And it should be easy for people to keep taking college courses, even part time, whenever they want, at any point in their lives.

We can only gain as a nation from wider distribution of knowledge.

Some higher education for qualified people that want to should be able to get it. Education has to be updated for the 21st century and we need to keep up with the rest of the world. The rich can still go to the high cost private institutions.

Have you ever filled out the financial forms for means-testing for your college-aged kids?

I have. It was really a lot of trouble, a lot of bureaucracy. Very few families would flunk the means test for student loans. I think it is a waste of time.

College is so expensive that few can afford to send their children without aid. That is my experience.

We could save a lot of money if we did away with the bureaucracy associated with processing student loan information at state schools. My opinion.

...and 40% of the students who apply here don't even ask for financial aid. My sister is at an Ivy, and it's the same there. Certainly there are people in the country who do not need the tax payers to support their kids in college. Higher income families are more likely to send kids to college, and not just because of their monetary wealth, but because of the advantages their kids have received over their lifetimes. I'm guessing it is around 60-70% of the population that should be helped paying for college. I don't see any reason why there should not be means testing.

Are there really so many rich kids around whose parents aren't already lining them up for Harvard and Yale, etc., etc.? If they are going to private $chools they are out of the program from the git-go.

"Higher income families are more likely to send kids to college"
and that's something publicly-financed public university/community college/trade schools would change.
rich people can send their kids to public K-12 if they choose to do so, and that's not considered problematic, no need for means testing there, eh?
but a high school education just doesn't go as far as it used to in today's job market
no need to let the rich people (who can afford to send their kids to private colleges) stand in the way of debt-free tertiary education for the rest of us.

If rich parents want to send their kids to community college for whatever reason let the kids attend. If the kids don't want to go to the ivy league of their parents choice let them spend two years in the trenches and see what they think of that.

that you 'deserve' something. Hours wasted out of your life filling out complex forms, bureaucratic hoops to jump through, all so people can turn around and call you 'lazy' or a parasite because you dare to receive a government benefit for which you 'qualify'.

We need more 'universal' benefits, so that NOBODY is wasting time filling out paperwork, there's no need for bloated bureaucracies to process that pointless paperwork, and all the money is getting spent ON the benefits.

Universal Healthcare. Universal Basic Income. Universal College Education.

Ideas whose time has come.

People devalue things that are free, and this scheme will destroy HBCUs.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/darrensands/clyburn-sanders-education-plan-is-a-disaster-for-private-hbc#.og5Pl2JORR

Clyburn: Sanders’ Education Plan Is A Disaster For Private Black Colleges

“You’ve got to think about the consequences of things. [If] you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen.”

people by race? I'm not African-American, and I do not understand the argument for black colleges. I live in California and we are trying to integrate our society more and more at all levels. I suspect that we have more racial intermarriage than any other state. Seems to me that those colleges could also give free tuition if they were properly endowed anyway.

It's an argument I have not thought much about. Probably because we don't have segregated colleges (as far as I know) in the Western states. I think it is a uniquely Southern thing. Don't most of them have good endowments? If so, why are they charging tuition?

After all, women don't ever get treated like second class citizens, do they? They're always safe and empowered at mixed gender institutions. They don't need to have a choice, do they?

These are private institutions. They occupy an important historical place in our national landscape. They serve a real community that is not always empowered when they go to white colleges and universities. They produce many, many leaders. They are valuable, and valued.

I'm not sure taking a One Size Fits All approach to university education is a good thing.

I simply cannot support any plan that puts a knife through the heart of HBCUs.

Sorry.

FWIW, they aren't "segregated." White people do attend them, but not, usually, in large numbers. The culture at them is black, and a white person attending needs to understand that.

And is Texas and Oklahoma "west" enough to you? How about Missouri? California?


Harvard has enormous endowments, and they still charge tuition. Why on earth would you think HBCUs a) shouldn't and b) all have large endowments?


http://hbculifestyle.com/list-of-hbcu-schools/

at public colleges is free.

Private schools give lots of scholarships to the best students.

They will take care of themselves.

California used to have free tuition at state colleges. Stanford and other private schools were not less popular because of it.

And the fact that students who get scholarships for tuition at schools still appreciate their education proves that just because education is free does not mean that people who get free education don't appreciate it.

Do rich kids who get free education not appreciate their education?

You want to take a chance on that? I sure don't.

HBCUs and many women's colleges and universities are deserving of special protections owing to their cultural and historical heritages. To insist that "They will take care of themselves" is turning a privileged back to them. I can't support that.

People don't appreciate or value things that are free. This is just fact. It's as true in business as it is in academia: http://blog.hubstaff.com/saas-pricing-free-plan-mistake/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-mcguire/free-community-college-gi_b_6451562.html

My children went to ordinary schools. They did not need special protections. In fact, one of my daughters went to an engineering school that was attended mostly by boys.

I'm not turning a privileged back to anyone. I'm just saying we live in the 21st century. We don't need segregation any more, not segregation based on race or segregation based on gender.

My daughter who attended a school that was traditionally a boys' school has done quite well and is able to deal with people who are different from her.

My children went to schools in which they were of a different race than most of the other children. That has been a big advantage to them in life.

Why do people have to go to schools that have only people or mostly people of their own race or gender? That concept of segregating by race or gender needs to be relinquished. We can do better.

How can someone complain about racism and then seek to go to school only with their own race? That makes no sense to me.

I realize that I will be branded as insensitive for saying that. My daughter was the only blond in her high school. It did not hurt her even though she had to put up with a devastating number of dumb blond jokes on a daily basis. (She is brilliant if I say so myself. Of course I am her mother.)

Let's end the racism. OK??? And the genderism while we are at it. Women no longer need schools just for themselves. And I think that a lot of women's colleges and traditionally Black colleges allow all qualified students. I believe I read that in one of the posts posted on this thread in fact.

In the alternative, they ARE endangered.

And I'm not getting into this with you:

Bernie's not proposing a complete overhaul of higher education. Just free tuition at state schools.

How is the college supposed to survive without freshman and sophomores? They aren't a charity. They need a source of income.

He doesn't realize it, but he IS proposing a complete overhaul. And it won't be good. Established institutions will fold. All he'll be doing is turning the first two years of free state college into the UK equivalent of A levels. The "school mill" will continue, only the actual educating will be added on to the back end. Everyone will need a Master's degree to be considered as proficient as a college graduate is today. Of course, before the colleges realize they can still make their money, a lot of the niche ones will fail owing to lack of cash.

Another impact of this is that it will increase the starting age, on average, of the workforce. This will keep most "My Tuition is Paid By My Parents" middle class and up children out of the workforce and working for that "baseline" Masters degree until they're 24 or 5.

professional degree. Times have changed. Unless you have connections, you need to go to graduate school.

I don't think that middle class parents can afford to pay even for the first four years of any college nowadays. Remember, middle class is maybe 40-60,000 per year if you go by median income.

From academic years 2007–08 to 2012–13, the percentage of first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students at 4-year degree-granting institutions receiving any financial aid increased from 80 to 85 percent. During this time, the percentage of students receiving aid at 4-year private nonprofit institutions increased from 86 to 89 percent, and the percentage of students at 4-year public institutions increased from 77 to 83 percent. The percentage of students receiving aid at 4-year private for-profit institutions was 76 percent in 2007–08 and 89 percent in 2012–13, a difference of 13 percentage points. For 2-year institutions, the percentage of first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students receiving any financial aid increased from 68 percent in 2007–08 to 78 percent in 2012–13. Showing no significant change, the percentage of students receiving aid at 2-year private for-profit institutions was 87 percent in both 2007–08 and 2012–13. The percentage of students receiving aid at 2-year private nonprofit institutions increased from 85 to 90 percent and the percentage of students receiving aid at 2-year public institutions increased from 62 to 76 percent.

. . . .

In 2012–13, the percentage of first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students receiving federal grants at 4-year institutions was highest at private for-profit institutions (74 percent), compared with lower percentages at public (38 percent) and private nonprofit institutions (33 percent). The percentage of students at 4-year institutions receiving state or local grants was highest at public institutions (37 percent), followed by the percentage at private nonprofit institutions (26 percent) and the percentage at private for-profit institutions (10 percent). The percentage of students receiving institutional grants was highest at 4-year private nonprofit institutions (81 percent), followed by public institutions (44 percent) and private for-profit institutions (27 percent). The percentage of students at 4-year institutions receiving student loan aid was highest at private for-profit institutions (79 percent). In comparison, 62 percent of students at private nonprofit institutions and 51 percent of students at public institutions received student loan aid.

For first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students at 2-year institutions in 2012–13, the percentage of students receiving federal grants was highest at private for-profit institutions (71 percent), compared with the percentage at private nonprofit institutions (67 percent) and at public institutions (56 percent). A higher percentage of students at 2-year public institutions (34 percent) received state or local grants than students at 2-year private nonprofit institutions (30 percent) or 2-year private for-profit institutions (7 percent). About 38 percent of students at 2-year private nonprofit institutions received institutional grants, compared with 13 percent of students at private for-profit institutions and 11 percent of students at public institutions. The percentage of students at 2-year institutions receiving student loan aid was highest at private for-profit institutions (76 percent), compared with private nonprofit institutions (61 percent) and public institutions (27 percent).

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31

Thanks to our trade policies, there aren't many jobs that pay people well who don't go to college. And there aren't many jobs for college graduates either.
I know of college graduates (a couple in this case) who live in a van because they can't afford to rent a place.

We don't have factories that much any more. And McDonalds just doesn't pay that well.

The middle class????

These statistics prove that only a small percentage of Americans can afford to pay for their childrens' college education.

The middle class is disappearing very rapidly.

That is why Bernie has the support he has. Because the middle class is slipping into oblivion in this country.

I qualified my statement by "if you want to get anywhere."

And that is the rub. Most jobs do not pay a living wage nowadays. That's why Bernie is suggesting a $15 minimum wage.

"If you want to get anywhere" means if you want to buy a house or be able to pay for your own child's education.

I know very well that nowadays most people are not earning enough to do those things.

I assure you. I do not live in a rarified world. I live in an area of Los Angeles that is under a gang injunction.

I know what kinds of shops are on Main Street (not the real name of it) in my area of town -- and the people working in them are not earning much money. They are not getting ahead.

Bernie tells us the statistics on who is earning what.

I remember when we moved into our area. My children came home from school and said, "Oh, mother. Our teachers live in this area." That's because teachers earn just enough to live on, and not much more. They, like us, could manage to buy a house in a neighborhood that wasn't all that safe.

I am not living a rarified life. I worked for a homeless shelter for years. I know the reality and that is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders.

It's the Hillary supporters who are incredibly naive about the economic reality that we all face.

The TPP will lower our standard of living still further. I am not looking forward to it.

But beyond that . . . . .

Maybe prison guards?

Even police officers in cities have to have college degrees generally.

Firemen also have to pass a test and demonstrate that they are educated I believe.

A college degree is basic for most jobs.

And as cars become electronic, the good old mechanics jobs are not so plentiful. As we move ahead into more and more automation, these jobs will be even rarer. And as more people try to learn to be plumbers and mechanics, the wages will go down.

College is for more and more people a necessity.

The price difference now between community college and private universities and colleges is so great that if your theory about people abandoning the choice of private universities if state colleges were free were true, private colleges would already be in serious decline.

Especially, as I have pointed out, it is important for people in their 40s and up who need to retrain to have a free tuition alternative in state schools. And as we enter into the TPP the possibility of retraining without incurring a lot of debt will become very important.

The "free" trade agreements are not free for working people. They cost a lot of jobs.

Cooks/chefs? Landscapers? Gardeners? Artists/musicians? Electricians?

How about that bozo with the pick who cleans your teeth at the dentist? The kid who takes your blood pressure and files your record at the doctor?

Everyone needs a degree, huh?

Not everyone WANTS one. Not everyone thrives in that "degree" environment. Not everyone has the brains or discipline to get through that course of study. University is not the default for a lot of jobs.

Life long learning is a different issue--but this "degree" emphasis is often "piece of paper"-centric and has nothing to do with actual job-applied knowledge.

We're going to be providing free college to middle-aged people too?

This IS going to get expensive!

Good thing it's not going to happen. Let employers do this. Make college affordable--not free. The federal government doesn't need to have colleges by the short hairs, making demands on curriculum in exchange for funding--and that is what would happen if the GOP got any influence over the system (and in time, they would). They'd ruin it like they ruined PBS.

assistants and nurses often, maybe even usually, have degrees, at least two-year degrees.

Gardeners don't get paid much.

I studied music. Granted some musicians and cooks don't study their field, but many, maybe most, do.

Yes. Middle-aged people n eed free college tuition too. That's because what with our trade agreements and the constantly changing job market demands, a lot of middle-aged people have to retrain. And just at the time when they are supposed to have the money to pay for their children's education.

Who do you think makes up that 5% of people of working age who are not counted as unemployed but are unemployed? Not all, but a lot of them are middle-aged.

Lots of jobs have just disappeared.

There is only so much demand for carpenters and the like. I know a man now in his 60s who became a master carpenter when he was very young. His father was a wonderful carpenter, but the young man I know was never able to earn his living as a carpenter. Depends on where you live, but in many areas of the country, there is not much demand for carpenters. And the furniture factories have for the most part been moved lock, stock and barrel to China.

94% of the 180+ people who answered this poll voted in favor of free tuition at state schools and colleges. May I suggest that perhaps the time as come whether wealthy people like it or not, that students be able to go to state colleges and universities tuition-free.

Watch Bernie's speeches on YouTube. The crowds cheer louder than ever when he talks about free tuition at state colleges and universities (and I assume that would include state trade tech schools).

Employers don't pay for it although it would be great if they did. So we need to make them pay for it by the tax on certain Wall Street trades. It's a good idea. Apparently nearly everyone on DU agrees with it.

Think back. Who paid for your education? Did you get student loans?

I didn't need them when I was young because states imposed taxes and paid for the colleges and universities in part out of those taxes. The tuition was not free but it was close to it even if you were out of state.

Later, when I went back to school, I had to borrow. I still owe on my loans, like most people in my class I suppose. It has been over 20 years since I went back. The payments come out of my Social Security checks. I had no choice but to go back to school. People refused to hire me. An influential person in our community told me that I would be bored at the job his company had. I had no choice but to go back to school.

A nurse (who is degreed) is not a medical assistant who takes BP and files and types. The ones at my doc earned as they learned. Same with my dental hygenist--I asked. I have a relative who is a 911 dispatcher--'earn as you learn.'

I got student loans, and scholarships, and I paid them back. It took me quite a while, but it wasn't an unbearable amount--it was quite reasonable (cheap, in fact, in today's money).

It didn't kill me--but see, the price was AFFORDABLE. Not onerous. Uncle Sam paid for my graduate education and I incurred a service obligation as a consequence. They got their money's worth.

I am not interested in seeing the federal government in a position to withhold money if schools don't kowtow to them and teach nationalistic propaganda. And that could happen--as I said, look what Bush did to PBS.

Better to give companies tax breaks and incentives to help to subsidize the education of their employees and teach them needed skills, I think. I don't want the federal government becoming the national provost of education. It will homogenize the process, and not in a good way. And it will fuck over HBCUs.

I won't be convinced otherwise. I don't like the government holding a sword over the head of academia. They're not a good fit together, unless you're teaching war or national security.

And, I believe the man you support for President would probably agree with your sentiment. Which is why I can't vote for him? I completed my undergraduate degree at an HBCU...as did my parents. That you don't see it's importance, doesn't surprise me. But, it does explain the disconnect between Bernie Sanders and many (not all) African Americans. HBCUs exist because money doesn't fix everything. Then again, I've changed my mind. I think even Bernie understands the need for HBCUs. And, if he does't. I think he'll be wiser than to pontificate on whether or not they should continue to even exist.

By the way, an HBCU isn't a segregated college.

state schools is that I think it will help immigrant kids.

My husband is an immigrant, came here with his family at the age of 12. Like a lot of immigrant children, he was the official family translator.

His family really had no money. They would have had a hard time even filling out financial aid forms. So my husband joined the military to get free college tuition.

Nowadays that is not such an easy solution.

But for immigrants of all races, free tuition at states schools including trade schools would really be an enormous step up, a way to integrate people of all backgrounds into our society.

Also, I think it is essential to have free tuition in this time of rapid economic change. So many people have to find a new profession in their 40s, 50s and 60s because their jobs are rendered obsolete by technology or outsourcing. Free tuition at state schools especially including trade schools would help us adjust to our changing economy.

I went back to school at the age of 50 and studied to enter a new profession. A lot of older people ask me whether they should do that. I have to tell them that they should only do that if the field they enter is likely to pay enough to permit them to repay any student debt they incur. That's a tough bill to fill. Physical therapy???? Probably won't allow the older student to pay back student debts in the 15-25 years remaining of a working life.

So many considerations enter into this issue. That's why I asked people to comment. It is something we need to consider carefully.

I don't know whether you ever had to fill out the financial aid forms. I did --- twice. It was challenging enough for me. I would hate to have to think of immigrant parents doing it. The forms are very intrusive.

I want all of our young people to have an equal chance to study the field that will allow them to earn a good living and contribute to the health and well being of our society. Student debt is definitely a deterrent.

Other members of my family are immigrant kids. It's really tough to pay for your kid's college when you are an immigrant family.

Tuition was much cheaper when I went to a state (out-of-state) school. I worked, and the first two years, I lived in a cooperative dorm in which we did chores and some of the cooking for everyone in the dorm.

Free tuition does not mean free college in my understanding. Living expenses would still have to be paid.

What do you mean by "affordable"?

You live with mama and papa.

Most community colleges don't HAVE dorms. That's why they are called "community" colleges. They serve the immediate community.

I mean 'AFFORDABLE' as Clinton defines it.

Your debt payment doesn't exceed ten percent of your paycheck.

I worked all the way through college -- lots of hours even though my tuition was not nearly as high as it is today.

So if you don't live within a reasonable bus ride of a community college, you have to have a car to attend.

Things have changed since I went to school.

A lot of towns in America have no connection other than automobile to any community beyond their borders. We don't have Greyhound buses that go everywhere any more. And trains don't stop everywhere either.

I traveled from my home to my college by Greyhound bus back in the day. I don't think there is a bus on that route any more. Times have changed . . . . .

If you live in an urban-suburban environment you can get there by bus or metro. If you're in a rural locale, you need a car. But you'd need a car in that case, ANYWAY if you were going to do anything at all.

There are no schools that are an onerous distance from anywhere in MA.




I've never seen a dorm at a community college--and we have many of them in MA.

Also, many state schools do distance learning as a matter of course. Students can get degrees entirely online nowadays. So the whole "commute/dorm" thing doesn't apply anymore.

You may have good bus service.

But try rural areas in even a state like Ohio -- or Iowa -- or Montana.

Even here in Los Angeles, our public transportation system is inadequate. It is terrible.

They drive the cheap old beater CARS they own. Like most of us did when we were young and poor.

Please. No one is locked in their house or forced to hitch up the mule.

And most state schools have online programs.

Are you going to try to tell me now that they can't afford the internet?

Eventually you will run out of excuses.



smh!

Her son attends a state college in a neighboring town and has to drive a car to get there.

That is life in rural America.

That is NOT life in rural America. The working POOR have (shock) cars. They might not be Lexus or Prius ones, but they have four tires and roll.

don't matter? That because they are a SMALL MINORITY of the total population, that we can tell them to go to hell? That we can disregard the historical aspect of these schools because there are just a few of them?

This perspective is clueless to be kind.

I can't believe anyone would even say such a thing. If I had to guess, the blogger you are quoting is likely a) white and b) doesn't know many if any black people. I'd also bet--not guess--that he doesn't understand the PROFOUND historical significance of HBCUs.

This entire essay is as stupid as: "Let's stop maintaining veteran's cemeteries--I mean, after all, there are so many REGULAR cemeteries in the world...they don't need any special consideration--just toss them in with everyone else." That wouldn't go over well either--and in this case, the directly affected parties are not even alive.


smh!

This takes the cake.

Really.

Never thought I'd see anything like this on DU.

The point of the post is that many more HBCU students would be helped than hurt by this proposal.

It also sounds like the author is silently screaming "I don't know a single, solitary thing about the shameful history of black education in America, and I have absolutely NO intention of learning, because if I do, I might have to realize that Clyburn is right, and WHY he is right."


This may be entirely unintentional, but in that case, you would have to put it all down to the "privilege" thing.

But there's something HORRIBLY askew in that essay, and it cries out for some essential education on the topic.

Here's the Cliff Notes: http://www.collegeview.com/articles/article/the-history-of-historically-black-colleges-and-universities

An extremely effective case is made, on the facts of the matter, that more HBCU students are benefited by Sanders' plan than are hurt. The simple numbers bear out that case.

Any attempt to attack the messenger of those ideas, however deserved (honestly I cannot evaluate whether there is something askew, though my second-read points to me that he is simply presenting economic realities dispassionately), is weak. If you disagree with the factual conclusion, please do that. Otherwise I will decline to respond.

FWIW, I was directed to this by posts by @SandyDarity who has always been level-headed about AA-related policy:

https://twitter.com/SandyDarity/status/701568353429811200
https://twitter.com/SandyDarity/status/701568766795194370
https://twitter.com/SandyDarity/status/701569426911600640

Good grief--I give up. It's not "attacking the messenger" to point out that this proposal has an effect on a group of people that has as much significance as THIS:

The argument is more HBCU students are helped than harmed.

It doesn't appear you have an actual argument though so we're done.

because it will "help" more kids that go to Ivy League schools...or something. That's sort of what your "actual argument" (such as it is) sounds like.

It doesn't appear that you understand the history and culture of the HBCUs and that causes you to grasp an erroneous belief that I don't have an argument. I do, and most black and brown people get it, understand it, and don't have to be spoon fed. Getting rid of ANY of them is a crime against history. And many would not survive under this stupid, never-gonna-happen federal scenario.

Federal oversight of universities, too, is a bad, bad thing, though that's a separate issue. How long before we get a Reagan or Bush insisting "If the federal government is paying for this shit, the federal government can control the curriculum and decide what profs may, or may not, teach."

It's a lousy idea.

And watched my granddaughter struggle to pay for her education at one of the Cal State campuses in the early 2000's.

I graduated 50 years ago this year with no debt and (a little) money in the bank. The GI bill, part time jobs and a wife who worked helped, but you could not do that anymore.

(the last to earn a teaching credential) at Cal State from 1970 - 75 were less than a thousand dollars.

I just paid for my daughter's 4 years at a UC campus. Her college related exenses were over $75k. Living expenses were on top of that. My retirement account took a huge hit. No one should have to give up retirement income to send a child to college, but that's what I did. I didn't want her to graduate deeply in debt. And tweaking student loans is not the answer.

there is a 0% chance of Bernie Sanders "free tuition" plan to be passed

Not someone who chides people for wanting things that were available to previous generations.

this board needs a reality check

Oh, and Social Security. To say nothing of Medicare.

It is not a matter of whether we can afford it. It is a matter of whether we want to. It is not a matter of whether we can afford it because we already have student loans. Funding education and single payer insurance is just a matter of whether we pay for it by forcing those who don't have rich parents to borrow the money and then pay it back with interest (our current method for paying for tuition at colleges and universities) or we allow students to to go to college without borrowing and then take it out of their investment money if they do speculative trading later one.

The tuition is not "free" in the sense that it is paid by the blue sky. It is free in the sense that the individual, the poorer student is not stuck with paying the entire bill with interest while a richer kid is without debt because his/her parents foot the tuition bill.

I think that the form of paying for state school tuition by placing a tax on speculative trades on Wall Street (the fast ones, for example) would help society a great deal, help to give kids who want to work hard but don't have money entry into the middle class. That would especially help immigrant kids but also students of minorities of all kinds. It would also help people 40 and over whose jobs have gone the way of better technology or simply outsourcing or exporting. I went back to school at the age of 50. I made sure I chose a field in which I was likely to earn enough to repay my loans. But I was lucky to qualify for a field of that kind.

If we can afford student loans, we can afford free tuition. It's just a matter of when the money is paid and who pays the greater part of it.

Right now, kids have to delay their child-bearing years until they get student loans repaid. Or if they don't delay, they end up paying for childcare (an expensive proposition if you want safe daycare in California where I live), student loans, the medical costs for small children, etc. and cannot do the things that used to be part of living in our society like buying a house. The fact of the burden of student loans and the extremely high tuition our children now face when they want an education is increasing the income inequality in our society and doing a lot of damage.

And as I said, it is not a matter of affording or not affording free tuition. It is a matter of how that tuition is to be paid. It is a matter of who bears the burden for our maintaining our first-world status in the world. Because if we don't educate our children to the best of their abilities, we will continue to sink in terms of our economic role in the world.

Democrats please get a clue. DU is off the rails

not a fake "Democrat" whose heart is with the 1%.

And how the hell did California afford free state college tuition in the 1950s and 60s?

Think.

More students would have an opportunity to achieve the dream of a higher education without graduating deeply in debt. Hillary's argument that the wealthy don't need free tuition, and, therefore, no one should have the benefit of it is ridiculous. She sent her daughter to Stanford, an expensive and elite private school. A public university was never in the equation. Wealthy people are not generally looking to send their kids to a state school in the first place, so it's pretty much a moot point. But a public school is just that -- meant for the public. Students at all income levels should be welcome, and, if tuition is eliminated, there's no good reason it shouldn't be eliminated across the board.

As an aside, I attended a Cal State campus from 1970-75. There was no tuition, just a few fees that amounted to less than $200 a year. The same education was available, tuition free, to all.

California is NOT Europe. Bernie Sanders modeled his ideas after those of FDR.

Fight ignorance: Look up "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" on wikipedia and go see Michael Moore's Where to Invade Next.

Knowledge is a good thing.

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 07:14 AM - Edit history (1)

thanks to a teaching assistantship.

My in-state undergraduate tuition was practically free, thanks to Pell Grants that covered the very low tuition of about $300/semester.

should react with alarm at the very idea.

Since Reagan and the DLC, this country has lost so much.

Reagan and the DLC/Third Way have really done a lot of damage.

And it's disgusting that so many people accept the current situation as the way it should be, when we had a much better system in place when I was in college.

If we just skip over the issue of if we could even get a tax being passed at all for the purpose, and assume it could be, I think higher education has too many moving parts, and as mentioned above there are negative consequences for some institutions if we implemented a unilateral change.

I think the best solution to help the most people will likely be a bit more complicated system of change.

I know my peers from college are still paying on loans with obscene interest rates.

I know that my niece is working a crappy job and trying to take care of her children, wants to go to college, but can't figure out how to make it all work without incurring massive debt.

I know the problems that exist in my corner of the world really well.
But I don't think the solution comes from talking up free college for all, without any real workable plans to make it happen.

I think Hillary's plans are a good starting point.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

Beyond that, i'd like to see improvement in the amount of Community College credits transferable to universities. The rate right now is not particularly good. Students could get some of the undergrad core requirements out of the way in a free CC system, and work toward scholarship or grant programs to move into the university system, with much less debt load.

I'm sure there is more rambling around in my head, but it's super late and I think my brain is about to go on strike.

a very popular idea.

excessive defense funding could be reinvested in infrastructure and education too.

Forgot that one earlier!

If there was a solution besides the two presented.

As long as it does not require parents to fill out complicated and long and intrusive financial forms, I'd like to hear about it.

It's been a long time, but I will never forget the difficulty and shame of filling out the financial aid forms.

Poor people do not need to be reminded of the fact they are poor. That is especially grue of teachers and others who pursue professions or have jobs that are hard work and worthwhile to society but don't pay enough to be able to pay for the college tuition of your kids.

I should hope that the idea of free tuition would start with public colleges and universities and eventually cover tuition to all schools of higher learning and all students who qualify.

After all, we pay the tuition now. It's just that we do it in a way that saddles young (and old) graduates with the burden of repaying huge debts at a time in their lives when they may or may not earn enough to repay them without sacrificing and worst making their young children sacrifice.

Better to pay the cost of educating serious students from the money that people who can afford to gamble on the stock market have. It wouldn't be a large part of that gambling stake, only a small bit of each gamble. And think of the good it would do if it made the difference between a teacher being able to buy a house for his/her children or living in a rented place for many years.

Anyway, I would love to hear your suggestion.

I tend to support trade schools and community and state colleges being free. It will be necessary to charge something for the UC system especially masters degrees and PhDs that are not crucial to the economy.

The reality is if you're talented the money is there for advanced degrees in fields where there is demand. Right now there are too many MAs, MFAs, PhDs. So someone is able to afford it, help is being given, people work as a part of getting a degree. The bigger problem is that there are just too many with higher degrees but no jobs for them, except in the sciences and other non humanities areas.

but they can usually afford tuition.

because it was cheaper - but also we all worked and got department money and additional scholarships. Now though it's several thousand more a semester. It was maybe two thousand when I went and it might be as high as ten or more now. And it's a trimester system, many are, so the debt could pile up.

is a national security imperative. We don't, we are already seeing the leading edge of brain drain.

I think we need to rein in the cost of college. I'm open to various methods of getting there, but I don't think either of their plans do of that.

I don't know if the right answer is to make it free as somebody else said, people don't value free things, but also if you make it "free" then there is no incentive to keep costs in line. Or in the Sanders plan, he makes it so cheaper states can free ride to an extent and states that want to put more money into college don't get rewarded for that. Clinton's isn't ambitious enough as it focuses on community college, which are great, but not enough in today's economy.

Additionally those other countries Sanders compares us to, admit far fewer students than we do as part of how they afford "free" college.

I agree that costs have to be kept in line.

I've actually read his bill. It's ridiculous. Fine, even if we believe the funding source. Great. The mechanism of execution is beyond silly, relying on states not only to apply, but to put up 1/3 of the expenditure, over and above what they already pay. Moreover, the long-term goal of avoiding state disparities (i.e., raising the cost in X state to draw more federal money) is dealt with by setting tuition costs to the national per student instruction median, regardless of state participation! In other words, if you live in a state that more generously subsidizes instruction, that state will have to reduce its contribution in order to reach a national median, or increase its contribution to offset the reduction in the federal contribution! The bill actually punishes states that are doing the right thing, regardless of contribution by the many states with Republican governors and state houses that won't participate. And if you think they will be forced to participate via brain drain, bzzzzzt, think again: the program only applies for in-state tuition! How will states hold down costs? Definitely not through faculty salaries (Thank goodness!): states will have to show that 75% of credit hours are covered by tenure-line faculty. This will actually result in massive cuts to liberal arts programs, which Deans and Provosts will simply shutter rather than comply with BOTH a cost reduction and a salary/benefits increase. Fine, you say. Liberal arts are bullshit, STEM forever! But not just liberal arts: you will not be able to staff basic science and math classes, and language, too.

It is a plan written by people with little understanding of the day-to-day challenges of higher education in the United States. Wait...I can feel the response coming: Administrative bloat! Luxury dorms! If those are your answers, go check out a spreadsheet for an actual college or university. I assure you that you will stop spouting platitudes if you read that spreadsheet honestly.

The system we have now is not working for millions of students. And as Nadine says, this is actually a major national security problem.

In fact, when we were in school in the 1960s, there were NDEA fellowships for students, National Defense Education Act. Languages and other fields that serve our national defense were included. The assistance was won through competition.

What plan would you suggest.

Have you ever filled out the financial aid packet forms? I did years ago. It was a demeaning, frustrating chore. The forms were very intrusive, and if you were among the many who have very little money, they could move you to tears.

They made me feel like a total failure.

Especially now when we have so much economic and income disparity, we should not force parents to fill out financial forms in order for their children to get a college education. For immigrant and low income families in which parents are not well educated, filling out those forms is a very difficult task.

Let's make sure that qualified students get to go to college without taking on debt for their tuition to state schools. We have to do this somehow.

I have about two years left on it.

The way we run higher education is indeed very broken. The problem is that Bernie's plan is laughable. It's laughable. He needs to gather people who actually understand the financial aspects of higher education and work through an actual plan. Mind you, Hillary's plan has its own array of problems, which I'd be happy to go over with you, but in this thread, I want to emphasize that if you read Bernie's plan, it is a fucking joke. Not because of the way he plans to fund it, which, as unrealistic as it is, at least collects the revenue he proposes to then spend at the federal level. Fine - supposing you ever manage to pass that tax. Let's assume you do. You still need 33% contribution from the states on a voluntary basis. Do you even realize how dumb that is? The trend in even blue states (say, Pennsylvania) is for cutting higher education budgets to the bone. Never mind shitheads like Scott Walker, who have decimated state expenditures on higher ed. Now, Bernie's plan says "You are not allowed to cut a single dollar from your CURRENT expenditures. Oh, and you have to now pick up 33% of this NEW bill!" It's moronic.

Now, you say, well, what's YOUR plan, alcibiades_mystery? Huh? What's your plan?

Well, I don't have a plan. It's a very difficult problem. Here's the thing, though. Bernie doesn't have a plan either: he has a moronic proposal that he's demagoging the shit out of.

If you get a chance, see the movie Where to Invade Next.

Let me be very clear: I support using public funds to create cost free tuition structures in the United States. Wholeheartedly, in fact. The problem is not with the idea, but with its mechanisms for execution. Put plainly, they won't work, and for many provisions, they don't even make sense. At the nuts and bolts level. The problem is not in the idea; the actual proposal is ridiculous - the general idea is fine.

Has that been explained anywhere?

If I buy 100 shares of Disney stock in my IRA is that a speculative Wall Street trade?

Isn't the money in your IRA tax free until you retire and start taking it out?

My example should have been buying 100 shares of Disney stock in my non-IRA brokerage account.

this would especially apply to the very fast trades (often not even completed) on Wall Street and in commodity markets.

They are placed for various strategic reasons as I understand it such as making the market look more active than it is an raising or lowering stock prices as well as hedging bets made on stocks and commodities.

It's gambling. I have no problem with taxing those trades.

I have no problem with a small tax on all Wall Street trades for that matter.

And I do think that capital gains in certain cases should be taxed at the same rate as earned income.

Free tuition, a budget for books (not to exceed $400), free housing, and a small living expense budget. If someone wants more than that sure they can have a part time job or whatever.

I think the tax on Wall Street is a good start, but I would also divert money from the MIC a whole lot of freaking money knock them down to a quarter of what they are currently operating at.

student pays the rest. Foreign students pay more unless the are on scholarship. Aboriginal students get to go for free.

reduced. Colleges and universities have an awful lot of administrators. Maybe some of them could be paid the same salaries as professors. That would save some money.

But there are constitutional questions, since this would take away budget authority at every single public school and place it with the federal government

Free tuition would not "take away budget authority." Schools could budget as they please. Tuition income would simply come from a different source.

Also: thanks for taking the Bernie logo off your avatar; this is much more honest. Kudos.

Many also exclude the first $100k of trades.

What people don't realize here is that 50% of the volume in U.S. securities market is executed by the top 0.1% wealthiest individuals.

more robust than it is. I don't really understand that, but it seems that is the case. If you disagree with me or understand better than I what that is about, please correct my rather primitive post. Thanks.

an educated populace elects the bestest candidate. With that comes solutions not problems. Case closed.

They considered an informed and educated populace necessary to a healthy democracy. They were right.

Republicans and corporate Democrats have all but destroyed that rationale, speaking of higher education as though it were voc ed. Most young people whom I encounter think of education solely in terms of employment -- although there are still a few liberal arts majors around, bless their souls.

Today, thanks to rightwing attitudes and legislation, much of our populace is poorly educated and uninformed.

Add 2 years to HS but instead of restricting those 2 years to an actual location, open up the 1st 2 years to any combination of public schools. Most states have higher education with no borders, enroll in the state system, take your courses anywhere or online, offer completed education at the end of 2 years or allow a track right into a 4 year degree. I understand the value of liberal arts etc but some people just want a job. Let the additional 2 years focus on specific learning. In fact revamp all of HS. I think it's time for a big change if we're going to even try this. How long have we had k through 12? Can't we think of something better?

of HBCUs, too.

Or if they know--they don't care.

And that's worse.

tuition ranged from $350 to $600 per semester and textbooks were $30-$40. A $40 text was EXPENSIVE.

This is the kind of opportunity our children and grandchildren should have. Yeah, I had to work. But it wasn't out of reach, and I was NOT a debt slave when I graduated, ready to begin my career.

Listen Up.. The U.S. People ALREADY PAY FOR E V E R Y T H I N G!
That includes the Stupid Wars; Military Industrial Complex, Homeland NSA CIA FBI POLICE Spy BS, Prison IC, You Name It!!
Not to mention Bail Out Protection Racket Industrial Complex (insurance co.s), Banksters, on & on, never ending Freakin BS.

We ALL (RACES), NEED EDUCATION OPERTUNITIES, We're a SorryAss Embarasment To the rest of the World; Comeon what kinda CLONES R WE??

If it was limited somehow kind of like a scholarship, I could get on board. Or if it was to trade school, community college and state school as long as you kept your grades. I certainly do not want to pay for a bunch of pot heads to cut class and get D's, and it's not clear if we are talking about this or not just from listening to Bernie on TV. Obviously this is not a deal breaker for me. Worst case scenario, we are inefficient in getting a more educated work force. God know we waste money on dumber stuff than that.

I would rather see more grants and scholarships along with more Federal Funding to keep tuition lower for everyone and very low interest government student loans.

1) How reliable of a tax base is the proposed tax? Sounds like the kind of tax that is very volatile.

2) How will small private colleges be protected? Lots of academics get tenure track jobs at those smaller, private schools, and we cannot disregard them. Not to mention, mainly fill an important niches in our college/university system, especially historically black colleges and universities. The large, well-known privates will be fine. Most of them have a HUGE endowment, and don't depend on tuition anyway.

3) I am concerned that that "free" tuition will lead to very high drop-out rates. My wife is a professor, and the focus on retention rates already forces them to focus so many departmental resources on freshman retention, and spending large amounts of money providing a freshmen education (often remedial) to students who rapidly drop out is VERY inefficient. I'd like to see some study on success rates based on "skin in the game" rates. I know the UK has some experience in this area... maybe we can learn something from them.

I'd like to see very affordable college/post-secondary in any case. Also, student loan interest should be fully tax-deductible, IMO, even if you don't otherwise itemize.

It's inaccurate, has been a part of the right wings firepower against progressives for decades, and is blatantly dishonest.

How do I feel about free tuition? It's impossible and needs to stop being sold as such.

Your first sentence one hundred percent contradicts itself.

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

It is paid for out of taxes and not out of student loans. I posted above the percentage of students now getting assistance in paying college costs including tuition. It is in the 80 percentile. That means that a huge number of kids going to college are already qualifying for aid and incurring debt that a good number of them will pay back over the course of 20-30 years. That debt is too heavy a burden on many of them. It should be paid back in the form of taxes that are imposed on those who earn the most.

I used to read complaints filed in the courts. That was years ago, and an amazing number of the complaints then filed in federal courts were attempts to collect on student debts.

Since 2005, student loan debts are no longer dischargeable in Bankruptcy Court thanks to a bill that was pushed through with lots of Democratic help including that of Joe Biden. That's one of the bills that Elizabeth Warren disliked so much.

When our country was young, immigrants incurred debt in order to pay for the passage to America. In exchange for that passage and to repay the debt, they indentured their lives for a period of years to some master. It wasn't slavery, because it was not a lifetime indenture. But the master/indentured servant relationship was coercive, and the debt had to be repaid. Some of my ancestors came as indentured servants.

Student loans are akin to indentures. There is no way to get out of them other than death or disability or some catastrophic situation. In other words, and to be honest from a cynical viewpoint, students are indentured, obligated to repay their student loans, as long as they are at all useful to our economy. If they can earn barely enough to live, those student loans force them to work. For a pittance, for millions.

Education should not have such a high price.

The good news about capitalism is that it frees and gives incentives for a lot of innovation and efficiency. People who are saddled with a lot of debt become subordinates, wage slaves, the modern equivalent of the indentured servants except that they have to apply to their future masters for what we call "jobs."

The extent of indebtedness in our country and specifically the indebtedness for student loans sort of cancels out the advantages of capitalism.

We as a society lose more from the excessive indebtedness of our citizens than we would lose from funding education at state schools and colleges for all who qualify to attend them.

And who gains from that indebtedness? A few very wealthy people at the top who pay lower taxes as the government collects interest from the middle class and poor in lieu of higher taxes for those who earn the most, and those who directly receive the interest payments. (And those who receive the interest payments are not people who save their money in the banks at interest rates less than 1% on average.)

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

One question I keep asking Sanders supporters that I can't get an answer for regards the wildly varying costs from one school to another.

The tuition costs between state schools in the same state can vary by thousands of dollars. If Eastern Michigan Univ charges $8K per year and nearby Univ. of Michigan costs $13K per year, how would Sanders plan handle those differences?

If they both get reimbursed at those rates, why wouldn't Eastern Mich raise their tuition by $5K ?

Also, if tuition at a major State school like Michigan State with amenites, a vibrant expansive campus, and huge sports & cultural facilities, has the same cost as nearby Lansing Community College, why would anyone select LCC ?

There are a lot of fantastic private colleges that serve the needs of their students ( I attended one of them 25 yrs ago ) Allowed me to earn an Engineering degree in evening classes while working during the day and commuting from home. I came from a lower middle class background and put myself through school at night after working full time. Made a huge difference in my life and tuition was affordable even with student loans.

The general theme I see again and again here in DU is that private schools seen as either elite ivy league institutions for the rich, or for profit evil predators of the worst kind.

While I recognize the value and history of the HBCU, there are also a lot of other fine private institutions that serve the needs of their students and the community. I don't understand why the HBCU need to have special treatment. Sanders proposals make for great campaign sound bites, but don't appear to be very well thought out IMO

state colleges and universities is here. Bernie is right.

That is puzzling to me. Maybe the specific plan isn't perfect. Maybe free should instead be "extremely affordable". But, we Democrats are supposed to be the party of quality public education for anyone who desires it. At least that's what I thought.

the same at about 17 trillion. Now explain to me how we can't afford to effectively benefit all of society for the wealth we produce rather than funnel it into the hands of a tiny few? Yes, fuck yes, education and health care as a human right - not another fucking profit center for the wealthy and powerful.

While it may drive some away from schools like Ivy League schools, there is way too much student debt, and I don't know what some consider "affordable." I say go all the way. I just don't understand the mindset against it. It may drive down costs for other schools also.