Education System in America: What's the Next Step? (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans.  Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt.  The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far).  I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.

Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me.  Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.    

I don't think "unfairness" should ever be out of bounds.  

But I think we're using the concept of "fairness" differently.  We both agree that the world can be very unfair to people.  It's my view that one of the most important roles of government should be to try to diminish that unfairness.  That often means that the government has to treat some people more favorably than others.  I don't want the government to evenhandedly treat everyone the same.  I want the government to take things from people that the world has treated kindly and give them to people that the world has treated less kindly.

I recognize that paying off student loans is complicated and doesn't fit neatly into what I described, this was just my attempt to distinguish between different visions of "fairness" with respect to government action.

 

[whoknew]

Why not apply this same argument to other types of borrowing?

A pays for his house in cash.  B pays for his house with a mortgage.  The government abolishes mortgages.  The result in that B was handed hundreds of thousands of dollars while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

A pays for a car in cash.  B finances his car.  Then the government abolishes car loans.  The result in that B was handed tens of thousands of dollars while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

A writes a check for a new television.  B charges it on his Visa.  Then the government and/or Project Mayhem wipes out all credit card debt.  The result is that B gets a free television while A gets nothing, even though the only difference is that one paid for his purchase immediately while the other chose to pay later.

This isn't "It sucked for me, so it should suck for you too."  Its that we handed out huge sums of money to people who bought the exact same product for the exact same price, with the determining factor being how they financed their purchase.  That's kind of nuts.  If you want to give free college, free housing, free cars, and free televisions to disadvantaged folks, just do so.  Don't give stuff away to affluent people.

Why are we handing out huge sums of money to those groups of people? What is the problem we are trying to solve?

 

[whoknew]

For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans.  Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt.  The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far).  I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.

Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me.  Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.    

What problem are you trying to solve with that system?

 

[AAABatteries]

I'll repeat what I put in the other thread:

Extend free public education to include college (some level - not all).  Allow interest free pausing of student loans for extended periods of time (maybe permanently).  Implement a BIG.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What problem are you trying to solve with that system?

Economic stimulus.  But that doesn't matter -- the point is that "fairness" is a totally reasonable thing for people to care about in the context of handing out money.

Blanket student loan forgiveness is, literally, going back retroactively and reducing the price of college to zero for some people but not others.  And the decision criteria you're applying is the payment method that people selected at the time.  It's philosophically indefensible IMO.  

 

[Dickies]

I know I've posted on this topic a number of times in the past, and I don't want to derail the student loan debate, but I think we need to reform the way we handle K-12 education.  Our emphasis is way too heavy-handed on standardized test scores and college prep.  Those that are not college bound are left with almost no place to go and graduate high school with no real employable skills.  I don't know where the cutoff should be, but I think those that are college bound continue on a similar trajectory to what we have now.  Those with poor grades, or those who would prefer a vocational job would split off to focus on vocational training.  If we give people a path that interests them I think it would lead to fewer dropouts, and decrease other undesirable societal effects.  

I would also like to see an expansion of "free" education, but since everyone else is focused on higher education, I will go to early childhood development.  I think this is an area where a lot of disparity across socioeconomic demographics starts.  It's a major expense to send kids to preschool and/or daycare, but there are social, mental and physical benefits to doing so.  I'd like there to be a lot more family benefits for people having kids to get paid time off of work to raise infants, and I would like daycare and preschool to be provided at no direct expense for those who wish to attend.  And as someone who has kids who as of this year are finished with needing afterschool care, I would not feel ripped off that I had to pay for it all these years and the next generation doesn't.

 

[AAABatteries]

For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans.  Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt.  The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far).  I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.

Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me.  Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.    

I fully endorse this.  Especially the first part.

 

[jm192]

Why are we handing out huge sums of money to those groups of people? What is the problem we are trying to solve?

I mean, I’m operating under the assumption that people are struggling and student loan debt is part of that.  
 

By forgiving it, people with student loans suddenly are less strapped for cash.

But for people that did pay their loans off—and are struggling—having their 10,000$ in loan payments back would sure help them too.

 

[rockaction]

Bankruptcy is not something anyone fights at all though.  It is not and never will be a topic for debate as to how to eliminate bankruptcy from the legal system.  We are ok with collectively.  And I would venture to guess that we are ok, at least on some level, because credit card companies are evil and deserve to get screwed. 

Which they are and do.  But that isn't a good way to write policy.

From taking a consumer protection class that focused primarily on bankruptcy, I can tell you that a lot -- a lot -- of people are terrified of declaring bankruptcy. Bankruptcy should be -- and is -- a last resort for the insolvent. Used to be we had debtor prisons -- Georgia is an example of a colony founded by those who would have been imprisoned for debt -- only we decided that as last resort and deterrent that bankruptcy would be a better option than prison for debts. It's a reformation movement of the 17th and 18th century, actually, IIRC. That people shrug off debt is something new, actually. It was taken even more seriously thirty or forty years ago. To have been bankrupt was to have been besmirched. 

Someone smart aleck will say they're for prison for debts now, watch. But that's really the alternative that bankruptcy was for -- for the insolvent who would have otherwise been incarcerated or indentured.

 

[Quint]

why not base loan forgiveness on performance? 

Suma Cum Laude - 100% forgiveness
Magna Cum Laude - 95%
Cum Laude - 90%
GPA 3.5 to 3.3 - 85%

and so forth. by tying [potential] loan forgiveness to performance, it dangles the carrot for motivated students - which it sounds like people put into the category of "want to help" - and weeds out those who aren't motivated or prepared for what a college education demands. 

probably not the best plan, but maybe a jumping off point? 

 

[Dickies]

Rather than write off student loans, which based on my understanding are mostly backed by the federal government, wouldn't it make more sense to just make all in-state public college tuition-free?  Make the rest of the loan dischargeable in BK and get the government away from backing these student loans.  It's never sat well with me that students at my college racked up thousands in non-dischargeable student loans to pay the slumlords that owned the entire town.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From taking a consumer protection class that focused primarily on bankruptcy, I can tell you that a lot -- a lot -- of people are terrified of declaring bankruptcy. Bankruptcy should be -- and is -- a last resort for the insolvent. Used to be we had debtor prisons -- Georgia is an example of a colony founded by those who would have been imprisoned for debt -- only we decided that as last resort and deterrent that bankruptcy would be a better option than prison for debts. It's a reformation movement of the 17th and 18th century, actually, IIRC. That people shrug off debt is something new, actually. It was taken even more seriously thirty or forty years ago. To have been bankrupt was to have been besmirched. 

Someone smart aleck will say they're for prison for debts now, watch. But that's really the alternative that bankruptcy was for -- for the insolvent who would have otherwise been incarcerated or indentured.

While a different topic, isn't one of the main Criminal Justice Reforms to eliminate essentially debtor prisons that have been created around the fine and fee systems we have created?  Not wanting to take this off on an terrible tangent, but I think society has demonstrated support for prisons for at least some debtor today.

But is Student Loan forgiveness really targeting those that would go bankrupt if they could, or is it mostly targeting the overall drag that it creates on those slowly paying them off each month?  Sure both would be helped, but is the bankrupt group the real problem or just the problem we can easily identify?  (These are questions - not necessarily for you to be responsible to answer.)

 

[The Commish]

why not base loan forgiveness on performance? 

Suma Cum Laude - 100% forgiveness
Magna Cum Laude - 95%
Cum Laude - 90%
GPA 3.5 to 3.3 - 85%

and so forth. by tying [potential] loan forgiveness to performance, it dangles the carrot for motivated students - which it sounds like people put into the category of "want to help" - and weeds out those who aren't motivated or prepared for what a college education demands. 

probably not the best plan, but maybe a jumping off point? 

Like scholarships?  Novel idea.

 

[rockaction]

While a different topic, isn't one of the main Criminal Justice Reforms to eliminate essentially debtor prisons that have been created around the fine and fee systems we have created?  Not wanting to take this off on an terrible tangent, but I think society has demonstrated support for prisons for at least some debtor today.

But is Student Loan forgiveness really targeting those that would go bankrupt if they could, or is it mostly targeting the overall drag that it creates on those slowly paying them off each month?  Sure both would be helped, but is the bankrupt group the real problem or just the problem we can easily identify?  (These are questions - not necessarily for you to be responsible to answer.)

I'll take your word for it on the debtor stuff. It's not my area of specialty and I really don't know the history of the movement towards reform about debts other than that England decided to start experimenting with the alternatives to debtor prisons at least as early as Georgia, which I know from studying its colonial history. But I don't know the history of the reform movement all too well other than the generals. This is a concise and interesting history. Apparently America prosecuted debtors with more zeal in the 18th Century than England did.

https://www.abi.org/feed-item/a-very-brief-history-of-bankruptcy-and-debt-in-the-west

I think your point about Student Loans is taken. Who is it we seek to help and why? Do we enact policy based on the goal of individual relief or are there concrete macro goals that come along with it? One would like to say that it's both of those things and that both of these things should be a consideration, but I think that within that again comes the question of fairness (that word again) -- you're going to have some line drawing going on in the name of accountability and justice. That's just inevitable in getting a bill passed.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think your point about Student Loans is taken. Who is it we seek to help and why? Do we enact policy based on the goal of individual relief or are there concrete macro goals that come along with it? One would like to say that it's both of those things and that both of these things should be a consideration, but I think that within that again comes the question of fairness (that word again) -- you're going to have some line drawing going on in the name of accountability and justice. That's just inevitable in getting a bill passed.

To be blunt I don't have a position on student loan forgiveness because I don't know what goals are being addressed and why student loan forgiveness should be on the table to meet those goals as opposed to other ideas.  I guess that is somewhat untrue as I have heard many goals to be addressed, sometimes conflicting,  So my point is really the question.  And I guess it is on the table due to the belief of some it can be accomplished via executive order so it may be the only doable option.  

So for example if the goal is to address those that simply cannot and maybe those that should not  be repaying on these loans then maybe we just create the bankruptcy option mentioned over and over.  Or maybe that requires legislation so this is what we are left with.

If the goal is to loosen the purse strings for other, more productive spending and/or investment of those faithfully slugging through repaying these loans maybe this might make sense.  But are there other options?   I can think of a BIG one which I think is always the better answer.  And I think it is the fairer option.  But that probably isn't a feasible option, so maybe forgiving loans is the only play in the playbook.

If the goal is to create ways to make college affordable for future kids then I don't think forgiving current loans helps at all.  

Now I'm not opposed to fairness or the probably more importantly when it comes to politics the perception of fairness.  I just think we are fibbing to ourselves if we believe that we can make any policy change that isn't going to unfairly benefit some at the unfair expense of others.  Good policy minimizes this, it creates more winners than losers, tries to mitigate the pain for the losers, but ultimately change is going to be unfair to someone.  Whether it be tax reform, or healthcare reform, or this.   And I think we are fibbing ourselves if we don't understand that "winners" from policy change are going to be complaining about how they were "losers".   But this is also why we are such a change averse nation.  Change is risky. 

But the more I write this I wonder if the real goal of student loan forgiveness is simply to be the undesirable policy option, the "nuclear option"  that gets people to the table to work on a better means to address a multitude of issues?  Or maybe it is just the best option because it is the only option available assuming there really is a constitutional and legal executive order path?  This discussion originated in the Biden fears thread.  I guess I should add the fear that an uncooperative legislature results in a significant number of "only option" policies that no one really wants.

Okay I'm just rambling now.  Forgive me.  Time for some sleep.

 

[supermike80]

why not base loan forgiveness on performance? 

Suma Cum Laude - 100% forgiveness
Magna Cum Laude - 95%
Cum Laude - 90%
GPA 3.5 to 3.3 - 85%

and so forth. by tying [potential] loan forgiveness to performance, it dangles the carrot for motivated students - which it sounds like people put into the category of "want to help" - and weeds out those who aren't motivated or prepared for what a college education demands. 

probably not the best plan, but maybe a jumping off point? 

I think generally speaking any "new" plan that includes performance based rewards will be deemed racist.  Sorry but true.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think generally speaking any "new" plan that includes performance based rewards will be deemed racist.  Sorry but true.

Not sure racist is the right word but it’s definitely  ableist and geared towards favoring the already economically and cognitively advantaged. 

 

[supermike80]

Not sure racist is the right word but it’s definitely  ableist and geared towards favoring the already economically and cognitively advantaged. 

Oh I would agree racist isn't the right word, but that's the word that gets used.  

 

[Ilov80s]

Oh I would agree racist isn't the right word, but that's the word that gets used.  

Probably but regardless of how precise the word is, I agree with the sentiment. I’m not in favor of paying loans back based on GPA or honors or whatever.

 

[The Commish]

Probably but regardless of how precise the word is, I agree with the sentiment. I’m not in favor of paying loans back based on GPA or honors or whatever.

How do you feel about scholarships?

 

[MTskibum]

I think too many people go to school and get useless degrees and this is a big part of the problem. History, psychology, sociology, zoology, advertising, communications,  etc. If it was it was strongly discouraged to get a useless degree then more people could pay for their student loans.

We need to also discourage corporations from making 4 year degrees required for positions that do not in fact require a 4 year degree.

 

[Ilov80s]

How do you feel about scholarships?

I haven’t given it a ton of thought but correct if I’m wrong here but there’s lots of scholarships that aren’t directly tied to just having the best grades.

 

[Quint]

I think too many people go to school and get useless degrees and this is a big part of the problem. History, psychology, sociology, zoology, advertising, communications,  etc. If it was it was strongly discouraged to get a useless degree then more people could pay for their student loans.

We need to also discourage corporations from making 4 year degrees required for positions that do not in fact require a 4 year degree.

Conversely, not being able to land a job at a well-established corporation was what motivated me to go back to college and earn a degree. 

 

[MTskibum]

Conversely, not being able to land a job at a well-established corporation was what motivated me to go back to college and earn a degree. 

Same with me. I do not need my degree to do my work(software engineer), but i needed a technical degree(chemical engineering) to get in the door. If I could have save 53,000 in debt which is what I graduated with I would have been better off.

 

[Quint]

Same with me. I do not need my degree to do my work(software engineer), but i needed a technical degree(chemical engineering) to get in the door. If I could have save 53,000 in debt which is what I graduated with I would have been better off.

Understood. Did your degree open more doors for you than not having one?

 

[MTskibum]

Understood. Did your degree open more doors for you than not having one?

Yes, and that is my problem with higher education. I can get jobs in the software world that I could not get because i have a chemical engineering degree. I wasted 53,000 dollars on a sheet of paper and not job training.

Thankfully I went to a dirt cheap state school, Montana State. I could have wasted even more money by buying into the hogwash that the school you go to matters.

 

[Quint]

Yes, and that is my problem with higher education. I can get jobs in the software world that I could not get because i have a chemical engineering degree. I wasted 53,000 dollars on a sheet of paper and not job training.

Thankfully I went to a dirt cheap state school, Montana State. I could have wasted even more money by buying into the hogwash that the school you go to matters.

Well, at least you have a cool mascot. 

 

[The Commish]

I haven’t given it a ton of thought but correct if I’m wrong here but there’s lots of scholarships that aren’t directly tied to just having the best grades.

To keep them?  I am unaware of a single scholarship that doesn't require certain grades and if you don't get them, the money can be taken away or reduced in amount.  Remember, the post that mentioned paying out or forgiving the loans used grades as a basis for getting the money forgiven vs having to pay it back...not in qualification for the loan in the first place.  It would be a requirement for relief.  That requirement exists in every scholarship I've ever seen (that wasn't like $100 here or $200 there kind of scholarship).  I'm not saying there aren't "no strings attached" scholarships.  I'm sure there are somewhere.  I don't think they are a good idea just like blanket forgiveness isn't a good idea.

 

[Ilov80s]

To keep them?  I am unaware of a single scholarship that doesn't require certain grades and if you don't get them, the money can be taken away or reduced in amount.  Remember, the post that mentioned paying out or forgiving the loans used grades as a basis for getting the money forgiven vs having to pay it back...not in qualification for the loan in the first place.  It would be a requirement for relief.  That requirement exists in every scholarship I've ever seen (that wasn't like $100 here or $200 there kind of scholarship).  I'm not saying there aren't "no strings attached" scholarships.  I'm sure there are somewhere.  I don't think they are a good idea just like blanket forgiveness isn't a good idea.

Many scholarships are a one time deal. Others are renewable and they have all kinds of requirements depending on why you got the scholarship in the first place. I don’t think for example the bar for an athletic scholarship is very high GPA wise. I am ok with the loan forgiveness being tied to actually having earned a degree/certificate of some sort. If someone completed their program, I don’t think differentiating the amount to be forgiven between a person with a 3.8 and a 2.9 really makes sense. The people with the highest grades and honors are already more likely to gain better employment and be successful in their careers so  I don’t think they need/deserve the extra government benefits.

 

[rockaction]

Okay I'm just rambling now.  Forgive me.  Time for some sleep.

Naw, it was an interesting read. Your "rambling" got me to think about the process as a function of practical politics manifest, which I often divorce from the policy world when considering purely theoretical issues.

 

[TripItUp]

K-8 - better teacher/student ratio, higher teacher and admin standards, better pay.  More emphasis on math and science.  Better federal and state funding for low income districts.  Remove govt. funding for charter schools.

High School - more precise curriculums for careers, more life skill courses, better teacher pay, higher teacher and admin standards.  Better federal and state funding for low income districts.   Remove govt. funding for charter schools.

This would solve so many societal problems.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans.  Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt.  The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far).  I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.

Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me.  Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.    

I wholeheartedly agree with this policy.  It has the further virtue of giving our societal resources to those of us who have proven an innate, or learned, ability to use what we have been given, or earned, wisely.   I have met many of these student loan debtors, and most think Maker's Mark is the good stuff.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Naw, it was an interesting read. Your "rambling" got me to think about the process as a function of practical politics manifest, which I often divorce from the policy world when considering purely theoretical issues.

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best” ― Otto von Bismarck

I wish that I could reject this as just conservative nonsense...   

 

[CR69]

Let’s be honest, if someone paid cash for school in the last 20 years they’ve likely already come out way ahead with the many tax breaks for the wealthy during that time. Also, someone who can pay for a 6 figure education in cash crying about fairness is pretty comical. 

 

[Dickies]

K-8 - better teacher/student ratio, higher teacher and admin standards, better pay.  More emphasis on math and science.  Better federal and state funding for low income districts.  Remove govt. funding for charter schools.

High School - more precise curriculums for careers, more life skill courses, better teacher pay, higher teacher and admin standards.  Better federal and state funding for low income districts.   Remove govt. funding for charter schools.

This would solve so many societal problems.

Look at the liberal over here...

 

[TripItUp]

Look at the liberal over here...

I am liberal on education and the environment.

You can't fix/improve/save either without capitalism.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I am liberal on education and the environment.

You can't fix/improve/save either without capitalism.

Damn I was with you for the first sentence then you lost me.

 

[The Commish]

You can't fix/improve/save either without capitalism.

Isn't "capitalism" manifesting itself in the "charter school model" or the "for profit colleges" you've spoken ill about in this very thread (or maybe it was the other one...don't remember).  Help me connect the dots here.  Is it just the minimal amount of money they get from fed/state gov't that you take issue with?

ETA:  And maybe that wasn't you....if not, I apologize.  What ARE your thoughts on those two items if capitalism is necessary to fix/improve/save them....what does that look like to you?

 

[TripItUp]

Isn't "capitalism" manifesting itself in the "charter school model" you've spoken ill about in this very thread (or maybe it was the other one...don't remember).  Help me connect the dots here.  Is it just the minimal amount of money they get from fed/state gov't that you take issue with?

You can be anti charter school and pro capitalism.

 

[The Commish]

You can be anti charter school and pro capitalism.

sure....and that's the reason I had another question in the post you didn't answer and also followed up with an edit....what kind of "capitalism" are you talking about if charter schools are the wrong kind?

 

[TripItUp]

sure....and that's the reason I had another question in the post you didn't answer and also followed up with an edit....what kind of "capitalism" are you talking about if charter schools are the wrong kind?

I think our current form of capitalism is pretty close to what it needs to be...some minor tweeks here and there.   

 

[The Commish]

@Joe Bryant @Godsbrother @Spanky267

(sorry if I forgot others...just saw them discussing it)

Talking about the line for public education being drawn at K-12 and the justification of that arbitrary line in the other thread.  I've asked this question multiple times here and really not ever gotten a thoughtful reply.  For those that believe paying for school after 12th grade is where you draw the line, can you please provide our philosophy on that?   I kind of understand it living in the world we did in the 70s and 80s, but I don't understand it now.

 

[The Commish]

I think our current form of capitalism is pretty close to what it needs to be...some minor tweeks here and there.   

You'll need to help me here, given our current public education system isn't at all (at least in a meaningful/impactful way) capitalistic in nature.  What kinds of tangible things do you want to see?  All private schools?  Less tax dollars going towards funding expecting private entities to fund the schools?  What are we talking about exactly?  Or better yet, what capitalistic aspects do you see working well in our current environment that should be boosted and/or modified to be even better?

 

[TripItUp]

You'll need to help me here, given our current public education system isn't at all (at least in a meaningful/impactful way) capitalistic in nature.  What kinds of tangible things do you want to see?  All private schools?  Less tax dollars going towards funding expecting private entities to fund the schools?  What are we talking about exactly?  Or better yet, what capitalistic aspects do you see working well in our current environment that should be boosted and/or modified to be even better?

No govt. funding for charter schools.

 

[Dickies]

@Joe Bryant @Godsbrother @Spanky267

(sorry if I forgot others...just saw them discussing it)

Talking about the line for public education being drawn at K-12 and the justification of that arbitrary line in the other thread.  I've asked this question multiple times here and really not ever gotten a thoughtful reply.  For those that believe paying for school after 12th grade is where you draw the line, can you please provide our philosophy on that?   I kind of understand it living in the world we did in the 70s and 80s, but I don't understand it now.

I think 2 years is a reasonable extension, but I would much prefer we provide public early childhood development and preschool as I think it would go further in leveling the playing field.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tangent note - This relates to the talk about forgiving college loans as well.

In my opinion, college is a terrible investment for lots of people. It's simply not a good financial decision for some. 

 

[The Commish]

I think 2 years is a reasonable extension, but I would much prefer we provide public early childhood development and preschool as I think it would go further in leveling the playing field.

So K-12 isn't where you'd draw the line?  I don't disagree with the second part.  I think I'd MUCH rather have formative schooling at earlier ages (Pre-K), but I've never seen that as either/or...think BOTH need to happen personally.  

 

[The Commish]

No govt. funding for charter schools.

Yes, you said that before....is that what you meant when you said we needed "more capitalism"?  If so, I'm with FG on this...completely lost on how that comment makes any sense.  That has nothing to do with capitalism as best I can tell.  That just defunding of schools you don't think should get money for whatever reason.

 

[Dickies]

So K-12 isn't where you'd draw the line?  I don't disagree with the second part.  I think I'd MUCH rather have formative schooling at earlier ages (Pre-K), but I've never seen that as either/or...think BOTH need to happen personally.  

I would like to see public education at all levels be tuition-free.  I think it would be a good thing if people had more career mobility if they regret their choice of major.

Since I didn't clarify this, my 2 year higher education statement is more of something I could see being a reasonable compromise rather than my ultimate preference.

 

[The Commish]

I would like to see public education at all levels be tuition-free.  I think it would be a good thing if people had more career mobility if they regret their choice of major.

Since I didn't clarify this, my 2 year higher education statement is more of something I could see being a reasonable compromise rather than my ultimate preference.

Thanks