View Full Version : Free community college!
YAHOO! Better maintain that 2.0 GPA.
http://kdvr.com/2015/01/08/obama-proposes-free-community-college/
Oh man because a 2.0 is so hard
FREE! To a bunch of people whose only aspiration is "Do you want fries with that?"
speedysst
01-09-2015, 17:47
The best part: No real answer how its going to be paid for!
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 17:57
Some snippets from a discussion I had on Facebook about this:
What good is a nation full of people with meaningless or wasted college degrees? We will fall apart at the seams without the important and necessary jobs that don't require a college education. K-12 is designed to prepare everyone with a similar set of rudimentary skills that prepare them for their future path, whether it takes them to vocational school or med school.
Furthermore, publicly funded school performance is quite dismal across the board when compared to privately funded education venues. I went to one of the most prestigious and expensive publicly-funded colleges in the country and I didn't receive half the education that my brother, who went to a small privately-funded college, did. Look at the top 100 colleges rated every year in every category. How many of them are publicly funded? The reason I brought up the public vs private performance is because it really is the essence of our discussion. The private sector always has, and always will do it more efficiently and more effectively than a bureaucracy - which is exactly why higher education should never be publicly funded. (An argument can certainly be made that no education should be publicly funded, but I won't get into that here).
The best part: No real answer how its going to be paid for!
But its FREE!! FREE!! /sarc
Yah, who gets to pay? Anyone with a job gets to pay, just like those moron Harvard educrats found out.
Skilled labor will soon be higher paid than almost all "degree required" professions except attorneys. Attorneys make the rules, so that will always be a golden occupation.
2 years in the .mil or peace corps, or...nah, that would just ruin what is left of those. There are no solutions left to the problems that are tasteful to the populace, so there will never be improvement as long as the sheep and liberals outnumber those who actually produce a portion of the GDP.
As MarkCO pointed out, many skilled trades already pay better than most degree fields. Add to this, most college graduates are carrying tens of thousands in debt into their first job. Contrast that with people who are paid a good wage to complete an apprenticeship in most skilled trades which leads to a good paying job.
Teenager as an age group is an invention of early 20th century America. I am dismayed by the prolonged childhood so many potentially productive human beings are being subjected to in our nation. While there is no need to put a child to work in a factory at the age of 12, the concept that we are seriously talking about adding grades 13 and 14 to the public school system is just ludicrous IMO.
My hope is that this is a ploy by the President to develop another issue to use against Republicans to show how heartless and uncaring they are by not taking care of the children...yes, the 18, 19, and 20 year old children.
I apologize to the many responsible and mature 16+ year olds who are working for what they want their future to be. They are obviously not the children the President is appealing to with this proposition.
As MarkCO pointed out, many skilled trades already pay better than most degree fields. Add to this, most college graduates are carrying tens of thousands in debt into their first job. Contrast that with people who are paid a good wage to complete an apprenticeship in most skilled trades which leads to a good paying job.
Teenager as an age group is an invention of early 20th century America. I am dismayed by the prolonged childhood so many potentially productive human beings are being subjected to in our nation. While there is no need to put a child to work in a factory at the age of 12, the concept that we are seriously talking about adding grades 13 and 14 to the public school system is just ludicrous IMO.
My hope is that this is a ploy by the President to develop another issue to use against Republicans to show how heartless and uncaring they are by not taking care of the children...yes, the 18, 19, and 20 year old children.
I apologize to the many responsible and mature 16+ year olds who are working for what they want their future to be. They are obviously not the children the President is appealing to with this proposition.
That should be grades E1 E2 E3 E4 for those two years after High School.
As long as it's only for STEM degrees, I think this is great.
GilpinGuy
01-09-2015, 19:50
Can this be a way to ease the looming student loan debt bomb that's primed to go off? Just tax productive citizens EVEN MORE and give it away and loan debt doesn't balloon as fast.
The student loan debt bomb is a firecracker. The vast majority of student loans are already guaranteed by the government.
IMO, student loans should be provided based on the graduates ability to repay the loan. You want a degree in Italian Romantic Literature of the 16th Century? Not much chance you are getting a loan for that.
College loans are another way of subsidizing the Academic/Progressive Industry. Maybe some of the adjunct faculty at the local community college could actually teach high school subjects. They seem to be doing that now, since most high school graduates don't graduate with competency to learn at the college level. Here is a link to a NY Times article relating the "Myth of a Four Year College Education."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html?_r=0
I agree about the loans. Loaning $100,000 for a career that tops out at $15-$20/hr in wages is like me buying a $500,000 home with what I make now.
I agree about the loans. Loaning $100,000 for a career that tops out at $15-$20/hr in wages is like me buying a $500,000 home with what I make now.
And that sort of loan can only happen when it is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury (see Freddie and Fannie)
IMO, student loans should be provided based on the graduates ability to repay the loan. You want a degree in Italian Romantic Literature of the 16th Century? Not much chance you are getting a loan for that.
College loans are another way of subsidizing the Academic/Progressive Industry. Maybe some of the adjunct faculty at the local community college could actually teach high school subjects. They seem to be doing that now, since most high school graduates don't graduate with competency to learn at the college level. Here is a link to a NY Times article relating the "Myth of a Four Year College Education."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html?_r=0
That only ensures the rich go to college. The poor can't, keeping them poor. Student loans should be provided based in how useful the degree will be for society.
That only ensures the rich go to college. The poor can't, keeping them poor. Student loans should be provided based in how useful the degree will be for society.
For students who are prepared and motivated, we have scholarships and grants. Rich kids will alway have their parents to pay for school. I don't believe the taxpayers should be paying for educations for poor kids who have little ability to succeed based on their mediocre performance in the first twelve years of their mediocre, tax payer funded, public school education.
You want a free or low cost education, enlist in the military, or get a job and pay for it.
Education is just one more area where I believe we have proven that pumping more money into the system does not lead to better results.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 20:26
That only ensures the rich go to college. The poor can't, keeping them poor. Student loans should be provided based in how useful the degree will be for society.
As already mentioned and demonstrated by many on this board: A college education does not guarantee wages. There are many jobs that do not require a college degree which make substantially more than the mean income of a college graduate.
Get rid of your liberal talking point drivel and bring something of value to this discussion.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 20:27
For students who are prepared and motivated, we have scholarships and grants. Rich kids will alway have their parents to pay for school. I don't believe the taxpayers should be paying for educations for poor kids who have little ability to succeed based on their mediocre performance in the first twelve years of their mediocre, tax payer funded, public school education.
You want a free or low cost education, enlist in the military, or get a job and pay for it.
Education is just one more area where I believe we have proven that pumping more money into the system does not lead to better results.
Again and again, privately-funded colleges and universities are head and shoulders above even the best publicly-funded schools.
Get rid of your liberal talking point drivel and bring something of value to this discussion.
Please do not make this into a personal argument.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 20:31
Please do not make this into a personal argument.
Apologies.
Ridge, please substantiate your claims in writing.
As already mentioned and demonstrated by many on this board: A college education does not guarantee wages. There are many jobs that do not require a college degree which make substantially more than the mean income of a college graduate.
Get rid of your liberal talking point drivel and bring something of value to this discussion.
You won't get a high level job in a corporation from being an apprentice. Not everybody wants to work in the service sector or a limited trade.
If it were to pass the price of going to CCs would double at the least. 60B turns into 120B, the presses run on weekends to churn out the money. And everyone will still bemoan the cost of calling the plumber.
Which college did Bill Gates graduate from?
I'm not including honorary degrees.
Google this: billionaires without a college degree
Which college did Bill Gates graduate from?
I'm not including honorary degrees.
He went to Harvard.
That only ensures the rich go to college. The poor can't, keeping them poor. Student loans should be provided based in how useful the degree will be for society.
I can't agree with this because we are talking about loans. If only the rich are going to college, loans shouldn't be a discussion. With that said it's the same as a business loan. You can't walk into a bank and expect to get a loan based on the "goodness" of your planned business. A loan is specifically about borrowing money and paying it back, therefor the ability to repay the money is really the only consideration. If the lender is interested in doing good for society, then they can donate money directly to that cause, and likely already do. It is certainly admirable that someone wishes to improve themselves and/or the world by going to college, but it is unrealistic to hope for that affecting the approval of borrowing money.
Some snippets from a discussion I had on Facebook about this:
What good is a nation full of people with meaningless or wasted college degrees? We will fall apart at the seams without the important and necessary jobs that don't require a college education. K-12 is designed to prepare everyone with a similar set of rudimentary skills that prepare them for their future path, whether it takes them to vocational school or med school.
Furthermore, publicly funded school performance is quite dismal across the board when compared to privately funded education venues. I went to one of the most prestigious and expensive publicly-funded colleges in the country and I didn't receive half the education that my brother, who went to a small privately-funded college, did. Look at the top 100 colleges rated every year in every category. How many of them are publicly funded? The reason I brought up the public vs private performance is because it really is the essence of our discussion. The private sector always has, and always will do it more efficiently and more effectively than a bureaucracy - which is exactly why higher education should never be publicly funded. (An argument can certainly be made that no education should be publicly funded, but I won't get into that here).
Those are good points about private institutions, but I don't think the goal here is to advance anyone, just keeping pace with the decline.
High School is nothing more than young adult child care at this point. So there has to be something to fill the gap and make future taxpayers seem employable.
Between this and min wage, they are creating some interesting new morality... My wife worked her tail off with an associates in a demanding field. Her starting pay was somewhere around $14/hour--this was not long ago. Of course with her hard work she made a lot more and landed a better job (less hours/stress).
Where is the incentive to work your way up (like many of us have/do) when everything is handed to you?
XC700116
01-09-2015, 20:43
That only ensures the rich go to college. The poor can't, keeping them poor. Student loans should be provided based in how useful the degree will be for society.
This logic always makes me LMFAO, it's simply FALSE. I grew up dirt poor, 99% of my clothes came from garage sales, My mother put herself through accounting school by trapping (yes my MOTHER).
I currently have 2 associate degrees, and am just short of a BA in management (cut short due to promotion at work and my job not allowing for me to finish it). I didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of but guess what, I still went to school and mom and dad didn't pay a penny of it and forbade me from applying for the .gov grant programs. Here's how.
I worked a full time job plus 2 different part time jobs in the summers, then during school I worked the 2 part time jobs. I graduated with my first associate degree with a grand total of $7K in student loans because I worked, got a couple small scholarships, and went to a trade school. I have zero problems with what C-stone posted, I could have still gotten the loans I did when I went to school with that provision because the program I went to had a proven track record for 100% placement for their graduates for a LONG time (like 15 years running). Then I worked in that field for 3 years for my first employer, then took a job with the company I work for now. My company offers a tuition reimbursement program for employees, so I took full advantage of that. Worked full time, went to school at night, they paid for tuition and 1/2 of my books in exchange for C or better grades and a 3 year contract commitment. Got my AA and almost done with my BA (from a private Catholic school no less) when I was promoted to a series of 3 positions now that have too much travel to attend classes after work.
The stance that if the govt didn't fund higher education only the rich could go is simply a complete falsehood. If you want to go, and aren't expecting to just go to school, you can. It's just that everyone seems to think that going to college is an occupation that precludes working while doing so. It's not.
Then there's all of my buddies that went to the military first, and earned their education through the GI bill, I have no problem with tax $$ going to pay for college for them, they've earned it. There's options, but they take work, and people seem to have forgotten that.
He went to Harvard.
He dropped out. He never graduated. He never went back. He didn't need to.
School is good for some things. Education can take place where ever there is a willing student who works hard and people who can provide knowledge.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 20:49
You won't get a high level job in a corporation from being an apprentice. Not everybody wants to work in the service sector or a limited trade.
Not everyone wants or needs to be high in a corporation. Did you even read what I posted above?
What good is a nation full of people with meaningless or wasted college degrees? We will fall apart at the seams without the important and necessary jobs that don't require a college education. K-12 is designed to prepare everyone with a similar set of rudimentary skills that prepare them for their future path, whether it takes them to vocational school or med school.
I think the trick that people fall for is that going to college teaches you something that makes you wealthy. That's probably the only thing you DON'T learn in college. I think people need to decide why they want to go to college. I went because that's what people do and you need a degree to get a job. I coasted through and got average grades. Well, I got a job and it is low-average paying. Uncle Kazoo has got me on a habit of never saying never, but I have ZERO desire to go back to school for more education. A Masters wouldn't get me any more money in my career. I want to make more money, and more traditional schooling will teach me what I need to know.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 20:56
Honestly, most colleges are nothing more than an expensive adult day care. Very few colleges actually teach their students anything they need to be successful.
Anyone with focus, drive, tenacity, and ambition is going to make more than your average college grad who studied "business" or similar. And in all seriousness, most college students aren't there to learn anyway.
EDUCATION ≠ INTELLIGENCE
XC700116
01-09-2015, 20:56
You won't get a high level job in a corporation from being an apprentice. Not everybody wants to work in the service sector or a limited trade.
Another one, Obviously you're not going to get one right off the bat, and guess what, you probably shouldn't. But guess what, there's still companies out there that only promote from within (like the one I work for). Over 90% of our management team in a company of over 50K employees hired in at the ground level. Oh and we happen to be one of the most successful and largest companies in Birkshire Hathaway's portfolio.
Granted my company isn't the norm, but simply put, a high level job doesn't necessarily require a 4 year degree either.
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 21:03
My dad owns an 8 million dollar/yr service-industry business. Never went to college because he couldn't afford it. Instead, he worked his tail off until he could buy a tiny little office next to the city dump. That was 41 years ago. Now he employs 36 others in a 16,000 sqft building and is getting ready to retire. College didn't get him there. Other people's tax dollars and subsidies certainly did not get him there.
My dad owns an 8 million dollar/yr service-industry business. Never went to college because he couldn't afford it. Instead, he worked his tail off until he could buy a tiny little office next to the city dump. That was 41 years ago. Now he employs 36 others in a 16,000 sqft building and is getting ready to retire. College didn't get him there. Other people's tax dollars and subsidies certainly did not get him there.
http://youtu.be/YKjPI6no5ng
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. [LOL]
HoneyBadger
01-09-2015, 21:20
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. [LOL]
Never gets old... ;)
Service industry is going to do nothing but increase as we become more valuable. Just turned 28 will surpass the 6 figure mark this year and have a measly associates of science degree. (Not an oilfield job either) Most of the people that I graduted with are going no where with a pile of debt. The ones that are are engineers, in business or law. The standard 4 year degree no longer applies
IMO, student loans should be provided based on the graduates ability to repay the loan. You want a degree in Italian Romantic Literature of the 16th Century? Not much chance you are getting a loan for that.
College loans are another way of subsidizing the Academic/Progressive Industry. Maybe some of the adjunct faculty at the local community college could actually teach high school subjects. They seem to be doing that now, since most high school graduates don't graduate with competency to learn at the college level. Here is a link to a NY Times article relating the "Myth of a Four Year College Education."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html?_r=0
The private student loan industry can't survive without indentured servitude so they'll loan anyone money that can fog a mirror. Most don't even understand the promissory note they and/or their parents sign.
Service industry is going to do nothing but increase as we become more valuable. Just turned 28 will surpass the 6 figure mark this year and have a measly associates of science degree. (Not an oilfield job either) Most of the people that I graduted with are going no where with a pile of debt. The ones that are are engineers, in business or law. The standard 4 year degree no longer applies
I agree. A lot of my friends my age make close to what you make. I'm still making what I started at nearly 10 years ago!
The private student loan industry can't survive without indentured servitude so they'll loan anyone money that can fog a mirror. Most don't even understand the promissory note they and/or their parents sign.
I was under the impression that the federal government had nationalized the private student loan industry. This happened when the terms of the note made it impossible for anyone to default on their note. It is now a debt that will follow you to your grave if you do not satisfy the terms. Indentured servitude at least had a term limit. I believe the proper analogy would be self sold into slavery with an option to redeem yourself. It is easier to break an enlistment contract than the terms of a student loan today.
For those terms, the benefit should be very great indeed and I am fairly certain that most degrees earned today do not meet the standard.
True, the fed removed your ability to discharge a federally backed student loan under bankruptcy. The student loan program as it exists today doesn't have to follow the fair credit act.
I believe there's still the largest bulk of debt pre 2010 that is serviced by private industry, much of that not federally backed. Banks sold private education loans, then sold them to predatory consolidators that use vile, sleazy, predatory practices.
It's a rag I hate referencing, but there's a really good read on the sleazy student loan industry on Rolling Stone if you can get past the conservative bashing. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815
<MADDOG>
01-10-2015, 09:22
I see the POTUS pointing over there and saying "look, shiny".
Perhaps I'm ignorant but what jobs are these proposed AA/AS degree holders supposed to fill?
Or is this a means to pay for a Bachelors at half the price?
If that's the case, what jobs are these proposed BA/BS degree holders supposed to fill?
I'm sorry, I see this a supply/demand issue. We hear of and see articles all the time about new graduates with XYZ degree with (insert number here) of college debt living in the mommy's and daddy's basement.
I also agree with MarkCO & cstone. From of my perspective in the MEP construction in the industrial/manufacturing markets (in two areas of the US now), there are very, very few sub-30 year old tradesman either working in, or on, these two markets (which here in NC/SC are booming), and there are openings that simply cannot be filled. As these jobs start off well above a service industry job, this leads me to two conclusions; somehow people have forgotten you have to start somewhere (IE: don't expect to be paid like the top dog if you are new to the trade), and many people, especially millennials, simply do not want to do physical work (generalizations of course). I think Mike Rowe has hit this topic well, so I'll leave it at that.
IMO, the POTUS is better off actually defining the term "work" to the zombies and to help in creating the atmosphere for job creation in the US. Instead, we will have another blow to our nation's debt and an even greater sense of entitlement to the masses.
Rucker61
01-10-2015, 09:24
The first thing I thought of when I heard this idea was how it would need to work logistically. Once in place, it would create a great new level of demand for seats in classrooms in community colleges, seats that aren't currently available. Someone has to finance the construction of many new community colleges. We'd also see a lessening of demand for seats in four year universities, putting current adjunct and TA's out of work. Of course, they could go to work at the new CC's when they opened up, at even less money than they're making now. Given the loss of revenue from students not attending their freshman and sophomore years, 4 year schools would need to raise their tuition to cover that loss. The other big kicker is that for this plan to work, all credits earned at CC will need to transfer to the 4 year school, and the only way that's going to happen is via government mandate. Given that requirement, current and new CC's will have no incentive to ensure that the courses they teach meet current standards for transfer, meaning that our new CC grads will be less educated than they are now. This isn't an idea, it's a sound bite.
I see the POTUS pointing over there and saying "look, shiny".
Perhaps I'm ignorant but what jobs are these proposed AA/AS degree holders supposed to fill?
Or is this a means to pay for a Bachelors at half the price?
If that's the case, what jobs are these proposed BA/BS degree holders supposed to fill?
I'm sorry, I see this a supply/demand issue. We here of and see articles all the time about new graduates with XYZ degree with (insert number here) of college debt living in the mommy's and daddy's basement.
I also agree with MarkCO & cstone. From of my perspective in the MEP construction in the industrial/manufacturing markets (in two areas of the US now), there are very, very few sub-30 year old tradesman either working in, or on, these two markets (which here in NC/SC are booming), and there are openings that simply cannot be filled. As these jobs start off well above a service industry job, this leads me to two conclusions; somehow people have forgotten you have to start somewhere (IE: don't expect to be paid like the top dog if you are new to the trade), and many people, especially millennials, simply do not want to do physical work (generalizations of course). I think Mike Rowe has hit this topic well, so I'll leave it at that.
IMO, the POTUS is better off actually defining the term "work" to the zombies and to help in creating the atmosphere for job creation in the US. Instead, we will have another blow to our nation's debt and even a greater sense of entitlement to the masses.
The first thing I thought of when I heard this idea was how it would need to work logistically. Once in place, it would create a great new level of demand for seats in classrooms in community colleges, seats that aren't currently available. Someone has to finance the construction of many new community colleges. We'd also see a lessening of demand for seats in four year universities, putting current adjunct and TA's out of work. Of course, they could go to work at the new CC's when they opened up, at even less money than they're making now. Given the loss of revenue from students not attending their freshman and sophomore years, 4 year schools would need to raise their tuition to cover that loss. The other big kicker is that for this plan to work, all credits earned at CC will need to transfer to the 4 year school, and the only way that's going to happen is via government mandate. Given that requirement, current and new CC's will have no incentive to ensure that the courses they teach meet current standards for transfer, meaning that our new CC grads will be less educated than they are now. This isn't an idea, it's a sound bite.
Oh come on, stop being logical and taking this topic to reasonable conclusions. :)
<MADDOG>
01-10-2015, 09:46
The first thing I thought of when I heard this idea was how it would need to work logistically. Once in place, it would create a great new level of demand for seats in classrooms in community colleges, seats that aren't currently available. Someone has to finance the construction of many new community colleges. We'd also see a lessening of demand for seats in four year universities, putting current adjunct and TA's out of work. Of course, they could go to work at the new CC's when they opened up, at even less money than they're making now. Given the loss of revenue from students not attending their freshman and sophomore years, 4 year schools would need to raise their tuition to cover that loss. The other big kicker is that for this plan to work, all credits earned at CC will need to transfer to the 4 year school, and the only way that's going to happen is via government mandate. Given that requirement, current and new CC's will have no incentive to ensure that the courses they teach meet current standards for transfer, meaning that our new CC grads will be less educated than they are now. This isn't an idea, it's a sound bite.
I see your point, but I think your argument is faulty. From my observation, the community colleges are well under maximum attendance, and struggle to compete against the the four year colleges. CC, CSU, UC, etc are doing well (hence the new dorms, new halls, etc).
Transfer credits from most of the community colleges in CO to the 4 year institutions named above is already in place. One can argue all day as to why those who attend the freshman & sophomore years at the 4 year colleges do what they do at a higher cost.
If indeed this model created a loss of revenue for the Universities, would it also not create a higher demand for the junior and senior years?
Not to mention, with a dash of a pen, these Universities could also go in to the AA/AS market.
How about changing how we pay for college. Instead of giving a school $xxx,xxx per degree, you give a certain percentage of your gross pay after graduation for a fixed number of years.
For example, to get a BS, you would give the school 15% of your gross pay for 10 years after graduation. Add a Masters for 5 more years or 5%, add a doctorate for another 5 years or 5%. The school would be all inclusive, tuition, room & board, no summer break so most could finish in 4 years or less. You drop out, you owe nothing, since the school failed at educating you. You return to school or transfer to another school, your pay would be split between the schools based on the % of credits earned at each.
Not only would this help everyone afford college, but it would make people and institutions question what degrees they would go for or offer. If the average basket weaving grad makes minimum wage, colleges may stop offering the degree until there is a shortage of basket weavers and the pay increases so that the cost of the education is covered.
But this wont happen, because it could hijack the liberal indoctrination of our young adults while they attend 4 more years
Rucker61
01-10-2015, 10:26
I see your point, but I think your argument is faulty. From my observation, the community colleges are well under maximum attendance, and struggle to compete against the the four year colleges. CC, CSU, UC, etc are doing well (hence the new dorms, new halls, etc).
Transfer credits from most of the community colleges in CO to the 4 year institutions named above is already in place. One can argue all day as to why those who attend the freshman & sophomore years at the 4 year colleges do what they do at a higher cost.
If indeed this model created a loss of revenue for the Universities, would it also not create a higher demand for the junior and senior years?
Not to mention, with a dash of a pen, these Universities could also go in to the AA/AS market.
Good points all. I have no data on CC attendance, and assumed that in a free market that supply should be close to demand, or they'd go out of business/be closed. I'm aware that most credits do transfer but any new schools created still have to be accredited. Interesting point on the 4 year schools creating their own AA/AS programs; that sure would make them a lot less will to accept transfer credits from their competitors in the CC market. I'm not sure that demand for junior and senior years would be increased sufficiently to cover the loss of revenue - folks that got free school for two years still need to pay for the remaining portions, especially if the job market didn't look promising. We don't have enough jobs for college grads now; what will we do with a few million more? It's an interesting thought game, however.
Stevensje
01-10-2015, 12:04
Monthly we have been putting money in a college fund for our kids from day 1. I expect my kids to get as many AP credits In High school as possible to roll into college. If we hold our kids to a higher standard it will prepare them for more advanced degrees. "You want to be a basket weaver?" Then you are paying for it. If "free college" happens, the people who saved there entire life will end up paying the difference to makeup for the lazy fucks who didn't save. Not on my dime, grow up a get a real job.
It'd be nice if veterans could take advantage too. The GI bill will only cover up to a bachelor's, I wouldn't hesitate to use that and then use the 2 years at CC for a trade-related skill.
Aloha_Shooter
01-10-2015, 13:23
Hmmm ... yay, more taxpayer-paid positions for leftists to brainwash our "children".
[facepalm]
Here's my problem with all this "give everyone a degree" bullshit: Aside from the costs involved(which would be ridiculous), and the fact that students don't tend to value the opportunities afforded them unless they have to pay for them(High school), if everyone has a 2 year degree, then what value does it convey? How does that better prepare them to contribute to society in any valuable way? It's the adult equivalent of a "Participation Ribbon", or more bluntly, a Medal from the Special Olympics. Fuck that.
Well, if you actually do the work, we can't really say that it is just a participation ribbon. That said, the first two years of college is just two more years of high school courses anyway. So if you weren't ready for real life at the end of high school, I don't think that two more years of required credits is going to change much.
I hear that tech schools are becoming more and more popular.
<MADDOG>
01-10-2015, 21:28
http://youtu.be/NP0mQeLWCCo
NP0mQeLWCCo
hollohas
01-10-2015, 22:40
I didn't read the thread yet so I don't know what all your opinions are, but something dawned on me regarding this entire free college announcement. I actually think it's more than just another socialist agenda.
So the plan is for the Feds to pay 75% and the states to pay 25%. Thats the key to this whole thing. If the feds were to pay 100%, I wouldnt think what I'm about to write. But since he just signed up the states as part if his plan, I think there's more to the story.
What happens in the states that decide they don't want to participate in this program? That don't want to pay the 25%? Those will most likely be conservative states, right? Well, they'll say "no thanks" and the Dems will attack. The liberal media headline will be "Conservative state majority refuses to give kids a college education". Kids all over those states that refuse will be targeted by liberals, told their futures are being ruined by the republicans, protests will be held and young adults will hit the polls to vote the Republicans out.
This is not a socialist agenda...it's a liberal setup. They promised something that if the republicans refuse, it will give them major firepower to attack republicans. "Haha Repubs, ball's in your court now. You gonna tell all the kids they can't go to college."
This is BS and young adults will fall for it. They won't care that the country can't afford it. My prediction is that conservatives take the heat for this one...smart move by bama.
hollohas
01-10-2015, 22:59
Also, this just serves to delay young adults from becoming full adults even more. First, give them mommy and daddy's health insurance until 25. Then, give them free college. Heck, they won't have to work until long after they become adults.
In 1999 80% of 16-17 year olds were part of the US labor force. By 2012, only 60% were. That's not a good trend. Meanwhile, the recent grad labor participation rate is declining too. At the same time, the labor participation rate for 55 and older is increasing. If a college education with modern teachings was what opened the door to jobs, recent grads would be getting more and older folks would be getting less. Not the other way around like it is now.
It's not college that's gets people jobs...it's experience and motivation, something this country no longer encourages our youth to develop.
Also, this just serves to delay young adults from becoming full adults even more. First, give them mommy and daddy's health insurance until 25 26 . Then, give them free college. Heck, they won't have to work until long after they become adults.
In 1999 80% of 16-17 year olds were part of the US labor force. By 2012, only 60% were. That's not a good trend. Meanwhile, the recent grad labor participation rate is declining too. At the same time, the labor participation rate for 55 and older is increasing. If a college education with modern teachings was what opened the door to jobs, recent grads would be getting more and older folks would be getting less. Not the other way around like it is now.
It's not college that's gets people jobs...it's experience and motivation, something this country no longer encourages our youth to develop.
FIFY.
GilpinGuy
01-13-2015, 00:15
Here's a good take on this. Forward to 0:32:50 (audio only).
http://www.survivalpodcast.net/audio/2015/1-15/epi-1497-feedback-1-12-15.mp3
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.