In another thread an idea came to me regarding a debate between the stances of two candidates running for President. The selection of the two is based on the results of a "not-so-scientific" website that attempts to determine a person's "ideal" choice for President.
I would like to focus this on just the views and proposed policies of the two candidates selected. You may or may not find that these two candidates are not "your ideal candidate", and that's fine. However, let's try to keep the discussion simply related to what each of the two candidates has said or proposed.
The topic is Education. This, in my mind has two "sub-topics" those being K-12 education and college education.
The two candidates selected, based on the prior thread are Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders.
I encourage discussion regarding what a candidate has actually said or written. I discourage personal opinions regarding what someone thinks a candidate should have said, or what a person's "ideal candidate" would do. In other words, think of it as being the final race rather than the primaries.
So many rules. J/k
I think you might be surprised how much I agree with conservative view points on k-12 education thought not all of them.
I guess I will start mini fight one and might as well go with the biggest one.
Sanders, who I obviously like in a lot of respects but not in all, has proposed funding tuition for public universities.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/b...tion-free/
I've got my dinosaur leather hides on for protection. Have at it.
Quote:So many rules. J/k
I think you might be surprised how much I agree with conservative view points on k-12 education thought not all of them.
I guess I will start mini fight one and might as well go with the biggest one.
Sanders, who I obviously like in a lot of respects but not in all, has proposed funding tuition for public universities.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/b...tion-free/
I've got my dinosaur leather hides on for protection. Have at it.
OK, Bernie Sanders wants to make "college free". How does he propose to do that? He came out and said how he wants to spend money. How exactly would he pay for that?
Quote:OK, Bernie Sanders wants to make "college free". How does he propose to do that? He came out and said how he wants to spend money. How exactly would he pay for that?
Though there are many ways it could be done, what he proposes is to tax stock, bond, and derivatives trading on wall street. Presumably this would be a very tiny tax with the massive amount of trading resulting in a large enough fund to pay for the public universities.
Here's an example that Marco Rubio pointed out in his book. A young man who was an "occupy wall street" protester left his job as a teacher and borrowed $35,000 to get a master's degree in puppetry. Now how much demand is there for someone with a master's degree in puppetry?
This highlights choices that young people and their parent's make today, and also highlights part of the real problem, the cost of education and the availability to get student loans, not to mention what those loans are paying for.
People can get a student loan in the amount of $35,000.00 and wonder why they can't get a job after they complete their education. Perhaps it's because their degree is pretty much useless in the real world, and now they are saddled with the debt of the student loan.
Should the government make such a choice "free"?
Here's an idea floated by Rubio to address the situation.
From his book, here is his idea.
What if there were a way to give students the option of paying for their education without acquiring any student debt at all? What if investors assumed the risk that students and their families now bear alone in student loans? What if there were a way to finance your daughter’s or son’s higher education the way we finance start-up companies—by having others make the investment in their success?
There is a way and here is how it works. Let’s say you are a student who needs $10,000 to pay for your last year of school. Instead of going into debt for $10,000, you could apply for a “Student Investment Plan” from a private investment group. These investment groups would pay your $10,000 tuition in return for a predetermined percentage of your income for a set period of time after graduation—maybe 4 percent of your income a year for ten years. At the end of that period, if the amount paid is greater than the investment, the investors make a profit. If it’s less, they lose money. Either way, they assume the risk of paying for your education. Unlike with loans, you would be under no legal obligation to pay back that entire $10,000. Your only obligation would be to pay that 4 percent of your income per year for ten years, regardless of whether that ends up amounting to more or less than $10,000.
Is that reasonable? I think it is. Imagine potential employers and investment people paying for a college student's tuition, and in return they have the potential to either make money or lose money on their "investment". This person would not get a "free" education, but it would give them the ability to get that education at a much lower price than student loans. More importantly, taxes on us would not have to be raised in the least bit.
What many on the left I suspect will complain about is it favors those getting degrees in Economics, Engineering, etc. and "leaves out" those getting degrees in puppeteering or liberal arts. Which path(s) of higher education lead to success?
Quote:<del>
Education</del> Edumacation are good?
Fixed.
I don't know who it was that first proposed the idea or where I read up on it but it always stated with me. The argument was that we have kids in school at the wrong time and wrong ages. They laid out this plan where school started at age 4 and ended at age 16. By the time they're 17 they're either in a trade school learning a skill or in a community college getting their AA over and done. So by the time these kids get to adulthood they're either college ready with an AA degree or have a skill they've received some training on and ready for the workforce.
I'd support even public funding of a system designed more like that then what we have now.
The problem with student loans is they're used to fund everything else from housing to eating out to utilities and transportation and of course some fun time in addition to school. That's how kids end up with 40k in loans in 4 years.
Quote:I don't know who it was that first proposed the idea or where I read up on it but it always stated with me. The argument was that we have kids in school at the wrong time and wrong ages. They laid out this plan where school started at age 4 and ended at age 16. By the time they're 17 they're either in a trade school learning a skill or in a community college getting their AA over and done. So by the time these kids get to adulthood they're either college ready with an AA degree or have a skill they've received some training on and ready for the workforce.
I'd support even public funding of a system designed more like that then what we have now.
Don't want to derail the topic, but I really don't like the idea at all. Ending school at 16? Few kids are really ready to start college at that age (or trade school or community college). This would also limit what High Schools teach significantly. You're cutting two years of high school with this. Not to mention making it harder for students to earn sports scholarships. Not to mention teens need time to be teens. College is far more serious than high school, and requires much more work to be put in. Then you have the fact that a lot of kids have NO IDEA what they want to do at sixteen. Some don't know what they want to do at twenty six.
Quote:The problem with student loans is they're used to fund everything else from housing to eating out to utilities and transportation and of course some fun time in addition to school. That's how kids end up with 40k in loans in 4 years.
You do know that it's really easy to end up with 40k in loans in 4 years from tuition and books alone, right? The average tuition for in-state residents of state and public colleges is $9000. It's higher for out of state students, and much higher for private colleges. Throw in books, and it's not hard at all to reach $40k in 4 years.
Quote:Don't want to derail the topic, but I really don't like the idea at all. Ending school at 16? Few kids are really ready to start college at that age (or trade school or community college). This would also limit what High Schools teach significantly. You're cutting two years of high school with this. Not to mention making it harder for students to earn sports scholarships.
You do know that it's really easy to end up with 40k in loans in 4 years from tuition and books alone, right? The average tuition for in-state residents of state and public colleges is $9000. It's higher for out of state students, and much higher for private colleges. Throw in books, and it's not hard at all to reach $40k in 4 years.
Id prefer a school system abstant of sports programs to be honest. I know its a culture thing but we waste to much time on remedial things like letting students develop their athletic ability to earn a scholarship. I don't remember all the details but the entire purpose of ending traditional high school at age 16 was to prepare kids for one of two possibilities preparing for higher education (your doctors, lawyers, engineers of the world) or for blue collar work ( your welders, construction, automotive workers of the world). That's not to say they can't change course or their mind later, but usually by 16 it's pretty evident to everyone including the students what type of field they're headed towards. I knew by 16 I wasn't going to be working in an office or going for a college degree, I had a hard enough time showing up for high school much less the discipline or desire to pursue a higher education.
It was later in life after having kids and needing to gain an advantage in the work force that I pursued a college degree.
as for tuition I know you CAN use up 40k on education alone. I also know you can easily obtain a similar degree for a fraction of the cost. Going through a state school or community college you can get a college degree for under 15k with books (I rented mine from the library most semesters). The reality is most kids look at a 5k loan each semester as a spending budget, they max out the loans and figure out how they can spend the extra 3k they didn't use for tuition.
I personally think 120 credits is a waste, as most of your lower 60 classes are completely useless (minus your math and English credits of course). If you trimmed it to 80 credits tailored for the degree you would cut the cost on the spot. Truthfully you could get that number probably down to 70 as there are upper level electives thrown into that 80 number.
Quote:Id prefer a school system abstant of sports programs to be honest. I know its a culture thing but we waste to much time on remedial things like letting students develop their athletic ability to earn a scholarship. I don't remember all the details but the entire purpose of ending traditional high school at age 16 was to prepare kids for one of two possibilities preparing for higher education (your doctors, lawyers, engineers of the world) or for blue collar work ( your welders, construction, automotive workers of the world). That's not to say they can't change course or their mind later, but usually by 16 it's pretty evident to everyone including the students what type of field they're headed towards. I knew by 16 I wasn't going to be working in an office or going for a college degree, I had a hard enough time showing up for high school much less the discipline or desire to pursue a higher education.
It was later in life after having kids and needing to gain an advantage in the work force that I pursued a college degree.
as for tuition I know you CAN use up 40k on education alone. I also know you can easily obtain a similar degree for a fraction of the cost. Going through a state school or community college you can get a college degree for under 15k with books (I rented mine from the library most semesters). The reality is most kids look at a 5k loan each semester as a spending budget, they max out the loans and figure out how they can spend the extra 3k they didn't use for tuition.
Quote:I personally think 120 credits is a waste, as most of your lower 60 classes are completely useless (minus your math and English credits of course). If you trimmed it to 80 credits tailored for the degree you would cut the cost on the spot. Truthfully you could get that number probably down to 70 as there are upper level electives thrown into that 80 number.
I like both your points. The idea of specializing education earlier certainly intrigues me.
Quote:
What if there were a way to give students the option of paying for their education without acquiring any student debt at all? What if investors assumed the risk that students and their families now bear alone in student loans? What if there were a way to finance your daughter’s or son’s higher education the way we finance start-up companies—by having others make the investment in their success?
<div>
There is a way and here is how it works. Let’s say you are a student who needs $10,000 to pay for your last year of school. Instead of going into debt for $10,000, you could apply for a “Student Investment Plan” from a private investment group. These investment groups would pay your $10,000 tuition in return for a predetermined percentage of your income for a set period of time after graduation—maybe 4 percent of your income a year for ten years. At the end of that period, if the amount paid is greater than the investment, the investors make a profit. If it’s less, they lose money. Either way, they assume the risk of paying for your education. Unlike with loans, you would be under no legal obligation to pay back that entire $10,000. Your only obligation would be to pay that 4 percent of your income per year for ten years, regardless of whether that ends up amounting to more or less than $10,000.
</div>
I like this idea. It's a very--wait for it--libertarian approach to the problem. It doesn't have to lock puppeteers and lion tamers out of college; it just strongly suggests that they'll be paying back 7-8% of their income instead of 4%.
Quote:Here's an idea floated by Rubio to address the situation.
From his book, here is his idea.
What if there were a way to give students the option of paying for their education without acquiring any student debt at all? What if investors assumed the risk that students and their families now bear alone in student loans? What if there were a way to finance your daughter’s or son’s higher education the way we finance start-up companies—by having others make the investment in their success?
There is a way and here is how it works. Let’s say you are a student who needs $10,000 to pay for your last year of school. Instead of going into debt for $10,000, you could apply for a “Student Investment Plan” from a private investment group. These investment groups would pay your $10,000 tuition in return for a predetermined percentage of your income for a set period of time after graduation—maybe 4 percent of your income a year for ten years. At the end of that period, if the amount paid is greater than the investment, the investors make a profit. If it’s less, they lose money. Either way, they assume the risk of paying for your education. Unlike with loans, you would be under no legal obligation to pay back that entire $10,000. Your only obligation would be to pay that 4 percent of your income per year for ten years, regardless of whether that ends up amounting to more or less than $10,000.
Is that reasonable? I think it is. Imagine potential employers and investment people paying for a college student's tuition, and in return they have the potential to either make money or lose money on their "investment". This person would not get a "free" education, but it would give them the ability to get that education at a much lower price than student loans. More importantly, taxes on us would not have to be raised in the least bit.
What many on the left I suspect will complain about is it favors those getting degrees in Economics, Engineering, etc. and "leaves out" those getting degrees in puppeteering or liberal arts. Which path(s) of higher education lead to success?
This is a free market idea I could get behind. I worry though, that without laws in place or the like it would lead to forms of indentured servitude as that seems a likely progression for investment firms looking for further gains
Quote:Here's an example that Marco Rubio pointed out in his book. A young man who was an "occupy wall street" protester left his job as a teacher and borrowed $35,000 to get a master's degree in puppetry. Now how much demand is there for someone with a master's degree in puppetry?
This highlights choices that young people and their parent's make today, and also highlights part of the real problem, the cost of education and the availability to get student loans, not to mention what those loans are paying for.
People can get a student loan in the amount of $35,000.00 and wonder why they can't get a job after they complete their education. Perhaps it's because their degree is pretty much useless in the real world, and now they are saddled with the debt of the student loan.
Should the government make such a choice "free"?
This is a very real problem. Lots of wasted degrees if you are looking at it purely from a financial gain perspective. At the same time your various arts learning is just as important from a cultural perspective.
My girlfriend, while in college, was an art history major. Halfway in realised that though she loves art didn't want to do the things shed have to do to make a living (restoration, auction houses) so now she's a doctor. Over 100 grand in debt but we live reasonably I suppose. She has time to paint and draw and write as she please and I have time to argue with you yahoos.
I think education is waaaaay to expensive. I don't expect to have our debt wiped out but for the good of our country and its future, if it can't be made free to get an education it needs to be much more reasonable. An engineering and medical education ought not cost a pair of people nearly 200grand. That's insane consideirng the benefit they provide society.
BTW, you won the over.
Quote:An engineering and medical education ought not cost a pair of people nearly 200grand. That's insane consideirng the benefit they provide society.
Vicious cycle:
1. Engineers provide a great value to society, so we must pay them well.
2. We need to recruit good engineers to teach the engineers of tomorrow, but we need to pay them even more than they were making previously to get them on board.
3. Wow, these engineering instructors sure cost a lot of money! We'll have to raise tuition to pay for them, but it's ok, because engineering graduates provide a great value to society and are paid very well.
Quote:Vicious cycle:
1. Engineers provide a great value to society, so we must pay them well.
2. We need to recruit good engineers to teach the engineers of tomorrow, but we need to pay them even more than they were making previously to get them on board.
3. Wow, these engineering instructors sure cost a lot of money! We'll have to raise tuition to pay for them, but it's ok, because engineering graduates provide a great value to society and are paid very well.
Much frown many depress.