And that Bar is Pretty High
One of the many things conservatives hate is tuition aid
(aid, not loans) for low and middle income families. They believe that if a student cannot afford
college it’s because that student was not smart enough to pick a family to be
born into that could afford college. So
it comes as no surprise conservative NYT columnist David Brooks would hate the
new
New York State provisions for tuition free
education as state colleges. But the
surprise is just
how
stupid and ridiculous his arguments are. Consider this.
First,
the law is regressive. . . . The higher
up the income scale you go, until the ceiling, the more you benefit.
No, regressive means the lower the income the less the
benefit. In this case because tuition is
fixed it is a large percentage of income the lower the income. So it is progressive. One would think this basic fact is within the
purview of Brooks’ intellect.
it
doesn’t make a dent in reducing the non-tuition fees, like living expenses,
textbooks and travel,
Well no, but that just means it’s incomplete,
not faulty.
it
doesn’t cover students who don’t go to school full time and don’t complete in
four years
Well no, but that just means it’s incomplete,
not faulty. Do we have to repeat this?
it
demotivates (sic) students. Research has shown that students who have to work
to pay some college costs, even if only small expenses, are more spurred to
work hard and graduate.
Uh, does Brooks realize his first point contradicts this
point. How can he be this dense?
Cuomo’s
law threatens to destroy some of New
York’s private colleges. . .
These
private colleges tend to have smaller classes, they tend to do a better job of
graduating their students and they tend to spend heavily to subsidize poorer
students.
No, it doesn’t.
Private schools are for the most part doing just fine even though they
charge 8 to 10 times what New York
state schools charge. They may do better with graduating students because they
are more selective, and they spend heavily to subsidize poorer students because
they have to, Low income students cannot
pay $40,000 tuition costs. And guess how
much more debt students at private schools have, just guess. Sorry you are too low.
over
the long term the law could hurt the quality of New York’s state system. Right now those
schools rely on tuition to help fund programs. If New York moves more toward a purely publicly
funded model, it may suffer from the slow decay that has hurt many state
systems. State budgets are perpetually challenged by rising entitlement
spending. Education gets squeezed.
Ah yes, the long
term. Actually free tuition will put
more, not less pressure on the state to have adequate funding for state
colleges.
the
law will hurt its recipients’ future earnings. Students who receive free
tuition for four years have to remain in New York State
for four years after graduating, or pay the money back. This means they won’t
be able to seize out-of-state opportunities during the crucial years when their
career track is being formed. They’ll be trapped in a state with one really
expensive city, and other regions where good jobs are scarce.
Gosh, asking students to stay in the state that paid their
tuition, what a terrible thing!! C’mon,
get real. And as far as the regions
outside the City Mr. Brooks displays the usual New York city bias towards the rest of the
state. Buffalo,
Syracuse, Rochester,
Albany and
other cities are coming back, they have low cost living and are growing and
adding jobs. Cuomo is directly money to
them. Their future is bright.
Brooks is an idiot.
Every argument is wrong.
Posts
