Free Tuition ??? / In-State Public Colleges
- Thread starter jerseyshorejohnny
- Start date
jerseyshorejohnny
Well-known member
From “How Clinton’s ‘Free College’ Could Cause a Cascade of Problems,” July 27 in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
The first in line for harm, most experts agree, would be the private colleges. . . .
“You’re going to see a combination of dropping enrollments and skyrocketing tuition discounting,” [ Kent John Chabotar, a former president of Guilford College] says, “killing off the weaker, private, unendowed colleges.” The migration to public institutions wouldn’t have to be universal to be devastating, he says. Some institutions would have difficulty absorbing even a 5- to 10-percent drop in enrollment. . . .
So let’s say that migration happens, and a new crop of students chooses public institutions over the privates. Good news for the publics, right? Maybe not. It’s unclear that regional publics and community colleges have enough capacity. . . .
“Do we really think in this fiscal environment, if a state makes higher education free, they’ll increase funding that much?” [ Donald Hossler, a scholar at the USC Rossier School of Education] asks. Colleges, he says, would soon be expected to educate more people with fewer resources per student. The quality of public education could erode. . . .
In fact, some experts worry that free tuition for most families could exacerbate existing inequalities and further stratify higher education. While poor students would attend crowded, lower-tier public colleges at no cost, affluent students could buy their way into elite colleges—public or private—where they might get a different kind of education from everyone else.
The first in line for harm, most experts agree, would be the private colleges. . . .
“You’re going to see a combination of dropping enrollments and skyrocketing tuition discounting,” [ Kent John Chabotar, a former president of Guilford College] says, “killing off the weaker, private, unendowed colleges.” The migration to public institutions wouldn’t have to be universal to be devastating, he says. Some institutions would have difficulty absorbing even a 5- to 10-percent drop in enrollment. . . .
So let’s say that migration happens, and a new crop of students chooses public institutions over the privates. Good news for the publics, right? Maybe not. It’s unclear that regional publics and community colleges have enough capacity. . . .
“Do we really think in this fiscal environment, if a state makes higher education free, they’ll increase funding that much?” [ Donald Hossler, a scholar at the USC Rossier School of Education] asks. Colleges, he says, would soon be expected to educate more people with fewer resources per student. The quality of public education could erode. . . .
In fact, some experts worry that free tuition for most families could exacerbate existing inequalities and further stratify higher education. While poor students would attend crowded, lower-tier public colleges at no cost, affluent students could buy their way into elite colleges—public or private—where they might get a different kind of education from everyone else.
MarkRedman
Well-known member
When I graduated high school, all CUNY schools were tuition free if you lived in the 5 boroughs
beast of the east
Active member
Another empty promise in the long line of more free stuff. The promise is designed to win votes and secure power.
In the 70s, cuny schools had a program that not only offered free tuition to economically disadvantaged students as well as a stipend for living expenses. As i dashed out of school to my 25 hr/week pt job, hordes of those under this program hung out in the student center. I'm certain this program produced few success stories.
State school tuition is already heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bernie's plan was to finance this by having wall street pay for it, an effective campaign promise that not only gives free stuff, but demonizes the 1%. Nothing new - fdr demonized the wealthy and it got him.elected 4 times despite the fact he was wealthy himself
In the 70s, cuny schools had a program that not only offered free tuition to economically disadvantaged students as well as a stipend for living expenses. As i dashed out of school to my 25 hr/week pt job, hordes of those under this program hung out in the student center. I'm certain this program produced few success stories.
State school tuition is already heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Bernie's plan was to finance this by having wall street pay for it, an effective campaign promise that not only gives free stuff, but demonizes the 1%. Nothing new - fdr demonized the wealthy and it got him.elected 4 times despite the fact he was wealthy himself
MarkRedman
Well-known member
Your comment about the CUNY program is spot on.A high percentage of students who enrolled under those circumstances in the 70's were not successful. However, back in the 60's, it was tuition free for everybody, not just those who were "economically disadvantaged". I am forever grateful for that opportunity, as I probably would not have been able to go to college had that not been the case. Back then, a SUNY school cost $1500 per year (including room and board). My parents simply couldn't afford it and told me that my options were either to go to a CUNY school or go to work full time at my local supermarket.
Class of 72
Active member
I recall that, while tuition free, the four year CUNY schools were very difficult to get admitted into and were basically segregated into those for the academically gifted and the less gifted. Schools like Brooklyn, CCNY, Hunter and Baruch were mostly populated by Jewish students while most minority students were relegated to the community colleges where the drop out rates were very high. Because they were free and thousands applied they had a capacity problem in the 4 year schools and relegated most B students to a lower quality education. That is going on as we speak in State universities. They are not called "public Ivies" for no reason other than they can be highly selective for those students that did well in high school but developed a caste system for B students who were slower to mature academically by relegating them to a lower quality education at soviet style brick campuses in the middle of palookaville. Of course that system allows parents and kids that cannot afford to pay for college an opportunity but the disparity between the halves and have nots is not changed. There is a huge difference in the perception of a degree from the State University at Buffalo and one from the State University at Farmingdale. The quality of the course offerings are vastly different. What state governments need to do is build more technical schools for those occupations where a liberal arts education is not important so that many C students get into fields of study that will enable them to compete with Germany and Japan, etc. and then guarantee them a job upon graduation in fields outside of working for blood-sucking financial, banking and insurance institutions.