It’s more or less 2,877.57 - 3,453.084 dollars.
2 Likes
Ah.
That’d be the amount for a community college. Still a lot, I suppose.
1 Like
Your major?
2 Likes
Actually school isn’t free. There are many fees, supplies and other activities that are require to be paid for.
1 Like
Oui 
2 Likes
Hmm… that’s not a bad idea…
2 Likes
And it would motivate students to study more so they would have to pay less 
2 Likes
By the way, in my country, there are (or at least a few) colleges that give discharged soldiers and national service graduates study first year for free.
2 Likes
Yeah! So school would actually be worth it.
2 Likes
That’s super nice.
1 Like
even if you study in wales or england.
I wish it was but I understand that keeping up with technological advances in some fields is hard like medicine or science.
I really could do without the £14,000 of student debt over me for the next 30 years. Honestly even my degree hasn’t helped get a job in that field or anywhere else. I lack experience but have the right qualifications
3 Likes
I think that it should not be completely free. I think free means government funded and government funded does not = quality.
I do think that more info should be taught about student loans and there should not be interest on student loans.
3 Likes
I don’t really like student loans, I wanna get scholarships based on my performance. But I wish they didn’t make getting financial aid difficult sometimes.
1 Like
Added a school tag
2 Likes
Thanks 
1 Like
Okay, I’m gonna say no to it being completely free, that wouldn’t make sense to me cause after you finish university you will also earn a lot more money than if you don’t go for it. It would make people unmotivated if you completely make it free. In my opinion a system in which you get the first year for not too much, then maybe 4 years for a reasonable price and after that you pay full price sounds ideal. It motivates people to actually work for it. It’s almost the Dutch system tbh, here you pay about 1000 euros for the first year of regular university and from then on 2000, I mean it’s still quite a lot of money but nowhere near what it costs in the private sector (up to 15000 a year). Also you get free public transportation, unless you don’t graduate within 10 years (which is cause of medicine) then you have to pay everything (125 euro a month1010= 12.500 euros) back. Another issue I have with completely making it free is it either
- Affect quality in a negative way
- Leads to saving on other areas, like health care or environmental issues
I’m not sure how I feel about making a distinction for it based on parents income, what do you guys think of that idea? I think it could be good to give people the opportunity to rise above the level they would have been if they couldn’t afford it, but idk, it also seems a bit unfair to give them a different treatment from people who have a bit more money but for who it might still be a struggle to pay that, like where would you draw the line?
And in general do we believe in scholarships or loans?
- Scholarships
- Loans
- Neither
- Combined
0 voters
In a post-capitalist world, this is not actually true. It’s something that our parents make us believe because it was true back in the 80s and 90s. Now? Unemployment is high either way and so many people leave university deep in debt with no way to get out of it.
Furthermore, so many people come out of university just to get a menial job they didn’t need to go to university for. Why? Well, because unemployment is at such a high at the moment, bosses can afford to be picky. They can afford to look specifically for people who have a degree for smaller jobs that need no actual qualifications because this is a way to narrow down their application process.
The fact is that being a university graduate doesn’t ensure you’ll get any job, let alone a well-paid one. In fact, in many of the jobs I’ve had, the people above me didn’t go to university at all!
Also, just because it’s free, it doesn’t mean everyone is going to get through university. It’s a hard, gruelling process that isn’t for everyone. If you aren’t an intellectual, academic person, you’re going to suffer and you might not complete university. In fact, the odds are you won’t! The percentage of university dropouts is high at the moment, even in places where people have to fund themselves through their course.
It also doesn’t mean everyone will be accepted into universities. Free uni with high standards could definitely be the option in this case.
When it comes to quality being affected, that’s capitalist propaganda. Free university won’t actually mean that the universities will get less money. It means the government will fund the universities.
The good thing about that is that it keeps universities competitive and standardised. If a university needs to stick to government standards, they’re much more likely to get their act together than if they are funded by their students and can therefore do what they want. Because the government can cut their spending and put it in another university if that one is doing badly. Students? They can’t make that choice so easily.
With the issue of standardisation, it improves the quality of universities in disadvantaged areas. Let’s take America as an example. In predominantly black schooling areas, universities are going to cost less, if there are any to begin with. Those universities are therefore going to have less funding to put into good teachers and good resources, so those already disadvantaged areas are going to have a poorer education quality, too.
If universities get a set amount and have to reach government standards, that means that people of all areas will have access to relatively similar opportunities in terms of education.
Education always leads to saving in other areas. If you train more doctors for free, then we’ll have a better quality of healthcare. If you send more potential scientists to university, more scientific discoveries will be made to help us with the environment.
At the moment, the people disadvantaged by fees are the people who are poor. And what does that do? It lowers the quality of our education because it means they fill their numbers with people who might not necessarily be the best candidate, but have the money to throw at the university. All those poor people who could be smarter and better suited for the course either can’t afford university, have to spend their time working for a living so can’t get in, or get put off by the idea of being in debt after they finish.
4 Likes
Anecdotal, sure, but I did art in college when I was 16 and then when I was 19 I was a team leader with three graduates working under me.
Uni doesn’t guarantee you get a job. Also doesn’t guarantee you’re a good worker? Two of those three were horrible at their job
1 Like
Hmm, interesting.
Yeah that are serious issues, that is a problem here in some sectors as well, but definitely not all of them. Like there are a lot of studies where you do basically have a job right away after studying.
Personally I believe that also depends on the counties and in some countries its better organized than others and there is less unemployment.
True, this is a fact, university doesn’t ensure a job, but it definitely improves your chances a lot, at least here in the Netherlands.
Yeah that’s true, but the chances are bigger you won’t stop if that has financial consequences. Like maybe I’m going a bit against my previous statement here, but that’s cause this is more personal opinion, a while ago I kinda felt trapped in my studies, I didn’t like it but I couldn’t stop with it either since that gives financial issues, but on part of me is happy I just continued and in general that push to continue could be a good thing for some people but on the other hand I obviously realize the financial burden can lead to mental health issues. So I’m kinda conflicted about it…
Hmm, sounds great, but it’s also not that realistic, like that would cost a lot lot. They would have no income from students and the standards should be as high as it is now, that would be a huge burden for governments and I just don’t think it’s realistic in most countries. I know Finland has free but really good higher education tho, but the whole focus in society is different there I guess 
Hmm, okay I understand what you are saying here, but how about corruption? In a lot of countries that would be an actual issue which I believe is less of an issue when students decide based on best education.
Again I can understand your point but in my opinion that discrimination based on location is an issue, but personally I’m not sure if making education free and have strict standards is the solution for that. Isn’t like a place based solution more efficiently than a more global universal solution?
True, investing in education on the long-term can lead to improvements in other sectors, but I think there should be like a balance, and that’s why I say governments should definitely invest in education and therefore making sure the quality is good, but on the short term there are already losses on the economic balance of a lot of countries and to invest this huge amount of money in making it free now just isn’t smart. I can definitely see how on the longer term it would be the ideal but I’m kinda realistic and I don’t see it happening now in today’s society.
And that’s why I am in favor of specifically people who have the skills and stuff to go to university but not the money that they get some kind of opportunity to do so, like a loan you don’t have to pay back if you don’t get a job or a scholarship.
3 Likes
The problem is that overpopulation and economy issues are rife throughout the world, and not just the country. Many of the best places to live in the world still have issues with finding jobs after university
I’d be all for paying a fine if you leave early, even if the actual university is free! I think that’s a good solution, as then it would be like “the government invested in you and you didn’t finish”.
I’d even be for charging an amount if the people then leave the country, as their taxes wouldn’t be reimbursing the amount the government spent on their education.
I work in the education sector now, and I can say that isn’t how funding works, even when it’s free. Organisations and universities have to submit records to show each and every student they’re educating and they get funded by the government per student. Some schools can also be paid more depending on the grades of their students, and also depending on how many find a job and continue on to more education.
This incentivises education providers to keep their student numbers fairly high, but also not accept people who are unlikely to finish or do well. It also encourages universities to help people find jobs when you leave, rather than just spitting you out and forgetting about you.
Corruption is a lot worse on a lower scale than a higher scale. The government is a lot more immune to ignore bribes, for example, and hold each other accountable than a smaller institution with less people involved. Bureaucracy sucks, but wanting to get re-elected and making sure things are done well decreases corruption.
When a university operates on its own, it’s much more susceptible to bribes. Say a student tries to buy their way into university. If they’re invoicing students directly, that’s a lot easier to hide than if the government is paying on behalf of the students.
Not necessarily. Then, the places in the country with less funding will have to either drop their prices or close down. If they drop their prices, the facilities and staffing suffer. If they close down, there’s less education in the poorer areas.
3 Likes