For the sake of argument I would estimate that someone going to college would be required to spend about 1500 hours per year in class and doing their homework. Does that sound like a good estimate? They could certainly get by with less time but with that dedication they could easily maintain a 4.0 GPA.

If we use the numbers I provided previously the average cost of a college education is about $4,000/yr in a state college (which is reduced substantially if the person attends the first 2 years at a community college). At $10/hr, which virtually any college student can get in America, it would take 400 hours/yr to pay for tuition. There are 2088 hours in a normal employment year BUT we haven't accounted for living expenses. I typically work about 3,000+ hours per year which is very doable so there are still over 1,100 hours available, or $11,000 that the student could earn for living expenses. Is that a lot of money? No, but by renting a room or sharing an apartment, or living in a dorm, it does provide for the basic necessities. Of course they are still entitled to student loans so if they need more they could choose to go that route. I won't (I perfer the pay-as-you-go) approach and, of course they could have saved up money working while in high school as well.

So I don't see the cost of a college education to be a barrier at all. I do see a dedication to commit to 6,000 hours of college as being a barrier though. It all comes back to motivation and not money. If someone isn't willing to commit what it takes to achieve a college education even if you paid their tuition completely they still wouldn't go. Hell, even if you paid them $10/hr to go the majority that aren't really motivated would drop out when offered a $15/hr job.

The cost simply isn't the barrier preventing people from getting a college education and no evidence has been presented to even imply that it is.

I don't understand how you can say that going to work and going to college at the same time isn't a barrier.

Now matter the pleasent terms of, virtually any, normal, very doable, you want to couch it in, you are talking about holding down a job, and studying for a degree at the same time.

And you act like this isn't a barrier?

Now I am not suggesting it cannot be overcome. That isn't the point. The point is, it is a barrier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/op...22lehecka.html

In 2004, Lawrence Summers, then Harvard’s president, pointed out that three-fourths of the students at selective colleges come from the top income quartile and only 9 percent from the bottom two quartiles combined.

This is some evidence that most people in selective colleges are wealthy which means that poorer familys don't send their children to those colleges as frequently. Unless anyone is saying that richer family's students are smarter and more motivated than poorer familys the cost of good colleges does prevent poorer familys from sending their children there.

There is also a factor that richer familys can send their children to better high school and middle schools to allow them to get into "selective colleges" but than that would still reveal problems when familys must pay for private schooling.

"In a society that claims to believe in equal opportunity, our top universities should lead by example. The scandalous fact is that between 2004 and 2006 — an era of enormous private wealth accumulation — 27 of the 30 top-ranked American universities and 26 of the top 30 liberal arts colleges saw a decline in the percentage of low-income (Pell-grant-eligible) students. The problem Mr. Summers described is only growing worse. While some upper-middle-class families have to sacrifice in order to pay for college and may deserve more financial help, most of their children find a way to attend college. Low-income students earn bachelor’s degrees at less than one-third the rate of high-income students."

It is possible for poorer students to go to college but it is just much more difficult than it should be compared with richer students.

This discussion is not about private universities which would not be included as a part of a social program providing a college education but your story does present some relevant information.

I don't think anyone is proposing that the poor and middle class subsidize the rich to go to college. They certainly don't need the money and even for middle class American families the cost of a college education at a state college is not prohibitive or even a serious burden.

As you story notes the US has Pell grants for the poor so even they have the means for obtaining funding in the form of a grant (not a loan) which allow them access to college. There are, of course, a lot of scholarships targeting the poor and disadvantaged as well.

So we have the fact that the rich don't need a subsidy, the middle class can afford college, and the poor are subsidized so where is the financial barrier?

Someone getting their ass off the couch and attending classes could be considered a barrier.

I worked in high school and I worked when I went to college and did not find it to be a barrier in either case. Neither the government or even my family, which could have afforded it, donated a single dime to my college education and I never even considered it. It simply wasn't needed nor did work interfere with my college education.

Okay, had I not been working I could have done a lot more partying while in college but I managed to get in enough partying anyway so that was not an issue. And no, I didn't get to go to Florida on Spring Break either because I was working instead but I don't consider funding someone so that the can go to Florida for a party as being necessary for a college education.

As I noted before, I believe that someone who works their way through college gets a better education than, for example, a rich kid that uses their free time for binge drinking and doing drugs.

I still strongly believe that we should not have to pay for it.

I did'nt think so many people would have such strong views on this!

__________________
Aim for the Sun, even if you miss you will land among the Stars.

It is slightly off topic but this is related to the thread because if high quality colleges did not cost any money than a more socially diverse population would be able to enroll in them. Just because a system for grants exists that doesn't mean that everyone who is qualified to enter the school is able to.

As the article said most people in selective schools are wealthy so if a family's wealth does not effect their child's ability and if everyone who wanted to afford a university could, than around the same amount of people in every social class would attend competative universities. That is why a barrier exists.

Your drive to go to college is exceptional and if everyone had that drive than more people would be able to afford college. The problem with that logic is that I am sure that many people who's familys could afford college without the student working at all aren't as qualified as youself because the student wouldn't have went to college if they had to work as hard as you did. This also means that many people who were slightly less motivated as you didn't go to college and richer familys could send their even less motivated students to the same school.

I am pretty sure that most people could get into a great school if they just worked incredible hard but people who aren't as motivated could still get into that school if they were richer and therefore didn't need to work as hard. That is why if college was free, if anything, it would make the school more competative because anyone with the correct traits could go there.