For what it's worth, Free College works pretty well in most of Europe.
> To millions of parents and students, they're magical words: free college. But is the idea pure fantasy?
I had trouble to take the article seriously, given that it does not even mention the free colleges in other countries.
As I understand the European systems, there are high-stakes tests that determine who gets to go to these colleges. Is that incorrect?
That is correct. The US has one of the highest rates of higher education (of European countries, only Luxembourg has a higher percentage of working-age adults with a university degree).
They're also heavily stratified by race, though this is something which isn't discussed much in Europe (because talking about race is somewhere between taboo and outright illegal[0]). In the US, by contrast, there's much less of a racial divide in rates at which higher degrees are awarded.
[0] several countries have prohibited collection of meaningful data on race and ethnicity for public universities
~ 40% meet the requirements to go to any university (for a long time this was primarily through finishing the Gymnasium, the higher-level high-school path, but nowadays it's half and half this vs other paths, most of which end with a big set of exams and an overall grade from those)
additional ~ 10% meet the requirements for a "university of applied sciences"
Universities are allowed to set a grade limit from the exams for individual majors if they'd be oversubscribed otherwise, with some adjustment for time spent waiting for a spot and other criteria chosen by the university (activities outside school, existing experience, introduction letter, some invite candidates for interviews, ...).
If there's a limit like that or not is really mixed. E.g. at the university I studied at, some CS-related majors were limited, others weren't, chemistry, physics and mathematics were unrestricted but "bio sciences" was restricted, ... Some university institutes allow fairly heavy oversubscription and "solve" the problem by hard required exams in the first year - good for people with bad school grades but skill in the field, annoying for those that misjudged their skills. Changing majors isn't as common as it was as far as I know, but still something that happens quite a bit, especially early on.
Medical fields are a special case and centrally managed, so you don't apply to an individual university but to a central authority (and give them some preferences where you'd like to study), with again a lot of priority given to grades.
Private universities where students pay for classes exist too, but they're a niche thing.
Free college does not make the opportunity costs of bad and protracted education go away.
I thought the Obama administration did a lot to fund community colleges. Was that just all posturing and no actual substance?
What were you judged on before this? How do you evaluate the quality of a teacher? My mom is an elementary school teacher and she talks about similar things that the schools are pushing hard to have the highest graduation rates.
That sounds like a dangerous stat to judge by, since as you and she are noting the teacher's jobs are now tied to how many kids pass (and that the number keeps going up), not how well they teach.
You would have thought that standards would go up, in order for them to get better grades. But I think you'd need standardised tests at the end of college for that, and I think outside some vocational professions nobody does that.
Not sure I follow you.
Does it mean that you believe that TAs/Professors teach better if they have a higher salary and that colleges need to be expensive for this to happen?
I disagree with that statement, but there is still a financial incentive issue. Having gained your first degree, you have a choice between starting to earn real money by leaving academia or starting a PhD (possibly via MA/MSc), which might be self funded or on a meagre stipend unless it is in something very marketable. Following that, probably 3 years in a postdoc position at the same salary you could have been paid 4 years ago. So now 7 years on, you might be able to get a lectureship, still only earning as much as those who have finished their 1 or 2 year milkround graduate training position.
As you approach 40, you might become a reader, at this point your salary might be at parity with your peers from your undergraduate days who are working in charities or government jobs, but all your private sector peers are earning way more.
As you enter your 50s, you might finally become a professor. At this point, your salary matches those old chums you had who went into business, but only because their income peaked about a decade ago, and you have now caught up.
At pretty much any point along this journey, you will have options to jump ship and earn more.
EDIT: What about having a discussion instead of just downvoting? I presented my observation and expected to talk about it, downvoting isn't helping anyone and my comment is on topic.
EDIT2: Seems like some of you misunderstood me, probably my mistake, sorry about that. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm not trying to argue any point, I'm asking a question - to see if others' have similar experience or not. That's it, no claims to prove.
Specifically,
> huge amount of money is wasted instead of used to help the students
is arguably worse in the US - and it's the students' money.
What about providing concrete examples and citations for your claims? How did you take a look inside exactly? What did you compare it to?
Your argument was probably downvoted because you didn't support your claim very well, and blaming everything on the invisible hand is not a popular dogma.
Edit: I couldn't find the recommendations but here is a chart by the world bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
The most recent data is from 2014 though, interesting nonetheless.
Sounds like SNAFU: Situation Normal -- All Fouled Up.
Humans seem unable to escape favoritism, etc. The older I get, the less convinced I am that this is entirely bad. As I get healthier, I seem to get more "likeable." I find myself wondering exactly how much "I just like you" is actually some form of shorthand assessment.
I don't know the answer. But I'm quite certain that where humans are involved, you can count on it being a morass. You can also count on some people objecting to something about it, even while others claim it is essentially perfect.
(I also wouldn't describe the places I've seen first-hand as strongly as you did, but those issues existed to some degree)