http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...imously-passes-tuition-free-higher-education/ While I haven't seen anything in the mainstream media about it, it seems interesting. Though I'm not sure that a fanboi socialist blogger with quotes like these: shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, it's interesting that Oregon is trying to do something. Then again, in the comments block there's a significant lack of education about the future value of a dollar, cost of money, impact of interest, etc.
Finally, someone tries to fix the mess that all of the baby boomers created but still try to blame on the younger generations. Can't wait til all the old farts in control die out.. that generation was awful for this country.
man, I dont even know where to begin In the US, 60% of high school grads go on to collage, in Oregon, it is only 40% Oregon has an on time (4 year) graduation rate of 68%, and if you give all the kids who get a GED, or take a fifth year, it is still only around 72% Oregon spends more per child than almost every state in the US yeah...the education system has become an industry unto itself, sure why not free collage...hahaahahaahaa
I don't know that many people in my situation (mid-30's, trying to "make it better" for my own kids) blame the youth--I'm much more into blasting how stupid the last 40 years of governance has been, almost across the board. If there's any blame for the younger generation, it's that "they" (in the super-generic sense) generally know more about what Kim Kardashian is doing today than what the federal government is doing to them today, and that's never a good use of your citizenship.
Wow! This will just farther cheapen the product. What will these students need next to become competitive? A graduate with a degree in burger flipping will pay back about $540 a year if employed. This isn't going to work. A grad that averages 50k a year will just about pay his/her way over 24 years The ones that average 150k a year will pay back and carry a little overhead but not likely enough. But only about 3% of the total will hit this mark.
It's a good idea but far too many graduates get degrees that are meaningless. How succesfull has it been in Australia?
That's one of my issues with Pell Grants and federally-subsidized loans. If the government is paying (or subsidizing) it, then they should have a say in what it goes for. You want to double-major in art history and eastern religions? Be my guest. Just don't do it on my tax dollar. Want to be a doctor, engineer, metallurgist, scientist, math teacher, etc? Sign up. I'll take it further. Want to apprentice as a welder while getting your AA in Industrial Arts? We'll help you with that. Before someone gets bent out of shape, I'll posit that this system already exists in both the ROTC program (where there are separate quotas for technical and non-technical majors) and the service academies (where 60% of the graduating class has to be in an engineering or science major).
I think the debt ought to start accruing in Kindergarten. If you don't take a nap, you owe the state $10. Bite another child, that's $100 you have to pay back later in life. barfo
Its interesting - it will open the doors to more students, but depending on the path they choose to take - it could be at a higher monetary cost to them than the standard loan. Dependent upon earning potential. I think if you average an income of 80k over the next 24 years, you pay more than you would have if you took a loan.
I think what has to be defined is A) Is this pure and simple debt forgivness for students? or B) An attempt to make a Collage education easier to obtain. If the answer is A, well, this can be debated, but as a rule, not a fan. If it is B, we all deserve a closer look at the foundation that these guys would build upon. If they are thinking that we need free money because only 40% of the HS grads attend collage VS 60% nation wide, we need to look at the why first. Of the 40% that do attend collage, why do over half, 60% of those do get accepted, begin their first year taking HS classes? I can go on, but before we contemplate the millions that the education industry would lobby for, lets make them accountable for what they already have control of.
Hmmm.... If one were to make $60K per year on average for 24 years, they'd pay $43,200. Hard to know where salaries, interest rates, and higher education will be in the future. If I paid 3% of my salary since I graduated college (class of 2005), I'd have already covered more than I paid for college. If I include my full-time work the prior 18-24 months before graduating (which was money that went to paying much of my school directly), I'd have paid even more. So, without knowing where the future will be...... As someone who would have already paid more under this program than I actually did, I'm not a fan. But with so many unknown variables in the future (such as the cost of education, interest rates, and salaries), it doesn't seem so unreasonable.
