Do you think Higher Education in America should be completely funded by taxes?

[Matty]

Many of the arguments articulated by proponents of government-funded healthcare could, morally, be used to defend a "universal" higher education system. Please note that I am not attempting a "gotcha" thread. I would find a debate on this interesting.

[ElectionsGuy]

God no, having universal education is a horrible thing, much like universal healthcare. Can you say "one size fits all"??

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Absolutely not!

[Paul Kemp]

Of course.

[Flake]

Every single person in this country should be able to get a college education. Of course I support this, so all people no matter what their economic or ethnic background would be guaranteed a college education. Although college should still be optional.

[Franzl]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

[DC Al Fine]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

I don't want to get into actual numbers, but basically this. It's important that everyone is able to access higher education, but students should have some skin in the game as well to promote hard work and prevent perpetual students.

[Franzl]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

I don't want to get into actual numbers, but basically this. It's important that everyone is able to access higher education, but students should have some skin in the game as well to promote hard work and prevent perpetual students.

Yes, precisely. Something that costs money is worth more to you. The purpose of tuition fees can hardly be to actually pay for the education, unless you want American style costs, but paying a comparably small amount is generally a good idea.

[Gustaf]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

I don't want to get into actual numbers, but basically this. It's important that everyone is able to access higher education, but students should have some skin in the game as well to promote hard work and prevent perpetual students.

Yes, precisely. Something that costs money is worth more to you. The purpose of tuition fees can hardly be to actually pay for the education, unless you want American style costs, but paying a comparably small amount is generally a good idea.

I'd note though that for people who aren't rich education still carries a tremendous opportunity cost, so I think this problem is being somewhat dealt with already.

[politicallefty]

I think all state schools should be free of cost to those who are able to meet the criteria for admission. I completely agree with sentiments above that college is not for everyone, but anyone that seeks a college education should not have cost be a barrier. Tuition should be waived for all in-state students and perhaps out-of-state students as well, especially if state universities work together in some form of larger compact or partnership. Government subsidization of private universities (apart from research grants and the like) needs to end. Public policy can easily end the high and ever-growing cost of a college education. I do believe investing money in higher education will result in payoffs far beyond the initial costs.

[King]

There needs to be an interest payment of some sort,  but yes, edu needs to be as affordable as possible.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Agree with the crowd here; at the same time, we should promote the idea that not everyone has to go to a four-year school and emphasize the usefulness of vocational training/technical schooling.

[Potus]

Okay, a degree or diploma is only as valuable as the least competent recipient. You can only use your degree for as much qualification as the stupidest guy in your graduating class. Because there is no guarantee for the employer that you're any better than that guy.


Essentially, when everyone goes to college, no one goes to college.

[Franzl]

Okay, a degree or diploma is only as valuable as the least competent recipient. You can only use your degree for as much qualification as the stupidest guy in your graduating class. Because there is no guarantee for the employer that you're any better than that guy.


Essentially, when everyone goes to college, no one goes to college.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Sure the relative value on the labor market depends on how rare or common a qualification is, but I don't think we're in danger of having a too highly educated population.

[TNF]

Agree with the crowd here; at the same time, we should promote the idea that not everyone has to go to a four-year school and emphasize the usefulness of vocational training/technical schooling.

And everyone should be required to get some degree of vocational and technical schooling while in the regular education system. No one should graduate high school without at least being able to demonstrate the ability to do one skill, be it coding or welding or cooking.

[Potus]

Okay, a degree or diploma is only as valuable as the least competent recipient. You can only use your degree for as much qualification as the stupidest guy in your graduating class. Because there is no guarantee for the employer that you're any better than that guy.


Essentially, when everyone goes to college, no one goes to college.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Sure the relative value on the labor market depends on how rare or common a qualification is, but I don't think we're in danger of having a too highly educated population.

Highly is a superlative. It means that they're more competitively educated than another sample. If we somehow achieve a free four year system, everyone else will have a free doctorate system. A degree is only as valuable as it's lowest common denominator.

William F Buckley, a really smart guy, graduated with a degree from Yale. So did George W. Bush. On paper, there isn't a difference on paper. But there is a massive difference in ability. But that degree doesn't reflect that aptitude. When anyone can go get that degree, it's essentially paper.

[Potus]

The prevailing logic here seems to be that the unemployment rate for non-college educated people is (for example), 9%. But the unemployment rate for college educated individuals is about 3.5%.

So if we make everyone college educated, we'll lower the unemployment rate to 3.5%.

[Franzl]

I think you're missing the point of a degree, and indeed, higher education. It's not just about being able to show something in a job interview, but rather, actually gaining advanced knowledge in a particular subject area. This doesn't mean university is the only place this can be achieved, of course.

You're also assuming that mere access to higher education also assumes that everyone will pass (and ignoring the differences in grading between those that do pass).

And you're also assuming the US (or whatever country) is in a vacuum. If you want to focus on the competition aspect, as you apparently do, how can it hurt to educate as many people in your country as possible?

[AggregateDemand]

No. The government should not get into the business of dispensing more non-cash benefits to the American people. We've already compromised by funding the compulsory education system, but since education is the cornerstone of democracy, the compromise is legitimate.

However, it would be beneficial to replace the failed welfare state with a universal income. Students could use their universal income proceeds to pay tuition, and drastically reduce dependence on FFELP loans.

[TNF]

No. The government should not get into the business of dispensing more non-cash benefits to the American people. We've already compromised by funding the compulsory education system, but since education is the cornerstone of democracy, the compromise is legitimate.

However, it would be beneficial to replace the failed welfare state with a universal income. Students could use their universal income proceeds to pay tuition, and drastically reduce dependence on FFELP loans.

I assume you're in favor of ending all hand-outs to corporate America, then? So ending all subsidies to agribusiness, tax abatement for industry, tariffs, copyright protection, etc?

[DC Al Fine]

No. The government should not get into the business of dispensing more non-cash benefits to the American people. We've already compromised by funding the compulsory education system, but since education is the cornerstone of democracy, the compromise is legitimate.

However, it would be beneficial to replace the failed welfare state with a universal income. Students could use their universal income proceeds to pay tuition, and drastically reduce dependence on FFELP loans.

I assume you're in favor of ending all hand-outs to corporate America, then? So ending all subsidies to agribusiness, tax abatement for industry, tariffs, copyright protection, etc?

How are subsidies a "non-cash benefit"?

[AggregateDemand]

I assume you're in favor of ending all hand-outs to corporate America, then? So ending all subsidies to agribusiness, tax abatement for industry, tariffs, copyright protection, etc?

Ag subsidies and tax abatement are both cash. Tariffs are not governed by the economics of positive rights or entitlements. Copyright protection is a constitutionally-enumerated non-cash positive right, not an additional non-cash program.

Are you high?

[bedstuy]

If Columbia is charging their students $60k a year, it seems expensive to reduce that number to $2k a year just via direct payment to the student or the school.  And, if we do that, why doesn't Columbia decide to charge $80k a year?  Clearly, the problem is not just access or government funding, it's the prices.  If you look at the higher education market, it's clearly broken.

I think we ought to do a few things. 

1. 100% cut student loans for any for-profit or low quality school
2.  Condition government aid to students and schools based on the economic need for that type of education.  We're clearly producing too many people with no valuable skills from higher education.
3.  Encourage lower cost non-4 year college education.

[TNF]

I assume you're in favor of ending all hand-outs to corporate America, then? So ending all subsidies to agribusiness, tax abatement for industry, tariffs, copyright protection, etc?

Ag subsidies and tax abatement are both cash. Tariffs are not governed by the economics of positive rights or entitlements. Copyright protection is a constitutionally-enumerated non-cash positive right, not an additional non-cash program.

Are you high?

Economics of positive rights or entitlements? Please speak English, not libertarian. Thanks.

Copyrights are the greatest form of corporate nanny-statism because they grant people a monopoly over an idea. Why should anyone have the right to claim ownership of an idea or process? It's fringe logic that belongs in the ashbin of history.

[MurrayBannerman]

There are other ways to reduce the cost of education than to subsidize it with taxes completely.