Proposed #CollegeForAll Plan Would Tax Wall Street to Destroy Student Debt

[MJHolland 12,725]

40 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think an economic approach alone is the right way to look at this.

For one thing, there are more factors to consider... The selectivity of schools won't change just because more people can afford to go to college, which would increase competition and output collectively, which is good #capitalism, and the college wage premium is not consistent amongst all job fields as far as I know. There are many sectors in the job market that people can be very successful in personally and financially without even getting a degree. Still, in other fields the value of a Bachelor's Degree is already in flux; in some you need a Masters to be taken seriously or even get a decent job, yet in others not enough people are even majoring in the field to fill up all of the available jobs in the country... Not to mention that job fields are growing and shrinking job fields as we progress as a society in lots of ways, especially technologically  

 

But also... the point of allowing people to go to college for free (or just more people in general) at its core is to have a more well educated and potentially successful society which really benefits everyone (other than Republicans :poot: ). I don't think that across the board the value of a Bachelor's Degree will decrease unless every other factor stagnates. It may become even harder just to get into colleges, and the requirements to get a degree in X field may similarly become harder as well  I just don't think this is the only potential outcome from making College heavily accessible.. Even if it does though... isn't it better to have a generally more educated, successful citizens than to hold back a lot of them from their potential? More people may want to get further degrees as well. There's just so much to consider beyond the idea that Bachelor's Degrees may become less valued (especially since that itself is a bit too simplistic)

 

I'm sorry I couldn't read the rest of what you had to say after you started with that in the beginning (bolded). 

Girl WHAT?!?! Colleges and universities and basically companies that "sell" a degree to you. You think a government subsidy (basically what gov't funded free college is) is going to incentivize schools to keep their admissions standards the same?!

GIRL! If you raise the overall volume of college applicants by creating a tuition subsidy, you're gonna raise the number off overall percentage going to college. 

And lastly, why the hell wouldn't we gauge this issue in an economic lens?! The whole POINT of education is so people and society can become more economically successful. I'm sorry I can't. 

This is the most insane argument I've heard in a long time. If more people are willing AND able to pay to pay, they will be going to colleges.

A college degree will become close to a high school degree, it's simple simple logic.... 

[Seeka 12,372]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

OK that's fine and dandy but tell me what happens to the demand for a college degree if you increase the supply of people that have them 

We can't make college "free" without ruining the value of degrees in general. If you've ever taken an econ class you know this...

Degrees are already useless due to the needs of specialization. The trope A Degree in Useless is actually dying out as more jobs require degrees and especially very specific degrees. it also doesn't help when you're hired to do something, it is only that one job anymore. Not may jobs have you perform duties outside your role.

Degrees already mean nothing unless you have something worthy in your resume to back it up with. My brother has a degree in wildlife and fisheries. he's currently working full-time at Ingles.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/ADegreeInUseless

That covers why Humanities is seen as the main idea of the trope, but honestly it covers some of the other reasons I've stated on why degrees are already useless.

[Sizzily 14,571]

Welp, glad I'm getting that free Tennessee community college, who knows when something like this would ever become reality.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

38 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I'm sorry I couldn't read the rest of what you had to say after you started with that in the beginning (bolded). 

Girl WHAT?!?! Colleges and universities and basically companies that "sell" a degree to you. You think a government subsidy (basically what gov't funded free college is) is going to incentivize schools to keep their admissions standards the same?!

GIRL! If you raise the overall volume of college applicants by creating a tuition subsidy, you're gonna raise the number off overall percentage going to college. 

And lastly, why the hell wouldn't we gauge this issue in an economic lens?! The whole POINT of education is so people and society can become more economically successful. I'm sorry I can't. 

This is the most insane argument I've heard in a long time. If more people are willing AND able to pay to pay, they will be going to colleges.

A college degree will become close to a high school degree, it's simple simple logic.... 

Wow. Calm down?  

Not all colleges will "sell" a degree to anyone; admissions is still a thing and there are still plenty of schools that one can not just "get into" whether they have the money or not (charitable donations and family name aside  ) and I don't see why this should change that. Schools that are hard to get into based on merit alone won't suddenly say "to hell with it" and let anyone in. Colleges do not work merely on incentive, word of mouth, prestige, reputation and a hell of a lot more go into making up the popularity of a college. Yes, some are easy to get into and cheap and people may go to more of these, but "free" college would allow students that have the brains and the potential and merit to go to more expensive "better" colleges to do so, which is a + for us as a society, as these are the people who will more likely be contributing to the world in positive ways if we really think about it. Hell, even average and below average students that have the drive to get through college can benefit from going to college in some ways that are useful to society   (This is what I meant by "... an economic approach alone is the best way to look at this"  )

In order to maintain standards in colleges that have such standards, they might even lower their acceptance rates, or raise their bar on admissions. There would also be campus size and things of that nature to discuss, but thats logistics  

Even though more people will be applying (and going to college), what people go to which college will still be a huge factor worth considering, and essentially its totally possible that % ages will shrink. We won't suddenly have every person going to Ivy leagues or anything close. That being said, If we have 1000 people applying to college, the top 1% is vastly different from having 100,000 people applying to college; likewise, the bottom floor is also potentially raised, with just more people around that level. I won't get into national averages because its kind of a rabbit hole.  Some schools (not even just Ivy leagues) are already taking note of this and offering free or lowered tuition to students that are accepted but cannot afford college. Part of this is because they are rich or wealthy enough to do so, but it's also part of a greater mission or purpose.

Obviously the college = company system we have needs to be reformed as well, but my point is that the argument that "degrees will become less valuable" is overly simplistic, or at least not comprehensive enough to dismiss the idea of some form of "free" college entirely. There are simply more factors to discuss...

Such as the fact that the value of a degree - lets say a Bachelor's is already being tested and wrestled with in academic and economics, in some fields its no longer necessary, in some its not enough, and in general some groups of people are more likely to be successful or more capable of being successful economically without any degree past high school. The solution there is to reform or modify our idea of "college = success" and allow for more nuanced images of success stories in our narrative, which again goes back to changing how colleges are run like businesses. 

Ofc more people with bachelor's degrees means it will become less valued, but what does that mean about even further education? What does that mean about the current speed and efficacy of achieving the equivalent of a bachelors degree? In the true spirit of competition, doesn't this mean we are just pushing for the quality of society as a whole to be better? If we hold everyone to higher standards, does that naturally mean we are progressing as a society instead of stagnating? Right now, there is a culture war on intellectualism. That might never really fade, but if we have a more informed population, what is the danger in that, job market aside  

 

~~~

Spoiler

 

Now whether I personally agree with how this would be implemented by Mr. Sanders and co. is another story. Full disclosure, I haven't fully read this proposal (not that it would pass  ) but tbh the "Free College" aspect of Sander's campaign is part of the reason I was never fully on board with him during the primaries; it didn't seem fleshed out. I'd be excited if this was better, but again it won't pass or anything, so  

 

 

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

9 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Wow. Calm down?  

Not all colleges will "sell" a degree to anyone; admissions is still a thing and there are still plenty of schools that one can not just "get into" whether they have the money or not (charitable donations and family name aside  ) and I don't see why this should change that. Schools that are hard to get into based on merit alone won't suddenly say "to hell with it" and let anyone in. Colleges do not work merely on incentive, word of mouth, prestige, reputation and a hell of a lot more go into making up the popularity of a college. Yes, some are easy to get into and cheap and people may go to more of these, but "free" college would allow students that have the brains and the potential and merit to go to more expensive "better" colleges to do so, which is a + for us as a society, as these are the people who will more likely be contributing to the world in positive ways if we really think about it. Hell, even average and below average students that have the drive to get through college can benefit from going to college in some ways that are useful to society   (This is what I meant by "... an economic approach alone is the best way to look at this"  )

In order to maintain standards in colleges that have such standards, they might even lower their acceptance rates, or raise their bar on admissions. There would also be campus size and things of that nature to discuss, but thats logistics  

Even though more people will be applying (and going to college), what people go to which college will still be a huge factor worth considering, and essentially its totally possible that % ages will shrink. We won't suddenly have every person going to Ivy leagues or anything close. That being said, If we have 1000 people applying to college, the top 1% is vastly different from having 100,000 people applying to college; likewise, the bottom floor is also potentially raised, with just more people around that level. I won't get into national averages because its kind of a rabbit hole.  Some schools (not even just Ivy leagues) are already taking note of this and offering free or lowered tuition to students that are accepted but cannot afford college. Part of this is because they are rich or wealthy enough to do so, but it's also part of a greater mission or purpose.

Obviously the college = company system we have needs to be reformed as well, but my point is that the argument that "degrees will become less valuable" is overly simplistic, or at least not comprehensive enough to dismiss the idea of some form of "free" college entirely. There are simply more factors to discuss...

Such as the fact that the value of a degree - lets say a Bachelor's is already being tested and wrestled with in academic and economics, in some fields its no longer necessary, in some its not enough, and in general some groups of people are more likely to be successful or more capable of being successful economically without any degree past high school. The solution there is to reform or modify our idea of "college = success" and allow for more nuanced images of success stories in our narrative, which again goes back to changing how colleges are run like businesses. 

Ofc more people with bachelor's degrees means it will become less valued, but what does that mean about even further education? What does that mean about the current speed and efficacy of achieving the equivalent of a bachelors degree? In the true spirit of competition, doesn't this mean we are just pushing for the quality of society as a whole to be better? If we hold everyone to higher standards, does that naturally mean we are progressing as a society instead of stagnating? Right now, there is a culture war on intellectualism. That might never really fade, but if we have a more informed population, what is the danger in that, job market aside  

 

~~~

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Now whether I personally agree with how this would be implemented by Mr. Sanders and co. is another story. Full disclosure, I haven't fully read this proposal (not that it would pass  ) but tbh the "Free College" aspect of Sander's campaign is part of the reason I was never fully on board with him during the primaries; it didn't seem fleshed out. I'd be excited if this was better, but again it won't pass or anything, so  

 

 

 

 

Wow lol we do not see eye to eye at all 

You talk about over simplifying things yet you want to live in a world where everyone gets to have college degrees and good paying advanced jobs? Lmao.

Degrees are valuable because some people can have them but other people can't. Someone is going to have to flip burgers, that's just how the world works. 

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

Whether this bill passes or not, it's important to constantly remind the public what can be done if progressives are elected. The GOP constantly put up Obamacare repeal bills under Obama knowing they wouldn't pass for the same reason.

It can be done if Democrats are elected. The community college option was Hillary's policy long before Bernie decided he would be a Dem for a few months. The other policy for state schools was the adopted Democratic platform, which was a much welcomed compromise. 

Instead we got Trump, who doesn't give a **** about college affordability. He also won't lower interest on payments or offer a government service program to pay off loans. 

Maybe those who are affected by these issues will turn out and vote in the midterms and the general in 2020. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

53 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Wow lol we do not see eye to eye at all 

You talk about over simplifying things yet you want to live in a world where everyone gets to have college degrees and good paying advanced jobs? Lmao.

Degrees are valuable because some people can have them but other people can't. Someone is going to have to flip burgers, that's just how the world works. 

No. I'm not that optimistic for one thing  

For one, in what I was rambling about, I believe I implied that not everyone would have college degrees, some by choice (as again, degrees are not mandatory for success; esp. for certain groups of people demographically) and "Advanced" jobs is relative. What it takes to get a "Doctorate" or even a "Bachelors" and "Masters" today in some fields is vastly more advanced than it was in the past. It is another form of progress. If everyone has bachelor's degrees and on (again, they won't  ) all we would have to do is avoid stagnation, whether that be by national or federal incentive or statewide incentive or just institutional integrity (which is already a trait some more liberal, prestigious schools have on issues like this). Again, obviously not easy, but... "If degrees are easier to get, they become useless" still does not capture the reality of the situation or take in account some possible outcomes. 

We don't have to simply accept Capitalism's generally oppressive habits  I'm really just saying it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. In this system, there is always going to be a top and a bottom, you are right but is any sort of meaningful compromise really that radical? In lieu of completely forgoing capitalism as an economic-political system, I'd argue that changes of this nature are just and relatively feasible in comparison to the utopia some more radical than I are advocating for. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

9 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No. I'm not that optimistic for one thing  

For one, in what I was rambling about, I believe I implied that not everyone would have college degrees, some by choice (as again, degrees are not mandatory for success; esp. for certain groups of people demographically) and "Advanced" jobs is relative. What it takes to get a "Doctorate" or even a "Bachelors" and "Masters" today in some fields is vastly more advanced than it was in the past. It is another form of progress. If everyone has bachelor's degrees and on (again, they won't  ) all we would have to do is avoid stagnation, whether that be by national or federal incentive or statewide incentive or just institutional integrity (which is already a trait some more liberal, prestigious schools have on issues like this). Again, obviously not easy, but... "If degrees are easier to get, they become useless" still does not capture the reality of the situation or take in account some possible outcomes. 

We don't have to simply accept Capitalism's generally oppressive habits  I'm really just saying it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. In this system, there is always going to be a top and a bottom, you are right but is any sort of meaningful compromise really that radical? In lieu of completely forgoing capitalism as an economic-political system, I'd argue that changes of this nature are just and relatively feasible in comparison to the utopia some more radical than I are advocating for. 

The "oppressive" system in which we live under (lol)  allowed us to become the richest most advanced country on Earth in a fraction of the time most European countries have existed, so I'm cool with student debt.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

51 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

The "oppressive" system in which we live under (lol)  allowed us to become the richest most advanced country on Earth in a fraction of the time most European countries have existed, so I'm cool with student debt.

I like it.  America is the greatest because of student debt.  8-)

[Luc 4,776]

This kind of tax has been tried in Sweden and Belgium and failed to live on to expectations and Sanders should know that. It hurt economic growth and brought way, way less money for the govt than expected. The US is a bigger market but I doubt it'd be much different there.

And college is worth what it is thanks to what you learn. Most people arem't going to be able to complete college right away when it's free.

[MJHolland 12,725]

55 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

I like it.  America is the greatest because of student debt.  8-)

There's a reason millions of foreigners come to American colleges and universities for degrees and almost no Americans go to other countries. 

Our university system is far superior, that's why people pay for it. 

[Economy 52,844]

Ud probably have to tax it a lot tho no??

 

Also i still support having some tuition fee (a much lower one) to show ppl are serious

 

If its completely free people may be more inclined to give something a shot that they arent certain they really want and cost Governemnt money and waste time

[littlepotter 76,610]

Wait... Public colleges aren't free in the US?  

Public college in Lebanon is free, and they take the highest scorers... that ensures that the people who have what it takes but no money can still get education, but you'd have to be serious about it (which removes the argument of 'money only allows the serious ones to go to college'. Like no it allows rich people only.)

[President Biden 5,898]

17 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Well Senators should introduce legislation similar to Hillary's then. I haven't heard of any bills yet. 

But rn this is what progressives are doing. It obviously won't pass but at least it's gaining attention and will (hopefully) work in the Dems. favor in 2018 and 2020 when I think a moderate Dem. will run and win. 

A moderate democrat won't win. They aren't enthustic for the American people. We've had several now. The peoplewant ankther FDR

[littlepotter 76,610]

13 hours ago, Seeka said:

Degrees are already useless due to the needs of specialization. The trope A Degree in Useless is actually dying out as more jobs require degrees and especially very specific degrees. it also doesn't help when you're hired to do something, it is only that one job anymore. Not may jobs have you perform duties outside your role.

Degrees already mean nothing unless you have something worthy in your resume to back it up with. My brother has a degree in wildlife and fisheries. he's currently working full-time at Ingles.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/ADegreeInUseless

That covers why Humanities is seen as the main idea of the trope, but honestly it covers some of the other reasons I've stated on why degrees are already useless.

I hate how everything has become attached to 'getting a job'/'making money'. 

I am a top student and got a scholarship to study anything I wanted in one of my country's top colleges. I chose English and I Wanna Be With You sums up why: I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and alone (or sad). I can do any science/technology major and potentially make a fortune but who cares about getting a high paying job if I'm going to hate it? Isn't life about being happy? I'm happy spending the rest of my life reading books and listening to music. I've yet to see one successful businessman/engineer/etc. lead a happy life.