2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders' ill-conceived free tuition "plan."
Sander's free college program is ill-conceived.
The US is unlike other countries that have free college in many different ways. One way is having both a private and state Universities. Another is having a highly federal system, in which state colleges and universities are run not by the federal governments but by the individual states, with individual states setting admissions policies, expenditure rates, etc so that universities in different states are funded at very different levels.
So you have to ask, how this plan works and what are its consequences in the peculiar setting of higher education that you find in America.
Once you start thinking about how this actually works and its actual effects and then you take a look at the actual proposal -- at least to the extent it reflects the legislation he introduced last year -- you get the feeling that he has thought through very little of this. Here is his actual bill.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file
I don't pretend to know the answers to all the questions I raise below. But it does seem that Sanders proposal would be highly disruptive and would vastly alter the landscape of American Higher education in ways that he does not seem to fully anticipate. Perhaps for the good, perhaps not. It's much more than a "free tuition" plan. It's a plan to radically alter the educational landscape in America.
First, start with the fact that it's a plan for public Colleges and Universities only.
Here's a chart that shows the relative number of students who attend public and private Universities and Colleges both historically and projected out to 2024.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/
Obvious point, since Sanders program applies to PUBLIC universities and colleges only, the cost (to students) gap between public and private universities is bound to significantly increased. And that suggest that the DEMAND for spaces in public universities will significantly increase. Unless SPACES in public universities increase as well, that means COMPETITION for spaces in public universities will become more intense.
How will that competition be managed? Will admission standards go up? Will we become like European Countries in which you have very restricted choices as to where you go to school. Part of the "bargain" that you get in Europe from free college is often that a single test determines if you go to college and where you go to college. America, by the way, has a MUCH more free and open University system than any country in Europe.
The analogy with public secondary education is a false one. We GUARANTEE places in a public school (supposedly an equally good public school, but that's a fantasy we all know) to every single child. Will we really guarantee a place in a public University to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT OF AGE? Doubt it. But if we do and if we lack the capacity, we must then develop the capacity to educate all students. States won't be able to ship excess students off to another state. And won't be able to say to some -- out of luck you have to "pay for a private school." (although some students no doubt still will, but you can worry about whether this will drive many especially lesser and financially precarious private schools out of business -- is that the plan, perhaps?).
We don't currently make such guarantees for colleges and universities -- though with the multi-faceted but highly tiered system in America (elite research universities, public and private, large state U systems that are multitiered, junior colleges, etc, most people can find a place.. Here in California, though, many, many, campuses in the Cal State system are "impacted." That is, they MUST turn away many many eligible students. So that's a big question, how do we manage the likely to be much increased competition for spaces in public colleges and universities? To every qualified student? How will we determine who is qualified and who is not or who among the qualified gets in? Is that to be left to the states? Will the be federal constraints on how states manage the increased competition? Sanders bill is silent on this.
One thing to note is that Sanders proposal only requires that states guarantees free tuition to In State students. States must, according to bullet point (2) of the legislation:
(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in- State undergraduate students in the States public
higher education system are eliminated
I suppose that they are free to do the same for out of state students. But the proposal doesn't require them to do so and doesn't really incentivize them to do so either, as far as I can tell.
This is another thing, then, that seems to have the potential to significantly alter the incentive structure for students. It will incentivize more students to stay in State. Not only will it will make staying in state a a much more attractive option to both parents and students, but it will make it harder for state Universities to attract the much desired "out of state student" unless they can afford to make tuition free to out of state students too. But since the taxpayers of each state are still asked to kick in much of the cost of this, it is not clear that they will want to do this. In California, those already impacted Cal State campuses -- which accept almost not out of state students anyway (indeed, they accept almost no students from outside of what's called their local service area) -- will perhaps be even more impacted, as competition to get in them is only intensified.
Currently, some states, like probably Ohio, which was many, many more Universities than California, with many fewer students to attend them, may have a relative under-capacity. But California clearly has an under capacity. California exports lots of its students to public and private universities around the country. Ohio imports lots of students from other states. What will happen to this flow of students from state to state? Will Ohio have to cut capacity, while California grows capacity?
And what, more generally, about controlling costs? With greater demand and increased competition, you either have to grow capacity or restrict access. Growing capacity costs money. Sanders proposal makes no mention of this. Restrict access seems to be against the spirit of the proposal. We could go down the European route -- indeed there seems to build in pressure to go down that route from this proposal. Students are heavily tracked into college vs. vocational options. Mandatory entrance exams basically determine their entire fate. A high degree of government control over access is the cost you pay for having the government foot the entire bill.
Notice that what Sanders actual bill requires states to do along the line is the following:
(1) ensure that public institutions of higher
education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the
expenditures for the previous fiscal year;
(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in-State undergraduate students in the States public
higher education system are eliminated;
(3) maintain State operating expenditures for public institutions of higher education, excluding the amount of funds provided for a fiscal year under this section, at a level that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;
(4) maintain State expenditures on need-based financial aid programs for enrollment in public institutions of higher education in the State at a level
24 that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;
(5) ensure public institutions of higher edu- cation in the State maintain funding for institutional need-based student financial aid in an amount that is equal to or exceeds the level of such funding for the previous fiscal year;
(6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institu- tions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty;
(7) require that public institutions of higher education in the State provide, for each student en- rolled at the institution who receives for the max- imum Federal Pell Grant award under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), institutional stu- dent financial aid in an amount equal to 100 percent of the difference between
(A) the cost of attendance at such institu- tion (as determined in accordance with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll)), and
(B) the sum of the amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award; and
(ii) the students expected family con- tribution; and
(8) ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State not adopt policies to reduce enrollment.
Nowhere are the tradeoffs -- which are many and I have highlighted just a few of them -- addressed.
Here's another one. Administrative cost in universities keep increasing -- and not just to pay for presidents salaries. Think of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title IX and whole host of mostly FEDERAL regulations that impose significant administrative costs on Universities and colleges. Sanders proposal doesn't allow states to use federal money to meet any such costs. Will his proposals make administrative costs go up? Not clear. But I'd be surprised if not.
One way that public universities have tried to control cost is by the use of part-time and adjunct faculty. Sanders proposal requires that at least 75% of teaching faculty at state universities be tenure and tenure track. Currently about 41% of faculty at all American Universities combined are adjuncts (i.e. not tenure or tenure track.) So this would be a major and costly sea change. And by the way, those adjuncts are much more likely to teach at underfunded state universities. Perhaps for the best, that's not what I am saying. But it's an increased cost. How will that cost be paid? By putting downward pressure on regular faculty wages, perhaps? Again, that's IS one of things that happens in Europe. European academic salaries are SIGNIFICANTLY lower, on average than American Academic Salaries.
All in all, not really sure what to make of this bill. It seems like a sort of half-baked, half thought-out proposal to remake the American Higher educational landscape in the image of Europe. It's kind of what you'd expect from a Social Democrat of European vintage though. The dude has a serious case of Europe envy, I'd say.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They do aspirational memes that get volunteers and donors excited. Which is fine; it's the campaign he has to run. But I don't think it's even worthwhile going over all the ways his "plans" are pretty much meaningless -- they aren't what he would actually propose anyways.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm actually kind of looking forward to seeing that should it come to pass...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)college funds started by parents.
think
(11,641 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think he's an awful candidate, and I think he'd make a marginally worse President than Clinton, but I think he's our best chance. Sanders is the marginally lesser evil.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, if you claim to support someone, isn't attacking him viciously self defeating? (Not to mention making your claim of support less than plausible.)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't think it matters much at all, but I want to raise my absolute disappointment with the candidates that we have on the slate right now. I think this is appalling.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You don't think trashing the candidate you claim to support matters? ok
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511237472
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511262863
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511185258
I think she's possibly the worst campaigner in the past century of Democratic likely nominees, and I've said so several times.
(Hint: the "search" function also works for you, not just me.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)claimed to support Sanders. but never had a good word to say about Bernie, defended Hillary and only Hillary, and urged voting for the nominee (whoever it may be :rofl until they switched to openly supporting Hillary.
I still think trashing the candidate you believe has the best chance in the general is self defeating, though.
BTW, I think he'll make a much better President than Hillary and the Party is shoot 2016 and its future in the foot. But, I digress...
merrily
(45,251 posts)where you announced you had "switched." I've enjoyed those so much.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But not by much.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Either way I'm fucking sick of people expecting me to smile while supporting Sanders, when I think he's a horrible candidate, despite being the best of the dregs we have right now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)expect you to support Sanders.
You can't be surprised if trashing the candidate you claim to support raises questions.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)of "support".
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not sure why you don't see that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)His problems, and Clinton's, in the General are not my fault, and you absolutely can't guilt me for pointing them out.
We're probably going to lose in November, and the candidates we limited ourselves to don't make that easier.
I don't think either Clinton or Sanders would make good Presidents. I've said why several times. Since that's the choice, I have to select the one I think has the best chance of not losing to the GOP, and I think that's Sanders.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Guilt? I don't care if you feel guilty or not. No, scratch that. I'd prefer you didn't feel guilty. However, I am not sure why you perceive being questioned as an attempt to make you feel guilty.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think he's marginally less bad than Clinton, but that isn't saying much. Why shouldn't I be honest about my assessment of him during the primaries?
merrily
(45,251 posts)You think he's a horrible candidate, but you nonetheless want him to win the primary. I get that much.
What I don't get is how trashing him helps you attain the goal of having him win the primary.
Why shouldn't I be honest about my assessment of him during the primaries?
I've said that several times. It can't possibly help your goal of having him win the primary and it may hurt. Ergo, it's nothing but self defeating as to your goal.
I also think you can discuss what you consider his shortcomings to be without sarcasm, sneering, etc. Or rubbing your hands with gleeful anticipating about how disappointed his supporters will be when he loses--not if, when.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)By letting these two septuagenerians' fights define our party. They are tools we can use, conceivably, but certainly neither of them is a hero of mine in any sense.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Super Tuesday?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)you are also seeking validity for it by saying you support him/are voting for him. The second part isn't credible because of the first part.
It isn't fucking complicated.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)who said he had been a BS supporter but then realized that while BS had a lot of good ideas he has no actual plans.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)trust it anyway.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)My brain is officially mush now.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Does his plan call for the federal government to reimburse the state for costs of providing the education or is it to be mostly state funded?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The feds kick in 67% of year 1 expenditures.
The 33% pledged by the states have to be over an above current expenditures. It's not unfair to ask where these state funds will come from, since they constitute a NEW expenditure over current expenditures. Will the states cut other services, or will the states institute new taxes? Bernie has explained where the federal funds come from, but the plan explicitly requires state funds at 1/2 the federal fund levels, and doesn't explain how the states will generate those funds.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Medicaid, which was way less of a %, why would any rational personal think they would decide to pay for this plan?
That isn't a plan. It is some black markings on a white background. Pathetic.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)if they wanted to.
Whenever the plan is mentioned, Sanders supporters yell "It's paid for with a tax on Wall Street." Actually, it's not. Two-thirds of it may be, but the states are expected to come up with 1/3 in NEW spending without any indication of how they are to raise that! It's not merely that Republican states won't do that (they won't). It's not even clear that Dem states CAN do that.
Oh, yes, that marks me as a "No we can'ter," I suppose. They want it both ways: first, to trumpet that the plan is paid for, then, when you show that it's not paid for, to say "Oh, you're just negative!" or "Oh, it's just an outline!"
Well, it's either paid for or it's not. If anyone can explain how the states increase spending to meet the federal allotment, I'd love to hear it.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)It's all about voting against the establishment and they do not expect him to really get anything done.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)...I was always taught that when someone offers you something for free, to be very cautious. It turns out that this promise lured in most of my friends, but even without your excellent analysis, it just didn't 'smell' right to me. First of all, of course, is that the current congress will never pass such a bill. Bernie can start all the revolutions he wants, but with the gerrymandering that went on after the 2010 elections, we simply will not get the congress back without a change in legislation or a case brought to the Supreme Court. Second, even if -by some miracle - there was legislative action on such funding, nothing would be realized for many, many years. I honestly have friends who are freshman and hoping that if Bernie is elected that they will have free tuition by junior or senior year. This is why they are so passionate. I know for a fact that they don't have the fortitude to continue supporting him once they realize that they themselves will not benefit. Lastly, the increase in taxes that this requires is going to have to take place several years before implementation of free tuition, and it is really impossible to think that the American people (not known for their patience) will put up with that.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)It's just that the 1 % would prefer to stay gambling on the stock market without paying taxes on risking everybody's dimes. So they call the plan ill-conceived.
Lot of arrogant fat cats unwilling to stare reality in the face, so they prop up Clinton. With Bush out of the race, she is their best chance at staying rich in a continuedly rigged system.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Yuugal
(2,281 posts)I just iggy all the "No, we can't" types.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)On the other hand, should such nonsense be allowed to stand unchallenged?
Yuugal
(2,281 posts)Lots of young dems coming in back then and they needed the right info. The last few years the site has crashed in popularity and quite frankly, this format is for older people, so we mostly see new socks instead of new people. Most 18-29yr olds wouldn't be caught dead on a board like this and that is who we need to reach. So while DU may be good for us oldsters to plan strategy, IMHO it is just a complete and total waste of time talking to the rofl smiley crew. If you want a change of pace type reddit bernie into google and see how young people roll, if you haven't already. They are amazing, tireless, and wicked smart.
It is not like I am ever going to reach some greedy boomer who is just trying to featherbed their filthy nest at our expense anyway. This was the generation who got college for free or close to it, then took it away from us so they could make a buck. They inherited the strongest economy in the world, and sold it all to China for a quick buck. Now with Shillary they have one last chance to screw things up so badly we may never recover. The middle class, working class, poor, and environment can't take any more "triangulating". I so hope Our Lady of Inevitability gets indicted before she can completely destroy the party with her divisive racial attacks.
I'm sure while Bernie was getting arrested because he was proud to share a water fountain with his fellow humans, Hillary was triangulating a way to have 3 water fountains because she is so "liberal". Ya know, a third water fountain for teh gays. I imagine she would have been taking money from the water fountain conglomerates at the time to complete the picture I have of her and her ilk.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Cudoes for extending a metaphore that far!
Yuugal
(2,281 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He has a plan for getting people to college, he has a means to pay for it.
The billionaire one-percenters just created this "pie in the sky" meme because they don't want to be inconvenienced with a tax.
And now the BrockBros are on it...
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Sanders plan provides 67% of tuition and fee costs, but requires the states to put up 33% of those costs in new expenditures. It does not explain where the states will find this money, which could be significant.
Example: if a state current collects $1 billion in tuition and fees, the federal government (through this tax you mention) will put up $670 million. But the state will have to come up with NEW funds of $330 million if they want to apply for the federal allotment. Note carefully: these have to be NEW funds, because the Sanders plan ALSO requires that states not reduce their current funding by one single dollar.
So where will the states get this new money to meet the federal allotment requirements? Nobody knows. The plan doesn't say.
Do you know?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)States would pay their third with the general tax money they're already using.
Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #11)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But thanks for peddling that debunked Clinton line once more. I'm sure that the weathervanes of the world are indebted to you.
Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #37)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #45)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #47)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)No thanks: my generation doesn't read that nonsense anymore. It's all so outdated: as if the author didn't get the memo about the end of the 20th century.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Right now we have a Republican House and Senate and no Democratic President could really do much except fight for our goals. So I would rather set a goal of education priorities than bomb or tax break or low tax break priorities.
In this sense it is not that I dont care that Bernie can not wave a wand and get every goal he is enunciating now passed immediately when he gets in office. He will propose and fight for this re-ordering of our priorities.
You remind me of a CEO who says, We have to lay off workers and not give raises so we can give Stockholders their expected dividend. It is all about priorities. Of course we could have an economy that educates everyone and does not spend so much on war machines, health care, and medicines. What it takes is a society that does not allow 1% of the country to hoard 50% of the resources. It will not be an easy fight but we lose if we do not try to reorder the priorities of our society and Hillary will not do that.
With regard to education, if we win the fight, we may have to build more schools. Tell me what is wrong with that? And do not mention money, it is only an issue if you think our current priorities and tax system and wealth creation system are immutable and set in stone.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Sunday that Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanderss plan to make public colleges tuition-free would have a deleterious effect on private, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU).
The third-ranking Democrat in the House who has endorsed Sanderss primary rival, Hillary Clinton said such colleges would not be able to compete under the Vermont senators plan.
Youve got to think about the consequences of things, Clyburn said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? Thats whats going to happen.
Tougaloo College in Mississippi will be closed if you can go to Jackson State for free, he added.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270214-clyburn-sanderss-plan-would-kill-black-colleges
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141355827
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)Much the same thoughts were deployed against the ACA. "if everyone gets healthcare, won't we start running out?", "we cannot afford it", "quality of services will decline", "there will be long waiting lines for MRIs", "it is just not practical to care for everyone", the disruption will be too large", "it will cost too much" .....
Not everyone is interested in going to college. Not everyone has the capacity to benefit from college. Most everyone who has the interest and capacity already has a seat at a two or four year institution available. Many attempt and fail. Some fail unfortunately because the stress of raising the cash to afford it is too much of a distraction. Others succeed only to be burdened decades of deep indebtedness.
The system we have is, put simply, stupid. It is in our collective interest to have those students who are interested and capable be successful and to join the workforce well trained without decades of debt burden to address. There will be challenges getting there. The interesting thing about the nature of any true reform is that things change, systems are altered to accomplish it.
The notion of "tradeoffs" is fascinating. Progressives generally do not play zero sum games. You know the "if we have more of this then surely we will have less of that" is logic more typical of the Heritage Foundation and other RW think tanks. Done right, we can actually have more of both. If we make it a priority, we can pay professors better, hire more of them, cover the tuition to attend their courses, and even build some classrooms. This is what being the largest and wealthiest economy on the planet can be about, if we choose it.
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)As in we "can't" have what other countries take for granted: universal healthcare, free college, better work conditions, stronger social programs for the poor and elderly, less bloated military....
Because NO, we just can't provide for the common good -- that would be socialism, right?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Private Always Good -- Public Always Bad.
Let the Market Decide who gets (education, healthcare, etc.)
Milton Friedman would be proud of the Clinton Campaign.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)People are reading Sanders bill filed last year and trying to determine how it works. That's not a crazy or hostile action in an election. Whenever people bring up questions about the bill (where are the states going to find their 1/3 of the funds in new expenditures) we hear "Oh, no we can't!" "Oh, Turd Way!" "Oh, neoliberal!"
It's not a fair question to ask how the bill - which is the only sense of a concrete plan Sanders has provided - actually works? That's not a fair question now? I don't get it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Candidates always propose detaiedl "chicken in every pot" plans to explain their basic goals.
They are useful as an overview of what a candidate would like to do, and the direction they will aim.
But they're useless as outlines of what would actually happen once they're in office.
It would be a starting point, and wold go through all sorts of slicing and dicing and tweaking.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I still expect a plan to have some semblance of plausibility, and, sadly, Bernie's plan does not.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)First, the range of possibilities for post-secondary education are much greater than in the US. Maybe not everyone goes to the "university/université/Universität," but there are other schools, like the Fachhchschüle, that offer education in most professional areas. In other areas there is more of a distinction between the types of education that need to be provided, be it professional or academic (like HBO and WO in Netherlands).
Second, secondary education is more robust in Europe. Someone might actually expect to get a good job when they reach 19.
Third, no one is locked in for life. In France and Germany, there are ample opportunities for adults to get education and reenter the university later in life ... better opportunities than are currently being offered by our often starved community colleges.
Response to kennetha (Original post)
stopbush This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bad Thoughts
(2,524 posts)Quayblue
(1,045 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)... the kind of post we should see more of. Pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary both!
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)since the idea will never see the light of day.
He's making so many promises to idealists and low information voters... If Bernie were to win it all, those voters might permanently disengage from the political process due to all the broken promises. I can't help but think his strategy will set us back a generation or two.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Since it pays for "in state" students - immigrants who were brought to the US as children are undocumented, so they attend US public schools, but are NOT included as "in state residents". They could not obtain the free tuition!
Tuition equity is a big problem for dreamers, and Bernie doesn't get it. Hillary addressed this at the last Nevada town hall; she gets it! In fact, under Bernie's plan a legal citizen would have problems if they were born here, but their parents were undocumented. The family could not put in an application without fear of the parents deportation.
http://unitedwedream.org/about/projects/education-deep/
Next, about half of the 105 HBCUs are private, non-profit. Bernie's plan would reduce the number of opportunities for AA students to attend college in half, since it would not pay for the private, non-profits.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270214-clyburn-sanderss-plan-would-kill-black-colleges
.....and none of this mentions that it would be pay for by taxing the retirement funds of public employees and union-negotiated benefits, while the rich would simply use tax dodges to avoid the FTT!!
It's a terrible "plan", and creates more inequity!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)As is a healthy populace.
merrily
(45,251 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)In any event, I am certainly not voting for the candidate who stands for war and fracking and the TPP and cluster bombs and Wall Street, to name just a few things I find abhorrent. So a criticism of Bernie's tuition plan is kinda moot.
merrily
(45,251 posts)is that the details of the plan to educate kids are not up to the OP's standards, so we should not attempt it. Oh, and btw, geet your Denmark envy under control. This is the US, where affordable education and truly affordable health care are way too tough even to contemplate. Besides, Baron Trump might take advantage of that state run community college and God knows, that's enough reason to deny free tuition to millions of kids in perpetuity.
Now, what were you saying? War, fracking. Sigh. What a downer.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie are the Brady Bill for Bernie, and Hillary being just a wee bit close to Wall Street. No mention, of course, of war and fracking and sending children back into danger to teach a lesson, of course. Hmmmmm....that sounds more like Trump, doesn't it.
Looks like today might be "roll out the reinforcements trying to make Hillary seem almost like Bernie so why don't we all support her" day. Or "tendentious criticisms of anything Bernie has proposed day". Tedious and ineffectual, really!
merrily
(45,251 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Thats 200 words of obfuscation dressed up as objective analysis. It is meaningless hornswoggle as it relates to whether we WANT TO PROVIDE FOR SOME SEMBLANCE OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.
DO WE OR DON'T WE IS THE ISSUE BEFORE VOTERS.
If the answer is yes then we will make it work. And you damned well know the answer that the broad body politic is going to return is a screamed-at-the-top-of-the-lungs" "YES!!!"
Paid tuition for all qualified applicants is completely doable if you accept the need to do so.
eridani
(51,907 posts)This is nothing new. People still have to come up with room and board and pay for books, though.
John93JK
(3 posts)- that was a hella confusing text
- information is by nature free. commercializing education was a selfinflicted wound. the forefathers are weeping.
- students stuck with tens or hundreds of thousands in debt will not push the country forward.
- bernie bringing this issue up should make us talk about how to make public higher education affordable.
jonjon
(68 posts)Caveat: Anything that can be done once,
CAN BE DONE AGAIN!
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Don't all the same issues apply?
Every plan to expand anything will have issues that need to be addressed.
Some answers, off the top of my head:
Yes, "population control" so to speak can be done through adjusting admission standards (the proposal offers free tuition to, as you say, qualified students, not all students.) In addition, colleges can hire more professors, using the funds that are being provided to them for this program, up to the point where they run out of classroom space.
Not all the expansion has to be available on day one, a program could be phased in in order to manage growth. For example, those admission standards for free college may start at requiring a higher high school average than a school currently requires, and then lower it as the infrastructure grows to support it. There's also nothing wrong with different schools having different admission standards, just as they do today, which is another way of directing population toward the schools that can handle more capacity. One could also manipulate the GPA for each year of work that would be required to qualify for the following year's free tuition. The point is, programs don't have to be all-or-nothing from day one, so there is time to ramp up and deal with growing pains. Nothing you mentioned seems insurmountable to me, for either Hillary's plan or Bernie's.
As for the differential between in-state and out-of-state college, the fact is, that differential already exists for those who currently go to college... it is typically far cheaper to go to an in-state public college than an out-of-state one.