AzTeK

I'm not proposing anything. This is a hypothetical discussion about which system would be better for a country - one where college education does cots something and one where college education is free for everyone. I don't know why you'r trying to turn this into a "you evil people, stop bashing the US" thread because it is not one. That's simple parannoia and nothing else.

I could say the same thing: until a couple of years ago, college education was absolutely free in Austria. I want to see cold hard facts and data to support the decision of changing that. But I don't, because that would be applying the discussion to a specific system which is not the point of it.

__________________

VoiceofReason

I'm still waiting for someone to tell us how you get all those teachers to work for free and all the administrators to work for free and all the materials suppliers to give out their stuff for free.

There is a big difference between "free" and government taking the money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. Of course many government have fooled their populations into believing that that actually get stuff for free and they keep themselves in power by doing so.

VoiceofReason

If you simply want more bodies in universities then take the money from people who are working and give it away to people who want to go there and you will have ample volunteers. If you want to increase graduation rates, then make the people who are going have a vested interest in their own success or failure, a monetary one works quite well.

VoiceofReason

How about investigating where all the money is going.

Fong

So what part of "State Funded Education System" don't you get?

I have already explained to you how the word "Free" works, I gave up on that, and started using the phrase above, because no matter how many times I explained it you seemed to come back with the same question.

Yet despite that, and all the previous explainations, you still going to come back posting the same damn thing? It is quite extraordinary.

At the end of the day, every person in a well taught classroom learns something, whether they can pass an exam at the end of it, is not always true.

VoiceofReason

Here is the line I responded to

"I could say the same thing: until a couple of years ago, college education was absolutely free in Austria. "

And I've explained to you how it doesn't. It's not free, there is a cost, it's just a matter of who pays it.

Someone gets up every morning and goes to work and then has some of the money they earn taken by government and given to a someone who wants to go to school.

What is extraordinary is how people still think it is free.

Not necessarily.

Shiva_TD

Okay, let me see what is being proposed and compare that to what we currently have.

The proposal is for free college tuitions so that people can obtain a degree.

There are several degree levels: AA / AS (2-year degree); BA / BS (4-year degree); and post graduate MA / MS (5+-year degree) and PhD (6+-year Post-grad thesis). To my knowledge only universities offer post-graduate studies.

Two factors need to be considered when relation the proposal:

1) Which level of degree is being addressed?
2) Public funding should be restricted to the lowest per student cost.

If we are talking about an AA / AS degree these are offered by local community colleges in most if not all states. They are virtually free as is with only minimal charges to cover the administrative costs related to enrollment. Community colleges have many benefits over four-year colleges especially for those that don’t already have high personal academic work ethics.

If we are talking about a BA / BS degree then we should require the student to successfully obtain the prerequisite AA / AS degree from a community college first and they should have a minimal passing GPA to advance at the public’s expense. I would suggest that a 3.0 or better GPA with no grades of less than 2.0 for any course during the first two years. Of course public funding would logically be limited to the state college system where the person is a resident and not to the state university or any private university.

Even if we were to consider free tuition for college it wouldn’t logically include post graduate studies. A person with a 4-year degree is employable and a post graduate work can be accomplished on a part time basis while the individual is working.

In one sense we are almost back where we started. If we require that a person obtain an AA / AS degree from a community college, which is fair, and since community colleges are virtually free now (a few hundred dollars maximum per year) then why aren't people flocking to the community colleges already? If they are successful at the community college level with a 3.0 GPA or better they don’t have any difficulty today in getting a scholarship for their final two years to obtain their BA / BS degree and these scholarships are often for universities, both public and private, which are superior to the state colleges and offer post-graduate studies.

Fong

VoR I give up on you, if you have not understood and accept the "Free to User" point I have made to you several times, you clearly never going to understand it.

Shiva,

At the BA/BS level, do all those rules apply to private students? Do they need an AA/AS level first? Do they need a 3.0 GPA average?

If not then you are creating barriers to the poor to replace the barrier of money, which just seems pointless really, why take down one barrier to replace it with another?

If that is true for all students, then fair enough, we have the same thing in this country, you need to prove you have a brain that works before you can go to Uni.

post graduate work can be accomplished on a part time basis while the individual is working.

I am pretty sure Aztek, and I know I would argue, what is the point of that.

It 'can' be done, but likely won't because it would be too difficult for most people, you will argue motivation, we will argue that motivation is irrelvent, I don't care if YOU want an education or not. Our society wants you to be educated, so we will make it as easy as possible for you to continue that education.

Setting up the barriers you are talking about, are really self defeating to the point me and Aztek are making. It is beneficial to all to have everyone as educated as humanly possible. Any barrier to that education is a bad thing. In this discussion it has been specifically about the cost involved, but your last post is just as against the principle we are talking about as the costs are.

Shiva_TD

The AA /AS degree is inherent in course requirements to obtain a BA / BS and reflects the first two years of courses required. It is sort of like saying you can't earn $20 on the job without first having earned $10 on the way to the $20.

Not for the AA / AS degree but the 3.0 GPA would indicate that they could pass the courses at the four-year college level. If they are failing classes or doing poorly in a comminity college it is probably a waste of time for them to attempt a four-year degree. Scholasitcally a community college is a much easier level of education than a four-year college. Once agian, by analogy, if a person cannot compete in a 100 meter race they are not likely to succeed in a 200 meter race. So in one sense I set an arbitrary criteria but it is based upon the logical ability of the person to be able to compete at a substantially higher level. If a person cannot maintain a 3.0 GPA in a community college they will not be able to maintain a 2.0 GPA in a four-year state college and a 2.0 GPA is a requirement at a four-year college. Yes, you could lower the standards but that also detracts from the value of a college degree.

Scholastic achievement is a requirement for a degree. Of course being able to meet the scholastic achievement levels is a necessary requirement and every student faces this challenge. If they didn't you could simply mail out the diploma without the individual meeting any scholastic requirements and remove all barriers.

Yes, scholastic achievement is true for all students.

You modified my statement. What I said is that "post-graduate" studies can be easily accomplished on a part time basis. The requirements for a Masters degree or a PhD involve very little classroom work and are instead based predominately on field work and a thesis. In the US we have universities like the University of Phoenix that offer these (accreditated) degrees online so you don't even need to attend a brick and mortar university to fulfill the requirements. In most cases the best situation is for the individual to be employed in their field and then do the thesis based upon their personal experiences. In many cases the Universities offer employment for those doing scientific research when they are studying for their Masters and PhD degrees and include tuition as a part of the compensation package. No only are they getting their degree tuition virtually free (they do have to pay minimal adminstrative expenses) but they are getting paid to attend.

I will return to the point that obtaining a degree in the United States is NOT about the money. Virtually anyone including the poor can obtain one without undue finacial hardship. Yes, if someone is dead set on spending the maximum amount of money possible they can over extend any reasonable budget but if their goal is simply a quality education and a college degree it is within the grasp of even the poorest of Americans. All they have to do is to want the degree and then set out to obtain it.

Even a Harvard degree, which is very expensive if you spend four years at Harvard, can be econimcally obtained. The student can take virtually all of the courses at a state university and save the final course for Harvard. Yes, the one course will cost more than any other course at the state college but the degree will be awared from Harvard where the last course is taken and the final requirements for the degree are met.

Fong

All they have to do is to want the degree and then set out to obtain it.

You can claim that anyone can overcome the barrier that cost is, you still have to admit that it is a barrier that needs to be overcome.

You will claim, that it is motivational and better at weeding people out.

We will reply, why do you want to weed people out of education? Who does that help?

I don't know what more to say if you will not address that point.

It doesn't matter how people can go about getting their degree by jumping through what hoops. It is the simple question....why is that better? Who does it help to weed people out, who aren't motivated enough to jump through those hoops?

We have asked that question many times in many ways. It was the entire premise of the paragraph you quoted.

Yet you didn't answer it.