> Even if they did, their experience “would be accreted to our brand, our reputation and our business,” Howard D. Schultz, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said in an interview. “I believe it will lower attrition, it’ll increase performance, it’ll attract and retain better people.”
This is pretty good long-term thinking on Starbucks' part...On one-hand, there's the obvious cost...on the other, I imagine that a significant number of the best, too-qualified-to-be-just-a-barista baristas leave after two or so years, anyway. Now that there's an extra benefit to joining Starbucks, SB could conceivably attract a higher number of higher-quality non-careerists without a substantially greater attrition in workforce loss.
Besides the cost, another downside for Starbucks is that, OK, maybe your part-time studying baristas won't be so on-task...Maybe, but I doubt it. High-achievers stuck in mundane jobs may not perform to their potential...but these aren't people "stuck" as being bariatas. They purportedly agreed to become baristas with the expectation of getting a degree and then a "real" job...when you have that kind of open path in front of you, you're not as susceptible to low morale on the job. At least that's been in my experience, where I loved doing labor jobs in the summer between school years.
Once when I was in SB, the doors to the personnel room were open and I saw bunch of hand drawn things, hand written colourful weekly goals (rather than just printed), etc. That shows their, management people, approach and goals.
So I think this decision fits in pretty well in their long term mission.
Marx called this the "reserve army of labor."
#Edit, yeah for some odd reason this opinion isn't flying so well with someone on HN. I am disappointed, I figured people are reasonable and can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of. Perhaps people would rather they bring a child into this world, innocent and naive, and then throw it to the wolves while crying to the state to fix a problem they created and inflicted on an innocent? Shame on you.
Now does that really seem like an unreasonable number of children for a couple to have? I mean if 1 or 2 children are too much for the average family, do you suggest that only the extremely wealthy should reproduce?
So i suppose people are downvoting you because they feel that your comment isn't a reasonable debate, but is more of an irrelevant rant.
And let's be honest, most poor people do not have the resources, or healthy social support structures from family to raise a healthy adult through childhood. I'm all for communities taking care of those in need, and those who end up having kids they can't take care of. But we all need to understand that it is reckless behavior on the part of those that create those children knowing full well that they can not take care of them like they deserve.
There are plenty of poor people with resources and healthy social support structures. There are entire countries full of them. Being poor and being part of a fractured social structure are different, while overlapping. US law and society nudge them ever closer but that's our problem -- it's not part of the human condition.
IF you think it can't ever happen to you, you are wrong.
Or are you prepared to accept that some people with seemingly stable jobs have children and make plans and start saving but that stuff happens and those people end up in difficult situations?
Sure, if you can't care for kids don't make 'em. But if you're going to demonize what sounds like a broad swath of the population, you'd best define the crux of your proposition, to wit "care for".
If the parents need to ask for assistance from the state for basic things such as the items above, then I'd argue that they're not able to take care of children. Most of the items are given to them by the state anyways, and they still don't "manage".
I have a question - have you ever sat down and actually talked to more than one poor person?
So, let's skip all that, and you tell me what your actual point/argument is?
>give a good education to my spawn
>can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of
So you are useless if you don't have a college education? Doomed to poverty and failure? And that not being able to afford college (of all things) constitutes "can't take care of?" That's the implication.
Personally I think too many people have a college education.
It's kind of like saying there's nothing warm and fuzzy about people doing volunteer work because they ultimately derive self-satisfaction from it.
You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the profit-motive.
I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this is happening.
This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value proposition is one of win/win/win.
Vast majority, really?
Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.
Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In that case, he "wins".
Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win".
And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid, low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins".
This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a "win" for more people.
'fun' dress code is only fun when the person wants to dress in that manner.
Schultz's comments lead me to believe that he's well aware of In N Out's model.
Proud to be a Sun Devil.
From the AZ Constitution:
Article 11, Section 6
Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible. The legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be established and maintained in every school district for at least six months in each year, which school shall be open to all pupils between the ages of six and twenty-one years.
Edit: Made the point more clear.
The University of Arizona (a different school) is one of the top public state universities in the country when it comes to research. The astronomy and anthropology programs at UA for example are among the best graduate programs in the nation. It contributes a great deal to science and the education of the population. So where ever you got your facts from are simply wrong. I'm guessing you just sat there and conjectured on it based on the kind of thing the media likes to bring up when it comes to Arizona.
Arizona is a magnificent state, and it contributes a great deal to this country and is home to a very diverse set of people. A great portion of the Navajo nation resides in Arizona, as well as Apache and other tribes. A large amount of immigration comes in from Mexico and from international students that attend at Arizona's universities and work at Arizona based companies. Arizona is also a huge state for the military and tourism. Beautiful deserts, the Grand Canyon, sweeping vistas of Sedona, and the unimaginably beautiful north eastern part of Arizona are things you shouldn't miss in this short life.
However, if you include online universities, the University of Phoenix is bigger. And if you allow lumping of multiple campuses together, Penn State is bigger. But even then, ASU is #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_United_Stat...
ASU president Michael Crow is profiled positively as one of the more progressive thinkers in higher ed the 2013 book College Unbound: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544027078/ref=as_li_tf_tl?... I wouldn't be surprised if ASU went on to work out a deal with other big retailers that employ a lot of people who haven't finished college yet. ASU's marginal costs will continue to fall as they get more students into the pipes. Walmart, McDonalds and other large employers could be next to partner with them.
Is it somehow evil to boost education cost-effectively?
Pretty sure the OP feels that education at a low marginal cost is a fantastically positive thing.
I write to share an update on our evolution as a 21st century public research university. As you know, ASU is a New American University uniquely committed to the simultaneous achievement of excellence, access and impact. As we move forward, we will continue to balance scholarship, discovery and the development of real world solutions on a grand scale, while remaining true to our vision of inclusion and student success. Institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to go beyond imagining change and instead bring workable answers to fruition. ASU has demonstrated its ability to do so successfully and we will maintain that trajectory. On Monday, June 16, we introduce the world to the Starbucks College Achievement Plan.
The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is the combined vision of Arizona State University and one of the world’s most trusted, innovative and socially conscious companies. Together, we will offer leading education delivered online with world class faculty and personalized instruction to students who would like to continue their journey in higher education. This model is a unique partnership designed to increase access for more students to earn and finish a college degree, and is based on Starbucks’ and ASU’s shared values.
On June 16, we will join Starbucks as they host their first ever Partner Family Forum in the U.S. to announce the Starbucks College Achievement Plan with hundreds of their partners and family members in New York at the Times Center. Watch the webcast on June 16 beginning at 7:45 a.m. PT, 10:45 a.m. ET by visiting starbucks.com/collegeplan. I also encourage you to watch the video of what this means to Starbucks partners by visiting starbucks.asu.edu.
The Starbucks College Achievement Plan is supportive of our vision to be measured not by who we exclude, but rather by who we include and how they succeed and moves toward our goal of enrolling 100,000 online and distance education degree seeking students.
This is a program we can all be proud of, and I look forward to your support as together we continue to increase access to world class higher education.
Michael M. Crow
Arizona State University
Lets hope that other large employers offer similar arrangements for their employees (be they skilled or unskilled)
The US federal government? When was that?
Pretty straight forward and to the point, right? So simply point to the article in the Constitution where the Fed is supposed to fund education, and we'll be on the same page.
Otherwise, it's completely up to each state to tax and spend how they see fit. Any state that wants can make the choice, and I think it's a great system where we can freely move to any state which taxes and spends to our individual liking. If only the Fed could ease up a little bit, rather than still running a deficit while collecting more money than they ever have before even in inflation adjusted dollars ...
Aside from the technical considerations of the Constitution, if you take a quick look at the New York Fed published slide deck  on trends in college loans, you can learn a lot about how much the Fed is already subsidizing the college industry and "footing the bill" indeed since a large percentage of these loans will never be repaid. They can't ever be repaid, because too many recipients of these loans don't actually gain anywhere near the marketable skills necessary to cover the cost of tuition.
 - http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lightb...
 - http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/mediaadvisory/2013/Lee0...
I don't know about "supposed" to, but the federal government is certainly "able to" fund education.
There is the General Welfare Clause that affords powers to tax and approriate revenue:
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
And of course, the Necessary and Proper clause:
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Ultimately, however, the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, not lay-persons, so you really can't just say that it's "straight forward and to the point" without addressing any case law on the subject.
I'd be open to free education for all if the schools would pare back on administration and extravagance (since there's a strong argument that taxpayer dollars can be well-spent educating a workforce, but not a strong argument that taxpayers should be funding educations at the equivalent of an all-inclusive resort). I'd be even more open to taking the federal financial aid budget and distribute it to schools with a mandate that it be distributed in the form of grants and financial aid, so that in order to maintain their quality of life, they'll be forced to work to actually generated positive outcomes for all of their students, rather than following and promoting the successes and ignoring the rest.
These are serious questions.
(*insert caveat that it's hard to really compare national governments when a single US state can have a larger population to manage than an entire European country)
The federal government's attempts to do this are the primary reason college tuition price increases have drastically outstripped inflation since the modern student loan system. When a lender will provide essentially unlimited money to unqualified borrowers to spend at a third party, the third party is incentivized to raise prices. And the horrible consequence of this is that to combat this, politicians have essentially just made those federal loan terms more onerous on borrowers, under the naive belief that most of those taking out large quantities of student loans are sophisticated enough to understand the burden they put on themselves by taking out unsecured debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (and this should have been painfully obvious, given that credit card companies have been preying on unsophisticated college students for decades).
I was one of those unsophisticated young people, but I (luckily) got out before I spent a truly life-ruining amount of money on a degree I had no plans to use.
I'm not saying everyone should get a blank check for college the moment they're born in the US, but if the only thing keeping a kid from getting to a university is their ability to afford it, that's a problem, and it sounds like a growing one.
There is this growing contrarian sentiment—particularly in the HN and Reddit communities—that "college isn't for everyone". The college industrial complex aside, I cannot see how further education—particularly through programs like this one—could ever be a bad thing. After all, education is the silver bullet.
Opportunity costs for one.
If the person choosing what to do with their life is able to see an existing opportunity which is better than education then they should choose it, why would they not?
But if they are unable to see such opportunities then choosing to become more educated is not a bad choice provided as is the case in this situation that it does not present an additional financial burden.
One could even argue that the set of options one should consider when weighing opportunity cost should only be composed of the options to which the decision maker is aware (can reasonably be expected to become aware) of.
You aren't taking into consideration opportunity costs. I spend 4 years at school to get a Spanish degree that doesn't cost anything for me to go. Now I have a Spanish degree and I have exactly the same job as I could have gotten before the degree. I've wasted 4 years where I could have been making a salary, pursuing hobbies, raising children, etc.
We shouldn't be like:
1) Take a class/get a degree in anything with no plan whatsoever.
I specifically said:
"is able to see an existing opportunity which is better than education then they should choose it, why would they not?"
So you chose Education presumably because you thought getting a Spanish degree was a better option than those others, therefore you viewed the other options as having the opportunity cost. In which case you may have been bad at estimating benefit, or perhaps the choices you were trying to value were simply too unpredictable, but you followed the idea of opportunity cost correctly.
Or even worse you knew those options were better and you chose an option you recognized as worse, in which case WHY?
Opportunity cost is not a synonym for hindsight it is about weighing two decisions with information you have available (or can have) at the time.
Edit: Also now you know Spanish which should bring you as a person some level of enjoyment, and is therefore a benefit. If not I wonder why you would of kept studying it.
There are tons of people out there with an education but not very enlightened about things. I hate analogies, but I've met several people over the course of my short life with degrees who have absolutely worthless educations. They racked up debt to work unskilled jobs, and complain why companies don't want to hire them with no experience, internships and lackluster academic records.
I know the paper makes people feel good, but at what point is our society going to start rejecting the feelgood, everybody wins attitude? You should not have to have a college education to have a good life or populace (look at America early 1900s and all the modern luxuries that exist today from that time period). Trades, entrepreneurship, etc are all alternative good paths that should be encouraged. College educations are nice, but there is a pretty long list of people who did not complete or even reach college who are successful and making contributions to society:
Also people with college are not necessarily better than people without college, that is an offensive view and very disrespectful to the millions of people without college educations who have done great things for this country and all over the world. Yes education is great (college is not the sole source of education), but one has to appreciate and work hard at their education to really claim that they are 'educated'.
You're so right and I can't upvote you enough. I hear people all the time talking about how much of a loser they are for not going to college. These are people are smart, have life skills, AND job skills, AND a steady income. Many even do skilled labor. Their jobs just didn't require 4 years in the classroom.
HELLO? Is this unstated assumption really good for society?
And there's my sister who has a college education and no life skills OR job skills.
Just because one gets a college education does not mean they leave enlightened and educated OR that they will maintain their education through their life. An ASU online education, especially, will not ensure that people are education, credentialed sure, but definitely not educated, and I say this as an ASU student myself. They are always trying to get more and more people through the doors, we have a high acceptance rate but strangely enough we are a top school for recruiting.
Is she dead? If not, how do you know she will never use her degree? (Apart from probably being a better parent by virtue of being more educated, and so probably be a better educational aid to her child (ren)).
I have been in school for a while to see older people return to renew their education, and while it's good that they are, it is very sad and cringeworthy sometimes. When they are using computers, or trying to work through material they struggle much more than their younger peers, and on top of that they have liabilities and kids/family to take care of, add that with age discrimination today on top of the ridiculous job requirements, you can feel their slight bursts of hopelessness, trapped in a world that has moved very far ahead of them. ='(
Maybe they find a cieling - there is a limmit to how much highschool teachers get paid, and also by definintion only a small proportion get to be principal.
I think you are writing from a mindset where people make progress from 18 -> 65 and sign they 'are less' than a younger person is tragic failiure.
Instead, remember those people retraining are the most willing to change. They are happier to step back to entry level in a new career than be stuck higher up in a dead end or dieing role. Hope you are like those people.
I guess i'm trying to convince you to let go of that mindset. Some day your life will go a bit wrong, happens to everyone. And if you are realistic and forgiving about what you expect from yourself, the blow won't knock you down.
Now, the acquisition of a degree might or might not be everything we think it is, where “formal education” and “valuable learning” are perhaps-incorrectly equated. But if we assume that college is economically valuable, having more people educated seems hard to argue with.
Sending the unwilling to college doesn't work. I'd like to know what percentage of "the uncolleged" really want to go, will do what it takes, and intend to actually do something with it afterwards. Just showing up isn't enough, no amount of money will make people learn if they are not inclined to, and no range of opportunity will assure success if they don't actually work at work.
Free access to education is never a bad thing. They aren't forcing the employees to take it.
Oh is it?
That's a pretty outrageous statement. You're still a person if you don't go to college.
Furthermore, if those who go to college earn a greater share of the pie, then it is because they are more productive. If they are more productive, then the pie gets larger by going to college.
In fact, the fundamentals of pricing theory suggest that the value to an individual, in terms of compensation for greater productivity, tends to be the floor in how much it costs employers and therefore the aggregate economy. For example, if you acquire new skills that make you produce an extra 1M per year, then your change in compensation will not exceed a $1M increase if you are negotiating with sane and informed people.
Wait, you say that as if its a bad thing. Giving more people the means to fight over the pie is exactly what you'd want. In particular, you'd want to disconnect "already having a large piece" from "being able to fight over more", which is exactly what free education does.
That's not correct
>Entry-Level Education High school diploma or equivalent
I knew people who were working as a pharmacy tech as their high school job. You don't even need a certificate.
The two 'overrides' are choosing a field that allows demonstration of competency (programming, art, writing, etc.), and a network of referrals. Even with demonstrations, you may get passed up for someone with a degree.
Its a hard problem.
A quick, good read that may show you how deep valuing the individual in Starbucks goes.
By and large, companies are only going to make decisions that positively impact their bottom line, and sometimes it just so happens that those decisions align with the best interest of their employees. This is definitely one of those moments. Not to say that Starbucks' intentions aren't genuine, but it's hard to ignore the obvious positive impact this is going to have for them. I always wonder about what matters more to these companies (employee welfare or their bottom line), but I guess it doesn't much matter if the employees are happier and better off for it in the end.
Are there any existing tax benefits for educating your workers? That might be the next govt involved step here.
On the other hand, you'll find Libertarians like me. We're pissed off because the government is taking our tax-money on the pretense of fixing these issues, and has nothing to show for it. These are all problems that we expect to be fixed using our money, and yet it's not happening. It just get's dragged along, year after year, election after election. Meanwhile, millions and billions (or whichever amount) is spent on useless endeavors such as foreign intervention/meddling, and wars.
contributing to the GDP is synonymous with the basic function of any business. employing people is synonymous with the basic function of any business.
large corporations shouldn't be allowed to flaut their tax bill, while paying people minimum-wage-or-close-to-it, simply because they are a large part of the economy.
starbucks is not a non-profit. all of those activities are great, but this is kind of like saying that your heart does so much work in moving blood around that it does not need to oxygenate your blood.
Large corporations don't flout their tax bill. The imputation that they do is absurd, as doing so would result in jail time for those in charge. They take whatever deductions they can (just as you surely do on your tax bill), leveraging options to reduce it toward zero. Those deductions are, on the whole, enacted because some socioeconomic benefit comes of that deductible activity (some surely debatable, but some justification resulted in legislating the deduction). So while my example of employment & GDP contributions may not "qualify" to you (I'll leave you to contemplate a loss of 150,000 jobs and $14B of GDP), you've refined my argument to observe that by demanding greater tax payment you're (by consequence) demanding an end to incentivizing socioeconomic contributions which corporations make for the purpose of lowering their tax bill. Raising Starbucks' taxes from an assumed $0 to, what, $5,000,000,000 ... the equivalent of twice their employee base cumulative salary (at minimum-wage-or-close-to-it); eliminating deductions to force Starbucks to no longer "flout their tax bill" would not just end the good done by engaging in those deductible behaviors, but would also result in ejecting a large part of their workforce. You cannot ignore the socioeconomic good of employing so many and earning so much, nor ignore the good done (abiding with legislated incentives!) to reduce tax burden, and continue to blindly demand "fairness" as if increasing tax revenue won't have negative consequences.
You'll probably be likewise outraged to know that I've zeroed out my state tax liability this year. I wouldn't have leased an electric car if not for that deduction; would you rather the state have the deducted amount, or replace a smog-spewing old Jeep with a zero emissions vehicle?
As for your analogy: the heart doesn't oxygenate blood, its sole purpose IS to move blood, and somehow punishing it for not oxygenating while ignoring the service of pumping is just downright stupid.
A very good initiative.
While it is good for their employees having companies pay college costs long term could turn out bad as using our health care system as an example, when the costs of something are not fully realized by the users the costs tend to increase disproportionally to inflation
What the government can do and may need to do is establish an online standardized two year degree. Something that can be done online except perhaps for final testing which would then be held at a local facility. Basically expend the funds to develop the courses, online environment, and testing, and give it away to all US citizens for free. It certainly would not cost anywhere near what was paid just for all incarnations of the ACA websites.
After the two year students could transition to paid college services, it might help weed out all those who truly don't need a specialized degree or four years of education
Employer paid education could turn out like employer paid health care
Government should create for free a standardized two year degree program for online education
And if society determines that one effective way to ensure that all people, even those of limited means, have an opportunity to receive an education, is to devote public dollars toward the effort, I see no reason why we can't say that, by proxy, it is the government's job to educate people.
(Personally, though, I would like to see the government's role as being primarily the benefactor and not the administrator or provider of education.)
As an aside, adding the words "full stop" to a statement may communicate extra intensity, but it doesn't excuse you from having to provide evidence to back up what you say.
I would agree that it is not "the government"'s job to provide education, since there is no valid reason to use force / aggression as part of educating people.
You're right, Phil. That's ONE of the mechanisms society uses to accomplish things. That's not the only mechanism, and it's certainly not the appropriate mechanism for many things.
I'll give you a concrete example.
In my state, the Department of Transportation only plows snow from arterial roads, not from neighborhood roads. In order to get snow plowed on a neighborhood street, residents have to organize a civic association that collects dues, and those dues are used to pay for plowing; the state then reimburses the civic association for a portion of its expenses. But because membership in the civic associations is entirely voluntary, we end up with a 30 percent participation rate. My share of the dues, in effect, pays for not only myself but two of my neighbors who aren't willing to pay their fare share.
That is ridiculous. It is a perfect example of a case in which it is simpler and fairer for a couple of bucks to be added to each household's property taxes and have the plowing be publicly funded (although it could still be privately plowed).
Furthermore, the idea that the only role of the government is in situations where force is necessary is pretty darn limited. You might have a case if you're talking about national government, but I imagine that the bulk of the tasks your municipal government takes care of, outside of police work proper, don't require acts of aggression.
In a truly free society, there would be no such thing as "public property". It would all be private, and usage of that road would have to be paid for by those that want to use it. And the owner of said private property would maintain that property such that it would provide value for all those that wish to pay for usage of it.
Did you ever consider that maybe those individuals on those houses don't use those roads? Maybe they walk, bicycle, or are plain hermits? (Odds are they aren't, but I'm sure there are a few). You want to work with absolutes, and then deny that aggression is present. Do you want to argue that taking money from someone in return for something they don't use is not aggression? How about a thief taking money from your wallet on the counter, and then handing you a sack of grain in return? Would you say that's not aggression?
So I think it's fair to say that a public system has drawbacks but being generally less free than a private system is definitely not the case.
Tis called the "Free Rider Problem." Governments are constantly trying to solve it.
Those, on the other hand, who want the public to remain manipulatable will continue try to limit education to the wealthier percentage.
...We could just as easily act like, say, Jamaica, in the township of Treasure Beach, where the government does not educate the children, leaving them to farm ackee, sell souvenirs on the beach and fish for a living.
However, the government is under our control, and as a group, our collective people who came before us figured out it was extremely valuable to educate people. And since then, every generation has valued education even more.
So, even if your personal values preclude the government from educating people and you prefer aristocracy and a severe gap between peasants and oligarchy, you are fortunately vastly outnumbered by others who believe in either a. a chance at equality, or b. the power of educated as a group for promoting the nation's interests.
Your redefinition makes your point irrelevant to the argument made.
And yet despite free education(and free healthcare for everyone) we managed to be the ONLY country in the entire European Union to not enter into recession - while every other country was going into negative numbers,we managed to maintain positive growth.
So, if free education in the US would collapse your finances, then there is something seriously wrong with either the cost of the education(which is seriously inflated and disproportionate for what it's offering) or your government has wrong spending priorities.
To cover the costs of just the students part will cost a whopping 298 Billion per year. This does not include the budgets already allocated to college institutions, etc, but should also note that we would be trading for $107B in student loans, and around $3B in grants, however the price is still more than double the current budget.
Also note that the US's government currently has a massive deficit and military spending will not be going anywhere soon as the US guarantees global stability and has many threats it needs to protect itself from seeing that it is the world's largest economy and most powerful nation as well. The US is also the guarantor of international law on the seas, in the air, and on ground, so much of the defense budget is more than pork. Maybe we could squeeze $100 billion in one year from defense from cutting costs, which will never happen if we are all realistic about the situation.
Also the US has $17 trillion dollars in debt which is not nothing to scoff at seeing that down the line we will have massive problems with entitlements and healthcare. Before we try to expand any program we must first tackle the current problems with the budget that is headed for collapse, then focus on paying down our debts, after which we can begin expanding programs.
Not criticizing, just curious.
In comparison, my BSc at TU Berlin cost me 6 * 240 €, which includes free access to Berlin’s public transport system. And while the financial state of Berlin is certainly far from perfect, I wouldn’t call it ‘collapsed’ (oh, and I get the impression that a college education in the US is more like a high school degree in Germany and not directly comparable to a proper university degree…any comments/similar observations?)
You got the wrong impression. Not a little wrong. A lot wrong. The US has many top-flight schools. And I'm not talking about the Ivies, either. I'm talking about small schools that excel by every authentic educational metric (student-teacher ratio, research excellence, undergrads who go on to graduate work and PhDs, etc).
Perhaps after you do that, it'll be a good idea for anyone to dignify that question.
for the physics degree at Arizona state. It doesn’t seem to have a bachelor thesis or comparable work, it has about 50% stuff which has nothing whatsoever to do with physics (e.g. “Humanities, Fine Arts and Design (HU) AND Historical Awareness (H)”) and its physics courses seem end with things like “PHY 302: Mathematical Methods in Physics II“, which contains “complex variables”, “PHY 311: Classical Particles, Fields, and Matter II“, with “Faraday’s Law” and just a single QM course “PHY 314: Quantum Physics I” which only mentions wave mechanics, but makes no mention of perturbation theory, matrix mechanics or the standard Hilbert space approach with Dirac notation.
Especially the 50%-or-so of liberal arts, historical awareness etc. seem to be more appropriately placed in a high school degree than in a college degree, and things like complex variables shouldn’t require introduction in term five either.
I studied for a year at ASU (computer science) and found there's not much difference between low-level courses and pre-diploma courses in Germany. A master's dregree in the US is more or less comparable to a diploma.
Also: Do you compare the former 13 years of school in Germany or the new 12-year period of school with the American education system?
My guess is, the comparatively extremely high military budget  is the actual culprit.
THAT is what is collapsing our government's finances. Sending young people off to die, largely protecting corporate interests, and when they return not only can they not afford education, but they have a 1+ year waiting list for basic health care.
Free, useless education is costly, but in the long run, useful education works to the benefit of governments.
Sure, it will help Starbucks recruit college-oriented more ambitious employees, and that's what they want. Fine.
This is no solution for society overall, but it's a good thing for what it is.
Firstly i don't think "taxpayer's money" is an accurate description as they aren't exactly using the money we pay as tax. Instead they are deciding how their tax money is used. Not that i support tax avoidance or anything, but if a certain sum of money is being used to provide a large number of people with free college education, I don't really see how the govt can make better use of it. ok i guess there are better uses but this isn't exactly a bad spend is it?
When they pay no tax, they have an unfair anticompetitive advantage against businesses that do. Other taxpayers have to make up the balance.
The fact they are now gifting a fraction back and looking of kudos just vexes me more.
Hipster discussion aside, mad props to Starbucks - even if I'll still never drink that flavorless milky crap again. (I think Starbucks might be different here?)
College tuition is a very common perk in the cooperate world as long as you maintain your grades and study something related to your work.
>The program is open to any of the company’s 135,000 United States employees, provided they work at least 20 hours a week and have the grades and test scores to gain admission to Arizona State. For a barista with at least two years of college credit, the company will pay full tuition; for those with fewer credits it will pay part of the cost, but even for many of them, courses will be free, with government and university aid.
If the pie is continuously shrinking, and the supply of people with credentials (and related massive debt) is continuously expanding, this outcome seems fairly inevitable.
Most of the bartenders / waitresses I know have a degree in something. Maybe not a STEM field, but a degree of some sort. It is uncontroversial that there are unemployed people with degrees, so it should be no surprise there are massively underemployed degree holders.