TOTAL COST OF A FREE TERTIARY-LEVEL EDUCATION AT A PUBLIC SCHOOL

Because Hillary had adopted Bernie's idea (that he'd got from Europe) to make tertiary-level education free, gratis and for nothing, it is a good question to ask "How much would it cost our national budget".

That is, as Hillary stipulated, for every household below the median wage - which is about $56.5K per family.

So, what percentage of households have less than the annual median wage? Looking at this chart here, I'd say it's around a third of the total population.

And, what is the total population in terms of "households"? It's about 126 million, so a third of that is 126/3= 42 million.

And how many kids per family? The average is 2.4. But, what is the likelihood that both would be going to post-secondary education in any given year. Only one of them per family. So, the number is actually closer to 1.2 children per family would be actively engaged.

At the very most the Federal government would be responsible for free post-secondary education (vocational, 2 or 4-year or more) for 50 million American children. So, how much is the average cost of a post-secondary education at a state school in America?

The Federal Government would reimburse the total public-school tertiary-level educational cost estimated as such (from here):

So, teaching at a tertiary-level education 50 million American children at a state-university would cost about $500B annually.

The DoD budget for this year is $639B ...

 

And what about older adults if I got a shot at a free college education I would take it, if I could cover the other costs, just for fun and if they limit it to age there is a chance of lawsuits (age discrimination) since this would benefit workers in need of retraining. Well even if drop out I could take a bunch of classes on the government dole. And many public schools offer online degrees or mixed online and physical classes degree options as well as county funded trade schools.

 

Mature students tend to generate some of the best value added outcomes. There needs to be a mixture of blended learning methods (to give part time and full time workers opportunities) with open access to the best universities (such as university benefits to incentivise widening participation criteria)

 

Free tertiary-education should be available to all regardless of their age.

That's the way it works in Europe (and has functioned in Britain since the 1950s) ...

True enough. But that does not make US Public Institution Tertiary Education fees "cheap" by any means. See here:

As I've said a hundred times on this forum: We've got our top-most priorities all wrong, wrong, wrong ...

 

Tertiary education in the UK as a whole is not free.

Indeed it's quite expensive in Wales, Northern Ireland and England.

Scotland is different and free university education is available for first degrees.

It used to be free for the whole of the UK - I benefited from it and, with parents who were modest earners, I even had a small maintenance grant. The trouble was that only a tiny proportion of people went to university and private schools were very over-represented in those numbers. In effect miners and factory workers were paying to send the sons and daughters of lawyers, doctors and the landed gentry to university.

 

Not quite true. First, returns from education were very high. The graduate naturally paid more tax (regressivity kicked in only under Thatcherism). Second, education creates positive externalities (such as higher growth).

It is true that maintenance grants only had a minor effect on the widening participation agenda. However, that reflected the need for it to be twinned with more generous grants for further education (where the working class kid was often forced out).

 

I always get a kick out of Free, but only for the folks who vote for us approach to life... Fun stuff. Here's a better question, of those who might be eligible, what percentage of them would actually get into college?

We have basically free tuition for in state in my state, as long as folks have the grades. It is truly shocking how many kids don't think it's valuable to them, and drop out. Sad really.

 

You do understand we are talking all kinds of education from some time earning say a certification in computer coding and education in skilled trades and vocational schools and community colleges for people wanting these including retraining older workers to do new work. Not just going to public colleges for degrees. But we need say medical doctors many won't work in lower tier specialties due to their debt so as one example we could all benefit since more doctors might go into primary care specialties.

 

Was there a coherent approach in there some where? If so, I didn't see it. The issue is actual performance. It sounds like you're perfectly happy creating a puppy mill approach to medicine though. That seems poorly conceived. And it still doesn't address the idea that these bennies are then only available to the bloc of voters liberals think they own. Of course this is the intent, to continue to "own them", right?

 

It does not cost an arm and a leg as it does in the US:

However, it seems you are very right about the UK:
University tuition fees in England now the highest in the world, new analysis suggests
- excerpt:

Conclusion: Do not go to a tertiary-level educational program in the UK nor get very sick in the US. Perhaps it is a small consolation, but the UK does have a highly rated National Healthcare System.

 

You'll note that the UK was absent from that graph - presumably because the compilers wanted the US to be the most expensive. The difference between the UK and US is that there's comparatively little variability in costs in the UK, and they are capped whereas in the US private universities are free to charge whatever the market will bear.

The idea in the UK is that the government sets the maximum fee (which varies for the devolved governments down to zero for Scotland) and that institutions would compete by charging up to that maximum. The majority charge the maximum or close to it so it means that lesser universities are expensive by US standards, but the most prestigious like Oxford and Cambridge are cheap - if compared to the Ivy League.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/cost-studying-university-uk

But it's a little more complex than that. Mrs Don is an MIT alumni and while her fees were eye-watering (even back in the '80s), she was able to get various scholarships to pay for a fair proportion. The UK doesn't have a similarly comprehensive sponsorship culture so comparatively it's even more expensive.

 

It's even more complicated than that. The costs of tertiary education in the UK are largely met by government-underwritten student loans. These loans only become repayable when you earn above a certain level (and allegedly don't count towards your credit score for other loans) and are then repayable on a sliding scale based on income. Bizarrely as a high earner, you cannot pay off your loans early. Any outstanding balance after 30 years is written off.

It's estimated that more than half of loans will be written off in part or full. So in theory, as long as you get a badly paying job, you'll never have to pay a penny back. It really is a bizarre scheme.

 

Indeed it is.

But for something to be done about it will require a Labor government. And as "Center-Lefty" as I may try to be, not even I would vote for their candidate (were he Corbyn).

Have they no one but him ... ?

 

I had no notion that it was so "bizarre".

In fact, though I have access to a number of graphics showing tertiary-level education costs for various countries (mostly from the OECD), none contain information regarding the UK.

And that is REALLY bizarre ...

Anyway, this is what I can find about UK costs: The World University Rankings
- excerpt:

Those numbers look more American than European (which are a really quite a bit lower) - especially the yearly one of 9.2K-£ ($12K). Still, it is unsure how much of that is truly "out-of-pocket" personally ...

 

Okay here is how it should work IMHO in the United States:

Technical skills initially and in the majority learned in HIGH SCOOL which is the 9th through 12th Years of Public Largely Free Education [I argued clearly earlier courses not likely to benefit the adult person should be either reduced or removed entirely example cam be made for History and Literature as examples.] But examples of such training would be areas of work to include agricultures, artistic, blue collar and some white collar areas based on local and state employment demands from employers and lesser national trends. Pre-college would be there for students with the likely talent and wish to do that and everyone should benefit from some kind of employability certifications and credentialing.

Okay then college should be for smart and motivated people these could be older persons returning to school and young students and would cover public school tuition largely free covered so if a student wished to be a doctor they would not have a huge debt and could consider all specialties as an example with a smaller debt not as big a problem. I would note this would likely demand cost controls from the government on tuition and I would offer terminal 90 credit bachelors degrees removing unneeded fluff if your a major in ,example here, fine art mathematics and a foreign language and unrelated courses should be kept to a minimum or removed entirely.

Trade schools, apprenticeships and community college would do the same if your going for an associates to be a ,example, pharmacy tech why have college mathematics and speech as classes instead mathematics for that work would be taught in the major of study,

Remove barriers where it might prevent getting the degree especially in two year schools a nurse needs mathematics related to that work not college algebra and fur semesters of foreign language unless its immersive you go to a country speaking it for the two years won't give a working knowledge of a language sufficient to matter.

And why foreign language at all for any major not in that area of study if you're born in the US you know English and are still unlikely to use anything else even Spanish let alone French or Greek or whatever language you learned let alone Latin.

Another point why college micro-certifications would be far more flexible you could spend on year taking say five classes and get a certification and add more getting more skilled in an area like construction trades or go and learn new things being more flexible key in a growing Gig economy scenario. College and such might even be done away with unless you absolutely have to go to specialized areas of education.

 

Because if you want to know what is going on in the world, then just English is not enough. English-language newscasts just give a broad-brush notion of what is happening.

And, believe me, the US is one of the most interiorized nations on earth. Americans think that world cannot get by without the US interfering (on behalf - of course - of what's best for it).

The US lives off superlatives, obsessed with being NUMBER 1 ... and paying the cost with half its Discretionary Budget being spent on the DoD. There is NO SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL THREAT TO AMERICA OR AMERICANS BY JIHADISTS* (that cannot be aptly confronted internally).

Just stay home, because abroad in the Western Hemisphere that is not the case at all ...

*Your only significant internal threat to life is your own people with guns!

 

It depends on what part of the UK you are from but for English students (the vast majority), University fees are all "out of pocket" and most institutions charge the maximum amount.

 

Which is kinda-sorta stoopid of a country that subsidizes one of the best Healthcare Systems in the world. (For comparative purposes, see costs per population stats here.)

A bona-fide Tertiary Education is also "Healthcare" of a sort. It's Personal Financial&Mental Healthcare and it should be free, gratis and for nothing ...

About 157K Brits are estimated to live in France (from here). It's no wonder soooooo many are living in the south of France, and a good percentage of them work for multinational companies. (Free schooling, nearly free healthcare; and should a really good advanced degree be necessary the UK is only a 30 minute flight away! Though if a Marketing degree, it can be had in France as well in English.)

Choosing between another Tory government and Corbyn, I'd get out too ...

 

The government wanted to expand the number of people in tertiary education from around 10% back in my day to close to 50%. They determined that doing so completely at the government's expense was unaffordable so a loans system was introduced. The idea being that the people gaining the benefit (i.e. those getting a degree) directly pay for the degree. Unfortunately the system they implemented seems destined to throw a high proportion of the costs back to the taxpayer (if the loans are written off in part or in full) but at the same time puts off the less well off from attending university for fear of acquiring too much debt (it would likely have stopped me going to university had it been in place in the mid-80's - I would have instead gone straight into the electronics industry).

 

At present, about 45% of America's secondary-schoolers go on to obtain a Tertiary Education. In fact, as a total of population, America stands well in relation to other countries:

What is worrisome is the fact that 45% is not "good enough". It should be higher, in the range of 70/80% (including all levels: vocational, associate, bachelor, masters, doctorate).

I never tire of reminding anyone reading this forum that the Information Age is upon us and the Industrial Age jobs are increasingly a context for lower-cost countries. That evolution is inexorable, so we'd best contend with it in the US by instituting Bernie's idea (adopted by Hillary into her platform). That is, a tertiary-education at a public institution of higher learning for any family earning the mean salary.

The societal consequences of not awakening to that requirement could be dire ...

 

Can you point to a credible cost benefit analysis that found the loan system would be a net saver? What we really saw was a corruption of the human capital model, ignoring any understanding of the widening participation agenda. Since then we've seen money taken out of further education, making university even more about the cultural capital of the middle classes (to the detriment of social mobility).

 

What makes you think that the DoD budget is going to go away? With Hillary, it would increase. With Bernie, it would at least remain the same. The cost of a government program should always take into account the cost of political compromises. Also, if you are going to raise taxes, it won't be by 500b, it will be by $1 trillion in order to have 500b left over for your redistribution program to colleges and students.

 

You might have been chanting de-fense de-fense a little too much. Let's not forget that liberalism (no, not your fake libertarian stuff) gave us an understanding of how to control DoD expenditure. The issue with education should be more involved. We have efficiency criteria (based on endogeneous growth theory and such ilk), but equity must be paramount. Education should induce social mobility and, to achieve that, you need to increase the expenditure (and redistribute).

 

Yeah, can't waste money teaching people to be smarter but we can waste money ending human life.

 

You can't teach smart. You can teach analytical skills, but those folk tend to vote left wing...