
The high price of a free college education in Sweden - open-source-ux
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-high-price-of-a-free-college-education-in-sweden/276428/?single_page=true
======
charlesism
I don't see any content in that piece aside from:

\- University is free in Sweden.

\- Sweden has a high cost of living.

\- Young people in Southern Europe are more likely to live at home, though the
cause of this isn't clear.

The title and start of this article sound like the author has some sort of
agenda to promote, but there's so little substance that I still can't tell.

~~~
alderz
I think the article makes a point you are missing: early emancipation drives
baby-making and family unit formation, which is one of the biggest
sociological problems nowadays. This is the cause of student's debt, as they
don't live off their parents. The clickbait title misses the thesis
completely.

~~~
themartorana
In my circle of friends in the US - where we were from lower middle class
families, didn't live at home past 19, didn't get any college tuition help
from our families (there was none to give) and worked the entire time we were
in school, still taking on large amounts of debt, none of us had a baby below
30, and for most closer to 35.

In the reverse, kids that didn't leave home after high school (and seemed ill
prepared for the shock of the real world) seemed to have children much
younger, often while or shortly after attending community college, living with
their parents or just down the street.

My experience is highly anecdotal (and maybe stereotype-enforcing) and I would
think that it differs depending on where you're from as well (I'm from the
Northeast). But it's rather the opposite of this take-away.

------
pohungc
>College in Sweden is free. But rent isn't. And food isn't. Neither is the
beer

Those things aren't free in places where there is college tuition either.

------
seibelj
I have no comment, but that was a poorly written, rambling article. It's also
3 years old. The Atlantic usually has higher quality content.

------
zihotki
But they have a choice, they can live with parents till graduating or till
they get a descent job. If they want to have no debts they have a choice. If
they choose to move - that's their own choice.

~~~
charlesism
Or they can live in student housing, in a more affordable city than Stockholm.

------
markbnj
I wish this article were better written, but it makes some interesting points.
I think the headline title is a bit of click-bait, though, since the author
ultimately concludes that the Swedish method of financing higher education
works in the context of the broader social goals the programs are trying to
achieve.

------
dominotw
>College in Sweden is free. But rent isn't. And food isn't. Neither is the
beer .

Its common here in the US to have a part time job to pay for your expenses. Is
it not the case in sweden?

~~~
purplelobster
Some doing easier course work might. Engineering though? Mutually exclusive at
60+ hours a week workload

~~~
avs733
nonsense. I typically worked at least 30 hrs a week while a full time
engineering student. There were some semesters that I was TA'ing 15 or so
hours per week and working another 20-30. Honestly I did better then because I
was forced to focus on time management.

EDIT: I should add that a lot of this was by necessity because of American
college costs...but I look at it as a long term benefit for me personally.

~~~
Futurebot
1) Not everyone can do that, physically or mentally 2) Costs have increased so
much, wages have not kept up to allow that to be possible for most people:
[http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9220705/college-working-
map](http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9220705/college-working-map)

~~~
avs733
I totally agree with all of those points, I was just providing some anec-data
that it does happen.

I paid my tuition almost entirely through co-ops (6th month internships) and
then worked while in school to pay my day to day bills. I was also very lucky
to have a safety net from my parents if I needed it, although I didn't.

~~~
Futurebot
Having the "living and supportive family safety net" is definitely under-
appreciated as an advantage here in the US. Many who have it don't even
realize what an advantage it is.

------
Futurebot
It's true that Sweden/Finland don't do quite as well in this area as places
like Denmark
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Denmark)),
Germany, or France, all of which supply are fairly generous with living cost
grants for students.

Compared to US students, though, they're doing great.

------
lucb1e
In short: while there is no tuition, you often have to travel far (extremely
few people per square kilometer) to get to your school of choice, causing
almost everyone to move out, incurring high costs.

------
ikeboy
(2013)

------
realitycheckxxx
1\. College is not free. It is paid for by
parents/grandparents/relatives/friends of the end consumer through very high
taxes. It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call
something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing.
If the college wasn't labeled "free" and financed through high taxation, then
parents/grandparents/relatives/friends would have to pay it anyway if the end
consumer wants to go. So, they are paying whether the college is labeled as
"free" or not (either through high taxes or directly).

2\. The fact that college is labeled as "free", for the end consumer, makes
making bad decisions easier. So, you will see a lot of dumb people who are bad
at math, physics, computer science, chemistry, trades etc. going to these
"free" colleges to study some worthless bullcrap like sociology, psychology,
journalism, economics, gender studies, philosophy etc. That way, they will
waste a lot of tax dollars and what do taxpayers get in return? Nothing. They
get arrogant and entitled dummies who might become
socialists/communists/feminists/feel_the_bern and bitch about nonsense and how
the world is unfair, when in fact they are the parasites. You'll see some of
them becoming 'diversity officers' or government bureaucrats sucking even more
tax dollars.

~~~
guard-of-terra
You are assuming that most people are "stupid" and therefore not qualified to
study at college. That reeks of highly stratified society like the USA is.

I guess nordic coutries just consider that most people are good enough for
high education and high education should be able to teach all these people.
And nordic countries tend to ace it; they are at the top of all the "human
capital quality" ratings.

~~~
realitycheckxxx
No, no... I didn't write that most people are stupid (where did you read
that?). I wrote that there are certain people who, when given the opportunity
to study something for free, will pick really bad majors, like sociology,
anthropology etc. Then, those people will have a hard time finding productive
employment and some of them might even join the bloated public sector and suck
even more tax dollars. The existence of those people doesn't benefit society.
Also, they will be heavily politically indoctrinated in leftist
ideologies(socialism, communism, modern feminism) that promote wealth
redistribution. Why is that appealing to sociology/anthropology majors?
Because they are incompetent parasites who don't participate in production
chain of anything they consume. So, they attach themselves to ideologies that
promote wealth distribution from producers to parasites, all disguised as
feminism/anti-oppression/progressivism etc.

~~~
Pica_soO
psychology is a quack science about boxing in stereotyped people social
sciences is basically a field waiting to start existing once neurology is done
mapping the human brains (yes, there is not only one, those things described
as diseases are just part of the species).

But anthropology, how is that not a solid field? It has a clear cut topic, it
has ongoing discussions and has brought us evidence backed up theory's like
evolution.

The irony is none the less, that something like a john doe who majored in
sociology blogging about the basic income might be more useful in the long run
then a john doe working in a steel mill, waiting for a robot to replace him.

Disclaimer: Im in robotics, but ventured into a lot of other fields out of
pure interest. TL,DR - Conclusion: If it feels right - its usually wrong, or
has a thousand edge cases.

