Cuomo w/Sanders unvails plain for tuition-free public higher education in NY

[Gass3268]

See event live

[The Other Castro]

Andrew Cuomo is a confusing character. He makes dumb moves like his legal defense bill veto, and then does something like this which appears aimed at setting up a 2020 run.

[Gass3268]

Andrew Cuomo is a confusing character. He makes dumb moves like his legal defense bill veto, and then does something like this which appears aimed at setting up a 2020 run.

Yeah, there are parts of him I like and other parts I detest with a passion.

[Santander]

Communism.

[Beet]

Gotta give credit where it's due. This is a good move by Andrew Cuomo. Heck, I'd be satisfied with debt-free public higher education. This goes further than that.

[JA]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

[Shadows]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

On topic - Great move

[Del Tachi]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

On topic - Great move

Yes, great move on behalf of Cuomo if he's wanting to be a front-runner in 2020.

However, increasing access to a college education removes the comparative advantage of having a college degree.  In a world where most Americans go to college, the value of that education is inherently lessened.

[Santander]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.

If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

Universal public education is not, and should not be about jobs. It should be about providing the necessary skills and knowledge for children to become independent adults who can participate in society. No, the current system does not serve that purpose well, but turning college into the new high school will only make the disconnect between public education's purpose and reality worse.

The four OECD countries with a higher percentage of college degree holders than the US are Canada, Japan, Israel and South Korea. All of them charge tuition fees at public colleges and none of them have student loan programs as expansive as the ones in the US. Abolishing tuition does not increase access or achievement, and only leads to "education inflation", excessive spending and high dropout rates.

[JA]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

On topic - Great move

Yes, great move on behalf of Cuomo if he's wanting to be a front-runner in 2020.

However, increasing access to a college education removes the comparative advantage of having a college degree.  In a world where most Americans go to college, the value of that education is inherently lessened.

Having an undergraduate degree today is essentially equivalent to having a High School diploma 20 years ago. It isn't simply a matter of scarcity generating a competitive advantage, it's almost a necessity for entrence into the Middle Class. Denying people access based on their ability to pay is fundamentally unfair as well, even if it was a matter of suppressing degree holders for competitive advantage, as it would unjustly discriminate against those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, thereby suppressing their opportunity to experience upward mobility and the American dream. Even offering them student loans is unjust as it unfairly burdens those coming from lower and working class families with debt and an even steeper mountain to climb in life. I'm not sure where people acquired the notion that the poorer your parents are, the more hurdles are acceptable to be put in your path. If America's about upward mobility and equal opportunity for all, it must seek to balance the inequalities of life.

[JA]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.

If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

Universal public education is not, and should not be about jobs. It should be about providing the necessary skills and knowledge for children to become independent adults who can participate in society. No, the current system does not serve that purpose well, but turning college into the new high school will only make the disconnect between public education's purpose and reality worse.

The four OECD countries with a higher percentage of college degree holders than the US are Canada, Japan, Israel and South Korea. All of them charge tuition fees at public colleges and none of them have student loan programs as expansive as the ones in the US. Abolishing tuition does not increase access or achievement, and only leads to "education inflation", excessive spending and high dropout rates.

It doesn't matter what you think public education and college should be about, what matters is what it is really about in the real world. Employers seek potential employees with the best education, skills, and experience. By basing access to those jobs on one's ability to pay, it establishes inequality of access that will deny access to upward mobility to countless individuals from lower and working class backgrounds. If you want to create a caste system and/or a rigid hierarchical class society, that's the best path towards achieving it.

In today's world of increasing complexity and knowledge based work, you have no choice but to acquire the highest level of education possible to have a competitive advantage in our economy. School, while ideally striving towards education for education's sake, must also equip students for the job market. Whether this is trade school or college should be up to the individual based on their interests and talents, not their ability to pay.

[Shadows]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.

If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

Universal public education is not, and should not be about jobs. It should be about providing the necessary skills and knowledge for children to become independent adults who can participate in society. No, the current system does not serve that purpose well, but turning college into the new high school will only make the disconnect between public education's purpose and reality worse.

The four OECD countries with a higher percentage of college degree holders than the US are Canada, Japan, Israel and South Korea. All of them charge tuition fees at public colleges and none of them have student loan programs as expansive as the ones in the US. Abolishing tuition does not increase access or achievement, and only leads to "education inflation", excessive spending and high dropout rates.

You have to have a vision for the future - I think other posters have already responded so I won't repeat.

 On a lighter note, I think it will definitely help most Republican posters here to get more education - Would help them be a little more intelligent & actually know about stuff & it would de-radicalize them.

[Santander]

It doesn't matter what you think public education and college should be about, what matters is what it is really about in the real world. Employers seek potential employees with the best education, skills, and experience. By basing access to those jobs on one's ability to pay, it establishes inequality of access that will deny access to upward mobility to countless individuals from lower and working class backgrounds. If you want to create a caste system and/or a rigid hierarchical class society, that's the best path towards achieving it.

In today's world of increasing complexity and knowledge based work, you have no choice but to acquire the highest level of education possible to have a competitive advantage in our economy. School, while ideally striving towards education for education's sake, must also equip students for the job market. Whether this is trade school or college should be up to the individual based on their interests and talents, not their ability to pay.

Reality disproves everything you say. Look at where the education systems of countries like France and Denmark fail and those of countries like the US and Israel succeed. America needs more freedom, not more bureaucracy.

[JA]

However, increasing access to a college education removes the comparative advantage of having a college degree.  In a world where most Americans go to college, the value of that education is inherently lessened.

Also, given that SUNY schools have a limited number of seats, the short-term result might even be to crowd out affluent but less capable students and make admissions more competitive – a happy and value-enhancing result from any reasonable perspective.

While this would definitely be a giant leap in the right direction, we still have enormous systemic problems to address. First, there is undeniable segregation of American public schools, without even mentioning private schools. Those schools located in minority and/or lower socioeconomic areas are notoriously underfunded, understaffed, and operate within an educational cultured oriented towards shaping them into workers and followers, not administrators or free thinkers, as is the case in schools populated by students from middle and upper class families. This results in a failure of the state to ensure equal access to quality education for all students and causes students to, on average, perform more poorly the lower on the socioeconomic ladder their family and neighborhood is.

Second, compounding the aforementioned problem is the issue of unequal access to cultural capital in the home. Some families are simply better able to invest in their child to ensure they have greater access to future opportunities. Wealthier parents can afford extracurricular activities, tutors, more time to spend with their children, typically higher education levels, introduce their kids to art and other aspects of high culture, and better networking connections. All of this results in children from wealthier backgrounds typically outperfoming those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which would, yet again, result in more affluent students being admitted into notable universities such as SUNY. So we must even address this inequality if we want to truly help all students achieve their potential and improve American society.

[Santander]

This is a surprisingly cogent follow-up given that your initial comment came across as brain-dead trolling.

However, most of the worries that you outline here came about long ago:

• College has already been "turned into high school" in the sense that students face lowered academic expectations and frequently spend their first several semesters focusing on remedial coursework.
• Affordable, sustainable, and debt-free tuition would be better than the "free" tuition that the Cuomo plan purportedly offers to qualifying students.
• Drop-out rates at US colleges are shockingly and embarrassingly high, and cost inflation over the past several decades has been disastrous.

I agree.

Personally, I think that much of our higher education woes stem from the fact that every single facet of our society - government, businesses, parents, and students themselves - have abdicated so much of their responsibility and dumped it all on the education system, both K-12 and post-secondary. Why doesn't the AICPA train their own accountants after their undergraduate degree? Why do airline pilots need university degrees? How do CJ degrees make police better? Why do public-sector HR departments demand degrees to "check the box"? And most importantly - why do politicians and parents alike continue to perpetuate the lie that going to college entitles one to a "good" job?

The entire system is a bloated disaster with the wrong priorities. It needs to be blown up, but not to expand the system, but to reduce it to the size it should be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Communism.

Same with free, public k-12, I presume?

You can't get a decent job in the next few decades if you don't have good education as we see more automation, robotics & what not. So many jobs will open up in robotics, automation, design.If the US doesn't have take advantage now & get a good workforce, it will be difficult to compete with other countries.

On topic - Great move

Yes, great move on behalf of Cuomo if he's wanting to be a front-runner in 2020.

However, increasing access to a college education removes the comparative advantage of having a college degree.  In a world where most Americans go to college, the value of that education is inherently lessened.

As it should be.

This is a surprisingly cogent follow-up given that your initial comment came across as brain-dead trolling.

However, most of the worries that you outline here came about long ago:

• College has already been "turned into high school" in the sense that students face lowered academic expectations and frequently spend their first several semesters focusing on remedial coursework.
• Affordable, sustainable, and debt-free tuition would be better than the "free" tuition that the Cuomo plan purportedly offers to qualifying students.
• Drop-out rates at US colleges are shockingly and embarrassingly high, and cost inflation over the past several decades has been disastrous.

I agree.

Personally, I think that much of our higher education woes stem from the fact that every single facet of our society - government, businesses, parents, and students themselves - have abdicated so much of their responsibility and dumped it all on the education system, both K-12 and post-secondary. Why doesn't the AICPA train their own accountants after their undergraduate degree? Why do airline pilots need university degrees? How do CJ degrees make police better? Why do public-sector HR departments demand degrees to "check the box"? And most importantly - why do politicians and parents alike continue to perpetuate the lie that going to college entitles one to a "good" job?

The entire system is a bloated disaster with the wrong priorities. It needs to be blown up, but not to expand the system, but to reduce it to the size it should be.

For once, a Santander post I'm completely in agreement with.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

M'kay cuomo/sanders. Now how are you going to make it work? Where are the numbers of your plan?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Cuomo is such a hypocrite.  During the 2016 primaries he was campaigning with Hillary celebrating the $15 min. wage and dissing Bernie (who had actually supported the fight for 15 movement from the start unlike Hillary who never supported it) and now that Hillary is old news, he's campaigning with Bernie.
F*** him.

[Beet]

Cuomo is such a hypocrite.  During the 2016 primaries he was campaigning with Hillary celebrating the $15 min. wage and dissing Bernie (who had actually supported the fight for 15 movement from the start unlike Hillary who never supported it) and now that Hillary is old news, he's campaigning with Bernie.
F*** him.

He's working with who he can. What's wrong with that? It's better than Schumer's thinking of working with Trump.

[publicunofficial]

Cuomo will have to try way harder than this to win progressive/millennial voters over, but this is an alright start.

I also shockingly agree with Santander. The role of college in society needs to be completely rethought. There are hundreds of career paths that have decided to lock themselves off to anyone who doesn't have the required degree, no matter how qualified the candidate otherwise might be. It's created a system where those who are unable to attain a degree (And there are many legitimate reasons why this could be the case) are almost completely locked out of the system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

[The Other Castro]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

Take Stony Brook. Fees are about 40% as much as tuition.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/undergraduate-admissions/cost-and-financial-aid/

The maximum TAP award is 90% of tuition.
https://www.hesc.ny.gov/partner-access/financial-aid-professionals/programs-policies-and-procedures-guide-to-grants-and-scholarship-programs/appendix-e-new-york-s-tuition-assistance-program-a-history.html

Therefore, the poorest students were paying about 4 times more for fees than tuition.

[Eraserhead]

Bernie is showing he can reach across the aisle and work with the other side here. Very nice.

[The Other Castro]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

Take Stony Brook. Fees are about 40% as much as tuition.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/undergraduate-admissions/cost-and-financial-aid/

The maximum TAP award is 90% of tuition.
https://www.hesc.ny.gov/partner-access/financial-aid-professionals/programs-policies-and-procedures-guide-to-grants-and-scholarship-programs/appendix-e-new-york-s-tuition-assistance-program-a-history.html

Therefore, the poorest students were paying about 4 times more for fees than tuition.

I don't really see your point in this example. It seemed like you were trying to argue about unfairness towards poor students when the reason fees are higher than tuition for some students is due to awards that can nearly eliminate tuition completely, which of course would then make fees, however small, greater than the cost of tuition. It doesn't really make as much sense to deal with fee costs relative to tuition costs as opposed to absolute costs when thinking of what poorer students can overall afford. Also, many schools will not be as cheap as $6470 for in-state residents, and many of the poorer students will likely not receive the maximum awards available.

If the point of plans for tuition-free higher education is to reduce the overall costs for poorer students in achieving a higher level of education, does it really matter if those reductions come from fees or tuition? They will both add up to a net cost for the student. This isn't to say that added fees on top of tuition are a good idea, but that a move to eliminate tuition for poorer students is clearly carried out with the interests of students in mind. I don't think a student will particularly care whether he saves $2500 from fee reductions or from tuition eliminations.