Do you have anything to back this up with. I have a _very_ hard time believing that american youth is so different from the youth in the rest of the world.
Also, it is not free because not enough people wants to go to college. In Denmark, for example, we have educations where 95% of applicants are rejected.
Exactly this. Free shouldn't be read as available to everyone. It should in my mind be read as in 'free, after you have passed the entrance exams'. At least this is how it at least used to be in Nordic colleges. And like parent pointed out, for some programs it may be only ~5% of applicants that get in.
I guess alternative would be accepted almost everyone, but then during first three years or so, ruthlessly remove students from programs based on test scores etc.
> Do you have anything to back this up with. I have a _very_ hard time believing that american youth is so different from the youth in the rest of the world.
I believe that you are right in your intuition, but not in the consequences.
The first consequence is that in Germany, vocational training is often a much better alternative to universities for many pupils. Also being allowed to go to university requires an "Abitur" degree of the school, which means that you have to go 2-3 years longer to the school. For even being allowed to "Oberstufe" (the part of school that leads to "Abitur"), you need decent marks in school beforehand.
Even if you have Abitur, there exist alternatives to universities that can suit one better than university, for example Fachhochschule (school of applied science; though I am cautious to use this English translation, since it is a very German concept that has no analogue in the English-speaking world that I am aware of), a kind of "university" that has no academic focus, but applied focus. I think the best English translation that I can come up with is "engineering school", though it is not restricted to engineering degrees.
Also be aware that at German universities you are very much on your own for studying; i.e. no hands-holding etc.
TLDR: Two points:
1. There exist good alternatives to universities in Germany
2. At a German university, you are typically much on your own - this is not for everybody.
Why should it be available for everyone? Why should a person that doesn't pass equal opportunity entrance exam be allowed to study to become a lawyer or civil engineer or a medical doctor for free/on tax payers money? Call it accountability maybe?
And for those who don't qualify for particular masters program, well I guess they will either try harder next time over, or face the music and look for some other areas where they might be a better fit.
They shouldn't. But then one also shouldn't claim "We value education so much that we pay for everyone to go to college" when in fact only 5% of people go. It's misleading.
I bet you could find approximately 5% of people in the US who are able to qualify for full scholarships.
You misunderstand. Way more than 5% go to college, but for some highly sought after educations and institutions, only a select few get accepted. But most people wouldn't apply to these programs to begin with. And those that do, and do not get accepted, can study different subjects, or even the same subject but at a different school.
Sure, but it's still a number of people that is significantly less than everyone. And everyone in Denmark is again significantly less than everyone in the US.
So saying "Hey if we can pay for a few hundred thousand people to go to college, why can't you pay for tens of millions of people to go college?" is not really a fair comparison.
@imgabe: Why would you suggest that Denmark's model can't be scaled up to US size? Or even take Germany's model, and you'll start off from a platform some 15x the size of Denmark.
As others mention below, Germany and other countries end up with about the same percentage of college graduates as the US. So what is the advantage of switching to a different model if it produces the same result? It doesn't mean any additional people would be able to go to college.
We could go a long way to ending that by not subsidizing loans and making them dischargeable in bankruptcy. We could also better educate kids about cost/benefits of college and making sure they choose a degree that will be able to repay any loans they take out. Hopefully people are already catching on to that.
We did at one point in history have college that was affordable without having the government pay for it. It should be possible to do that again.
Well, for one, when economy isn't a factor, then academic prowess is a stronger predictor for who goes to college. Which seems more fair, and to garner more utility.
It would also mean less horrific student loan situations.
> when economy isn't a factor, then academic prowess is a stronger predictor for who goes to college
I'd be interested in seeing data on that. Family income and "academic prowess" are often highly correlated, since higher income families tend to have better educated parents to begin with and are more able to pay for tutors and additional help.
My totally anecdotal experience (mostly Italy, Spain) is the opposite, even in countries where higher education is cheap/subsidized, people tend to go to University "just because", mostly because it is expected by family/parents, and most don't really have a long term plan.
It is really rare for a 17/18 yo to have a clear picture of his/her own future, IMHO.
In Spain, which is a quite big country and has almost-free tuition, there are way too many graduates working in low-wage jobs because the national market cannot just offer them qualified positions. Here is one source: https://elpais.com/elpais/2011/12/09/inenglish/1323411644_85... (2011 but still applies and in higher percentages according to recent studies which I will link later).
The problem with that is that it depends on what you measure (same with GDP if e.g. education is free). E.g. Germany and Switzerland have different branches in education that are well regarded but you don't go to university (e.g. nurses go to university in the US and thus count in your statistic but in Germany they get a special multi-year training which is not counted)
This is a very good point. It's free because it can be, or has to be. That is, a given economy / country needs more upper edu'ed. The gov makes that happen by lowering the price.
The US, on the other hand wouldn't benefit nearly as much. The need for still more (relatively) over-edu'ed isn't there.
On a similar note, US edus charge more because they can. As demand increases so does price. Top that off with the available of "cheap" and easy money (i.e., subsidized student loans) and prices go even higher.
Not everyone is college material, and that's not a bad thing. Unfortunately, most in the US are unwilling to accept this.
