“Higher education should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it,”.
Hillary Clinton vows that students will be able to attend in-state public colleges or universities “without ever having to take out a loan for tuition.”
“Everyone will be able to enroll in a simplified and streamlined income based repayment program so that borrowers never have to pay more than 10% of what they make,” according to a white paper on Clinton’s plan.
According to the Clinton campaign, the plan will cost $350 billion over 10 years
Is that just some gimmick to win votes? or is she really did out of touch???
nearly HALF of current graduates already take jobs that don’t require any college degree at all. WHY THE F are we trying to make more and more people go to college who likely will never be able to pay their debt back (not to mention that 10% rule???) and then who gets left with the bad debt paper? the govt eats the costs??
Because it plays perfectly to her demographic. bleeding hearts and idiots. They hear more free anything, and they are onboard. “Who cares, we get more, and the rich get less!” that’s their motto. The actual practicality of a proposal has zero bearing with them.
It’s just to get votes, who can actually guarantee the law will get passed? No one, that’s the genius of it, promise the world, get the votes, propose the law gets turned down by congress. Hey I tried.
Yes, I think aptitutde and demonstrated progress are entirely legitimate conditions. And I think vocational training for those who don’t have aptitude for other higher learning is also appropriate.
Quite honestly, I think there’s value in not having so many dumbstilts walking around just because they can’t afford to go somehwere and learn to be more useful.
–
I also think that implementing a policy like this will have a ton of problems that need to get hammered out, but I don’t think someone “has completely lost it” by looking for ways to ensure that the workforce has a way to build and maintain relevant skills to be competitive. This is a legitimate a priority in an increasingly competitive world and in a world where what skills are “relevant” can change over fairly short periods of time.
Increasing education opportunities is generally a good thing. However, this proposal doesn’t do much to ensure that college graduates are actually obtaining skills that will be relevant to the workforce. The problem is not that education is insufficiently subsidized - it is that education demand is not synchronized with workplace demand.
In fact, the proposal, “borrowers never have to pay more than 10% of what they make”, sounds like a Put option on debt repayment; it reduces the incentive to find work that will pay off student debt. Does this mean that becoming an “actress working as a waitress” means that you get a deferral on loans?
I am generally against explicit incentives to attract students to marketable fields, like engineering, accounting, or science. However, students need to realize that their anthropology major will probably not pay their future bills. Because of this, measures that increase transparency (like that new thing where colleges are supposed to publish earnings by major) are an important step forward.
As others have said, this has no chance of actually happening and is basically just pandering, but I’ll give Hillary credit for offering up a written policy, with an estimate of the associated cost, to address an important issue. I’m by no means a Hillary supporter, but more candidates should be offering up their proposals on important issues.
What an idiotic idea… the students who want to gain valuable skills will already be there, regardless if college is free or if they have to borrow. Those numbers will remain constant. The number of people with soft useless majors will increase. Then they will complain about income inequality despite having a 4 year degree. Then they will elect someone even more socialist to make things more “fair”. Probably will give everyone a masters degree for free.
This seems like a bit of a bad comprise, it’s doesn’t really address the problem (state schools are a pretty good value already, especially if you major in something practical), but it still creates problems (costs a lot and already too many college graduates without good employment options).
Also this doesn’t really make it more affordable, it’s just shifting the costs. Given a lot of the distance learning that is out there it would be really cheap to have basically self study courses and the only thing the college really has to do is the testing (or grading papers homework etc.).
Anyone really struggling to pay would be better served by 2 years distance (maybe even distance part time) and than the last 2 at the school anyway, if a president met with a governor and then state school deans I can’t see them not doing something like this. (And hopefully would get more people to start at decent state schools and not the terrible ones that are 100% online)
A lot of people would probably fail some of these self study courses, but at least if they did it would be a lot cheaper than when people drop out of live action college. (And it would be a way less expensive program than the ones being proposed)
Alternatively, the duration of college education could be reduced to 3 years with either a more condensed syllabus or the removal of some classes that are not related to the person’s major. It’s good for people to learn about diverse subjects, but is is worth $50k a year?
