that the establishment has made it so expensive. They don't want any soul growth or openings to the truths of the world, and God forbid there's any serious self- or social examination.

No, no, no...the establishment wants dumb, docile debt slaves.

Because when we're already so deep in the hole we can't see out anymore, any new oppression or exploitation the oligarchs foist off on us just makes us wave a little sooner. Because we don't have time to do anything but work.

that college SHOULD be nothing but a "white collar trade school", reserved for the few.

One problem is, like history, educated people have a liberal bias. That is, the kind of education you describe. So free thinking and self-exploration need to be minimized.

Also, college is expensive and is not just for the profits, it is also a big reason why we have such a large all volunteer military. For many, this is a way to afford an education.

And, as you say, our young people graduate in the hole and are tied to the system. They have to work. No going off to Europe or South America to find yourself. You have to hit the grindstone to pay the bills. By the time you dig yourself out, you have a mortgage and kids to worry about.

Free public education would allow people to enjoy their lives and jobs to a greater extent.

You can't have that in a society that values profit over life. We'll start electing Democrats and we'll be smart enough to figure out we're being screwed. We'll demand Peace and we'll end our profitable wars.

Gosh, just imagine that.

I do think that BIG EDUCATION has taken over higher education to an astonishing degree. Tuition has outpaced the inflation rate by far. Universities are sitting on endowments valued in the billions, if not more. The state universities continually ask for public money from the state legislatures. I believe there could be much cost cutting on the administrative side and cost cutting on the tuition.

more then our children?

i imagine that small liberal arts colleges are still places where one can get an education like that. big universities are so all about the money. even if you are not going into debt and can therefore afford to do something more than quasi-vocational training, you still have your choice of courses taught by underpaid overworked adjunct lecturers without job security or mega lectures by the tenured profs, not to mention a proliferation of online courses.

Those who dont want free education are those who

1. Ok with students taking massive amounts of loans
2. Are affluent enough to it afford so the want to keep commoners out
3. Work for these private lenders

It's the piece of paper that corporations require as proof of your learning that's expensive. Seems that's the luxury of the just-above-middle class and above anymore.

Way back in the early 1990s, I was able to get an AA and a BA . . . on a minimum wage job. Graduated with no student loan debt.

Think that's happening now?

it is blatantly unfair to those who go to those schools to take money that needs to be spent upon making those schools equal and instead use it to pay tuition for the children of doctors and lawyers who went to high schools that were vastly better funded.

than a plan. Until there is a detailed proposal I wouldn't get behind it just on someone's word.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

Here are the six steps that Bernie will take as President to make college debt free:

MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America.

In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country.

STOP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MAKING A PROFIT ON STUDENT LOANS.

Over the next decade, it has been estimated that the federal government will make a profit of over $110 billion on student loan programs. This is morally wrong and it is bad economics. As President, Sen. Sanders will prevent the federal government from profiteering on the backs of college students and use this money instead to significantly lower student loan interest rates.

SUBSTANTIALLY CUT STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES.

Under the Sanders plan, the formula for setting student loan interest rates would go back to where it was in 2006. If this plan were in effect today, interest rates on undergraduate loans would drop from 4.29% to just 2.37%.

ALLOW AMERICANS TO REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS AT TODAY’S LOW INTEREST RATES.

It makes no sense that you can get an auto loan today with an interest rate of 2.5%, but millions of college graduates are forced to pay interest rates of 5-7% or more for decades. Under the Sanders plan, Americans would be able to refinance their student loans at today’s low interest rates.

ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE NEED-BASED FINANCIAL AID AND WORK STUDY PROGRAMS TO MAKE COLLEGE DEBT FREE.

The Sanders plan would require public colleges and universities to meet 100% of the financial needs of the lowest-income students. Low-income students would be able to use federal, state and college financial aid to cover room and board, books and living expenses. And Sanders would more than triple the federal work study program to build valuable career experience that will help them after they graduate.

FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS.

The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country.

by State?

...i.e. you still must meet the requirements of the educational institution.

I don't know if it's the College for All Act -- looks like a proposal to me, not a bill, so I'm guessing not.

enrichment reasons is that free? If I want to finish my BA after I retire, will that be free? Can my son who dropped out 3 years ago, go back free? Just trying to understand the parameters as the answers to these questions do impact costs.

Bernie introduced the College for All Act last May with no co-sponsors. Why would he have a different plan between last May and now? The College for All Act is now sitting in committee with a 1% chance of being enacted.

I would like to believe that there is a viable plan with well worked out details but I just don't see it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373

...other countries already provide tuition-free public education. Many states in this very country used to do so, including California where the UC system was tuition free for in-state students.

So are you claiming we just can't do it? Or are you looking for reasons to be against it because it's Just Too Expensive (tm)?

Seriously. This is an idea that has already been done in this country, and is still being done in other countries. Maybe, just maybe, it's Just Very Doable.

eligible to take college courses based on my CC GPA and I want to know if that would be free for me. Do you think I would be the only non-traditional who would take advantage of free tuition and fees to either expand knowledge or start/finish a degree? Don't you think this would impact costs and available space at the college/university and thus be important details?

I am not claiming anything other than the College for All Act right now has a 1% chance of being enacted and Bernie did not get any co-sponsors. These are facts that you can easily check.

I am asking questions. I know the way that GDP works is that if we ask questions about policies those supporting the policies are more likely to question motives or make accusations than to shed light. But we are not in GDP. If you can't answer the questions then it makes no sense for you to respond to me.

...since you are using them to shift the debate.

Of course when such a bill is introduced and debated, those questions and many others will come up.

I think that Bernie's basic approach is yes, the state should subsidize continuing education at public universities and colleges. But I don't know that for a fact.

The question is the level of subsidy and how much of the benefit should go directly to students, whether continuing education students of people enrolled in degree programs. Bernie is for expanding the benefits so that more people may pursue their educations and interests. The theory is that by doing this, we will help to reinvigorate our society and it will be beneficial overall in a competitive world that requires an educated populace to function well.

Another advantage will be a more educated voting public.

But these are ideas and not specifics, so I know you will find them unacceptable. I cannot get into the policy weeds, because I do not have the information and cannot speak for the Sanders campaign. Maybe you can direct your questions to someone at the campaign if you are really interested in the Senator's thinking on these details (I think there are links on berniesanders.com if you are so inclined to forward your questions to them).

which I've already read or talking points, again already read. I had some specific questions and it appears the answers are not to be found. I don't understand why this information isn't available if it is a fully developed plan and did not see a place on berniesanders.com to ask questions.

...i.e. it talks about debt free college, with tuition free community colleges, but it fails to address anything about continuing education or people who might want to go back to college.

So here are your 2 questions:

My understanding is that both you and your son would go through the normal admissions process, and once accepted into (or back into) the program, then yes, assuming you are going to a public college or university, you will be attending tuition-free, plus you will be able to avail yourself of low interest loans if necessary, apply for grants, etc.

Neither plan (Clinton or Sanders) says anything about continuing education classes. Many colleges and universities offer classes that people take individually, not as part of a degree program, and typically the people pay to take those classes. I don't know if those would also be mandated to be free of charge, and I don't know if they should be. I think the thrust of both plans is for people who are getting degrees, and are being saddled with huge debt, sometimes with high interest, and not dischargeable through bankruptcy either. Both Clinton and Sanders recognize that making higher education more attainable serves the larger social good and are trying to make improvements in this area.

the poor can go pound sand. The poor, especially the minority poor, go to high school which don't prepare them to compete in terms of getting into college, they just don't.

...not just the "middle class and wealthy" (although why you would be against helping the middle class... ?):

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/13/83-of-americans-say-they-cant-afford-college-edwar

83% of Americans Say They Can’t Afford College: Edward Jones Poll

May 13, 2015

Also, the poor who attend college have many obstacles, including financial:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/20/why-poor-kids-dont-stay-in-college/

Why poor kids don’t stay in college

October 20, 2014

(...)



IMO financial help such as free tuition and very low interest rates on student loans will help the poor students the most, since they have few alternative resources to draw on. I say this as someone who went to college many years ago by taking advantage of such programs -- grants, low-interest loans and work-study. I believe UC was still tuition-free for in-state students at that time; if not, the tuition was still very low. So I do know how much every bit of financial help, helps, especially if one is poor.

especially since it won't pay room and board. Again, this will accrue nearly entirely to middle class and wealthy people.

...since it is about more than state colleges and universities being tuition-free. It also would:

All of those things would help low-income students, particularly the last one.

$300 per year (fees) plus books and living expenses. Many of us worked part time, as by 18 you were "out of the house" and on your own. California invested in its young people at a time of unprecedented growth and development. The payoff was large numbers of educated folks between the three systems (UC, Cal State system, and community colleges), ready to join the growing state economy.

Nice.

They probably smell bad too. Oh, how revolting!

The liberal arts are dead. They committed suicide in the 70s and 80s.

There was nothing in my OP that came anywhere close to disparaging people who have been denied a real education, either.

I was talking about a twisted corporate-controlled educational system.

I want everyone who wants it to actually have the experience of exposure to real ideas, real discussion, a chance to stretch their minds to the fullest. Don't you?

I want anyone who wishes to, at any stage of her or his life, to be able to enrich their minds and their spirits, including farmers, bricklayers, WalMart clerks and the poor bastard who's going to spend his life chained to the fry machine at McDonald's.

There was no reason at all for you to interpret my OP as saying people who don't wish to go to college are soulless or hollow at all, and I have no idea how you even got there from what I wrote.

Actual elitism would be to say that the current university model, which can best be described as "job school for the 1%" is te best of all possible worlds.

And what made you hate the liberal arts in the Seventies and Eighties? The fact that the voices from below began to be heard? That the myth that this country's history was two centuries of moral perfection was being challenged? That writers from places other than 19th Century Britain and Europe were finally acknowledged to have produced works of literary value?

What did the liberal arts ever do to you?

And why would a Coltrane fan ever be a cultural conservative? Someone like Trane would want everyone to be able to learn whatever they want to learn, at the lowest possible monetary cost.

Sounds a little "woo" to me.

What's a "real" idea?
What's a "real" discussion?

I'm all for free universities but I don't buy this idea that a business degree, or engineering degree, or medical degree eduction isn't "real".

And they aren't without value.

But it is wrong to push for a university in which all degrees must be strictly practical, and inheremtly conservative(as all STEM degrees will be).

But your OP comes off as anyone who doesn't go to college, or doesn't major in liberal arts isn't going to "explore ideas, learn critical thinking, examine the beliefs they were raised with" which is a bullshit premise.

Practical degrees teach critical thinking as much or more so than any liberal arts degree.

Maybe it's just the way you phrased it but you come off as saying only a liberal arts college education will give a "real" education.

In my OP, I didn't address any particular course of study...more the way people are forced to approach the college experience by the general commodification of the university.

Not to relitigate the canon wars of the period but the wrong side won. We are culturally of the west but have not educated the elite in western history, thought, mores and customs. There is differences in cultures but we cannot articulate a defense of our culture. The Enlightenment, with egalitarian values, dignity and rights of mankind. No more fighting over religion, fought over so bitterly for thirty years ending in the Peace of Westfalia. These are western ideas and they are no longer taught.

I had to educate myself, after my so called liberal arts degree.

One cannot understand other cultures without knowing your own. This base, all cultures are the same groupthink dominates higher education, media and government. Remember the neocons thought invading Iraq would cause an outbreak in democracy and the US would be hailed as liberators? How did that work out? Did anyone look at thei Arab culture, the tribalness, the inbreeding and say, you know, this is not going to end well? No, there is this all cultures are equal monothought that first led to the murder of the canon and necessarily our repeated stupid foreign misadventures, since everyone has the same shitty psuedoeducation nowadays.

sorry, I don't think college is for everyone.

Just that it be free for all who wish to go.

A typical two-year in-state technical diploma/associates degree around here is usually $10,000 or less. I have an associates degree and technical certificate in electronics, I make over $30 an hour and can live in a cheap rural area.

My 18 year old son is leaning towards an industrial/electrical maintenance program at the local technical school. Maintenance jobs at the mills and complexes around here are in the $25-40 an hour range, it's a comfortable income, especially in this area.

Education has never been cheaper; the piece of paper that says you deserve a "real" job isn't. Fix that false linkage and I don't really care what tuition costs.

You can freely stream college lectures, read online college textbooks and books. You can discuss specific topics in a myriad of messages boards with others.

The only thing you have to pay for is the actual degree, but the the material to get an education is available to anyone with a computer and internet connection.

I think we are up to about 25-30% of adults obtaining Bachelor degrees in this country, that's up from around 10% 50 years ago.

More people getting an education is one thing, translating that into a career is another thing.

But I do think that the pell grant system should be expanded, government should support a coordinated effort at writing public domain textbooks, and public colleges that hold down tuition should be given additional public support.

As a system, college should be cheaper. "Free college" is unlike "free health care" in that people really will consume it simply because it's free - driving up costs.

For example, more people obtaining Bachelor and Masters degrees will dilute the benefits associated with such an accomplishment.

Education is a commodity. The same rules apply, an over abundance cheapens it, a shortage makes it more valuable.

We are witnessing it in our economy right now with close to 30% of the US population now obtaining a Bachelors degree or higher. In the 60's it was down around 10% and a degree carried much more weight. If the amount of degrees obtained continues to increase, that in turn will cause the opportunities and earning potential for those degree fields to decrease.

60's the value of their degree, as they subsidized many an office as secretaries, clerks, or worked in retail.

People opine for the glory days of the 50's and 60's when the middle class was strong. They never mention it was awesome for the white male middle class, most other groups still struggled.

...absolutely disgusts me. The corporate elites want corporate drones, not well-rounded citizens.

A STEM degree does not mean someone is not a "well rounded citizen".

Not going to college does not mean someone is not a "well rounded citizen".

Going to college and getting a liberal arts degree does not make some a "well rounded citizen"

What a bunch of crap.

this paragraph- "Instead, the college experience is reduced, for the most part, to gaining white collar job skills. If you are struggling to pay for college, you have to get through as quickly as possible and learn nothing but what you need to memorize to pass the courses. " is key. This is something we discuss at length in department meetings, as my colleagues and I try to figure out how to retain majors. Students think history is "hard." There's too much reading and writing. I have students who are intensely curious about the world, yet confide that their parents only want them to get a degree that will ensure they make money, regardless of the desire of the student. And that makes for an unhappy kid who sees college as a means to an end, a degree granting factory in which many demand As simply for showing up. They're sorely mistaken when they realize that university is more than having a pulse in a classroom. They are often happy to learn that history, at least for my colleagues and I, is a series of interconnect events that impact everything we do today. And I don't do many dates.

I have a PhD in history. I was originally a physical therapy major. My mother BALKED at the idea of me switching to history when I was an undergrad. "What the hell will you do with a history degree?" she asked. But she let me do it, for two reasons. One, she wasn't paying for college for me. I maxed out loans every year to put myself through an excellent, but expensive state school (thank you, Christie Todd Whitman, for keeping NJ tuition so high). And two, my mommy wasn't a helicopter parent who micromanaged my life. She knew I'd succeed (or fail), but that I'd figure out my life for myself. And I did. I'm many thousands in debt as a result, but they're getting paid slowly.