bernie's free education gambit...........

[huisache]

I went to his site to see how he would accomplish this goal and found that he wants free tuition at public universities. The US government runs five of them: US Military Academy, US Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy and Merchant Marine Academy. They are all already free!!!!!!

They are not big enough to handle the millions of people who want a college education however, so I assume he wants free tuition at the schools run by the states and communities. It is not clear from his site how tuition would be paid. He does not say the federal government will mandate free tuition and he does not say how the states are going to raise the money. He has an interesting idea near the bottom of the entry on free education where he talks about some sort of severance tax on securities transactions that would raise close to a hundred billion a year. I am certain the congress will be enthusiastic about enacting such a severance tax, so that is no problem.

What is confusing is why he thinks it would be so cheap. Say a state university charges $5,000 a semester for tuition (I know, I know, just bear with me) and Bernie says the feds are going to pay the tuition. What is the first thing State U is going to do? Maybe go up to $20,000 per semester? They have to pay for all the new facilities for all the millions of students now denied such access, so I think my example may actually be on the low side. But assuming they only go up by a factor of four this year, where does it stop?

Or does Bernie plan to put limits on how much the state universities can charge?

He talks about how free tuition is already in place in some advanced countries in South America and in Germany. Are German universities open admissions like many of our schools nearly are?

I think the state of Texas needs to pony up some cash for the schools so they are cheaper and UT doesn't have to keep jacking up the rates to the point that people like me could not afford it if we were trying to go there now. I guess Bernie could take that up with Governor Abbott when they sit down to discuss the Governor's proposed new constitutional amendments.

 

[Musburger1]

There are countries where tuition is free (paid by the state). I believe that's true in Germany, and it was true in Libya as well until NATO destroyed the country. I don't know how much a Libyan degree is worth, but at zero tuition it was a good value.

Even if Sanders were elected and tried to push this through, he would meet resistance from Republican Congress who would not agree to tax increases to pay for it. Also lobbyists from the financial sector and the University sector would be opposed because the current structure enriches them as a result of predatory lending; the fees and interest generate revenue, and the ability for anyone to attain a loan pushes tuition costs higher and higher.

 

[UTChE96]

I feel as if I am in Bizarro world. National debt > GDP means that you need to stop borrowing money to give away free ****. Why is that concept so difficult for the average American voter to grasp? It's a sad indictment of the American education system that only a handful of voters understand why the high debt levels is a crisis.

 

[Musburger1]

Regarding a free education paid by taxpayers, we kind of have that now. With over one trillion dollars of guaranteed student loans, much of which will never be repaid, taxpayers down the road will eventually pay the bill. So whether or not we implement "free" education, we still will see hundreds of billions of education dollars placed on the tab of the US public; not unlike health care.

 

[Crockett]

I'm pretty liberal, but to make something scarce and valuable "free" is to at once force costs onto the public and devalue the end product. If someone wants to spend four years in college to get a degree in art appreciation, history, women's studies or philosophy, that's fine on their dime. It may be fine on the public dime if they are so academically gifted they are likely to make an exceptional contribution to the field. But somebody has to play the heavy and say that the student is responsible to weigh costs and benefits and make good decisions. Absent a free market, I don't see that happening.

 

[Musburger1]

The problem with the current system is that the government guarantees the loans. The result being that anyone who breathes gets approved. The increased demand for loans drives up the price just as it did in the home market when mortgage lending was unregulated and anyone could get approved. The taxpayer ended up eating much of that via bailouts and ongoing ZIRP.

The Universities have taken advantage of the higher tuitions by paying high salaries to administrators and entering into kind of an arms race to attract students. For example, while my daughter attended Texas Tech, they built a "lazy river" on campus like you'd see at a theme park. Makes for a nice campus experience but doesn't in any way enhance learning.

The financial industry is the biggest winner as the loans are guaranteed by the US taxpayer.

So yes, we already have subsidized education.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Also lobbyists from the financial sector and the University sector would be opposed because the current structure enriches them as a result of predatory lending;

Everybody, whether you're a banker or a baker, should oppose this because it's a stupid idea that will bankrupt the country.

I can tell you that banks will be fine either way. Haven't you seen how DoD procurement gets out of control? What do you think these public schools are going to do when they don't have to worry about tuition revenues? They're gonna build $}%^. Who do you think gets the bridge financing interest and bond fees? Banks. What do you think is less risky for a bank: a student loan to a gender studies millennial or a 2% upfront fee on a bond marketed to build another luxury pool at the dorm?

Who exactly is the predator? 90% of all student loans are government originated. There are only like 3 private financial institutions that underwrite student loans anymore. Discover and like two others I don't remember. "Predatory" lending on unsecured/uncollatetalized student loans to the spoiled millienial children makes ZERO sense for a bank. That paper is junk.

Haha. This demonization of bankers is so irrational. Do you think I have a special barber to groom my mustache so I can twirl it?

 

[Musburger1]

Bottom line: government needs to get out. They should not implement free education nor should they guarantee loans. The results are pretty much the same. Let the financial industry make loans based on risk/qualification and tuition costs will stabilize or fall. Also the taxpayer won't be on the hook. But the big paydays to the financial industry and the million dollar executive compensations, and lazy rivers will all come to an end.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The "free" education is hogwash. As a parent of 3 sons that will enter college within the next 6 years, I support cost control mechanisms to halt the skyrocketing cost of college. I support lower interest rate government backed loans. I might even be able to be convinced to support reduced community college tuition if it can be tax revenue neutral. Free education at all public colleges and universities is unsustainable and devalues one of the main values of a college education, personal sacrifice (financial and time) to persevere with a college diploma.

 

[texas_ex2000]

We live in a world where two cornerstone virtues are completely devalued. Economy and enterprise.

Families work and save so their future generations can move up in life. Those virtues are passed down to their children. That's what you call Class. And class and education is valuable because the virtues that drive learned and high-character people are rare in the population.

Sometimes, high-character intellectually gifted kids with lessor means are given scholarships/aid/have a benefactor. But even then, the virtue of enterprise is the driver. And that's not the model for the vast majority of young people. Real Class is awarded through hard work and sacrifice and is a reflection of one's character.

 

[Musburger1]

Let's look at four models for paying college education.

1. What we had 30 years ago. Basically free market. Prospective students who could not afford to go to college could apply for loans. Financial institutions would make loans as determined by risk. Since the financial institutions were on the hook for losses, not everyone qualified, thus demand was lower. As a result, tuition costs were relatively much lower and more stable than they are now. Many students could work a part time job and pay a substantial amount of the cost. The downside was many poor people simply could not qualify for a loan and despite relatively low tuition, could not afford college.

2. What we have now. Basically crony capitalism; a combination of supply and demand influenced by government intervention. Tuition is determined by supply and demand, however government guarantees enable institutions to provide risk free loans; everyone qualifies. Demand exploded due to the availability of credit, and tuition costs soared as a result. The financial institutions have already made their money risk free. Everyone who wants to attend college can go, however they will have an enormous amount of debt heaped onto their shoulders upon completion of schooling. The taxpayer is on the hook when the time comes for this education bubble to pop leaving north of a trillion dollars of unpaid loans on the government books. At that time, I suppose either there will be massive forgiveness of loans or the government will simply add the bad defaulted loans to the national debt.

3. Mostly government control. The government would not only continue guaranteeing loans, but also set tuition and fees for the colleges. The first two options have been tried in the US; I think this is what Seattle Husker was advocating. I think it would be an improvement over what we have now, but I personally prefer the first option. If this proposal worked, it would eliminate some of the top heavy administration and reduce some of the lavish expenditures.

4. The Sanders model. Pure government control. Taxes are raised, tuition is free, and the government determines what expenditures are allowed for institutions to make to stay within budget. As with option two, either the national debt increases or taxes must be raised substantially.

 

[Mr. Deez]

1. What we had 30 years ago. Basically free market. Prospective students who could not afford to go to college could apply for loans. Financial institutions would make loans as determined by risk. Since the financial institutions were on the hook for losses, not everyone qualified, thus demand was lower. As a result, tuition costs were relatively much lower and more stable than they are now. Many students could work a part time job and pay a substantial amount of the cost. The downside was many poor people simply could not qualify for a loan and despite relatively low tuition, could not afford college.

Mus, I think your comments on this are superb, but I can't call what we had 30 years ago "free market." We didn't have the federal government creating a colossal de facto third party payer with seemingly unlimited resources screwing things up like we do now. However, government hands were all over the equation. State legislatures funded public universities with taxpayer money, and at least in Texas and probably other states, the legislature set tuition rates based on political expediency. I don't see a whole lot of the free market in that equation.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, I think you're right. So basically what we had before was similar to my option 3 that Seattle Husker wants. Maybe at some point before my recollection there might have been a free market.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, I think you're right. So basically what we had before was similar to my option 3 that Seattle Husker wants.

And we had that until 2003, and it worked well. Thanks for screwing it up, Rick Perry.

Maybe at some point before my recollection there might have been a free market.

We had a free market before we had public universities. For example, I'm pretty sure that Baylor existed before UT.

 

[Musburger1]

Well, that's going back a ways.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Well, that's going back a ways.

Yes, government has had its hands on higher education for a long time. Back in the day, I think they did a respectable job. Now they're doing more harm than good.

I don't see us ever returning to a free market. What'll probably happen is that we'll have a slow debt forgiveness process through default. People will stop making payments, and the government will stop trying to collect because you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Basically people who do well will pay off their loans, and people who are poor or middle class will default and the taxpayer will get hosed in perpetuity.

 

[Musburger1]

Yes, government has had its hands on higher education for a long time. Back in the day, I think they did a respectable job. Now they're doing more harm than good.

I don't see us ever returning to a free market. What'll probably happen is that we'll have a slow debt forgiveness process through default. People will stop making payments, and the government will stop trying to collect because you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Basically people who do well will pay off their loans, and people who are poor or middle class will default and the taxpayer will get hosed in perpetuity.

Righ now, that explanation seems the most plausible. Another possibility - on the dark side - is that as the country's governing apparatus becomes more authoritarian, those who can't pay might be forced into an alternative such as a prison sentence or mandatory military service. Right now that type of proposal seems ridiculous. Things change.

 

[huisache]

the disappointing thing about the popularity of Sanders' Free Bubble Up plan is that it gets so little attention; it is other worldly and he deflects reflection on it by waving a magic wand that leaves the misty legend "we will tax the rich by doing this or that" and that ends the possibility of any discussion.

Last night the two retards from my party argued over which was better, to quit deporting illegal aliens altogether or to........well, actually, there was no option. We just need to be more compassionate and quit these awful deportations. What that means is that we quit enforcing the immigration laws and that is a clear signal to anyone who wants to come here and can find the Rio Grande to wade across is totally frigging welcome.

THe bottom of the wage scale is already so depressed that many are calling for hikes in the minimum wage laws and these people want to give a free pass to every impoverished person in the world. Makes you proud, no?

The best way to boost wages for the bottom 20% is to create a labor shortage and the easy way to do that is to cut off the poor foreigners, not because we hate them but because they cost us too much. At Christmas time every year the retailers have to raise their pay a bit to get the extra workers they need for wrapping and shipping. Labor shortages are good.

The Democratic party no longer favors anything that creates labor shortages because the Democratic party no longer gives a rat's patout about working people. They never had to hang with any when they were in college, which mommy and daddy paid for.

 

[mb227]

Is there really that much of a line of people clamoring for community colleges? You know, the (typically) cheaper alternative to doing the freshman and sophomore courses at a four-year school...

Free school for all is a notion that lacks any measure of practicality when you look at how many kids don't even graduate from high school much less show the slightest inclination to WANTING to go to college at ANY level.

I simply do not envision the utopian 'free college for all' suddenly prompting the current high school drop-outs to decide that finishing high school is worth it so that they can all of a sudden go enroll in college. I CAN envision a spike in admission applications but what then? A dumbing down of the core corricula so that all of those new admits don't get discouraged? So that everyone gets a participation trophy, err passing grade?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I have a real problem with the "tax the rich" to pay for all of Sander's plans. Though I fully support higher taxes on the wealthy, I'd rather it be devoted to our debt. Still, raising the taxes too high reduces the incentive to be acquire the wealth. Additionally, I don't believe there is enough $$ to pay for Sanders programs. This is why I don't support Sanders.

 

[Monahorns]

You could take all the money from all the wealthy today and it still wouldn't fully fund what the government spends this year. That includes assets.

 

[UTChE96]

College enrollment has increased from 45% to 70% since the 50s yet the average American has become significantly dumber. Correlation does not equal causation but this does reinforce my opinion that a college education is not what it used to be.

 

[Crockett]

Education isn't the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence itself comes in many hard to measure forms that are allocated among us in many different proportions.

 

[Seattle Husker]

College enrollment has increased from 45% to 70% since the 50s yet the average American has become significantly dumber. Correlation does not equal causation but this does reinforce my opinion that a college education is not what it used to be.

I'm not sure that's accurate. See this article from yesterday that cited a recently released study. For those that attend college our literacy, math and technology skills score above their peers in other developed countries. The problem is, for those that only graduate HS they essentially score the equivalent of high school dropouts in other developed countries.

Our college system is truly the envy of the world. Unfortunately, our secondary education system has lots of room for improvement to catch up to our peers. College attendance is still the key determining factor in the difference between the haves and the have nots.

It still shouldn't be free.

 

[NJlonghorn]

We need more scientists, engineers, and computer programmers, so we as a country should be willing to invest to get people into those fields. We don't need more liberal arts majors than we already have, so we should not be investing in them.

Rather than grants, I like loans that have work-payback terms. For example, the NIH paid for part of my wife's PhD. The terms allowed her to "repay" the loan by working in medical research in the United States for some period of time (I think it was 7 years). Each year, we'd get a form in the mail that she had to fill out showing that she qualified for in-kind repayment. If she had wanted to work overseas or leave the field, she would have had to pick up the remaining payments.

Unfortunately, my system would require someone to decide which majors (and which students) are worth investing in, and which aren't. Nobody wants to make decisions like this because the PC police would be all over them.

 

[UTChE96]

I'm not sure that's accurate.

The college enrollment stat or that the average voter has become dumber? I was mostly joking that the two have any correlation. But I do believe that the value of a college degree has been severely diluted in value. The only degrees that I expect to pay out now are engineering, business, and pre-med.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

For those that attend college our literacy, math and technology skills score above their peers in other developed countries. The problem is, for those that only graduate HS they essentially score the equivalent of high school dropouts in other developed countries.

Could you also make an argument that it's not that the colleges are making the difference. People aren't getting to college and all of a sudden kicking it into another gear. The delineation is between the people who are committed to getting something out of school and those who are not.

I have no doubt our schools are failing in a lot of ways, but I suspect they are good enough for kids to still move through them prepared for college and a professional career. (Or go into coaching if they don't get drafted... ok I got sidetracked there...) I'd be willing to bet that what's happening more than anything is a broadening divide between the people that go to school and try to get an education and the ones who don't.

 

[theiioftx]

Failing schools are the result of failing parents.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Could you also make an argument that it's not that the colleges are making the difference. People aren't getting to college and all of a sudden kicking it into another gear. The delineation is between the people who are committed to getting something out of school and those who are not.

I have no doubt our schools are failing in a lot of ways, but I suspect they are good enough for kids to still move through them prepared for college and a professional career. (Or go into coaching if they don't get drafted... ok I got sidetracked there...) I'd be willing to bet that what's happening more than anything is a broadening divide between the people that go to school and try to get an education and the ones who don't.

That's certainly plausible. There is certainly some self selection. Regardless, it does show there is a significant gap between those who attend college and those who don't. Whether due to the education they receive, the attendees intrinsic motivation or some combination, that gap is real.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Failing schools are the result of failing parents.

You'll get no argument from me. We expect too much from the school, IMHO. How do you enforce good parenting though? It's easier to put more pressure on the schools to be the parent.

Of course, my wife is a middle-school teacher so I'm admittedly biased. I can say that she works harder than me (60+hrs a week easy) yet makes ~50% of my take home. It's very hard to keep good teachers in that profession when the hours are so great and the pay sucks for newer teachers and only becomes adequate with many years of experience.