What do you think of mandatory 4 years of military service followed by 4 years of free education?

They should have never went away from old school basic. South Korea has it figured out, they serve however long their basic and AIT, plus to years active duty, eight years reserves, one month of training for each of those eight years, during the reserve time there college is paid for as long as they pass the entrance exam.

Outside of making it mandatory, how is this different than what we have now?

Do 3 years, get GI Bill that pays for 36 months of school (4 years of actual enrollment or compressed to 3 to include summer semesters).

I think if we had the military of old, where misbehaving privates got the crap bet out of them, then mandatory service is the right answer. However, in this day and age of a seemingly kinder, gentler, and more coddling military, this would never work as discipline would go through the floor.

Also, parents do not want to be parents to their kids now, as it is. The want to be their kids' best friends. This is the primary reason why kids are no longer disciplined at home, besides a lot of misinformation about discipline being abuse. This is why kids today are as horrible as thy are and feel entitled to everything. Their parents gave in too much. The parents would be more than willing to hand over their kids to the military to do the job they couldn't/didn't want to do. With the military now, I believe it would be a nightmare.

Mandatory military service goes against everything we stand for as a nation. A volunteer military ensures a much higher chance of harvesting more disciplined troops too.

In 1973 the United States ended mandatory military conscription known as “the Draft” and went to an all-voluntary-force. (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.). With current United States military involvement in combat operations in the Middle East there has been a debate, if the United States should remain an all voluntary force or reinstate mandatory military conscription. The current all voluntary force is the best trained, best equipped and best lead force in the world, reinstating the draft would reduce force quality, the way the military fights and there is a contingency system in place for extreme emergencies called Selective Service System.
Reinstating mandatory military conscription would reduce the quality of the members of current force. Since 1990 the Military has had over 90% of its members having High School Diplomas, and the other 10% having G.E.Ds, while the same age group of the general United States population has an 80% high school diplomas. (The All-Volunteer, 2007, p. 14). Current and future military complex than previous conflicts. The enemy may or may not be dress in uniforms, it may or may not be state supported. With the current speed of modern media, tactical actions can have static consequences. Actions from by Soldiers in Abu Ghraib (Saletan, 2004) and Marines urinating on dead Taliban terrorist (FERRAN, 2013) have strategic consequences. The lack of discipline, training and education that a conscripted force has demonstrated over the years would have even more of these types of actions which have strategic consequences.
Currently when personnel enlist in the armed forces, every one enlists for eight years. They may not serve on active duty for eight years, but they serve either on active duty, in the reserves, in the National Guard or on Inactive Ready Reserves for a combination of eight years. Mandatory conscription is only for two-year tours of duty (the obligation specified in the Military Selective Service Act (The All-Volunteer, 2007), with some skills requiring training over 12 months, deployment of conscripts would be for one year or less. This gives the Military less flexibility in keeping units deployed due to mission requirements. Units would also have difficulty conducting collective training as a unit before they deploy to combat area. Members with critical skills and experiences will be lost at a high rate with conscription than an all voluntary force.
In 1980, Congress re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System. Currently, male U.S. citizens and many male aliens living in the U.S., if age 18 through 25, are required to register with the Selective Service System, which describes its mission as "...to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by conscripting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis." (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.) In 1981 several men filed suite stating that the Selective Service System violated the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, because of due process, because women were excluded. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the Act, stating that Congress's," that "since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress' decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause," (http://www.selectiveservice.us/, n.d.) officially recognized that the requirement that only men register with the SSS is unequal, but that the military had the right to enforce this inequality. Now as the military is directed to integrate women into combat roles, the Selective Services Systems should be made to include women in its registration. The Selective Service is the contingency plan if the all voluntary service cannot meet the national defense requirements.
The military should continue with the current all-volunteer force. Reinstating military conscription would impact the military operations, skill sets, discipline and quality. There are contingency plans in place with the Selective Service System if there is a National Emergency and the all voluntary force is not sufficient. “President Ronald Reagan …stated that a draft is at odds with fundamental democratic or moral principles…and equated it with involuntary servitude.” (The All-Volunteer, 2007, p. VII)
 
References
FERRAN, L. (2013, July 17). Marine Who Urinated on Taliban Dead Says He'd Do It Again. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from abcnews.go.com: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/marine-urinated-taliban-dead-hed/story?id=19687916
Garamone, J. (n.d.). Recruit Quality Remains High. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from usmilitary.about.com/: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitquality.htm
http://www.selectiveservice.us/. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.selectiveservice.us/: http://www.selectiveservice.us/
Saletan, W. (2004, May 12). Situationist Ethics. Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.slate.com: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2004/05/situationist_ethics.html
The All-Volunteer. (2007, July). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from http://www.cbo.gov: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8313/07-19-militaryvol.pdf

Terrible idea.

Problematical. I had a Draft Number of "2" so I had to do something military. I remember about the whiners who were looking to do anything not to be drafted. There was a good percentage of them. There'd be a lot more but the culture was different then when you had millions of WW-2 and Korea Vet dads that a kid would have to face. It wasn't pretty sometimes but I believe parents made the draft work then.

Those parents are gone today, being replaced by most having no memory of anything military other than it looked bad on TV. So the notion of anything "mandatory" just won't get any viable traction unless the situation strikes too close to home.

I had the old GI Bill which paid for my masters at USC. I wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Maybe we should flip the question. How about 4 years of college, trade through journeyman, technical, etc. for which 4 years of service would be required afterward. Our problem is benefits that encourage people to get out as much as get in. Something to think about. We already do a small version of it, the Military Academies.

One of the most prominent reasons our military is the best in the world is because every single person serving voluntarily raised their right hand. Once we lose that we lose our edge.

Instead of 4 years it should only be 2 years. Other countries like Germany and Isreal it is mandatory that when you graduate high school to serve a minimum of 2 years. Granted yes those countries are smaller, but that is why you would have a physical screening during high school. As far as the benefits I would say they would need to do a minimum of 4 years to receive the benefits we receive toady

There's more than enough people who don't want to be in, but can't get out because of the ridiculous one sided out clause in our contracts now. I'm talking the Army can say for basically whatever reason that they want out of the contract, but you can't. Mandatory service just makes that issue, and every other one associated with it, worse.