Canada appears to be the same way, at least at the provincial level. Universities in Canada do not require external standardized tests for domestic applicants, presumably because they trust the comparability of high school grades across different high schools.
It seems to me we had this figured out at one point. I went to college in the mid-70s, and while it wasn’t free, my parents were able to put three kids through college with no scholarships, grants, or loans. In other words, college was affordable. Before that, an entire generation of GIs got a college education for free, which gave us 30 years of unprecedented prosperity, not to mention world leadership.
I don’t think the idea was ever “Everyone has to go to college.” The idea was “It’s best for the country if everyone who wants a college education can get one.” Until the early 80s, we believed that education was an investment in our country, so we made it happen.
Lowering college cost may increase the quality of admitted students. There will be more competition. “free” college doesn’t mean free admit. Students will go through the same application process. The only difference will be the cost. I think it’s a great idea.
“Lowering college cost may increase the quality of admitted students. There will be more competition. “free” college doesn’t mean free admit. Students will go through the same application process. The only difference will be the cost. I think it’s a great idea.”
However, many of our public schools are absolutely packed. Classes are huge, people are taking well more than four years to graduate because they can’t get into the classes they need. Admission is unbelievably competitive at many public schools. Do we really need more people trying to get into these colleges? If public universities get even more competitive, the people who will get accepted are those with the highest test scores and grades—ie, generally the wealthier students whose families could afford it anyways. Great, free college for the rich, and the poor can’t even get accepted.
I also wonder how housing costs play into this. For many public colleges, the cost of tuition is not much higher (or even possibly lower) than the costs of food and housing. You could have your tuition be “free” yet still owe tens of thousands for those costs, because it seems that everyone wants to live on campus and feels entitled to have that experience.
You subsidize what you want more of. We already have so many college graduates that are only able to get jobs that don’t require a degree. I wonder why it’s necessary to have even more.
Unfortunately, there’s a fringe among some American ed-school academics and educational activists who have agitated strongly for “everyone must go to college”. A corollary to that is the idea that selective admissions period is “too elitist”.
Ironic considering that was the prevailing mentality among many 19th century Americans and politicians regarding admission policies to West Point. Especially those from the southern and western states where reasonable college-prep education was hit-or-miss even among the upper/upper-middle classes unless they were willing to send their sons off to private boarding schools in the NE/Mid-Atlantic states. They’ve even made similar arguments that if their taxes were paying for it, their sons should be accepted even if their educational preparation was such they were likely to flunk out within a semester or two.
Those from that fringe were the folks who lobbied and got the ill-conceived open-admissions policies implemented in CCNY/CUNY in 1969 and attempted to do the same to the NYC Specialized High Schools in the early '70s before the NY state legislature passed a policy to put a stop to it.
Their fringe idea is essentially an AMERICAN one as most other societies with the possible exception of Mainland China during its decade-long Cultural Revolution(1966-1976)* may have had free or exceedingly low cost higher ed…but they don’t like to have it pointed out to them that IT WASN’T FOR ALL. Only for those who met/exceeded a highly selective academic admissions standards which wasn’t set to the academically LCD.
- With the exception of what's now regarded as a disastrous period by many even within the Chinese Communist Party, Mainland China before and after the Cultural Revolution had an educational system which academically tracked students aggressively and where college admissions was exceedingly competitive and only for the high academic achievers.
Leaving aside the fringe, what do you think of the idea of college being affordable for everyone who wants it? When I went to college at a public flagship in the 70s, annual tuition was less than $600. That kind of price tag made it possible for a middle-class family to educate all 3 kids debt-free. Do you think that’s a bad thing?
“You subsidize what you want more of.”
Or when you want to improve quality, in this case of incoming students: Include more of the very bright and very poor.
How do you determine who is very bright?
The beauty of the GI bill and the commitment to affordable college through the 70s was that you didn’t have to be exceptional. Ordinary people could and did get educated and moved into the middle class by the millions, a middle class which was broad and deep. More tax revenues, less government aid. A workforce which made undreamed-of technological/scientific/medical leaps. A country which led the world for 30 years in just about every metric you can think of. That’s back when we believed education was an investment, not “wasteful government spending.” We haven’t been the same since we changed our minds about that.
Even back then, not everyone went to college. Many people went to vocational school, or directly into the workforce. But we are ALL better off when the population is more educated, rather than less.
I’m of the opinion that college along with viable vocational training leading to well-paid available jobs should be affordable…preferably free for all who want it provided they meet the academic/training prerequisites to ensure a minimum chance of students flunking/dropping out due to underpreparation or not taking the education/training seriously. I do feel doing so is a good long-term investment for everyone in society.
Incidentally, the heyday of inexpensive/free college education for all who qualified was from the '40s-'60s. CCNY/CUNY was free for city residents provided they were able to meet pretty stringent academic requirements for admission up until 1969.
After open admissions was implemented in that system, free tuition continued for a little while until the combination of state/city financial crises* and the CUNY system being flooded with students in need of serious academic remediation meant they had to discontinue free tuition for city residents by 1975.
The '70s was the start of when free completely ended and inexpensive tuitions was starting to fade away.
Interestingly, many on the GI bill ended up being some of the academically best students with a far greater focus on their studies than traditional undergrads who hadn’t gone into the military. Recalled seeing an interview with several WWII/Korea veterans who recounted doing far better in HS/college than they had before they were drafted/joined up. I also observed a similar trend among most undergrads/grad students who served before attending college/grad school. They also had far better studying skills/habits which were comparable to the best students I knew from my public magnet HS and undergrad summer/grad school.
The only exception was a former Marine E-5 who talked a great game about being academically prepared only to drop the summer course(Econ) we were taking after 2 weeks because he was getting failing marks on his homework and quizzes.
It still stands out in my mind to this day as he was the only military veteran among many I’ve observed in summer college courses/grad school whose academic performance WASN’T at a high academically achieving level.
“How do you determine who is very bright?”
The respective admission committees know how.
Are they going to conduct an IQ test? Or go by HS recommendation? Or just look at the applicant’s photo?
Will all admission committees use the same criteria?
Just trying to determine the most politically correct way to dispense this free tuition.
Really? Is that why colleges are throwing out the SAT and giving more weight to how many volunteer hours spent building homeless shelters in Costa Rica?