Monday, April 24, 2017

Criticizing New York Free College Tuition David Brooks of the NYT Has Written the Most Stupid Column Ever

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment