This would save young Americans from going into crippling debt, but it would also make a university degree completely unaffordable for most. However, in the age of the Internet, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t get an education.

Consider the long term impact of this. There are a lot of different ways such a situation could go, for better and for worse.

  • @alokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    251 year ago

    I’m from a country with free university education and we also have student loans available.

    Here’s something that works for us: forget about private universities, invest in federal or state owned collages so that they can compete with the private ones.

    Do a scholarship program where students can get free entry into these universities if their grades are high enough in high school, or make it dependent on an entry exam. Those that don’t get in have a paid option that’s still partially funded by the state or federal government.

    Student loans will still be useful, not for tuition but for families who can’t afford to send their kids to study in the cities where the universities are located.

    • @Synthead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      The sad part about relying on scholarships is that disadvantaged kids are much less likely to have excellent grades. These people need school more than anyone else. The system works backwards.

      • @alokir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        That’s a fair point, where I live we have a point system for entry and you get the majority of your points through your grades. You also get points if you’re economically disadvantaged and some other factors like certain disabilities, if I remember correctly.

        It seems from the outside that a systematic change would indeed be a good idea, not something that would just help the poor but address the root cause of why people become poor in the first place.

        • @Synthead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I personally believe that society in general should be healthy and educated. If your citizens aren’t sick and/or dumb, there’s a higher likelihood of the country as a whole having a better economy with a higher quality of life. Besides, it’s just good for humanity to treat sick people and educate those who are trying to contribute to society.

          I don’t believe that there should be an individual cost for these items. I don’t think that a rich person should be healthy while a poor person remains sick or worse. I also don’t think that a rich person should have a great education while a poor person stays held back from not being able to afford school. In my opinion, this economic disparity doesn’t make sense.

          It does make sense that a rich person might live in a large house while a poor person lives in a quaint apartment, or a rich person has a PlayStation while a poor person may not have one. In the US, your health and your education is in the same market as PlayStations. To me, this doesn’t make sense at all.

      • @ohlaph@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Exactly this. I grew up poor and didn’t have a quiet place to study. My grades suffered greatly as a result, and a number of other reasons. I needed education for upward mobility.

        After struggling to get an education, finally in my 30s I eas able to get out of poverty.