2016 Postmortem

MichMan

(15,755 posts)

27. Still don't understand how?

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 01:29 PM

Jun 2016

I have asked multiple times and can't get anyone that supports Sanders to explain it to me.

Even within public colleges, the tuition costs can vary rather substantially. In Michigan for example, University of Michigan is $14K per year while nearby Eastern Michigan Univ. is $10K. In comparison, Washtenaw Community College (also very close geographically to the other two) is under $4K per year.

If Sander's College tuition plan will pay the tuition costs for all three, why wouldn't EMU immediately raise their tuition $4k/year to match what their neighbor, UM charges?

Why would a student ever desire to attend a Community College, if a well known 4 year school, with a great campus atmosphere,would cost the same amount to the student; zero tuition?

Finally, would there be situations where grade inflation would occur? If it was required to obtain a 2.5 GPA to keep the free tuition checks coming, would professors get a lot of pressure from both administrators and students to make sure everyone qualifies.

IMO, the availability of loans has what has caused college costs to skyrocket. People are not deterred by the costs, they just borrow more, so there is no incentive by colleges to not keep raising it. Would that situation be exacerbated if the government is footing the bill?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

139 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Decent argument against Sanders tuition free college plan here [View all] BootinUp Jun 2016 OP

And here on Du. Very informative, and informed. I appreciated the info. seabeyond Jun 2016 #1

Apparent contradiction from one paragraph to the next? Or am I misreading this? JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #2

Correct me if I am wrong. but people in states that do not BootinUp Jun 2016 #10

Correct, if by SOL you mean status quo (that would be admitting the status quo is broken, though) JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #12

If you are talking about "states" ok. But you are really talking about people who are affected by Jitter65 Jun 2016 #81

No, its not a contradiction BootinUp Jun 2016 #14

But if a state doesn't want in, they don't have to do so. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #19

Sure, I think it matters what the expected participation level would be. BootinUp Jun 2016 #24

Sure, and that's a reasonable point. I just think the logical flaws in that editorial are glaring. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #26

Still waiting for you to make the case for logical flaws and contradictions. BootinUp Jun 2016 #47

I'm comfortable with how I've presented my case. I never expected to satisfy you. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #53

Just stoping corporate welfare would pay it all and more larkrake Jun 2016 #83

I am referring to States budgets not Federal. And I admit that BootinUp Jun 2016 #84

I think states will fall into line when students dont enroll in their colleges larkrake Jun 2016 #88

Isn't it usually the case that out-of-state students don't qualify for BootinUp Jun 2016 #89

so dont be out of state, move there in May after HS graduation larkrake Jun 2016 #109

Most states require 1-2 years residency without going to school in order to qualify as in-state /nt trudyco Jun 2016 #123

not any states I have lived in, or worked in its an obvious problem,so I think the plan would cover larkrake Jun 2016 #129

Not in most Southern States. blackspade Jun 2016 #137

you are misreading this. Fresh_Start Jun 2016 #51

But since states don't have to participate... JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #52

again, start a lottery or remove corporate welfare in the state larkrake Jun 2016 #112

The next sentence in the quoted material resolves it. Orangepeel Jun 2016 #76

The Union-Tribune is a "hard right" newspaper, QC Jun 2016 #3

If it is hard right compared to Brock PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #6

Yeah. If even he thinks they're right wing.... n/t QC Jun 2016 #28

An analysis has already been done about funding this and healthcare. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #4

I didn't realize that a college education was entirely a jobs program JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #11

Did I go into healthcare? Nope. I simply stated an analysis that has already been done on both. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #30

You certainly mentioned it. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #33

No, there is not. You clearly have an agenda that is counter to what the poor need. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #39

LOL!!!!!!!!!! JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #40

Poor have no need for the liberal arts I guess, huh? Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses. HERVEPA Jun 2016 #63

no it is suppose to be a career program, not a jobs program larkrake Jun 2016 #91

Fuck yeah! "Worthless degrees". Go Le STEM... actslikeacarrot Jun 2016 #55

Even those unabale to pay? Wilms Jun 2016 #67

they should be closing their football succubus programs as well. College football should be a larkrake Jun 2016 #87

Taxes never *have* to be raised on everyone to provide new services. Orsino Jun 2016 #111

You sound like you are repeating RW talking points. trudyco Jun 2016 #124

Next thing will be, every developed country in the world will be wanting free college. B Calm Jun 2016 #5

Imagine THAT! elleng Jun 2016 #13

Its a question of how to make progress or not. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #16

Most don't want it enough to inplement it Recursion Jun 2016 #73

Don't tell that to Brazil, Germany, Finland, France, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden B Calm Jun 2016 #80

They agree 7 countries is not "most" Recursion Jun 2016 #135

they already have free college and have extended their hand to american students larkrake Jun 2016 #92

I've been making the same point about the states, only to be told I'm a conservative. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #7

Conservatives, Establishment, Neo-liberal, Reagan -Democrat, Corporatist, etc. Hoyt Jun 2016 #56

Admits to auto ignoring anyone who uses the terms Corporatist or Oligarch.... Henhouse Jun 2016 #64

On closer examination, that's propaganda. Octafish Jun 2016 #8

+10,000 nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #18

His proposal still has the States responsible for 1/3 MichMan Jun 2016 #21

Has nothing to do with propaganda. Question is funding and whether States BootinUp Jun 2016 #29

K&R. lunamagica Jun 2016 #9

Free tuition at public universities is a great goal. Sanders plan doesn't rely on states to pay for emulatorloo Jun 2016 #15

His plan requires states to pay 1/3 n/t MichMan Jun 2016 #23

Thanks! will correct to say Sanders does not put full burden on state, more on Wall Street emulatorloo Jun 2016 #25

Yes but most states are already contributing that much for the cost of attendance aikoaiko Jun 2016 #125

The tax plan out forth by Sanders will not cover thev cost of tuition. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #41

That doesn't negate the fact that free tuition at public universities is a worthy goal emulatorloo Jun 2016 #44

Student loan refinancing, community service and programs like Peace Corp Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #46

It would be great if there were a domestic program like the Peace Corp emulatorloo Jun 2016 #49

It has been before and can be again. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #72

Indeed. Just gotta kick the Republicans out of Congress so we can get it done emulatorloo Jun 2016 #86

There is such a program. greatauntoftriplets Jun 2016 #118

Thanks! emulatorloo Jun 2016 #119

K&R Henhouse Jun 2016 #75

Yes, and criticizing Bernie's plan doesn't mean you don't agree with the goal. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #58

A couple of points. SheilaT Jun 2016 #17

You don't explain why THIS plan makes sense though. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #31

Our children cant even spell. education is the door to the future larkrake Jun 2016 #116

Sorry to repeat myself, but, BootinUp Jun 2016 #117

Not sure what you mean by THIS plan, unless SheilaT Jun 2016 #133

I always think of this graphic... QC Jun 2016 #35

University and college staff members has had increase in wages. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #43

Look at any college or university budget kiva Jun 2016 #108

If you are making five dollars now I would agree there has not been much increases in salaries. Thinkingabout Jun 2016 #134

We can't have an educated populace. It would eliminate the excuse to bring in cheap labor. nt Live and Learn Jun 2016 #20

I don't know why everyone isn't demanding this . . . it's back to the future. Vinca Jun 2016 #22

Still don't understand how? MichMan Jun 2016 #27

Cost incentive is an issue. Good questions. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #32

All his supporters heard was "free". tonyt53 Jun 2016 #34

re 1 of your questions, "Why would a student ever desire to attend a Community College" thesquanderer Jun 2016 #37

most do have the qualifications, they just dont have the money larkrake Jun 2016 #93

No, many students don't have qualifications that are competative enough for that. kiva Jun 2016 #115

You are talking about ivy league, that is not what Bernie is talking about larkrake Jun 2016 #121

Just another "No, we can't" from the third way gang. Imagine if JFK & LBJ were like that? dmosh42 Jun 2016 #36

You think that argument convinces people? BootinUp Jun 2016 #38

Oh, I well remember, but people were creative in trying to make it happen, like going to the moon... dmosh42 Jun 2016 #66

Kind of like this? 2cannan Jun 2016 #79

very good larkrake Jun 2016 #122

So true, a republican chant that proves to me Clinton is repug- lite, maybe not so lite larkrake Jun 2016 #94

Do you idiots realize that STATES already budget money for higher education and might welcome the Skwmom Jun 2016 #42

Thread win... for incivility. How many States like the plan? BootinUp Jun 2016 #45

They do.. And Republican State legislatures are doing their best to shrink the budgets to nothing. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #48

The plan isn't to replace the money states already spend. It is to replace tuition Orangepeel Jun 2016 #78

Only hard core Repug Governors would veto this, and their colleges will be abandoned by students larkrake Jun 2016 #95

I didn't realize that his proposal allows states to opt out. How would that work? ContinentalOp Jun 2016 #50

I support financially free tuition if one performs social service in exchange. David__77 Jun 2016 #54

why should this land on the kids? Their social service is getting proficient at their careers larkrake Jun 2016 #98

They won't be kids. David__77 Jun 2016 #101

You Clinton supporters danimich1 Jun 2016 #57

Sure, and we would say Sanders and SOME of his supporters BootinUp Jun 2016 #60

they have dealt with difficult details for over 200 years which is why we have SS, Medicare, larkrake Jun 2016 #102

Mainstream Democrats really don't buy that far left frame you know. BootinUp Jun 2016 #110

He blames corrupt politicians of both partys larkrake Jun 2016 #126

I campaigned for Bill in 92 because of his optimism. QC Jun 2016 #65

Peoples perceptions differ, I must point out. BootinUp Jun 2016 #70

I guess it depends on where we are in life. QC Jun 2016 #97

Thank you Q larkrake Jun 2016 #131

hes angry but not unrealistic. I'm angry, my neighbors are angry, my state is angry larkrake Jun 2016 #130

Makes me wonder what happened to Bill and Hill. Did life beat them into submission. larkrake Jun 2016 #103

I think the witch hunts of the 90s changed them-- QC Jun 2016 #120

can't = fear of success. I run into this even with my most talented students, they are programed larkrake Jun 2016 #100

Yes, investing in the future of the down trodden masses would be too liberating. CentralMass Jun 2016 #59

No effort to justify his approach specifically? BootinUp Jun 2016 #62

I thought presidents had advisors and cabinet members danimich1 Jun 2016 #69

You wave away over a trillion dollars in new proposals from Clinton awfully easily. nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #71

because they are Corporate friendy proposals larkrake Jun 2016 #104

Nope. They are not. And she will be rolling out more on her corporate tax plans in the near future. BootinUp Jun 2016 #113

I hope you are right, I really do, but historically, she is in a bubble against the middle class larkrake Jun 2016 #128

And even if they weren't, danimich1 Jun 2016 #114

Here is a CNN article about Sander' plan CentralMass Jun 2016 #68

when profit margins became more important larkrake Jun 2016 #106

I agree. We NEED "gatekeepers" such as... actslikeacarrot Jun 2016 #61

you are right. This is true in Ivy League colleges world wide larkrake Jun 2016 #107

Bringing up RW talking points from a RW newspaper Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2016 #74

This is pure bull. CA had free tution and I went to college with it. bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #77

No We Can't warrprayer Jun 2016 #82

Here's the thing, states need to start taxing glowing Jun 2016 #85

LA Times has a different opinion. 2cannan Jun 2016 #90

That is one reporters opinion. And although he makes some points BootinUp Jun 2016 #96

Dear GOD, this scheme would cost 10% of a Pentagon! JackRiddler Jun 2016 #99

No We Can't! WDIM Jun 2016 #105

You probably should have some way to dampen tuition price tags. trudyco Jun 2016 #127

Administrative costs nt forjusticethunders Jun 2016 #139

I don't benefit from free college. I'm 63/no kids. But it's the ethical thing to do. I support it. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #132

That's not even an argument blackspade Jun 2016 #136

No We Can't . TheFarS1de Jun 2016 #138