AzTeK

That's not the point. Noone is claiming that anyone ambitious enough is able to go to college in the US.

The point is that if higher education was to be made free for everyone, more people would take advantage of this higher level of education which in terms will benefit society as a whole and thus I claim that such a system is superior.

__________________

Shiva_TD

And I would argue that personal motivation and work ethic is far more important to society than a degree. Most of those that I work with have degrees and I have seen more than one fail because they didn't have the motivation required for employment. In the identical field I have seen those without a degree become highly successful because of their work ethic and motivation. Work ethic and self-motivation is what benefits society and not a piece of paper on the wall.

Fundamentally the degree by itself doesn't mean shit. Yes, it allows for higher entry level compensation but two or ten years down the road it has virtually no meaning whatsoever. In employment practices typically, in my field which is aerospace, a degree is offset by two years of experience (e.g. a 4-year degree is equal to 8-years of experience).

AzTeK

A degree itself does mean a lot. It means the person sat down and used a considerable amount of time and invested a considerable amount of effort for 4 (in Austria 5) years in order to make something better out of him. Motivation does not come from being forced to work while going to college. Motivation comes from someone wanting to excel in life. Having to spend quite some time working so you can afford college does not motivate, it is merely a nuisance.

If someone is wanting to put up with the hardship of working his way through college, it shows he can effectively motivate himself. But the work per se does surely not motivate.

The system you are suggesting might be effective in separating the wheat from the chaff, but it basically suggests that this "chaff" and with it the entire society would not profit from a better education they might be willing to attain if they didn't have to make a "sacrifice" that, for whatever reason, they are not willing to make.

__________________

Fong

See in my field, you absolutely must have a degree to teach in that field. So if I didn't have a degree I could not teach.

So even in twenty years, I will still have to produce my degree to prove I have it.

I had a thought about what Aztek was saying Shiva, and I would like to give you a small analogy.

If I took you, in trainers, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt, to the bottom of Mount Everest and said to you:

"Right so see you at the top!"

You would be, rightfully, daunted by the task at hand. It would be in your mind, nearly impossible to climb Mount Everest without the proper equipment, a guide, supplies.

This is how people look at an Education system where the 'average' cost for a private 3 year degree is $60,000 dollars, (given an average yearly cost of 21k). They are daunted by the task at hand.

While you can say, yeah but there are cheaper options IF you can manage certain criteria, it is little more then me saying, well you can climb at least some of Mount Everest in a T-shirt and Shorts, it won't be comfortable, it won't be easy, but you should be able to climb a couple of hundred feet surely?

It doesn't deal with the underlining idea that the task is soo large that you will be put off entirely. You may not even bother trying to climb even a few feet up the side of the mountain.

Now i know it isn't a perfect analogy, I am just trying to illustrate the point that if people did not see such a huge task in front of them, they might be more willing to 'have a go' rather then just bypassing the system entirely.

Shiva_TD

And the self-motivated individual would look at the top, figure out that they needed the proper equipment, work out a plan to obtain that equipment, and eventually would make it to the top.

I posted a link that showed that the average cost of tuition at a public college in the United States averaged LESS THAN $4.000/yr. Can people spend more? Of course but if the goal is the degree they don't have to spend more and, in fact, by using local community colleges (which are almost free) for the first two years the can even cut that down dramatically.

The fact that someone can spend $60K for a degree doesn't mean that what it actually costs. I could spend $1 million buying a car but I don't because I can't afford it. I could live in a $10 million home but I don't because I can't afford it. I do own a car and a home that I can afford. The same is true of a college education.

Shiva_TD

Are you telling me that you couldn't find a job as an instructor or teacher in the private sector that didn't require a degree? I would have to say that is false because I worked as an instructor for Boeing for 5 year with many other instructors and most of them did not have a degree.

The truth is that you could be a teacher without a degree but you just couldn't teach where you are working without one. And does the degree make you a better teacher? I would say that it doesn't necessarily mean that it does. I have personally had teachers that weren't worth two dead flies and they had their degrees. You might have had the same experience as well.

AzTeK

Let's cut this to the point since everyone is just sort of starting to repeat himself:

Shiva, answer me this simple question. IF higher education was free for everyone nomatter what financial situation they were in, would there be more people attaining a college degree or would there not?

That's pretty much the breaking point of the entire thread.

__________________

LessGovMrPrez

Well the answer is no. Right now we have free healthcare called medicaid, that has hundreds of thousands of people eligible who are not on it b/c they dont want it. And what does our government do? They try and expand the same program that has hundreds of thousands of eligible people not on it, for wealthier families. Does that make sense? None. The same thing would happen to free education, which is already free b/c we pay taxes for it, which is the same thing that would happen at the college level, a tax, drop out rates are still going to remain the same if not higher.

The government cannot make people go to college anymore then they can make people get on medicaid. Which begs the question of why do we think getting a government program is gonna solve the problem b/c it wont. It all goes back to the individual and his drive to succeed. Kids still drop out of school before high school. The education is free there, so obviously doing the same thing at the college level wont be any different. Unless the government is going to shoot people onsight for not going to school, what good is it gonna do?

Just get good grades in high school, work at the same time, save up, and if you get a scholarship, then you already have a 4 year headstart on people your own age b/c you have worked before 90% of them ever thought about it. If you dont get a scholarship, then work and pay as you go. No national government program is needed.

Fong

I think you have taken a statistic you have heard and given it the background you want Prez.

For instance you say there are hundreds of thousands of people who are eligible for Medicaid who don't have it.

Which is the statistic, then comes the put I think you created for yourself.

"because they don't want it."

We have thousands of people in this country who do not get benefit they are entitled to, not always because they don't want it, often times because they were unaware they were entitled.

Shiva_TD

It is my understanding that all private and public colleges and universities are fundamentally full right now so the answer is no.