4 Years of College or 1 Year of Full Day Pre Kindergarten (1 Viewer)

[jvdesigns2002]

In your opinion what would a better use of public money and infrastructure?   A Full Day Pre Kindergarten program for 3-4 year olds or a 4 year college degree for 18-22 year olds (Public School).

The question is to be asked from all perspectives.  The Kid, The Parents, Society in general.

I'd easily vote college because not everybody has or wants children.   If the government was going to spend that kind of money for one of those programs--it better be a program that has the potential to benefit every tax payer--and not every tax payer has children.  I'd also ask why the college education would be limited to 18-22 year olds.  If a 22+ tax paying citizen doensn't have a college degree and wanted to go back to school and get one--why leave them out in this hypothetical? 

 

[Quez]

You can get a college education for free if you are motivated.  I'm not even talking about scholarships.  There's tons of free courses out there.  A degree on the other hand, those can get pricey....  

 

[The Ref]

I'd easily vote college because not everybody has or wants children.   If the government was going to spend that kind of money for one of those programs--it better be a program that has the potential to benefit every tax payer--and not every tax payer has children.  I'd also ask why the college education would be limited to 18-22 year olds.  If a 22+ tax paying citizen doensn't have a college degree and wanted to go back to school and get one--why leave them out in this hypothetical? 

It's a fair question but for purposes of this discussion let's leave it to very recent high school graduates.

 

[BowieMercs]

You can get a college education for free if you are motivated.  I'm not even talking about scholarships.  There's tons of free courses out there.  A degree on the other hand, those can get pricey....  

Very few people have the time or money to get an education purely for the sake of enlightenment. The degree is typically used as "evidence of education". People with degrees typically make more than people who have no degrees. 

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm not sure what you're proposing.  That the government pay people a full salary to stay home with their kids?

Not proposing anything.  Just putting forth the argument that the education on the back end is a better value.  I just believe most two parent families would be better off with one parent taking a year off to cover the pre-K year and getting the free 4 years of college v. taking the free one year of pre-K and both continuing to work knowing the 4 years on the backend is at their or their kid's expense.

 

[The Ref]

58/42 in favor of college so far.  I have to admit I figured it would be more slanted towards college.

i voted Kindergarten for a bunch of different reasons.

There are lots of studies (some self serving by educators) that show that a year of pre Kindergarten is tremendously beneficial.  

Socialization of kids at an early age is healthy.

A year of child care at 3-4 can be well over $1000 a month most of which goes to defray insurance costs by private providers.  Public schools have tremendous economies of scale that make it much cheaper in this reguard.

Allows parents to re-enter or scale back up on careers.

makes sure kids get proper nutrition at least once a day.

Adding a year of Pre-K is actually achievable without a massive political fight. 

 

[The Commish]

I'd easily vote college because not everybody has or wants children.   If the government was going to spend that kind of money for one of those programs--it better be a program that has the potential to benefit every tax payer--and not every tax payer has children.  I'd also ask why the college education would be limited to 18-22 year olds.  If a 22+ tax paying citizen doensn't have a college degree and wanted to go back to school and get one--why leave them out in this hypothetical? 

  Not every tax payer wants to go to college either....not sure of the distinction here.  Applying the 80/20 rule seems appropriate to this topic.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

  Not every tax payer wants to go to college either....not sure of the distinction here.  Applying the 80/20 rule seems appropriate to this topic.

Yeah--but this hypothetical would involve creating one of the costliest expenditures of tax payers money--and only allowing the benefit to those who procreate is far more unfair--than somebody having the choice and opportunity to take college courses but choosing not to.  Basically--if you don't have kids--you are absolutely shut out of the program if you go for the non college route.  If you go the college route--every person has a decision to make.  However--he just threw out the caveat that it would only be open to 18-22 year olds--which I think is rather strange and unnecessary.  

With that being said --- A more knowledgable citizenry will more likely be more successful financially, will more likely make better and more prepared decisions--the worker productivity and efficiency would rise which would lead to better economic conditions for the populous--and this would probably end up leading to people actually having children in a better and more prosperous enviornment.  For these reasons--I'd still vote for the college route. 

 

[Ignoramus]

I'd easily vote college because not everybody has or wants children.

Of course not everyone has children but how do college-aged kids get here?

 

[Thorpe]

Kindergarten...

College isn't for most people.  Most people don't get a lot out of college, outside of the partying.  Why should they party on the taxpayer's dime?  There should be a lot of scholarships available but not free IMO.

 

[belljr]

I spent way more on college than i did for my kids Pre-K/daycare

kindergarten was in our regular school system.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah--but this hypothetical would involve creating one of the costliest expenditures of tax payers money--and only allowing the benefit to those who procreate is far more unfair--than somebody having the choice and opportunity to take college courses but choosing not to.  Basically--if you don't have kids--you are absolutely shut out of the program if you go for the non college route.  If you go the college route--every person has a decision to make.  However--he just threw out the caveat that it would only be open to 18-22 year olds--which I think is rather strange and unnecessary.  

With that being said --- A more knowledgable citizenry will more likely be more successful financially, will more likely make better and more prepared decisions--the worker productivity and efficiency would rise which would lead to better economic conditions for the populous--and this would probably end up leading to people actually having children in a better and more prosperous enviornment.  For these reasons--I'd still vote for the college route. 

Why do you keep attributing the benefits of Pre-K to parents but the benefit of college to the students?  Seems inconsistent.

 

[higgins]

In a way I think educating future generations through college is a matter of national security -- how many Chinese college grads are going to be out there in the future? I'd definitely choose college with the following caveats:

  -- Must maintain a certain minimum GPA to continue once in the program.

  -- Must be one of a number of different programs including science, engineering, math, medicine, education, certain business/econ majors, etc., etc. from major public universities; and, trade schools, nursing, and chemical dependence counseling  from community colleges.

  -- I have zero idea how the financing would work but in no way, shape or form should current educational rates apply -- colleges should not be "for profit".

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Of course not everyone has children but how do college-aged kids get here?

Did you read my original post?  I said that I'd vote for the college option--but said that it was absurd that the option only be available to 18-22 year olds.  I said the college option shoud be available to any tax paying citizen in the given hypothetical. The OP then said for the sake of this thread--to formulate an opinion with the premise of only 18-22 year olds for college.   That certainly made things far closer in my mind--but I still went with the college option.  You have to look at what you expect the future work climate to look like.  I personally feel like that 10-20 years from now--the number of jobs that don't require a certain level of higher education will be far fewer than they are now.   Unless the OP puts in a caveat that high schools will integrate some sort of trade school type curriculum--I would still vote for the college option because of this.   

 

[TheAristocrat]

I don't even remember what I majored in in Kindergarten.

 

[Ilov80s]

In a way I think educating future generations through college is a matter of national security -- how many Chinese college grads are going to be out there in the future? I'd definitely choose college with the following caveats:

  -- Must maintain a certain minimum GPA to continue once in the program.

  -- Must be one of a number of different programs including science, engineering, math, medicine, education, certain business/econ majors, etc., etc. from major public universities; and, trade schools, nursing, and chemical dependence counseling  from community colleges.

  -- I have zero idea how the financing would work but in no way, shape or form should current educational rates apply -- colleges should not be "for profit".

I think the idea is that pre-K might help more kids get off to a better start in school and hopefully end up with the skills that allow them to be successful in college.

 

[Ignoramus]

Did you read my original post?  I said that I'd vote for the college option--but said that it was absurd that the option only be available to 18-22 year olds.  I said the college option shoud be available to any tax paying citizen in the given hypothetical. The OP then said for the sake of this thread--to formulate an opinion with the premise of only 18-22 year olds for college.   That certainly made things far closer in my mind--but I still went with the college option.  You have to look at what you expect the future work climate to look like.  I personally feel like that 10-20 years from now--the number of jobs that don't require a certain level of higher education will be far fewer than they are now.   Unless the OP puts in a caveat that high schools will integrate some sort of trade school type curriculum--I would still vote for the college option because of this.   

No, once you said you were in favor of the college option because "not everybody has or wants children" I figured you were an MoP alias and the rest of your post would be equally illogical so I stopped reading.

I also didn't read much of your reply to me, either.

 

[The Ref]

I spent way more on college than i did for my kids Pre-K/daycare

kindergarten was in our regular school system.

That's fair.  It would also presumably cost much less money for the public to absorb the cost of adding Pre-K for everyone than 4 years of public college.  I think that's a factor here as well.

 

[higgins]

I think the idea is that pre-K might help more kids get off to a better start in school and hopefully end up with the skills that allow them to be successful in college.

Yeah, I'm admittedly no education expert but I have a tough time buying that pre-K would make that much of a difference. The only thing I remember from nursery school / K is nap time and shoe-lace-tying. Not buying it...

 

[EYLive]

There's less crying in kindergarten.

 

[Jayrod]

Pre-k can help lay an early foundation across the board, plus one less year of child care would be a financial boost to working families.

I just don't know about the benefit of college for all.  As long as there is a serious push towards vocational education within that framework I can see that tipping the scale toward college.

If it's just free college to everyone in the system we have now, I'd vote pre-K.

 

[Pipes]

58/42 in favor of college so far.  I have to admit I figured it would be more slanted towards college.

i voted Kindergarten for a bunch of different reasons.

There are lots of studies (some self serving by educators) that show that a year of pre Kindergarten is tremendously beneficial.  

Socialization of kids at an early age is healthy.

A year of child care at 3-4 can be well over $1000 a month most of which goes to defray insurance costs by private providers.  Public schools have tremendous economies of scale that make it much cheaper in this reguard.

Allows parents to re-enter or scale back up on careers.

makes sure kids get proper nutrition at least once a day.

Adding a year of Pre-K is actually achievable without a massive political fight. 

Those voters didn't run the numbers. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Yeah, I'm admittedly no education expert but I have a tough time buying that pre-K would make that much of a difference. The only thing I remember from nursery school / K is nap time and shoe-lace-tying. Not buying it...

There are mixed studies have some have cited here. I posted a NYT piece that does a decent job covering this. Some States have actual curriculum and trained teachers running it and studies in those cases seem to point to the kids making up a good amount of ground in reading and ultimately led to lower incarceration rates, unemployment rates, etc. You should see the gap between kids entering K/1st grade in reading. Some kids enter reading at like a 3rd grade level and some come up still learning their letters. Kids that come from homes that aren't spending time teaching them to read and don't spend a lot of time talking with their kids have seemed to benefit a lot from structured and well planned pre-K. 

 

[higgins]

There are mixed studies have some have cited here. I posted a NYT piece that does a decent job covering this. Some States have actual curriculum and trained teachers running it and studies in those cases seem to point to the kids making up a good amount of ground in reading and ultimately led to lower incarceration rates, unemployment rates, etc. You should see the gap between kids entering K/1st grade in reading. Some kids enter reading at like a 3rd grade level and some come up still learning their letters. Kids that come from homes that aren't spending time teaching them to read and don't spend a lot of time talking with their kids have seemed to benefit a lot from structured and well planned pre-K. 

Thank you for sharing -- was not aware.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I think they like learn stuff too. 

My son loves PreK. They read, they learn social interactions, they make friends, and they have jobs.

He was the meal helper today, they rotate jobs - he was all excited while I was taking him today, telling me how he was going to help the teachers get the food during lunch. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

No, once you said you were in favor of the college option because "not everybody has or wants children" I figured you were an MoP alias and the rest of your post would be equally illogical so I stopped reading.

I also didn't read much of your reply to me, either.

Okay?  Didn't see a need to be snarky there--but whatever.