Slashdot Mirror
Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College
An anonymous reader writes with news about a White House proposal that would provide 2 years of free community college for good students."President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community college tuition to American students who maintain good grades. 'Put simply, what I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everyone who's willing to work for it,' Obama said in a video filmed Wednesday aboard Air Force One and posted to Facebook. He made the announcement as part of his pre-State of the Union tour and will formally lay out the proposal Friday in a speech in Tennessee. The White House estimated it would save the average community college student $3,800 annually and said it could benefit nine million if fully realized."
As in somebody else pays for it...
But still, it might be ok if the covered courses are useful, and not just "community organizer" type courses. That is to say, something that will train for a marketable skill.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I understand worth means different things to different people, but a 2 year degree will be worth nothing only if you place absolutely no value in knowledge.
As usual, it's poor people providing subsidies for the rich.
Rich people pay more in taxes... If not, maybe you should address that... But let it be a separate issue.
I'm constantly surprised at how Americans manage to see the bad in every government service provided. In most other modern countries services such as this is what enables poor people to climb. It's the thing that reduces negative social heritage (you have a lot of that in the US)..
Note, just because a government makes it easier to climb out of poverty does not make it trivial. I've never been poor, but because tuition and living expenses was covered for me during university, doesn't mean I didn't have to work hard to earn a degree.
And why is he doing it? Not because it helps students, but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.
How is giving every kid with good grades the opportunity to get more than a high school education without having finaces be an overriding consideration?
Of course it helps the students. The best thing in the world to improve the odds for success in life is more education.
And the first 2 years of college/university are worlds apart from what you learned in grade 12.
but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.
Fascinating world view you have there.
That's two years out of the workforce, two years of not paying into retirement, and no benefit, since those students will simply be competing against each other for the same jobs anyway.
Good point. We should end public education at grade 4. Its just years they aren't in the work force, and of no benefit since they'll just be competing each other for the same jobs anyway; and all it does is reduce the need for corporations to train people themselves.
I mean, everyone does work for a corporation right? There aren't ~20 million sole-proprieterships in the country. And there certainly aren't another 40 million+ people working for small to medium businesses.
It's a gigantic ripoff, both of students and tax payers.
Seriously. Sarcasm off. More available education is one of the best things we can do for the country. This isn't no-child-left-behind sillyness... this is about making sure students who can and would succeed at post-secondary school get to go.
What would be a better use of tax dollars in the long run?
That isn't the case in other countries with free college education (i.e. most of Europe).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You pretty much hit the nail on its head. When most governments take socialist action, it is because of socialist motives (people demanded it). When US takes socialist action, it is because of capitalist motives (businesses lobbied for it). So cost controls, either through regulation or via competition with the public options (in US, public option often ends up being publicly-funded option, rather than publicly-run option) are quickly ruled out as infeasible or unfair for privates. Then everybody nods their heads on how government is not the solution.
This is not to say that a bit of this does not happen in other countries, but seems to be especially problematic in US.
In fact, do you have a degree from ANY university in America? If so, then you were on the public dole. It is simply a matter of how much support you had. I 'put myself' through school back in 79-83. Of course, rent, tuition, fees, etc were well within the minimum wage amount. And after the first year of living in Colorado, I was given in-state tuition where 95% of the costs was paid by the state. IOW, that I 'put myself' through school was still subsidized.
So, get over yourself.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Adam Smith's capitalism isn't what is in charge today. Why talk about some idealized version of capitalism that never was, beyond small town bakers that Adam Smith observed (you are not the only one who has read some economics). The world moved on. Its better to read Piketty than Smith to keep up with the times.
BTW, it makes it a lot easier to cuss and complain when you are anonymous, doesn't it. Does it feel good?