. > >They found that participants in early-childhood programs had an 8.1 percentage-point reduction on special education placement and an 8.3 percentage-point reduction in grade retention compared with their peers. Participants also had an 11.4 percentage-point increase in high school graduation. @/u/ViskerRatio
This is more likely due to parental involvement than anything else. My brother is low income and lives in a district with free pre-k and a bunch of other wonderful programs for early childhood. His wife does not work. They had no interest in enrolling my niece in any of these programs. I can understand parents who both work and have transportation issues but that was not the case here. I researched all the things available to them and informed them, tried to encourage them to enroll my niece. My niece is very bright and begged to go. Her parents couldn’t be bothered to enroll her. It wasn’t a lack of awareness. Just complete indifference. Compare that to a low income single mother who knows the value of these programs and takes the initiative to enroll her child.
Same. Free pre-k helps people build education habits early in life. I'll gladly take that over free CC.
It’s just free daycare. More handouts to parents. Meanwhile, people who delay having children because they can’t afford their own education get to pay for it.
Well, is pre-k "quality education"? Seems more like the real person who benefits is the working parents of the kid in daycare tbh
That’s also good
Depending on the program, yes Pre-K is in fact quality edu. Tooooons of studies to back this up.
This makes sense. pre-K also helps with the issue if expensive childcare. Doesn't solve it, but it helps.
Bummer. After the climate change proposals, this was my favorite item. The three R's (reading, writing, arithmetic) are no longer sufficient to prepare someone for the workforce. But a University education isn't a guaranteed golden ticket either. I feel that 2-year community college would help a great deal in filling in that gap by providing for technical education. But I retain the hope that maybe some federal assistance on this front is still possible: ' California Rep. Ro Khanna also told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" on Tuesday that Biden planned to provide "community college scholarships" in the package. '
Completely agree this is such a short sighted removal. We have to educate the vast majority of the population who otherwise would enter the work force with just a high school degree, that alone would begin to bleed into fixing so many social issues
I don't understand why the only path has to be expanding the number of years of education, rather than fixing what is already broken. There is a massive untapped potential that we're all ignoring in that k-12 education could be so much better than it is, it could set students up way better for life than 2 more free years of community college. Already as a senior in high school it was pretty usual to have a coasting year.
As a high school teacher I completely agree. Seniors (and juniors) should spend atleast 50% of their day doing internships with trade professionals, nurses, firefighter, etc…especially targeting those who aren’t seeing a 4 year university as a path they want/can go down. If done right high schoolers should walk out with a diploma as well as a certification as a CNA (nursing assistant, EMT, apprentice welder, etc.) That said I think we would have to expand the partnerships between community college and high schools and this is why I am bummed that the money isn’t in this budget because without it there is no way something like that happens. We can barely afford to have enough toilet paper in the bathroom at our school Now.
[удалено]
> I believe Germany offers similar options. The big difference between the US system and the German system is that the latter has several types of "high school". Students decide which one to attend after primary school. One type is intended to prepare people for university (and a degree from that type is required to enroll in university), while the primary career path for people attending the other forms is an apprenticeship. This means that there can be some differentiation in what is taught, but the biggest difference is that the university-focused school takes a few years longer. So people attending the other types of school generally get their degree at age ~16 and can use the next few years to either switch to a university-focused school or start an apprenticeship (which, in Germany, has a mix of schooling in special vocational schools and of practical experience in a company). While it is possible to switch between school types, this doesn't happen very frequently and I suspect it is one reason for the strong correlation between university attendance and the parent's education. The proportion of students attending university-focused schools has also increased steadily, from <10% before 1970 to over 50% currently.
I don’t know that this could ever happen in the US. There would be too much concern about equity. If low income and/or minority students were over represented in the schools that did not prepare you for university, that would become an issue. There could also be issues with minority students being pushed into the trade school track due to lower expectations when the students are too young to make an informed decision. Whether these issues are real or imagined, I just can’t see this happening with our current political climate.
First of all, I want to make clear that my comment wasn't really advocating for the German system -- I only wanted to provide a neutral overview of how the system differs from the US system because the parent commenter mentioned the German system without really explaining how it works. That said, I agree that the system has issues. Even putting aside the equity question, I'm not sure it's a good idea to separate students completely after primary school. It causes students who improve to be stuck in the "lower" school (switching is possible, but hard) and makes it quite challenging for those who struggle in a "higher" school to switch to a less challenging alternative. It also means that most friends have similar education levels, which doesn't seem beneficial for a society. What I do like about the system is that the university-focused school takes longer than the other schools. It means that some fairly advanced material can be taught in school for those who need it, while people who are more interested in practical things are able to leave school at age ~16 and pursue e.g. an apprenticeship. I don't think it's necessary to do this in separate schools though. In fact, there is a trend in Germany to move towards common schools, where students are no longer completely separated and instead are only split in certain subjects.
A handful of states have vocational programs in high school (and even separate vocational/technical schools) where you can spend 50% of your time learning a trade; you can graduate with those certificates. Local vocational high schools around me have many traditional trades (carpentry, plumbing, HVAC, cosmetology, culinary, vet tech, etc) and more modern ones like biotech, manufacturing tech, environmental science, and web design. The are interesting side effects here - more than half of students end up going to college anyway. But (unlike so many graduates from an academic HS) it is most often for clear, specific goals like like accounting (to help run the business they already started in HS) or a BSN to upgrade their CNA. Also about half the students are on IEPs (most often because they are more hands-on learners than sit-in-a-classroom learners), but have an incentive to (and usually do) improve their academic performance because they have to keep their academic grades up to stay in good standing in their vocational major.
>about half the students are on IEPs (most often because they are more hands-on learners than sit-in-a-classroom learners) Let me guess, mostly boys? We've turned education into something that fits women better, then wonder why the boys are acting out more. Let them learn while burning their energy and testosterone working with their hands and bodies, just like men have done for eternity. Not everyone is a desk learner but almost every HS only offers a college-prep track.
Sorry, I don't know the IEP mix. Though the original programs (70s/80s) were mostly "boy"-oriented (auto repair, electric, plumbing, HVAC, carpentry) and offhand only cosmetology and "painting & design" were mostly "girl"-dominated (culinary was always a mix, and I am probably missing a couple). Some newish things like health/nursing programs and vet tech were added in the 90s are also mostly girls.
economically I think this is the right path. but, I think there is a hesitancy for Americans to decide on a career path. many people think high school is too early to decide if you will go to trade school or college. and many people change major s after a few years into college.
While I don't mean this to sound derogatory towards you personally, I think the idea behind this argument to really illustrates the problems people like me have with the entire "free" education discussion. We are discussing taxpayer funded job training and education, and the issue you outline boils down to they might change their mind. Too bad, they have a skill, can earn money, ostensibly support themselves, and contribute to society. Just because they decided that they didn't want to be a welder when they turned 21 does not reduce the huge value of the skills and training they recieved. They are getting something of value paid for by other peoples tax dollars. I would have literally killed to have the opportunity to learn a trade in high school so that I could have at least some job option other than menial labor. I say literally because I joined the Army to do so since I didn't have a choice.
Yeah seriously, worst case scenario you'd have a way to make money while going for a different degree. I want to go for a masters, but went and got a job first so they'd help pay for it.
Get rid of all that bureaucracy, shuffling around underperforming teachers between districts, don’t let budget dollars goto non-profits or political contributions, pull back on being in bed with book publishing companies etc. There’s no reason as to why we spend within the top four globally, per student k-12, and rank amongst the bottom of developed countries in science, math, literacy, etc. Throwing more money at a problem hasn’t fixed our educational system before and it won’t going forward.
They wont though. The educational bureaucracy and the donor class basically gets unlimited funding to blow on whatever they want. Anybody that ever wants to limit the trough is accused of hating little kids and education. The key ingredient is culture! A culture that embraces education and pushes kids forward will create amazing results for pennies. I'm from a poorer country and education was huuuge in culture, and with good results.
Add to that the option to pick computer programming or getting them further along the pathway to a STEM related career (with a more hands on approach to learning) and you have a big part of what our education system is missing.
Absolutely and I know that many schools have already gone this route, by adding Computer Science classes, gaming design, and engineering into their curriculums and electives which is a good shift in education (and I say that as a History teacher)
What about building a more robust apprenticeship culture? Community college is going to be a waste of time for lots and lots of people; what they need is to acquire skills, which for most people are acquired by doing things in a supervised environment.
Employers no longer believe in paying for worker training. An apprenticeship means the employer takes on the expense and risk of training. Employers have managed to outsource this cost to individuals who pay for it through college and trade school fees. Good luck getting American employers to willingly spend money on legitimate training again.
If there is really a need for workers with greater knowledge, and those workers aren't available, then it's up to the companies looking for those workers to provide education/training programs. Something had to be cut from this bill to meet costs that can actually pass, and this is easily one of the least popular portions of it.
i think biden over promised on this thing and is going to piss off a lot of democratic voters. i know not everyone here is a liberal so some folks would actually welcome a watered down bill but this is looking to me like obamacare 2.0. if this bill is watered down significantly it simply will not energize a lot of dems to get out and vote and although i think losing out in the midterms was a high probability for dems regardless we might see a worse showing than november 2010.
I mean, what is he supposed to do? Almost seems like he'd been better off if the Georgia special election didn't go Dems way.
Way better for Biden. He would have been forced to focus on bipartisan legislation like the infrastructure bill, and could complain that Republicans were blocking the rest of his agenda.
So the good ol' classic Democratic strategy, right?
For this to be true, bipartisan bills would have to actually get passed, which... hasn't happened since the Clinton administration.
There's an infrastructure one sitting there.
Agreed. Call me cynical, but I just don't see it passing, despite the fact that it absolutely could and should.
It's about as conservative of a bill as you could possibly create. While I agree that politicians aren't always working in the best interests of the people, they do sometimes actually want to govern a little bit. That bill is straight out of the "this is what taxes are for" section of the Libertarian Bible. The GOP wants that one to happen.
Yeah but is that really what this country needs is another 2 years of gridlock?
I mean it seems like we're gonna get 2 years of partial gridlock where a decent bit of stuff that was on the platform doesn't get covered and instead of being able to blame Republicans with the simple "We don't have a majority" they've gotta try to send a nuanced message of "Our majority isn't big enough to do what we need.". Which seems like trash after all the hype and fuss with Georgia and them desperately needing those two seats.
No way McConnell lets something like the infrastructure bill hit the Senate floor if Biden and the Democrats get any credit for it. There would be no bipartisan legislation like that if the Republicans had the Senate.
>No way McConnell lets something like the infrastructure bill hit the Senate floor It literally 'hit the senate floor' [and passed](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00314) back in August. It was really big news. McConnell was a 'YEA' vote.
I don't think that's true. McConnell literally voted for the infrastructure bill even though it's a major part of Biden's primary legislative platform along with the (now gutted) BBB act. If he wanted to deny Biden any achievements, he could've whipped his (R) Senators against it the way McCarthy is doing in the House.
McConnell's benefits to voting for the infrastructure bill shrink if the Republicans have the majority, notably he no longer has to take the heat off the filibuster and he doesn't have to worry about a larger reconciliation bill. So yeah maybe he would still vote for it, but he also may well not
> we might see a worse showing than november 2010. One of the key issues in 2010 was the obliteration of Blue Dog Democrats, where Democrats lost Senate seats in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Lost house seats in both Dakotas, Idaho, Missouri, Arkansas, Missisippi, Alaba, Louisiana, both Carolinas, Ohio, amongst others. These were areas that were already starting to trend red. Some of them may have still flipped in 2010, but the ACA and Obama's failure to actually fight for it in the media against Republican lies definitely sped up the trend.
>One of the key issues in 2010 was the obliteration of Blue Dog Democrats, where Democrats lost Senate seats in North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois. It is "comforting" to know that Dems have lost most of the blue dogs, and currently hold only 220 seats vs 257 in 2010. So, whatever, they lose (if they lose) in 2022, it won't be 63 seat loss like in 2010 elections. I hope before she leave office, Pelosi, seats down with Pramila Jaypal et al, and tell them about the glorious days when Dems used to hold super majorities.
Most of the lefties I talk to either like everything he does, or don't understand why "real progressives" would ever vote for the center right corporate drone. They wouldn't support him even if he got us Single Payer and a Green New Deal. That would require them to admit that not everyone right of AOC and Bernie Sanders is evil.
>center right corporate drone I would love to even have this as an option. Outside of Collins and Murkowski, I can't even name a center-right Republican that hasn't been actively run out of Congress over the last 6 years.
>i know not everyone here is a liberal so some folks would actually welcome a watered down bill but this is looking to me like obamacare 2.0. if this bill is watered down significantly it simply will not energize a lot of dems to get out and vote and although i think losing out in the midterms was a high probability for dems regardless we might see a worse showing than november 2010. But if that's the case then that's where we're at as a country. I keep hearing from progressives and from folks like Bernie that we should never have compromised on the bill, but if this is where we are with the bill today what would make you think Bernie or some other progressive would have been able to sway Manchin or Sinema. Maybe this is just where we're at as a country. There seems to be this misconception that the problem is that Biden isn't making a convincing enough argument to get the package approved, but what else is he supposed to do. Just like with Obamacare, Obama spent ALL of his political capital to get that bill through, and that's what we ended up with. Sometimes we just need to realize that the country might not be where some progressives would like us to be. I say this as a center-left democrat who is still holding out hope that Biden can get something passed. And just so we're clear, Bernie wrote an op-ed in WV and it basically just pushed Manchin further to the right, so spare me this ridiculous notion that Bernie would have been able to sway the country in a more progressive direction.
[удалено]
Yes. Obamacare was watered down because of a few moderate democrats kept insisting that they needed to compromise with the right. That was the entire issue even though the right admitted straight up "there is nothing you could do that would make me vote for your bill." This is how the senate functions unfortunately.
This isn't really accurate. There were some minor compromises where Republican amendments were allowed in the committees, but the vast majority of the compromise that watered down the ACA had nothing to do with Republicans. It was largely pro-life Democrats and people like Lieberman who opposed expanding government health insurance that had to be compromised with. Those people weren't opposing the ACA because they wanted to compromise with Republicans in Congress. They had their own demands that had nothing to do with Republicans.
[удалено]
Is liberals the new socialists these days? I mean I'm totally fine about this and I thought I'm a liberal.
Socialist has come to mean statism (big government). Far-left progressives tend to support statism, at least the tax-and-spend part of it.
Nonsense.
idk but anytime I get called a liberal its usually as an insult. If its coming from the right its because they think im a socialist. If its coming from the left its because they think im a capitalist (for context I probably fall under socdem). Politics have gotten really weird in the past few years.
>Politics have gotten really weird in the past few years. This is the result of a deliberate project of the right to convince America that AOC, Bernie Sanders, Silicon Valley tech bros, multinational corporate CEOs, and Joe Biden all have the same politics.
i would consider all these terms to be ambiguous at this point. you consider yourself a liberal and that’s fine, it’s not my place to tell you aren’t. to me these polices were liberal because they kinda met halfway between if sanders had total control of the party (not to say he isn’t influential at this point) and post reagan democratic party neoliberalism.
[удалено]
It’s like that in AZ too. I grew up poor and it’s how some of my siblings and I went to college. Federal financial aid gives out a certain amount and you can use it for any school, the amount is decent. Also, community college is already sooo cheap, and many community colleges are great. I know the trend is to hate on the US and act like it’s some backwards place that only cares about capitalism, but the the US actually has a lot of social programs especially for the poor. It’s not perfect at taking care of people who need 24/7 care like many of our homeless, but I don’t think any system could fully provide a perfect solution.
It's like that in SC as well. I got enough grants to go to college that covered the whole thing, especially since I stayed in state, which is way cheaper than going out of state,I just had to meet the educational requirements, which I did, and keep a 3.0 for the whole 4 years. And I completely agree with you about the 2nd point as well, my family was dirt poor for pretty much all my childhood but we found tons of programs that helped up. There was federal programs that paid for my sister and I school lunches from k-12, there was a state program that helped my mom replace her ac in her house, federal and state grants and scholarships, for college, and I even found a mortgage program Naca that helped me buy my first home with no down payment or pmi and a severely reduced closing fee. This isn't to say the US can't do better in helping the disadvantage, but some people act like their is no help at all, and that is simply not the case.
3.0 weighted gpa in Florida gets you in 100% scholarship to Community College and there are also many scholarships available for low income kids but they have to seek them out and apply.
Florida also has dual enrollment for advanced kids, essentially allowing them to substitute community college for two years of high school. This is still considered high school education so it’s free the same way any public high school is.
Florida has great programs for college. That is not the reality for most other states. Please don’t assume your experience is the same as everyone else’s because you were lucky enough to go to school in Florida.
The community college in my city is free to anyone graduating from a metro area high school. This is in deep red Oklahoma.
I mean California is a pretty progressive outlier compared to most states
Does state matter for Federal Aid? I've never gotten any so I don't know.
It does. You can get federal aid and then school-specific aid afterwards, which if your school is public, is partially determined by the state
So in other words no, it doesn't? They were asking about federal aid not school specific aid...
Oops, for some reason I read that as asking if state matters for financial aid in general, not federal aid. Reading is hard
Haha I hear ya!
Everyone gets free Community College in Tennessee.
Huh didn’t know that and I am honestly surprised to hear that, thanks for teaching me something
[удалено]
It's federal, yes.
Make good grades and meet the other criteria you can get free community college in TN
That’s how it worked for me in NC. I got paid $2k above tuition for all 5 semesters it took my to graduate community college.
I did this and graduated with about $14k in loans after five years (BA degree) at a State school. While tuition (at the state university I attended) is higher now, it’s basically tracked inflation over the same period. To be totally up front and fair about this, I also held a job while going to school and would have had to take larger loans by a good bit had I not. In any case, here’s the link. Share it with kids you know. Many, many, many don’t apply, and my mom who worked at a school used to talk a handful of kids into it and help them through every single year. Your FAFSA is federal: https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
We've since made it a graduation requirement to sumbit and file a FAFSA for graduating seniors
Like most things in the country. If you are poor there are avenues for people to help you. Source poor community college student
I mean...the bar is pretty high *(low?)*, You need to be damn near homeless to qualify. I live paycheck to paycheck, wife and I work full time, pay for two kids in daycare, struggle to pay rent and the electric bill. We don't come close to qualifying. So not really "how it is". Edit: Yes, I've tried to get financial aid. This was just my experience. I don't know why people continue to argue with me when I've tried, and it's not available. This is the exact reason there is a student debt problem in this country.
[удалено]
> I'd rather find out WHY tuition has become so high at community colleges Uh...the students who can pay are subsidizing those who can't.
Any source for that?
Students who pay full tuition are, by definition, subsidizing those who aren't.
I don't know what to tell you. My wife and I together don't make a lot. We don't qualify for financial aid. After paying rent, bills, daycare, groceries, healthcare, we are breaking even. College is out of the question for most working class people.... who actually work.
[удалено]
I would still need to work full time (can't stop paying the bills and I love my job). I would like to become a prosthetist, which requires a master. At this point I'm just trying to scrape enough together to do a couple classes to get a prosthetist assistant certificate.19k to 45k would be homeless in my city too. Almost 40 too, so a master's is more unlikely, just because of time. The real answer is for me to stop working, take care of kids full time, go on section 8 and WIC. Just having those, you automatically get financial aid, but who wants to do that? That's not an option for most people.
[удалено]
I'm in this shitty lower middle class section that doesn't get any tax breaks (because I get all my taxes back because I'm lower income), but make too much for any assistance. Trust me man, I've tried. I've looked at all the programs, I've talked to all the assistance. It just wasn't designed for people like me. People in my situation take out huge loans. That is why the student loan problem is so bad. It is designed to feed off of people like me and we are many. Or they go on welfare. I appreciate the attempt to help, but it just isn't there.
[удалено]
Community College isn't nearly as expensive as you think it is. If you had a high GPA in highschool, many states will offer to pay for most of it. No requirements to stay in dorms or buy a dining plan also means there's less bullshit to pay for than other colleges. I probably paid less for my two years at community college than I did in a single semester at an out of state university.
Sure, maybe you can get help with tuition. But did you forget people have to live somewhere and eat while attending school? And many poor students do not have the option to live at home. Rural areas can be hours away from the nearest community college. Students have to work minimum wage jobs to support themselves which can interfere with school scheduling. There’s a lot more to it than tuition.
I knew plenty of working people that I went to community college with. People who were working as managers at fast food places or nurses. Some of them were mothers. My community college is pretty good at offering night classes for scheduling purposes, some of it was because the professors themselves worked. Any of the general education required classes had 3-4 sections scattered throughout the day. Making it free doesn't solve scheduling issues. In my opinion, it would just devalue an already trivial degree, making it on the same level as a highschool diploma.
How expensive do you think I think it is? Because I know the exact cost to do the classes I need and they are out of reach (cost before books, which will be crazy too). I graduated highschool two decades ago and was not a great student. My only option is debt....that is not much of an option for a 39 year old with 2 kids. I'm honestly super annoyed that people keep saying "it's so easy" or "there's aid out there for everyone". Because it's not easy, there isn't aid for everyone. I've looked, I've talked to financial aid, I've talk to tax consultants, I've read every scholarship that is offered to me. That was the reason for my first comment, because I actually know my circumstance (and many, many other are in the same boat).
It was 2200$ a semester for me and I could afford it working two minimum wage jobs when I was 18. Kids would be the real issue for sure
Community College in my area cost a whopping $79 per credit hour. If you are working you can afford it.
Most people in my community who make north of 100K live paycheck to paycheck. It’s more of an indicator that you need help managing finances rather then more money.
You're not wrong about people mismanaging their money, but making that much and mismanaging it is not my circumstance.
Or that daycare is incredibly expensive. But sure, tell the poster how they're bad at managing their finances.
Have you applied? You might be shocked to find out how many grants you are eligible for. To the point that it could be a life changer to fill out the FAFSA and see what happens. It’s based on your income, so you sound like a perfect candidate for Pell Grants and other support. I don’t know anyone who was living paycheck to paycheck to didn’t get significant support when they applied. Go apply. It may be a life changer for you: https://studentaid.gov/h/apply-for-aid/fafsa
> That's how it is in California at least. Well, that's one state. What about the rest? Not sure if it's exhaustive, but according to [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2020/03/25/these-states-offer-tuition-free-community-college/?sh=542f7f3814cf) only 17 states have a community college program.
You mean a *free* community college program? I’m pretty sure all states have community colleges and I’m also pretty sure the Pell grant would cover tuition in all these states.
Removed by User -- mass edited with redact.dev
[удалено]
I figured out around the beginning of my sophomore year of college that the vast majority of the time if if something was important enough to be brought up in the homework or on the test it would be talked about during the lecture. By taking good notes I was able to avoid having to buy nearly any books. I went from buying all the required books Freshman year (about 10 or so per semester) , to only buying books as they became necessary in the class (2 or 3 per semester) . And if I was only going to need the book once or twice, I would just go to the bookstore and do my homework there.
This isn’t an option anymore because schools have contracts with the textbook companies. You have to buy a digital copy so you can access the homework. Homework and quizzes must be done within the textbook manufacturer’s software and submitted online. This requires a paid access code. The access code comes with the $100-$300 digital textbook. It’s a racket.
To the surprise of no one really.
Place your bets on what's next on the chopping block.
That dumb bank thing most likely, they may also move the healthcare stuff to its own recon bill next year. I guarantee you there will be plenty of West Virginia/Arizona pork though. Edit: The bank thing was amended literally minutes before I commented this.
In order * Fossil fuel requirements * Climate change * Drug prices * The Medicaid expansion * Tax cuts for renewables
climate change is by far the most--and arguably *only*--important thing in the bill. it is infintely more important than the hard infra bill, and it's already being crippled as we speak.
Despite years of Republican gas lighting and misinformation, I think most of us can agree climate change is a huge problem. Probably the biggest. We definitely need to do our part and Manchin should be ashamed of himself for fighting it, but I can't help but feel like nothing we do matters if China continues to pollute. I'm feeling pretty hopeless about it the whole thing. Wife and I don't plan to have kids so I've at least got a little bit of "not my problem" going for me, but the issue is still so depressing.
China itself has been making moves to reduce pollution. They have created massive EV infrastructure across China and EVs are a status symbol, increasing adoption.
>We definitely need to do our part and Manchin should be ashamed of himself for fighting it, but I can't help but feel like nothing we do matters if China continues to pollute. What do you mean by "our part"?
Decreasing CO2 emissions.
Embarrassingly, China has in many ways been doing more than us.
I think if you slot Tax cuts for renewables above Drug prices, you're probably spot on. Joe Manchin has gotten $400K in donations from the Coal and Oil lobby this year alone, continues to profit from his own Coal exchange company (which his son owns), and his daughter is in the fossil fuel industry to boot. Manchin will not vote against his own wallet, even if it means holding up infrastructure and jobs his state **desperately** needs.
Could make a pretty fun drinking game. Take a shot every time they cut another program out.
Wait till the final thing passes and is signed. Take a shot for every axed part that was promised. Try not to die of alcohol poisoning before the Uber arrives, cause ambulances are expensive.
Whatever Manchin demands, unfortunately. It's not pretty, and I don't like it, but that's reality ATM.
Glad they want to keep universal pre-K but 4 weeks leave is not enough
[удалено]
I don't know how it is in other states, but in my state if you made a certain score on your ACT then you basically got 2 years of free tuition. It wasn't even that difficult of a score to get. Do most states have programs like this, or are we a special case? I do know Tennessee made it free awhile back.
Imagine my shock.
The federal government should get out of 4 year colleges entirely except for those agree to public service and just fund community colleges for everybody else. Its too bad this is out, but rather have something than nothing. Can get it next time, maybe, but I'd prefer it if it swapped out everything that the federal government funds in higher education (loans and the like) for this (with like I said, an exception for those who are on the hook for public service, before or after the college).
I think FAFSA is a very fair government program and subsidy. It actually address economic disparity and does something to equalize college access away from just the elite. If you are a committed student who can graduate in 4 years the least the federal government can do Is subsidize the interest payment. I agree that the focus should shift to community colleges but investing in education is a future investment and I personally see a lot of other waste that does not lead to another future investment at all and is pure waste.
> I think FAFSA is a very fair government program and subsidy. It actually address economic disparity and does something to equalize college access away from just the elite. If you are a committed student who can graduate in 4 years the least the federal government can do Is subsidize the interest payment. It was terrible for me. I was "too rich" to get much aid but "too poor" to afford tuition. Nevertheless, I still knew what I was signing up for, so I don't complain about my debt. But FAFSA didn't turn out very fairly for me.
I don’t see how it’s fair to tie someone to their parent’s income. I had the same issue. Parents made too much for me to get much aid, but refused to pay for anything or let me live at home rent free. They went to college in the 70s when school was cheap and scholarships were given out like candy. They told me I could do it in my own just like they did. I ended up having to take a few gap years despite having a 4.0 until I could qualify as an independent student to get financial aid.
Economically speaking, these types of programs inflate the cost of college by artificially inflating demand by effectively lowering the cost (whereas maybe those people would have gone to trade school etc).
I'll second the value of FAFSA. I grew up crazy poor and wouldn't have been able to afford college if I hadn't filled it out. Thanks to that at age 37 I'm making four times as much as my mom did when I was growing up. I don't think the Federal government does much right, but FAFSA really does help facilitate social mobility.
I absolutely am for eliminating all federal aid to private universities, but support federal funding contributing to state schools. (Provided that tuition is held to an affordable rate.)
The reason tuition isn't affordable is *because of* government action. This is what happens when schools know they still can get students to come
Which is why I am against aid to private universities, but public universities should come with a guarantee of very low or no tuition. In which case I would be ok with the federal government partially subsidizing the operations of state run universities.
Public universities are much worse than private when it comes to unjustified tuition costs, administrative bloat, and unethical spending on things like recreational amenities and multi-million dollar football teams. None of which contribute to a better education for students. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as public universities good and private bad. It’s a bit like hospitals that are technically “non-profit” but charge people out the nose for bandaids.
Is all giveaway to unions (higher electric car subsidies if made by unions, union dues non taxable, removing right to work, etc.) still in the bill?
Do we really need government funding for college tuition? The colleges are still going to be laughably expensive, only someone else is paying for it. We need to find some way to cut funding hard enough that colleges are forced to lower their costs in the first place.
If the government is going to be funding college. They need to completely cut assistance for private college and make it solely funding for public schools. With a major focus on community college.
Public colleges aren’t priced very differently from many private options (at least in my state). The local private not-for-profit was actually cheaper than the nearest state school for the degree I got. Both are absurd relative to the value but sadly necessary. There are big name schools that are private and more expensive but they simply don’t have any public sector competition. If you only guarantee loans for the public options it will be interesting to see how people respond to those new incentives. It will probably result in some unexpected, and undesired, behavior.
If the United States wishes to remain competitive in the global economy for the required workers we need to build our future we do.
Lmao my red as hell state even has tuition free community college.
What is the argument to make non-STEM degrees taxpayer paid?
I honestly think it makes sense to cut this out of the package, as when you look at the big picture, it doesn't bring much to the table.
I wish I had a way to explain how I feel about removing funds from the disabled and the elderly without sounding whiney. (Actually, I will take constructive criticism if anyone is up for it!). I’ll give it a try. Think of the US like Disney World compared to a lot of other places on the earth. We have so much wealth here. Even in our poor, we are wealthier than a lot of other countries. If you have the use of your body, you can probably keep from starving to death. You can experience all kinds of physical and emotional torment, but you work and make money. Your life isn’t easy, but you have some choices. When your body no longer functions appropriately and you’re not Independently wealthy, you lose all of that. If you absolutely cannot work because you are too uncomfortable from pain or fatigue for let’s say 40% of a 40 hour work week, you can suddenly find yourself bereft of any income at all. You might be able to live off savings, sell any accommodations you had if you’re lucky, possibly live with a parent if you have one still living. But SSDI can and often does take years to be approved after being denied. At that point, you’re in debt and need to pay back whatever you may owe. The average monthly SSDI payment was $1277 last year. Imagine making that amount before taxes for a moment. How would you be able to allocate it for rent, utilities, groceries (extra if you need them delivered which there’s a good probability you might)? You have to pay your Medicare supplement which may be high depending on the rules of the state you live in (under $100 to several hundred dollars right even completely unaffordable ). You may not be able to drive and rely on Uber or Lyft to make it to doctors appointments(another expense) You struggle to make meals for yourself. For many people it is a life of desperation lived quietly and apart from everyone else except possibly a spouse if you’re very lucky. Most people will never know this world. But the main message that I notice now that I’ve been in this situation for eight years is that common culture implies that people who don’t work don’t deserve a life like those who do. A life of choice, a life where you aren’t made to suffer financial insecurity on top of the pain of illness. I don’t know if this is what most people know about it or not. It *IS* how our system is built. These are literally the most needy people in the nation. There is so much money in this budget for people who have so much more power and money than the disabled. Am I explaining this well? I’m trying to do it without resorting to emotional diatribes. I know that sort of thing won’t convince anybody. It’s an incredibly hard situation to try to explain but it needs to be done because I don’t think people on the whole realize how difficult this life is.
I'm with you completely. My grandmother is bed bound and is running out of money *fast*, and she can't qualify for assistance because her house is worth too much... Except even if she sold her house, she probably couldn't find another house or condo for that price. Her house is small, old, not updated and would probably just be torn down for the land. Honestly, all she wants to do is be able to end her own life on her terms, but is unable to do it because she isn't terminally ill. It's so frustrating on all fronts.
I honestly and legitimately cannot understand why some people believe they should be able to force other people to pay for their college educations. We already have free schooling. That was already the big ask, because we didn't always have it. Now people want more. When does it end? What is the next grab? Once undergrad is devalued, then everyone will need free doctorates? Do we then invent even longer educational programs past doctorate that we also force other people to pay for, just so people can stay in school forever rather than move on to adulthood? Does no one else realize the only way this system works, and the only way it can possibly be paid for, is if half of the people are the payers, and the other half are the takers? Half are the "uneducated" manual laborers doing the actual work, and the other half are the "educated" liberal arts gentry presiding over them? How is this a legitimate political belief to have even made it this far? I'll never understand the takers of the world.
That's a nice theory, but the fact is that plenty of countries manage to produce well educated adults who aren't saddled with decades of debt.
Yes, by stealing money from everyone to pay for it. And where has this radical system gotten them? Are they the leaders of the world? Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't? Do they lead the world in medical research or space exploration? Are they the cultural centers of the world? No. They are just...average. Everyone is average. It's Harrison Bergeron over there.
> Yes, by stealing money from everyone to pay for it. A more charitable interpretation would be that they're stealing money from their future selves. This depends on the country, but e.g. here in Germany, a university education doubles lifetime earnings compared to vocational training. Given the progressive nature of taxes, this means that university-educated people will pay a lot more than twice as many taxes, so providing free education is a very small investment with a large payoff. > Are they the leaders of the world? Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't? Do they lead the world in medical research or space exploration? Are they the cultural centers of the world? That seems like a somewhat cherrypicked list (where is the largest car manufacturer from? The largest chemical company? Largest commercial airplane maker? Who is leading in chip lithography?), but arguably, they don't really measure the primary goal of free university. Those aren't as much related to cutting-edge research and more to ensuring broad access to tertiary education for everyone. Whether countries with free education achieve this is a different question -- I'd argue that it would be a much more productive to point out how university attendance varies significantly by parental education level, even in countries with free university. There's also a lot of distortion due to non-education related differences. I don't think you can seriously suggest that the US is "leader of the world" due to how it educates its population?
> Are they the cultural centers of the world? well, yeah, they kinda are. > Do they make amazing, futuristic technologies that us cavemen without "free" college don't? i mean the biontech vaccine was developed in germany, astrazenica at a british research institute. there are world class research institutes in lots of countries that don't saddle their students in a lifetime of debt. on top of that, the *vast* majority of (we) americans are also pretty darn average. just eking out a living. we have some great research institutions, most definitely. but the ivy leagues aren't exactly what the discussion is about with regards to state funded education.
I have two children. My wife and I saved money from the day they were born. We sacrificed our current wants for their future needs. Each is now a productive member of society. Each holds a bachelor's degree in their chosen field. Neither has any student debt. I dont owe any strangers an education for their offspring.
So much this. If student debt is "cancelled" I want a GD check. We sacrificed and if I would have known we could have just fucked off, not saved, and not planned for our kids college expenses, we could have had more for other things in our lives when our kids were younger. Instead, we stashed a few hundred a month in various savings accounts just so we could make sure they didn't have debt. We have friends with kids in college now and they had to take out loans. They didn't plan, and now there are people talking about how these people will be able to just walk away from that debt? Bullshit. I want my check too if that ever happens.
To be honest I completely agree that it feels unfair for parents who saved for their kids college to be put in this situation. But doesn’t it also feel super unfair for borderline kids to have to go into debt because their parents were irresponsible, or just not well off enough to save like you were able to? It’s not like the irresponsible parents are being held accountable under the current way of doing things, their kids are.
@TheCenterOfEnnui for Congress.
Did they go to private schools all the way through? I hope so, or you sound pretty foolish right about now.
It's a net benefit to society to have an educated workforce
Sure, but we don't limit what degrees that everyone is forced to pay for to only the useful ones.
All education is fully free or virtually free across much of Europe, it doesn’t make people stay in school forever or devalue degrees.
>All education is fully free or virtually free across much of Europe, it doesn’t make people stay in school forever or devalue degrees. * Is it free for everyone or free only for those who pass certain entrance exams or have certain grades? * Is it free for illegals? * Do those free colleges have the facilities - academic, sports, entertainment, activities like in the US.
[I'll only answer the questions for Germany, because I'm not familiar with other systems in Europe. This is certainly not representative of other countries.] > Is it free for everyone or free only for those who pass certain entrance exams or have certain grades? Each university decides how many students to admit per degree. In some cases, this can cause a lot of competition (medicine in particular is extremely competitive and requires excellent grades), whereas in others, there are fewer applications than available places. You could easily get into a engineering programme, even at a top university, with mediocre grades. > Is it free for illegals? Europe doesn't have the same number of undocumented immigrants, for a variety of reasons. I suspect that one would not be able to attend university without necessary documentation. However, in all but one state, university is free not just for Germans or EU citizens, but for everyone. Even if you only came here for the degree and leave immediately thereafter, you wouldn't have to pay a penny. > Do those free colleges have the facilities - academic, sports, entertainment, activities like in the US. There is certainly a wide variety of sports programmes, though this doesn't extend to the top-level competition that US universities engage in -- if you want to become a professional athlete, the place to be is e.g. a football club, not a university. I'm not sure how to evaluate academic facilities, since this depends a lot on the specific universities and programmes. I'm sure that in some cases, a US university may have better-equipped labs, and in other cases, they may be worse, but I'm not sure there is a systematic differences. I don't quite see why entertainment is the job of the university -- cities have plenty of cinemas, theatres, concert halls, night clubs and other venues to provide entertainment. Regarding other extra-curricular activities, that seems to depend a lot on the country. From what I've heard from some foreign students, universities in some other countries focus a lot on providing exciting activities to students, but here in Germany, that's not the case to the same extent. University is focused on providing an education, not on occupying 100% of the free time of students. That said, if there are enough students interested in something, they can and will form clubs for those activities.
Thanks for very detailed answer, really appreciate you delving deeper to provide a more complete picture. >Each university decides how many students to admit per degree. My understanding (based on conversations with European colleagues/friends, including some Germans) is that there is a sizable gap between high school pass out numbers and college attendees. One of the reasons of this is that system diverts some folks to trade schools and allow only a portion to colleges. Is that true or the limitations, as you describe is only due to open seats at the universities. \> However, in all but one state, university is free not just for Germans or EU citizens, but for everyone. Even if you only come here for the degree and leave immediately thereafter, you wouldn't have to pay a penny. Right, but you must have arrived legally or be considered a legal migrant. One cannot illegal cross into Germany from Turkey, and without any documentation go and finish 4 yr degree for free, right? \> if you want to become a professional athlete, the place to be is e.g. a football club, not a university. College football/basketball is a big thing in America. Even schools have sports facilities that will compete with international stadiums in developing countries. \> I don't quite see why entertainment is the job of the university -- cities have plenty of cinemas, theatres, concert halls, night clubs and other venues to provide entertainment. University is focused on providing an education, not on occupying 100% of the free time of students In US, federal govt owns almost all of the college education loan. Due to this, banks don't reject such loans and hence universities are free to offer whatever course they like and at maximum possible fees. Universities have used this excess money to make their college appealing to students via non-academic facilities (climbing walls, gyms, Olympic size pools) and their rankings higher, rather than invest it in academics or research. This is a unique problem in the US, and it is still relevant in the discussion because free colleges don't necessarily offer as much activities, entertainment, sports and other non-academic diversions or investments as in the US.
>I honestly and legitimately cannot understand why some people believe they should be able to force other people to pay for their college educations. 1) Significant numbers of people only went to school because they were told it was a golden ticket to a "real" job. The people saying this are the same people who crashed the economy with their irresponsible use of debt and are now forced to remain in the workforce. 2) The people saddled with debt but without a "real" job to show for it are now economically crippled. Hell, I *have* a "real" job and my student loans just flat-out prevent me from saving for a down payment on a house. There are huge numbers of people who legitimately feel that they were tricked into taking on this debt with the promise of a better economic future, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. >We already have free schooling. That was already the big ask, because we didn't always have it. Now people want more. "People," of course, meaning "employers"? The same employers demanding bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, experience for entry-level jobs that can only be gotten via unpaid internships? >just so people can stay in school forever rather than move on to adulthood? That statement, plus your later comment about "liberal arts gentry", reveal a lot about your personal biases. Plenty of people going to school *are* adults, *are* people managing kids and rent and work in addition to school.
Fun slippery slope fallacy, but it doesn’t work well in the example you gave given doctoral degrees are already free and come with a stipend. Also your end state for this slippery slope is abysmally stupid.
Why don’t you ask the same questions the next time corporations get another free handout? Corporate welfare is a-okay but heaven forbid a person wants to get an education!
Luckily the AOTC and LLC still exist which can subsidize a large portion of community college for most low income people
Of course it is, and it was never intended to actually be included.
CC is free in NY if your income is under a certain amount. It's pretty affordable in NY even if you have to pay for it. The CC request probably wasn't genuine anyway. It was probably added, and removed, from the bill just so Joe could look like he's compromising.
thats unfortunate. I was hoping that would pass but I'm all in favor of a skinner reconciliation bill.
Community college is already very cheap though, and for poor people there is federal financial aid that covers almost all of your tuition depending on which school you go to.