ANSWERS: 17
  • Nope. I have no interest in paying for someone to get a degree in women's studies so that they can get out of college and be unemployed. If a person incurs student debt to get a college degree, they should have to pay it back, just like any other VOLUNTARY loan.
    • mushroom
      Pay your own way is certainly a commonly heard objection, but why focus on subject matter? College is not supposed to be vocational training, but whether science or liberal arts, includes core studies in a variety of subjects.
    • Archie Bunker
      Core subjects are good. But what we see college is NOT doing is preparing students for find gainful employment, which is why you see useless degrees like gender studies or liberal arts or art history or ethnic studies.
    • Linda Joy
      I see both your points. But I think preparing a student for gainful employment is the student's job at this point with the guidance of any parents they may have left. And choosing poorly is just another life lesson. But I understand not wanting to waste your money!
    • Archie Bunker
      I agree, choosing poorly is their own issue to deal with. But, when the taxpayers are paying for their education, how many times do we have to pay for useless degrees? I personally think the major issue is that the government needs to get out of the student loan business. If someone wants to give out a loan for a degree, then it should be underwritten just like any other loan. Will it benefit everyone involved? The government just doles out money, knowing that eventually they'll get repaid (you can't get rid of your government loan) and in encourages the colleges to raise tuition because they just tell everyone, "Get a loan and pay."
    • Linda Joy
      I didn't pay for my own son's higher education. I think it means a lot more if you earn it yourself. And the student will put more effort into their studies if there is a cost for their failure. The government needs to get out of the business of any business other than governing. Then maybe they could at least get THAT part right!!
    • Archie Bunker
      Good luck with that. Once you get a government program going, you understand it never goes away, right?
    • Victorine
      Archie, subjects like art history are not "useless". Where do you think we get our museum personnel? We have some of the top museums in the world in the United States, and they are largely staffed by people who majored in art history. And relatively few people major in "Gender Studies". Take it from a professor. By the way, my closest friend in college was an art history major, She doesn't even hold an advanced degree, but she's worked for one of our top three art museums for decades.
    • OrangeDonRump
      "I agree, choosing poorly is their own issue to deal with." But what good would YOU be unless you were here whining about all the college degrees you disagree with. By the way, institutions of Higher Ed disagree with you - but we can't question YOUR well-educated judgment, oh Font of All Wisdom! LMFAO! You should probably go back to helping your drive-thru customers, A/B (now watch him come back and tell us how successful he is...LOL! Predictable nonsense...)
  • not if i cant afford it
  • Yes but that should also include an option for trade school training and if the student flunks out, it should no longer be free.
    • Linda Joy
      Good point about trade school needing to be an option and flunking out a disqualifier.
    • Archie Bunker
      Trade schools should be encouraged.
    • Linda Joy
      I think they make a great segue from high school to college, as well as the military or job corp. Not everyone is ready for college out of high school. Especially if they are sick and tired of school!
  • In the infamous word of Pearl, no. :P
  • Yes. An educated society has many many benefits to society. I think there is currently way too much money spent on incarcerating non-violent folks with addictions. Having a basic college education would likely offer opportunities and purposeful direction to those who may be born into poverty or a very modest income household. The more gainfully employed folks the more thriving economy and more liberty in the persuit of happiness. Were all in this together!
    • Linda Joy
      That's a great concept in theory... if only it worked that way!! They tried this in Scotland. Their income taxes are 10% higher for everyone but only 25% of the population has a degree. And that's only 5% more than have one here. Besides that your reasoning that the poor would benefit is another misconception, because they already qualify for grants, scholarships and work study programs here. If they wanted to go to college for free they could! Its the working class that can't afford to go.
    • Archie Bunker
      -Roaring - You can be gainfully employed, with a good wage, without making others pay for your education. Cutting stifling government regulations to the free market will give us the thriving economy and getting the government off our backs will give us more liberty.
    • Victorine
      Given that an entire society benefits in a variety of ways from education, it's not actually relevant that only 25% of Scots have a degree. This is why the government funds public primary and secondary education via property taxes, why we have public universities. You don't have to hold a university degree yourself to benefit from the fact that some people do.
    • 1465
      A true Liberal. You're proposing a career in education - and not on the teaching end of it. With today's universities becoming indoctrination centers for Liberal Marxism, taxpayer-funded handouts would do nothing but further destroy this country.
    • Linda Joy
      It is relevant that ALL Scotts are entitled to free education but only 25% have a degree! AND its costing them 10% more in income taxes. This is coming directly out of the pockets of EVERY CITIZEN whether they benefit or not! And no, they don't all benefit.
  • Let's go with "no," but if I could stipulate a lot of unrealistic terms, I would say "sure."
    • Archie Bunker
      You know that you can voluntarily pay more taxes, right? Are you doing that now?
    • Linda Joy
      He just wants the free education.
  • No one would be required to pay 10% more to achieve that goal. The increase would be far less and could probably be covered simply via increased corporate taxes. That's also true of universal health care.
  • 10% is a LOT. I have trouble affording taxes as it is. No, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money so that others can fluff off in college.
  • NO! and instead of putting the cost of an education on taxpayers how about asking these overpriced colleges and universities to lower their tuitions! Tuitions are out of control!! there are deans and presidents making a million dollars a year salaries! A bachelors degree should NOT cost as much as a house! And these stupid parents allow their children to decide which college they're going to, irrespective of whether they can afford it. Stupid parents take out 2nd mortgages to pay for their dumb kid's (who have been brainwashed by liberal academia) out-of-state tuition. And you're talking about American citizen children tuition. what about the tuition bill Americans are being made to pay for "dreamers"? That's in the billions too especially if you add on the taxes to pay for ESL classes in grade and high school. I have a Masters degree and I've been paying back my debt for 15 years. Nobody helped me! I'm still waiting for the government to forgive my loan because I qualified by making the 120 payments while working for a not for profit company. It's been 3 years and 2 administrations!
  • No, 10% more is a lot of money for many tax payers. Colleges are all overpriced and staff overpaid and the campuses are either filled with protesters or hazers who aren't at all concerned with their education. It would just be worse if the taxpayers were required to pay that bill too.
  • No. I don't support Socialism.
    • Jimmy205
      An educated population doesn't equate to socialism. It can result in better opinions and better approaches to solving problems.
    • 1465
      On all accuracy, Socialism is a part of every political ideology. Your welfare programs are Socialist - paying benefits to those who don't work from money collected from those who do (taxes).
    • Hulk70156
      Jimmy: These guys are fans of OAN for Chrissakes! OAN Makes Fox look like TYT.
  • I would do it only if I can get a free college education out of the deal too. If it's to give someone else a shot at the glory and all I get out of it is to watch them succeed while I stay "rooted to the spot" then hell no.
    • WHF, What's His Face
      The option for you to get an education you want is part of the deal for the question, you're smarter than that, why play dumb?
  • Yeah, it is about time anything be done about so many deeply stupid people. why not.
  • Yes, at least a free community college education. Education is one solution to a citizenry that can act responsibly, engage in critical thinking, etc. Republicans seem to fear an education population. Hence the "populism" approach they are taking.
  • I have no intention of paying for four-years of indoctrination for any one.
  • Yes. The costs of stupidity are enormous. Look at our elections. If people were smarter this wouldn't have happened. College is too expensive. If I didn't go to college I might be like them too. I dodged a bullet.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy