Clinton's Argument That Free College Is Bad Because Rich Kids Can Take Advantage Makes No Sense

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-argument-free-college-bad-because-rich-kids-can-take-advantage-it-makes-no

The same logic could apply to K-12 education, roads, parks, or any general public good.

At a town hall on CNN Tuesday night, Clinton reaffirmed her opposition to Bernie Sanders' plan to make all public universities tuition-free. In doing so, she repeated a somewhat bizarre talking point the media has allowed her to push almost entirely without challenge:

(snip)

There’s a few problems with this line of reasoning, the most apparent of which is that Donald Trump is exceedingly unlikely to send his kids to public school, as is Clinton. Her daughter Chelsea went to private school her whole life, which is sort of the point: those who cannot afford such luxuries ought not get into tens of thousands of dollars debt for the chance to do so. There are some on the left who make the argument that free public education has pitfalls, but it’s strange and counterproductive for someone claiming to be the standard bearer of the progressive mantle (the getting-things-done variety) to spend so much time arguing against a long-held progressive stance.

Above all, the argument that free public college is bad because rich people could take advantage of it is dubious because this logic could apply to any general public good: parks, K-12 education, roads, public works, NEA, public television, etc. As with Social Security, creating a “right” by making something universal enshrines it into the political culture and makes future inevitable attempts to chip away at it very difficult. Moreover, any benefits provided to the wealthy under Sanders' free college plan are more than offset by the fact that the wealthy, on his watch, would be paying meaningfully higher taxes. The idea that billionaires like Trump could somehow game the system by sending their children to these sexy, free public colleges—all the while paying much higher income, estate and capital gains taxes—doesn’t stand up to review.
---------------

But, It's a foot in the door for her wall street buddies - isn't it. Damned inspiring

[arcane1]

1. It makes perfect sense to a candidate funded by the student loan industry n/t

[reformist2]

28. Indentured servitude makes for better workers.

[hifiguy]

48. They remain well-cowed and will choke down

the shit sandwiches their superiors tell them are actually roast beef.

And they won't start asking questions.

Eventually they will learn to love Big Sister.

[Jitter65]

102. Funny, i never heard her say "free college is bad." She said she doesn't a system that pays for the

kids of wealthy parents who can well afford to pay for college themselves.

[onecaliberal]

103. Those kids go to private colleges which wouldn't be a part of this plan.

On edit: to get in state college you have to do a FAFSA document which requires a tax return, so there is NO way for "take advantage". They make everyone fill this out even if you don't qualify for any aid.

[Jitter65]

109. Not all wealthy kids go to private colleges. nt

[onecaliberal]

110. Like I said everyone has to fill out FAFSA. No rich kid is going to take advantage.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. It's the same old RW argument we always get about needing to 'means test' benefits.

Which 'means' forcing regular people to fill out hours worth of extra paperwork and document their lives to prove they're 'poor enough' to deserve whatever the benefit is, under the guise of 'saving money' by preventing the rich from getting the benefit.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

114. The rich do not go to state colleges - also

let's say the top 5% do go for free - we have 5% waste -

5% waste is about as low as it goes in most programs - so what

[kristopher]

3. At least shes's consistently incoherent.

None of her objections to Bernie's policies make a lick of sense.

[farleftlib]

13. + 100

And all that nonsense she spews gets a big pass. I'm old enough to remember when the press would have torn this meme to shreds and ridiculed it for the garbage it is.

[kenfrequed]

117. Indeed.

Honestly even a amateur journalist should have called her campaign to the mat for this crappy talking point.

[hifiguy]

50. They do to Goldman and the rest of the vampire squid.

And THAT is what counts above all else.

[santabill]

100. OK

OK

[FlatBaroque]

4. It is so fu@kin asanine

Like Trump's kids are going to choose to go to a publicly funded school, instead of Wharton or Yale. It's like she cannot think anything through to its logical conclusion. Wicked smart, my hairy ass.

[monicaangela]

5. I am so tired of her excuses and reasons that don't make sense.

Two-thirds of American college students graduate with college debt, and that debt now tops $1.2 trillion. By every indication, college is now more expensive than it has ever been, out of reach of not only poor Americans, but even middle class ones. While various reforms made in the past few years may have helped slow the growth of college costs, they continue to outpace Americans’ ability to pay.

Although this is happening in the world’s richest country, there are many places abroad where college is virtually free. The Washington Post’s Rick Noack points out seven places where Americans can study for free or at very low cost – and in English! Students just have to be willing to leave the country:

1. Brazil: Brazil’s universities charge registration fees, Noack notes, but they do not require regular tuition. Many of them also offer courses in English.

2. Germany: Germany has 900 programs in English, and is eager to attract foreign students to tuition-free universities due to the country’s shortage of skilled workers.

3. Finland: Finland doesn’t have tuition fees but the government does warn foreigners that they have to cover living expenses. Imagine going to college and only worrying about room and board.

4. France: France does charge tuition – but normally around 200 dollars at public universities. A far cry from what you’d pay in the United States, even in a state school.

5. Norway: Norwegian students, including foreigners studying in the country, do not have to pay any college tuition. Be forewarned, however, of the harsh winters and high cost of living.

6. Slovenia: If Eastern Europe is more your thing, Noack notes that Slovenia has 150 English-language programs, and only charges a registration fee – no tuition.

7. Sweden: Sweden, a country which has so successfully solved so many of its social problems that there are now U.S. Sitcoms about the glories of moving there, has over 300 English-language programs. Although college there is free, cost of living may be pricey for foreigners.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/7_countries_where_college_is_free_partner/

If these nations can find a way to do it so can we.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. she just doesn't want to be bothered

[monicaangela]

26. I guess she thinks, why should she

Her daughter has graduated and married a Hedge Fund manager so if her grandchildren can pay then everybody else should have to pay. Also too, her not wanting to pay for the children of rich families shows just how maniacal she is. Children are children no matter if their parents are rich or poor, and if a few rich kids get free college, which they were going to get anyway without having to take out loans I believe it balances out in the end.

I wonder why, if you will remember Hillary Clinton was going around begging for money to pay off her 2008 campaign debts? What if someone had said, no you have to pay those yourself, we wouldn't want someone like Bloomberg, or today Trump to be able to get away without paying their campaign debts.

[Baobab]

60. There is an explanation that makes her actions make perfect sense. But its not a pleasant one.

And it will surprise everybody.

If there could be a single key that unlocked understanding of US policy right now, going back to the Clinton years, it would be things like this thing.

Here is an explanation that I haven't posted before.

[Impedimentus]

6. All those rich kids are going to forsake Harvard and Yale for Po Dunk State - Right !

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)

This is a vacuous argument meant to inflame and gain the dumb vote.

Only an idiot would fall for this BS.

[FailureToCommunicate]

40. My first thought each time this stupid response is uttered.

Not to mention, that tuition (just the tuition part) at public colleges is nothing at all like private ones.

[hifiguy]

61. I know.

It's so patently absurd on the face of it. And it's not to say you cannot get a hell of a good education at flagship state school. The Big 10 and PAC 12 are bursting with great state schools - UC Berkeley, UCLA, U of Washington, Arizona and Arizona State, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin (pre Walker, anyway) and I am probably leaving some out.

When I was at the U of MN back in the 1980s one of the people in my honors seminar asked the prof, who had done a postdoc at Yale, what the differences were between Yale students and Minnesota students. His response: "The AVERAGE student at Yale is brighter than the average student at Minnesota. The smartest students here, like you guys, are every bit as smart as the brightest ones at Yale."

But there are a lot of idiots around these days.

[Impedimentus]

71. I'm not in anyway trying to impugn the quality of education at stake universities - it's the social

contacts and "in-crowd" aspect of the expensive schools, and the status that will stop the rich from going to state schools. No "Skull and Bones" at Michigan State. The rich like to socialize with the rich. They like to help each other out.

Bernie's plan would, at the most, maybe help a few tens of rich folks.

My comment was written to imply that anyone who believe the fallacious argument isn't very smart.

[hifiguy]

76. Didn't think you were, not at all.

You can get an Ivy League level education at the good state schools, but you have to bang on doors and ask questions; the resources are there, you just have to bulldoze through the masses to find them sometimes. And that's what I did. It got me to Harvard Law.

[Volaris]

83. Anymore you can get an ivy league education on fucking YOUTUBE.

You don't get the transferable class credit, but watch that calTech calculus class or Harvard Philo and then take it at the local community college for a tenth of the cost...I promise you, if you paid attention, you'll get that A.

[Chico Man]

86. Yeah, like money can buy Harvard and Yale

They admit rarely talented students, first and foremost.

All Ivy League institutions also implement need based financial aid. If you cannot afford it, you go for free.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

104. George W Bush attended both Yale and Harvard.

He was hardly a 'rarely talented individual'. Whether it was money or connections, it was not 'talent' that got him into either.

[Recursion]

115. Best veterinary and architecture schools in the country

As well as one of the top 5 electrical engineering programs and one of the best forestry programs. Not to mention it was where new urbanism was first tried.

(Sorry, I'm a part-time MSU alum and just took that one a little personal )

[Impedimentus]

116. My apologies

It was a bad example. I'm going to change the wording.

[Recursion]

118. No no your point was a good one

Just had to stick up for the Maroon and White there

[dsc]

7. high schools don't have admission requirements that favor

the upper middle class and wealthy colleges do. 1/3 of the money for this comes from the states and those states have nearly universally regressive taxation and the benefits will accrue largely to people who have incomes higher than the median incomes of the states they live in. That is unfair and that unfairness would be built in unless high schools were made more equal in our nation and Bernie has no plan to do that.

[bettyellen]

11. yep! " unfairness would be built in unless high schools were made more equal in our nation"

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. What a crock of bullshit. High schools have residency requirements.

Live in an upper class neighborhood, attend an upper class high school. Live in a lower class neighborhood, go to a lower class high school.

[dsc]

91. that isn't an admissions requirement

and Bernie's plan does nothing at all about that.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. It's also deeply divisive

I don't begrudge wealthy people for using our public streets, our public libraries, and for enrolling their kids in our public schools. In fact, I think it helps to bring us all together as a people.

And that is definitely a good thing.

[scscholar]

53. But they don't pay their fair share for any of that!

[surrealAmerican]

80. Indeed.

Diversity in our schools, including economic diversity, is a boon. It improves the education of all the students.

[great white snark]

9. You Better Believe It!

[Hoyt]

10. It's actually a way to tax the wealthy, but people are apparently too obtuse to get it.

With everyone around here hating the wealthy, why are they opposed to making them pay their kids' education and leaving more tax money for the poor, healthcare and other needed things?

Clinton's plan simply says we aren't going to use poor peoples' taxes to pay for education the wealthy should be covering.

[JaneyVee]

14. Nailed it.

[BernieforPres2016]

15. No, I think you're the one who is obtuse on this issue

Hillary hasn't proposed tuition free state universities for anybody. Her "what about the rich?" is a deflection.

[Hoyt]

17. She's proposed debt free education, that's pretty close. In any event, how can you turn this into

Clinton taking care of the rich? It's just the opposite.

[Qutzupalotl]

21. "Debt free"? She's proposed refinancing at a better rate

which is NOT the same thing.

[Hoyt]

23. For those who already have loans. Jeezus.

[BernieforPres2016]

33. OK, now you're just being completely dishonest.

That's the last post from you I'll see.

[Hoyt]

37. Even though you are gone, here's her proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-offer-plan-on-paying-college-tuition-without-needing-loans.html

[tazkcmo]

79. It's shit

"Mrs. Clinton would pay for the plan by capping the value of itemized deductions that wealthy families can take on their tax returns. The tax and spending elements of her proposal would need support from Congress — a tall order, since it is now run by Republicans — while the plan’s goals would depend on support from state governors and legislators, more and more of whom have been Republicans recently."

I'm sure the GOP will rally around Sec Clinton's plan seeing as how well she's liked. How did depending on GOP governors work out for the ACA? What's the percentage of income that gets paid back? How long is the term? The student needs to work 10 hours per week while in college? Is that in addition to the work they'll be doing to eat, buy books and other expenses incurred due to living and breathing?Just like Chelsea? Her proposal leaves more questions than it answers.

[dchill]

94. +1

Typical corporate welfare horn-in. They HAVE to get their fingers in every pie, and then they "own" the pie. Corporate sHillary.

[Enthusiast]

25. Thank you. Some people just make shit up.

[Dem2]

36. Don't forget tuition grants & income based repayments.

The plan aims to lower college tuition costs (via tuition grants), increase graduation rates (and accountability from universities in that regard) and help graduates refinance their student loans (income-based repayments).

[Dem2]

22. Seems so obvious to me as well

I've stated similar when this topic came up previously.

Oh, well.


Free College for the 1%ers!

What?

[Qutzupalotl]

31. We don't "hate the wealthy," we just don't want them buying elections

to rig the system in their favor.

I don't begrudge the wealthy a free education at a public college if they want one. If they pay taxes into the system, why shouldn't they benefit?

Same with Social Security: even though it's very unlikely the rich will need it, they could conceivably be sued into the poorhouse or wind up there for some other reason. It's a safety net that provides security to us ALL. But once you start means testing, the next move from the oligarchs will be to dismantle it, with the argument: Why should I pay for something I won't use? That could win in a conservative Supreme Court, and cause the collapse of SS.

Besides, we ALL benefit when more people can get an education. We won't vote theocrats into office, for one thing. And we might be less prone to invading the wrong country again.

[Hoyt]

42. Huh, for Sanders Social Security solution to work, cap would be increased but wealthy would not get

higher benefits.

I believe everyone should have an opportunity for an education, but I'm fine with wealthy paying if it is unlikely Congress will increase their taxes any other way.

[Qutzupalotl]

44. They should pay the same rate as everyone else.

No need for a cap at all.

[Hoyt]

57. But Sanders would not allow increased benefits.

[Qutzupalotl]

64. They get higher benefits from a higher income anyway.

[Ilsa]

93. Thaaaaannkyu!

Be careful about making sense around here.

[shawn703]

45. How many poor people would have to worry about the tax on stock trades?

Not too many I'd imagine.

[JaneyVee]

12. Dont think rich kids go to public colleges? Check UC Berkeley

[Lucky Luciano]

34. Which used to be free until Reagan. nt

[LibDemAlways]

54. So what? There are kids from well-to-do

Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

families at many UC campuses because they are excellent schools. You are missing the larger point.

Public schools are just that -- public. Would you insist that the wealthy pay an extra fee for police or fire services because they can afford to.

When I attended a Cal State campus 40 years ago, there was no tuition. I went to school with students from many income levels, including many who would not have been there at all had tuition been charged. It's foolish to deny a public good to the many because of the income of a few.

[JaneyVee]

74. Actually....

The rich probably live in areas with higher property taxes so they most likely do pay more for fire and police.

[Impedimentus]

72. Anecdote

Anecdotal "evidence" is for the dumb.

[Carlo Marx]

16. "At least she's consistently incoherent."

Perfectly said. If only she was losing, I'd be able to better appreciate what an absurd candidate, an embarrassing politician she is. Some of her responses make me simultaneously laugh and cringe. Like this college thing, or 911 explaining the Wall Street millions, or casually name dropping Kissinger in a Democratic debate. Or referring to criminal fraud destroying the economy by Wall Street as "shenanigans" and I told them to "cut it out." She's like a more well intentioned Mitt Romney shielded by a fawning media and professional class.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

18. It's all about pitting people against each other...

...the opposite of Bernie.
Yep, lame, pathetic, sickening...

[loyalsister]

19. I think she just might be superficial enough to buy into the republican class warfare meme

Her saying that suggests to me that she thinks she can appeal to the voters who are economically opporessed by "joining them" in what she assumes to be hate for people who have money.
People who want to be able to send their kids to college don't give a damn if some rich kid sits next to them in class as long as they have equal access.

[Cobalt Violet]

24. she thinks we are dumb.

[SoapBox]

27. The rich will pay for school like they do now...

But by gawd, those that cannot afford it, will NOT get anything for free.

She says, No...We...Can't!

But I say, No...More...Clintons.

[Lucky Luciano]

29. Not to mention that California did it just fine until...

[0rganism]

30. this is actually a very clever angle of attack for HRC

she can present that rationale, as you note, "almost entirely without challenge" which lends it legitimacy

it's rooted in faux populist objection, "why should we pay taxes for rich people to use public resources?"

how many voters are going to sit still for the counter-explanation?

regardless, it puts the ball back in Bernie's court to make that explanation instead of talking up his plans for public funding of public tertiary education institutions; now he has to explain why public schools (public roads, public anything really) are okay in the first place.

anytime you can use a simple idea, no matter how fallacious, to force your opponent into an explanation, that is points on the board.

nevermind that this is an anti-progressive argument used in a Democratic primary, when the GE comes i'd expect her to embrace a moderate position that strongly resembles status quo.

[Uncle Joe]

32. A disingenuous argument from Hillary, that's a surprise!

Thanks for the thread, Ferd Berfel.

[jfern]

35. Free K-12 is bad because rich kids can take advantage

Social Security and Medicare are bad because rich seniors can take advantage. Sidewalks and freeways are bad because rich people can take advantage.

[Zynx]

69. All of those are compulsory programs. In no country is college compulsory.

Roads are primarily financed through user fee style taxes, so you might want to use a different analogy in that case. The sidewalk analogy makes no sense at all. It's completely ignoring the nature of the "public benefit."

Public high schools also can't and don't turn down students based on test scores, which correlate with income. Public colleges and universities, at least the ones of quality, do.

[jfern]

70. You can drop out of HS when you turn 16

And Medicare is totally optional. I know that Mitt Romney didn't sign up.

[SmittynMo]

38. There has to be more to this than meets the eye

Look. She's not stupid. There is absolutely no reason for us not to offer tuition free college.

[Lordquinton]

39. The rich kids deserve it too

They are still people, and if they want to make it on their own, at a public university why not?

Is Clinton suddenly not for taking care of all Americans?

[Hydra]

112. Thanks for making this point, I was going to as well

They pay in, it's their public service too if they want it.

[stupidicus]

41. most of what she says makes sense only to fellow travelers

which is why all of her supporters have complete ownership of whatever bad she does should she win all the marbles

[Phlem]

43. Education is the "Great Equalizer" so I can see

how the 1% would not want it.

You know a nation of well educated people would be difficult to fool and control.

[RoccoR5955]

46. You know, there used to be free public 4 year colleges

At least the ones that I knew of were in California and NYC.
NYC was facing financial ruin, due to cuts in federal funding.
In Califorina, Ronnie "the Rat" Raygun stopped the public colleges.
We had them before, we can have them again. Plain and simple.

[LibDemAlways]

49. I attended a Cal State campus from 1970-75. There

was no tuition.

[LibDemAlways]

47. I have said the same thing elsewhere on this board.

Wealthy people are all about prestige. They can afford to send their kids to private schools where they will meet and connect with other kids from wealthy families. When Chelsea was choosing a college, she didn't apply to Cal State San Jose. She went to nearby elite, exclusive Stanford.

And so what if a relatively few kids from wealthy families do end up at tuition free state schools? Who cares? Denying the benefit of a tuition free college education to a deserving student because some rich guy's kid wants to go there too is absurd. Her argument is stupid and I hope she's publicly called on the carpet for it somewhere along the campaign trail. Bernie ought to call her out on it.

[amborin]

51. in that regard, she seems to be open to means testing Social Security, too, as well as 3rd way chang

[rurallib]

55. that is their exact argument, which then makes SS a welfare program

which baggers will then cut the crap out of and take funds from at will.

[TIME TO PANIC]

56. Her whole argument shows the disdain she has for the American public.

She thinks we're so dumb and selfish, that we would bite off our noses to spite our faces.

[anotherproletariat]

58. I know plenty of kids from well-off families who go to public schools

Maybe it's because I grew up in California, where the public universities are quite desirable, but I had high school friends who chose Berkeley over private east coast schools (including Ivys). True, there may be less economically advantaged kids in public colleges, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't make sense to have some sort of tiered system for tuition. If my family were given free tuition, I would think it was wrong, as others need it far more.

To me, Hillary's plan of affordable education for all makes much more sense, at least to start. It would be great if our economy became so strong that it could support free public college for everyone, but that should be way down on the priorities. I'd rather see more efficient food banks, a better school breakfast/lunch program, or many other things before upper middle class families get free college tuition.

[liberal_at_heart]

89. We could afford it if we weren't spending trillions of dollars on war.

Rich people already take advantage of all our public programs. If we didn't support our programs because the rich take advantage of them then we wouldn't have any public programs at all. The Millennials know they are getting a raw deal on college. That's why they support Bernie on this and many other issues, not Hillary.

[anotherproletariat]

113. I'm a millenial, and went to high school in an urban area with extremely diverse friends...all of

my friends who wanted to go to college were able to. They range from state schools with 100% financial aid (including some work/study) to those whose families are paying the entire bill at private schools. I'm not talking about rich people. My parents are paying for college because they saved up my whole life. My friends and I were lucky because there are excellent college counselors at our high school who made sure that no stone was left unturned in finding scholarships and grants. There is money out there for college, but many kids just don't have the advantages to find it. There are many changes that could be made to make school more affordable that would have less of a negative effect on the national budget.

Don't get me wrong...free college would be great. It just isn't necessary for everyone.

[pdsimdars]

59. Here's an important point

When they create programs only for the poor, the ALWAYS consider them welfare and they always turn up on the cutting block. But when they create programs that include everyone, they never cut them. . . social security, medicare . .the rich don't really need them, but they can't cut them either.
And we have public schools for everyone, if rich people want to send their kids to private schools that is OK, but public school is for all.

[Thinkingabout]

62. Is this what Hillary said?

[Plucketeer]

63. Not much of ANYTHING

she says, makes sense.

[nichomachus]

65. Free college is bad because

People who can't afford college can't write $100,000 checks to Mrs. Clinton's PAC

[Zynx]

66. There is a fundamental difference in the case of higher education versus K-12.

Higher education is not universally mandated in any country whereas K-12 is in most. The student body that attends institutions of higher education is admitted primarily on the basis of merit at the elite institutions. Merit isn't something that isn't correlated with economic status. It's heavily correlated with economic status. In other words, while free college would technically be available to anyone, at the more prestigious public institutions in effect the whole benefit would be going to higher income earners.

The more efficient way to achieve the desired goal, in my view, is to convert all state support for public education to strictly need-based financial aid.

Another issue I have with the university system being completely government funded is that we have to recognize that no matter what we do the Democratic Party will lose elections. If you have these universities completely at the mercy of Congress and the state legislatures, God help us. With state funds can come state strings and influences in what they teach and how they teach it. Worse than that even is the fact that they can do things like freeze salaries and diminish the quality of the institutions. Allowing them autonomy in setting fees and tuition ensures their quality. I would not want this to be at the mercy of state or federal appropriations.

[ozone_man]

67. Hee third way politics are stifling.

No she can't!

[secondwind]

68. Rich kids would go to Ivy League schools or abroad

[Chico Man]

92. Ivy League schools are highly selective

you cannot buy your way in.

[Divernan]

97. Happens all the time with "legacies"

It's the only way W ever got in to Yale. One of George's nephews was in my son's class at Yale. "He's a nice guy, but not too bright" was the description. Legacies get what are called the Gentleman's "C" for grades.

Gentleman's C
A grade given to a student (traditionally with wealthy parents) instead of a failing grade.
Bobby didn't study at all the entire semester. However, he received a gentleman's C because his father donates lots of money to the college. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gentleman%27s%20C

How much does being a legacy help?

First, Ivy League Universities like continuity of their student body.

If your mom went to Cornell, she has a close affinity to the school. Chances are, you will too. This all matters for alumni donations and alumni involvement. It all comes back to the money. $$$$$

Some Ivy League schools care about legacy much more than others. This is borne out in statistics.

For example, both Princeton and Yale are well-known for their focus on legacies. Stanford and Harvard are less so.
In today’s college admissions environment, the legacy factor is in effect far beyond your parents. If your grandparents or great grandparents went to your target school, that can have a good influence. Even your brother or sister can have an influence. Your cousin probably cannot.

Beyond alumni, giving, and involvement, why else is legacy important? For Admissions committees (“AdComs”), being a legacy is often a way of filtering the applicant pool.

It’s very hard to tell how well someone will do at a school, but if their mom or dad went to that school, there’s a good chance that the applicant was raised in a positive atmosphere, educated well, and will perform well academically and personally as a member of the student body. If you are a legacy, you become a safer bet.

Legacy admissions is not remarkably different from the standard common application admissions process. AdComs review the Common Apps in exactly the same way.

The difference is that if you are, indeed, related directly to someone who attended Cornell (in this example) your application may be considered more closely.

- See more at: http://www.hopelesstoharvard.com/ivy-league-schools/the-role-of-legacy-in-ivy-league-admissions/#sthash.VCUkQwg2.dpuf

[Divernan]

73. Stanford & Univ. of Southern California thrived back when CA had free 4 year colleges

As did a variety of other private colleges and universities in California.

Children of the wealthy will still attend those elite private schools - more room for the legacies! - (1) to avoid mixing with the common folk (2) to get preferred admission to medical, business, and law graduate schools, and (3) to enjoy the benefit of powerful alumni networks re jobs.

[NoMoreRepugs]

85. eggsactly

[Live and Learn]

75. She knows that. She just knows some people are dumb enough to fall for the argument. nt

[Califonz]

77. So every time I see a Lamborghini using a public road...

I'm supposed to say OMG free roads are bad! Look! A RICH PERSON IS USING IT!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

78. Chad and Buffy won't be going to Cornhole State U.

They'll be going to Mummy or Daddy's exclusive alma mater, even if they're as dumb as stumps and spent their earlier adolescence getting kicked out of one expensive private school after another for cooking meth in their dorm rooms. Chad and Muffy will not be going to any school where they might be required to rub shoulders with those people.

[MuseRider]

81. Because sharing

is HARD!

[DrBulldog]

82. Unfortunately there are enough - in fact, way too many - American boneheads out there ...

... who believe absolutely EVERYTHING she says. South Carolina proved that.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

84. Is the DNC moving to the right, or is Clinton taking the party there?

I'm just so tired of this fight. Life is hard. It shouldn't be made harder by those that have everything already.

[fbc]

87. Means testing entitlements is a classic republican move

[jpb33]

88. I know

Rich people send their kids to private universities and Bernie's plan is only for public universities. It really is a dumb campaign move by Hillary's campaign. Only someone who is completely brain dead would believe her counter-argument to free college.

[Chico Man]

90. Free college already exists

Let's start at the Ivy League:

http://www.businessinsider.com/congrats-you-got-into-the-school-of-your-dreams-now-its-time-to-think-about-how-to-pay-for-it-2015-4

Ivy League colleges offer free tuition to certain students — here's how financial aid packages stack up

You think Harvard is expensive?

Harvard

Students from families with incomes below $65,000, will generally pay nothing toward the cost of attending Harvard College. Families with incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 will contribute from 0 to 10 percent of income, depending on individual circumstances.

[Divernan]

107. Only for HS Valedictorians with 4.0 QPAs,sky high SATs & lots of AP classes

Using your example of Harvard, it is extremely competitive - usually ranked as the most competitive - to even be admitted. Except for the aforementioned legacies, only the very brightest of students even apply. And then only about 6% of them get admitted. The school's description of "average financial aid package" is not quite up front because it refers to "scholarship holders" not all incoming freshmen. It does claim elsewhere that 60% get need-based scholarship, but still pay $12,000 per year. Only 20% of parents pay nothing. If a student is brilliant, and his/her parents are poor enough, he/she will get a world class education and the lifelong perks of having a degree from Harvard without having to assume debts of student loans.

Also, as is noted at the link you provided, Financial aid decisions are, of course, determined exclusively by each respective financial aid office, and students and families should take note that free tuition and "no contribution toward the cost of education" are two separate things. When free tuition cutoffs are highlighted on school websites, that typically means that room and board costs are still fees that families must pay.

Here's What Sleeping and Eating is Going to Cost You

Harvard University offers students both housing and dining options. The on-campus housing cost for a typical student was $9,009 in 2014 - 2015 and the cost for a typical meal plan was $5,660.

The following table outlines average expected costs at Harvard University for on-campus housing, meals and other expenses.
Expense On Campus
Room and Board $14,669
-- Housing $9,009
-- Meals $5,660
Other Living Expenses $2,643
Books and Supplies $1,000
Total $18,312
How Far Away Do You Live?
Don't forget to budget for travel! The cost to go to and from college can impact budgets quickly, especially if you travel during holidays and spring break.

http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/paying-for-college/room-and-board/#

IOW, even families w/incomes below $65,000 have to come up with $18,312, plus airfare/travel costs between home and campus.

In fact, approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing. No loans required.

Applicants - 37,307
Admitted - 2,080

Average financial aid package for freshman scholarship holders, 2015-2016
Total budget - $64,300

Parents’ contribution - $12,200 (19%)

Student asset and summer work expectation - $1,200 (2%)

Harvard, federal and outside scholarships- $48,800 (76%)

Term-time work expectation - $2,100 (3%)

[Chico Man]

120. I used the Ivy League as an example

I don't see anything wrong with scholarships based on merit or need - both of which exist today at all levels of higher education, from the Ivy League down.

[EndElectoral]

95. K&R - Her argument is inane. Rich kids primarily go to private schools anyway.

Besides why should children of wealthy people be punished here.

My guess is even if Bernie limited it to children of people who were not millionaires, HRC would object to it. How many children would be talking about here anyway that are children of millionaires at public schools?

[Carlo Marx]

96. Adam Johnson, writing for Alternet, posted a nice article regarding this absurd argument.

Says the same logic could apply to "K-12 education, public parks,roads, or any other public good."

The problem is the press. They Let Clinton say this garbage unchallenged during debates and forums. Debate analysis largely focuses on presentation; a well delivered, poised response triggers a pavlovian reaction from the punditocracy. Reagan beat Carter cause he repeated "there he goes again;Bush W bested Gore because he rolled his eyes during Bush's stammerings; Fiorina was the talk of the town during the fall debates for sounding articulate while she lied and lied. Same with Clinton. She forgets what political planet she's supposed to inhabit and throws around Henry Kissinger--and people in the audience clap.

[whereisjustice]

98. Hillary wants college exclusively for trust fund kiddies. That's her main Demographic at this point.

[santabill]

99. OK

OK

[Persondem]

101. Actually, YES IT DOES!!! I have no desire for my tax dollars spent to pay for 1%ers kids' education

You, know everything that comes out of Bernie's mouth is not 24k gold. Get a clue.

[seaotter]

105. Does she want to " means test" Social Security as well?

Corrupt , right wing, untrustworthy, untruthful .

[Gwhittey]

106. Rich Kids should not pay either.

If we are going to have Free College for all then we need to have free college for all. Hilary is actually BS with this line trying to act like she is for poor. Kinda hard to claim this when you make 9 million from a few speeches from banks(And much more from other) that have stolen money from poor people so could save their bonuses. But at least in 2007 Hillary did go to NASDAQ to tell them to stop it before they crashed the economy. Yup good idea go to company that all they do is facilitate trading of stocks to tell them stop doing sub prime loan fraud.

[delrem]

108. She has no clue.

It isn't part of what she was bought for.

How could anything remotely like that be compatible with her owners' wishes?
It makes no sense, when private profit is everything to her and she's presenting herself as a social justice warrior abstract from any debate about economic justice. She has to make do with the likes of David Brock.

Cool, isn't it, what unlimited money can do for Democratic politics?

[MoonchildCA]

111. All good points...

And honestly, I'm more than happy to pay for a 1%-er's kid's education, if that means 100 poor and middle class kids come along for the ride.

Hers is a ridiculous argument, on every level.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Riiiight. Just like they'll go to food banks and sleep under bridges 'cuz its free!

Not to mention parking their Beemers behind restaurants to dumpster dive.

[felix_numinous]

121. RW talking points

she sounds like a Republican, while the Republicans sound like Nazis, or dominionists or fascists.