Free College?

[Ex-California]

So what, they make $130k a year together?

Have one of them quit. Free college will probably be saving them more per year than what one of them is making at ~65k/year

Or is the free part just for the tuition and not the other high costs attached to college?

Do you approve of a policy that incentivizes one of them to quit their job so that they can qualify for free college?

I was pointing out the obvious negative externalities with my comment. Was that not obvious?

For one, I agree with the problem of too many college degrees, especially because it turns the Academy into a trade school. Not that there's anything wrong with trade schools, but ivory tower academia has an important place in civilized society.

Anyway, I was just pointing out how easy it is to game the system. One thing I've learned in life is that you don't get ahead without bending the rules. It sucks for a former catholic school boy with real morals

[apeman]

Let's not act like incentivizing folks to play the welfare game is a good policy.

We'll see other bizarre externalities as well -- benefits over pay, or less hours, or more under-the-table $$$, etc.

One thing I've learned in life is that you don't get ahead without bending the rules. It sucks for a former catholic school boy with real morals

I haven't bent any rules to get ahead.

Are you Waleis?

[Ex-California]

Let's not act like incentivizing folks to play the welfare game is a good policy.

We'll see other bizarre externalities as well -- benefits over pay, or less hours, or more under-the-table $$$, etc.

One thing I've learned in life is that you don't get ahead without bending the rules. It sucks for a former catholic school boy with real morals

I haven't bent any rules to get ahead.

Are you Waleis?

I'm talking the little things.

Like doing tax returns, sharing passwords, driving 10mph over the speed limit to arrive at your destination faster.

I mean you're supposed to claim what you sell on eBay for your taxes, does anyone do that?

[apeman]

Let's not act like incentivizing folks to play the welfare game is a good policy.

We'll see other bizarre externalities as well -- benefits over pay, or less hours, or more under-the-table $$$, etc.

One thing I've learned in life is that you don't get ahead without bending the rules. It sucks for a former catholic school boy with real morals

I haven't bent any rules to get ahead.

Are you Waleis?

I'm talking the little things.

Like doing tax returns, sharing passwords, driving 10mph over the speed limit to arrive at your destination faster.

I mean you're supposed to claim what you sell on eBay for your taxes, does anyone do that?

In that case

yes I am more than happy to bend the rules.

Didn't really "get me ahead," but yes I am guilty as charged.

[Okeefenokee]

Let's not act like incentivizing folks to play the welfare game is a good policy.

We'll see other bizarre externalities as well -- benefits over pay, or less hours, or more under-the-table $$$, etc.

One thing I've learned in life is that you don't get ahead without bending the rules. It sucks for a former catholic school boy with real morals

I haven't bent any rules to get ahead.

Are you Waleis?

I'm talking the little things.

Like doing tax returns, sharing passwords, driving 10mph over the speed limit to arrive at your destination faster.

I mean you're supposed to claim what you sell on eBay for your taxes, does anyone do that?

Tax preparers do

[jbird4049]

You have to project what areas are needed. If you need more nurses, then pay for nursing school for the best students. If you need more chemical engineers, then pay for chemical engineering for the best students.

I think where this stuff goes wrong is the underlying assumption that everybody has some right to a college education. It can help society greatly to pay for the best students to go to college or trade school, but paying everybody to study whatever they want is going to cause some obvious problems.

And let's be honest about what the progs are up to. They want the ability to indoctrinate more people in their pseudo-academic programs. They want more professional victims.

Nowadays, it's almost a requirement to get some sort of education beyond high school.

California used to have a system were everyone was guaranteed an almost free college education, but you needed a certain grade GPA to enter. If you were say a B average you might go to a college/university. If you didn't, you probably shouldn't go. If you had a high school diploma, or a GED, It was the community college for you to get your extra education before you transferred to that college/university, if you wanted too. You could have gotten two year degrees like basic nursing. For free, or nearly so.

That education is not free anymore, and it gets harder every year to get those degrees.

[MilSpecs]

...

Do we actually need more college degrees? What will happen when EVERYONE has a college degree? Well, it will be the new high school degree, and you will need an advanced degree to differentiate.

True, and if high school has extended past four years then we need to deal with that.

[jbird4049]

...

Do we actually need more college degrees? What will happen when EVERYONE has a college degree? Well, it will be the new high school degree, and you will need an advanced degree to differentiate.

True, and if high school has extended past four years then we need to deal with that.

Maybe there is a need for skills that high schools were never meant to teach, but colleges can?

[Fife]

All the "education" you all are squawking about is a full-employment program for rent-seeking leeches.

The credentializing and commoditizing of college is polishing brass on the Titanic. That bubble's getting big and wobbly.

Reinventing the Liberal Arts: College in One Year for $5

Hardly a week passes without some luminary decrying the exorbitant cost of higher education and the sorry state of the liberal arts. But none of them explain, in detail, how to obtain a liberal arts education better than that offered by colleges and universities–in less than a year and at a fraction of the cost. "Reinventing the Liberal Arts: College in One Year for $5" provides a comprehensive science and humanities curriculum, with key elements field tested at a well-known liberal arts college over the past two decades. It includes an interdisciplinary survey of crucial concepts in physics, geology, molecular biochemistry, neuroscience, history, literature, ethics, politics, language, information technology, and management. This liberal arts and sciences curriculum also contains internet links to more than 100 relevant world-class video lectures by eminent educators at institutions such as Caltech, Oxford, Stanford and Yale. (Priced at $4.99 instead of $250,000.)

[MilSpecs]

...

Do we actually need more college degrees? What will happen when EVERYONE has a college degree? Well, it will be the new high school degree, and you will need an advanced degree to differentiate.

True, and if high school has extended past four years then we need to deal with that.

Maybe there is a need for skills that high schools were never meant to teach, but colleges can?

Entirely possible. Adolescence is extended now anyway - if education is also getting extended, then we, as a society, need to adjust to the new paradigm and decide how to handle it.

I get the bubble, Fife - putting two kids through college right now. I can see (visibly) a big part of the cost: constant construction, demand for more and higher end services, few commuting options, etc. Prestige pricing. Professor salaries and research don't appear to be driving the cost as much.