So glutting the education system with kids who might not want to be there is a good thing??

Again... I taught at a univ in classes that had some kids there who were just taking up air. And the ones who were academically weak were just set up to fail... they didn't have the tools to succeed in that environment.

Believe me... I think we have some serious issues with our ed system, and that trickles all along into our economy.

But I don't think a guaranteed ed is the way to go when higher ed institutions are already straining over the cost of increasing tech.

I don't know...

I understand the spirit. I think people who crave and desire a higher education should get it... and have that opportunity today. It might take time. It might take work. What the hell is wrong with that?

I just think one more massive govt funded handout is going to lose so many dollars to waste... and I know that our ed system, as is, simply cannot handle a massive influx of students.

Lets talk about other areas... better technical skill training or entrepreneurial , for ex. But I just think earning a degree and paying back for that ed isn't too much to ask in most cases.

Hello again:

Although this is kind of a round robin discussion we need to make certain distinctions.

I agree, absolutely, that the state of our Universities is dismal. There ARE people floating and looking for a free ride. And they graduate thinking the same.

But that's bad management, pure and simple. It has NOTHING to do with the way the education is paid for. Clearly, there are schools where THAT doesn't happen, and the graduates ARE prepared. In terms of quality, funding doesn't matter.

Of course, you do realize that I'm not talking about the PUBLICLY funded universities. I'm talking about the damn expensive private ones. Seems to me, City College of New York turns out very good people - for free..

excon

see... it think it does tie into money.

when I told my mother I needed an extra year to pick up an extra major, I saw that worried look in her eyes... it meant more loans.

now you might think having a free ed would have enabled me to do with without stress... but the financial burden made me make good, sound choices about my ed. I picked up that "extra" major because I had statistics that showed it would increase my employment opportunities and my earning power right out of the gate.

OK... let me work in your context... you get a free education... are you willing to earn reduced wages for x number of years until the govt is paid back?

ungh.. see... I just can't do it. Its more red tape. More big gov. more dollars passing though more sticky hands.

so... knowing that our current ed system cannot handle a 10% increase in students today (there isn't the housing, nor the lecture rooms available) how do we do this?

not only are you going to pay for the service of education, but you are talking about major infrastructure and tech burdens on universities.

unless we want to go more virtual, online ed... I just see this as a huge expense that goes well beyond the degree. Universities struggle with mortar and bricks, computer labs, resources, bodies to teach... its just not as simple as saying pay for the ed...

And in my area, the hard sciences, we had a new building built that, within three years, was beyond capacity... we had 20-21 students in labs that should have had 16-18 for safety reasons...

We had classrooms being fought over because there wasn't enough space.

Infrastructure and overhead are real issues for universities and colleges, even when demand is high.

And more to add... personally, I quit teaching because there were too many students. The costs were so high that theyd just try to cram more students into less space, meaning more tuition dollars for the univ, but more work for me and more stress in the college at no increase in pay. You CANNOT teach 200 students the same way you teach 40. Period.

Result? A good teacher (I think I'm modest enough) said to hell with it... it wasn't worth the strain nor the financial burden. I worked nights and weekends to try to run the class the best way for students to learn. Result? I had to diminish the quality of education for higher numbers, or I had to take hours and hours away from family life. it sucked rocks. So I quit. Went to industry.

So I'm biased. Ill admit that.

Shoving more students into the system, in my experience, was terrible for "good" teaching... and that was just a modest increase.

If you are willing to pay for kids ed, you'd better find a way to pay for the infrastructure, the tech, and find a way to pay for quality teachers... because industry, which relies on competition, paid so much better than ed.

They should cut down on students. Harder entry requirements, harder/actually have entrance tests , harder courses. There is too much dead wood that showed up because their parents could afford it and it seemed like an easier path than work.

I agree temp.

And if those parents who previously could afford it can no longer.

It's all just absurd.

There is a way that this could be done. As Temp states - Stricter requriements - would be a must.

To keep things the way that is is currently, those who will be unable to go to college
Might as well bag high school. Why bother? ( I don't really mean that) But a HS degree is not worth a thing these days.

I pay approx $4,000.00 annually for school tax. It supposed to be one of the best school systems and the only kiddies I have are 4 foot, and I don't mind paying it one bit, if it will benenfit this generation.

Kids should not have to work many hours while going to college. I had to work during high school and didn't mind it one bit, but of course my studies were effected. I was plum tired.

We need to at least take a look at the current way and consider alternate ways. No one can convince me that kid, with the will, motivation grades, should be denied a higher education.

Trust me, we have so much waste in this country, that money could be found in no time.

Our system works good. If you want a higher education you work hard for it at high school. You gain entry into a course of your selection only if your marks warrant it. If you want to be a doctor and earn big buck when you graduate then you have to earn it through hard work prior to going to uni. If you work hard enough and get in then the government will assist you. They will pay for your degree. But when you graduate and start earning enough money then you pay them back gradually.

They'll even assist you to live while you're a full time student through weekly payments.

If you want to go back and study some more, they won't pay for it. By then its up to you to foot the bill, or get someone else to foot it for you (scholarship, employer etc.)

It seems to work well. The people who want to go to Uni can. No matter what background they come from. And just cause your rich doesn't mean its your right to go to law school. You have to earn it.

Doesn't that make sense? It appears to me that your entry requirements are simply inadeqaute and reward the rich and not the hard workers? Am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I heard Obama say that he wants to provide free college to every American. I think it's a terrible idea. He would spend gadzillions of our money, and when everyone has a college degree, those grads will be flippin burgers and hanging onto garbage trucks. We will have come full circle and wasted who knows how much money. Socialism doesn't work very well.

---

I want to live in a free municipality. I have a right to free natural gas for heating, electricity for heating water and cooking, garbage pick-up for the ecosystem, free fire department because it's not fair to have my house burn down, free education for my kids because it's not fair for them to grow-up prejudiced and vote against Obama or Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Our system works good. If you want a higher education you work hard for it at high school. You gain entry into a course of your selection only if your marks warrant it. If you want to be a doctor and earn big buck when you graduate then you have to earn it through hard work prior to going to uni. If you work hard enough and get in then the governement will assist you. They will pay for your degree. But when you graduate and start earning enough money then you pay them back gradually.

They'll even assist you to live while your a full time student through weekly payments.

If you want to go back and study some more, they wont pay for it. By then its up to you to foot the bill, or get someone else to foot it for you (scholarship, employer etc.)

It seems to work well. The people who want to go to Uni can. No matter what background they come from. And just cause your rich doesnt mean its your right to go to law school. You have to earn it.

Doesnt that make sense? It appears to me that your entry requirements are simply inadeqaute and reward the rich and not the hard workers? Am i wrong?

---

Hello Skell :D

I LOVE your system. If we could only tweek ours to be similar to yours.

Mm... Not really reward the rich. There are those yes,. but there are those that work their tail off academically and also to pay for college... It's a mixed bag. But there are still those that just can't afford it and may never get the chance

The cost of college here is repulsive. And now a 4 year degree is becoming so common place that the kids now need to go on and have a masters. But a good bit work while going for their masters.

Some very fortunate kids are professional students. I say good for them, if they are able to do it. I don't have a problem with that at all. I just like as many obstacles removed from preventing anyone from going to college.

"free education will prevent your kids from growing up prejudiced"?. same planet. Different worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

"free education will prevent your kids from growing up prejudiced"?... same planet. different worlds.

---

I would hope. I just want all to have the same oppurtunites. If a child is gifted, how sad it is to have that wasted due to circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

I want to live in a free municipality. I have a right to free natural gas for heating, electricity for heating water and cooking, garbage pick-up for the ecosystem, free fire department because it's not fair to have my house burn down, free education for my kids because it's not fair for them to grow-up prejudiced and vote against Obama or Hillary.

---

The difference is though that free education can be seen as an investment. Giving you free power and gas isn't.
Although I don't fully agree with 100% free education I think its critical that governments inject as much money as possible into it.

The cost of college ed goes up about twice the rate of inflation... so it's a real long term issue.

But one that's easier to talk about than medicare/medicaid or social security. One in four workers pay for one recipient in ssi today... how's that going to work out in a couple of decades?

Neither party, dems or reps, have the guts to face issues that are real and fiscally important. Most is smoke and mirrors. The gop has lost its soul in reckless spending and the war, and the dems talk a great talk, but promises of everything to all just isn't going to cut it.

Time to suck it up and wade through some tough times, for both sides of the aisle.

free education = no prejudice?

hmmm... guess what? We have "free" ed... its called public HS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

I would hope. I just want all to have the same oppurtunites. If a child is gifted, how sad it is to have that wasted due to circumstances.

---

Exactly. A gifted poor child should have more chance to shine than a dumb rich kid. Is that not the case at present in the US? From what I read it isn't and that's sad!

Funny about education: what is wrong with education is that it is "free"; the fox is in charge of the henhouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Exactly. A gifted poor child should have more chance to shine than a dumb rich kid. Is that not the case at present in the US? From what i read it isnt and thats sad!

---

Not always Skell,

The rich don't have to struggle as much and they do have to meet the criteria as any student. Those who can not afford it as easily as the rich, take out student loans and work while in school and parents take out loans against their homes.

Then there are those - that simply have no means at all.

I don't see why anyone would have heartburn with giving as much assistance as possible.

I'm all for loans and grants based on real need and honest merit.

More than happy to have kids who are academically fit have the means to go on to college.

But a blanket "free ride" is an election year move. I expect more from mr obama than promises that are fiscally dumb and, honestly, very difficult to implement at the college level.

Trust me... I loved teaching. Was good at it. But throwing tons of new bodies into the mix is not the way to get better, high quality ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Allheart

Not always Skell,

The rich don't have to struggle as much and they do have to meet the criteria as any student. Those who can not afford it as easily as the rich, take out student loans and work while in school and parents take out loans agains their homes.

Then there are those - that simply have no means at all.

I don't see why anyone would have heartburn with giving as much assistance as possible.

---

Ok thanks for clearing that up Allheart. :D

And I agree. As much assistance as possible should be given to those wanting to better themselves and the country. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that either.