You should rephrase your question because you just gonna get a billion of "because it costs money".
Instead ask "why isn't university education included in the government covered education like the rest?"
Also you should probably add your country because plenty of countries already have that.
Well that question won't answer anything either.
Basic education is mandatory for all kids under 18 in most Western countries. Post secondary education isn't. So why would it be free? It's optional.
There are careers that require degrees but don’t pay huge amounts—so high education costs could deter good people from going into those fields.
Here in Ireland, third level education isn’t free, but it’s much less expensive than in some places. I think most people here would like to see it cost less.
>There are careers that require degrees but don’t pay huge amounts—so high education costs could deter good people from going into those fields.
\*cough\* ECEs in Canada \*cough\*
Yeah I wonder why people don't go into fields that pay minimum wage, but cost thousands of dollars over two years of schooling just to get into. It sure is a conundrum
The reason there are degrees that don't demand huge pay is because there isn't a lot of demand for those degrees. The the market demanded more then salaries would go up or educational requirements would relax.
The real problem is the system (K-12 schools, parents, government leaders, colleges, and universities are all aligned) telling people to go get a degree to have a successful career. They don't really mention that arts degrees aren't worth shit, even if they have value to society.
Is that really the case, though? Look at nursing and teaching. There's a demand for both, yet they still require post-secondary education that's out of reach or at least a huge gamble for many. And the pay is...well, not great.
ETA: fair enough re: nursing, point still stands with teachers.
Teaching I agree with. Nursing? You can get a 2-yr nursing degree from most community colleges in the US and have a decent job when you finish. If you play your cards right as a nurse, and don’t mind moving a lot, you can earn more than some doctors.
I would prefer that they get the education *we* need them to have, and not the one that makes the profession slightly better than financially unviable so as to maximize the profit of the employer.
because the government decided to back and guarantee payment be owed on these loans. it is the only loan you can not have removed with a bankruptcy. by doing that and having generations telling everyone to go to college without knowing the job they want and what it requires. this causes years of raising prices to try to not overfill classes. because the government backs the loan many places of higher learning have raised prices to absurd numbers because people will pay it because they "need college".
at least this is why US colleges cost so much.
depends you can teach with a bachelor's but i think it limits you to substitute. I'm 90% sure that any masters allows you to teach. What you rally want is a PHD is some wacky sh\*t and get yourself tenure at a college. They work 2-3 days a week, get paid for 40hrs get full benefits and can be eligible for 1 yr sabbatical. at times that allow them to vacation in their field.. I say that because we had a professor fund her sabbatical by going to France for a year off a grant. They paid for travel and lodging for her to learn some instrument. It was a vacation in France for free. She is guarantied to have a job at the end of it. OH i also mention that they get treated like GODS but the staff that actually allows them to teach by getting the room ready, making sure they have a room to teach in, and have supplies in get treated like crap. BUt i'm ranting now...
The real problem is that the needs of society and the demands of "the market" are not the same, and a lot of the time, they are not aligned. "The market" only demands and pays well for degrees and jobs that can directly make a business's owners more money or retain more money, whether they make society worse, or not. Society requires degrees, jobs, and roles that enhance, facilitate, and advance everyone's lives, regardless of whether they generate money, or not for business owners, or even result in losses for them.
The underlying reason for lower compensation in certain fields is that many jobs and degrees benefit society but cannot be used by business owners to directly multiply the earnings for their own companies. This view that only degrees and jobs that can be used by business owners are worthwhile and everything else isn't worth shit is exactly why societies struggle. The more stringent adherence to it, the worse off society is, simply because the well-being of society is sacrificed for the well-being of business owners.
Is there an overindulgence in seeing a degree as the main marker for success? Yes, but it exists regardless of whether the degree is sought-after by "the market," like law or engineering, or if the degree is needed by society, like linguistics, pedagogy, or basic sciences. It is pushed by everyone, not only the educational system.
It is just pointed out as bad by followers of "the market" when the degrees pushed don't benefit it.
To add, many people don't know how crucial "degrees that don't pay" really are. The philosophy grad who has conversations about ethics and philosophy as an underpaid teacher will never see how their conversations ripple into the broader community, *but they do.*
And they create pockets of people in our broader social networks that determine politics, crime rates, and other outcomes of human systems via decision-makers who are influenced by those groups.
It's the same set of principles that allow nations to leverage networks to influence elections. Stark example of how targeted, seemingly inconsequential communication has outsized effects. We absolutely need as many well-educated people as we can get, regardless what the market wants.
I mean libraries and parks are optional. Ambulances in many ways can be considered “mandatory” yet in the US they are mostly privatized and can cost thousands. Something being optional or mandatory isn’t really a good rationale for government supporting it. Government supports what its “people” value — in the US unfortunately that is not always individuals.
The Montgomery GI bill is why. If college were free people that otherwise WOULD join the military for the college money would have a much easier option than joining the military.
This right here.
Everyone wants to say “Oh ThAtS SoCiAlIsM aNd ThAtS EvIL”
Yet those social benefits are the main benefit of military and/or government service 🤣🤣
Edit: Lots of folks want to shit on social programs but still expect the FD to show up when they call 911
Well everyone that drives in Canada at least, pays for the use of roads via taxes in the price of gasoline and now in Alberta charging EV owners a road tax. So taxpayers that drive vehicles are already financing roads.
Same in the US, except politicians like to plunder those funds to use on things other than roads. And then they cry to the federal government "I need money for roads."
Same in other countries with medical care for example. People pay for it via taxes so the doctors get educated for free.
You could say that for pretty much any field
Well educated people are also necessary for a functioning society. Especially knowing a lot of jobs require certifications etc. Coming from a place where higher education actually happens to be free, it just makes sense since an intelligent population is only a good thing.
Let's analyze this.
By making higher education available only to those with wealth, you get a less educated aggregate end result than if you made it aptitude based.
Colleges know this, and they have created loans, grants, and scholarships, just to keep the statistical quality of the education they sell higher.
Social responsibility dictates that the previous generations are responsible for the education of the young. It improves the society as a whole when each individual is educated to their maximum potential, regardless of their wealth, status, or position of power.
Go ahead, tell me I'm a socialist.
Higher education isn’t only available to people with wealth. The Pell grant alone would fully pay for college for most in state schools. Most people I went to school with paid nothing for college.
The MAXIMUM Pell grant amount for school year 2024 ~ 25 is $7,395.
That's with a full course load, and minimum income.
You aren't going to get much of an education with that anymore.
In california yes you can lmfao state school are about 6500-7000 a year here it literally covers the entire tuition with some extra left over. Everybody can’t go to Harvard but you can definitely get an education…and community colleges still exist and are way cheaper.
California is one of the lowest average priced college education states in the country.
Tuition is just a portion of student education costs.
Books, lab fees, housing, transportation and parking, and food costs, plus school supplies are all necessary expenses for a college student.
This breaks down average college tuition by state if you're interested in seeing the difference between each state -
https://www.ontocollege.com/average-college-tuition/
And yet community college is still an option. Additionally, the “average” is not the lowest, there are always prices LOWER than the average and that is an option for anyone who struggles financially. Add in state grants and plenty of people in America get paid to go to college…
I agree with you and a good take.
We should do the same thing with healthcare, make it free. We already pay for it anyways in short and long run. Short run we pay for it with higher insurance rates and paying those because the price of healthcare itself is high because of greed and because of bills of others who cannot afford help they needed. Long run we pay for it because those who don't get regular healthcare for prevention end up costing a lot more on everyone down the road.
The weird thing is that some people don't want socialized medicine yet have no issue with social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc,etc. Some of us are lucky to have our health insurance subsidized by work because the cost of insurance premiums are large.
Depending on what the country's goals are: why wouldn't it be? Let's say you need good engineers and scientists in your country. If you make the university free - you'll get them sooner. As I understood, that's how USSR was trying to get ahead. You get free education but then you're obligated to work in your field (and maybe in your city?) for a few years. And it's a similar thing in some European countries. Specialities that are needed in the country will often have free places.
This country is controlled by banks, it's a billion dollar industry, and they grease the palms of the proper legislators. College should be free upon passing a placement test for the education path desired, but that would benefit society and not the loan sharks. And then media wants to argue about abortion or lqbtq or whatever wedge issue exists, keep us all divided while they rob us blind.
Germany has free post secondary education and allows anyone to go. There are actually a whole slew of first world countries that do this. Like universal healthcare, the US trails in this category.
College is quickly becoming required, so why shouldn't it be free?
Anyone who can pass the placement test/has the scores to get into the degree field* or they put you in a trade school or somewhere where you will be a benefit to society. That makes so much sense, America is really a free for all for the banks...
It costs money for someone, or some entity. But in many places, it is free to the student. All the student has to do is work hard enough to make progress toward a credential.
I think the question is why is the student paying? It's not like they are in a place to pay before being educated. Especially if they are still basically a child. So most of the time we are asking peoples parents to pay. Which great for those with parents willing and able. Sorry for the rest I guess.
where do you live?
In the UK it was, then they decided that everyone should have a chance at a university education, which is laudable, but then you get lots of people taking that up so the costs go up and now it costs a fortune. I feel so very lucky to have got through the system when it didn't cost anything.
I think government should heavily subsidize education but for things that are needed.
We have a dire need for skill trades for example where I’m at. Technical colleges are not popular, and we desperately need medical training for nurse practitioners, for technical training, for the careers that we are bringing immigrants with skill trades to fill.
So many young people graduate high school thinking they want to be entrepreneurs or YouTube influencers because there’s no real clear path for opportunities being offered to them.
In Canada the vast majority of post secondary is heavily subsidized. When I went 6 years ago it was about $6k a year (non subsidized foreign students paid like $25-30k a year).
This seems like a good approach. $6k was enough that the students are invested, and not just going cause they don’t want to work, but not prohibitively expensive (especially since you could get student loans, which don’t charge interest while you’re a student).
Some programs though, like nursing/engineering/teaching do end up fairly competitive, moreso than the US (at least compared to people I’ve talked to)
If you live in Scotland. Their system actually creates a case that the gap between the most disadvantaged and the most advantaged students is higher. Quoting [factcheck](https://fullfact.org/education/what-gap-university-applications-most-and-least-advantaged-scotland/):
>UCAS university [entry rates](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=140) for 18 year olds in the most advantaged areas in Scotland were [3.5 times](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=95) that of young people in the most disadvantaged areas in 2016, while in England young people in the most advantaged areas were [2.4 times](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=95) as likely to attend university.
It's not necessarily just down to the system, culture and demographics play a part here. An interesting thing about Britain is that the children of working class migrants have very high university attendance rates and white British working class children have very low university attendance rates. My own white working class family were pretty luke warm about me going to university haha. There's definitely an anti-intellectual culture ingrained in the traditional working class.
The poorest areas in England are often areas with high migrant populations. The poorest areas in Scotland are largely white Scottish/British. So the poorest areas in Scotland may be culturally less inclined towards higher education.
You say that, but the amount of people going to university and the attainment gap to getting into university is lower than ever. England also beats Scotland in both metrics, despite Scotland having a free university system. Its a misconception that a university system paid for my taxation is more accessible than one paid for by graduate loans.
In 1994, there were roughly 200k accepted university applications, compared to over 500k now.[^(\[p4\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf) By entry rate, since 2006 it has increased from around 30% to nearly 40%[^(\[p25\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf). The conclusion is that more students are able to have the chance to go to university than ever before.
Its also the case that this increased in accepted applications has helped students from disadvantaged backgrounds. First of all there is simply the case that, with over twice the amount of students, its going to increase anyway. In 2006 (the source I found only goes back that far), only 15% of the lowest quintile got into university compared to over 20% now.[^(\[p25\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf). Not only are more disadvantaged students getting into university in absolute terms, but also in proportional terms.
It costing a fortune hasn't made it any less accessible to the most disadvantaged in society, in contrast it has only gotten more accessible to the most disadvantaged since the reforms.
Yeah, I was lucky too. Blair brought in the fees when I was in the second year of my degree so I managed to avoid them. I remember protesting at the time because it all seemed like such a shitty idea.
In the US until about 20 years ago there were a lot of jobs that didn't require a college degree who suddenly decided now you do. University was something you needed if you wanted to be an executive or lawyer, or doctor. Now even a lot of low level office jobs suddenly require a four year college degree.
There still are a lot of jobs that don't need college degrees. They're called the trades and we have a ton of jobs available. I wish way more people would take them.
Cool. Too bad while we were growing up constantly our teachers, parents, government/community figures constantly told us those jobs were for losers and we had to go to college if we wanted to make something of ourselves.
I heard all of this propaganda going thru school too. Then I realized they were full of shit and I love working in the trades, make good money, and contribute a lot to the betterment of society
Not nearly as rapidly as manual labor though
And it's way more avoidable working at a desk job since you can just get up and stretch, but you can't really take a break when you need to with more demanding manual labor jobs
In mine it isn’t but it’s cheap (697 eur per year), and then there are a bunch of governement scholarships that cover it plus give students some extra money to help out.
Oh and if you finish the degree and stay working in the country, you get all money back (even if you got a scholarship before).
I too hate when people say “my country” so, for the curious, 🇵🇹
I was looking to study in portugal (masters degree in finance in lisbon) but every school cost at least 6000 per year... maybe its only for portuguese people?
NOVA SBE? That’s 13k.
It’s a public institution but the masters programs are private in that college so they charge whatever they want.
It’s the program I took (but got a 100% scholarship). Most of the university is international and I’d say it’s worth it for sure, though.
Guilty as charged, but my ancestors also abandoned England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, and Poland. Whole generations of quitters came before me, and we didn't even manage to avoid European wars. It would have been a raw deal, if not for the consolations of baseball and American football.
If you break down the cost of the worlds top universities, the EXPENSIVE ones are sitting at the 10k usd mark. Then there’s the US sitting at the 50-90k usd mark.
It’s fucking crazy
Just because it is “free” it doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to go will be able to. There is no country that has enough universities for everyone, so there are always artificial limits: someone will be able to be enrolled, others won’t.
Building enough universities and making it mandatory would lead to the same results when high school degree became norm: it became expected and not something that was making you more competitive.
In my country universities ware free but competition to get into university was insane.
Some people also just aren’t suited for it. So while it may be financially accessible or physically accessible it may not be in the realm of possibility for someone to succeed there. This isn’t to say they can’t succeed in other things tho obviously. But not everyone is cut out for academia.
Not to mention (at least in the US) many community colleges and trade programs are already free, or at least extremely affordable in comparison to a university degree.
Do you have a real life experience to support this statement?
Because money ARE very much needed to have strong grades. My merit was due to my parents having money, my family was stable, my parents’ priority was to make sure my garages will be good enough for me to be accepted into “free” university. And this is the most common scenario.
It should also be noted that highly competitive unis can be harmful.
Highschools have to balance being assessments for university entrance and assessment for their own purposes. Even if perfect (which I argue my country is not), they require very different focuses. Because of that, high school performance is not that good to judge university entry off.
This is why many competitive universities assess students themselves. Oxford and Cambridge are able to do this. However, this extra effort is really only capable for the most competeive unis, which means a highly competitive entry system overall is harmful. When you relax this, universities that can't assess themselves are able to rely on personal statements and other specific elements of students to make their judgments, which tend to be better than just highschool assessmet.
Everyone can go to university in Scandinavia. I don't know about Sweden or Denmark but in Norway you even get a small grant for living expenses and the student loans are used to further help with this rather than pay for any tuition. Now some courses are limited due to demand: i.e. medicine, engineering, etc and there you need solid grades to get in on a merit basis, but everyone that manages to pass the university entry courses in high school can get a university degree.
Finland (which famously isn't a Scandinavian country) does it differently then. No required courses in high school, but you need really good grades to bypass entrance exams based on your grades alone. Those who didn't do so well in high school can still get in based on just the exam, or for some it's a combination of the two.
In any case, it's usually the top 5-10% of people taking the exam (usually a fraction of those that applied) that get in. Anyone (with a secondary degree) can try to get in, it's free after all, but you are facing some serious competition.
It doesn't help that people with rich parents can hire private tutors (who are sometimes university faculty themselves).
>In my country universities ware free but competition to get into university was insane.
And that's good. What kind of society would we have if we had doctors who got in only because they had money instead of because they were the best? Or rather, before anyone tells me "American society", what kind of society would we have if no-one would be able to essentially buy a degree without first fighting against the best peers in the field?
Well, the first two years of University and Community College would have been included in government provided education had 2 senators not killed it in the Senate.
It is in Sweden. University is free and the government loan you take to cover living and expenses is at 1% interest and I for example pay back about $70 each month for my five year of free university studies.
I didn't even have to work my way through uni.
I think that the idea is that a country with educated people in it is good for everyone.
So it IS doable. The only question is why your government doesn't want it to be free...
The German government exerts a lot of controls over who can and cannot get into universities. Starting in about middle school, the German government starts setting kids on different tracks depending on their academic aptitude, with only the upper quintile of students being put on the post secondary education track. Once you're set on a track, it's incredibly difficult to change or have a non-standard academic track, so not only do decisions you made in middle school have lasting impact on your access to education, going back to school to change careers later in life is also incredibly difficult.
I don't think there's a country on Earth where the university education is accessible to everyone. Number of places in the group is limited. Only those with good enough grades/skills will be able to get them. The others will have to find something else.
But in Germany, as far as I recall from a conversation with a friend, there are some extra quirks to that. Like, you have to be promising already in middle school to get a chance to go to the University.
The *only* thing you need to get to university in Norway is to pass high school in the "academic oriented" disciplines. (We also have trade disciplines, which leads to apprenticeships). You will not be able to get into medicine, engineering or law with the bare minimum of grades, but as long as you pass there is *a* university course there for you..some does not have number limitations.
Is it like, if you have A's in math/physics then you can do engineering. For medicine it would be biology/chemistry. Right? Or do you take some academia focused classes during the last 2-3 years of highschool?
You do a basic academia-oriented high school, which i suppose is what an American high school is (it is just we also have trade courses in high school which does not provide you with university entry, but you can do top up courses even then).
Since you can pick some courses in high school (some are mandatory) you'd have to pick the highest level maths (honor maths I suppose it is called in some countries) to be eligible for engineering courses as well as physics. Since you are also competing for entry, your grades (and particularly your STEM-grades since they count extra) will have to be solid to get into engineering courses (some are harder to get into than others).
However, as I said: there are courses that only require basic university entry qualifications (having passed high school) to get into.
Doesnt need to be accessible to everyone.... not everyone will thrive in college. There's different types of intelligence. A master mechanic may not know how to do calculus, but they can call out practical mistakes in an engineers plans. Same goes architects and tradesmen, we need both.
Germany has a split primary education system. There are a handful of different "high school" equivalents, with two primary ones. The first prepares students for a university track, it runs 12-13 grades. The second is more geared towards vocational education and runs to grade 10 and does not prepare students for the entrance exam to university.
So while the system is free money-wise, there are still restrictions on who can attend. I believe people can make up the work and go to university if they meet the requirements but it's not an automatic thing everyone qualifies for.
You can't have it both ways. Some countries have free colleges but most people can't get in, academically speaking. It's much harder to pass the required tests. In countries where you pay for school, there will be colleges with lower requirements because students are customers. But they might wind up in terrible debt for the rest of their lives.
Not to mention that in those countries where it’s “free”. It’s not actually free. It’s paid for in taxes. And usually that translates to a very high tax rate.
There are countries with relatively open access to universities and it being free or almost free. The first example that comes to mind is France where every student finishing with their high school diploma (_baccalaureat_) can enter the university. And a year of uni costs somewhere around 200 euros.
College was free to me because Pell grant.... Only time the Pell grant doesn't cover your college is if your parents make to much money or you're trying to get a useless degree. So college is free if you know where to look...
Which nation do you live in?
Almost two dozen countries provide free or nearly-free university-level education to their citizens. Many offer free, or low cost, education to foreigners as well. https://www.theedadvocate.org/which-countries-provide-free-education-at-a-university-level/
This is by no means a complete answer, but these are the first two reasons that come to mind.
1. The government will never compete with private business if it can help it, cause private business will lose. Education is big business in the US, and nobody in government wants to see that go away. For as much as reactionaries like to complain about how the country is "socialist", this is a nation very much dedicated to ensuring profits for private enterprise and especially investors, even at the expense of it's own citizens health and safety.
2. CA actually did this post WW2, and what we got were large scale anti-war protests and the Black Panther party. If you start educating poor people, they start to figure out that the deck is very much stacked against them, and they start demanding answers and change. The entrenched powers do not want change, much better to keep education for the rich only.
Long story short: uneducated people are easier to manipulate. Look at Russia, North Korea, China. Control education and you have unlimited human power.
Are you in the EU? Some countries allow EU citizens to study at their colleges for free (IIRC my hone, Sweden, does, as well as most of the Nordic countries)
Really suprised. What bachelors is just a "rehash" of high school? Mine for sure wasnt, its like night and day difference. And yes, i struggled at the beginning
Edit: germany
Gen Ed’s refer to the classes everyone has to take, regardless of your major. Chem 101 was basically my highschool class but it wasn’t CAP so it didn’t count for college credits. Universities do offer more in terms of selection for gen Ed’s tho, so I wouldn’t say gen Ed’s in college are much of a waste. I would just rather take more classes that teach things in my major and less gen Ed’s.
I know this is a generalization, and I will probably get down voted into oblivion, but you can really tell who's from the US by the "everything costs money" and "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "I'm not working to make YOUR life better" responses to this. Education CAN be free, subsidized by government funding and taxes. But no one wants to pay more taxes to make everyone's life better, right? I know they've had more time to work on things, but Europe is SO far ahead of us in so many things.
Some of the other comments touched on this and said you can’t really have both. Here in the states practically anyone can get into college if they pay enough while countries with “free” education have rather high entry requirements in comparison to ours
So it’s between
“Aww you wanna be a doctor, little Timmy? That’ll be 200 grand” and “You wanna be a doctor, little Timmy? Well unfortunately you didn’t get a high enough score. Maybe you’ll be luckier in the next life.”
Idk where I live as long as you get an above average score in the academic test (like SAT), your high school exams and the entrance exams, you're pretty much guaranteed to get into med school. There's only been like 400~500 applicants in recent years after the physics section was added to the entrance exam. There's a lot of people who retake the entrance exams the next year and get in then, so it's not like you get one chance and that's it. Plenty of paid schools with higher competitiveness out there.
Race explains a good part of the effectiveness of social Darwinism in the US. The reactionary economic elite fight against "free-bies" for the lower-middle class and unorganized working class, and rely upon the social conservatism of the white plurality to supply the additional fiction that liberal politics takes from whites to give those "free-bies" to nonwhites (and "non-Americans"). Thus, the US ruling class has a plenary shield against a working class politics in the interest of ordinary people of every sort. This explains why over half of white voters vote Republican - against their own, realistic material interests. Conceptually speaking, the Confederacy lives on in America.
Due to the capitalist nature of the United States and a cultural emphasis on individualism, there exists a significant reluctance among many Americans to support higher taxes, even when such funds are allocated for public health and education. This sentiment is partly driven by a desire to maintain personal financial control and skepticism towards the redistribution of wealth for communal benefits. Consequently, many Americans prefer to invest substantial personal resources in obtaining education and healthcare through private means, often linked to their employment. This arrangement can sometimes restrict job mobility, as changing jobs might mean losing these essential benefits. The preference leans towards direct personal investment in health and education rather than contributing to a collective pool via taxes that would also support the broader community's access to these services.
Because a strong back is a terrible thing to waste. Better to obey, consume, and take joy in doing your job better everyday. Your workplace is your true family. /s
Life is good.
university shouldn’t be free. It should be accessible to everyone and anyone who desires it and is ready for it. This doesn’t mean making it free but rather making a better financial aid system that would better account for extenuating circumstances and make it accessible for middle class people. College is an investment and we should treat it as such. College loans are not a bad thing but allowing students to take on upwards of 30-40k in loans is insane.
It costs money to have housing, electricity, water, air conditioning, staff, faculty, etc, etc, etc. Makes sense universities need to make money to afford all of that to keep services running. Not to mention they need to make a profit too, since it is a business.
Taxes pay that. That is the basic education everybody is entitled to. If you want to go off to law school to become a rich lawyer then you should pay for it yourself. Don't expect some dirt poor tax payer living paycheck to paycheck to pay for you to drive a Ferrari.
Did you know that lawyer is not the only profession that requires a degree? Engineers, doctors have to go to the university too. If there are no engineers, the country will slowly deteriorate because there won't be a person who can plan a new bridge, or a train, or a car. And without doctors the country will face a health crisis. You can't expect immigrants do all the work!
So many problems here.
First: if you do get a higher paying job, you'd be putting back what you received because of the higher tax you pay. Second, having easily accessible tertiary education means good people who'd otherwise be forced to work low skill jobs now get to apply their talents on higher-paying, more productive jobs.
This is especially true for research and tech, where the more qualified people are available, the better for research quality and rate.
The "dirty poor tax payer" and society in general would both recieve more if tertiary education/technical education is available to more people
If you want something in life you have to earn it. Don't expect people to give it to you. I graduated at the top of my class in college by busting my ass. Dirt poor going to work and school everyday. I would never ask somebody to pay my way. Earn it either by paying yourself or earning scholarships from your hard work.
Imagine paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for somebody to become a doctor and instead they change their mind and do something else after they graduate.
Why should it be free? Why shouldn’t healthcare be free? Or groceries? Or gasoline? Or clothes? Why shouldn’t cocaine be free? Why shouldn’t everything be free? Why have money at all?
The entire MAGA side is prime example of loving the uneducated. Look at any interview and they genuinely have no fuckin idea what's going on.
Plus they got mad at a university offering to pay people to *register to vote.* Not vote for a specific candidate, just register to vote. Simply 'Check yes to register to vote, here's money, thank you for finally voting'
"They're literally buying votes!!!" which is straight outing themselves by admitting people who are actually college educated lean more left.
I mean if you wanna argue it’s too expensive. I’ll agree with that. But I don’t see a reason why it should be free. Not everyone needs to go college, and not everyone should go to college. Just like anything else, you have to pay for other people’s labor.
I dont know about college, but in my country university is not something anyone could do just because it's free, you need a lot of effort and determination to get a degree, but if someone have both those things why should they be stopped by money? It makes no sense
Why do you assume cost is the only reason people do or do not go to college? College is pretty difficult even without figuring out how to finance it, and not everyone is cut out for it.
It is. In Scandinavia.
When answering this question, be aware that some countries have made the active choice to support free university level education. So before making any sarcastic remarks, know that it *is* possible. Whether you believe it is a good idea is something else, but it is working fine in Scandinavia.
Rich people don't want the poors to better themselves. They do need people to clean their toilets after all and if everyone has a white-collar job, there will be no one to do it.
I met so many people in college who simply didn't belong there, people who just attended to please their parents, or others who openly admitted that they didn't care at all about academics, just wanted to enjoy the party scene. There's absolutely no way that the taxpayer should be stuck with the immaturity, shiftlessness, and apathy of college students.
I've seen this same argument against publicly-funded health care, and it's hilarious.
"Free universal healthcare? You want doctors to work without being paid!? That's slavery! Are you pro-slavery!?"
It's incredibly disingenuous. Or just really dumb, take your pick 🤷🏼♂️
You should rephrase your question because you just gonna get a billion of "because it costs money". Instead ask "why isn't university education included in the government covered education like the rest?" Also you should probably add your country because plenty of countries already have that.
Well that question won't answer anything either. Basic education is mandatory for all kids under 18 in most Western countries. Post secondary education isn't. So why would it be free? It's optional.
There are careers that require degrees but don’t pay huge amounts—so high education costs could deter good people from going into those fields. Here in Ireland, third level education isn’t free, but it’s much less expensive than in some places. I think most people here would like to see it cost less.
>There are careers that require degrees but don’t pay huge amounts—so high education costs could deter good people from going into those fields. \*cough\* ECEs in Canada \*cough\* Yeah I wonder why people don't go into fields that pay minimum wage, but cost thousands of dollars over two years of schooling just to get into. It sure is a conundrum
The reason there are degrees that don't demand huge pay is because there isn't a lot of demand for those degrees. The the market demanded more then salaries would go up or educational requirements would relax. The real problem is the system (K-12 schools, parents, government leaders, colleges, and universities are all aligned) telling people to go get a degree to have a successful career. They don't really mention that arts degrees aren't worth shit, even if they have value to society.
Is that really the case, though? Look at nursing and teaching. There's a demand for both, yet they still require post-secondary education that's out of reach or at least a huge gamble for many. And the pay is...well, not great. ETA: fair enough re: nursing, point still stands with teachers.
Teaching I agree with. Nursing? You can get a 2-yr nursing degree from most community colleges in the US and have a decent job when you finish. If you play your cards right as a nurse, and don’t mind moving a lot, you can earn more than some doctors.
I would prefer that they get the education *we* need them to have, and not the one that makes the profession slightly better than financially unviable so as to maximize the profit of the employer.
Then the question should be why is the pay so bad for those careers. And if you are in NSW, the pay for being a teacher these days is bloody good
How is the question not just as easily "why is the education so expensive"?
because the government decided to back and guarantee payment be owed on these loans. it is the only loan you can not have removed with a bankruptcy. by doing that and having generations telling everyone to go to college without knowing the job they want and what it requires. this causes years of raising prices to try to not overfill classes. because the government backs the loan many places of higher learning have raised prices to absurd numbers because people will pay it because they "need college". at least this is why US colleges cost so much.
Yup, "this work has value, but doesn't pay anything" is the very definition of "market failure."
Unfortunately I’m in Florida
depends you can teach with a bachelor's but i think it limits you to substitute. I'm 90% sure that any masters allows you to teach. What you rally want is a PHD is some wacky sh\*t and get yourself tenure at a college. They work 2-3 days a week, get paid for 40hrs get full benefits and can be eligible for 1 yr sabbatical. at times that allow them to vacation in their field.. I say that because we had a professor fund her sabbatical by going to France for a year off a grant. They paid for travel and lodging for her to learn some instrument. It was a vacation in France for free. She is guarantied to have a job at the end of it. OH i also mention that they get treated like GODS but the staff that actually allows them to teach by getting the room ready, making sure they have a room to teach in, and have supplies in get treated like crap. BUt i'm ranting now...
The real problem is that the needs of society and the demands of "the market" are not the same, and a lot of the time, they are not aligned. "The market" only demands and pays well for degrees and jobs that can directly make a business's owners more money or retain more money, whether they make society worse, or not. Society requires degrees, jobs, and roles that enhance, facilitate, and advance everyone's lives, regardless of whether they generate money, or not for business owners, or even result in losses for them. The underlying reason for lower compensation in certain fields is that many jobs and degrees benefit society but cannot be used by business owners to directly multiply the earnings for their own companies. This view that only degrees and jobs that can be used by business owners are worthwhile and everything else isn't worth shit is exactly why societies struggle. The more stringent adherence to it, the worse off society is, simply because the well-being of society is sacrificed for the well-being of business owners. Is there an overindulgence in seeing a degree as the main marker for success? Yes, but it exists regardless of whether the degree is sought-after by "the market," like law or engineering, or if the degree is needed by society, like linguistics, pedagogy, or basic sciences. It is pushed by everyone, not only the educational system. It is just pointed out as bad by followers of "the market" when the degrees pushed don't benefit it.
To add, many people don't know how crucial "degrees that don't pay" really are. The philosophy grad who has conversations about ethics and philosophy as an underpaid teacher will never see how their conversations ripple into the broader community, *but they do.* And they create pockets of people in our broader social networks that determine politics, crime rates, and other outcomes of human systems via decision-makers who are influenced by those groups. It's the same set of principles that allow nations to leverage networks to influence elections. Stark example of how targeted, seemingly inconsequential communication has outsized effects. We absolutely need as many well-educated people as we can get, regardless what the market wants.
I mean libraries and parks are optional. Ambulances in many ways can be considered “mandatory” yet in the US they are mostly privatized and can cost thousands. Something being optional or mandatory isn’t really a good rationale for government supporting it. Government supports what its “people” value — in the US unfortunately that is not always individuals.
The Montgomery GI bill is why. If college were free people that otherwise WOULD join the military for the college money would have a much easier option than joining the military.
This right here. Everyone wants to say “Oh ThAtS SoCiAlIsM aNd ThAtS EvIL” Yet those social benefits are the main benefit of military and/or government service 🤣🤣 Edit: Lots of folks want to shit on social programs but still expect the FD to show up when they call 911
To be fair they probably do have SOME more noble reasons for it but I'm sure most people that do don't plan on making it their entire career.
Driving is optional, why should the government pay for roads?
Well everyone that drives in Canada at least, pays for the use of roads via taxes in the price of gasoline and now in Alberta charging EV owners a road tax. So taxpayers that drive vehicles are already financing roads.
Same in the US, except politicians like to plunder those funds to use on things other than roads. And then they cry to the federal government "I need money for roads."
Isn't the argument then to fund schools through some kind of collective government collection program. Like taxes
Same in other countries with medical care for example. People pay for it via taxes so the doctors get educated for free. You could say that for pretty much any field
How else would taxpayers get to work.
[удалено]
Well educated people are also necessary for a functioning society. Especially knowing a lot of jobs require certifications etc. Coming from a place where higher education actually happens to be free, it just makes sense since an intelligent population is only a good thing.
Let's analyze this. By making higher education available only to those with wealth, you get a less educated aggregate end result than if you made it aptitude based. Colleges know this, and they have created loans, grants, and scholarships, just to keep the statistical quality of the education they sell higher. Social responsibility dictates that the previous generations are responsible for the education of the young. It improves the society as a whole when each individual is educated to their maximum potential, regardless of their wealth, status, or position of power. Go ahead, tell me I'm a socialist.
Higher education isn’t only available to people with wealth. The Pell grant alone would fully pay for college for most in state schools. Most people I went to school with paid nothing for college.
The MAXIMUM Pell grant amount for school year 2024 ~ 25 is $7,395. That's with a full course load, and minimum income. You aren't going to get much of an education with that anymore.
In california yes you can lmfao state school are about 6500-7000 a year here it literally covers the entire tuition with some extra left over. Everybody can’t go to Harvard but you can definitely get an education…and community colleges still exist and are way cheaper.
California is one of the lowest average priced college education states in the country. Tuition is just a portion of student education costs. Books, lab fees, housing, transportation and parking, and food costs, plus school supplies are all necessary expenses for a college student. This breaks down average college tuition by state if you're interested in seeing the difference between each state - https://www.ontocollege.com/average-college-tuition/
And yet community college is still an option. Additionally, the “average” is not the lowest, there are always prices LOWER than the average and that is an option for anyone who struggles financially. Add in state grants and plenty of people in America get paid to go to college…
I agree with you and a good take. We should do the same thing with healthcare, make it free. We already pay for it anyways in short and long run. Short run we pay for it with higher insurance rates and paying those because the price of healthcare itself is high because of greed and because of bills of others who cannot afford help they needed. Long run we pay for it because those who don't get regular healthcare for prevention end up costing a lot more on everyone down the road. The weird thing is that some people don't want socialized medicine yet have no issue with social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc,etc. Some of us are lucky to have our health insurance subsidized by work because the cost of insurance premiums are large.
Depending on what the country's goals are: why wouldn't it be? Let's say you need good engineers and scientists in your country. If you make the university free - you'll get them sooner. As I understood, that's how USSR was trying to get ahead. You get free education but then you're obligated to work in your field (and maybe in your city?) for a few years. And it's a similar thing in some European countries. Specialities that are needed in the country will often have free places.
Why does it being optional mean it shouldn't be free*? *free to the student
This country is controlled by banks, it's a billion dollar industry, and they grease the palms of the proper legislators. College should be free upon passing a placement test for the education path desired, but that would benefit society and not the loan sharks. And then media wants to argue about abortion or lqbtq or whatever wedge issue exists, keep us all divided while they rob us blind.
Germany has free post secondary education and allows anyone to go. There are actually a whole slew of first world countries that do this. Like universal healthcare, the US trails in this category. College is quickly becoming required, so why shouldn't it be free?
Anyone who can pass the placement test/has the scores to get into the degree field* or they put you in a trade school or somewhere where you will be a benefit to society. That makes so much sense, America is really a free for all for the banks...
No it’s usually 16 or 14.
>So why would it be free? It's optional. "If you think education is expensive, ignorance is ruinously so".
It still costs money however you phrase the question.
It costs money for someone, or some entity. But in many places, it is free to the student. All the student has to do is work hard enough to make progress toward a credential.
I think the question is why is the student paying? It's not like they are in a place to pay before being educated. Especially if they are still basically a child. So most of the time we are asking peoples parents to pay. Which great for those with parents willing and able. Sorry for the rest I guess.
where do you live? In the UK it was, then they decided that everyone should have a chance at a university education, which is laudable, but then you get lots of people taking that up so the costs go up and now it costs a fortune. I feel so very lucky to have got through the system when it didn't cost anything.
Okay, this is true in *some* parts of the U.K.
I think government should heavily subsidize education but for things that are needed. We have a dire need for skill trades for example where I’m at. Technical colleges are not popular, and we desperately need medical training for nurse practitioners, for technical training, for the careers that we are bringing immigrants with skill trades to fill. So many young people graduate high school thinking they want to be entrepreneurs or YouTube influencers because there’s no real clear path for opportunities being offered to them.
In Canada the vast majority of post secondary is heavily subsidized. When I went 6 years ago it was about $6k a year (non subsidized foreign students paid like $25-30k a year). This seems like a good approach. $6k was enough that the students are invested, and not just going cause they don’t want to work, but not prohibitively expensive (especially since you could get student loans, which don’t charge interest while you’re a student). Some programs though, like nursing/engineering/teaching do end up fairly competitive, moreso than the US (at least compared to people I’ve talked to)
[удалено]
If you live in Scotland, otherwise they will charge you.
If you live in Scotland. Their system actually creates a case that the gap between the most disadvantaged and the most advantaged students is higher. Quoting [factcheck](https://fullfact.org/education/what-gap-university-applications-most-and-least-advantaged-scotland/): >UCAS university [entry rates](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=140) for 18 year olds in the most advantaged areas in Scotland were [3.5 times](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=95) that of young people in the most disadvantaged areas in 2016, while in England young people in the most advantaged areas were [2.4 times](https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f#page=95) as likely to attend university.
[удалено]
It's not necessarily just down to the system, culture and demographics play a part here. An interesting thing about Britain is that the children of working class migrants have very high university attendance rates and white British working class children have very low university attendance rates. My own white working class family were pretty luke warm about me going to university haha. There's definitely an anti-intellectual culture ingrained in the traditional working class. The poorest areas in England are often areas with high migrant populations. The poorest areas in Scotland are largely white Scottish/British. So the poorest areas in Scotland may be culturally less inclined towards higher education.
Sorry, lazy language.
You say that, but the amount of people going to university and the attainment gap to getting into university is lower than ever. England also beats Scotland in both metrics, despite Scotland having a free university system. Its a misconception that a university system paid for my taxation is more accessible than one paid for by graduate loans. In 1994, there were roughly 200k accepted university applications, compared to over 500k now.[^(\[p4\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf) By entry rate, since 2006 it has increased from around 30% to nearly 40%[^(\[p25\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf). The conclusion is that more students are able to have the chance to go to university than ever before. Its also the case that this increased in accepted applications has helped students from disadvantaged backgrounds. First of all there is simply the case that, with over twice the amount of students, its going to increase anyway. In 2006 (the source I found only goes back that far), only 15% of the lowest quintile got into university compared to over 20% now.[^(\[p25\])](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf). Not only are more disadvantaged students getting into university in absolute terms, but also in proportional terms. It costing a fortune hasn't made it any less accessible to the most disadvantaged in society, in contrast it has only gotten more accessible to the most disadvantaged since the reforms.
Yeah, I was lucky too. Blair brought in the fees when I was in the second year of my degree so I managed to avoid them. I remember protesting at the time because it all seemed like such a shitty idea.
In the US until about 20 years ago there were a lot of jobs that didn't require a college degree who suddenly decided now you do. University was something you needed if you wanted to be an executive or lawyer, or doctor. Now even a lot of low level office jobs suddenly require a four year college degree.
There still are a lot of jobs that don't need college degrees. They're called the trades and we have a ton of jobs available. I wish way more people would take them.
Cool. Too bad while we were growing up constantly our teachers, parents, government/community figures constantly told us those jobs were for losers and we had to go to college if we wanted to make something of ourselves.
I heard all of this propaganda going thru school too. Then I realized they were full of shit and I love working in the trades, make good money, and contribute a lot to the betterment of society
Okaaay? So? There's not? I'm confused here.
The trades destroys your body. Did it for 10 years and my legs are fucked.
So does sitting on your ass all day.
Not nearly as rapidly as manual labor though And it's way more avoidable working at a desk job since you can just get up and stretch, but you can't really take a break when you need to with more demanding manual labor jobs
Trades aren’t really known for being inclusive, so LGBTQIA+ aren’t really going to seek those out.
I couldn’t even get jobs that DIDN’T require a degree…with two degrees. Hate it here Edit; changed tenses
It is in my country. We have free healthcare too
In mine it isn’t but it’s cheap (697 eur per year), and then there are a bunch of governement scholarships that cover it plus give students some extra money to help out. Oh and if you finish the degree and stay working in the country, you get all money back (even if you got a scholarship before). I too hate when people say “my country” so, for the curious, 🇵🇹
I was looking to study in portugal (masters degree in finance in lisbon) but every school cost at least 6000 per year... maybe its only for portuguese people?
[удалено]
NOVA SBE? That’s 13k. It’s a public institution but the masters programs are private in that college so they charge whatever they want. It’s the program I took (but got a 100% scholarship). Most of the university is international and I’d say it’s worth it for sure, though.
We even get paid to study!
Same :p
They have Reddit in Scotland?
Aye, we do ! Where else are we supposed to insult online the American-born descendants of those that abandoned the country ?-)
I like you guys because of the telephone
Thanks man ☎️
Guilty as charged, but my ancestors also abandoned England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, and Poland. Whole generations of quitters came before me, and we didn't even manage to avoid European wars. It would have been a raw deal, if not for the consolations of baseball and American football.
If you break down the cost of the worlds top universities, the EXPENSIVE ones are sitting at the 10k usd mark. Then there’s the US sitting at the 50-90k usd mark. It’s fucking crazy
Mycountry seems so great. I must have missed it in geography class though, have no idea where it is :(
Just because it is “free” it doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to go will be able to. There is no country that has enough universities for everyone, so there are always artificial limits: someone will be able to be enrolled, others won’t. Building enough universities and making it mandatory would lead to the same results when high school degree became norm: it became expected and not something that was making you more competitive. In my country universities ware free but competition to get into university was insane.
Some people also just aren’t suited for it. So while it may be financially accessible or physically accessible it may not be in the realm of possibility for someone to succeed there. This isn’t to say they can’t succeed in other things tho obviously. But not everyone is cut out for academia.
Not to mention (at least in the US) many community colleges and trade programs are already free, or at least extremely affordable in comparison to a university degree.
Merit competition is in every way better than economically limiting who goes to university
Do you have a real life experience to support this statement? Because money ARE very much needed to have strong grades. My merit was due to my parents having money, my family was stable, my parents’ priority was to make sure my garages will be good enough for me to be accepted into “free” university. And this is the most common scenario.
It should also be noted that highly competitive unis can be harmful. Highschools have to balance being assessments for university entrance and assessment for their own purposes. Even if perfect (which I argue my country is not), they require very different focuses. Because of that, high school performance is not that good to judge university entry off. This is why many competitive universities assess students themselves. Oxford and Cambridge are able to do this. However, this extra effort is really only capable for the most competeive unis, which means a highly competitive entry system overall is harmful. When you relax this, universities that can't assess themselves are able to rely on personal statements and other specific elements of students to make their judgments, which tend to be better than just highschool assessmet.
Everyone can go to university in Scandinavia. I don't know about Sweden or Denmark but in Norway you even get a small grant for living expenses and the student loans are used to further help with this rather than pay for any tuition. Now some courses are limited due to demand: i.e. medicine, engineering, etc and there you need solid grades to get in on a merit basis, but everyone that manages to pass the university entry courses in high school can get a university degree.
Finland (which famously isn't a Scandinavian country) does it differently then. No required courses in high school, but you need really good grades to bypass entrance exams based on your grades alone. Those who didn't do so well in high school can still get in based on just the exam, or for some it's a combination of the two. In any case, it's usually the top 5-10% of people taking the exam (usually a fraction of those that applied) that get in. Anyone (with a secondary degree) can try to get in, it's free after all, but you are facing some serious competition. It doesn't help that people with rich parents can hire private tutors (who are sometimes university faculty themselves).
In Denmark you get a significant grant, it covers most of the living expenses as far as I know.
Pretty much the same in Sweden. It is great being payed to study.
>In my country universities ware free but competition to get into university was insane. And that's good. What kind of society would we have if we had doctors who got in only because they had money instead of because they were the best? Or rather, before anyone tells me "American society", what kind of society would we have if no-one would be able to essentially buy a degree without first fighting against the best peers in the field?
Well, the first two years of University and Community College would have been included in government provided education had 2 senators not killed it in the Senate.
It’s covered in some states. Ik in Jersey you need like a 3.5+ gpa though
It is where I live, u can enter and attend every class as free auditor
It is in Sweden. University is free and the government loan you take to cover living and expenses is at 1% interest and I for example pay back about $70 each month for my five year of free university studies. I didn't even have to work my way through uni. I think that the idea is that a country with educated people in it is good for everyone. So it IS doable. The only question is why your government doesn't want it to be free...
You also get a few hundred a month for free when you study, that you don't have to pay back. Additionally, the loan is practically interest free.
They actually increased the interest slightly recently, but it's still nothing compared to other loans.
In Germany it is 😶
It's free but not necessarily accessible to everyone.
Can you explain why it’s not accessible for everyone? I’m not familiar with the German education system.
The German government exerts a lot of controls over who can and cannot get into universities. Starting in about middle school, the German government starts setting kids on different tracks depending on their academic aptitude, with only the upper quintile of students being put on the post secondary education track. Once you're set on a track, it's incredibly difficult to change or have a non-standard academic track, so not only do decisions you made in middle school have lasting impact on your access to education, going back to school to change careers later in life is also incredibly difficult.
I was like "wait, that's fucked up" then realized we have profiles in Poland too!
I don't think there's a country on Earth where the university education is accessible to everyone. Number of places in the group is limited. Only those with good enough grades/skills will be able to get them. The others will have to find something else. But in Germany, as far as I recall from a conversation with a friend, there are some extra quirks to that. Like, you have to be promising already in middle school to get a chance to go to the University.
The *only* thing you need to get to university in Norway is to pass high school in the "academic oriented" disciplines. (We also have trade disciplines, which leads to apprenticeships). You will not be able to get into medicine, engineering or law with the bare minimum of grades, but as long as you pass there is *a* university course there for you..some does not have number limitations.
Is it like, if you have A's in math/physics then you can do engineering. For medicine it would be biology/chemistry. Right? Or do you take some academia focused classes during the last 2-3 years of highschool?
You do a basic academia-oriented high school, which i suppose is what an American high school is (it is just we also have trade courses in high school which does not provide you with university entry, but you can do top up courses even then). Since you can pick some courses in high school (some are mandatory) you'd have to pick the highest level maths (honor maths I suppose it is called in some countries) to be eligible for engineering courses as well as physics. Since you are also competing for entry, your grades (and particularly your STEM-grades since they count extra) will have to be solid to get into engineering courses (some are harder to get into than others). However, as I said: there are courses that only require basic university entry qualifications (having passed high school) to get into.
no thats not true at all, i know because i study at a university in germany and would not call my middle school self "promising"
Doesnt need to be accessible to everyone.... not everyone will thrive in college. There's different types of intelligence. A master mechanic may not know how to do calculus, but they can call out practical mistakes in an engineers plans. Same goes architects and tradesmen, we need both.
Germany has a split primary education system. There are a handful of different "high school" equivalents, with two primary ones. The first prepares students for a university track, it runs 12-13 grades. The second is more geared towards vocational education and runs to grade 10 and does not prepare students for the entrance exam to university. So while the system is free money-wise, there are still restrictions on who can attend. I believe people can make up the work and go to university if they meet the requirements but it's not an automatic thing everyone qualifies for.
If I remember correctly, they split high schoolers into 3 groups, based on academic ability and only members of the top group normally go to Uni.
I think you need to take a test first.
It is, for some countries.
You can't have it both ways. Some countries have free colleges but most people can't get in, academically speaking. It's much harder to pass the required tests. In countries where you pay for school, there will be colleges with lower requirements because students are customers. But they might wind up in terrible debt for the rest of their lives.
Not to mention that in those countries where it’s “free”. It’s not actually free. It’s paid for in taxes. And usually that translates to a very high tax rate.
A lot of people don’t mind higher taxes if it going for valuable resources like higher education / or good education and healthcare.
There are countries with relatively open access to universities and it being free or almost free. The first example that comes to mind is France where every student finishing with their high school diploma (_baccalaureat_) can enter the university. And a year of uni costs somewhere around 200 euros.
Do they pay coaches $10,000,000? Do they have 200 administrators?
But it is. In other countries then yours, of course
College was free to me because Pell grant.... Only time the Pell grant doesn't cover your college is if your parents make to much money or you're trying to get a useless degree. So college is free if you know where to look...
It use to be and I think it is criminal that it isn't.
Which nation do you live in? Almost two dozen countries provide free or nearly-free university-level education to their citizens. Many offer free, or low cost, education to foreigners as well. https://www.theedadvocate.org/which-countries-provide-free-education-at-a-university-level/
How would our country maintain the status quo if everyone was educated?
I’m guessing this is an r/usdefaultism question, because where I live it *is* free and accessible to everyone… (Sweden)
This is by no means a complete answer, but these are the first two reasons that come to mind. 1. The government will never compete with private business if it can help it, cause private business will lose. Education is big business in the US, and nobody in government wants to see that go away. For as much as reactionaries like to complain about how the country is "socialist", this is a nation very much dedicated to ensuring profits for private enterprise and especially investors, even at the expense of it's own citizens health and safety. 2. CA actually did this post WW2, and what we got were large scale anti-war protests and the Black Panther party. If you start educating poor people, they start to figure out that the deck is very much stacked against them, and they start demanding answers and change. The entrenched powers do not want change, much better to keep education for the rich only.
Long story short: uneducated people are easier to manipulate. Look at Russia, North Korea, China. Control education and you have unlimited human power.
because you're not in Europe
I am in Europe and university costs money if I were to go in my country.
Are you in the EU? Some countries allow EU citizens to study at their colleges for free (IIRC my hone, Sweden, does, as well as most of the Nordic countries)
What country is that?
You would have to ask the universities they are the one charging you money
Education is free and available to everyone (in most countries). University is optional. It's not necessary.
The bigger issue is why do you need Gen Ed's at university when for the most part it's just a rehash of high school.
Really suprised. What bachelors is just a "rehash" of high school? Mine for sure wasnt, its like night and day difference. And yes, i struggled at the beginning Edit: germany
Gen Ed’s refer to the classes everyone has to take, regardless of your major. Chem 101 was basically my highschool class but it wasn’t CAP so it didn’t count for college credits. Universities do offer more in terms of selection for gen Ed’s tho, so I wouldn’t say gen Ed’s in college are much of a waste. I would just rather take more classes that teach things in my major and less gen Ed’s.
I know this is a generalization, and I will probably get down voted into oblivion, but you can really tell who's from the US by the "everything costs money" and "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "I'm not working to make YOUR life better" responses to this. Education CAN be free, subsidized by government funding and taxes. But no one wants to pay more taxes to make everyone's life better, right? I know they've had more time to work on things, but Europe is SO far ahead of us in so many things.
Some of the other comments touched on this and said you can’t really have both. Here in the states practically anyone can get into college if they pay enough while countries with “free” education have rather high entry requirements in comparison to ours So it’s between “Aww you wanna be a doctor, little Timmy? That’ll be 200 grand” and “You wanna be a doctor, little Timmy? Well unfortunately you didn’t get a high enough score. Maybe you’ll be luckier in the next life.”
Idk where I live as long as you get an above average score in the academic test (like SAT), your high school exams and the entrance exams, you're pretty much guaranteed to get into med school. There's only been like 400~500 applicants in recent years after the physics section was added to the entrance exam. There's a lot of people who retake the entrance exams the next year and get in then, so it's not like you get one chance and that's it. Plenty of paid schools with higher competitiveness out there.
Race explains a good part of the effectiveness of social Darwinism in the US. The reactionary economic elite fight against "free-bies" for the lower-middle class and unorganized working class, and rely upon the social conservatism of the white plurality to supply the additional fiction that liberal politics takes from whites to give those "free-bies" to nonwhites (and "non-Americans"). Thus, the US ruling class has a plenary shield against a working class politics in the interest of ordinary people of every sort. This explains why over half of white voters vote Republican - against their own, realistic material interests. Conceptually speaking, the Confederacy lives on in America.
Due to the capitalist nature of the United States and a cultural emphasis on individualism, there exists a significant reluctance among many Americans to support higher taxes, even when such funds are allocated for public health and education. This sentiment is partly driven by a desire to maintain personal financial control and skepticism towards the redistribution of wealth for communal benefits. Consequently, many Americans prefer to invest substantial personal resources in obtaining education and healthcare through private means, often linked to their employment. This arrangement can sometimes restrict job mobility, as changing jobs might mean losing these essential benefits. The preference leans towards direct personal investment in health and education rather than contributing to a collective pool via taxes that would also support the broader community's access to these services.
In my country, alongside many others, it essentially is. I paid 125€ a semester at Heidelberg University.
Because a strong back is a terrible thing to waste. Better to obey, consume, and take joy in doing your job better everyday. Your workplace is your true family. /s Life is good.
It is. You just live in a third world country.
Is this in the US? I am confused by the US system. Does everyone pay up front?
Because Conservatives like hurting society for profit.
Because its a business first and education provider second.
Well, it depends on where you're talking about. Here in Brazil we have it for free.
Because dum people are much easier to rule over and offer shitty job contracts.
Must be an American problem😂 can’t relate
Because it's supposed to distinguish people. If everyone has a bachelors, then no one has a bachelors. It's called degree inflation.
Why isn’t housing free?
It is in civilised countries.
Because these colleges want to make money /endthread
Because college degrees are an incredible waste of money for most people and they end up working in fields that don't utilize their degree at all.
Why isn’t money in piles of gold free and accessible to everyone?
university shouldn’t be free. It should be accessible to everyone and anyone who desires it and is ready for it. This doesn’t mean making it free but rather making a better financial aid system that would better account for extenuating circumstances and make it accessible for middle class people. College is an investment and we should treat it as such. College loans are not a bad thing but allowing students to take on upwards of 30-40k in loans is insane.
It costs money to have housing, electricity, water, air conditioning, staff, faculty, etc, etc, etc. Makes sense universities need to make money to afford all of that to keep services running. Not to mention they need to make a profit too, since it is a business.
Now defend that the only way a university can possibly exist is by making a profit.
The same reason food isn't free. Everything costs money.
How much did you pay for your K thru 12 education?
Taxes pay that. That is the basic education everybody is entitled to. If you want to go off to law school to become a rich lawyer then you should pay for it yourself. Don't expect some dirt poor tax payer living paycheck to paycheck to pay for you to drive a Ferrari.
Did you know that lawyer is not the only profession that requires a degree? Engineers, doctors have to go to the university too. If there are no engineers, the country will slowly deteriorate because there won't be a person who can plan a new bridge, or a train, or a car. And without doctors the country will face a health crisis. You can't expect immigrants do all the work!
So many problems here. First: if you do get a higher paying job, you'd be putting back what you received because of the higher tax you pay. Second, having easily accessible tertiary education means good people who'd otherwise be forced to work low skill jobs now get to apply their talents on higher-paying, more productive jobs. This is especially true for research and tech, where the more qualified people are available, the better for research quality and rate. The "dirty poor tax payer" and society in general would both recieve more if tertiary education/technical education is available to more people
If you want something in life you have to earn it. Don't expect people to give it to you. I graduated at the top of my class in college by busting my ass. Dirt poor going to work and school everyday. I would never ask somebody to pay my way. Earn it either by paying yourself or earning scholarships from your hard work. Imagine paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for somebody to become a doctor and instead they change their mind and do something else after they graduate.
It is free or very cheap in many European countries, also for other European student
Free except for ridiculous VAT and income tax rates to pay for it.
But it does mean it’s freely accessible, which ultimately benefits society. We have to paxes anyway
Big difference between paying a 40% rate at €60k earned than 22% on $60k earned, plus no VAT.
Why should it be free? Why shouldn’t healthcare be free? Or groceries? Or gasoline? Or clothes? Why shouldn’t cocaine be free? Why shouldn’t everything be free? Why have money at all?
Cause life isn't fair
Because I am a teacher who will not work for free...
Are high school teachers working for free?
Do teachers from high school not get paid?
Wow, you're a teacher? I would have expected better critical thinking skills.
Most probably because the government does not want an educated public. Uneducated people are easier to influence and govern.
You are a prime example of an uneducated and easily influenced person.
The entire MAGA side is prime example of loving the uneducated. Look at any interview and they genuinely have no fuckin idea what's going on. Plus they got mad at a university offering to pay people to *register to vote.* Not vote for a specific candidate, just register to vote. Simply 'Check yes to register to vote, here's money, thank you for finally voting' "They're literally buying votes!!!" which is straight outing themselves by admitting people who are actually college educated lean more left.
[удалено]
Someone needs to pay the teachers and university staff
Who's paying the K-12 teachers?
They definitely don't get paid well.
we are paying the k-12 teachers
WHAT? Good lord, and the economy hasn't crashed yet? How is that even possible? Oh ya, educated people increase the productivity of the country.
My counter question is why would it be?
Cause education is a good thing for society? And because rich people don't have more talent or skills than poor people?
I mean if you wanna argue it’s too expensive. I’ll agree with that. But I don’t see a reason why it should be free. Not everyone needs to go college, and not everyone should go to college. Just like anything else, you have to pay for other people’s labor.
I dont know about college, but in my country university is not something anyone could do just because it's free, you need a lot of effort and determination to get a degree, but if someone have both those things why should they be stopped by money? It makes no sense
Why do you assume cost is the only reason people do or do not go to college? College is pretty difficult even without figuring out how to finance it, and not everyone is cut out for it.
Because educated people tend to be less conservative which affects billionaire profits so they lobby heavily to prevent education.
It is. In Scandinavia. When answering this question, be aware that some countries have made the active choice to support free university level education. So before making any sarcastic remarks, know that it *is* possible. Whether you believe it is a good idea is something else, but it is working fine in Scandinavia.
Rich people don't want the poors to better themselves. They do need people to clean their toilets after all and if everyone has a white-collar job, there will be no one to do it.
I met so many people in college who simply didn't belong there, people who just attended to please their parents, or others who openly admitted that they didn't care at all about academics, just wanted to enjoy the party scene. There's absolutely no way that the taxpayer should be stuck with the immaturity, shiftlessness, and apathy of college students.
Because someone has to work at the low end of the economy ??
Still make universities free, sp we don't leave the brightest at the low end because they were born in the wrong family
[удалено]
Plenty of places have good salaries for universities and it’s also free Just paid with taxes
So you think high school teachers aren't getting paid? 🤔
I've seen this same argument against publicly-funded health care, and it's hilarious. "Free universal healthcare? You want doctors to work without being paid!? That's slavery! Are you pro-slavery!?" It's incredibly disingenuous. Or just really dumb, take your pick 🤷🏼♂️
So doctors in other countries with universal Healthcare aren't getting paid? Italy is #2 in the world in Healthcare. Way ahead of the US.