Free College for Everyone Is Not About Educating the Masses. It's About Saving A Dying Industry.

First, a little background about myself. I’ve worked in Higher Ed administration for close to 12 years now – I’m not a big wig, I’m a mid-level staffer at a mid-level college in the mid-west. But I see, hear, and read enough to have developed a pretty good understanding of what makes this industry tick, and what’s coming down the pike in the next 10 – 15 years…and it’s not pretty.

Will Half of Colleges Really Close in the Next Decade?

The core business of higher education is the transference of knowledge and skills from those who have said knowledge and skills (the faculty), to those who don’t (the students). For hundreds of years, the only way to really do this was either through reading books, which provide useful, but not always practical experience, or in-person classroom learning under the tutelage of an expert in the field, otherwise known as a professor. This worked great for centuries, and really was the best way to become educated…until recently. Then came the internet.

Today, we live in a totally different world. Nearly every human being in the developed world has the entirety of human knowledge and experience available to them at their fingertips through the internet. You can become an expert in nearly anything for free or close to it, assuming you have the drive, desire, and motivation. And if you need a little kick in the rear to stay on track, as most of us do, then you can pay a small fee for an online course to guide you through the learning process. And that in-person, hands-on training you normally get in the traditional classroom? Well, we solved that centuries ago, it’s called an apprenticeship, or more recently, an internship. No need to pay thousands to the university for that hands-on experience in the classroom, you can do that in the real world, and (usually) get paid for it with on-the-job training. Online learning is nothing short of an education revolution. And it’s going to kill the traditional college.

So what are the thousands of colleges and universities supposed to do now that they have been rendered essentially useless? The ONLY thing they have left is a ridiculous piece of paper called a ‘degree’, whose value varies wildly depending on whether ‘Harvard’ or’ Yale’ is typed at the top vs. ‘Bumpkin Valley College’. And now, even the intrinsic value of a college education is being seriously questioned, what with the ridiculously rising costs of attending one of these outdated institutions and the rampant grade inflation making a college degree almost meaningless.

So what do you do with a dying industry? How do you save it? Ahhh…glad you asked.

What you do is this - You start a nation-wide push to move higher education from a free market industry and turn it into a government program. And you do that by taking the tuition cost from an optional expenditure that individual citizens can choose (or not choose) to purchase on the free market, and turning it into to an ‘education tax’ paid for by every single tax payer in the country. And THAT, my friends, will ensure the survival of traditional higher education for decades, even centuries to come. Because government programs NEVER die.

So next time you hear Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or whoever the leftist talking head du jour might be, talking about how free college for everyone is a ‘human right’, just remember that they are WELL aware that their pockets are lined with tuition dollars. Tuition dollars you paid for your kid’s college education, that in turn paid for that leftist professor’s salary, who in turn paid their union dues to the NEA, who in turn pour millions of those union dollars into SuperPAC’s that supports that very same politician. Higher Ed itself is behind the push for free college (and tuition debt forgiveness too for that matter), not those benevolent, caring politicians. They don’t care about your kid’s education one bit, it’s all about, and always has been, about the money.

+1 Yup. Well stated.

Most colleges and universities are obsolete, particularly those whose professors are not doing a lot of research and publishing.

a reply to: Subsonic

So , the Solution is " Another Tax " ? Fagetaboutit . The Problem is Education has become an " Industry " in this country solely bent on Earning a Profit , and Cares Nothing about Educating Young Minds as a way of Progressing Humanities Knowledge of itself and the Universe we reside in . Education starts at Home , let it progress from there without the Burden of Financial Debt determining a persons Fate ............

a reply to: Subsonic

Can you imagine the amount of tax payer subsidies it would take in order to provide "free" degrees?

We know that subsidizing almost any industry causes the prices to skyrocket and the quality of the service or good to decline.

The so called producers no longer have an incentive to cut costs or improve their product, primarily because they are guaranteed money.

Tens of thousands of dollars per year per student to get a degree, which in this economic environment will get you a job at Starbucks.

S&F
It is this reason why many "conservative" parents are telling their children that unless they want to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or specific scientist to not waste their time with a traditional college education. Better off getting into a technical school.

YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Can you imagine the amount of tax payer subsidies it would take in order to provide "free" degrees?

Depends how you approach it, the public universities are already state funded. Just tell them to reduce tuition or they can go private.

Even if you don't see people having better careers meaning more taxes as paying back their debt, make them do community college for two years before university. Afterwards they can have a low paying public sector job for a few years to give back.

There are ways to be creative about this without adding added cost to the taxpayers.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Subsonic

Can you imagine the amount of tax payer subsidies it would take in order to provide "free" degrees?

We know that subsidizing almost any industry causes the prices to skyrocket and the quality of the service or good to decline.

The so called producers no longer have an incentive to cut costs or improve their product, primarily because they are guaranteed money.

Tens of thousands of dollars per year per student to get a degree, which in this economic environment will get you a job at Starbucks.

Spot on. Government already has nearly complete control over K-8 education, the free college push benefits both the higher ed industry and the government, to the detriment of nearly everyone else. Traditional higher ed gets to survive in its bloated, ineffective, ideologically-minded current form, and government gets to have COMPLETE control over the education of every human being in the country from Kindergarten through doctoral programs.

It's a very frightening and hideously dangerous move.

originally posted by: nfflhome
YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

Not a bad idea, maybe we can stop spending trillions on failed wars and sending our young to fight them and put them in school on top of it.

a reply to: Subsonic

Traditional higher ed gets to survive in its bloated, ineffective, ideologically-minded current form, and government gets to have COMPLETE control over the education of every human being in the country from Kindergarten through doctoral programs.

People have the option to send their kids to private school or even home school. A kid who doesn't question the system is a fault of the parent, I'm not aware of any government teaching their citizens to question them.

originally posted by: nfflhome
YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

That's what trade schools are supposed to be for - cutting right to the chase and teaching someone how to do a job. Historically, a 'Liberal Arts Education' was meant to create a well rounded individual, with knowledge spanning multiple fields throughout the humanities, maths, and sciences. This broad-based education takes many years to do, understandably, but was also not meant for everyone, but only a select few.

Sadly, it got twisted and bloated into its current form, and for some reason became a status symbol that everyone wanted to achieve.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Subsonic

Traditional higher ed gets to survive in its bloated, ineffective, ideologically-minded current form, and government gets to have COMPLETE control over the education of every human being in the country from Kindergarten through doctoral programs.

People have the option to send their kids to private school or even home school. A kid who doesn't question the system is a fault of the parent, I'm not aware of any government teaching their citizens to question them.

Problem is that private schools aren't private. They rely, almost completely, on federal grants and federal student loan programs. The college I work for is a private college, and if federal student loans dried up tomorrow, we'd close our doors. Taxpayer money in the form of grants and student loans is the ONLY way the vast majority of private colleges stay in business.

originally posted by: Subsonic

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Subsonic

Traditional higher ed gets to survive in its bloated, ineffective, ideologically-minded current form, and government gets to have COMPLETE control over the education of every human being in the country from Kindergarten through doctoral programs.

People have the option to send their kids to private school or even home school. A kid who doesn't question the system is a fault of the parent, I'm not aware of any government teaching their citizens to question them.

Problem is that private schools aren't private. They rely, almost completely, on federal grants and federal student loan programs. The college I work for is a private college, and if federal student loans dried up tomorrow, we'd close our doors. Taxpayer money in the form of grants and student loans is the ONLY way the vast majority of private colleges stay in business.

Then our elected employees need to rock the boat on them. Take back the funding until they aren't exorbitant in cost. If they can operate on their own, they can be as lavish as they wish. If they are taking tax payer dollars, they need to focus on education, and not marble walls.

originally posted by: Fools
S&F
It is this reason why many "conservative" parents are telling their children that unless they want to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or specific scientist to not waste their time with a traditional college education. Better off getting into a technical school.

Even thought both me and my wife value education (undergrad & master's degrees), I've already decided that I won't lose a wink of sleep if my kid doesn't want to go to college. In fact, looking at the costs and ROI, I am actually discouraging it unless he shows an aptitude for STEM or some other field.

We will be in a financial position to be able to afford to pay for it, but I think it would be more beneficial to keep the money invested for them as it would secure their retirements or could be used to start a business than to pay for college.

Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

People just say Harvard and Yale as a catch all. There are many more "Ivy League" schools as they call them in the USA. Harvard and Yale are just considered the top. But the real reason any school is actually the top is because of networking. Harvard and Yale are institutional wealth universities. You can't just go there, you have to be wanted there. To be wanted there, you have to be someone special. The specialty is usually whom you are related to. So, while they do actually have great R and D wings, so do many many other universities. The thing they thrive on is that since they do get so many grants from the wealthy they can keep up on very singular research projects that other universities cannot afford, or that corporate research is not interested in. So for that alone, I am glad they exist. But for little other reason.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

The problem is that in the US, everyone can attend college/university as long as you can pay for it or take out loans. As such, the degree value has become very diluted. You have a handful of top schools where demand to attend is higher than ever and hundreds/thousands of lower tier schools catering to a large number of students who probably shouldn't even need to and aren't qualified to attend in the first place.

Socially, the US tends to hold people with college degrees in a higher class, so people tend to look down on vocations / blue collar work.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

My understanding though is that in Europe, children's cognitive abilities are identified while still in grade school, and are placed in either college-prep high schools (Gymnasium) or in low or mid level vocational schools. The only realistic way for a student to actually go to university in Europe is to be identified early in life as above average in intelligence by the school officials (meaning government), and placed specifically in a college-prep track for high school and beyond. The kids who end up going to vocational school don't get to go to university, they go to work.

In America, people are free to do as they choose (sort of the point of America). Even if you aren't the brightest bulb in the room, you can still go to college if you have the money and desire, which is what creates a market for second and third-tier colleges and universities. These lower quality schools do perform a useful service, however it looks like with the advent of online learning, these lower tier schools will likely fold in the coming years.

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

People just say Harvard and Yale as a catch all. There are many more "Ivy League" schools as they call them in the USA. Harvard and Yale are just considered the top. But the real reason any school is actually the top is because of networking. Harvard and Yale are institutional wealth universities. You can't just go there, you have to be wanted there. To be wanted there, you have to be someone special. The specialty is usually whom you are related to. So, while they do actually have great R and D wings, so do many many other universities. The thing they thrive on is that since they do get so many grants from the wealthy they can keep up on very singular research projects that other universities cannot afford, or that corporate research is not interested in. So for that alone, I am glad they exist. But for little other reason.

Correct...

The Ivy League is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Cornell. However, among the elite/upper class, for undergrad study Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are seen as the best. What many don't know is that the Ivy League is just a sports league... it has nothing to do with academics.

Some non-Ivy schools that are more prestigious than the other Ivies... Stanford is considered on par with HYP. If you are STEM focused, you'd go to MIT over Harvard. Cornell isn't really considered on par academically with the other Ivies. Some would say Duke or even some of the "public ivies" are more prestigious - University of Virginia, University of Michigan, University of Cal - Berkeley, etc.

Once you get into graduate schools, many non-Ivies are considered more prestigious or ranking changes. Princeton doesn't have a law or business school. Yale's business school is decent, but it isn't considered a "top school" for MBAs. However, it's law school is usually considered #1 or #2 next to Harvard Law.

How about fixing our high schools?

Seriously, why do we send out kids to school for 13 years "k-12" just to tell them that they need 4 more years to know anything?

What you they learning in high school...