Do you think Higher Education in America should be completely funded by taxes?

[TNF]

There are other ways to reduce the cost of education than to subsidize it with taxes completely.

And what would those be?

[DC Al Fine]

There are other ways to reduce the cost of education than to subsidize it with taxes completely.

And what would those be?

Well subsidize it with taxes partially, for one

[MurrayBannerman]

There are other ways to reduce the cost of education than to subsidize it with taxes completely.

And what would those be?

Like capping administrator salaries, which are incredibly bloated and have drastically expanded. Also, forcing universities to downsize their administrative staff of "diversity specialists" and "sustainability coordinators" will be on the table as well.

[Indy Texas]

You could make the argument that between the early 20th century and the 1970s or so, Americans basically had all of their education provided for free in the sense that you could very easily obtain a middle-class job by only using the free, compulsory K-12 education paid for by state and local taxes.

The biggest problem is that over the past 20 years or so, states have reduced public funding for state universities and required students to pay a larger portion of the cost as a result. It amounts to a generational wealth transfer from Gen X-ers and Millennials to Baby Boomers who got nearly-free university education and then turned around and decided no one is "entitled to handouts." Because Baby Boomers are pretty much the most horrible generation this country has ever produced and I'm all for calling their bluff and making them eat cat food with Ryan Budget-level SSI benefits when they're 80.

[MurrayBannerman]

You could make the argument that between the early 20th century and the 1970s or so, Americans basically had all of their education provided for free in the sense that you could very easily obtain a middle-class job by only using the free, compulsory K-12 education paid for by state and local taxes.

The biggest problem is that over the past 20 years or so, states have reduced public funding for state universities and required students to pay a larger portion of the cost as a result. It amounts to a generational wealth transfer from Gen X-ers and Millennials to Baby Boomers who got nearly-free university education and then turned around and decided no one is "entitled to handouts." Because Baby Boomers are pretty much the most horrible generation this country has ever produced and I'm all for calling their bluff and making them eat cat food with Ryan Budget-level SSI benefits when they're 80.

I like this guy.

[anvi]

I'm entirely on board with cutting university administrative staff and salaries.  They've exploded over the past forty years and are currently insane.  They either greatly inflate tuition costs or, in states with tuition caps, they get financed through crushing student fees.  On top of that, most of the new administrative ranks don't know what universities are for and run them horribly.  Cuts in this area definitely get my vote.

[Matty]

Think of how many brilliant minds have been prevented from going to college because we have decided to subject it to the free-market price system. Why should your income determine whether or not you go to college? In most Euro nations, college is almost completely free or students pay a paltry tuition.

[MurrayBannerman]

Think of how many brilliant minds have been prevented from going to college because we have decided to subject it to the free-market price system. Why should your income determine whether or not you go to college? In most Euro nations, college is almost completely free or students pay a paltry tuition.

Except, they're not free market. They're treated as state entities, which gives the private universities significant pricing power.

[AggregateDemand]

Think of how many brilliant minds have been prevented from going to college because we have decided to subject it to the free-market price system. Why should your income determine whether or not you go to college? In most Euro nations, college is almost completely free or students pay a paltry tuition.

An industry awash in government-backed educational loans is a free-market? I'm not convinced.

[AggregateDemand]

Economics of positive rights or entitlements? Please speak English, not libertarian. Thanks.

Copyrights are the greatest form of corporate nanny-statism because they grant people a monopoly over an idea. Why should anyone have the right to claim ownership of an idea or process? It's fringe logic that belongs in the ashbin of history.

Copyrights and patents are vital human rights. When a movie studio is required to pay JK Rowling for the rights to produce Harry Potter, I'm not sure how that can be construed as corporate nanny-statism.

For basic human rights, the method of administration is everything. Once upon a time, individuals and industry could patent something as general as an automobile. Thankfully, patent enforcement has changed. Today, we have problems with companies owning intellectual and creative property beyond the artists death, but this doesn't mean that the entire intellectual property system is corrupt.

A decade ago, some people believed that open source would replace intellectual property. Excluding a few industries, it hasn't come to pass.

[King]

Can you say "one size fits all"??

You do know people still get to chose which school they get to go to?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Can you say "one size fits all"??

You do know people still get to chose which school they get to go to?

Don't be silly, King. People only get to choose under Freedom and Liberty and the Magic of the Market, but when The Government gets involved...blah blah socialist coercion etc. et al.

[Matty]

What is the difference between being coerced by free market higher education and being coerced by government? At least the latter doesn't restrict access.

[AggregateDemand]

You could make the argument that between the early 20th century and the 1970s or so, Americans basically had all of their education provided for free in the sense that you could very easily obtain a middle-class job by only using the free, compulsory K-12 education paid for by state and local taxes.

The biggest problem is that over the past 20 years or so, states have reduced public funding for state universities and required students to pay a larger portion of the cost as a result. It amounts to a generational wealth transfer from Gen X-ers and Millennials to Baby Boomers who got nearly-free university education and then turned around and decided no one is "entitled to handouts." Because Baby Boomers are pretty much the most horrible generation this country has ever produced and I'm all for calling their bluff and making them eat cat food with Ryan Budget-level SSI benefits when they're 80.

Basically the story of the United States for all entitlements. You can't exclude the Greatest Generation though. They pummeled the baby-boomers with Medicare taxes, and they turned Gen X and Gen Y middle class programs into the Welfare state. It wouldn't be so galling if the welfare state had achieved something beside institutionalizing poverty.

[H. Ross Peron]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

[SWE]

Maybe not 100% free, but it should certainly be heavily subsidized. Anything over $1000/semester or so is absurd.

[MurrayBannerman]

Let's tip toe around the problem and cause more spending inefficiency instead of actually solving the problem. Yay...

[Matty]

Can't get much more inefficient than it is now. Why should someone with a brilliant mind live a  blue-collar life because of his parents' financial situation?

[MurrayBannerman]

Can't get much more inefficient than it is now. Why should someone with a brilliant mind live a  blue-collar life because of his parents' financial situation?

I'm currently in college with a family income of less than $10,000.

It's more than possible to go to college with that situation.

Fix the inefficiencies and then we'll talk about outstanding debt.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I'm at one of the top 50-100 universities in the country depending on your ranking.

[Indy Texas]

You could make the argument that between the early 20th century and the 1970s or so, Americans basically had all of their education provided for free in the sense that you could very easily obtain a middle-class job by only using the free, compulsory K-12 education paid for by state and local taxes.

The biggest problem is that over the past 20 years or so, states have reduced public funding for state universities and required students to pay a larger portion of the cost as a result. It amounts to a generational wealth transfer from Gen X-ers and Millennials to Baby Boomers who got nearly-free university education and then turned around and decided no one is "entitled to handouts." Because Baby Boomers are pretty much the most horrible generation this country has ever produced and I'm all for calling their bluff and making them eat cat food with Ryan Budget-level SSI benefits when they're 80.

Basically the story of the United States for all entitlements. You can't exclude the Greatest Generation though. They pummeled the baby-boomers with Medicare taxes, and they turned Gen X and Gen Y middle class programs into the Welfare state. It wouldn't be so galling if the welfare state had achieved something beside institutionalizing poverty.

You say that as though poverty didn't exist before the mid-20th century.

I've read a lot of Joe Bageant's writings on growing up in rural Appalachia and one thing both the Left and the Right overlook about modern poverty is the extent to which it was as much a cause of urbanization as it was of any government policy or lack thereof. You had poor blacks and poor whites who for hundreds of years had basically lived very meager lives as subsistence farmers with little connection to the market economy beyond buying seeds and basic materials like cloth and flour.

And when those people stopped doing that and moved into low-wage service jobs in cities and small towns (or large cities, particularly with blacks), their entire way of life and support system was basically torn to shreds. So it's not all that surprising that some of them would start having problems with drugs or alcohol, or unstable marriages and families. Who were the people moving into all those big housing projects in St. Louis and Chicago and Detroit in the 1950s? They were people from the rural South. It was their first time in the "big city." Some of them had never had to do things like pay rent or open bank accounts before.

The fact that that urban migration happened shortly before the War on Poverty began doesn't imply that the War on Poverty caused the trajectory so many of those people went down.

[ingemann]

I live in a country where most higher education are free (there are a few exceptions). I of course support it, but when I read this thread, one element seem clear, people have very little idea about how such a system would work. There are nothing wrong with that, because it's an entire different system, few people here have experienced. But I think it can be interesting for the discussion, if I give an example of how it can work.

In a the Danish free system, it's usual not expected that everyone goes to college/university, in fact the access are limited by grades and subjects people have received in secondary education.

The so called liberal art education are rather limited and the education lay much more weight on practical use. Of course this are a result of high schools usual being the place where people are taught the liberal art education. So it's a much more specialised education you enter. If you want to be economist, lawyer, doctor, nurse etc. You start in a specialised education from the start. There are some exception Roskilde and Aalborg universities start with a more broad education from the start, but still you have to choose between hard sciences (chemistry, physics etc.), soft science(economy, sociology etc.) or humanities (history, literature etc) from the start on those two universities (both these universities also have a lower reputation than Copenhagen, Aarhus and DTU, which are much more specialised).

I think both these elements are unavoidable in a free system, you have to limit the access to universities and second you have to produce more practical education. Of course that's also easier, simply due to the fact that the students are no longer the consumer, rather the state are the consumer and it demand students who are useful for society.

Who benefit? Well of course the state benefit, but the group of people who gain the most are the middle class who no longer need to carry the financial burden of their children gaining a higher education. The poor also gain from it, but their benefit are smaller as children from poor families tend to have lower grades. For the rich there little benefits one way or another. It's not more expensive for them, because the state don't give the universities more money than in USA), through they have the benefit of a well educated work force.

The losers are the universities, who are forced to deliver a higher quality products and have to negotiate the with the state which are in a stronger negotiation position. So they receive fewer money per students than their American counterparts. Of course they gain the benefit of more mature and goal oriented students.

[AggregateDemand]

You say that as though poverty didn't exist before the mid-20th century.

I've read a lot of Joe Bageant's writings on growing up in rural Appalachia and one thing both the Left and the Right overlook about modern poverty is the extent to which it was as much a cause of urbanization as it was of any government policy or lack thereof. You had poor blacks and poor whites who for hundreds of years had basically lived very meager lives as subsistence farmers with little connection to the market economy beyond buying seeds and basic materials like cloth and flour.

And when those people stopped doing that and moved into low-wage service jobs in cities and small towns (or large cities, particularly with blacks), their entire way of life and support system was basically torn to shreds. So it's not all that surprising that some of them would start having problems with drugs or alcohol, or unstable marriages and families. Who were the people moving into all those big housing projects in St. Louis and Chicago and Detroit in the 1950s? They were people from the rural South. It was their first time in the "big city." Some of them had never had to do things like pay rent or open bank accounts before.

The fact that that urban migration happened shortly before the War on Poverty began doesn't imply that the War on Poverty caused the trajectory so many of those people went down.

It's a reasonable alternative theory, as long as you ignore the workings of the welfare state.

People who study the Welfare state find decades of abuse. Marginal tax rates in excess of 100% for welfare recipients. Improper use of non-cash benefits due to paternalistic mistrust between the public and the poor. Abuse of minimum wage laws. Abuse of rent controls at the local level, and poor project planning. Piracy of Medicaid by senior citizens. Failure by the education system in poor areas. Suppression of birth control and abortion services by moral-busy-body conservatives, which proliferates generational suffering. Then add the war on drugs.

Since the public judges the war on poverty by its moral intentions, not its effectiveness, the oppression continues. I'm sure the cultural changes during the 20th century were quite taxing on the rural subsistence farmers, but the war on poverty has turned economic transition into economic apocalypse for about 15% of the nation.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If by higher we're talking post secondary, something needs done.  Kids have enough student loans that could buy them a huge house.

[Randy Bobandy]

Absolutely. Most non-Americans would agree that education is a very basic human right. Being "Number 1", the U.S. should be willing to provide an education to every single one of its citizens.

[ajackson]

I would support a refundable tax credit that covered 70-80% of the cost. a) I wouldn't want to create any additional bureaucracy (a new agency or government "program") and b) students should have considerable skin in the game - which will cut back on waste.