So why did tuition get high? The state stopped subsidizing it directly.
Example: not everyone becomes a doctor. But society needs doctors. Having affordable pre-med college programs benefits everyone, even though only doctors directly make income from the program.
There needs to be a lot more competition in healthcare service provision period. There are a lot of things that could be made over the counter (e.g., drug deregulation), and a lot of services that could be provided by other types of providers (e.g, pharmacists, other professions that don't even exist now).
If you want to do that, why don't you start by capping pay of CEOs, there seems to be no country on earth with shortage of CEOs
It's $600 to take it this summer. No financial aid since she's just taking on CC class.
If you're worried about administrative and sporting expenses, you could choose to subsidize only instructional expenses; primarily being instructor salaries, classroom buildings and equipment.
Really the degree holders benefit from having me around. I've been a taxpayer since 13, worked full time since 15, consumed essentially only the government services that I was forced to at gunpoint and even then I left school before I was legally allowed to. Why don't you all chip in for my mortgage?
There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.
Is that you chipping in or you just taking less of what I have produced? I'm still far and away a net taxpayer.
> There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.
Have any examples I don't already pay for?
Things you don't pay for, just a small list: 1. better dating pool, for you and your kids (assuming you like brains) - this is not to say each person went to college, but they are influenced by people around them who did.
2. Better job candidates 3. Less narrow minded people, but it sounds like that might be a negative.
Things you get without paying for it, or paying a small fraction - clean environment - Neighbors who can have an intellectual conversation - food that won't make you sick - Parks, roads, airports - First responders
--- last comment alert --- not wasting anymore time on this
Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that.
> for example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone.
Only if you ignore opportunity costs. Those same dollars could've resolved food insecurity for a family for a few years instead they are sitting on a rich guys roof so he can brag about it in a condescending manner at dinner parties.
How do you figure? Poor kids qualify for federally subsidized student loans.
I suspect the whole debate is a bit skewed because it tends to ignore admissions. You can't go to an expensive college if you can't get admitted to an expensive college. Your family background and wealth tends to be a big factor in whether kids can get admitted to college, for many reasons.
It seems to be assumed that poor kids are just more "prudent" and other kids are recklessly throwing money away. More likely is just that poor kids get admitted to more expensive schools at a lower rate. The whole point of student loans is that they're taken by people who can't afford to pay for college upfront.
If poor kids are passing up the opportunity to go to great schools for purely financial reasons, why would we even celebrate that, instead of mourning their lost opportunities? I suspect the reality, however, is that poor kids aren't getting well prepped for college admissions, for well-known social reasons. That's not fair either, but I think it's cynical to try to play poor people and middle class people against each other just because middle class kids understandably want upward mobility — which poor kids want too, but simply have less access to such opportunities.
It's always weird when people mention the average lifetime earnings of college graduates, because you have to ask yourself why the so-called "prudent" poor kids who don't go to college are passing that up. It just feels to me like people want to shut down all upward mobility, and punish the ambitious middle class kids for even trying. What's the alternative to taking on big student loan debt, besides "staying in your place" and letting rich kids who can pay for expensive things upfront have all the best opportunities?
The other thing is that ambitious middle class parents and teachers are pushing their kids to go to college, indeed the best college possible, even if the kids aren't really ready for it or know what they want to do with their life yet. Everyone is telling the kids they have to go to college, that they can't get a job without a degree, etc. The pressure on kids from adults is massive. It's practically propaganda or brainwashing. There's nothing these adults love more than to brag about their kids, who end up as pawns in the social one-upmanship game of the adults.
Honestly, your post is one of the most vile and disgusting comments I have ever seen on HN. You think people can't have upward mobility unless they spend $100k per year on tuition? Even if we assume the loan can be discharged, it is incredibly elitist to assume that you need an elite education just to get anywhere in life. No, you don't need an educational institution, that is just a crutch. You need discipline, motivation, a work ethic which can't be bought with money. After that you just need any good college, because learning doesn't happen in a confined geographic location defined by a critical mass of elites, it happens in your head.
I don't know where these authoritarian people like you are coming from, telling others that they are worthless if they don't sign up for a life of financial suffering. It sounds to me like you want to be a gatekeeper for upward mobility while sneakily creating artificial guilt in the form of student debt that must be repaid because it is moral to pay debts, even if the conditions of those debts would be considered immoral by any sane person.
> I don't know where these authoritarian people like you are coming from, telling others that they are worthless if they don't sign up for a life of financial suffering.
Wow, this is completely nuts! You've wildly, recklessly misinterpreted me. I strongly urge you to reread the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What I believe is basically the exact opposite of what you seem to think I believe. I was actually arguing in defense of immediate student loan debt forgiveness (evidenced by my other comments on this article such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31570258). By the way, I also support government-subsidized higher education for everyone, like we have for high school. Of course I don't want people in debt slavery! Seriously, your comment was unhinged. Maybe you need to take some time off the internet.
You could make this argument about anything:
Given that people who are well read make more money, why do we subsidise public libraries?
Given that people with access to transport make wages higher than those without, is it really fair that we pay for highways out of taxes?
It's also worth noting that reducing subsidies to education led to much of the administrative expansion. Recruitment, development, alumni, grant, and IP offices were created or expanded tremendously in an attempt to find additional funding from sources like more students, donations, indirect costs, and royalties.
What is that? Instilling values some people think is important and not others?