Hello Bill,

[..]

 BM>> Free tuition is not a new thing.  From 1971 to 1974 I recieved BM>free
 BM> tuition from CCNY and it certainly wasn't a community college.
 BM>> Regarding your employer prefernce, why not let merit determine BM>that
 BM> factor.  Whether free or paid, the level of education is BM>still required
 BM> to attend and succeed.  So, to me at least, if a BM>student receives free
 BM> education and graduates with a 4.0 where BM>a student who pays, taking the
 BM> same courses, gets a 2.4, which
 BM>> one would you choose?

 LL>> An employer would choose to hire an employee who graduated from an
 LL>> accredited school rather than from a school that was not accredited.

 BM> Are you saying CCNY is not an accredited school?

An employer hiring students who graduate from non-accredited
institutions would be taking much more of a chance than hiring
students who graduate from accredited institutions.

 BM> I think you better do some research on that. The way I was reading things
 BM> from the start it was a given we were talking about accredited schools so
 BM> your point is basically moot.

Not all programs are accredited at institutions that are
accredited.  I have a cousin who graduated in engineering.
The school he graduated from was accredited, but the school
of engineering was not.  So he wound up having to retake
all his engineering classes at another institution.

 LL>> The issue is not really whether the student had paid for his/her
 LL>> tuition or somebody else (taxpayers) had paid for his/her tuition.
 LL>> The issue for the employer is whether the potential employee is
 LL>> qualified or not qualified to do the job.

 BM>> I understand the motivation issue as well.  Success is not BM>guaranteed
 BM> and that should be stressed, but the path to success BM>should be and let
 BM> the student prove him/herself.

 LL>> A graduate of an accredited institution of higher learning has
 LL>> already proven himself/herself, regardless of who had paid the
 LL>> cost of his/her tuition.  As such, the matter of who paid the
 LL>> tuition should not be a factor, or an issue of concern, of the
 LL>> employer.

 BM> Agreed...

 LL>> All employees have to constantly prove themselves to their
 LL>> employers, throughout their careers, regardless of their education.
 LL>> That much should be obvious.

 BM> Agreed again, but that wasn't the original stipulation of this thread.

Somebody has to foot the bill for the cost of education.
The cost of education has risen dramatically over the past
thirty years.  An increase of 1,120 percent, according to
the Wall Street Journal.  That is obscene.

 BM> Everyone seems to be getting all worked up over this free tuition.

Over just the past ten years, the cost of college tuition has
increased three times as fast as the consumer-price index.  And
you do not expect people to get worked up?  The cost of college
tuition has gone up twice as fast as medical care over that
same period of time.  And you do not expect people to get worked
up?  Money does not exactly grow on trees, my friend.  Not for
most folks, anyway.

 BM> The proposal by Sanders is PUBLIC institutions wuold be free.

Private institutions are free to charge whatever they wish,
if they wish to charge anything at all.  That will remain the
case, even if Sanders somehow manages to win the presidential
election.

However, the cost of public institutions is never free.  Somebody
has to foot the bill.  The only question is who.  And how much.

 BM> In dealing with private institutions, they have to pay for their sports
 BM> scholarships somehow, so the non-jocks will still owe $200K when their
 BM> done.

Louisiana State University is a public institution.  The LSU Alumni
Association foots the bill for the cost of renovating Tiger Stadium.
This football stadium seats over 100,000 people.  The money that is
made during football season more than pays for all the athletic
scholarships in every sport for the entire year, plus all the salaries
of every coach in every sport.  In other words, LSU is a public
institution, but much that goes on is privately funded.

The cost of paying for college tuition is peanuts.  Consider how
much more in taxes the college graduate returns to the state over
the course of his/her working life.

There is only one problem with this.  And I am surprised that you
(and others) have not seen it.

Bernie Sanders wants to do on a national level what Louisiana has
been doing as a state.  Georgia also has a similar program, but not
quite as sweet.

You do see the problem now, don't you?

The state of Louisiana pays for the student's college education.
The college graduate then takes his/her services to another state,
and earns significantly more than he/she could ever have hoped to
have made in Louisiana.

We now live in a global economy.  People no longer are forced
to work in the USA.  Many young people choose to work overseas,
in places such as China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc., at wages that
pay much more than they could possibly hope for at home.

It is not just teaching English.  It is also real jobs, such
as auto manufacturing.  In a few months, the USA will be importing
cars made in China.  And these cars will be better built, and last
a whole lot longer, than the Yugo that came here from Europe years
ago.

With President Sanders, we will pay for our young people's education.
Then we will send them all to China, where they will make plenty money.
And when they return, our young people will own us - lock, stock, and
barrel.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)