This idea is not really new - the California Master Plan for Education essentially promised a free higher education to everyone in California. In 1960. [1]
As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow.
There is this meme that Prop 13 is responsible for everything bad in California because of course we could pay for anything if we had more money. In reality the CA budget has grown faster than inflation for decades. https://www.statista.com/statistics/313176/california-state-...
My personal opinion, the first thing we should do is a complete ban on all “professional” and/or spectator sport in any and all educational institution.
You can still have classes teaching sports but no spectators and definitely no “college spirit” nonsense.
It doesn’t matter to me if these sports generate more revenue than it costs.
It is a distraction that we don’t need.
If people want to participate in spectator sport, there are other places for it.
My justification is the same as that Google uses to kill projects.
There might be a project at Google that makes a hundred million dollars of “pure profit”. However, if it takes even equivalent of a month of time and attention of the executive leadership team and the board every year, it is decidedly not worth doing and must be scrapped.
Similarly, it doesn’t matter to me how much money sports and other such distractions make. If it takes time and attention of the management and or the board of regents, it must be scrapped.
Educational institutions exist for education.
Cut it all out!
Yeah, disagree. College sports generate a significant amount of revenue for the university, which funds scholarships for a huge number of students that otherwise couldn't afford to go there. They have the added benefit of being fun and add entertainment to the college experience.
> Yeah, disagree. College sports generate a significant amount of revenue for the university, which funds scholarships for a huge number of students that otherwise couldn't afford to go there.
This is objectively false for the small college I went to… in any case, you ignored my whole comment, even if it does make money, I don’t want it because this money corrupts beyond just the one university. It changes expectation for all colleges and universities. Now my NCAA division 3 college has to go to donors and beg for flood lights for the football stadium. This is time the UA people could spend on begging for dorms or chemistry lab equipments.
What if the schools discover other sources of revenue? The extreme conclusion being $corp University where more students can afford to go there but the main point of the school becomes slinging $corp products. Product could be ads, iphones, high end sex work, drugs, or anything with decent margins.
Outside of the USA the point of university is education. Only in the USA have I seen the meme that the point of universities is something other than education. I’m still trying to work out how and why there is a difference. Can you help me understand what the point is if it isn’t education?
In the EU, universities rarely have sports leagues you’re right in that, but all universities have various kinds of organised clubs and events all the damn time — not a week goes past without a lot of extra-curricular activities, of course voluntary.
I have no idea how they handle things in say China, but at least here it’s quite obvious that the point of university is more or less to prepare students for life in general rather than just get educated. Education is of course the grand goal and at least here in Finland universities get some significant amount of money from the government for each graduating student, but your first sentence is still dishonest argumentation at best.
Besides, the GP is talking total nonsense in general. Everyone I know outside the US looks up to your college sports scene in admiration since it looks like an awful lot of fulfilment and fun on top of studies and produces a massive amount of successful athletes in all kinds of sports. We’re envious of it, nothing more. Your country is and has been home to the most innovations and set a positive example to the rest of the world for decades and decades now, and frankly saying otherwise is just silly.
There are university leagues for every kind of sport in the UK. Most of the people involved take it very seriously but it's still just a form of recreation and doesn't attract crowds and money. I've never spoken with anyone who admires or envies the US system. If it came up in conversation I suppose most would find it utterly bizarre and likely to corrupt the purpose of a university, as I do.
> In the EU, universities rarely have sports leagues you’re right in that, but all universities have various kinds of organised clubs
I don't think that's true? It's just that they're not a huge public thing, televised, random locals watching live, with people attending the 'college' purely to play for the team, studying as a technicality. The only people involved, generally, are those playing (self-organised).
I played ice hockey in the UK university league (which was at the time in the EU, but I'm not nitpicking that point) and the team occasionally travelled abroad (I went to Eindhoven, NL) to play other university teams in Europe. (And get absolutely thrashed: hockey's bigger in much of Europe, especially colder countries, than it is in the UK, so they were the cream of a big pool of talent, while we were ..scraping a team together from interested parties is only slightly an exaggeration.)
Once upon a time, I was pretty involved with Finnish student organizations. It's more accurate to say that Finnish universities don't have that many organized clubs. It's the students who have them. Students often have a lot of free time, and they get involved in all kinds of activities. Their clubs tend to be independent legal entities with minimal formal connections to the university. Some of the more successful ones I knew often had some trouble maintaining >50% students in their membership in order to qualify for various benefits from the student union.
Second, according to Finnish law,
> The mission of the universities is to promote independent academic research as well as academic and artistic education, to provide research-based higher education and to educate students to serve their country and humanity at large.
It has been argued that getting involved in volunteer activities is part of the education. Participating in college sports would qualify, while watching them and supporting your team would not.
> Besides, the GP is talking total nonsense in general.
I know what I am saying.
The whole point is spiraling costs and tragedy of the commons.
Colleges and universities must keep spending on spectator sports because otherwise you can’t pull students away from other colleges and universities that do the same.
The whole point of my comment is to make college accessible and affordable.
You can’t just say “don’t look up”.
Something has to change.
Socializing, learning to live with others, providing opportunities to join social and professional clubs/organizations, navigation of longer-timeline projects and assignments, etc.
You could call all of these 'education' but the usual and implicit image of education in people's minds is lectures and tutoring sessions so it's worth highlighting these other aspects. All of these are present in universities around the world in varying degrees.
> Socializing, learning to live with others, providing opportunities to join social and professional clubs/organizations, navigation of longer-timeline projects and assignments, etc.
These are all things that happen in universities, but they are also all things that young people have the opportunity to do outside of university.
Technically, narrowly, yes, fine, but having environments that foster those things is much better than living in a desert and having to build those communities yourselves. Many will not have the "opportunity" in the latter case because there's a million other things that come up all the time. It's about reducing friction in accessing those benefits.
The old adage comes to mind: "you loved your college years because you lived in a socialized infrastructure with walkable neighborhoods and the opportunities for spontaneously meeting old friends and new people alike".
>young people have the opportunity to do [this] outside of university
Same goes for computer science and like every humanities degree - you can become an autodidact in any subject that does not require expebsive equiment and facilities.
On the contrary, > 60% of most people's lifelong friends consist of people they met at school or university. That suggests we are not very good at connecting eith random people we meet on the street.
Definately, debating, fencing and politics of student councill all belong in university.
But is a highly-commercial sport appropriate.
My understanding is that these studenta do sport instead of studying. They basically get a degree instead of cash compensation. This seems both corrupting education and exploiting the students.
If you think that's okay, why is this approach not applied to Formula Student?
It has engineering students build racecars and compete. If a graduate in mechanical engineering buildz a winning racecar, thats a hood indicator of conpetence. A winner in football is an indicator of.. anything?
I’ve seen people point to prop 13 as a cause of the budget deficits. Not sure how much any of this goes beyond hearsay, but it is much harder to run a deficit when your tax base is decentralized and fixed. The core idea of prop 13 was to cut income and let spending figure itself out separately. The widening budget deficits in CA happen in the aftermath but maybe that was just the consequence of the same fiscal irresponsibility that motivated the tax cut.
Writing as someone who actually live and voted in California in 1978, the core idea was that seniors were being forced to sell their homes because real estate values and taxes were rising faster than their fixed incomes could support.
The Jarvis Foundation promoted it as a cost containment measure after the measure had been qualified for the ballot.
The majority of voters were homeowners back then. It was created and passed to benefit homeowners and preserve existing communities. But the bigger issue is that there was a flavor of magical thinking among conservatives that cutting taxes would cut spending (starve the beast). Naturally one proved more popular than the other with the electorate.
I’m gonna say you haven’t looked into how that money can be spent. About half goes into the school and rainy day fund, the stimulus checks were required by law for I think 16? So your question is “what did they do with 34B” which again… pretty easy to figure out. There’s a budget.
That link also has the allocations for that 38b. You can get 5Gb fiber in my neighborhood now. Some of that is probably due to this budget for instance.
Prop 13 drives real estate prices up and rents while they lag also follow. And that drives the price of labor up as well. Even more malign it discourages muni's from approving housing because the property taxes don't cover the services that muni's have to pay for.
This is the real reason manufacturing is leaving the West, not regulation and not evil plan by China. This is also the real reason for culture of thowing away things and not repairing -> a new dishwasher costs £300, but a mechanic needs to charge £100 an hour to pay rent.
If you rent is 50% of your income, the rent is actuslly 75% of your income -> because when you pay for anything, say get a plumber, 50% of your money goes to pay the plumber's rent. If, hypothetically, rents were zero, the plumber would cost twice less. You would have 4 times more money.
But not 100% of your income goes to paying for labour in your local economy. You buy goods and services that are from elsewhere (food from France, entertainment from America) etc.
Prop 13s original beneficiaries were pre-boomer. It was sold as a means to allow grandma to stay in her home as property values skyrocketed around her and rising property taxes were actually pushing (pre-boomer) people out of their longtime homes.
To be fair a lot of California students get a free education. I moved to California as a poor teenager. I became a resident and then had all of my costs (minus housing) covered during both community and state college.
I never thought something like that would be possible for me. It ended up being fairly easy. Moving to California radically changed my life for the better.
I'm an educator, and a social democrat (approximately) so "yes"?
What saddens me is that grand (and simple) plan "free education for all" gets watered down and chipped away to "free education for those who have money or connections" and later attempts to shore it up offten amount to "free education for $special_group". While I don't deny $special_group should get free education, what gets me is all the special-pleading going on.
In OOM programming terms, it's like we had a universal principle which was easy to implement, and this has now been replaced by a bunch of switch/case statements...
I understand and empathize, but you also realize that college in the 60's and in the 2020's are completely different beasts no, right? The genie is out of the lamp, but we literally don't have the room to stuff it back in. CA's population has tripled in 60 years, and high school graduation rates have risen signifigantly (which is of course good). There are more students competing for university today than there were people in 60's california.
Thankfully not all of them are trying to apply specifically to UCLA or even in state, but the numbers are staggering.
Even if teachers have (which I'm not convinced of to begin with), Universities and land haven't. Its no secret that we've had an overpopulation crisis for the past few decades as is, so We haven't fully solved that issue as of now.
And I'm equally unsure if taxes have tripled, between increasing poverty on the bottom and more and more tax evasion on top.
I'm sure if we built new universities, there would be plenty of applicants to teach it in, given how fierce the competition for academic positions already is.
If capacity at existing colleges is the problem, we could start new ones.
Where exactly would you propose building them? A competitive university is going to require around 2,000 acres of land. Where are you going to find that in today's California? No doubt there is plenty of open space left, but it's not in very desirable areas.
Assuming you’re using “overpopulation” to refer to California’s housing shortage, this is not a “too many people” issue or a “not enough land issue”, but rather a “land isn’t being used efficiently” issue. Efficiently housing and moving large numbers of people is by and large a solved problem, with plenty of examples to learn from (see: any megacity in Asia).
California hasn’t solved the issue because some percentage of residents or other interest groups don’t want to solve the issue and have had the political means to block attempts at resolution.
> and so has the tax base and # of teachers. This is a non-issue. Society scales.
The tax base and the number of higher education instructors may indeed have tripled. I'd have to check. But that would only be enough if you were going to teach the same fraction as went to college in 1960. What was that, 10 or 15%?
So we'd need something like a x30 increase in teachers. And even more in tax base (since we're building more campuses or enlarging the existing, not merely funding the existing ones).
Somewhat unrelated, but several states have seen unexpected growth since that time period
Kind of hard to believe, but in 1950 Florida and Kentucky had about the same population. Since then Florida has 8x'ed (I think because of modern AC). Other states (especially in the south and southwest) have seen similar levels of growth to CA. I don't see how the problem you mentioned is specific to California
A few loosely coupled thoughts on the subject - mostly to flesh out my own thinking
(tldr - in which I conclude that we agree on the goal but disagree on “which was easy to implement”, after thinking through my own educational / economical history at some length ;))
I benefited from:
* a nearly free and (luckily) high quality school education from kindergarten through 12th grade - most schools were not that great in my time, I lucked out (with parents who strived / persisted until they got me into the right one)
* a nearly free but terrible education for my bachelors in engineering in India
* a largely discounted and excellent post-graduate education in the US, paid for by my work as a research assistant, which I had to compete for, and that paid the equivalent of $375/month after taxes for working 20 hours a week with a full course load from which I paid my living expenses (in the early oughts - so i was poor :)), but came with a tuition waiver.
Here’s how it has led me to approach this subject:
* I definitely agree that the ideal of nearly free education for everyone that wants it is the right one for a richer society like America to strive for, but subject to some basic rules(eg maintain non-abysmal grades that reflect at least basic effort)
* Free just means someone else is paying for it - and that has its limits. In a free / subsidized college world, major states in India had (have?) so few engineering colleges that if you got less than 99%, you couldn’t study technology - at all! Barring a stroke of luck (family moving to another state where I at least got into a pretty bad engineering college) , I would have had to study economics instead of engineering.
* Around the time of the article above (maybe a few years before) India started allowing private colleges to charge more. This has made education a lot more expensive in India on average, although I believe a similar number of “free seats” still exist, but the number of “seats” to study popular fields has gone up by on order of magnitude, and that has enabled a LOT more people to study what they want, but incomes have grown a lot too for white collar workers. For many (not all) fields, folks are able to take a loan and pay it back.
* If, for instance, the US government paid for just “degree granting post-secondary institutions” expenses, it would instantly become the #2 budget category just below social security and above health, medicare, “income security” and defense.
* It seems that 65% of US adults over 25 do not have a bachelors degree. It seems likely many of them will not support using their tax dollars to create a new #2 budget liability - despite the “chicken-or-egg” dynamic - that if the education was free, many of them would have a degree, and might support it.
I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.
"social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.
> some services are social goods and should be treated as such
I'm not disputing that. I'm just taking issue with the marketing strategy. I don't like selling it as "free education" because that's a lie, and I don't like lying because it catches up with you eventually. I think it should be called what it is: government-subsidized education. (I also think it should be means-tested. I see no reason for society to pick up the tab for rich people's kids.)
Should we call all grocery stores 'government subsidized food stores' since American AG receives a huge amount of government subsidies? Gas stations 'government subsidized gas stations' or maybe 'government owned' since a large amount of US oilfields are on US government owned land via leases? Should anything that is government subsidized should have some pejorative prefix added to it or just free education?
>"Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea.
Like, he's no longer allowed to be a social democrat if he understands bsaic economics? Why am I not surprised?
> some services are social goods and should be treated as such,
Perhaps. But how is higher education that? It's true that not as many people as you would like have 4 year degrees, but many do, and those people serve me overpriced coffees while whining about unionization.
Where is the social good in their degrees? Like, even if they had gotten those for free and there was no student debt, how did their degrees help either society at large, or them personally?
It is apparently very easy for this to not be a social good.
That's not how the language works. We have long ago decided that "free", when used in the context of social services, is correct enough to be understood.
Do you think that definition is bad? If so, maybe you'll catch more nibbles by trying to engage in a dialog?
That is incorrect. Social services are “free”, adhering to the legal and traditional definitions in that the entity offering the service is indeed not charging for the service. That is well understood.
It is also understood that the source of funding for institutions which offer free services is taxes, fees, and levies from the general population. Regardless of what MMT proponents imagine, costs will eventually be repaid by resources, labor, or war.
I find it intellectually dishonest to advocate for “free” services without acknowledging how those services are funded. It does seem more of the population is interested in immediate gratification regardless of long term costs (see deficit spending, consumer debt, etc.), but that doesn’t make the cost disappear because it is ignored. It’s no different than suggesting because birds fly, they must not be affected by gravity.
I've seen a lot of terms used for social services: subsidized, covered, available by grant, available to those who qualify.
But I don't always see those social services tossing around the word "free".
Sure, sometimes there are "free haircuts for the homeless" or "free medical services for the needy", or "free help to apply for benefits", but generally in the context of entitlements, we're not freely bandying this word around.
Well of course voters accept this vernacular, slang usage! It works great! March into the principal's office, slam your fist down on the desk, and demand your free public schools for your kid. Stagger into the E.R., slam your fist down on the triage nurse's desk, and demand your free health care!
It works great at the ballot box too! "Vote now for your free stuff! Everybody gets more free stuff when they vote for me! Support the bill for free stuff!" Because if you called it "using other people's money", then the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher would arise and invade Puerto Rico.
While you're voting, consider whether you're in that hacker demographic that gets a chuckle out of the meme that says "The Cloud Is Just Someone Else's Computer."
"Taxpayer funded" is a gross oversimplification, for any sort of government entitlement and college funding alike.
But anyway, I have seen students in college who were sent there by their employer. They work full-time, have families with young children, and they were expected to pick up several credit-hours to upskill. You've never seen a bunch of sleepier guys. A lot of people, sent by their employer picking up the tab, don't wanna be there, and it shows. They're really disengaged with the class, and that frustrates classmates and professor alike.
Then there's students whose parents paid for it, and family expectations on them finishing college so they get a "real job", or even support the parents and buy them a nice house soon.
Students who work their way through school adopt another distinct attitude. They will get tired too, but they make every credit-hour count. It's their own money and their own blood, sweat, and tears that bring them to the finish line.
There are students who apply for scholarships and get through college that way. There's all sorts of funding for scholarships: corporate sponsors, non-profits, churches, community-based organizations, philanthropic foundations. Someone came to speak at the fraternity meeting and she said she'd been awarded six million dollars in scholarships. I was unsure how you'd spend all that at a community college, but hey?
People who are spending, or supported by, other people's money spend it differently than if it were their own money in their own bank account with them watching the bills and transactions. The incentives are different. The risk/reward calculation is different. That's how it goes.
I’m really not trying to argue in bad faith. Many conversations about “free” social services ignore real capital and human cost of the proposal as if it doesn’t exist. Why stop at education when basic needs like food, water, and shelter could all be “free”? The cost of residential water in CA, for example, is about an ⅛th of the education budget.
In the case of covered education for foster kids, I’m conflicted. I’m in favor of providing anyone placed in the foster care system resources to offset their hardship. I would support non-profits that showed they could efficiently direct funding to programs to help foster kids go to college. I would wager there is research that shows positive economic and social impact by sending foster kids to college that outweighs the cost and significantly reduces the risk of foster to prison. But that’s my choice and don’t think everyone else should be forced to have the same convictions.
While not perfect, Arizona exposes this somewhat by offering tax credits for contributions to non-profits in certain categories (aid for working poor, tuition assistance, foster/adoption, public schools). I’m still forced to cover the cost of social programs, but minimally I get have some agency in choosing organizations that align with my philosophy in those domains and aren’t kicking back a slice of that money to politicians.
> Many conversations about “free” social services ignore real capital and human cost of the proposal
Many compalins ignore the costs of missing these services.
We have 'free' firefighters because entire cities used to burn to the ground. That's very expensive to rebuild.
We have 'free' sanitation becauae The Black Death did more economic damage than both world wars combined.
We have free school education because having a population that can't read and write is economically ruinous. And politically ruinous - illiterate people can vote, join cults, maybe they support the inquisition and burning witches at the stake. We've been thought that.
No-one i ever met believes we should go back to the times where majority couldn't read and write becauae parents could not afford school. Some just believe that education stops at an arbitrary age.
Education is a prime target for government subsidies because, as a market, it yields positive externalities. This means when a person receives an education, the net benefit is felt by society at large. It's a well-established economic principle.
So if we're going to discuss the economic realities of government subsidies, we should go a bit further than "things cost money," because that's obvious and simplistic.
*Edit: Just want to add that the tax debate is indeed worth having. My point is only that the justification for subsidies is grounded in econ principles, not just the whims of the public.
I'm a leftist, left of democratic socialist and definitely left of social democrat. But can we please not point fingers and question people's motives? If someone says they are X, then we should believe them until there's a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Of course! Basically everything is paid by somebody (TANSTAAFL). Nobody thinks that free education is magically free, everybody understands that it's paid by taxes/government/society.
OTOH, it is a much cooler slogan than 'education paid by society at large :)
> Nobody thinks that free education is magically free, everybody understands that it's paid by taxes/government/society.
That is far from clear. There are crazy people on the left just like there are crazy people on the right, and I think some of them really don't understand how the world actually works, and that you really can somehow magically make education "free for everyone".
Even if it's not true, it provides ammunition for the opposition to say that it's true. One way or another, I think using misleading terminology is generally not a net win.
Oh come on. Literally no one believes that teacher salaries are going to pay for themselves.
When leftists say that something like public healthcare would be literally free what they mean is that the net cost compared to the alternative is null or negative, not literally that nothing is being spent.
If you want to give me a link of someone who literally thinks that free college means that no one has to pay anything for the college itself or it's staff, I'm willing to take a look. Otherwise, it's just an argument that the net cost to society is negligible or negative, which is a valid use of the word too.
I don't think they think that no one will pay. I think they don't think about it at all, or they think that government somehow has unlimited resources at its disposal.
It's actually that "billionaires" will somehow produce a whole lot more things and pay for it all for everybody else, absolving themselves of any further rational thought or moral responsibility to those with less than themselves.
Many young people have no concept of money. It's not their fault, their parents paid for everything and it's not really taught. My first car loan out of college floored me at how much the monthly payment was at 60 months and it was a reasonably priced demo (cheaper than new).
Of course, not many people have the concept of money at the government scale either. What does $75B to Ukraine really mean?
As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Hig...