Funny argument. I work my ass off for what little money I make. I'm a liberal student. My parents are more broke than I, but based on their income LAST YEAR when they were employed, I shouldn't have a problem paying for college. Yet.. that doesn't seem to be the situation. Just because YOU made it, or were able to get through college, doesn't mean hard working "liberal students" aren't able to..

 

When I'm done with community college, I won't be able to continue on unless something drastic changes (maybe I can win the lottery I don't play?). No one will cosign a loan, I can't get FAFSA based on my parents' income when they were employed.. who knows if I can next year when their taxes will show they aren't employed, and I don't even live at home, but I'm a dependent under FAFSA no matter WHAT until I'm 23? 25? This whole system is bullshit.

All the right-wingers want is private schools, and for people to pay $$$$$$ for it. Well.. they've already got that shit with the public schools! $18k/semester with room, board, and spending money at SFSU. That's UC money.. and if you factor in room/board/spending budget in to a UC per semester (not just classes) you're at PRIVATE SCHOOL money.

**** this system for sure.

 

^ That's because education has a liberal bias. You know, makes you see the world from other than a Christian-American perspective

Here they come....

 

And you think if all schools were privatized based on the conservative-bias it'd make things better? No, it wouldn't. At least I can pay for community college. If everything was privatized I wouldn't have been able to go to school period

 

Most of life is an entertaining social experiment.

 

the higher the tuition, the more the riffraff is filtered out, as only the serious students apply, not every tom/dick/harry that decide to go to school. when i went to undergraduate school (mid/late 1990s) it was something like 75% of freshmen dropped out, such a waste of state funding...

 

that may be true but isn't it worth getting the 25% who make it through that are educated and become professionals that advance our society? or would you rather we have a static society in which we do not advance our knowledge? without education, i believe that our society can only decline.

 

i guess its as good as any place to say this, probably unrelated to the topic but i went to a private university in which our tuition was increased 9% last year. well, 9%<32% but 9% of 30k is a loooootttttta money. i can totally sympathize with the UC students

 

Which is why at least one private University I know of is fully funding any student whose parent's household income is UNDER $80K.

I'm guessing those ARE people of Wal-mart.

 

i think the bigger issue for me was state funding. poor people qualified for more grants but tend to be less serious about going to school (sticking through the long haul). basing grants upon income status gives a lot of money to people who aren't going to succeed anyways. there are a lot of successful vocational high schools, short-term certificates/associate programs at community colleges to aid the more hands on people rather than the more academic university.

anyways, state funding can aid poor people but i think the aid should be restricted (there are work study programs and people can have jobs, i worked since i was 16 and continued working full-time plus overtime throughout my studies), maybe cap funding at 25% and increase as they progress from freshmen to sophomore, to junior (50%), and finally to senior/graduation (75% funding). the higher you progress in your studies, the more likely you are to actually graduate and not drop out. so, i 'd propose increasing the funding as the likelihood of graduation is a lot less risky.

or, fund 1,000 unknowns where only 250 progress to being sophomores, and of that total only 10% actually go on to graduate. my method seems a better return of education per dollar and encourages/rewards those that work hard to succeed.