[seahawks78]

Colleges and universities as institutions were never meant for commoners. Most people forget that barely a few centuries colleges and universities were places that primarily catered to two distinct classes of people: first, sons/daughters of rich aristocracies who had plenty of time in their leisure to pursue intellectual ideas; and second, were the clergy where it was considered a pre-requisite for the job.

Colleges and universities were never meant to be a way to riches and fortunes. If interested a degree is worth pursuing just for knowledge's sake regardless of the material benefits it may bestow upon the owner at some later point in their life. Hence I find the "college is so expensive" argument to be quite disingenious honestly. What exactly were you expecting may I ask?

Also, for people who want to learn something as a way to earn a living - may I humbly suggest vocational training instead?

[t-3]

> Also, for people who want to learn something as a way to earn a living - may I humbly suggest vocational training instead?

Tell that to HR/whoever is selling hiring software. It's nearly impossible to get past the resume screening process for many entry level jobs without a college degree. The starkness of the divide between have and have-not is what motivates the push for widespread college education.

[Kon-Peki]

> Colleges and universities as institutions were never meant for commoners. Most people forget that barely a few centuries colleges and universities were places that primarily catered to two distinct classes of people

Fine, but that all changed no later than the Morrill Act of 1862 [1], which called on every state in the US to create a public agriculture and engineering university (and provided a method for funding the creation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Land-Grant_Acts

[insightcheck]

> "Colleges and universities were never meant to be a way to riches and fortunes. [...] What exactly were you expecting may I ask?"

I disagree with the assumption that the administrators and many professors at universities intend for undergraduate programs to be primarily for learning, and not for improving job prospects.

Many professors focus on material benefits during the first lecture of the course. There are also numerous career fairs and sometimes internship opportunities with industry, which focus greatly on getting material benefits.

Consider also the marketing for many universities: many advertisements (e.g. on public transit) show enrolment at even research-intensive universities as a way to get into prestigious jobs. Alumni networks are also promoted in marketing (though I'm unsure how effective these really are). In my view, times have changed, and the expectation of material benefit is entirely reasonable and even supported by university officials.

[seahawks78]

No, that is what I am talking about. As one of the points below have mentioned more succintly- utility of a degree in terms of monetary renumaration is already determined by free market forces. For degrees that are determined as less useful, I find that there is no reason whatsoever to burden the tax payer with a bill so that "so and so" can satisfy his/her intellectual curiosity.

For degrees that are determined as less useful from a market perspective still one could make a case that there is a need to provide funding at graduate i.e. at the PhD level. I would give you that since most PhD students do go on to make significant contributions to scholarly literature therby vastly increasing human understanding and frontiers of knowledge.

But clearly this is not the case at undergraduate level. Sorry but the argument that tax payers should foot a bill just so that someone can satisfy his/her intellectual curiosity does not sound convincing at all.

[fezfight]

Really? You wouldn't prefer that it was all free any everyone got access to it?

I think it would be great to offer all these programs, for free, paid for by taxes.

[RandomBK]

Why should taxes subsidize the study of topics that have no economic value?

Most "college should be free" proposals fail under scrutiny because degrees tend to fall into a spectrum of utility:

On one end are degrees that impart skills that are needed and desired by the economy. By and large, graduates of these degrees _already_ enjoy sustainable wages, because the market recognizes and rewards those skills. Government subsidy for these degrees tend to have marginal benefits, because it is already a sound financial choice for students.

On the other extreme are degrees that, like GP identified, were never meant to be economically sound. They focus on intellectual ideas and curiosities, rather than skills actively needed by the economy. Government subsidy here would be little more than subsidizing hobbies and other activity that do not provide economic returns.

There _are_ specific degrees where there's a public policy interest in encouraging the study of topics not adequately compensated by market forces. Most of these are already covered by specific subsidies, such as scientific research grants.

[dahdum]

> I think it would be great to offer all these programs, for free, paid for by taxes.

I’d rather fund economically productive programs with taxpayer money. You could fund a lot more that way.

[hackerlight]

The stuff that the market doesn't value (e.g sociology) is already free in online lecture series. So, no it would not be great for the taxpayer to pay for the credential/status/signalling/social aspect when the actual value (learning and knowledge) is free already.