It is a popular political cry on the left these days - Free College Tuition. And while it seems like a great idea at first blush, there's a lot more wrong with it than just the extreme cost to taxpayers. I'll let others hammer at that point. Here, we will examine the not-so-well understood "unintended consequences" of such a rabid idea.
First, the more obvious, and lesser problems with free tuition...
Most sane and reasonable people (this leaves out AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other politicians on the left)understand that not everyone is suited for college - or even want it. Moreover, a growing number of high school graduates are not even educated well enough to be able to cut it in college. But because it's free, they might waste taxpayer money and try anyway, only to drop out in the first semester. We would be far better off to find ways to instill a better education in our public schools.
Along those same lines, many students are far better suited to attending a good trade school - we have a dire shortage of tradespeople in America, and they make as much - if not more - than a college educated snowflake.
Now for the biggest reason to avoid free college for all who want it. Throughout history, and without regard for any specific economic situation, there have always been a limited number of "slots at the top". In fact, statistics show that only 4% of a population will ever achieve substantial financial success and wealth. For every few hundred employees, there are only a handful of salaried, "college-educated" management positions. What this means is that college education would become virtually useless, as it would be watered down with many students who are barely average and will never land a great job.
In the 1940's few people had any college degrees. In the '50's, that rose substantially as parents began to push their kids to get a Bachelor's Degree, and it grew even further in the '60's. By that time so many students were graduating college that there were not enough well-paying jobs for all of them. So businesses began requiring not a Bachelor's, but a Masters Degree. The Bachelor's Degree lost most of it's power. By the late '80's and into today, the Bachelor's is nothing more than window dressing as businesses are forced to weed out the wheat from the chaff. And now even the Masters is just beginning to lose its punch, as more and more professions are requiring a doctorate.
In short, only 4% can be at the top of the work pyramid, and with 20% of the population is graduating college, three-quarters of them STILL end up working at WalMart, or flipping burgers. Imagine when 50% are graduating because callege was free!
The question then becomes: is it worth having taxpayers who are already heavily burdened to pay for "college for all" if it accomplishes nothing of value?
As proof, just check out any successful business. You will find that it takes at least 100 high-school grads and drop-outs to support 10 supervisors, who support 3 managers who support one top dog. The managers and boss represent the 4%. In other words, we NEED a lot of people who do not require a college degree in order to do the job they will end up with, anyway. After all, if everyone were a boss or a manager, how could they earn a living if there are no workers to manage? Who will MAKE the products, or PERFORM the services?
The short take for people like AOC who cannot seem to understand reality: It is not sane or reasonable to have already over-burdened taxpayers pay for the college education of other peoples' children only to have those young men and women working for minimum wage. No matter how much money you spend, you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
What DOES make sense: Have businesses "scout" high schools, just like sports scouts do, and offer to pay for a promising students' college provided they work for that business for a specified time, at a good salary. If Microsoft is going to benefit from a talented smart kid's education, then perhaps Microsoft should pay for that education.
And the taxpayers could more easily afford to "subsidize" (only) the most promising students who do not have the means to pay college. Those from poorer families and communities, who excel in school, would contribute more to our society from a college education than it would cost us to fund it. After all, if you need a lawyer, would you rather have one who barely passed the bar, or one who graduated top of the class?
Then we could take some of the money saved by not providing free college for all and use it to "funnel" high school students into two different scholastic groups - one geared for those who prefer to learn a trade, or otherwise have a limited scholastic ability, and a college preparatory group designed to give the best-of-the-best a head start, maybe to even include internship. And that could easily reduce the number of years - and the cost - of their secondary education.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment