Posted: April 17, 2017 in Uncategorized
  1. Galen Bergsten says:

    I find this interesting, for a large number of reasons. I’m mostly intrigued by the future implications of this plan being applicable only to NY residents. Not saying that there aren’t good schools in all states, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a lot of families moving into states like NY and Illinois with young children as part of a longer plan. It could potentially make for yet another brain-drain out of some of the “lesser” states, which would only perpetuate them into less development.

    As for money, the NY government isn’t exactly thriving right now, but it’s only sensible that they would be the first state to make this move. I would be shocked if Illinois makes this decision any time in the next 50 years – even though we have UIUC and U of Chicago, we simply don’t have the finances to cover the cost of tuition for so many people in the state.

    And on a marketing note, I’m amused that all the exceptions and qualifications are presented in the last portion of the video, as if to provide hope for all and then casually take it away.

    • Joseph Blanton says:

      The residency requirement is what gets me. Apparently, you have to stay in NY for the same number of years you use the scholarship. I don’t know about other majors, but as a physics major, I would be very hesitant to take that deal. Unless there was another good school in the state for graduate physics, I would be stymied in my education. If Utah did this, I would not even consider it! I feel like that is a very limiting aspect for those pursuing their passion, which only sometimes would lead them somewhere else in NY after graduating.

      Those families would have to play a very looong game where they see their children not only going to school in NY, but working there to. But for those of us who can’t even afford college, that’s probably a better plan than most.

      • In my experience, most persons who live in New York want to stay in New York. I certainly never wanted to leave. Certainly, the is no shortage of work of culture in New York, though that state hardly has a corner on either. I imagine this is the best the state could work out, as state taxes are much lower than federal taxes. And, clearly, the federal government is currently doing the very opposite of helping more students get to college. One thing to consider here is that while it might seem a person is signing themselves up for slavery when choosing this option, four years of gainful employment in New York is a small price to pay in comparison with a lifetime of debt peonage which most graduates will face as a result of paying for their education in other states.

      • Galen Bergsten says:

        Woah, that’s actually crazy. I can see something like this going over well in Illinois, because you have a whole bunch of high-caliber undergraduate and graduate schools and job opportunities all in the same place. But definitely not Utah, that’d be intense. I’m curious to see how this continues to play out across the nation…

  2. aurorasmps says:

    I agree, my first thought was also that many people will start moving to New York for this. But I also want to how exactly this is being funded, where the money is coming from. Moreover, I feel like when one is able to get education for free, one will not value it as much as when you have to pay for it.

    • New York has some very high taxes. Many consider them oppressive, while others see them as an investment, especially as regards education. I do believe that earning something, laboring for it helps us value it more. But what if the labor performed to get a college education took place not at Olive Garden but rather the classroom and library? Of course, to ensure students put in that labor we’d have to stop inflating grades. That would make for a totally different system, and maybe a better one.

      • Joseph Blanton says:

        I sense Greenberg’s idea from “Plight of our Culture” has something to say here. We talk about only being able to “value” our education if we have to work for it, and that work is usually supposed to be some kind of job off-campus. A job where we are turning off our the side of our brain we use to get our degree. This idea goes back a few generation, I think, to those stories our parents tell us about working through Harvard bussing tables. Brian, I think Greenberg would agree that some kind of reorganization of the relation between work (schooling) and work (how we make money) will be needed if we continue to try and fund education like this. The economics just do not allow us to pay for education the same way as the good ol’ days.

        • You are correct. Tuitions prices have skyrocketed over the last few decades. What was once seen as a public good – one which states such as California offered to residents for a pittance – as now become a for-profit industry. The rise of the corporate university have been accompanied by a new corporate look to campus, as well as a ‘customer satisfaction’ model of teaching and grading. Most students will not have noticed that change, as their experience at the university has taken place exclusively under the new model. But a short trot around the internet while provide ample reliable evidence to suggest that things were scarcely always done the way they are now. While I hope that we will one day see education become affordable again – and, with that, the possibility of making instruction comprehensive and grading rigorous again – I am not expecting to see the change any time soon. The best I can do is try to work with integrity in the institution as it currents functions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s