Should College be payed for at the state or federal level.

[Elrathin]

We have all seen that education is important in society and how much it benefits someone. But how far should it go for those that WANT to attend college?

How much are we as a society willing to give so that everyone has a chance to go that wants to go.

I will admit I am a fence sitter on this one as I can see pros and cons, but I would lean towards having college payed for someone.

[NortheastCynic]

Well, since the Federal Government is not given the Constitutional authority to fund education on any level, I don't believe it should. If state's want to help offset education costs they are free to help needy students. There is a very widely spread misconception about college in America today, and forgive me for sounding callous. Most people can afford college. Wait, wait wait. That doesn't mean that everyone can afford to go to great schools or even the best state school in their state. But almost everyone can afford community college or other state schools. With few exceptions there is no excuse for having NO college education these days. This country is supposed to be a place where everyone has an opportunity to self-improve...And it does, some people, however, believe that that should translate into equality of outcome, not opportunity. No one in this country as the RIGHT to afford a great school.

-NC

[ECW]

I voted "yes" but with a stipulation: in order to qualify for college, you have to make a predetermined score on an entrance exam so the money isn't spent on getting you to the college level in the first place. If you have a high school education and cannot afford college for whatever reason, it is in society's best interest to help you reach your goals. There is no reason that only the rich people get to attend school. This isn't 12th Century England.

[NortheastCynic]

There is no reason that only the rich people get to attend school. This isn't 12th Century England. This is kind of my point ECW. I don't believe only the rich should be able to go to college...And I don't believe that's our current state of affairs. You just don't see many poor people going to elite universities; but going to an elite university is not a right.

-NC

[Sherri]

There is no reason that only the rich people get to attend school. This isn't 12th Century England. This is kind of my point ECW.Â*Â*I don't believe only the rich should be able to go to college...And I don't believe that's our current state of affairs.Â*Â*You just don't see many poor people going to elite universities; but going to an elite university is not a right.

-NC

Well then, isn't ironic that former SCAJ, Thrugood Marshall fought for the benefits of grants that the SCAJ, Clarence Thomas was a beneficiary of that program, and now he sees no reason for supporting simple AA at the U.-Mich. ?

http://www.oyez.org/justices/justice/?justice=seat-eleven/clarence_thomas

[NortheastCynic]

I fail to see any connection, Sherri, between what you just said and the topic at hand.Â*Â*In addition, Clarence Thomas' job isn't to "support" or "not support" affirmative action, his job is to rule on its Constitutionality...Which he did, correctly, I might add.

-NC

[Sherri]

I fail to see any connection, Sherri, between what you just said and the topic at hand.Â*Â*In addition, Clarence Thomas' job isn't to "support" or "not support" affirmative action, his job is to rule on its Constitutionality...Which he did, correctly, I might add.

-NC

My point is that Clarence Thomas was the beneficiary of a college education at a nice Ivy League college, mind you, thru AA. And now he's making a decision on other young peoples basic higher education.

Mind you the U.-Mich. AA case was not only for African-Americans, but for the farmer families in the U.P., and Native-Americans in Michigan. Should we have AA only for the rich (G.W. Bush, comes to mind) ?

[NortheastCynic]

Legacy programs [AA for the rich] are voluntary, the gov't doesn't force schools to engage in legacy preference, so that point is moot. Again, how does this connect to gov't FUNDING of education?

-NC

[BoogyMan]

There is no reason that only the rich people get to attend school. This isn't 12th Century England. This is kind of my point ECW. I don't believe only the rich should be able to go to college...And I don't believe that's our current state of affairs. You just don't see many poor people going to elite universities; but going to an elite university is not a right.

-NC


Student loans anyone?

[Sherri]

Legacy programs [AA for the rich] are voluntary, the gov't doesn't force schools to engage in legacy preference, so that point is moot.Â*Â*Again, how does this connect to gov't FUNDING of education?

-NC

Fine, now we have The Pell Grants;

http://usliberals.about.com/od/education/p/PellGrant.htm

Do we want our young people educated, and being willing to pay for my Social Security ?Â*Â*You bet your bottom dollar I am willing to fund The Pell Grants, so those young people can support me when I'm on Social Security.Â*Â*There is no place young people can really go in today's career world without a college education.

[Waffletush]

Say it with me...

You are not granted any rights that entitle you to be able to go to college.

There are plenty of JuCos and inexpensive colleges people can go to. There are also plenty of financial assistance programs to help the poor (just ask Alonzo). If you can't afford to go to an 'elite' unitversity for free, looks like you will have to do it the old fashioned way. You will have to earn it.

[Elrathin]

Student loans anyone?


Student loans don't cover the full cost of school in many cases and it is reliant on you having decent credit or your parents having decent credit.

In many cases as well, the parents may not have decent credit, and since the student is usually 18-19 they do not have enough established credit to get a student loan. This is the problem with my nephew atm, he is trying out for several scholarships, but as a white male, is having a significantly harder time getting one as they are more competative.

[BoogyMan]

Student loans don't cover the full cost of school in many cases and it is reliant on you having decent credit or your parents having decent credit.

In many cases as well, the parents may not have decent credit, and since the student is usually 18-19 they do not have enough established credit to get a student loan. This is the problem with my nephew atm, he is trying out for several scholarships, but as a white male, is having a significantly harder time getting one as they are more competative.

Elrathin, student loans help young people get an education in this country every year. Will the student have to work? Yes. I did so and so can just about anyone needing assistance with funding a higher education.

I am talking about student loans for education, not scholarships.

[NortheastCynic]

Do we want our young people educated, and being willing to pay for my Social Security ? You bet your bottom dollar I am willing to fund The Pell Grants, so those young people can support me when I'm on Social Security. There is no place young people can really go in today's career world without a college education.Well, given the fact that the Federal Government is not given the power to establish Social Security accounts in the Constitution either, I don't support federal social security programs either, so you're point is moot in this case as well. I agree there is no place you can go without a college education, but that does not make it a Federal issue.

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

Student loans anyone?
Exactly Boogy, I'm with you 100%...My contention is that the Federal Government has no authority to give student loans. In addition, as I was saying to ECW, it's not as though we're living in a country where only the rich go to college. As I said, there are college options for everyone [with exceptions, of course].

-NC

[underdawg]

I think it is in the best interest of the US to have college educated citizens or at least citizens trained at marketable skills. I don't think that students should be given a totally free check at an education and I think the government can do a lot to help out. If a young person serves time in the military, their entire education should be financed by the government. Also the government can work with businesses and give tax breaks and incentives to those companies that sponser kid's education in return to work for that certain company. I think instead of giving tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, it should be on the condition that they invest in education and jobs here in the US.

[Viper2]

I voted "yes" but with a stipulation: in order to qualify for college, you have to make a predetermined score on an entrance exam so the money isn't spent on getting you to the college level in the first place. If you have a high school education and cannot afford college for whatever reason, it is in society's best interest to help you reach your goals. There is no reason that only the rich people get to attend school. This isn't 12th Century England.


I totally agree with your statement. There is far too much "social promotions" going on and it only hurts the kids more and more as they get older.

[Viper2]

Perhaps this might be of help:

http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml

EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES A BRIEF OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION
________________________________________

The United States has a highly decentralized system of education. The Tenth Amendment (1791) of the U.S. Constitution (1787) states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.� Therefore, the general authority to create and administer public schools is reserved for the states. There is no national school system nor are there national framework laws that prescribe curricula or control most other aspects of education. The federal government, although playing an important role in education, does not establish or license schools or govern educational institutions at any level.

The decentralized nature of U.S. education has its origins in the early history of the United States. In the 17th and early 18th centuries, what was to become the United States began as separate colonies established by settlers from several European countries. In the 13 British colonies that formed the original United States, the colonial governments or, in some colonies, local communities were responsible for education. It was customary for each locality to establish and support its own school(s). Each community educated its children according to its priorities, values and needs. This history helps explain why states and local governments continue to exercise a significant degree of authority over elementary and secondary education policy and administration. Individual postsecondary institutions have also traditionally enjoyed considerable independence since the founding of the country, and they continue to be highly autonomous to the present day.

In the pages that follow, you will find a description of the historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Part I contains a general description of the organization and structure of U.S. education, while Part II describes the roles played by all three levels of government in education policy, administration and financing, with an emphasis on elementary and secondary education.

[Waffletush]

I think it is in the best interest of the US to have college educated citizens or at least citizens trained at marketable skills. I don't think that students should be given a totally free check at an education and I think the government can do a lot to help out. If a young person serves time in the military, their entire education should be financed by the government. Also the government can work with businesses and give tax breaks and incentives to those companies that sponser kid's education in return to work for that certain company. I think instead of giving tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, it should be on the condition that they invest in education and jobs here in the US.


Marketable skills does not mean everybody is entitled to a cushy white-collar job. Blue collar laborers are needed just as much (if not more) in our country, and you do not necessarily need a college education for those jobs.

[Labrocca]

I have 2 ideas for college tuition being paid for by either federal or local governments.

1. Military service will get you federal grants (already in place).
2. On state level grants can be issued for those signing "teacher" contracts agreeing to teach high school, middle school, or grade school for a period of 3-5 years after they are educated in college. This solves the problem of missing teachers in our society. We can even justify paying these teachers less since repayment of their education would be necessary. I thought this up a couple years ago. I think it's a grand idea.The country has a teacher shortage. Also it would bring constant fresh ideas and energy into teaching. As young fresh teachers age 23-25 would enter on a yearly basis leaving before they are 30 and bitter. Some (hopefully the good ones) would choose to stay at teachers if they have come to enjoy the job. At 28-30 the teachers leaving would still have plenty of opportunity to begin new careers in their desired rolls. Anyone like my idea?

[firefox]

I agree there is no place you can go without a college education, but that does not make it a Federal issue.

-NC


No offense, NC, but this is absolutely not true. Many people do just fine without "higher" education. That's why it's called "higher" ;). I know several personally who are doing just fine with a HS diploma, but the key is to have the motivation to keep learning for your entire life. Most jobs in America are still low skill, relatively speaking. Having a college education is a valuable asset, no doubt, but the point I'm trying to make is that it isn't the end all and be all of success. The careers I have chosen have resulted nearly exclusively from teaching MYSELF, and this is the case with many of the most successful people out there.

In a nutshell, college is more like an amplifier than a magic wand. It will enhance the talents and knowledge of students who have something to offer at the start, but it will not do much for he who doesn't have the ability or motivation.

[NortheastCynic]

None, taken. But realistically, it is becoming extremely difficult, if not impossible to climb the social ladder without a college education. Either way, I think we can agree that the Feds don't belong in education.

-NC

[firefox]

Yes and neither does any other coercive, violent organization of thugs ;)

[Pookie]

No, I paid for my education by working and it taught me many life lessons. I agree that perhaps some help is ok, as in earning a scholarship, but working my way through didn't kill me and it's actually good for kids.
Hugs,
Pookie

[firefox]

I agree. Those who work harder usually go much farther, don't you think?

[Mayberry]

In no way shape or form should the federal gov't fund college educations, with the exception of veteran's benefits. I don't think states should either. To me it's like health insurance. Grants, gov't financing, etc... have driven the cost of college through the roof. And personally I think people put way too much stock in college. Some of the jobs I see advertised nowadays requiring degrees are just ridiculous. Salesmen. Why the hell does a salesman need a degree? Either you can sell or you can't. It's something you're born with, not taught. I saw an ad for a Texas State Park Ranger. They wanted a Plumber/Electrician/Carpenter/Mechanic with a Bachelor's degree. For all this, they were paying $24k a year. They're kidding, right? No way in hell would I take a job like that having a degree! Hey, I don't have a degree and I was making over $70k at the power plant. What I do have is good ol' job experience that I got while in the Navy. And THEY paid ME. I could have gone to college with my GI Bill, but I saw college ruin several of my good friends. And most college graduates I know can't even change the oil in their cars. Nothing but left wing indoctrination camps if you ask me, so no, I don't wish to fund them even more with MY tax dollars.

[Pookie]

But I worked my butt off for one college degree and the Army helped me out on the second. I gave them 22 years of service for it. I do not see anything wrong in what you work your butt off for, and when you join the military, you are held to higher standards. I have not taken advantage of any government program, I have earned my keep and college never ever ruined me. I am the better for it now and I am happy and financially secure.
You make your choices, I think, and you choose what you will. If you feel left wing indoctrination, well, I am guilty. My left-wing parents educated me, helped me, and supported me as I did what I wanted.
Now I have a home with no mortgage, late-model cars with no payments and a several Roth IRAs and other investments.
I'm also a tree-hugging liberal. I made the mistake (!!!!!) if investing in a tiny company back in 1979 called Microsoft.
So I think, really, if you choose to feel this way, you perhaps may be cutting others away from becoming their potential. My parents warned me away against that silly little company, Microsoft.
You just never know. People will find their own way and degree or no, they will make it.
Not only do I change my own oil, I FIX my car, my stuff in the house and all.
Hugs,
Pook

[Mayberry]

Congrats Pookie, you are one of the few and the proud. Most college grads I know wouldn't know what to do with a screwdriver if you hit them upside the head with it. My neighbor is just like you, (except he's a conservative) 22 year Army vet who just got his Master's, and is going for his PhD. But he's got 22 years worth of common sense from being in the Army. Perhaps I should rephrase. Going directly to college straight out of highschool is what I think is foolish. At that point, you have no idea what you really want to do because you have little or no practical experience. At that point in time, I wanted to be career military. Nope, not for me. Now I work at a fish hatchery. I would have never thought of that back then (boy do I wish I had!). It took me 14 years to find my place, and no college is required, unless you want to be a biologist (no thanks). My high school had an aquaculture program before I got there, but they dropped it in favor of pushing students towards college. Perhaps if the class was still available when I got there, I would have found my calling sooner. Who knows. Anyway, not everyone is college bound, nor should they be. Too many jobs today require degrees, and I just don't see why. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, etc... Yes. But salesmen, technicians, park rangers, chefs, ect..? I think practical training and good ol' OJT are the best ways to prepare for those jobs. What ever happened to apprenticeships? Some people (like me) learn far more by putting their hands on something than they'll ever learn by reading about it. I've forgotten 90% of everything I learned in school, but I could walk aboard the ship I was on 13 years ago and show you every piece of equipment and tell you what it does, where it's powered from, and how to operate it. I can overhaul your engine, I can build you a boat, I can rewire your house......

[firefox]

How old are you guys, roughly? This is just to put it in perspective. I'm in my early 20s myself, and thus I have only known the current "you must go to college to succeed but no one knows exactly why" status quo. When did this start, and what led up to it?

[Mayberry]

I am 33. Starting in the late '80s, my school began ditching vocational programs and pushing college. By the time I graduated in '92, all that was left was Auto Tech, and Cosmetology. We previously has Horticulture, Mariculture, Building Trades, Welding, Small engine repair, Aircraft Engines and Maintainance, Tech Systems, and a couple others I can't remember.

[politico]

College is getting way more expensive.

[MAP2010.wireless]

We have all seen that education is important in society and how much it benefits someone.Â*Â*But how far should it go for those that WANT to attend college?

How much are we as a society willing to give so that everyone has a chance to go that wants to go.

I will admit I am a fence sitter on this one as I can see pros and cons, but I would lean towards having college payed for someone.


Hey if they don't pay for smarter kids we will pay for dumber Adults, Please don't get me wrong but we should have it where if you want to go The Door is Wide Open.

Mark