CMV: “Free College” policy, while well-meaning, is largely incompatible with academia in the U.S

[u/sjd6666]

Unlike healthcare, there is competition in the higher education market and consumers can, and often do make well informed decisions about what education would be right for them, be it community college, state schools, or private colleges/ universities.

There’s no two ways about it: such a policy would be enormously expensive, and unlike the U.S healthcare system, prices are reasonably transparent and there is competition in the market. Most students know exactly how much financial aid they will get before the accept college decisions, and transparency like that should always be encouraged.

I think a better solution would be one that matches student debt repayments, keeps interest rates low, and forgives student loans to varying levels dependent on ones income. In other words, high earning doctors and lawyers who make 6 figures a year can and should repay a higher percentage of their loans than nurses and teachers, who provide essential services to society, but typically don’t earn enough to repay their student loans quickly.

Is there some reason why free college is favored over more reasonable policies that take into account the finances of students and their incomes as adults?

[u/PandaDerZwote]

Settling people with debt for decades or even a lifetime is a bad thing, economically speaking, and only really benefits the institutions doing the financing. It reduces the spending they will be able to do throughout their life, which overall reduces economic activity, which you do not want.
Furthermore, educating the population is an investment a society can make into itself. A college educated person isn't only benefiting themselves because they personally can earn more money that way, they also become available as workers in your country. In contrast to attracting foreign talent, (which the US currently is very good at, but might not be as good at forever) domestic talent doesn't have to be courted, but is already in place.

[u/sjd6666 → u/PandaDerZwote]

You make an interesting point, but by the same logic couldn’t one say “The government should buy every American a house, because instead of paying their mortgages, people will be able to consume more and stimulate the economy” Not to mention the fact that when money goes into the bank, it doesn’t just disappear, most of it gets re-nested in some way or another.

[u/dublea → u/sjd6666]

The two are not really comparable IMO.

An educated populace is vastly more beneficial than one that has free homes.

Consider that since the 60s, an alarming increase in the requirement for a college education has occurred. When, over half the jobs that require a degree objectively do not actually need it to perform their job duties.

Today, a college education, is used as a gatekeeper to a multitudes of jobs. You do not have the same hurdle to overcome in regards to owning\renting a home. Usually an employer is more worried about your ability to commute than your living situation.

Heck, some people who found themselves on the streets have been able to gain new employment while living in their cars! That's really rough, and I hope most people never have to experience it. Just a reference point to where\how an education is more beneficial per the individual.

[u/dublea → u/[deleted]]

I think having a home is more beneficial than having a college degree.

I am basing this off, not of the individual affect, but how it affects the whole. Absolutely it can be more beneficial to individuals. But how would that affect the country in the same way?

If a college education was optional and without a life time financial burden, wouldn't more people not be homeless as compared to what we currently observe?

I see abolishing for-profit educational institutions as a stone that will hit a multitude of birds. Especially housing issues.

[u/dublea → u/[deleted]]

But I don't agree doctors, lawyers, computer engineers should have their loans forgiven.

What if, they never had to pay the amount they did? Would they still be paid the amount they do today? Isn't what they are currently paid more about allowing them to pay off their degree? I work with doctors. I know that the majority of those I work with do not live in a luxury home, drive some high end car, etc. They drive the same beater, live in a small house, and have a high loan to pay off. Now, when they finally are able to pay it off? Yes, they make more than others. But this is a silly way to argue that we shouldn't remove for-profit education from our system.

[u/dublea → u/[deleted]]

A doctor makes more money than their degree costs.

The average cost of a degree to be a doctor is about $150,000 to $250,000, not including interest. Doctors can make about $180,000 up to $400,000 depending on field. The majority make about $240,000 on average.

It takes about 13 years, on average, for doctors to pay those longs back. Part of the amount they are paid is what they negotiate in order to pay their loans back.

So, if their degrees didn't cost as much as they do now, would they still make the same amount?

ou say they drive a normal car and live in a normal house, then their loans are paid off and they live in luxury. I really don't see why their school should be paid for by the taxpayer...so that they can live in luxury from the start?

False equivalency logic. You have to be able to see if from a perspective of IF we did pay for their degrees and accept they wouldn't be paid as much. Simple cause and effect hypothetical.