1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.
2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
Some Republican politican-or-other already answered that for you. He noted the expected increase in lifetime income from having an education, and said that even if we subtract 16K straight up, each individual would still benefit from having an education. If we accept that at face value, then the rational actor would still choose higher education, as long as the expected returns in the form of a higher income is "sufficiently" large, somewhat modified for the risk of not finding a job that pays the bills in your particular branch of study.
So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?
Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.
We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.
Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.
And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.
It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.
People are notoriously bad at acting rationally. It's been studied a bunch of times, but the most striking one I can remember is a study where they auctioned off a $20. It almost always sells for more than that.
The general setup is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
That doesn't make said legislation any less ridiculous or bad, but basing an argument on individuals being rational actors seems like a shaky foundation to begin with.
On a related note, I actually went to college at a school that advertised that it did not give out sports scholarships as a benefit of attending the school, with the reasoning behind it being stated as "if you're coming to college, come to study, not to get drafted." I don't know how that impacted academics at the school, but I do know we only scored 15 points across the 4 homecoming games I attended.
Run you pigeons, it's Robert Frost!
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.
2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
SKFM, that's a very limited view. Two thousand a year is a lot to many people. It was one fifth of my income for the last year. Most kids won't let it stop them, no, but it will saddle our best and brightest with more debt or stop them from getting the most out of their degree if they now have to take a second job.
Money is a thing to people. Two thousand a year isn't so bad, no, not in the big scheme of things. But to poor kids who are trying to get a leg up who just happen to not be athletes? Two thousand a year could break them.
People are notoriously bad at acting rationally. It's been studied a bunch of times, but the most striking one I can remember is a study where they auctioned off a $20. It almost always sells for more than that.
The general setup is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
That doesn't make said legislation any less ridiculous or bad, but basing an argument on individuals being rational actors seems like a shaky foundation to begin with.
On a related note, I actually went to college at a school that advertised that it did not give out sports scholarships as a benefit of attending the school, with the reasoning behind it being stated as "if you're coming to college, come to study, not to get drafted." I don't know how that impacted academics at the school, but I do know we only scored 15 points across the 4 homecoming games I attended.
A) The dollar auction is a sequential game where each player, acting rationally at each time step, causes the overall "utility" to decrease. It's not an example of how people fail to act rationally, it's an example of how acting rationally at each step leads to an outcome no player finds desireable. See also; The tyranny of small decisions.
I know people in general aren't quite as rational as theory might suggest, the point was that even if they did act that way as Rep. John Kavanagh so neatly suggested, he'd be still be full of shit as to what the outcome would be.
-This message was deviously brought to you by:
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.
2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
Some Republican politican-or-other already answered that for you. He noted the expected increase in lifetime income from having an education, and said that even if we subtract 16K straight up, each individual would still benefit from having an education. If we accept that at face value, then the rational actor would still choose higher education, as long as the expected returns in the form of a higher income is "sufficiently" large, somewhat modified for the risk of not finding a job that pays the bills in your particular branch of study.
So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?
Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.
We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.
Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.
And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.
It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
If I was forced to pay $2000 out of pocket to go to school, I wouldn't be going now. Period. And I currently have a 3.5 gpa halfway through my engineering degree at UW-Madison. It would be impossible for me to get that money any other way than a government handout or a ridiculously stupid loan from a bank. And the student loans and financial aid I have been getting has been just enough to pay the bills and (barely) keep me alive
And it's no longer as simple as "get a job and pay for it" since the only thing that will work around a students schedule is minimum wage work, and that's being filled by people who have the desire to work full time because they can't find any higher paying work
Oh, I could work the convenience store next door third shift, but I'd rather pay attention in class instead of fighting to stay awake.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
Except that having to raise an additional $2K a year does nothing to eliminate "irrational actors", unless that's simply another word for poor people. It could just as easily eliminate a potential straight-A student yet allow a straight-D+ student from a wealthy family to stay in school.
The first year of college does a much better job of weeding out irrational actors.
One more time, spacekungfuman: "As nearly free as possible". That's, again, straight out of the state Constitution. You want to tell me how saddling everyone with 2k of bills that they aren't allowed to use scholarships on is as nearly free as possible"?
Besides that, what Veevee said. You're assuming a lot about people's ability to pay the bill, even if they are a rational actor. The poor get fucked this way a lot- they actually end up paying more money in the long term because they can't afford to do it right the first time. Its not a "rational actor" vs "irrational actor" thing at all.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
Unambiguous constitutional issues aside, you're planning to screen out irrational actors by changing the cost / benefit analysis in a way which will cause rational actors to not want to drop out of school.
Do you see the problem with that approach?
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
All this "rational" "irrational" actor stuff is a red herring.
Here's why this is a dumb bill and one that should fail (but probably won't):
1.) The Arizona Constitution
As quoted earlier, Arizona's constitution demands that the state provide higher education for "as nearly free" as possible. This poor tax, and I'll get to why it's a poor tax in a minute, does not do that. In fact, it purposefully drives the cost of a state education further from free. That is the bill entire purpose in life.
2.) The Poor Tax
This bill will not bother parents who can easily afford their kid's bills. It won't affect GI Bill recipients or people on athlete scholarships. This bill only targets those students who are responsible for footing the bill for their education themselves. "Free Rides" are very rare in this world. Most students already have to cover partial cost of their education. Most students already work quite hard and don't just coast. The freeloading college student is just a big a problem as the welfare queen and the vote stealing immigrant, i.e. not at all.
What All This Means
So who will this bill hurt? It won't hurt the well off, the students for whom two grand a year is no big deal. It won't really hurt "middle class" students, because if you really do only leave college with $16,000 in student loans you've gotten off amazingly light.
This bill will hurt poor students. Students who need money to complete their studies. The sort of kids who work with studying already (and if you don't think this can interfere with classwork, you're a goose). The sort of kids who will be pulled into their financial aid office and told they need to fork over two grand in addition to the money their already paying, in addition to the loans they've already taken out, or they have to leave. The sort of student who, by their very being in college show they want to succeed in the first place.
This bill will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. It sounds like you're just making sure everyone's got "skin in the game". It sounds equitable. But it isn't.
It doesn't address the fact that college tuition is rising many times the rate of inflation nationwide, it adds to that.
It doesn't address the fact that student loan debt is one of the fastest growing sectors of private debt, and poised to become out next big financial crisis in a decade or so, it makes this problem worse.
This bill is disgusting, dishonest, and a direct assault on the most unfortunate members of our society: kids whose only sin is being born poor.
Perhaps the Arizona legislature recently saw Van Wilder, but this bill is anything but grounded in reality.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school has only two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor* who went to school anyway because his parents were providing his "skin in the game" (and student 3 wouldn't go because of the $16K, but otherwise would have graduated) then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
See how that works?
Also, do I need to point out how amusing it is that you talk about $2K a semester being a trivial amount of money for an education, when we've gone on for literally pages and pages about how your status as a high-flying corporate benefits attorney seems to keep you from having any concept of how normal people see the world? Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial. But when you're dirt poor and opting out of the workforce for four years to begin with, with no promise of any job even if you graduate (and parents/family who would be unable to help you significantly), taking on $2K a year in debt is a pretty big deal.
* - Actually, blowing mom and dad's money to party it up in Tempe is a perfectly rational course of action, but I wanted to keep the structure more parallel.
By the way, earning an extra $2k per semester at a minimum wage job requires about 20 hours of work per week (assuming the worker pays no federal or state income tax, just payroll tax, on that income). Demanding that people spend 20 fewer hours per week studying seems like a good way to get them to fail at school.
The idea that a student can actually pay their own way through college on the basis of student or part time employment is ridiculous for anything approaching a full-time courseload, and it's been ridiculous for quite a while.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
$2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
I know you've already been piled on, but this comment pretty much tipifies how completely out-of-touch you are.
Still, not nominal. I mean, two thousand dollars in a year would be pretty nominal to me, but I make a way-above-median income. I'm not stupid enough to generalize that onto others who don't have the kind of means I do. Maybe that's because I've actually been homeless before, so I understand a mindset where two hundred dollars can be an earth-shattering amount.
By the way, earning an extra $2k per semester at a minimum wage job requires about 20 hours of work per week (assuming the worker pays no federal or state income tax, just payroll tax, on that income). Demanding that people spend 20 fewer hours per week studying seems like a good way to get them to fail at school.
Isn't the intention of this bill that the students should borrow the money instead? So it'll just make sure that everyone who isn't rich graduates with at least $8000 of debt. Which is just... Facepalm.
$2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
I know you've already been piled on, but this comment pretty much tipifies how completely out-of-touch you are.
I work full-time and an extra 2k a "semester" (I don't actually go to school) since I got the job I am currently working would put me 13k in debt. That's AFTER wiping out my existing savings. Actually that was another thing that pissed me off about that article. One of its supporters compared it to the price of a new car, I have never owned a new car in my life and the "youngest" one I ever drove was still old enough to apply for its own license when I got it.
It seems like a lot of people don't understand what "wages have been stagnant for over a decade" actually means.
$2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
I know you've already been piled on, but this comment pretty much tipifies how completely out-of-touch you are.
I work full-time and an extra 2k a "semester" (I don't actually go to school) since I got the job I am currently working would put me 13k in debt. That's AFTER wiping out my existing savings. Actually that was another thing that pissed me off about that article. One of its supporters compared it to the price of a new car, I have never owned a new car in my life and the "youngest" one I ever drove was still old enough to apply for its own license when I got it.
It seems like a lot of people don't understand what "wages have been stagnant for over a decade" actually means.
That's because those people don't have any skin in the game.
Still, not nominal. I mean, two thousand dollars in a year would be pretty nominal to me, but I make a way-above-median income. I'm not stupid enough to generalize that onto others who don't have the kind of means I do. Maybe that's because I've actually been homeless before, so I understand a mindset where two hundred dollars can be an earth-shattering amount.
You're right - the $16k debt at graduation figure people have been throwing around comes out to $2k per semester, but going back to the OP it's $2k per year. So, an extra 10 hours a week of minimum wage labor.
Or, from the article,
Kavanagh said that would leave students with $14,000 debt after four years, "less than the cost of a Chevy Sonic.'
Accounting for interest if the $8k is borrowed, or what?
Still, not nominal. I mean, two thousand dollars in a year would be pretty nominal to me, but I make a way-above-median income. I'm not stupid enough to generalize that onto others who don't have the kind of means I do. Maybe that's because I've actually been homeless before, so I understand a mindset where two hundred dollars can be an earth-shattering amount.
You're right - the $16k debt at graduation figure people have been throwing around comes out to $2k per semester, but going back to the OP it's $2k per year. So, an extra 10 hours a week of minimum wage labor.
Or, from the article,
Kavanagh said that would leave students with $14,000 debt after four years, "less than the cost of a Chevy Sonic.'
Accounting for interest if the $8k is borrowed, or what?
I think they were adding books and fees and other expenses on top of the $2K minimum per year of tuition. Since students were arguing they had other expenses besides just tuition.
0
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Also I find the car comparison hilarious, because I receive guaranteed utility (more or less) out of the car, and can even sell that asset if I need to. Whereas I get no guarantee of utility out of my degree, and have no means to transfer it if I don't. That $500K to $1M more over a lifetime? That's, like, average. Plenty of people don't come anywhere near that. We recently had a thread talking about actual incomes coming out of college, and for a lot of majors (particularly humanities majors) entering the workforce, they're lucky to clear $20K a year. Particularly if they don't find a job in their field, which is not uncommon.
Sure, for an engineering major who finds a job in their field, that degree is basically a license to print money. But that's not everybody. For some people, it's like taking out a loan to buy a Chevy Sonic, then driving that fucker into a river.
Oh, and you get to spend four (or five) years essentially removed from the workforce to find out which side you fall on.
Also I find the car comparison hilarious, because I receive guaranteed utility (more or less) out of the car, and can even sell that asset if I need to. Whereas I get no guarantee of utility out of my degree, and have no means to transfer it if I don't. That $500K to $1M more over a lifetime? That's, like, average. Plenty of people don't come anywhere near that. We recently had a thread talking about actual incomes coming out of college, and for a lot of majors (particularly humanities majors) entering the workforce, they're lucky to clear $20K a year. Particularly if they don't find a job in their field, which is not uncommon.
Sure, for an engineering major who finds a job in their field, that degree is basically a license to print money. But that's not everybody. For some people, it's like taking out a loan to buy a Chevy Sonic, then driving that fucker into a river.
Oh, and you get to spend four (or five) years essentially removed from the workforce to find out which side you fall on.
The other thing that's annoying about the car example is that it seems to be implying like "after you graduate, instead of buying a new car, use some of your fat ASU-grad paycheck to pay off that paltry debt instead!" And totally ignores the fact that a lot of college grads can't afford to buy a new car either.
The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. Like, they finally realized that soaring college debt is a problem, so their solution is... find the few people still getting a free ride and make sure they have debt also??? Let's make sure every single young American is in debt. Or maybe they're supposed to pick up one of those easy jobs that are going begging... I remember applying for some part-time jobs around my college campus and getting told they had enough names for a 2-year waiting list... and that was BEFORE the recession.
Or the way that Kavanagh character blithely compares it to the LIFETIME earnings average for college grads, as if the money you'll (hypothetically) be making in your 50s will somehow help you pay off student loan debt in your 20s. Meanwhile, in Scandinavia, schools pay students a stipend to go there so that they can focus on their studies.
Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are?
-edit-
Also, I love how we are meant to presume that a college degree only benefits the recipient. That industry, commerce, and our society at large have no vested interest whatsoever in seeing our young people educated, because qualified candidates will just spring out of the aether when needed, or can be mystically summoned from India or China at will.
So... Are the people deciding these things purposely trying to fuck over the youth in their areas, or are they just completely and utterly ignorant of the vastly positive results of proper state-funded education à la Nordic countries where it costs next to nothing and the result is a highly educated populace regardless of income?
Or is it something more twisted?
And I'll never understand the anti-intellectual movement and why the U.S. in general uses so little money for education in general. The mentality is just so completely alien to me.
So "poor" students don't get the hookup in AZ? Income eligible students are virtually assured to have little to no financial burden for attending school in CA.
As for the rationale behind the bill, I can see it in principle from having had to work in an academic advising setting: laziness and misuse of college resources is hardly localized among the middle to upper class.
The other thing that's annoying about the car example is that it seems to be implying like "after you graduate, instead of buying a new car, use some of your fat ASU-grad paycheck to pay off that paltry debt instead!" And totally ignores the fact that a lot of college grads can't afford to buy a new car either.
Seriously, I landed a job out of college and I still drive a used Chevy Cobalt. That I paid like $8K or $9K for. Because it was the best thing I could afford. I could probably afford to replace it now, sure, but I'm an engineer who found work in his field.
As for the rationale behind the bill, I can see it in principle from having had to work in an academic advising setting: laziness and misuse of college resources is hardly localized among the middle to upper class.
In principle, sure. But it's a matter of how it works out in practice that matters. And in practice, this is like the worst possible way to address the issue.
Even a "deposit" program or making need-based aid recoupable for failure to academically progress is risky, because it basically just has a chilling effect on those with the academic talent but marginal financial ability to pay for college. I remember when I was looking at an officer program (for the military) that would have straight paid me full-time to go to school...but the downside was that if you failed to hit your scheduled graduation date they could (whether they would is a toss of the dice) pull you out of school and press you into the enlisted job of their choice. Basically, fail to graduate right on time and you could wind up shoveling shit for six years. Sure, I was confident in my ability to graduate on time...but, you know, what if?
Pretty high risk, and certainly had some impact on my willingness to pursue that program (which in the end I didn't).
Anyway, yeah sure there are people on need-based full rides who abuse them. But how big of a problem are they, and how broad are the effects of this policy compared to the actual problem it's supposed to address?
So "poor" students don't get the hookup in AZ? Income eligible students are virtually assured to have little to no financial burden for attending school in CA.
Oh, and yes they do. Which is why these bootstrappers are all in a huff. I guess, depending on whose numbers you believe, somewhere between a quarter and half of students attending Arizona's public universities were paying zero tuition out of pocket (through a combination of need-based scholarships, grants, etc).
Do this bill, but make it a progressive tax, just like every other mandated tax in the US, so that very rich people are paying several times normal tuition just so everyone has the same amount of "skin in the game."
Or don't do the bill
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
With all the states fucking up their university systems, now would be a great time to examine just what "in state tuition" actually accomplishes. Under the guise of giving locals a break, it actually creates a system where social mobility - in terms of the ability to study in a place with the best chances of interning and networking in your chosen field - is decided by the ability to pay out of state tuition.
At my college, tuition is going up probably another 2 grand next year and it already went up this semester. I took 2 less hours, and I ended up paying more this semester then last...
Next semester they plan on shutting down two dorms and moving people out... What the hell? They require freshmen to be in a dorm their first year. From what I'm speculating they are going to tear them down and build new ones, and expand. But that will take a lot of time and money to re-build and it doesn't make much sense to tear down 2 dorms at once when you require freshmen to stay in the dorms the first year. Unless they change that in their book and lift the requirement, it's going to cause some problems with students and housing. (Student housing has a bad rep from what I hear and our financial aid office is shit.)
This is after they torn down 2 small ones to build a new cafeteria that serves shitty food. To me, they are not doing a great job. They are pushing people to the apartments surrounding the school and the rent on the apartments are starting to go up as their business is increasing.
I'm glad i went to Community college. Saved me 20+ grand in taking basics, but i never really go the four year experience until now.
Dakata on
"Life is a storm my young friend, you will bask in the sunlight one moment be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes."
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
You - well, that guy John - are suggesting that irrational actors would alter their behaviour based on a rational cost/benefit analysis that extra costs doesn't change. If lifetime income was a compelling enough argument when measured against short term loss - because whether it's just time or tuition it is a loss compared to joining the work force straight up - then students already have significant "skin in the game".
As for expending state resources; Because people who actually get useful jobs post-graduation will have the financial muscle to pay back what their education costed - in taxes, if not in debt - the only inefficiency that really fucks you up is the one where you squander human potential by denying them access to higher education because they have poor parents.
With all the states fucking up their university systems, now would be a great time to examine just what "in state tuition" actually accomplishes. Under the guise of giving locals a break, it actually creates a system where social mobility - in terms of the ability to study in a place with the best chances of interning and networking in your chosen field - is decided by the ability to pay out of state tuition.
Good question, I suppose. The problem is that we fund education at the state level, and states want to fund public universities...so the only other option would be some kind of grant that would be given directly to the student, regardless of where they attend. But then that would gut public universities in about half of states, because then who the fuck is going to bother going to school in Wyoming? Also, you'd start handing cash to your residents to take out of state, which isn't always a great idea (especially if they don't come back). And lastly, you're giving your residents cash to spend at universities elsewhere where you've got no control at all of the costs or standards.
As it is, there are options. For instance, at least out this way, you've got the Western University Exchange (WUE) program. Some caveats, mind you, but it can basically allow students to attend for a cost between in-state and out-of-state tuition. So a student from Wyoming or Montana can, if they get accepted, attend school in Washington or Oregon.
But yeah, it's an issue. A bigger issue, to me, is situations in which somebody can be a resident of no states...then you're really fucked. It's really easy to lose your residency status (for tuition purposes) in one state, without gaining residency in another.
Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are.
At least Andrew Mellon's belief that the Depression would purge the immorality of the 20s and thus was necessary hasn't become mainstream yet, as much as David Brooks wishes it were so.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
With all the states fucking up their university systems, now would be a great time to examine just what "in state tuition" actually accomplishes. Under the guise of giving locals a break, it actually creates a system where social mobility - in terms of the ability to study in a place with the best chances of interning and networking in your chosen field - is decided by the ability to pay out of state tuition.
Republicans like to talk about how strong state governments create "50 laboratories of democracy", but nowadays they seem to resemble 50 3rd world nations that are undercutting each other at every turn for short-term benefit (or to launch the careers of the politicians in those states towards a national office).
Wisconsin and Minnesota have that exchange thing as well, but somehow it comes out so that Wisconsin residents end up paying less than Minnesota residents at either school.
Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are.
At least Andrew Mellon's belief that the Depression would purge the immorality of the 20s and thus was necessary hasn't become mainstream yet, as much as David Brooks wishes it were so.
It's amazing how much conservative "economics" is based on morality rather then actual economics.
Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are?
I don't want to be the guy that brings up the generation gap every time, but doesn't it stand out to you that the goal of this and other pieces of legislation seems to be a people who cannot actually live their lives or start families until they are too old to do so? We are supposed to work hard and save every penny for when we're too old to work anymore because retirement is the only time you're allowed to take a break, coincidentally the time in their life that the boomers and policy-makers are at. The same ones who smoked pot and wore tie-dye in their youth.
Maybe it's just me but the message that American culture seems to be drilling into me is that I should wait forever for the chance to actually LIVE or else I am a slatternly slacker and poor planner.
I mean one of the (many) sources of my lack of social life is the niggling voice at the back of my head that tells me I can't afford one, I should stop wasting money on such things, I need to save more money for the next inevitable emergency (like getting my car wrecked, which insurance NEVER covers).
1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.
2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.
3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
Some Republican politican-or-other already answered that for you. He noted the expected increase in lifetime income from having an education, and said that even if we subtract 16K straight up, each individual would still benefit from having an education. If we accept that at face value, then the rational actor would still choose higher education, as long as the expected returns in the form of a higher income is "sufficiently" large, somewhat modified for the risk of not finding a job that pays the bills in your particular branch of study.
So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?
Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.
We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.
Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.
And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.
It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
I think the bolded part is worth exploring: Arizona's graduation rate is approaching 60% at its four year public universities. Since you're defining "dropping out" as evidence of not appreciating the value of a college education, it's the case that a minority of students fall into this category. Yet the suggestion for addressing the problem of the 40% who don't eventually leave their state schools with a bachelors degree is to compel 100% of their students to pay $2,000 per anum out of pocket, even when they can get someone else (not the state) to pay that funding. Why should the 60% be compelled to pay money so that the other 40% appreciate their education more.
I'm about to go out to dinner with my wife, so I can't continue this point further -- but in case the food or service is subpar, would you be so kind as to kick in an extra couple of bucks on top of my bill to that I'll appreciate my dinner just a little bit more?
Posts
So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?
Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.
We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.
Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.
And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.
It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.
The general setup is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
That doesn't make said legislation any less ridiculous or bad, but basing an argument on individuals being rational actors seems like a shaky foundation to begin with.
On a related note, I actually went to college at a school that advertised that it did not give out sports scholarships as a benefit of attending the school, with the reasoning behind it being stated as "if you're coming to college, come to study, not to get drafted." I don't know how that impacted academics at the school, but I do know we only scored 15 points across the 4 homecoming games I attended.
SKFM, that's a very limited view. Two thousand a year is a lot to many people. It was one fifth of my income for the last year. Most kids won't let it stop them, no, but it will saddle our best and brightest with more debt or stop them from getting the most out of their degree if they now have to take a second job.
Money is a thing to people. Two thousand a year isn't so bad, no, not in the big scheme of things. But to poor kids who are trying to get a leg up who just happen to not be athletes? Two thousand a year could break them.
And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
And it's no longer as simple as "get a job and pay for it" since the only thing that will work around a students schedule is minimum wage work, and that's being filled by people who have the desire to work full time because they can't find any higher paying work
Oh, I could work the convenience store next door third shift, but I'd rather pay attention in class instead of fighting to stay awake.
Except that having to raise an additional $2K a year does nothing to eliminate "irrational actors", unless that's simply another word for poor people. It could just as easily eliminate a potential straight-A student yet allow a straight-D+ student from a wealthy family to stay in school.
The first year of college does a much better job of weeding out irrational actors.
Besides that, what Veevee said. You're assuming a lot about people's ability to pay the bill, even if they are a rational actor. The poor get fucked this way a lot- they actually end up paying more money in the long term because they can't afford to do it right the first time. Its not a "rational actor" vs "irrational actor" thing at all.
Unambiguous constitutional issues aside, you're planning to screen out irrational actors by changing the cost / benefit analysis in a way which will cause rational actors to not want to drop out of school.
Do you see the problem with that approach?
Here's why this is a dumb bill and one that should fail (but probably won't):
1.) The Arizona Constitution
As quoted earlier, Arizona's constitution demands that the state provide higher education for "as nearly free" as possible. This poor tax, and I'll get to why it's a poor tax in a minute, does not do that. In fact, it purposefully drives the cost of a state education further from free. That is the bill entire purpose in life.
2.) The Poor Tax
This bill will not bother parents who can easily afford their kid's bills. It won't affect GI Bill recipients or people on athlete scholarships. This bill only targets those students who are responsible for footing the bill for their education themselves. "Free Rides" are very rare in this world. Most students already have to cover partial cost of their education. Most students already work quite hard and don't just coast. The freeloading college student is just a big a problem as the welfare queen and the vote stealing immigrant, i.e. not at all.
What All This Means
So who will this bill hurt? It won't hurt the well off, the students for whom two grand a year is no big deal. It won't really hurt "middle class" students, because if you really do only leave college with $16,000 in student loans you've gotten off amazingly light.
This bill will hurt poor students. Students who need money to complete their studies. The sort of kids who work with studying already (and if you don't think this can interfere with classwork, you're a goose). The sort of kids who will be pulled into their financial aid office and told they need to fork over two grand in addition to the money their already paying, in addition to the loans they've already taken out, or they have to leave. The sort of student who, by their very being in college show they want to succeed in the first place.
This bill will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. It sounds like you're just making sure everyone's got "skin in the game". It sounds equitable. But it isn't.
It doesn't address the fact that college tuition is rising many times the rate of inflation nationwide, it adds to that.
It doesn't address the fact that student loan debt is one of the fastest growing sectors of private debt, and poised to become out next big financial crisis in a decade or so, it makes this problem worse.
This bill is disgusting, dishonest, and a direct assault on the most unfortunate members of our society: kids whose only sin is being born poor.
Perhaps the Arizona legislature recently saw Van Wilder, but this bill is anything but grounded in reality.
Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school has only two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor* who went to school anyway because his parents were providing his "skin in the game" (and student 3 wouldn't go because of the $16K, but otherwise would have graduated) then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
See how that works?
Also, do I need to point out how amusing it is that you talk about $2K a semester being a trivial amount of money for an education, when we've gone on for literally pages and pages about how your status as a high-flying corporate benefits attorney seems to keep you from having any concept of how normal people see the world? Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial. But when you're dirt poor and opting out of the workforce for four years to begin with, with no promise of any job even if you graduate (and parents/family who would be unable to help you significantly), taking on $2K a year in debt is a pretty big deal.
* - Actually, blowing mom and dad's money to party it up in Tempe is a perfectly rational course of action, but I wanted to keep the structure more parallel.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I know you've already been piled on, but this comment pretty much tipifies how completely out-of-touch you are.
Still, not nominal. I mean, two thousand dollars in a year would be pretty nominal to me, but I make a way-above-median income. I'm not stupid enough to generalize that onto others who don't have the kind of means I do. Maybe that's because I've actually been homeless before, so I understand a mindset where two hundred dollars can be an earth-shattering amount.
I work full-time and an extra 2k a "semester" (I don't actually go to school) since I got the job I am currently working would put me 13k in debt. That's AFTER wiping out my existing savings. Actually that was another thing that pissed me off about that article. One of its supporters compared it to the price of a new car, I have never owned a new car in my life and the "youngest" one I ever drove was still old enough to apply for its own license when I got it.
It seems like a lot of people don't understand what "wages have been stagnant for over a decade" actually means.
That's because those people don't have any skin in the game.
You're right - the $16k debt at graduation figure people have been throwing around comes out to $2k per semester, but going back to the OP it's $2k per year. So, an extra 10 hours a week of minimum wage labor.
Or, from the article,
Accounting for interest if the $8k is borrowed, or what?
I think they were adding books and fees and other expenses on top of the $2K minimum per year of tuition. Since students were arguing they had other expenses besides just tuition.
He included the annual cost of books and supplies over 4 years at $1500 a piece.
Sure, for an engineering major who finds a job in their field, that degree is basically a license to print money. But that's not everybody. For some people, it's like taking out a loan to buy a Chevy Sonic, then driving that fucker into a river.
Oh, and you get to spend four (or five) years essentially removed from the workforce to find out which side you fall on.
Its like these people have a better understanding of what its like to live on a starship then what its like to be poor.
They show more empathy for dogs then a fellow human being.
The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. Like, they finally realized that soaring college debt is a problem, so their solution is... find the few people still getting a free ride and make sure they have debt also??? Let's make sure every single young American is in debt. Or maybe they're supposed to pick up one of those easy jobs that are going begging... I remember applying for some part-time jobs around my college campus and getting told they had enough names for a 2-year waiting list... and that was BEFORE the recession.
Or the way that Kavanagh character blithely compares it to the LIFETIME earnings average for college grads, as if the money you'll (hypothetically) be making in your 50s will somehow help you pay off student loan debt in your 20s. Meanwhile, in Scandinavia, schools pay students a stipend to go there so that they can focus on their studies.
-edit-
Also, I love how we are meant to presume that a college degree only benefits the recipient. That industry, commerce, and our society at large have no vested interest whatsoever in seeing our young people educated, because qualified candidates will just spring out of the aether when needed, or can be mystically summoned from India or China at will.
Or is it something more twisted?
And I'll never understand the anti-intellectual movement and why the U.S. in general uses so little money for education in general. The mentality is just so completely alien to me.
As for the rationale behind the bill, I can see it in principle from having had to work in an academic advising setting: laziness and misuse of college resources is hardly localized among the middle to upper class.
Seriously, I landed a job out of college and I still drive a used Chevy Cobalt. That I paid like $8K or $9K for. Because it was the best thing I could afford. I could probably afford to replace it now, sure, but I'm an engineer who found work in his field.
In principle, sure. But it's a matter of how it works out in practice that matters. And in practice, this is like the worst possible way to address the issue.
Even a "deposit" program or making need-based aid recoupable for failure to academically progress is risky, because it basically just has a chilling effect on those with the academic talent but marginal financial ability to pay for college. I remember when I was looking at an officer program (for the military) that would have straight paid me full-time to go to school...but the downside was that if you failed to hit your scheduled graduation date they could (whether they would is a toss of the dice) pull you out of school and press you into the enlisted job of their choice. Basically, fail to graduate right on time and you could wind up shoveling shit for six years. Sure, I was confident in my ability to graduate on time...but, you know, what if?
Pretty high risk, and certainly had some impact on my willingness to pursue that program (which in the end I didn't).
Anyway, yeah sure there are people on need-based full rides who abuse them. But how big of a problem are they, and how broad are the effects of this policy compared to the actual problem it's supposed to address?
Oh, and yes they do. Which is why these bootstrappers are all in a huff. I guess, depending on whose numbers you believe, somewhere between a quarter and half of students attending Arizona's public universities were paying zero tuition out of pocket (through a combination of need-based scholarships, grants, etc).
Or don't do the bill
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Next semester they plan on shutting down two dorms and moving people out... What the hell? They require freshmen to be in a dorm their first year. From what I'm speculating they are going to tear them down and build new ones, and expand. But that will take a lot of time and money to re-build and it doesn't make much sense to tear down 2 dorms at once when you require freshmen to stay in the dorms the first year. Unless they change that in their book and lift the requirement, it's going to cause some problems with students and housing. (Student housing has a bad rep from what I hear and our financial aid office is shit.)
This is after they torn down 2 small ones to build a new cafeteria that serves shitty food. To me, they are not doing a great job. They are pushing people to the apartments surrounding the school and the rent on the apartments are starting to go up as their business is increasing.
I'm glad i went to Community college. Saved me 20+ grand in taking basics, but i never really go the four year experience until now.
As for expending state resources; Because people who actually get useful jobs post-graduation will have the financial muscle to pay back what their education costed - in taxes, if not in debt - the only inefficiency that really fucks you up is the one where you squander human potential by denying them access to higher education because they have poor parents.
Good question, I suppose. The problem is that we fund education at the state level, and states want to fund public universities...so the only other option would be some kind of grant that would be given directly to the student, regardless of where they attend. But then that would gut public universities in about half of states, because then who the fuck is going to bother going to school in Wyoming? Also, you'd start handing cash to your residents to take out of state, which isn't always a great idea (especially if they don't come back). And lastly, you're giving your residents cash to spend at universities elsewhere where you've got no control at all of the costs or standards.
As it is, there are options. For instance, at least out this way, you've got the Western University Exchange (WUE) program. Some caveats, mind you, but it can basically allow students to attend for a cost between in-state and out-of-state tuition. So a student from Wyoming or Montana can, if they get accepted, attend school in Washington or Oregon.
But yeah, it's an issue. A bigger issue, to me, is situations in which somebody can be a resident of no states...then you're really fucked. It's really easy to lose your residency status (for tuition purposes) in one state, without gaining residency in another.
At least Andrew Mellon's belief that the Depression would purge the immorality of the 20s and thus was necessary hasn't become mainstream yet, as much as David Brooks wishes it were so.
It's amazing how much conservative "economics" is based on morality rather then actual economics.
It is difficult for outsiders to track the patterns of the GOP Hive Mind, but Investopedia says the term was originally coined by Warren Buffet and it first appeared on my radar as a Wingnut talking point when Steve King said we should return to the days of property-linked suffrage
I don't want to be the guy that brings up the generation gap every time, but doesn't it stand out to you that the goal of this and other pieces of legislation seems to be a people who cannot actually live their lives or start families until they are too old to do so? We are supposed to work hard and save every penny for when we're too old to work anymore because retirement is the only time you're allowed to take a break, coincidentally the time in their life that the boomers and policy-makers are at. The same ones who smoked pot and wore tie-dye in their youth.
Maybe it's just me but the message that American culture seems to be drilling into me is that I should wait forever for the chance to actually LIVE or else I am a slatternly slacker and poor planner.
I mean one of the (many) sources of my lack of social life is the niggling voice at the back of my head that tells me I can't afford one, I should stop wasting money on such things, I need to save more money for the next inevitable emergency (like getting my car wrecked, which insurance NEVER covers).
I think the bolded part is worth exploring: Arizona's graduation rate is approaching 60% at its four year public universities. Since you're defining "dropping out" as evidence of not appreciating the value of a college education, it's the case that a minority of students fall into this category. Yet the suggestion for addressing the problem of the 40% who don't eventually leave their state schools with a bachelors degree is to compel 100% of their students to pay $2,000 per anum out of pocket, even when they can get someone else (not the state) to pay that funding. Why should the 60% be compelled to pay money so that the other 40% appreciate their education more.
I'm about to go out to dinner with my wife, so I can't continue this point further -- but in case the food or service is subpar, would you be so kind as to kick in an extra couple of bucks on top of my bill to that I'll appreciate my dinner just a little bit more?