Clinton College Proposal

[Mark Hunts FIST]

It's not zero-sum. A more-educated workforce would produce more value. And there are a lot of benefits to college beyond it making you more employable.

More value? How so? currently there are plenty of people with college degrees who can't find work. How does more people with a degree help that?


There will always be a need for low level jobs, who is working those jobs in the future where everyone has a degree.

 

[Commissar]

"income inequality"?

More degrees means more competitive for the same dwindling pool of jobs.

Actually, it would increase competition over a larger pool of jobs that someone now could get without college education.

 

[Gregolian]

That. And it can potentially improve your grammatical sense.

I'll be honest, my grammar is usually better but I had no clue how best to craft that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's a good thing if we rigorously test entrants to make sure only the smartest, of whatever their background, get to go.

Why should a standard like that exist for a potential, future, publicly funded college when it doesn't exist for the privately funded colleges of today?

Or why not make current student loan approval dependent on the applicant scoring in the upper quintile on some sort of rigorous scholastic bank exam?

If a high school graduate meets the individual school's academic entrance requirements the state should cut the check and the kid should get to go to the college.

 

[panamaican]

More value? How so? currently there are plenty of people with college degrees who can't find work. How does more people with a degree help that?


There will always be a need for low level jobs, who is working those jobs in the future where everyone has a degree.

People with degrees. But that's really beside the point. The point is addressing the debt issue. People are still going to college at high rates, they're just coming out in debt. Switching to pure public funding wouldn't change the enrollment rates, just the debt ratios.

 

[Gregolian]

I feel this is necessary for some reason since we are talking about debt and me having a shit high truck payment.

 

[ultramanhyata]

More value? How so? currently there are plenty of people with college degrees who can't find work. How does more people with a degree help that?


There will always be a need for low level jobs, who is working those jobs in the future where everyone has a degree.

I think Jack envisions a world where two sanitation workers are discussing Nabokov together while they're covering their route.

(Which, I must admit, would make me happy and would probable make the world a better place.)

 

[ripskater]

I feel this is necessary for some reason since we are talking about debt and me having a shit high truck payment.

Man I love that song!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

More value? How so? currently there are plenty of people with college degrees who can't find work. How does more people with a degree help that?

The unemployment among college graduates is 2.6%. So there is actually a shortage of college graduates in the workforce rather than a surplus. And when people are more educated, they are more productive (common sense, but it can be empirically demonstrated, too), which confers broader benefits in the economy. If we have more college graduates, we'll have more companies trying to take advantage of that fact, etc.

There will always be a need for low level jobs, who is working those jobs in the future where everyone has a degree.

That's kind of nuts, though. We have no shortage of people to work low-level jobs, and only 30% of Americans over 25 years old are college graduates. We'd benefit from trying to bring that number up. We can worry about any problems that come from overshooting our goals when we're within 50 years of reaching them.

I think Jack envisions a world where two sanitation workers are discussing Nabokov together while they're covering their route.

(Which, I must admit, would make me happy and would probable make the world a better place.)

That would indeed be a good thing, though by that time, we probably won't have sanitation workers.

What Jack wants is a society where no one is in poverty and everyone has to opportunity to pursue a career they want without financial constraints. And, yeah, people who appreciate education for its own sake can get it. It's really about learning to enjoy life.

 

[Gregolian]

Man I love that song!!!!!!!!!!!!

Been stuck in my head since I went to Watershed 2 weekends ago. First song of the day as I open a beer at 8:30 3 morning in a row.

 

[Gandhi]

Lol! I was thinking the same thing. I would love to go get my MBA but I am sure I make way too much to qualify for anything (I have to assume the free tuition is means tested and confined to Associates and Bachelors degrees).

Since I am a CPA there isn't much benefit, if any, in me paying for and spending the time to get the degree. But if it were cheaper it is something I would personally love to do.

As a CPA you are most likely not the person who should not benefit from this.

I am all for more student funding when its a)based on income b)a relevant degree c) based on performance. Why pay a rich person to get a C minus in basket weaving?

Having said all that I agree with what Hilary is suggesting and it will help with income inequality, ie get. rid of stupid student debt

 

[usmctanker242]

The idea is great and and gives everybody a warm fuzzy inside, but I'd really only support it if it were for STEM type degrees. I'd also support it if it was like the GI Bill... give the money to the school, and give the student a monthly stipend for living expenses. Keeping that in mind there should be oversight as well... just like the GI Bill if I failed a class, I had to pay for it. If i dropped a class there were financial penalties. I couldn't just take any courses I wanted... had to be only approved courses for my degree. I would also 100% support this if it were for trade school as well, not just STEM degrees. I'm all about citizens being educated but the government shouldn't pay for somebody to go to art school. Graphic design major with an art minor... that's not bad. But there really would need to be serious oversight here to ensure it was well managed and not free money like the Pell Grant. Some of the most absurd bullshit I've ever seen was students abusing the ever living shit out of the Pell Grant each semester. Show up for the first 2 weeks, then "get a job" and drop out. Rinse, repeat, more free money.

Can anybody speak intelligently about how $350 billion can easily be raised via taxes without there being a significant blow to the economy?

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

I think we need LESS people going to college and incentivize college goers to choose the right majors. Majors that we are in short supply of. We don't need anymore women's rights degrees and other bullshit degrees. And also educate high schoolers about the burden of student loan debt, as well as informing them that getting a college degree will not necessarily guarantee you ANY job after graduating.

 

[Dolomite]

Can anybody speak intelligently about how $350 billion can easily be raised via taxes without there being a significant blow to the economy?

Simple: The ghost of that scary, creepy Ronald Reagan will have his disguise ripped off his head at the end of the episode, and the whole gang (including that adorable Scooby) will then go to college for free.

 

[Dolomite]

Holy shit! My toilet's clogged! Get me an expert in Elizabethan poetry stat!

Hillary to skilled tradesmen:

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can anybody speak intelligently about how $350 billion can easily be raised via taxes without there being a significant blow to the economy?

I mentioned earlier that it's roughly 0.17% of projected GDP over that period. So actually it could be easily raised via taxes with no noticeable effect on the economy. And note that whatever microscopic negative effect the increased taxation (through a reduction in deductions, as proposed) would have would be at least partly balanced out by the positive effect of the spending.

 

[usmctanker242]

I mentioned earlier that it's roughly 0.17% of projected GDP over that period. So actually it could be easily raised via taxes with no noticeable effect on the economy. And note that whatever microscopic negative effect the increased taxation (through a reduction in deductions, as proposed) would have would be at least partly balanced out by the positive effect of the spending.

How? From which taxes? Would that kind of money truly come from just adjusting the cap on itemized deductions? Can you provide a source if so?

Not trying to be a dick here but I don't know where to find this kind of information.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Like some people have been saying, this wouldn't mean that, suddenly, 90% of the adult population would have college degrees.

It would mean that, suddenly, people would be free from a huge debt burden. People would have the freedom to pursue whatever else they want with the time and money that would otherwise go to pay that $50k debt.

More freedom is always good so I'm shocked (shocked!) that our freedom-loving, right-wing friends are against this.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I think we need LESS people going to college and incentivize college goers to choose the right majors. Majors that we are in short supply of. We don't need anymore women's rights degrees and other bullshit degrees. And also educate high schoolers about the burden of student loan debt, as well as informing them that getting a college degree will not necessarily guarantee you ANY job after graduating.

I agree

Make 2 year (community college & Trade school free). Putting a bunch of people into the college system WILL NOT! Make things automatically better. The same hierarchy and preferences for skilled workers and often (elite credentials) will still exist. What we need is more trained workers not more liberal arts majors who work as barista's, waiters.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How? From which taxes? Would that kind of money truly come from just adjusting the cap on itemized deductions? Can you provide a source if so?

Not trying to be a dick here but I don't know where to find this kind of information.

Did you even read the OP?

"The estimated $350 billion plan would in part be paid for by reinstituting limits on itemized deductions for high-income families that were in effect during the Reagan administration, according to the Washington Post."

...

"Hillary Clinton has proposed a plan to reduce the cost of college tuition and alleviate student debt burdens by capping itemized deductions, including charitable deductions, at 28 percent for certain families and individuals."

And the cost is actually extremely small, as I pointed out (the quoted figure is the projected 10-year cost in nominal dollars). I assumed 2.2% nominal GDP growth to get that 0.17% of GDP figure, but that estimate for GDP is way low (wanted to err on the side of overestimating the cost).