Tens of Thousands of US College Students Moving to Europe for Free, Lower Tuition

[cornographic]

And many never come back:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/23/pf/college/free-college-europe/

 

http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/New-Frontiers#.VxJ9T_krIdU

[84HuskerLaw]

Let them go. If they like living in Europe, more power to them. Until we see dramatic new job gains, we certainly have more workers than jobs. Need a 50% increase in wage levels to catch up with all the inflation anyway.

[cornographic]

Let them go. If they like living in Europe, more power to them. Until we see dramatic new job gains, we certainly have more workers than jobs. Need a 50% increase in wage levels to catch up with all the inflation anyway.

Yup

[cm husker]

Cool. See ya. You're still going to be paying US on any income because of world wide taxation so we might as well let them go.

 

Doesn't mean we should pay for the boondoggle though.

[cm husker]

Also worth noting that most poor people today who get into a decent school go for free or nearly for free under today's system.

 

 

Why should we pay for rich kids to go to school?!

[BigRedBuster]

Also worth noting that most poor people today who get into a decent school go for free or nearly for free under today's system.

 

 

Why should we pay for rich kids to go to school?!

That is something that gets forgotten many times in the discussion.

[zoogs]

Plenty of people come into the US as well. It'd be better if it were easier for them to stay and keep their talents in the US.

 

I promise you college education plus need-based, including private as well as federal grants and loans, is not a drop in the bucket (maybe for actual rich kids). Free education would make an enormous difference to the burdens shouldered by middle class families sending kid(s) to college; not that it's practical or it's the answer, I don't know -- but it shouldn't be diminished.

 

And I'm aware that many people in previous generations worked two jobs while pushing themselves through higher ed. in less expensive days, but it'd probably be a good investment to make it *easier* for people to get educated.

[cm husker]

Plenty of people come into the US as well. It'd be better if it were easier for them to stay and keep their talents in the US.

 

I promise you college education plus need-based, including private as well as federal grants and loans, is not a drop in the bucket (maybe for actual rich kids). Free education would make an enormous difference to the burdens shouldered by middle class families sending kid(s) to college; not that it's practical or it's the answer, I don't know -- but it shouldn't be diminished.

 

And I'm aware that many people in previous generations worked two jobs while pushing themselves through higher ed. in less expensive days, but it'd probably be a good investment to make it *easier* for people to get educated.

I wholeheartedly agree that the cost of education is inflated (and have been paying down a lot of loans to prove it), but the reason the price of education in the US is so high is because we've subsidized it, not because we've failed to try to keep it down. Problem is, subsidies have just allowed schools to drive up tuition. And banks have been happy to finance the required loans because they are guaranteed in bankruptcy, can charge an absurd congressionally mandated rare, and are backed by the fed. Oh, and they get higher origination fees for bigger loans.

 

The incentives are all screwed up. And beyond the "remove the middleman" solutions of Sanders, no one advocating "free" education has proffered a plausible way of pricing said "free" project and keeping the costs on taxpayers down.

 

Your first paragraph is spot on and a great point.

 

As to relief for middle class families, I've not seen a cogent argument for why another middle class individual should be force to shift the product of their productivity to those kids or parents of of those kids.

[ZRod]

Also worth noting that most poor people today who get into a decent school go for free or nearly for free under today's system.

Why should we pay for rich kids to go to school?!

Because it's not rich kids. My roomate considered doing this. He could have got a masters in engineering free in Germany. Yes you make good money as an engineer with a BS but you can make even better coin with a masters. He's 2 years out of school with loans, he's not rich, why would he tac on more loans if he didn't have to? It's not for everyone, but it's an interesting option.

[cm husker]

Moving to and living in Germany has costs associated too.

 

I'm curious about two things. First, what is the quality of the schools offering free tuition to foreign students relative to other German schools and internationally? Second, what is the real savings for a student in the end?

 

Does Germany pay for advance degrees? Are we now saying that the US should do that too?

 

I'd almost guarantee that from a % standpoint, far more Germans are leaving the to come to the US than vice versa, and that's a signficiant point.

 

 

Finally, I may have overstated it when I used "rich kids" to make a point. But, it's not obvious to me that students who are receiving the benefit of school shouldn't also pay for it. But, what they should pay for is service whose price has not been artificially elevated by bad policy decisions.

[cm husker]

I encourage people to read this link: http://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/31/education/learning-curve/how-german-higher-education-controls-costs

 

it's an even handed evaluation of education in Germany versus the US.

 

The important part is the question of how does Germany control costs. One thing that I think the German interviewee misses is that college education isn't available to all Germans. Germany actually has a lower percentage of college enrollees than the US.

 

But it does highlight some trade offs when it comes to "free" education versus consumer financed education.

[zoogs]

Keep in mind I'm not personally above the *free* college train and haven't really read about it in detail.

 

In general, I find it very reasonable for people of all incomes to shift a progressive share of that into a national investment that results in a better situation than we have today -- less burdensome access to higher education for all, bearing in mind that not everyone in society will be making use of it at any particular time (I.E, we tend to spend most of our working lives not having a child in college, and some don't have children at all).

[cm husker]

Why should a construction laborer who starts working out of HS and by 30 is making $90k-$130k subsidize the education opportunities of graduating high schoolers?

 

If it's "because he's going to have kids who can take advantage of it," that begs the question, what if he doesn't have kids or his kids earn scholarships?

 

Also, would the entire concept of scholarships go away?

 

It's wildly expensive (despite being "free" to a student) and would reduce access and/or quality. It simply doesn't make sense.

[zoogs]

Yes, exactly. We don't all make use of every government service now, or potentially ever for some of us -- but it's a stronger country where those things exist. And that's for everyone, ultimately.

For example, depending on where I live I may never make use of the big interstate projects or whatever, but I'd still rather live in a country that has that. Similarly, I may not have children or maybe I'm a construction worker who doesn't go to university, but I'd be still living in a country where this is available for people who can get educated, take risks, and be free to not then bunker down into paying off huge debts for what could be the most explorative, innovative years of their working lives.

A la carte may seem more individually efficient -- or perhaps just more 'fair' -- but I don't believe it results in more efficient global outcomes. Maybe this specific issue is too intractable, but I'm speaking on the general principle that applies to taxation. Which amounts to 'fine, even if it's more, if it's put to worthy use.'

[cm husker]

That's not actually true. If your goods are being transported on roads, then make the users of the roads pay for the roads and pass the costs onto you.

 

As technology improves traceability, it will be much easier to move to a consumption based system, which would be far more efficient in signaling where resources belong.

 

In my experience, people who say "fine, I'll pay more if it's used better" rarely end up being willing to pay more.

 

Or, they are already wealthy people who benefit from other, less wealthy, people subsiding their enterprises under the guise of "global investment" in outcomes.

 

I know it sounds like I'm taking a hard turn toward libertarianism, but my views differ in some fundamental ways.