Home | About | Donate

Why I Introduced the College for All Act


Why I Introduced the College for All Act

Pramila Jayapal

I came to this country as an immigrant from India to go to college. My parents used all their savings to send me here because they knew what we all know and what we all tell our kids: if you want a good job, you’ll need more than a high school education. Whether it’s a two-year, a four-year or a vocational institute, the reality is that in today’s world, you must get more than a high school diploma.


After they freed the slaves, the 1% had to create a new slavery paradigm, so debt slavery became the hub of the US educational and medical systems.


Would that the House and Senate could be populated with Pramilas and Bernies...our nation, our environment, our people would thrive and feel so very secure about the future of our planet!

Their messages resonate nationwide and I love them for it!!!


It is the fault of the colleges themselves. The cost of college AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION has gone up by a factor of 4x since 1971. If colleges focused on their core services instead of adding countless layers of administration, dorms that put luxury apartments to shame, etc. etc. we wouldn't be facing a "cost of education" crisis. When a law school professor can make $300,000 for teaching ONE CLASS (thank you Liz Warren!) you know the problem is with the schools, not the funding.

Schools have no incentive to keep their costs down as long as people are willing to become debt slaves to get their degree.


The bill is what we should be doing as soon as possible. We need to get the banks out of this. The federal government should refinance these loans at no more than 4% well more that what the federal government borrows money at.


You can't argue with anything that she says, but there will be people who will. Those people are ones who profit off of student debt or who don't want to see other people "not like them" get ahead.


Spoken like a true blue elite who has no acquaintance with how universities work.

  1. Teaching isn't the only thing that universities do. Research and outreach are important parts equal or more important than teaching.

  2. The old shibboleth about luxury apartments for student housing exists only in the minds of those who don't know what they're talking about.

  3. While there are added layers of administration, many of them have become necessary because of the way our society has changed. Things like suicide prevention and mental health care are important. So are medical services. So are opportunities to have experiences out of the comfort zone. And many more. If you want to complain about expensive programs, think athletics. Even with TV contracts, only the few top schools come out in the black.


Aggie, sorry, but I've been a teacher...

  1. The purpose of a school is to TEACH. Why should students, who are coming to get an education, be expected to subsidize "outreach and research". They are there to learn.

  2. I look at my college today, and what was provided when I attended. The facilities are much better today than they were then.

  3. I agree we don't need athletics. We also don't need 17 associate deans for everything under the sun, we don't need suicide prevention and student sensitivity training and all the garbage beyond actual education. As for experiences outside their comfort zone, too many colleges have decided that the poor little snowflakes should NEVER be pushed outside their comfort zone. But that's another problem for another day.


The article is good except that it is pretty dated. A PhD. is no longer a guarantee of a job much less an undergraduate degree. Most people in twenty years from now simply won't have a job out there regardless of what their education is. On top of that, most professions like architecture, engineering and accounting are out sourced to other countries where labour is a fraction of what companies pay in the West.
When you travel to a country like Russia that has free universal higher education, everyone has a degree. Yet most people don't have a good job or a job remotely connected to their education. The point is that we need an alternative to the "just-get-a-degree-and-you-will-be-working" myth.
I still support free higher education as well as the important research many institutions provide, but unless we implement a system like universal basic income, don't expect education to be the panacea to free everyone from poverty. Instead a system like a post-secondary government employment program where every person who finishes high school could work for the government for a few years doing essential services like feeding the poor, caring for the disabled and sick, child care, building public housing and traveling abroad to help others would be ideal. At that point those institutions and individuals working there could better determine the type of education they need to advance further or to be of more use in a particular field. All of these ideas are required if we are to keep pace with an ever increasing planet of automation, permanent unemployment and our collective desire to end the culture of mass consumption.
Free education on the other hand without these types of social safety nets, will only result in producing more lawyers, more teachers and more architects in a society that is already saturated with these professions with no guarantee of a job in their field. If we really want to improve society as know it, we should be teaching everyone more about the political reality of our country and what they can do to restore and maintain a functioning democracy instead of patting ourselves on the back that our children are in school but will graduate with few opportunities to further themselves in their chosen field.


I agree with the athletics.