<p>Tuition is not the only cost. Living expenses are the other major cost. A student commuting from the parents’ place probably costs around $5,000 per year plus commuting costs, whether or not the parents charge the student for these costs. (Parents often do seem to be willing to assume these costs much more than they are willing to pay for other school-related costs.)</p>
<p>If we assume that a CC is about $6,000 less per year (due to the tuition difference), then we have four year costs as a commuter student at CC+CSU as approximately 2 * $10,000 + 2 * $16,000 = $52,000.</p>
<p>A student with maximum need-based financial aid will still have the following net price = student contribution (direct loan + work) of approximately:</p>
<p>$4,000 to $5,000 at CSU as a commuter
$8,500 to $10,000 at a UC
$11,000 to $13,000 at CSU living there</p>
<p>So it is not like students on financial aid have no “skin in the game” or that the schools and state are giving completely free rides of need-based financial aid. Of course, some students may reduce their loans or work with merit scholarships, but that is another form of “skin in the game” or student contribution.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with the California idea of charging UC tuition a lot more. I’m not that familiar with the CA system, but NY wanted to do something similar which it has done but without the success that CA has had with the prestige of the UCs. I believe that since admissions to the UCs is the most selective, that it should be free including room and board for those for whom the commute is onerous. Anyone who wants to apply to a state school in their state that is not within commuting distance has to pay room and board unless the school with their own funds gives an award. Government pays for those who have no such school in the area. Sort of how some states will give vouchers for OOS public attendance if a major or field of study is not obtainable in state. Haven’t worked out the details, but that is what I 'd like to see, in general. OOsers are welcome to apply and if they bring something to the table, schools can use their private funds for scholarships for them, but otherwise, they pay. Just as it works out now. </p>
<p>But this would eliminate a lot of situations where kids can’t go to college because parents have the income but won’t pay, won’t fill out FAFSA. You go locally just as you go to your local school district. If you can get boarding college, private school, OOS school to give you an award, or if you have the funds or your parents will pay, then you have other choices. That 's how it works with private N-12 schools and boarding schools. Why should college be different?</p>
<p>Try not spending so much on social experimentation and wealth redistribution on uncle Sam’s credit card. The money saved could be spent on education, our veterans and fighting Al-Qaeda.</p>
<p>I like the idea of beefing up the community college system while keeping costs reasonable. I think CA has a nice model for moving kids from the CCs to the UCs and CalStates. CCs should have open admission but not the upper levels of college. Some states do a better job of making this work. So kids can work summers, afford CC tuition etc. I don’t believe in “free college” because I think it just replicates the problems seen in K-12 with unqualified kids being processed through a system. College should be a privilege not a right and the “weeding” can occur at the CC level funneling kids into 2 year programs, transfer to 4 year programs, technical programs which in theory is what it should do, but in practice doesn’t happen everywhere.</p>
<p>Given how popular Social Security (the largest wealth redistribution program in the US) is, it is probably untouchable politically, much to the detriment of the government budget balance.</p>
<p>Note the “low cost” of over 62 billion dollars- the country is already in the red. guns or butter…</p>
<p>More students would not be able to go to college as there isn’t enough room for them- facilities or staff. It may redistribute who goes- some middling students whose parents can afford the bill may be replaced by those who don’t bother because of finances.</p>
<p>Post #5- K-12 public education may be free but far too many districts need to cut too much to make the budget balance.</p>
<p>“What would it take to make public higher Ed free?”</p>
<p>A drastic reduction of access by means of restricted admission available only to high test scorers who were tracked into a certain curriculum in early adolescence. As this is politically impossible, it will never happen.</p>
<p>Colleges are SELECTIVE, it means not everyone would able to benefit from it, therefore I don’t see why general public should be paying higher taxes to support it. K-12 education is available to all, so I have no issue in paying additional taxes even though we elected not to use it.</p>
<p>College education is not necessary for a lot of jobs or for people to function in this society. If it is free to all, it may become just another way for young people to procrastinate and delay launch. It is why some parents make sure their kids have some skin in the game when it comes to college education. Of course, in order to make something free and applicable to all, we may need to bring it down to the lowest denominator. It is one of the reasons we chose private school over public school for our kids.</p>
<p>Regional accreditation is not that high a standard. Some of the best known (but poorly regarded) for profit universities are regionally accredited. However, major-specific accreditation may be lacking.</p>
<p>The reason state universities and community colleges (and public K-12 education, for that matter) exist in the first place is that the state governments realize that a generally better educated population results in a larger economy, to the benefit of all (including the state government which collects more taxes due to a larger tax base).</p>
<p>Of course, we have now probably come close to reaching saturation in terms of the number of capable students entering bachelor’s degree programs. What misallocation there remains in the public sector schools is probably academically capable students from poor families having trouble affording to attend (particularly in states with poor financial aid like PA), but academically marginal students from wealthier families attending and not succeeding.</p>
<p>A start might be attaching some amount of college funds to each student. This amount could vary based on SAT or ACT score or something perhaps. Making college free completely doesn’t leave enough incentive for students to ever get out of college. This would be not annual but total. This also encourages (or at least does less to discourage) efficient use of resources on the university. Soon universities will start working on programs that will get students degrees using all but no more than the government funds, as a marketing thing. Some schools will still charge extra, and whoever wants to pay extra and can get in will go.</p>
<p>Tying the amount of college financial aid to SAT/ACT scores? Can you imagine the howling?</p>
<p>Wow…it would be thunderous!</p>
<p>I do think that states like Florida do it well with its Bright Futures. There is a GPA and test score minimum, but it seems to be lenient enough that good students do qualify. </p>
<p>The idea that anyone with the most minimal stats (2.0 GPA, 19 ACT) should get a funded college education just for breathing is nutty.</p>
<p>I know as there’s been a long history of that reaction in NYC with our local college system. </p>
<p>Accusations of “elitism” flew from some local loopy activists after CUNY instituted a resolution to move all remedial instruction to the 2-year community colleges and raised admission and academic standards in the 4-year colleges at the end of the '90s. </p>
<p>Considering how abysmally low those standards were even in the early '90s as some HS classmates witnessed after attending for a couple of years or less before transferring to more academically reputable colleges, I find such outcries to be over the top. </p>
<p>Free college with exceedingly high admission standards and a type of open admission standard policies could work.</p>
<p>With the latter, however, it needs to be coupled with a ruthless weedout process of some kind to ensure everyone HAS A CHANCE AT A COLLEGE EDUCATION, but NOT EVERYONE’S GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED AND GRADUATE WITH A DEGREE IN HAND. </p>
<p>This will weed out the academically weak and/or unmotivated students early on with minimal losses to either the students/families and the public at large. Incidentally, this system exists with some success in several European countries and was once part of some US universities with low/open-admission entry policies.</p>
<p>To be fair, those countries and the US of the past also had viable publicly funded alternatives to colleges for students who weren’t interested or academically inclined towards attending college.</p>
<p>Just because tuition (and perhaps R&B) is free, doesn’t mean everyone rushes off to college. The admisdion standards would be about the same. If more qualified applicants apply than can be accommodated, then a lottery for that school could be used. Income should not exclude qualified students. One has to have a drivers liscence and a car to use the Interstate system for which everyone pays. It is there for those who qualify, as would college.</p>