- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,000
- Reaction score
- 63,987
- Points
- 148
I am pretty left when it comes to social ideas, but my fear is making school all the way to grad school free would encourage students even more to take worthless degrees. Home many thousands of people with masters in social work or art history does society need?
Here's an article on how the wide availability of college loans/grants have been a major contributor to rising college costs:
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/08/15/why-college-tuition-is-out-of-sight-the-federal-government-n2038966
And an excerpt that kind of addresses the point you made:
Meanwhile, colleges and universities are doing just what hospitals do to capture more federal dollars. They are competing on amenities. Water parks, climbing walls, elaborate dorms and dining facilities – these are all part of the modern college experience – which is increasingly a social and recreational experience rather than an academic one.
If "free" school is instituted, then the degree's available need to be limited. Force the kids to get degree's that are good for society, computer degrees, teaching, engineering, nurse practitioner, not a bunch of worthless degrees that lead to jobs in retail.
A bunch of people have mentioned this, and it seems a perfectly reasonable idea, but I don't think it would be politically sustainable in the long (or even medium) term. You'd have to delegate to appointed federal bureaucrats the power to decide which majors qualify, and which don't, and that's where the problems would start....
Here's a Princeton study on major preference by gender and race. It's from 2009, and maybe someone else can find a more current one, but I doubt the general trends have changed very much. The study points out that non-whites (Asians are the exceptions) and females are less likely than whites and males to get majors in STEM fields.
http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Dickson_Manuscript%20(Feb%2009).pdf
What that means is that if you gave a preference to STEM majors, you'd be subsidizing more white (and Asian) males at the expense of females and minorities, and I don't think that's politically sustainable, particularly for a Democratic Administration. You'd be cutting out degrees in African-American studies, Gender Theory, etc. etc. etc. And you'd have interest groups going nuts. So what would happen is that there would be political pressure to broaden the fields that qualify, and I think you'd inevitably see those distinctions crumble. We'd then be left with an even worse (at least to some of us) situation where we've made it easier/more affordable for people to go to college and get relatively useless degrees.
But as it turns out (can't stop banging that drum....), the study also points out that this:
Several studies have found that the sciences and engineering are among the most highly rewarded in the labor market including: Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003), Berger (1988), Dickson (2008) and Hamermesh and Donald (2008). Bedard and Herman (2008) and Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003) provide evidence that undergraduate major affects graduate school attendance.
In other words, the students who go into those fields -- or any other field with a strong demand and better paying/more stable jobs (nurses can make very good money) are the ones most likely to be able to repay their loans. Therefore, loan forgiveness/higher grants are most likely to help those who are not taking the most useful degrees.
A freer market with fewer subsidies will naturally steer students to those fields most likely to offer increased earnings.