[chillwaves]

Because the argument is society reaps the benefit of an educated populace, secondly yes, everyone should pay for qualified individuals to go to college, as most or much of the civilized world does.

That does not mean free college for everyone. There would still be a stringent entrance exam. It means free college for those who are qualified.

Contrast that to the system now where college is seen as just another marketing device to squeeze profit out of the young and naive. This is not healthy for society and it is not sustainable.

By the way, your jab about publicly funded college tuition being a "fairy tale" flies in the face of the reality of many, many, many countries. Completely unnecessary and ignorant comment.

[somethingwitty1]

So by keeping out the "unqualified" we continue to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots? I'm not suggesting that is your intention behind the statement, but that is the harsh reality of what will happen. A policy like this will continue to discriminate against the poor and those stuck in areas without access to decent primary/secondary education (inner-city comes to mind).

Despite the numerous issues with the american primary/secondary education system, I'd imagine you'd struggle to find many arguing that making secondary education free to everyone (qualified or not) wasn't a net benefit for the US.

It is my personal feeling that the entrance exams that used to exist as a barrier to secondary education were awful and unfair. Everyone should have a right to choose their direction, instead of being told you have to start a job/family. Based on the success of eliminating that barrier, I feel opening up university/college to everyone should be the goal of any civilized society.

[alkonaut]

Free higher education is usually seen as the biggest helper of social mobility.

In the US there is one more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: the use of local school funding in school districts. Had schools been properly funded with more funds going to schools that need more resources (I.e schools where parents don't have higher education get more money per student than schools where they do) then having grades/tests as a qualification for free can be done without discriminating.

[madengr]

Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance.

[alkonaut]

> Spending more does not help. Spending per pupil in Washington, DC is possibly the highest in the nation, with the most abysmal performance.

Perhaps even more needs to be spent, or the money is spent the wrong way? It would otherwise seem as though DC students are impossible to teach - which seems odd.

[pokemongoaway]

This seems like a very common line of thinking on the "liberal" & "democrat" side of the "debates." That in situations that already have money being spent on them - and are not going to plan - all of the best solutions involve spending more...

[alkonaut]

The solution might be spending differently or changing other things that are budget neutral, such as the curriculum.

But in 90% of cases throwing money at it will help most problems a politician will face. More teachers or better teachers is doable without more money but it's hard. That means you need better school administrators that will attract and develop good teachers - but it's the same argument again - how will you get those?

The objection might be that it's not the most efficient use of money - which depending on your political views might be more or less terrible.

[jrs95]

But is the benefit society gets from a college educated populace really worth the cost? I feel like there are a decent number of degree programs which we would never get a return on our investment for subsidizing, so making it free for studying any topic seems foolish. Plus, job specific training could be just as good or better than a 4 year degree in many cases, and that would take far less time and be much cheaper.

[somethingwitty1]

It depends on what we feel is beneficial to society. Is financial return the only thing we should care about? I'm not a philosopher/artist, etc, but I feel they are important to society, regardless of whether they generate financial gain. We should be providing as many opportunities as possible, not putting financial barriers on education.

These are the similar arguments that went on in the late 1800's and well into the 1900's. Society (at that time) determined it was not beneficial or better to simply do job-specific training. So they opened up secondary education to everyone, for free. I'm happy they did and feel it was great for society, despite the cost. I'd like to believe we've progressed enough as a society to open the next levels of education to everyone as well.

It doesn't mean it is right for everyone, but the individual should be able to choose. They shouldn't be barred because they don't have money or the right activities on their transcript.

[jrs95]

In this case, I do think it's what we ought to care about. We have serious problems related to job skills and underemployment that need to be addressed far more than philosophy/art/etc needs to be subsidized. I'm especially opposed to just flooding our existing institutions with money, since they seem poorly equipped to deliver what's needed economically for either their students or for society in general. We could do a much better job of improving education by reforming K-12 than we could by just pumping money into our higher education system imo

[wfo]

And indeed there were people arguing against high school education across the board for everyone: not all students needed to go to high school, they were better served not learning any history or mathematics or science or civics or ethics or English or geography or about the modern world and instead going to an apprenticeship in a trade at 12 or 13, where they would toil for the rest of their lives. The few elites could go to high school and study more lofty topics required to make serious decisions, since they were, after all, destined by virtue of the fortunes of their birth to be the rulers and decision makers in society.

But high school for all is generally considered by everyone to be a Good Thing and having a more educated populace is good for everyone: jobs change, times change, and generally educated, intellectually flexible citizens are better able to adapt with the times, vote intelligently, be part of modern communities, etc. You can go to a trade school after high school.

We've come along far enough it's time to recognize that high school is no longer good enough as a general education, and that's a good thing: a college education where students study philosopy, history, science, mathematics is now the basic standard for an educated citizen and we should provide it to them regardless of how wealthy their parents are or how well they take IQ tests.

[maxerickson]

Yes, the goal should be to offer university as an option to already well educated 17 year olds.

(rather than the creeping credentialism we choose now)

[pokemongoaway]

This logic requires your definition of educational systems to be inherently beneficial and also financially a net-win for graduates. If you turn this around and say that educational systems don't always produce better workers than the self-taught and the apprentices, then we must say they are not necessarily "better than nothing." Which is why it is super reasonable for many of us not to want our tax money going to them!

[stale2002]

Having an educated population certainly has societal benefits.

But there is more than one way to become educated.

I am not convinced that college is the most cost effective method of producing an educated population.