Public College Tuition: should it be free? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

 

[fourd]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

Except I don't think college requires any of that. You need and learn those skills far more in high school than college, though I will say it's dependent on the field you are going into.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

It's tongue-in-cheek, but I think your criticism is at least partially addressed by the bold. Just as spending four years in college is inefficient as a means of education, it's also inefficient as a means of signaling. Employers should be able to find find less costly* ways of figuring out who can follow rules and show up on time.

___

*Less costly to society, not less costly to employers. But same thing when you account for Coase-theorem-style cost-shifting.

 

[dgreen]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

It's a little tongue-in-cheek, but I think your criticism is at least partially addressed by the bold. Just as spending four years in college is inefficient as a means of education, it's also inefficient as a means of signaling. Employers should be able to find find less costly* ways of figuring out who can follow rules and show up on time.

___

*Less costly to society, not less costly to employers. But same thing when you account for Coase-theorem-style cost-shifting.

I agree. My completely anecdotal evidence from years of interviewing, hiring, and supervising people with degrees tells me that do not assume those characteristics of people with degrees. I'm amazed at the number of people who have shown up late for an interview.

I'll admit my experiences are skewed since I only interview people with degrees, so maybe those without degrees are far more difficult to accurately predict.

 

[Short Corner]

College in Germany is not only free, but they are giving it free to Americans.

Research shows that the system is working, says Sebastian Fohrbeck of DAAD, and that 50% of foreign students stay in Germany.

"Even if people don't pay tuition fees, if only 40% stay for five years and pay taxes we recover the cost for the tuition and for the study places so that works out well."

You have to pass a language proficiency test, but yes free for anyone with an Abitur or equivalent. I may get a PHD but the language test is a #####. C-level proficiency required from my understanding.

 

[the moops]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

Except I don't think college requires any of that. You need and learn those skills far more in high school than college, though I will say it's dependent on the field you are going into.

You don't need any of those skills for either high school or college.

Just need to know how to play the game. Which doesn't have to involve showing up on time (or at all), or following rules, etc.

 

[Brony]

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

I'm in a big believer in the idea that going to college isn't so much about learning things (although there's some of that, obviously) as much as it sends a credible signal that you're a quick learner, you can follow rules, you can show up on time, you have decent time management skills, etc. If I'm right about that, and I'm very confident that I am, then this is a really bad proposal even if it's meant a little tongue-in-cheek.

Except I don't think college requires any of that. You need and learn those skills far more in high school than college, though I will say it's dependent on the field you are going into.

Correct, but the college admission board vetting process does some of the work for the recruiter... "Harvard looked at this yokel and thought he was good enough for them, he's probably good enough for us too. "

 

[CBusAlex]

AGAINST TULIP SUBSIDIES

Here is a highly abridged excerpt. It'll make more sense if you read the whole thing.

So presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed universal free college tuition.

On the one hand, I sympathize with his goals. If you can’t get any job better than ‘fast food worker’ without a college degree, and poor people can’t afford college degrees, that’s a pretty grim situation, and obviously unfair to the poor. ...

But the solution isn’t universal [college tuition] subsidies.

Higher education is in a bubble.... In the past forty years, the price of college has dectupled (quadrupled when adjusting for inflation). It used to be easy to pay for college with a summer job; now it is impossible. At the same time, the unemployment rate of people without college degrees is twice that of people who have them. Things are clearly very bad and Senator Sanders is right to be concerned.

But Senator Sanders admits that his plan would cost $70 billion per year. That’s about the size of the entire economy of Hawaii. It’s enough to give $2000 every year to every American in poverty.

At what point do we say “Actually, no, let’s not do that, and just let people hold basic jobs even if they don’t cough up a a hundred thousand dollars from somewhere to get a degree in Medieval History”?

I’m afraid that Sanders’ plan ... would subsidize the continuation of a useless tradition [of getting a college degree just so you can put it on your resume], and disincentivize people from figuring out a way to route around the problem....

If I were Sanders, I’d propose a different strategy. Make “college degree” a protected characteristic, like race and religion and sexuality. If you’re not allowed to ask a job candidate whether they’re gay, you’re not allowed to ask them whether they’re a college graduate or not. You can give them all sorts of examinations, you can ask them their high school grades and SAT scores, you can ask their work history, but if you ask them if they have a degree then that’s illegal class-based discrimination and you’re going to jail. I realize this is a blatant violation of my usual semi-libertarian principles, but at this point I don’t care.

If an employee without a college degree is just as effective as one with a degree, but willing to work for less (since their only alternative is food service), then companies willing to hire non-graduates will have a competitive advantage over companies that only hire graduates, and eventually drive them out of business. So, if overeducation actually is a problem, why hasn't the free market already solved it?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If an employee without a college degree is just as effective as one with a degree, but willing to work for less (since their only alternative is food service), then companies willing to hire non-graduates will have a competitive advantage over companies that only hire graduates, and eventually drive them out of business. So, if overeducation actually is a problem, why hasn't the free market already solved it?

The free market hasn't solved the problem of overeducation for the same reason that Thor hasn't solved it. The free market doesn't exist. College is heavily subsidized, which may be the main factor driving the overeducation problem. (And insofar as the subsidies go toward student loans, it may also be one of the primary reasons that tuition is so expensive.)

Nonetheless, there are some attempts to diminish the overeducation problem that have generated inspiring success stories on a small scale. The Thiel Fellowship, for example. They tend to be at a much smaller scale than can make a real dent in the problem under the current system, however.

 

[CBusAlex]

The free market hasn't solved the problem of overeducation for the same reason that Thor hasn't solved it. The free market doesn't exist. College is heavily subsidized, which may be the main factor driving the overeducation problem. (And insofar as the subsidies go toward student loans, it may also be one of the primary reasons that tuition is so expensive.)

Subsidized education may make people more likely to go to college, but I don't see how it can be responsible for the premium companies put on college degrees in hiring.

There are some industries where regulation might require a higher level of education than the market otherwise would, (i.e. doctors) but it's doesn't seem to me to be the norm.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The free market hasn't solved the problem of overeducation for the same reason that Thor hasn't solved it. The free market doesn't exist. College is heavily subsidized, which may be the main factor driving the overeducation problem. (And insofar as the subsidies go toward student loans, it may also be one of the primary reasons that tuition is so expensive.)

Subsidized education may make people more likely to go to college, but I don't see how it can be responsible for the premium companies put on college degrees in hiring.

There are some industries where regulation might require a higher level of education than the market otherwise would, (i.e. doctors) but it's doesn't seem to me to be the norm.

I think it's a combination of stuff on the supply side (schools and students) and the demand side (employers).

In order to excel in the workplace, people generally do need some kind of training. A few might be able to just figure stuff out on their own by reading books, but most need more instruction than that. (And many of the jobs that definitely require a lot of instruction -- medical doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, teachers, pharmacists, etc. -- practically or legally require a college degree. The main white-collar jobs I can think of that don't require college degrees are computer programming, sales, and being a corporate executive -- and the last one, you can't really just apply for without already having had a white-collar job for quite a while.)

On the supply side, colleges are currently the obvious places for smart people to receive instruction, and it's very difficult for other more novel forms of education to compete with them. For one thing, the novel forms of education have a huge marketing disadvantage given the long history of traditional colleges. For another thing, to the extent that new forms of education try to compete with colleges, many of them will be optimized for marketing success rather than educational success, and parents & students will have a hard time seeing through the marketing BS to find the worthwhile educators.

On the demand side, people in charge of their companies' hiring practices generally want to play it safe by staying within current norms. Also, when you've already got a zillion applicants with college degrees, why devise a whole new way of evaluating and training people without them?

The demand-side explanation may work pretty well in any given company, but it doesn't really work for an entire industry (that doesn't require college degrees), because as you suggest, it only takes a few companies willing to break current norms, and then they will gain market share and be copied. So I suspect that the main explanation is a combination of the supply-side issues and the regulatory issues.

ETA: Also, I am not arguing that college (including grades) have little or no signaling value. They have substantial signaling value, which is why employers like college degrees so much. I just think we could set up a system to provide the same signals much more efficiently, but that's a real challenge that will not happen overnight.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This paper concludes that the huge increase in college tuition over the past few decades is almost entirely explained by the effect of government-subsidized loans.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This paper concludes that the huge increase in college tuition over the past few decades is almost entirely explained by the effect of government-subsidized loans.

I don't think that this is a shocking conclusion.  To bring it back to the Bernie thread, this is the difference between a unicorn and a cosmetically modified goat.  The effects of subsidized college loans should have been easily foreseen.  Tuition increases.  What doesn't make sense is to tie this in any way to a plan to actually provide an entitlement to state tuition.  Because the programs operate in entirely different ways.  

 

[RCon]

I thought that was fairly common knowledge.

 

[Thorpe]

The problem the USA has is pensions.  Universities handed out great pensions to their workers years ago, and now you have professors retiring with 80% of their salary and great benefits.  30-50 years ago nobody realized how much these pensions would cost.  Same goes for government workers.  It isn't fair IMO to make the students of today pay for these pensions, but it also isn't fair to strip people of their pensions, so I don't know what the solution is.

 

[cstu]

The problem the USA has is pensions.  Universities handed out great pensions to their workers years ago, and now you have professors retiring with 80% of their salary and great benefits.  30-50 years ago nobody realized how much these pensions would cost.  Same goes for government workers.  It isn't fair IMO to make the students of today pay for these pensions, but it also isn't fair to strip people of their pensions, so I don't know what the solution is.

Oh, they knew but didn't care because it allowed them to pay lower salary and push the payments way off into the future when all the decision makers would be dead.

 

[cstu]

I don't think that this is a shocking conclusion.  To bring it back to the Bernie thread, this is the difference between a unicorn and a cosmetically modified goat.  The effects of subsidized college loans should have been easily foreseen.  Tuition increases.  What doesn't make sense is to tie this in any way to a plan to actually provide an entitlement to state tuition.  Because the programs operate in entirely different ways.  

Get rid of subsidized student loans that encourage highest university spending and have the government control the amount of money universities receive per student.

Germany spent 13740 million Euros on education and research in 2013, that was 4.43% of all expenditures. Germany also spent 33258 million Euros on defense, 10.73% of expenditures. Source: Bundeshaushalt-Info.de: Startseite

Contrast with the USA:
98500 million dollars on education (2.6% of expenditures) and 688300 million dollars on defense (18.4% of expenditures). Source: 2012 United States federal budget

 

[Skoo]

Education and Healthcare are two things that should not be for-profit, IMO.

It's been done in many other countries, which is why it annoys me when people act like it would be so utterly impossible to do here.

Heck, just decide to build a few less billion dollar weapons that will never be used and the problem is solved.

Don't let anyone fool you. This is still the most wealthy and powerful country on earth. We have lots of money to spend, we just spend it on the wrong things.

 

[cstu]

Education and Healthcare are two things that should not be for-profit, IMO.

It's been done in many other countries, which is why it annoys me when people act like it would be so utterly impossible to do here.

Heck, just decide to build a few less billion dollar weapons that will never be used and the problem is solved.

Don't let anyone fool you. This is still the most wealthy and powerful country on earth. We have lots of money to spend, we just spend it on the wrong things.

It's not complicated, folks.

 

[roadkill1292]

Ooh, ooh! I know the answer! It's..............lack of homogeneity!

 

[matttyl]

The problem the USA has is pensions.  Universities handed out great pensions to their workers years ago, and now you have professors retiring with 80% of their salary and great benefits.  30-50 years ago nobody realized how much these pensions would cost.  Same goes for government workers.  It isn't fair IMO to make the students of today pay for these pensions, but it also isn't fair to strip people of their pensions, so I don't know what the solution is.

It's not just education and governmental agencies that had these issues.  Defined benefit is going the way of the dodo bird, and in it's place defined contribution.