> Government funded university tuition (student debt is only in the form of upkeep).
And how many people get to go? And who chooses which majors are available?
If you have a pulse, you can get into a US college/university.
And how many people get to go? And who chooses which majors are available?
If you have a pulse, you can get into a US college/university.
All who qualifies through grades or tests.
> And who chooses which majors are available?
The universities.
> If you have a pulse, you can get into a US college/university.
That doesn't seem to be the case, and certainly not without significant student debt.
And yes, there are free and/or very low-cost colleges in the US. (https://www.sjcc.edu/ is under $1,500/year.)
The fact that some people choose to go to schools that cost and then can't afford what they spent doesn't change that.
It is interesting to look at what many of the people complaining about not being able to pay choose to study.
Perhaps we should have told them no.
Why would you say that?
> And yes, there are free and/or very low-cost colleges in the US. (https://www.sjcc.edu/ is under $1,500/year.)
Clearly seem to be a problem of either US-ranking of universities or their general availability. Otherwise this wouldn't be a problem?
> It is interesting to look at what many of the people complaining about not being able to pay choose to study.
That sounds just like the reactionary whine about non-STEM education.
Because you wrote "All who qualifies through grades or tests." That implies that folks who don't qualify don't get to go.
> Clearly seem to be a problem of either US-ranking of universities or their general availability. Otherwise this wouldn't be a problem?
Or it's mostly a problem for people who find it easy to get press coverage.
>> > It is interesting to look at what many of the people complaining about not being able to pay choose to study.
> That sounds just like the reactionary whine about non-STEM education.
I've nothing against non-STEM education, but I do object to paying a lot for it.
Well, yes, of course? Why wouldn't both the uni and students want a threshold to ensure that no one's time is being wasted? But this doesn't mean that people are barred by tuition or crippled by debt when/if they graduate.
> Or it's mostly a problem for people who find it easy to get press coverage.
Since I'm not from the US I had to google the distinction and from what I can tell a community college main PR is that one may be "transferred" to more prestigious institutions. So it definitely doesn't sound as equivalent as you present it.
> I've nothing against non-STEM education, but I do object to paying a lot for it.
Luckily any decent society consists of more than smug tech folks like this place.
Like I said, the US doesn't tell people they can't go. Your country does.
We also don't tell them what they can study.
> Since I'm not from the US I had to google the distinction and from what I can tell a community college main PR is that one may be "transferred" to more prestigious institutions.
Not at all.
Moreover, there are less-expensive "big-time" colleges. You only hear the stories wrt certain types of schools. (In most cases, they're the kinds of schools that are extremely rare outside the US. Even the second-tier schools in the US are very good. For example, Apple employs more graduates of a school that few people outside of CA have even heard of than it does graduates of Berkeley even though Berkeley is significantly larger than said unknown school.)
So, should we tell them "no" up front?
> > I've nothing against non-STEM education, but I do object to paying a lot for it.
> Luckily any decent society consists of more than smug tech folks like this place.
You already said that you/your country won't pay much, so why is it wrong for me to express the same sentiment?
What do you mean by can't go? People "can't" go to high-school either if they don't get the minimum grades required in elementary school. How does this even relate to the money angle that I'm criticizing?
> So, should we tell them "no" up front?
What do you mean by telling who no up-front? By requiring that you actually have finished high-school math before being accepted for a 4-year math program in uni? That's just common sense.
> You already said that you/your country won't pay much, so why is it wrong for me to express the same sentiment?
Uhm, no? In what way?
The US lets people go to college who haven't graduated from high-school.
Flunk out or quit, and you can go back.
> > You already said that you/your country won't pay much, so why is it wrong for me to express the same sentiment?
> Uhm, no? In what way?
Your country says "we'll let n people into college." or "we'll spend $x on colleges, which is basically the same thing. The tests are then used to pick those n people.
What happens to the other people, the people you won't pay for?
35-40% of US adults have graduated from college. (Different sources have different numbers.) >10% of US adults attended some college and didn't finish. (Some do go back.)
Not sure what your point is. All who qualifies is paid for? If you don't qualify you can take classes to make you qualify, also at no cost.