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

 

Some thoughts (not attacks, just thoughts):

 

 

It also doesn't really seem (to me) to work out any better than a student loan.  Assuming someone gets a job right out of school at $40,000/ yr.  Using Rubio's example of 4% of salary for 10 years (and assuming no raises) that ends up coming to $1600 a year or $16,000 over ten years.  Assuming interest isn't being compounded, that is a 6% rate (which is actually 3x higher than my current rate.)  

 

I don't know if he expounds on his ideas (I haven't read his book) but it seems like the only advantage would be that if you don't find a job you don't pay as much back which means the key component of risk is assumed by the company.  Sounds like a typical student loan to me.  

 

Also, what happens if you have a private company paying for your, say, business degree and you decide to change majors?  Are you allowed to or do you then need to pay back the amount they lent?  Is the amount based on your salary while you pursue your new degree?

 

Lastly, am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't take long for the companies who make these investments to start pushing for legislation that protects them if a student defaults?  

 

SIDE NOTE:  To be open and honest in this discussion, I have 2 degrees, one that many would suggest is a practical degree (Business) and one that would be considered a wasted degree (History.)  

---

“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Albert Camus

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. 

 

My first question about paying for everyone's college education wouldn't be "How do we pay for it?"   My first question would be "How much does it cost?"  

 

Then, if you put a tiny tax on high speed trading, it would have to be a sub-microscopic level of tax, because the profits made on each of those transactions by high-volume traders is miniscule.   I mean, it sounds great, there were so many billion shares traded today, a penny on each trade would raise tons of money, but a penny on each trade might just wipe out high speed trading by wiping out all the profits.   And then you don't raise any tax revenue at all. 

 

Taxing something can have two effects: yes, you can raise money theoretically, but you also might kill your tax revenues by wiping out your source of taxes.  

 

So, if you're trying to wipe out high speed trading, which may be a good idea, go ahead and tax it.   Just realize, you won't raise as much in taxes as you think, because taxing it will reduce it. 

 

So, to summarize, Bernie Sanders needs to specify how much this will cost, and he will have to specify how much the tax is, and how the tax will affect the activity that provides the tax revenues.   I think they call it "dynamic scoring" or something.   It's not simple math.  

 

So many of these politicians are blind to the actual effects  of their policies.   I remember, I think it was back in the 70s, they put a tax on yachts, and all they succeeded  in doing was to throw a bunch of people out of work. 

---

Some thoughts (not attacks, just thoughts):

 

 

It also doesn't really seem (to me) to work out any better than a student loan.  Assuming someone gets a job right out of school at $40,000/ yr.  Using Rubio's example of 4% of salary for 10 years (and assuming no raises) that ends up coming to $1600 a year or $16,000 over ten years.  Assuming interest isn't being compounded, that is a 6% rate (which is actually 3x higher than my current rate.)  

 

I don't know if he expounds on his ideas (I haven't read his book) but it seems like the only advantage would be that if you don't find a job you don't pay as much back which means the key component of risk is assumed by the company.  Sounds like a typical student loan to me.  

 

Also, what happens if you have a private company paying for your, say, business degree and you decide to change majors?  Are you allowed to or do you then need to pay back the amount they lent?  Is the amount based on your salary while you pursue your new degree?

 

Lastly, am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't take long for the companies who make these investments to start pushing for legislation that protects them if a student defaults?  

 

SIDE NOTE:  To be open and honest in this discussion, I have 2 degrees, one that many would suggest is a practical degree (Business) and one that would be considered a wasted degree (History.)  

 

Hey, me too!   BA in History from Indiana, followed shortly thereafter by a BBA in Accounting from UNF.  

 

I'm still glad I got a History degree, though.   Can't make any money on it, but that's not the real value of it.  I think it makes your life more interesting on a day to day basis.  It gives you some perspective on things and a knowledge base for understanding the world, people, and events a little better.   I think it has added a lot to my general enjoyment of life. 

---

Some thoughts (not attacks, just thoughts):

 

 

It also doesn't really seem (to me) to work out any better than a student loan.  Assuming someone gets a job right out of school at $40,000/ yr.  Using Rubio's example of 4% of salary for 10 years (and assuming no raises) that ends up coming to $1600 a year or $16,000 over ten years.  Assuming interest isn't being compounded, that is a 6% rate (which is actually 3x higher than my current rate.)  

 

I don't know if he expounds on his ideas (I haven't read his book) but it seems like the only advantage would be that if you don't find a job you don't pay as much back which means the key component of risk is assumed by the company.  Sounds like a typical student loan to me.  

 

Also, what happens if you have a private company paying for your, say, business degree and you decide to change majors?  Are you allowed to or do you then need to pay back the amount they lent?  Is the amount based on your salary while you pursue your new degree?

 

Lastly, am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't take long for the companies who make these investments to start pushing for legislation that protects them if a student defaults?  

 

SIDE NOTE:  To be open and honest in this discussion, I have 2 degrees, one that many would suggest is a practical degree (Business) and one that would be considered a wasted degree (History.)  

All very true. The number he quoted is certainly not the majority of what degrees cost now nor the direction they are headed. As I said earlier my degree was over 40 and my girlfriends was over a 100 for just the medical degree not the art degree she started with. Those numbers are, IMO, obscenely high and unless the costs are brought down there wont be a reasonable investment that does not do the same thing as the loan. 

 

I was just saying it's a reasonable idea Rubio was talking about. 

---

My first question about paying for everyone's college education wouldn't be "How do we pay for it?"   My first question would be "How much does it cost?"  

 

Then, if you put a tiny tax on high speed trading, it would have to be a sub-microscopic level of tax, because the profits made on each of those transactions by high-volume traders is miniscule.   I mean, it sounds great, there were so many billion shares traded today, a penny on each trade would raise tons of money, but a penny on each trade might just wipe out high speed trading by wiping out all the profits.   And then you don't raise any tax revenue at all. 

 

Taxing something can have two effects: yes, you can raise money theoretically, but you also might kill your tax revenues by wiping out your source of taxes.  

 

So, if you're trying to wipe out high speed trading, which may be a good idea, go ahead and tax it.   Just realize, you won't raise as much in taxes as you think, because taxing it will reduce it. 

 

So, to summarize, Bernie Sanders needs to specify how much this will cost, and he will have to specify how much the tax is, and how the tax will affect the activity that provides the tax revenues.   I think they call it "dynamic scoring" or something.   It's not simple math.  

 

So many of these politicians are blind to the actual effects  of their policies.   I remember, I think it was back in the 70s, they put a tax on yachts, and all they succeeded  in doing was to throw a bunch of people out of work. 

I trust Sanders will have his idea fleshed out in the time leading up to the debates.

 

I think a small enough tax will not hinder wall street that much. In the end the people doing the trading want to make money that is why they are doing it. As long as they are making money they will continue to do so and as long as the tax does not fully wipe out profits then trading ought continue I would think. 

---

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%.

 

Exactly.  It would be up to the "real world" (private business) to determine how much a puppeteering degree is worth vs. an engineering degree.  Business and investment firms, not government would assume the cost and the risk associated with paying for education.

 

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

 

Not really (the indentured servitude part).  Say for example a student gets and engineering degree under the program.  Perhaps the student was good enough to pass college, but isn't really that great of an Engineer.  Said student might end up working for far less salary than someone that is actually good in the field.  The investment firms have no control over what the person does after college.  Perhaps someone goes to school and graduates with an engineering degree, but decides that he/she would rather be a technician earning less salary than a typical engineer.

 

Again, the risk is assumed by someone else (private business) rather than the government or the student's family.

 

Some thoughts (not attacks, just thoughts):

 

 

It also doesn't really seem (to me) to work out any better than a student loan.  Assuming someone gets a job right out of school at $40,000/ yr.  Using Rubio's example of 4% of salary for 10 years (and assuming no raises) that ends up coming to $1600 a year or $16,000 over ten years.  Assuming interest isn't being compounded, that is a 6% rate (which is actually 3x higher than my current rate.)  

 

I don't know if he expounds on his ideas (I haven't read his book) but it seems like the only advantage would be that if you don't find a job you don't pay as much back which means the key component of risk is assumed by the company.  Sounds like a typical student loan to me.  

 

Also, what happens if you have a private company paying for your, say, business degree and you decide to change majors?  Are you allowed to or do you then need to pay back the amount they lent?  Is the amount based on your salary while you pursue your new degree?

 

Lastly, am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't take long for the companies who make these investments to start pushing for legislation that protects them if a student defaults?  

 

SIDE NOTE:  To be open and honest in this discussion, I have 2 degrees, one that many would suggest is a practical degree (Business) and one that would be considered a wasted degree (History.)  

 

All very good points and certainly questions that need to be asked.  If I remember right, Mr. Rubio doesn't expand on it much in his book, but it's a good outline of a solution that could work.

 

Regarding the student defaulting issue, again a program like this is designed for future employers and investment firms to assume the risk.

 

All very true. The number he quoted is certainly not the majority of what degrees cost now nor the direction they are headed. As I said earlier my degree was over 40 and my girlfriends was over a 100 for just the medical degree not the art degree she started with. Those numbers are, IMO, obscenely high and unless the costs are brought down there wont be a reasonable investment that does not do the same thing as the loan. 

 

I was just saying it's a reasonable idea Rubio was talking about. 

 

Remember though, his example was for someone that maybe needed $10,000 to complete their final year.  Perhaps that person has some of their own money to assist in paying for the remainder of his/her tuition.

 

This is a specific example though, of ideas that can solve part of the problem of education without raising taxes.  I would like to see something specific from Bernie Sanders regarding the issue.  All I've seen him say so far is that he would raise taxes and make a public university education "free".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

All very true. The number he quoted is certainly not the majority of what degrees cost now nor the direction they are headed. As I said earlier my degree was over 40 and my girlfriends was over a 100 for just the medical degree not the art degree she started with. Those numbers are, IMO, obscenely high and unless the costs are brought down there wont be a reasonable investment that does not do the same thing as the loan. 

 

I was just saying it's a reasonable idea Rubio was talking about.

I really don't feel like that's a crazy amount for either of those degrees.

---

Exactly.  It would be up to the "real world" (private business) to determine how much a puppeteering degree is worth vs. an engineering degree.  Business and investment firms, not government would assume the cost and the risk associated with paying for education.

 

 

Not really (the indentured servitude part).  Say for example a student gets and engineering degree under the program.  Perhaps the student was good enough to pass college, but isn't really that great of an Engineer.  Said student might end up working for far less salary than someone that is actually good in the field.  The investment firms have no control over what the person does after college.  Perhaps someone goes to school and graduates with an engineering degree, but decides that he/she would rather be a technician earning less salary than a typical engineer.

 

Again, the risk is assumed by someone else (private business) rather than the government or the student's family.

 

 

All very good points and certainly questions that need to be asked.  If I remember right, Mr. Rubio doesn't expand on it much in his book, but it's a good outline of a solution that could work.

 

Regarding the student defaulting issue, again a program like this is designed for future employers and investment firms to assume the risk.

 

 

Remember though, his example was for someone that maybe needed $10,000 to complete their final year.  Perhaps that person has some of their own money to assist in paying for the remainder of his/her tuition.

 

This is a specific example though, of ideas that can solve part of the problem of education without raising taxes.  I would like to see something specific from Bernie Sanders regarding the issue.  All I've seen him say so far is that he would raise taxes and make a public university education "free".

My point about indentured servitude should have been expanded on. What I meant to say was a few years down the line after the flow of kids to invest in purely on a % of their paycheck has smoothed out, the investment firms will then need to make even more money. I can see a solution to that being them switching from funding the education for just a repayment per month based on salary to the repayment per month while working for a firm of theirs for the 10 years or w/e amount of time and taking the money from them while having clauses that if they quit they owe all the money.

 

I am just saying I could see it morphing just beyond it being a pure investment opportunity because the nature of the free capitalistic market is to find new ways to make more and more profit. 

---

Exactly.  It would be up to the "real world" (private business) to determine how much a puppeteering degree is worth vs. an engineering degree.  Business and investment firms, not government would assume the cost and the risk associated with paying for education.

 

 

Not really (the indentured servitude part).  Say for example a student gets and engineering degree under the program.  Perhaps the student was good enough to pass college, but isn't really that great of an Engineer.  Said student might end up working for far less salary than someone that is actually good in the field.  The investment firms have no control over what the person does after college.  Perhaps someone goes to school and graduates with an engineering degree, but decides that he/she would rather be a technician earning less salary than a typical engineer.

 

Again, the risk is assumed by someone else (private business) rather than the government or the student's family.

 

 

All very good points and certainly questions that need to be asked.  If I remember right, Mr. Rubio doesn't expand on it much in his book, but it's a good outline of a solution that could work.

 

Regarding the student defaulting issue, again a program like this is designed for future employers and investment firms to assume the risk.

 

 

Remember though, his example was for someone that maybe needed $10,000 to complete their final year.  Perhaps that person has some of their own money to assist in paying for the remainder of his/her tuition.

 

This is a specific example though, of ideas that can solve part of the problem of education without raising taxes.  I would like to see something specific from Bernie Sanders regarding the issue.  All I've seen him say so far is that he would raise taxes and make a public university education "free".

He has been specific, implement a tax on trading that would cover the cost of public university for 4 years. That is a specific solution. 

---

He has been specific, implement a tax on trading that would cover the cost of public university for 4 years. That is a specific solution. 

 

So in your opinion, is a free market solution a better idea, or raising taxes and letting the government handle it?

 

Here is another sub-topic regarding education.  Some have mentioned a few thoughts regarding it earlier in this thread.  What about the issue of public education K-12?  The few speeches that I've watched by Bernie Sanders, I don't recall him addressing the issue at all.  Marco Rubio has addressed it both in interviews as well as in his book.  This can almost be further broken down, but what I'm addressing is K-12 education and choice for parents regarding their child's education.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So in your opinion, is a free market solution a better idea, or raising taxes and letting the government handle it?

 

Here is another sub-topic regarding education.  Some have mentioned a few thoughts regarding it earlier in this thread.  What about the issue of public education K-12?  The few speeches that I've watched by Bernie Sanders, I don't recall him addressing the issue at all.  Marco Rubio has addressed it both in interviews as well as in his book.  This can almost be further broken down, but what I'm addressing is K-12 education and choice for parents regarding their child's education.

I have no faith in the the free market to handle the problem (}on it's own) in anything other than short term money gaining manner. Leading to either a perversion of the system proposed by Rubio or abandoning when their profit margins are not as astronomical as with other investments opportunities. 

 

I personally think a better solution would be to provide the funding for public colleges from either taxes or spending reductions within the current funding. 

 

I am not aware of his stance or him making one at the moment on K-12

 

I have my own radical views on the matter requiring massive paradigm shifts in how we approach education the likes of which wouldn't help this discussion. 

---

Lastly, am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't take long for the companies who make these investments to start pushing for legislation that protects them if a student defaults?  

 

That what I thought when I first read it, I doubt the system could stand without government holding it up helping to mitigate losses.  I remember a couple of articles maybe a year or two ago addressing the high dropout rates for colleges. 

---

I have no faith in the the free market to handle the problem (}on it's own) in anything other than short term money gaining manner. Leading to either a perversion of the system proposed by Rubio or abandoning when their profit margins are not as astronomical as with other investments opportunities. 

 

I personally think a better solution would be to provide the funding for public colleges from either taxes or spending reductions within the current funding. 

 

I am not aware of his stance or him making one at the moment on K-12

 

I have my own radical views on the matter requiring massive paradigm shifts in how we approach education the likes of which wouldn't help this discussion. 

 

Remember, this would be funded by businesses that are making an investment.  A person in college that has a good record of grades could entice a company to put forth money to train (educate) him or her.  Where investment firms would enter the picture would be more-or-less "betting" that this person will graduate with a certain degree and eventually earn the "normal" income that a person with such a degree would earn.  The investment firms would provide the capital (cash).

 

My argument is that putting the burden of risk on private business will "weed out" the people in college that aren't "up to the task" of actually earning a degree and being productive afterwards.

 

My problem with providing funding through government is that it will always grow un-justified, and the people that have an interest in the student don't pay for it, we all do.  We all pay for that person that wants a degree in puppeteering as well as the engineering student.  That puts the burden and the risk on "we the people" rather than putting the burden on those that will utilize the skills and knowledge that said student would learn.

 

Look at it this way, is it better for an engineering firm to pay more taxes, or is it better for them to pay for future talent?  Is it better for a private (for profit) hospital to pay for someone's education to become a doctor, or should we all pay for it through taxes?  Should our tax dollars fund someone that wants to get a degree in puppeteering, or should that perhaps come from a movie studio?

 

Finally, Bernie Sanders has probably not said much regarding K-12 education, so let's look at another "sub-topic" regarding education.  Let's focus on community colleges and trade programs.  What does he propose as far as doing something about that?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Remember, this would be funded by businesses that are making an investment.  A person in college that has a good record of grades could entice a company to put forth money to train (educate) him or her.  Where investment firms would enter the picture would be more-or-less "betting" that this person will graduate with a certain degree and eventually earn the "normal" income that a person with such a degree would earn.  The investment firms would provide the capital (cash).

 

My argument is that putting the burden of risk on private business will "weed out" the people in college that aren't "up to the task" of actually earning a degree and being productive afterwards.

 

My problem with providing funding through government is that it will always grow un-justified, and the people that have an interest in the student don't pay for it, we all do.  We all pay for that person that wants a degree in puppeteering as well as the engineering student.  That puts the burden and the risk on "we the people" rather than putting the burden on those that will utilize the skills and knowledge that said student would learn.

 

Look at it this way, is it better for an engineering firm to pay more taxes, or is it better for them to pay for future talent?  Is it better for a private (for profit) hospital to pay for someone's education to become a doctor, or should we all pay for it through taxes?  Should our tax dollars fund someone that wants to get a degree in puppeteering, or should that perhaps come from a movie studio?

 

Finally, Bernie Sanders has probably not said much regarding K-12 education, so let's look at another "sub-topic" regarding education.  Let's focus on community colleges and trade programs.  What does he propose as far as doing something about that?

That's the crux of a lot bipartisan politics though isn't it? You focus on the downsides of the government doing it and I focus on the downsides of the free market. 

 

I see many possible problems with the free market doing this without regulation, which I assume is what we are discussing here. 

1. without tax breaks or some benefit I don't see them actually taking a risk and any reasonable number of students as to really dent the problem with college for kids as whole for the country.

 

2. Eventually like with all investment firms they will want more money. That means either charging more on the back end to ensure they get more than they invested to the point of breaking kids out of school (basically the current loan system for a lot of grads) or, becoming creative in how they write up their contracts, adding in default clauses or other such things. I see them just becoming another version of a loan system.

 

3. At worst they would require contract term employment at a firm they are invested in on top of the other things. Not even allowing a person to leave or the loan becomes due. 

 

As for your second part, Sanders program would effect community college. He, like myself is a huge proponent of community college. Most trade schools are private are they not? Those, I would think, would be the most likely to benefit from a free market solution as proposed by Rubio. 

---

That's the crux of a lot bipartisan politics though isn't it? You focus on the downsides of the government doing it and I focus on the downsides of the free market. 

 

I see many possible problems with the free market doing this without regulation, which I assume is what we are discussing here. 

1. without tax breaks or some benefit I don't see them actually taking a risk and any reasonable number of students as to really dent the problem with college for kids as whole for the country.

 

2. Eventually like with all investment firms they will want more money. That means either charging more on the back end to ensure they get more than they invested to the point of breaking kids out of school (basically the current loan system for a lot of grads) or, becoming creative in how they write up their contracts, adding in default clauses or other such things. I see them just becoming another version of a loan system.

 

3. At worst they would require contract term employment at a firm they are invested in on top of the other things. Not even allowing a person to leave or the loan becomes due. 

 

As for your second part, Sanders program would effect community college. He, like myself is a huge proponent of community college. Most trade schools are private are they not? Those, I would think, would be the most likely to benefit from a free market solution as proposed by Rubio. 

 

Good points.

 

As you eluded to in another thread, I am pretty tired and am going to spend a bit of time with my wife.  I would love to continue this debate, and I'll revisit it tomorrow.  I owe my wife a bit of attention, and 3:30 comes too quickly when you get older.  

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That's the crux of a lot bipartisan politics though isn't it? You focus on the downsides of the government doing it and I focus on the downsides of the free market. 

 

I see many possible problems with the free market doing this without regulation, which I assume is what we are discussing here. 

1. without tax breaks or some benefit I don't see them actually taking a risk and any reasonable number of students as to really dent the problem with college for kids as whole for the country.

 

2. Eventually like with all investment firms they will want more money. That means either charging more on the back end to ensure they get more than they invested to the point of breaking kids out of school (basically the current loan system for a lot of grads) or, becoming creative in how they write up their contracts, adding in default clauses or other such things. I see them just becoming another version of a loan system.

 

3. At worst they would require contract term employment at a firm they are invested in on top of the other things. Not even allowing a person to leave or the loan becomes due. 

 

As for your second part, Sanders program would effect community college. He, like myself is a huge proponent of community college. Most trade schools are private are they not? Those, I would think, would be the most likely to benefit from a free market solution as proposed by Rubio. 

 

Marco Rubio has in fact addressed that, but it kind of goes back to his idea regarding K-12 education.  A large part of his idea is the fact that we graduate kids out of high school that are not prepared to either go on to higher education, or enter the job market or a trade school.  His point here is that we should not focus solely on preparing kids for college, but also prepare them for careers as an electrician, a plumber or a welder, all of those being good paying jobs.

 

One other point that he talks about is turning certain skills and experiences into "real" qualifications for positions.  As an example (much like my personal story) what if a person got educated though non-traditional means?  What if they have experience through military service, took a few of the many free online courses and learned skills on their own?  Is it not reasonable to package that experience and knowledge up into something meaningful to assist them in getting good employment?

 

As I said, my own personal story is an example of that, and I'll share part of it here.  As a teenager and young adult I did many jobs ranging from working in a restaurant, to working as a deputy sheriff, to working in radio broadcasting.  None of that was really what I wanted to do, so at 23 years old I entered the military.  I learned a lot about electronics and computers (hardware), and I also learned a lot about leadership, responsibility and accountability.  After my years in the Navy I worked at a couple of jobs briefly that used very little of my knowledge, and I ended up going to work for a company that deals with aircraft simulation and trainers.  Now backing up a bit, during my years in the Navy, I was also introduced to Unix and Linux (this is when the internet as we know it was very young).  Part of using an Operating System like Linux back then involved learning how to write scripts, and how to modify source code for programs, so I did a lot of reading and taught myself how to program in many different programming languages.  Since then I have been fortunate enough that some companies have hired me based on my actual skill, even though requirements for the job listing required a degree in either electronics or computer science.  I don't hold either, but have worked and still do with a lot of people that actually do posses a degree.

 

With all of that being said and the reason that I share something like that is it should be easier for someone to "package" skills up and be able to call it something.  I am fortunate in that it was relatively easy for me to get hired on at all but one job only because of "who I knew".  Those people have known me or "knew of me" based on prior experience and work.  It should be easier for someone educated the way that I was to have something to show for it, and have that something make an employer want to hire such a person.

 

Bernie Sanders on the other hand just wants to tax people that achieve, and promise that education will be "free".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Marco Rubio has in fact addressed that, but it kind of goes back to his idea regarding K-12 education.  A large part of his idea is the fact that we graduate kids out of high school that are not prepared to either go on to higher education, or enter the job market or a trade school.  His point here is that we should not focus solely on preparing kids for college, but also prepare them for careers as an electrician, a plumber or a welder, all of those being good paying jobs.

 

One other point that he talks about is turning certain skills and experiences into "real" qualifications for positions.  As an example (much like my personal story) what if a person got educated though non-traditional means?  What if they have experience through military service, took a few of the many free online courses and learned skills on their own?  Is it not reasonable to package that experience and knowledge up into something meaningful to assist them in getting good employment?

 

As I said, my own personal story is an example of that, and I'll share part of it here.  As a teenager and young adult I did many jobs ranging from working in a restaurant, to working as a deputy sheriff, to working in radio broadcasting.  None of that was really what I wanted to do, so at 23 years old I entered the military.  I learned a lot about electronics and computers (hardware), and I also learned a lot about leadership, responsibility and accountability.  After my years in the Navy I worked at a couple of jobs briefly that used very little of my knowledge, and I ended up going to work for a company that deals with aircraft simulation and trainers.  Now backing up a bit, during my years in the Navy, I was also introduced to Unix and Linux (this is when the internet as we know it was very young).  Part of using an Operating System like Linux back then involved learning how to write scripts, and how to modify source code for programs, so I did a lot of reading and taught myself how to program in many different programming languages.  Since then I have been fortunate enough that some companies have hired me based on my actual skill, even though requirements for the job listing required a degree in either electronics or computer science.  I don't hold either, but have worked and still do with a lot of people that actually do posses a degree.

 

With all of that being said and the reason that I share something like that is it should be easier for someone to "package" skills up and be able to call it something.  I am fortunate in that it was relatively easy for me to get hired on at all but one job only because of "who I knew".  Those people have known me or "knew of me" based on prior experience and work.  It should be easier for someone educated the way that I was to have something to show for it, and have that something make an employer want to hire such a person.

 

Bernie Sanders on the other hand just wants to tax people that achieve, and promise that education will be "free".

I could easily be as dismissive of Rubio because I don't agree with a free market choise as you are being of Sanders, I am not. Try not to be as well. A discussion was your idea after all. 

 

Education is very important and trades can be taught outside of trade school in community college. Those without education and not just kids but adults as well ought have avenues to get the education they need that will allow them to market themselves. His point is higher education should be easily accessible and I agree. 

 

How does Rubio propose you separate out the kids who are destined for higher education and those that should be put on trade pahts? Is there a clear plan for this or just we need to do better at the levels it's already free at.

 

My current job I have due to knowing people. It's good to know people and have your skills valued. I do think in a lot of areas to much restriction is put on the paper and not on the experience. That is an idea that many fields need to change their viewpoint on. However it's not a replacement for the education system. How many people are going to naturally acquire the the knowledge and experience for sciences, engineering even teaching at some levels for that matter?

---

Marco Rubio has in fact addressed that, but it kind of goes back to his idea regarding K-12 education.  A large part of his idea is the fact that we graduate kids out of high school that are not prepared to either go on to higher education, or enter the job market or a trade school.  His point here is that we should not focus solely on preparing kids for college, but also prepare them for careers as an electrician, a plumber or a welder, all of those being good paying jobs.

 

Isn't this in essence just the magnet school program?

---

Isn't this in essence just the magnet school program?

Arn't magnet school private ran schools?

 

I have little experience with them. 

---

Arn't magnet school private ran schools?

 

I have little experience with them. 

 

Maybe there are some, but I would assume most are public schools as all of the magnet schools in Jacksonville are public. 

---