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.

    • nodsocket@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We can lower all of these costs by shrinking the university. Fewer buildings, fewer utilities, fewer classrooms. Not to mention the many extraneous amenities that don’t directly relate to coursework.

      What about online university? Then you don’t even need a building and students don’t need to travel to the campus.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your also skipping the dual function of universities as research institutions.

        What you’re describing is a community college. Which are fine, and do a great job. But they don’t excel at giving deep specialized knowledge, or advancing the frontiers of human knowledge.
        They’re just not equipped with the staff or materials.

        Reworking the foundation of how we do advanced education and research in our society seems quite a bit more work than making a program where the taxpayers just pay for qualifying people to get as much education as they want.

        • nodsocket@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s a good point, research would be affected. However it’s worth mentioning that the US government already subsidises research, which might cushion the impact.

      • harmonea@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re talking about changes that will take a generation or more to settle. While these things are in flux, professors will lose their jobs, research grants and budgets will be gutted, and educational assets will be liquidized (imagine museums being sold off to private collections - this is incredibly damaging to the collective knowledge base). Meanwhile, the generations that wait for prices to come down will be left having to educate themselves on the internet, which not everyone has the motivational drive to do or the ability to spot which sources are providing reliable, accurate material they can learn from.

        I get that something’s gotta give, but banning loans altogether ain’t it unless your entire goal is to turn Gen A’s moniker into Ass-Backwards.

        • nodsocket@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, I acknowledge that this would be a shock to society in the short term. But do we really want to maintain the current status quo?

          When I wrote Internet, I don’t necessarily mean people will have to teach everything to themselves. I mean services like online classes which offer similar curriculums to a university course.

          • harmonea@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            But do we really want to maintain the current status quo?

            I think if you read my comment again, you’d find I acknowledge things need to change, I just think your proposed solution is bad.

            I can imagine ways to accomplish these goals more gradually, with less complete and utter destruction, but I don’t think someone who proposed something so extreme from the word go really wants to discuss the moderate stance, so I’ll leave it with you as a thought exercise.

            • nodsocket@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree with you that we could do this gradually. I’m just creating a what-if scenario in this thread.

        • sadreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Old people lose good jobs…

          I am sure all the young people who never had a good job will suffer from this

          • harmonea@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You snark, but unironically yes? Obviously?

            If you think the professors that will be left will be the highest quality instead of the longest tenured, you’re being willfully ignorant. And that loss will ripple down through every generation those passionate and skilled educators would have taught. Plus, “the olds” or whatever have families (which include young people) that would be suffering even more directly to boot.

            E: I see we’re doing the whole “disregard the overall point and only snark about the lowest hanging fruit you can intentionally take out of context” thing. Into the void with you, redditor.

      • Confound4082@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not all degrees can be done in a classroom with a projector

        Context.

        I am a non traditional student, who has spent a significant amount of time working between highschool and college. The degree is about $18k/year for tuition. My STEM degree has a track record of 100% job placement, in your degree field, within one year of graduation. and, with a BS, average starting salary is approaching $80k.

        With average rent and stuff, lets call it about $25k/year for the degree. Maybe $30k.

        Is there stuff that the university is spending money on that they shouldn’t? Yes. But, we also have many millions of dollars in equipment, some for undergrad, and some for graduated program use. All that equipment/lab spaces takes up space, and that equipment, our professors, and the reputation of our graduates are what makes the companies want to hire from pur school. We’re not even that big of a school, but we have a large reputation for academics.

        If you started cutting funding and forcing downsizing, you’re losing decades of experience im teaching, many hundreds of millions in labs and equipment, and reducing the quality of the education that can be offered.

        Now, I will grant you that some schools are too expensive, or degrees aren’t worth the cost. And yes, changes in student loan structures are needed, but blanket statements, like that loans should be made illegal, is painting the issue with too broad of a brush stroke. What about making student loans able to be discharged in bankruptcy, and not being federally guaranteed? That could create an environment where loan companies are denying loans based on the cost vs income potential of the degree. Even with that though, we want to be very careful that it is structured in a way that is not going to disenfranchise low income students or minorities. Some degrees will either disappear, or get a lot cheaper. If you can’t get a loan for a $400k underwater basket weaving degree, then it will either go away, or get cheaper.

        A lot of programs need space and equipment to effectively produce a good product. You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.