thrash;259277 wrote:
Hey! It's another long-ass message from thrash!
Good, I missed having a debate with someone whose sole source of information is NOT glen beck.
There are a ton of people we all know with college degrees that still have McJobs anyway.
I agree
Those people can have a McJob, or they can have a McJob + a shit ton of debt. In the latter case, they have made college more expensive for the people that actually had some business going to college to begin with, since increased demand for a a given supply means increased prices for everyone.
If they have a shit ton of debt, that is a choice they made for themselves. As long as they don't default on their student loans, it's their choice to accumulate such debt.
People who want to go to college should absolutely be able to do so --- As long as I don't have to pay for it.
I'd agree with this to a point. I have some relatives whose parents struggled financially and were unable to assist their children in the post-secondary education, however they made too much for all the kids to get grants (they had a lot of kids...like 9 or so). The eldest kids went to school on grants/loans/military...they turned out ok, have great jobs, travel the world, etc... The middle kids were at that magic point where grants were not available and student loans were the only option. These kids graduated, have average jobs at best (they had to pay back their student loans somehow...slightly better than McJobs, but not much). The younger kids, who had GPA's higher than any of their older siblings, saw the debt accumulated by their siblings and said screw college...the debt isn't worth it, the exception is the youngest one who had some hearing difficulties and was eligible for more grants. He has gone on to Rochester Institute of Technology because he could afford it with grants (and a couple scholarships) he graduated in the top 5% of his class and is doing exceptionally well.
The point in this long winded post is that sometimes grants can help those who are in financial need go to school.
They'll go because they (or their family, friends, or other interested investors) think it is worth the money it will cost them.
They don't always have friends/family that can pony up the costs.
All of you who've been to college know a few kids that have no business being there right now. Some of them might get their act together in a few years, and should go back. Some of them may never be "ready" and have no business going ever. Such people can spend their money however they like.
I was one of them. I knew it when I went. Hated every second of college. Paid back every penny of my student loan. Didn't cost the taxpayer a cent.
Those people shouldn't be wasting tax payer money.
See above.
The world does NOT need more people with degrees in women's cultural struggles in post WW1 africa -- and 50k of debt -- who can only find jobs at blockbuster. People that want to persue that degree are welcome to do so, but society absolutely shouldn't be paying for it via coercion (i.e. taxes)
Come on! It's free market! These people shouldn't be told they can't have a degree in this/that! That's not how America works! If there is a demand, and the product is not illegal, who the hell are you to tell them not to buy it?
As an aside -- MIT has a policy that anyone who can be admitted to MIT will be able to go, irrespective of financial conditions. I beleive MIT self-finances that program from its large endowment. In the MIT case, though, I'd actually support some public money involvement, since much of the finest most productive research work in the world happens there. The contributions to our military and our modern way of life from the work of MIT undergrads are almost innumerable.
Ahh...so if it can help the gov't/country it should be free...gotcha
Here's a litmus test to consider. Suppose that in order to pay for college, you took out a loan from "investors" -- businesses, friends, people you knew, etc. The condition was that they'd give you the money for college, and you'd give them n percent of your gross income for y years after getting a "real" post college job.
Would you be willing to pay for college that way? Do you think you (not anyone specifically here) and your chosen degree program would attract any investors?
If the answer to either quesiton is "no", why should tax payers be helping you foot the bill?
They do have this litmus test to a degree. For the most part you don't just "get money" to go to school. You have to take a loan. With the loan comes terms & interest. Then there is the scholarship avenue that companies pay for you to go to school so long as you work for them for x amount of years after completion of degree.
I think you are referring to grants. I've made my case for them above. Yes, some get abused, but a lot don't. I don't think EVERYONE who is poor should get a grant, but I do think that those who attain a certain GPA, show promise, etc.. should have a shot at college and the education it provides.
