<p>If it’s really true that more than 50% of Arizona state students pay no tuition at all, it seems hard to argue that the state hasn’t been amazingly effective in making education affordable to all. Is there any other state with a record close to this? The $2000 tuition, when inflation-adjusted, sounds even better than those magical stories from the early 60’s, that we all dream about - where any kid could self-fund based on a summer’s earnings.</p>
<p>Can this “greater than 50% no-tuition” statistic really be true? If so, Arizona has been incredibly generous.</p>
You might think I’m silly and uninformed but as you can imagine, I don’t consider myself either. I’ve looked at the cost of education but I don’t focus only on the cost of expensive privates out living on-campus at only certain state flagships. I also look at the lower cost possibilities of which there are many including this proposal from Az that apparently requires $2k/yr of cost. Even when I went to college 35 years ago it cost me more than that in before inflation adjusted dollars.</p>
<p>
Come on mini, it doesn’t take 2 jobs to pay back a loan of $8K (not $10K - maybe $6K if they try hard depending on major) since it boils down to a minimal amount of money per month. And really, you’re using an extreme example of some 24.5 y/o who’s going to college full time while taking care of their parents plus kids? This is as far from anything typical, including the 50% who allegedly aren’t currently paying this minimum, as you can get. You may as well pile it on some more.</p>
<p>If a person doesn’t expect to be earning at least $77/mo more for the 10 years after grad that they might use to pay back the $8k loan then probably the college education did them little good financially anyway and they need to plot a different course.</p>
<p>But mini, I’m not really arguing with you or trying to convince you of anything - I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you have some ‘unique’ social views.</p>
In fairness, there was a quote in the article where the person being quoted didn’t believe the statistic was true. I don’t know if it is or not but I’m not sure it enters the discussion since if it’s not true then maybe they’re already paying the $2K minimum, or close to it, in which case it’s a moot point.</p>
<p>Let me apologize for the “silly and uninformed” remark. It was uncalled for.</p>
<p>From my perspective, as a 1%er, I just think it’s worth investing in the education of our kids, regardless of socio-economic class. I see it as what is called “enlightened self-interest.”</p>
<p>I can tell you that Gen-Y, or Gen-C, or whatever they are being called right now, are a large generation and they are being asked to shoulder the vast debt put together by the boomers, in their own best interest, and they are going to need an education to be able to do it. I believe in investing in our youth. We sure don’t mind saddling them with all sorts of responsibilities for things they will never benefit from, at all.</p>
<p>But, that’s probably wider than just Arizona, and has to do with the state of our entire higher educational cost structure.</p>
<p>Why would a 24.5 year old be taking care of a parent (yes, there is always the 1% to use as examples but let’s stay with the 99%). And, if a 24.5 has kids, what is the other half of the biological contribution doing financially in this situation?</p>
<p>I was recently taking a sociology class at our local CC. It was an evening course. One of the students was a recent immigrant, with 2 children. She had an interesting perspective. She would spend evenings online looking for $50.00, $100.00 etc type of grants and scholarships. When she spoke of this…a certain portion of my class looked at her as if she was somewhat batty…how many hours are you spending looking for this minutia of assistance…are you crazy. Her response…it’s taken me 7 years, but I almost have my degree in pharmacy, I’m just finishing off a few GE requirements. To me $50.00 is worth an evening online.</p>
<p>I had the unexpected pleasure and heart opening experience of meeting an ex gang b**ger who was now a assistant in a local assisted living facility. What an amazing story of self determination, he was one of the few who applauded the above students efforts. It’s all a matter of perspective, but frankly, the class warfare/guilt trip is getting rather old and worn.</p>
<p>What do you expect college attendees to pay, if anything?
What about private vs public?
Should housing and meals be included in the subsidies?
What about support for the parents and kids mini’s referring to while the student is going to college full time?
Should there be a means test of the parents or not - regardless of whether the parent is willing to pay?
Should any student be able to attend wherever they can get in regardless of the cost fpr public and for private?
Should whatever subsidy you’re talking about be for only undergrad and if so should there be a limitation on the time taken to graduate? Would you include grad school and if so, any limitations?
Would you include for-profit schools in the subsidies - like the ones advertising all day long on daytime TV?</p>
<p>The problem is that this idea of subsidizing education isn’t so simple. I’m just wondering what you mean by this ‘worth investing’. Most of us paying taxes are already doing some subsidies of our CCs and state colleges so it’s a matter of degree (pun intended). IMO, if a person can manage to get a college education for only $2k/year they’re already the recipients of other people’s ‘investment’ in their education.</p>
<p>Well, personally, I think we would all benefit from actually affordable state educations like we had even when I was in college and which don’t exist too many places anymore.</p>
<p>Why does Arizona need to make sure everyone pays “2,000” dollars? I mean, what is the point of that?</p>
<p>Will the students be living on campus for freee and eating in the dining halls for free?</p>
<p>But, honestly, if all Arizona wants is 2,000 for an undergrad degree, then they are doing better than the rest of the states, in terms of educating their population.</p>
<p>30 years ago it was possible to pay tuition, out of pocket, at my southern state flagship, AND rent an off campus apartment, AND buy groceries on a minimum wage salary. </p>
<p>Where can you do that today?</p>
<p>ps I feel like I’m following you around today poetgrl :)</p>
<p>Full-ride scholarships tend to go disproportionately to students from high-earning families who can afford $2000/year. And I doubt there are that many people without scholarships who don’t have to pay $2000/year after grants. So I don’t think this is affecting as many people as it sounds. I guess it’d just turn away more top students from Arizona and ASU.</p>
<p>Not to beat a dead horse but - I find it hard to believe that the average age of an undergrad at the 3 Az universities (ASU, UofA, NAU) is 24.5.</p>
I assume it’s the same reason anyone pays - to bring money into the college system to pay for the services the students are receiving. Granted, it’s an arbitrary value, but one that really isn’t going to break anyone’s bank and why shouldn’t they pay for at least this very small part of their own education? Just because they don’t have the cash when they’re 17, 18, or 19 doesn’t mean that they couldn’t reasonably pay back this relatively small amount in the years after they graduate and hopefully reap the benefits of their education. If they’re not to pay this then where is the bar set? Is it $0 for everyone and if not everyone then who and if not $0 then what, and in either case under what circumstances (the questions in my previous post)?</p>
<p>I would prefer if we could offer public college at the same price we offer public high school, though I recognize we are not currently in the fiscal position to be able to do so, having amassed far too much debt over the years doing whatever else we were doing.</p>
<p>I wish we had a national education system, though I recognize that it is an impossiblity at this point.</p>
<p>Why, though, can Canada keep their education affordable? Their taxes are no higher than ours, and, in some cases, much lower. </p>
<p>But, I suppose it comes down to ECON 101. Guns or Butter. I wish there was more butter for the kids, is all.</p>
<p>I can’t cut and paste the table that is about a quarter of the page down, but check out AZ’s percentage compared to the rest of the states. Maybe that sheds light on why AZ had this bill passed.</p>
<p>^^I like poetgrl’s plan. We can iron out the details at the Drake.</p>
<p>If we don’t want to offer low tuition at state schools, what about upping the minimum wage and being sure there are enough jobs? Young people today really do have a more difficult time than our generation did.</p>
<p>It also wouldn’t fly politically in a society where there’s outrage among parents/society at large when it seems everyone views their children are from Lake Wobegone…regardless of the actual academic performance in terms of HS GPA, SAT/ACT scores, and the breadth and depth of skills/knowledge gained from their K-12 education. </p>
<p>In the countries that do offer free or charge such a nominal rate that it practically is free…there’s also the corresponding tendency to greatly ratchet up the minimal required standards for admission to the point it is limited to the highest performing students and there’s a wide societal understanding that most kids won’t be heading off on the college/academic path. In those societies…the feeling is “If the taxpayers are on the hock 100% or so close it is effectively the same, the educational investment better go to those who’d hit the ground running and get the most out of their college educations so it can potentially be used to society’s greatest long-term benefit.” No slackers<em>, late-bloomers</em>, or anyone below tippy top need apply.* </p>
<p>In the foreign education systems I know of from relatives’/friends’ experiences…a college/university education may be free/extreme nominal cost…but limited to around the top 20% or less of all traditionally college aged students. Moreover, their systems tend to be much more rigid in terms of tracking…especially after the end of middle school where teachers/admins/exams decide whether a child will be heading off on the college track, a high/mid/low-prestige vocational training track, or his/her education ends and he/she starts an apprenticeship/works jobs requiring little/no formal training. </p>
<p>There’s also little/no allowance for second, third, or more chances if a child messes up during K-8 and/or K-12. A reason why several international students I’ve encountered from Europe and Asia with such “high-stakes” educational systems ended up coming to the US to attend high school/undergrad.</p>
<ul>
<li>All of those applied to yours truly along with most kids at various points of our K-12 career…which would mean we’d be winnowed out of the academic/college path and even many of the vocational training tracks as well.</li>
</ul>
<p>It’s not. The original article notes that the actual percentage of AZ public college students paying no tuition because they’re receiving need-based aid is around 25%. Given the way that statistics are bandied about by the legislature, I’d be skeptical of any of these numbers. </p>
<p>This looks to be a poorly thought-out piece of legislation. The bill’s author said that students would take their education more seriously if it wasn’t free, and that they’d get through school quicker. I don’t see any stats presented showing that AZ students who are receiving the most generous need-based aid are at highest risk of flunking out, or take longer to finish.</p>