There's an article in today's (9/19) The Post about Mrs. Clinton's free college tuition proposal.

The article,which includes comments from Dr. Vedder,points out a number of "issues" with the concept,including an income threshold of $125,000 per year.

Everything I've heard talks about free "in state" tuition at public universities.

I wonder how that would work for an out of state student ?

Would they pay 100% of the cost for an out of state student,or the difference in cost between in state and out of state tuition ?

From reading the article,the biggest problem with the idea is,as a number of people have said since it was first "floated" by Bernie, how/who funds it.

Some years ago TIME magazine showed a 2-page map of the U.S. and inside each state showed in-state tuition for state-assisted schools AND per capita support for in-state students. At that time, Ohio was the second most expensive of the 50 states and provided the second lowest per capita support.

For many the high GPA and test scores still are not cutting the tuition bill to affordable. Fact is here in Ohio we have seriously underfunded public higher education. When only 30% of the population has college degrees yet student loan debt is the largest debt of Americans today after home loans, that is a major problem, one that will hurt the economy as we go forward as money will be directed from the economy in the forms of goods and services.

Actually a big part of the student debt crisis is the fact that many students are starting at community colleges and for-profits, either in person or online, and not finishing a degree at all, but they're still stuck with the debt. Those students that have the "college experience" at a university like OU are much more likely to actually finish their degree and be able to handle the debt they've incurred. I saw it with my own family member, who bounced back and forth from Shawnee State and and UC branch campus while living at home, and never finished.

From Pew:

"Thirty-eight percent of two-year college students who started to repay their loans in 2009 defaulted within five years, as did 47 percent of for-profit college students, said a September study led by Adam Looney, an economist at the Treasury Department. Just 10 percent of students who attended selective four-year colleges defaulted over the same period."

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/s...

And another source, pointing out the for-profits, dropouts, and graduate degrees account for a lot of the debt.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/08/heaviest-c...

Also, students with the traditional "college experience" are actually MORE likely to finish on time because they generally take more credits at one time than students that live at home and commute. One study showed that overall public colleges graduated 19% of students in four years, but selective colleges (more likely to be residential campuses) graduated 36% in four years.

RP, the problem is, you're looking at something anecdotally. DelBobcat is bringing in facts and figures of the matter. If we are talking about policy from local, state, or national government, the facts and figures should drive the discussion, not the anecdotes.

I know it sounds folksy and fun, but I hate when I hear a politician say, "I met a mill worker yesterday who said..." That shouldn't drive your decision-making. You shouldn't be swayed by a story or two. The solutions should be tailored to the actual/factual issues.

Not everyone can afford to go to college debt free, just because that has been your experience and that of a few family members does not mean that the real world is the same for everyone else.

Not a fan of free college education. All that money will only bloat already bloated administrations. Did you see all the assistants deans of this and assistant directors of that when they introduced the one year MBA folks at the game yesterday. The single greatest cause of administrative bloat is easy tuition dollars - called financial aid - in the form of loans. You can't just keep spending money.

Also, if keeping the aid is dependent upon grade point, grade inflation will just get worse and worse.

Your last remark about 'able to pay off loans' makes no sense in light of the above Pew statistics.

The stats clearly show that 'college experience' students (as you call them) are more likely to pay off their loans.


You have the right to your opinion. You can dispute the statistics if you want or you can provide other facts.

But if you're not going to be logical about this, if you are not going to have an open mind, then why join this discussion?

Okay, now attack me instead of responding to the inconsistency of what you're saying vs. the statistics stated.

Monroe:
Either you missed,or ignored, my subsequent posts on this topic.

Basically,there are ways to pursue a degree,with the objective of minimizing debt.

If you choose to take out loans to pay for your higher education, you have a responsibility to know what you're getting into.

You also have a responsibility to pay back what you borrow, under the terms you agree to.

Lastly, I've never "attacked" you.Unless you consider disagreeing with your position on something an "attack".

You're the one who posted personal insults when I took a position that was contrary to yours, especially on the current presidential race.

That "study" is hardly proving cause-and-effect. Does it take into account the different types of students who pursue:
1. A two-year college
2. A private college
3. A four-year university

???

From the post above, it's not clear that it does.

But go on spouting off, Monroe.

Monore:

I never said that the residential campus choice leads to a decrease in the ability to pay back a loan.

What I said was that the "college experience" usually comes with a higher cost, hence, higher debt.

What I also said was that, whether you get a degree or not, you have the responsibility to pay back the loans you take out.

There are number of ways you can pursue a degree, while at the same time, not racking up debt that will take decades to pay off.
Again comes down to personal responsibility.

Its also interesting that, unlike you , I don't resort to condescending comments to try and bolster my position on a topic.

Other countries, particularly those in Europe, have a much more rigorous path to college. Many of the kids at OU would not get in to a university in Europe. They also have good paying jobs for those who do not qualify.

Intersting article in today's Post:

http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2016/09/ohio-univers...