Posted on 04/04/2011 3:10:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
How much should a college education cost? According to the College Board, the average cost of earning a degree at a private, 4-year university is now more than $100,000. If tuition prices continue to rise as quickly as they did during the past decade, a college degree will cost more than $200,000 by the time today’s third-graders are applying. That price tag is enough to cause most parents to break into a sweat.
Is a college degree really worth this cost? Some bright minds think Americans are paying way too much. In fact, Bill Gates--one of the country's most famous college dropouts--thinks it should be closer to zero. He told an audience last summer: “Five years from now, on the web, for free you’ll be able to find the best lectures in the world. It will be better than any single university.”
One could argue that the bright future Gates described is already here. The Massachusetts Institute for Technology has already put all of its instructional materials, including lectures, online and made it available for free. Other schools, including many elite universities, are following suit. For example, using iTunes University, you can already download free lectures from Stanford, Yale, and dozens of other colleges.
The trend of a free and open higher education system will revolutionize higher education, and fundamentally change the way that the world learns. As Gates argues, someday soon, anyone—anywhere in the world—with internet access will be able to learn from the best professors and teachers.
Of course, access to instruction isn't the only, or even primary, reason why most American students go to college. A big part of what today’s students are purchasing for that $100,000 is the degree itself—the credential that signals to employers and society in general that one is able to learn and can survive four years of classes and exams.
But alternative credentialing systems, like AP tests and CLEP exams, are already in place. And the realization of Bill Gates's vision of free online higher education will surely be followed by new credentialing systems that allow people who learn online to prove their accomplishments and signal their value to employers.
Forward thinking elected officials now have the opportunity to expedite the arrival of the free college era, and—in the process—solve a major problem for American families while providing big relief for taxpayers and federal and state budgets.
For too long, efforts to solve the college access and affordability problem have focused on increasing subsidies—grants, loans, and scholarships—for students to attend college. Increased student aid subsidies have contributed to today’s high tuition prices. The College Board reports that total federal support for all forms of college student aid programs was $146 billion in 2010—an increase of 136 percent over just a decade ago.
Instead of this continuing this failed approach—an approach we simply can no longer afford—elected officials should focus on dramatically lowering the costs associated with earning a college education. For example, Governor Rick Perry recently called on the Texas higher education system to develop a new program through which students can earn a college degree for only $10,000. Presumably, this initiative will take advantage of the exciting efficiencies that are happening thanks to online learning.
Leaders in Washington and in state capitals around the country should follow Governor Perry’s lead. Governors and state legislatures should require state-funded universities to follow schools like MIT—putting lectures and course content online for free. Like Texas, state higher education systems should create new credentialing systems to allow people who learn online to demonstrate their mastery and work towards a degree.
Congress and the administration have a responsibility to taxpayers to support reforms that will lower the $150 billion annual burden of student aid programs. For example, Congress could require a college that receives a certain level of direct federal subsidies place a percentage of its instructional content online for free. This initiative would follow the tradition of the Library of Congress—creating a national library of college lectures that all citizens can use. President Obama could use his bully pulpit to challenge universities across the country to do their part to solve a critical national problem.
Very few of our country’s many, big problems have simple and inexpensive solutions. We can’t afford to pass this one up.
Buying posh homes
Buying posh cars
Buying posh wardrobes
Buying posh hookers
“Here’s a clue: College today is about the sports team or the Ivy name branding. Social aspects. Not at all about education.”
Which is why we’re having problems with jobs and workers. Too many (as I’ve said a million times) are getting degrees just to get a job that will secure them an income, not in fact a degree that will teach them something and that will end up benefiting the company and the country.
You would end up revolutionizing the way things are done.
That's an advanced excuse for waiting for someone else.
I would, however, like to encourage you to do exactly what you said you would do!
My prior statement is just another bridge further down the road. Do what you said you would, and G-d willing, you will be able to build a bridge to the next level up. May not be the one you thought ... you’ll see. Godspeed!
I do not have capital to start a business. Do you? If so, “Come on down!”
What I am saying is that we could market a better product, that is, workforce labor, than our competitors in another city, state or country.
We need to wake up in America and realize that we have to compete with the rest of the world or be left behind. My wife & I made a trip to Vietnam in 2004, my first time back since 1969. The final three days were in Saigon. It appears that there are more capitalists in Saigon than in Charlotte. Charlotte has a lot of employees working in a capitalist system, but not that many entrepreneurs.
Nowadays, the common perception of the way to gain wealth is by working the system, the stock market, commodities futures, etc. rather than producing goods to meet the needs and wants of the customer. What percentage of the “good guys” in movies or TV shows are producers of “stuff”? Most are manipulators of the system, “artists” or sports figures.
About 9 years ago, I was tasked with finding an Indian engineering/data services company for a project for my US employer. I would not have been competitive for a job with the Indian company we selected.
Actually, the company was owned by a naturalized US citizen of Indian birth. They had offices in Crystal City, VA and Hyderabad. An absolutely OUTSTANDING company in reputation and the quality of work they did for us. They exceeded our expectations.
American companies, managers and workers must realize that we are competing with Germans, Swiss, Dutch, Swedes, Japanese, Taiwanese, Indonesians, Singaporeans, Indians & Chinese.
No I do not. Have any capital besides upstairs. But capital doesn’t start businesses. Starting businesses starts businesses.
Thanks for the encouragement!
And we wonder why the Chinese are going to start running the world. I sometimes think we deserve it.
“Starting businesses starts businesses.”
Exactly. I started out with an idea, LinkedIn, my wits, and I put out the call for who I needed. Money is needed only as you go, it should not be the main motivator.
“American companies, managers and workers must realize that we are competing with Germans, Swiss, Dutch, Swedes, Japanese, Taiwanese, Indonesians, Singaporeans, Indians & Chinese”
Exactly, American companies are no longer the only ones out there. It’s now filled with foreigners who have work ethics that would frighten Puritans.
” It appears that there are more capitalists in Saigon than in Charlotte”
In Saigon they don’t have the endless regulations they have here in the States. They also don’t sue at the drop of a hat and have ot meet minority quotas or risk extortion in the form of paying funds to the United Negro College Fund.
I watched on CBS had interviews with the Doctors that moved back to India to find out why.
They said they went from earning 180k per year to earning only 40k per year. But the reason they did it was because 40k per year goes much further in India than 180k in the US.
I believe they cut from the interview or didn’t want to ask what happens to the 180k. First off, many of these doctors came from the North East or the West Coast. Places where the effective tax rate is 70% (this includes everything, including sales tax). So 180k equates to 54k take home in areas that are the most expensive to live in the country.
The second reason they identified, was the bureaucracy in hospitals. Often he said, decisions are made by a group of doctors instead of one doctor. In the US, doctors are so specialized that no one doctor makes a decision in major hospitals. Even if the procedure and condition is in your specialty other doctors have to weigh in.
This practice may be directly related to malpractice but currently isn’t reported as a cost that could be avoided if malpractice law was reformed.
The third reason, was he had hundreds of patients in the US. This left him no time to focus on any one. He often only looked at charts and test results with little face time with the patient, often the patient wasn’t even aware he existed.
And the final reason,
He wants his country to become the number 1 country for affordable quality medical care in the world. In other words, patriotic pride.
You started LinkedIn?
Actually foreigners pay more hence are in demand by the unis
My son saved a lot of money by attending community college, then finishing at an in-state public school for two years. With all the money he saved, he was able to afford a masters at a highly regarded private school.”
This is the smartest road, all things considered....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.