Personally, I like the idea of a free community college education. It's a good investment to educate citizens. This may truly be a moot point. Our boys took dual credit classes in high school and came close to starting college as juniors.

I do object to the outrageously luxurious facilities offered at college campuses. Those perks are for spoiled rich kids. The ones that can least afford it don't have many opportunities to utilize those facilities. They are too busy working and studying. I asked for a discounted tuition without the gym, pool, golf course, and stadium. I had young kids and lots of responsibility. I resented spending my hard earned money and unnecessary crap.

He wants to turn it into the new high school? I imagine that is what would happen - it would become almost worthless. Instead lets raise the bar on high schools - they are already free.

The big problem I see is that the good community colleges are already full. Even the poor ones generally aren't hurting for students. So where are all these new students going to go? I guess we will have to get more class room space and teachers...that competition is likely to drive the costs of teachers up, etc. so real costs are going to go up...

Just does not seem workable.

You know, in any other country this would be a good idea. In most of Europe, college is free, or nearly so.

However, in the US, the educational system is scared to fail anyone. Kids are passed to the next grade even when they shouldn't be; graduates from inner city high schools are too often practically illiterate and innumerate. Too many lower level universities have turned their first year into remedial courses, because everyone thinks they deserve a "world class" university education. Meanwhile, the federal loan program has led to huge increases in costs, creating an entire generation of indentured graduates.

Community colleges have been largely spared in this train wreck. Their tuition is still reasonable, their students are take courses because they really want to learn something. Paying the tuition themselves is a motivation to do well.

So now the government wants to repeat the mistakes it made in the university market? By making the tuition "free", unmotivated and uninterested students will show up. The "free" money will distort the market, leading to the same misplaced priorities and administrative bloat that universities have suffered. Meanwhile, whose money will really be picking up the bill?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

@ The Former Banker: High schools are not, of course, free. Rather the warehousing and indoctrination of children, together with its attendant bureaucratic aristocracy, is paid for by me.

I'm getting a bit sick of it, to tell the truth.

I dunno why Obama is trying to pay their tuition for free, when you can just catch a plane ride to Germany.

This guy isn't much at being President, but he has a great future in car sales. "It's free! Don't worry about the cost. It's free!" I can't think of a program where he hasn't used the same approach.

Personally, I like the idea of a free community college education. It's a good investment to educate citizens. ~ Posted by: Jen at January 8, 2015 8:51 PM

I thought the public investment to educate citizens was K-12.

Let's see. Our high schools have failed - the average high school student reads at a 5th grade level.

So, we'll fix the problem, not by fixing the high schools (which would require taking on the teachers' unions), but by adding two more years of public education.

Can't wait until the teachers' unions start demanding to represent community college instructors.

Not a sound plan.

Anyone else notice that the programs will have federal hoops to jump through? High graduation rates, etc.?

It takes the "community" out of community college.

All of the above are great points. But there's another thing... when the government proposes something like this, there's always a hidden agenda. What could it be here? How about a direct attack on the for-profit university industry? Free community college would hugely cut into the customer base for DeVry and things like that. And it would set up for further entitlements into the four-year realm, with the aim to shut down the University of Phoenix and its cohorts. The for-profit university sector is growing fast, and it clearly worries the government because it can't control this education channel or hijack it for indoctrination. To borrow an analogy, a great way to stop people from purchasing cows is to give away free milk. It's not until after cows become unavailable that you find out the milk is being drugged.

Interesting point, Cousin Dave. Although your theory presupposes a much more widespread conspiracy than I'm prepared to accept at this point, it merits some consideration.

The existing university bloc is definitely unsettled by the emergence of the likes of Phoenix, DeVry, et al.

This is such a terrible idea, I can barely fathom it coming out of someones mouth. Let's see, the "I don't care about school" crowd is going to drift in to community colleges-why not, it's free and beats working- which are largely at this point filled by people who DO care, both young adults working to improve grades/lessen the cost of their college, and older adults retraining. So they are all going to have their classes dumbed down and taken over by the saggy-pants sect, and no doubt will also have THEIR tuition jacked up into the stratosphere since they will, no doubt, not qualify for "free" tuition.

2.5 GPA? Really? That's a ridiculously low bar to set. I would consider that failing out, if one of my kids earned that, and we are going to pay for some other kids to do that crappily? Nope. Nope nope nope.

I keep thinking I can't hate progressives any more. Then they find ways to make me do so. And the ways they find always involve my money paying for someone else to get something.

"I thought the public investment to educate citizens was K-12."

Not even that actually. No where does the right to a K-12 education exist in Federal law. Most state constitutions require education at public expense through the eighth grade or to the age of 16, whatever comes first.

I dunno why Obama is trying to pay their tuition for free, when you can just catch a plane ride to Germany.

Posted by: gooseegg at January 9, 2015 6:31 AM

If I recall correctly, German colleges and universities have a rather high bar to entry. You have to perform very well on standardized tests to be admitted at all,

They deliberately direct most of their non academically inclined students into apprentiships, and trade schools at about the age of 16.

We have free colleges in the U.S too. Three of them are West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force academy.

Good luck getting in (and staying in). They require a lot more than just smarts.

For the people who think this is a bad idea, and that they are paying for someone else without receiving the benefit: *EVERYONE* benefits by an educated, skilled work force. If we converted all the subsidies for student loans into direct tuition payments, everyone would be able to go to most public universities for free. Instead, we force people to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt before they are even beginning their careers and then tell them "Hey, it's your fault you have so much debt."

Our parents and grandparents were able to pay for college by working various jobs while attending classes, but wages are so low and tuition so high now that there is no choice but to take loans to pay for it all. And students *still* have to work to pay rent and their other bills. And if you decide to go into a field that isn't known for being lucrative, you can expect that you will never own a house, and you will always have terrible interest rates to buy a car or other large purchases. And for what purpose? To make hedge fund and bank managers millions in free taxpayer money? Oh, but *that* free taxpayer money is ok because it went to a rich guy instead of paying for something that benefits *everyone*.

*EVERYONE* benefits by an educated, skilled work force. ~ Posted by: Netizen at January 9, 2015 10:56 AM

There's no oversight now in the student loan program now for proprietary trade schools that specialize in milking the program for all the funding they can get and close shop just before the government auditor shows up.

What makes you think that just giving the money way will work better?

If we converted all the subsidies for student loans into direct tuition payments, everyone would be able to go to most public universities for free. ~ Posted by: Netizen at January 9, 2015 10:56 AM

And everyone would get the same level of education they're getting in public high schools right now. That is, barely adequate.

"For the people who think this is a bad idea, and that they are paying for someone else without receiving the benefit: *EVERYONE* benefits by an educated, skilled work force"

Yes, the socialists have been spouting this nonsense for years.

In my life so far, a good plumber, good auto mechanic, good electrician, and a good gunsmith have all been about a hundred times more useful to me, than an entire university's worth of women's studies majors......

Exactly. And I love your service needs combo platter, Isab, with the gunsmith bringing up the rear.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at January 9, 2015 12:23 PM

My father was a gunsmith, and he made a very nice living at it, so if I was setting a priority list, gunsmith would have been the number one occupation contributing to my material, and personal well being.

Last, is not least. :-).

All of you remind me of a Republican I met one time at a county fair in 2005. He complained that he shouldn't have to pay property tax to support a school system that he didn't have any stake in since his kids had moved away and he didn't have anyone in his family in the local public school system. Then he went on to complain how terrible it was that the kids at the fair could identify GWB but not Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice or any of the other administration officials and went on further to bitch about how stupid the kids were for not being able to answer basic questions about the Constitution.

Education doesn't come cheap, and it is much more beneficial to put money into the system than to take it out. How did your plumber get to his/her place in life without school? Your mechanic? Your electrician? We can't all be plumbers, mechanics, electricians and gunsmiths. If you want to build a stable society which is able to lead the world in innovation and opportunity, the only way to do that is to have an educated populace. And the best way to have an educated populace is to make the barrier to entry low enough that it's accessible to everyone who wants to try. If countries like Germany and Sweden can manage to provide free education and free health care, we have zero excuse not to do so.

If you want to build a stable society which is able to lead the world in innovation and opportunity, the only way to do that is to have an educated populace. And the best way to have an educated populace is to make the barrier to entry low enough that it's accessible to everyone who wants to try. ~ Posted by: Netizen at January 9, 2015 1:02 PM

Let's be real here, free education is not taxpayers paying to educate people or their children. It's paying to placate them. And that doesn't build a stable society, it just delays the crack-up.

Once graduates get out of their less-than-rigorous free colleges and discover that their education means nothing in the world where results are expected, they're going to be the same angry idle poor they were before they were "educated."

==============================

Besides, at what point is it no longer my responsibility to pay to educate you or your children? I've already been paying for that education for 12 years.

At what point is it on you to take responsibility for your own life and that of your progeny?

==============================

Education doesn't come cheap.... ~ Posted by: Netizen at January 9, 2015 1:02 PM

Especially a "free" education.

From a Forbes article about that "free" German education:

Third-party payments lead to many unintended negative consequences. Recently, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons asserted that the third-party payment system is key to the increasing cost of health care. The same can be said about any industry that the consumer is not directly paying for the good consumed, including higher education.

The problem arises from the “Moral Hazard” associated with not paying for services. Because students are not sensitive to the costs associated with an additional year of higher education they will consume more of it. Progressive politicians may consider more higher education consumed a good thing, but I’m not talking about more students — which has other problems associated that I discuss below — but the same students taking longer to finish.

The United States has seen the rise of the five year degree. Of the 60% of students who graduate from public schools in the U.S., over half take longer than four years to graduate. Compare that with private institutions (there are natural differences in students at each type of school that pay a role) which see 80 percent of its graduates out in four years. Their sensitivity to the marginal cost of that fifth or sixth year factors into their decision to consume.

If everyone decided to take an extra year to graduate, because it was free, the burden of higher education on the public coffers would increase by 33% (if they took four as opposed to the European norm of three years to finish). Graduation rates are already a problem in Germany, which is known for its “Dauerstudenten” or “eternal students.” As The Local reports, German students fail to graduate on time, and the average graduation age (following master’s degree) is around 28 years old.

==============================

"Free" education also has an adverse impact on quality.

From ... wait for it ... Forbes:

Third-party payments can decrease academic quality. Students, less sensitive to costs, are less likely to hold a university accountable for an education that they aren’t paying for. Again we can look to the United States education system as an example: Public K-12 education has been criticized for its declining standards and educational outcomes, while the private K-12 system continues to flourish.

==============================

And who's paying for this?

Again, from Forbes:

Repaying this tuition will not be equal for all parties, and perhaps it shouldn’t be. It costs more to train an engineer than it does an English (or German) teacher. Technologies are costly, equipment, more expensive instructors etc. However, say two students both graduate in economics. They take the same courses from the same instructors at the same time, but after graduation one takes a job as a statistician for the government, being compensated a fraction of what his classmate who goes on to become the CFO of a major company makes. They “purchased” the same good, i.e. the economics degree training, but that training costs the CFO multitudes more than it does the Statistician.

==============================

And what about underemployment?

Once again, from Forbes:

According to recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Underemployment rate of recent college graduates is around 46%. A 2012 CCAP study shows similar findings. According to the Office of National Statistics, nearly half of graduates in the United Kingdom were working non-graduate jobs. Such figures suggest that too many are being funneled into higher education already. No tuition education will only increase the underemployment problem.

Is subsidizing the college education of everyone who can fog a mirror really the best use of taxpayer dollars?

Personally, I like the idea of a free community college education. It's a good investment to educate citizens.

You know, that's the argument on behalf of mandatory public schools, K-12. How's that working out for ya?

Education doesn't come cheap, and it is much more beneficial to put money into the system than to take it out.

And yet, we pour ever more dollars into the education system and get...what exactly? at best, mixed results. More than likely the results do not equate with the sheer amounts of money "invested".

We have free colleges in the U.S too. Three of them are West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force academy.

Free? doesn't one sign a contract that states they'll serve in their chosen branch of the military for another 6 years upon graduation, or failing to graduate either pay back what they've used or serve as an enlisted member for a set period?

Free? doesn't one sign a contract that states they'll serve in their chosen branch of the military for another 6 years upon graduation, or failing to graduate either pay back what they've used or serve as an enlisted member for a set period?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 9, 2015 2:27 PM

Do you make this argument because you think a European college education is actually *free* *free*. As in Santa Claus drops it off under the tree?

Yes, and not only are they paid while they are at the service academies, they are paid well for the active duty in the military after.

It isn't exactly slave labor, and they have ten people trying to get in for every one that is accepted.

You know how the military gets its doctors? They pay these same people to continue on to medical school at government expense, and then pay them well while they are in the military.

If you want your government student loans forgiven if you go to medical school as a civilian, all you have to do is agree to do your internship at the VA or in the military, plus work for them for a set period of years.

It is all voluntary. A fair exchange, and as free as anything gets in this day and age.

If countries like Germany and Sweden can manage to provide free education ... we have zero excuse not to do so. ~ Posted by: Netizen at January 9, 2015 1:02 PM

That "free" education in Sweden doesn't keep Swedish students from graduating with a mountain of debt.

http://qz.com/85017/college-in-sweden-is-free-but-students-still-have-a-ton-of-debt-how-can-that-be/

And yet, students in Germany and the UK have far lower debts than in Sweden. And 85% of Swedish students graduate with debt, versus only 50% in the US. Worst of all, new Swedish graduates have the highest debt-to-income ratios of any group of students in the developed world (according to estimates of what they’re expected to earn once they get out of school) — somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. The US, where we’re constantly being told that student debt is hitting crisis proportions, the average is more like 60%. Why?

College in Sweden is free. But rent isn’t. And food isn’t. Neither is the beer that fuels the relatively infrequent, yet legendary, binges in which some Swedes partake. Costs of living in Sweden are high, especially in cities such as Stockholm, which regularly ranks among the world’s most expensive places to live. But again, this stuff isn’t free for students in other European countries either. So why do Swedish students end up with more debt? It’s pretty simple, actually. In Sweden, young people are expected to pay for things themselves instead of sponging off their parents.

There is always enough money for free stuff.

"And the best way to have an educated populace is to make the barrier to entry low enough that it's accessible to everyone who wants to try. If countries like Germany and Sweden can manage to provide free education and free health care, we have zero excuse not to do so."

Germany and Sweden have small, homogenous populations and exist only on the benefice of the US Military maintaining world order. They've also got plenty of problems of their own, so comparing our bloated apples to their tiny oranges is pretty useless. Nor is there much of a barrier to entry here in our country. You can take classes at a local community college for less than $200 a semester. The difference is, if it's YOUR $200, you're damn well showing up for class (and if you don't, you hurt no one but yourself). If someone else pays? Well, no real loss to you if you don't go, is there? Anyone with even a thimbleful of motivation can obtain an education to at least the community college level. Those who can't be bothered are certainly not the people we want to be making a public investment in.

it would make MORE sense to say your final 2 years of college, at a state school, are free if you've satisfactorily finished the 1st 2 years somewhere. Not that I want that, but at least it makes SOME sense and gives some motivation.