During the recent Democratic Party debate, many intense ideas were brought forth. One of them happened to be college tuition and what to do with it's expenses. It is reported that 1.3 million student's take out college loans (ticas.org), and to Democrats Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton, that's 1.3 million too many.
At the debate, Clinton announced that her plans to lower public college tuitions was to begin funding about $350 million dollars towards the public universities, which would eliminate any sort of tax that would raise the tuition of colleges. The money would then be sent to public universities who take in large amounts of lower and middle class students to reduce expenses. Clinton also stated that she believed students who wanted a cheap college tuition should be obligated to work at least ten hours a week.
Sanders stated that his plan to create free public college tuition was to tax Wall Street transactions and use that money to give students opportunities to enroll in free college.
However, Don Heller, Dean of the College of Education replied to the Democrats statements in an email saying that many families can pay for college and should be enforced to do so. Some agree with that statement due to the complicated plans the Democratic candidates are willing to test.
Clinton and Sander's purposes can connect to the information in class that discusses the budgeting and money power Presidents have. Presidents are capable to promote these ideas to Congress and the public and figure out what would work with America and what wouldn't by having a team of advisers to research outcomes.
Although I don't truly understand the downsides to these ideas, I do think it is great that Presidential Candidates are taking a step forward to lower college tuition. Having students pay $200,000 a year to attend an out of state, public university seems foolish to me, and I do think there are ways to lower the ridiculous costs.
Which idea do you think could help lower tuition fees? Clinton's or Bernie's? Do you think these plans could truly be an answer to lowering tuition? Lastly, do you think all families should have the opportunity to have little to no college fees, or do you agree with Heller? Why or why not.
1 comment:
I think putting more kids to work and taxing wall street transactions would both be nice but I don't see how that would affect the costs of college in the big picture. College is something I, and countless others will have trouble paying for and paying off after we're done. My older brother who really wanted to go to Northeastern, got in, but the student loans would be crazy hard to payoff and flying him out there back and forth wouldn't be worth it. He goes to Cal-Poly SLO now, which he loves, but it was a decision greatly affected by finances. And I'm afraid I'll have to make my decision even more about finances as my parent's will have two kids in college. I think it's unrealistic to just make college free for any amount of people, no matter how hard I want it, it probably shouldn't happen. Additional merit scholarships and scholarships based on need might be a more realistic step towards a lot more equal opportunities.
Post a Comment