opinion of this quote (re:"free" college)

[dead0man]

Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t.  As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.

of course he's right, but that's a brave thing to say in his position.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a good point, although it's not insurmountable with a sufficiently progressive tax system.

[dead0man]

It's a good point, although it's not insurmountable with a sufficiently progressive tax system.

by paying for it only from the taxes of college grads?  Maybe a "going to college" tax?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

An excellent point from Mayor Pete!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

An excellent point from Mayor Pete!

[Former President tack50]

Horrible point. That's precisely why taxes are progressive, so that richer people (generally college students) pay more than poorer people

[Lechasseur]

Horrible point. That's precisely why taxes are progressive, so that richer people (generally college students) pay more than poorer people

Exactly

[parochial boy]

I think also, there is a weight of evidence that suggests that one of the best ways to keep high levels of support for a welfare state / progressive policies, is for everybody, including the better off, to feel that they benefit from progressive policies on the whole.

On that basis, having something like free college, even if it benefits people who will go on to be better off (and lets ignore the, "fees are a bigger discincentive to people whose parents are low/middle income) is actually quite important. It lets people who are middle classs feel that they benefit from "government spending" and in turns means that they go on to support welfare spending.

Adding to that, the current US fee model has the (deliberate or not) impact of turning higher education into a market - where universities essentially compete to "sell a product". Once again, ignoring the consequences of marketising education on the education system itself; as well as allowing richer people to "buy" better education; what this essentially does is inculclate the market model on young people, and society at large. That is, it creates a norm of "paying more for better education", and in doing so further weakens the principles of both solidarity, but also of having a personal stake in the welfare state, that hold up higher levels of support for a welfare state.

[dead0man]

Adding to that, the current US fee model has the (deliberate or not) impact of turning higher education into a market - where universities essentially compete to "sell a product". Once again, ignoring the consequences of marketising education on the education system itself; as well as allowing richer people to "buy" better education; what this essentially does is inculclate the market model on young people, and society at large. That is, it creates a norm of "paying more for better education", and in doing so further weakens the principles of both solidarity, but also of having a personal stake in the welfare state, that hold up higher levels of support for a welfare state.

Are there people that still think they're paying for a "better education" when they get their kids into a famous school?  I thought it was common knowledge that you can get just as good of education at State U as you can at Expensive Private U and that the biggest difference between, say, Yale and UConn is how powerful your friends will be after college.


College is already free for poor people that want to go, making it free for everybody would just make every tax payer subsidize college for the children of the rich and the middle class...and screw those bastards.  They have "privilege" already, why should the rest of us have to pay to give them even more of it?

[Del Tachi]

Free college would involve taxing current college graduates under the existing progressive tax system to expand college access to those currently unable to finance attending.

So, horrible point. 

[parochial boy]

Adding to that, the current US fee model has the (deliberate or not) impact of turning higher education into a market - where universities essentially compete to "sell a product". Once again, ignoring the consequences of marketising education on the education system itself; as well as allowing richer people to "buy" better education; what this essentially does is inculclate the market model on young people, and society at large. That is, it creates a norm of "paying more for better education", and in doing so further weakens the principles of both solidarity, but also of having a personal stake in the welfare state, that hold up higher levels of support for a welfare state.

Are there people that still think they're paying for a "better education" when they get their kids into a famous school?  I thought it was common knowledge that you can get just as good of education at State U as you can at Expensive Private U and that the biggest difference between, say, Yale and UConn is how powerful your friends will be after college.


College is already free for poor people that want to go, making it free for everybody would just make every tax payer subsidize college for the children of the rich and the middle class...and screw those bastards.  They have "privilege" already, why should the rest of us have to pay to give them even more of it?

People aren't rational though, so don't underestimate the cachet of having an Ivy League education as a form of status symbol - or the old boys network it gives you access to.

In any case, it's not the offspring of millionaires suffering under the existing system. It's those from middle income backgrounds who are forced into a market dynamic and prevaling culture which leads to them apply that mindset of permanent competition to everything in life. And my little extra take is that culture and attitude of "everything" being a competition explains the more annoying side of the SJW left. Since even victimhood is about proving your credentials.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I agree with the larger point, and mostly agree with the quote. "Free college" (and its true underlying meaning "free four year college") is largely appealing to upper-middle class kids who bungled the decision of where to go to college and are saddled with debt as a consequence.

Many schools inadequately service the poor by 1) piss-poor recruiting which means they have few poor kids coming in with each freshman class and 2) attrition that occurs over the course of four years as children either fail to adjust to the new environment or can't afford to continue (this can be due to, e.g., having to work at least one job while being a full time student). The first one obviously won't come close to being addressed by "free college" and the latter would take structural reform at the university level to solve.

Making schools like UW Madison or the University of Michigan free is a great deal for upper middle class kids in Dane/Washtenaw county but the kids in Milwaukee/Wayne who supposedly would be benefiting from this probably wouldn't be able to take advantage of this if they wanted to, let alone some kid in the UP or along the Superior Shores. Baked into the cost of sending your kid to one of the large magnet universities is travel costs (especially if the family is still somewhat dependent on the income of the child), homesickness, social costs like student fees to pay for nice rec centers, textbook costs, etc. Besides, the average poor student who these policies are touted as helping probably fell out of the college pipeline somewhere around eighth grade. These students would be better served by putting more money into their elementary school systems, increasing federal funding to school aid without reducing the revenue stream from kids who pay full tuition, and making smaller schools, e.g. two year and technical schools, cheaper or even free.

Also worth noting here that schools with high sticker prices rely on wealthy students who pay the full sticker price in order to subsidize lower-income students. We already have a system where students (or their parents) are willing to pay full price to subsidize the students who can't pay for themselves. Transferring that to income taxes is a great way to 1) make parents unwilling to pay for the taxes because it makes the benefits further from their own child and 2) puts University funding at higher risk of being canceled at the wing of populist budget zealots (which is a part of the reason we are in this situation in the first place).

So, yes, Pete is 100% right here.

College is already free for poor people that want to go, making it free for everybody would just make every tax payer subsidize college for the children of the rich and the middle class...and screw those bastards.  They have "privilege" already, why should the rest of us have to pay to give them even more of it?

I agree with the overall sentiment but the bolded point is quite wrong. Tuition is free. Moving costs, textbook costs, etc. are most certainly not free for underprivileged students

[7,052,770]

Isn't that true about everything, not just free college?

[Sestak]

Free college would involve taxing current college graduates under the existing progressive tax system to expand college access to those currently unable to finance attending.

So, horrible point.