most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
this was almost 10 years ago so times are a bit different, but is the current job market any better for college graduates? is their situation any better with 100k in college loans?
most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
this was almost 10 years ago so times are a bit different, but is the current job market any better for college graduates? is their situation any better with 100k in college loans?
Yes. Still bad, but better.
Whether better in an opportunity cost sense, I don't know. That would depend on alot of other factors.
I don't know if there really is the dichotomy of Gatsby vs. Home budgets.
There isn't, but that's not the point. I could have chosen home budgets vs. calculus (cue that Oatmeal comic) or calculus vs. critical thinking or critical thinking vs. biology. Whatever the example I chose, I knew that somebody would go, "But... but... but... that's important!" and we'd risk getting bogged down in talking about the specific example.
And it's a conversation that comes up whenever anybody actually says, "Hey, maybe the priorities we've been pushing on our teenagers - which haven't changed significantly in over 50 years, for the most part - need to be re-envisioned." It's a whole herd of sacred cows.
I'm sympathetic to what I think you're saying here, but it also might just be an unfortunate fact that there are only limited ways to discuss education productively without getting into a discussion of the value of particular subjects (and thus triggering the stampede of sacred cows). When it comes to those cows, I tend to think that philosophy should be offered in HS and formal logic should be required, but I'm obviously not impartial in that regard.
I'm also, actually, okay with expanding the amount of our lives that we spend in school. Human productivity has increased to the degree where we need spend less of our lives actually working in order to support ourselves over the whole of our lives; we could set some of the surplus production technology affords us aside and use it to support more extensive schooling. And I think this would be a reasonable thing to do given that schooling is rewarding both personally and socially.
There is a pretty substantial logistical problem with expanding the length of time spent in public education: right now, the end of public education and the end of mandated parental support occur at roughly the same age. Extending the former without extending the latter would effectively just re-enforce the education gap between lower- and middle-/upper-class families, as lower-class families would be far less likely to be able to afford supporting their child through further years of education even if said education is nominally free. And if you extend the length of mandated parental support, you end up with something akin to a regressive tax, in that middle- and upper-class families are typically already supporting their children far beyond the minimum required age and thus will not notice the change.
most of the kids in my school that didn't go to college already had trade skill employment that they were planning on making a career. work part time at a car garage, graduate high school and move on to full time.
Given the high unemployment among people with only a high school degree, it's safe to say that that's now how it works out for most people.
this was almost 10 years ago so times are a bit different, but is the current job market any better for college graduates? is their situation any better with 100k in college loans?
It's not that the market is better for college grads now than then, its worse, but it's substantially worse for people who just have HSED
override367 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
There is a pretty substantial logistical problem with expanding the length of time spent in public education: right now, the end of public education and the end of mandated parental support occur at roughly the same age. Extending the former without extending the latter would effectively just re-enforce the education gap between lower- and middle-/upper-class families, as lower-class families would be far less likely to be able to afford supporting their child through further years of education even if said education is nominally free. And if you extend the length of mandated parental support, you end up with something akin to a regressive tax, in that middle- and upper-class families are typically already supporting their children far beyond the minimum required age and thus will not notice the change.
These are reasonable concerns, although I think they could be addressed; for instance, by making higher education not only free but also compatible with work-study, or by offering free residence and dining plans along with admission. These are obviously not possible in our actual political climate. We would not accept the redistribution that would entail. But I think they are reasonable ideas when we think about the ideal arrangements we could enter into given our productive capacity and material needs.
Also, he's probably lying about boostrapping his way through college.
considering my grandparents went to syracuse university for $300 a semester with no need for college loans I'm not so sure.
honestly a lot of people are getting degrees with loans they will never pay off. I think it should be considered if getting that much debt is even worth it. there are non college career paths.
SU is comparative to Harvard in cost now. My how the times have changed.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
But schools like SU and HU get fucking tons of scholarships thrown at them as opposed to something like Bumfuckia State College.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
There is a pretty substantial logistical problem with expanding the length of time spent in public education: right now, the end of public education and the end of mandated parental support occur at roughly the same age. Extending the former without extending the latter would effectively just re-enforce the education gap between lower- and middle-/upper-class families, as lower-class families would be far less likely to be able to afford supporting their child through further years of education even if said education is nominally free. And if you extend the length of mandated parental support, you end up with something akin to a regressive tax, in that middle- and upper-class families are typically already supporting their children far beyond the minimum required age and thus will not notice the change.
Is it time to consider modifying the 3 month summer break? A reorganization of the school year that spreads out the breaks between semesters more evenly and adds 1 month of school a year to the calendar would effectively add a year to primary school education, and potentially more if you can reduce the need to recap previous year's learning at the start of fall.
On my way to work this morning, I heard on NPR that nation wide tuition is going up on average, 8%, with private school tuition going about 4%.
What the fuck is causing it to rocket up? I'm in school now, at UMUC - my classes run $788 per, not counting books. And while I am almost done, and have incurred a fraction of the debt (relatively), I can't imagine it going up more considering that with online schools, the quality of classes will wildly vary between professors.
basically the price spikes are state governments in bad shape foisting off expenses wherever they can. One way to do that is to spike the cost of college because hey kids get loans anyway so what do they care how much we jack the cost up.
On my way to work this morning, I heard on NPR that nation wide tuition is going up on average, 8%, with private school tuition going about 4%.
What the fuck is causing it to rocket up? I'm in school now, at UMUC - my classes run $788 per, not counting books. And while I am almost done, and have incurred a fraction of the debt (relatively), I can't imagine it going up more considering that with online schools, the quality of classes will wildly vary between professors.
The economy took a shit, and more people have headed back to school. That means an increase in demand with minimal change in supply(schools hiring new teachers and expanding trails demand), and unless there is some special magical something about education, that pretty much means price is going to increase.
Like a lot of folks here I kinda disagree with for profit education and feel that education is if not a right or public good, a good investment for societies to make. I think education is kinda special and demand shouldn't necessarily dictate price, but that's not something that the folks running a lot of schools believe.
Also, in a lot of places states have been subsidizing schools less, so students have to pay more of the cost of schooling. At the same time, students have better access to student loans, so they can 'afford' to pay more for school, so the increased price isn't hurting demand.
They are also making a lot of infrastructure investments with the addition of online classes and Education Management, while in the long run that will cut costs we are still paying off the start up costs and lenders are being kinda tight with their money so schools are probably being forced to pay this infrastructure on a shorter timeline than is ideal.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
That includes room + meal plan I believe IIRC from their websites. I think Harvard one includes more than the SU one.
These are big name universities though, like, they exist for their names. SU because of the sports teams and Harvard because it's one of the oldest in the US. Plus if you come from Harvard you're probably rich, so, we should pay you more money.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Part of the reason that the state does not subsidize it is because that would require raising taxes. Good luck raising taxes in the US right now, since the Republicans have not only pledged to not raise taxes, but are in fact actively working to lower them. Also, well, any politician that actually manages to raise taxes faces one heck of a challenge getting re-elected.
On my way to work this morning, I heard on NPR that nation wide tuition is going up on average, 8%, with private school tuition going about 4%.
What the fuck is causing it to rocket up? I'm in school now, at UMUC - my classes run $788 per, not counting books. And while I am almost done, and have incurred a fraction of the debt (relatively), I can't imagine it going up more considering that with online schools, the quality of classes will wildly vary between professors.
The economy took a shit, and more people have headed back to school. That means an increase in demand with minimal change in supply(schools hiring new teachers and expanding trails demand), and unless there is some special magical something about education, that pretty much means price is going to increase.
So, some Googling kinda confirms that.
The College Board said the tuition increases stemmed from a weakened economy and state funding that has not kept pace with the growth in college enrollments. “For the fifth consecutive year, the percentage increase in average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities was higher than the percentage increase at private nonprofit four-year colleges. While national data provide an important snapshot of overall college prices, this year’s data also reveal substantial state-to-state pricing variations underlying the national averages,” the group said.
Highlights from the report follow:
Key Tuition and Fee Findings:
Published in-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions average $8,244 in 2011-12, $631 (8.3 percent) higher than in 2010-11. Average total charges, including tuition and fees and room and board, are $17,131, up 6.0 percent.
Published out-of-state tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities average $20,770, $1,122 (5.7 percent) higher than in 2010-11. Average total charges are $29,657, up 5.2 percent.
Published in-state tuition and fees at public two-year colleges average $2,963, $236 (8.7 percent) higher than in 2010-11.
Published tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities average $28,500 in 2011-12, $1,235 (4.5 percent) higher than in 2010-11. Average total charges, including tuition and fees and room and board, are $38,589, up 4.4 percent.
Published tuition and fees at for-profit institutions average an estimated $14,487 in 2011-12, 3.2 percent higher than in 2010-11.
You shouldn't be entitled to take a loan for your education, it should be free. You should expect to get that kind of service from paying taxes. Its not that education is terrible expensive to give in the first place. Of course when its being capitalized upon and becoming a business you get a problem. So either you get average Joe into a debt right away before even starting to work or you get average Joe to be less educated than he could be because he can't afford it. Oh, capitalizing on young people and/or their their social framework, the future of the country - what a great concept.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
I think Harvard has pretty generous financial aid. I recall hearing their endowment is large enough that they don't really need to charge as much (or at all) for tuition, but since many of their students can afford it, they still do.
If you accept that any form of bankruptcy is a thing that we want to legally allow, I can't see any logical reason why student loans should be excluded from the list of things that can be discharged.
did someone say this already? creditors would become totally hostile to lending to students, resulting in less loans and less people getting the financial aid they need.
students are essentially judgment proof to begin with. if we don't give creditors some carrots, why would they ever lend any money to a student?
If you want to compare our education system to other countries - like, say, Finland? What do you see? More federal control over education and more federal spending on education. Clearly these aren't the only differences, but I'm constraining the argument to the question, "should we have a federal Department of Education?"
If the DoE is a failure, it's a failure because it's not big enough.
At least in terms of spending though, they're pretty comparable, from the stats I've been seeing.
The issue isn't really $$$, it's how they're spent. Which we apparently suck at.
I don't think spending less is an appropriate solution, but we do need to somehow spend smarter. Maybe a one time investment to update facilities, books, etc across the board is worth considering, but throwing money at the problem isn't a real solution.
i thought i read a time article that said something about us spending more money per capita on education than pretty much any other developed countries but getting less out of it.
i agree that throwing money at the problem probably won't solve it. we already spend too much as it is (assuming the concept of spending too much on education even exists).
On my way to work this morning, I heard on NPR that nation wide tuition is going up on average, 8%, with private school tuition going about 4%.
What the fuck is causing it to rocket up? I'm in school now, at UMUC - my classes run $788 per, not counting books. And while I am almost done, and have incurred a fraction of the debt (relatively), I can't imagine it going up more considering that with online schools, the quality of classes will wildly vary between professors.
Most states slashed their higher education budgets in the last couple of years. The schools still need as much money as before to operate, and if the state is giving them less they have to make it up in higher tuition costs. This also explains why public university tuition has increased much more dramatically than private school tuition.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
I think Harvard has pretty generous financial aid. I recall hearing their endowment is large enough that they don't really need to charge as much (or at all) for tuition, but since many of their students can afford it, they still do.
You're absolutely right. If I got accepted to Harvard in High school (some of the students did) it was a 100% full ride through for free just because they wanted academically strong kids.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm sympathetic to what I think you're saying here, but it also might just be an unfortunate fact that there are only limited ways to discuss education productively without getting into a discussion of the value of particular subjects (and thus triggering the stampede of sacred cows). When it comes to those cows, I tend to think that philosophy should be offered in HS and formal logic should be required, but I'm obviously not impartial in that regard.
Sure. I just don't think the cows should be sacred. I think it's a discussion that we need to have, and on a national level. That would assume that there is a national level on which to have it.
I'm also, actually, okay with expanding the amount of our lives that we spend in school. Human productivity has increased to the degree where we need spend less of our lives actually working in order to support ourselves over the whole of our lives; we could set some of the surplus production technology affords us aside and use it to support more extensive schooling. And I think this would be a reasonable thing to do given that schooling is rewarding both personally and socially.
I would be too, just as you said in a later post there's a lot of cultural resistance to it. In my experience, there's resistance not just to more full-time education, but part-time education during working years too.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
On a larger level, I think this is just another sign of the decline of American society. India and China are massively investing in new universities, paying to have their citizens educated in Western universities and creating the largest body of college educated professional in world history. They know that a highly educated workforce is necessary for the coming century.
In the U.S., we're shutting down colleges and talking about how people would be better off becoming welders. At this rate, we'll be the new Mexico in twenty years.
If you accept that any form of bankruptcy is a thing that we want to legally allow, I can't see any logical reason why student loans should be excluded from the list of things that can be discharged.
did someone say this already? creditors would become totally hostile to lending to students, resulting in less loans and less people getting the financial aid they need.
students are essentially judgment proof to begin with. if we don't give creditors some carrots, why would they ever lend any money to a student?
There are financial services who do offer all kinds of weird non-security loans. They're not good loans mind you, because they make up for the increased risk on taking on students without a collateral with high interest rates, but it's not like the chance of a default is enough to stop creditors from loaning money (case in point: Everything these days as not even states are above the risk of default).
Though several European countries simply look at that and say "Market failure", because that's really what it is. Long-term, the market benefits from a highly-educated workforce. But individual creditors as rational market participants are not be willing/able to shoulder the risk of the investment, that probably isn't going to pay off until +decades. Hence, short-term, the creditors take rational actions that are bad for them and society at large in the long-term. It becomes a typical examples of the things where you need the State, because the market can't handle it.
(Of course, there's also some political/philosophical considerations involved. Someone mentioned earlier than if education was free there'd be "market ineffeciencies", and while there are some, we accept those on the general premise that it's better to have an ineffecient market than a deficient democracy.)
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
I think Harvard has pretty generous financial aid. I recall hearing their endowment is large enough that they don't really need to charge as much (or at all) for tuition, but since many of their students can afford it, they still do.
You're absolutely right. If I got accepted to Harvard in High school (some of the students did) it was a 100% full ride through for free just because they wanted academically strong kids.
Harvard doesn't give merit-based scholarships. I think most of the "top-tier" schools are like that.
They did offer one student in my high school a free ride from what I recall, this was over a decade ago at this point though, I can't remember the specifics.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
There are far cheaper schools that cost a fraction of that. The problem of education costing too much for what you get out of it is from stupid people taking on huge debt to get into insanely priced schools for a liberal arts degree that isn't worth spit. And then being pissed at world + dog that they didn't land a dream job that never existed after and aren't living the high life that they are entitled to by virtue of going to that fancy school.
It's really a staggering amount of self-entitlement and arrogance that would make the CEO of Goldman Sachs blush.
They did offer one student in my high school a free ride from what I recall, this was over a decade ago at this point though, I can't remember the specifics.
was he poor as shit? They offer needs based scholarships, to students that have sufficient academic merit to be accepted to the school. If that student has a really high level of need, the cost could conceivably be quite low.
They did offer one student in my high school a free ride from what I recall, this was over a decade ago at this point though, I can't remember the specifics.
was he poor as shit? They offer needs based scholarships, to students that have sufficient academic merit to be accepted to the school. If that student has a really high level of need, the cost could be quite low.
Yes, dirt poor.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Right now I'm roughly 11,000 dollars in student loan debt. I'm fairly sure I'm just about at the max amount they'll let me defer it due to not finding suitable work.
I do not look forward to see what's going to happen.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
those are private universities whose student base is generally very wealthy. It's been a few years but I believe my tuition plus room and board was $10k a year at a state school. I had veteran benefits though so I didn't end up paying for it.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
There are far cheaper schools that cost a fraction of that. The problem of education costing too much for what you get out of it is from stupid people taking on huge debt to get into insanely priced schools for a liberal arts degree that isn't worth spit. And then being pissed at world + dog that they didn't land a dream job that never existed after and aren't living the high life that they are entitled to by virtue of going to that fancy school.
It's really a staggering amount of self-entitlement and arrogance that would make the CEO of Goldman Sachs blush.
most of my co-workers with 100k+ in loans have technical degrees in computer science and IT and they can't find a job outside phone support.
but you make a good point by equating people trying to find a decent job for their education level and people that cheated the public out of billions of dollars and crashed the economy.
Jars on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Yeah, I'm not sure what people are supposed to do.
What happens if you can't pay your student loans? I should probably know this.
Yeah, I'm not sure what people are supposed to do.
What happens if you can't pay your student loans? I should probably know this.
You can request a deferment (temporary stop on payments, but interest continues to accrue), a forbearance (where they outright forgive part or all of your debt), or negotiate an amended payment plan.
If you don't do any of these things, they can garnish your wages or take your assets.
If you literally have no money, no wages, and no assets, and they refuse to offer a forbearance, they basically just bill you and wreck your credit rating. But at that point, you're homeless and starving so I think your credit score would be the least of your worries.
If the issue is that you have a job, but it doesn't make enough to pay your loans, then you can usually negotiate a different payment plan.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I have none of those, but I'm not homeless due to family. They've been reasonably understanding of me being unable to find work but not so much they'll be paying my loans off for me (not that I'd ask them to).
I wonder if I could get a forbearance. I have a decent credit rating (smart credit card usage) and I'd really not like to tank that for whenever I can get out of this slump.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
There are far cheaper schools that cost a fraction of that. The problem of education costing too much for what you get out of it is from stupid people taking on huge debt to get into insanely priced schools for a liberal arts degree that isn't worth spit. And then being pissed at world + dog that they didn't land a dream job that never existed after and aren't living the high life that they are entitled to by virtue of going to that fancy school.
It's really a staggering amount of self-entitlement and arrogance that would make the CEO of Goldman Sachs blush.
most of my co-workers with 100k+ in loans have technical degrees in computer science and IT and they can't find a job outside phone support.
but you make a good point by equating people trying to find a decent job for their education level and people that cheated the public out of billions of dollars and crashed the economy.
Decent job for your education is laughable. Unless you're a lawyer or a doctor you're going to have to start off at the bottom and work your way up. As someone who actually has had to hire IT people that degree pretty much qualifies you for an entry level helpdesk position, you know moving computers around and imaging/installing them. It will pay about 35,000 bucks. After years of working yourself up that ladder you might qualify for a sysadmin sys eng position. And to be completely honest you're still a dime a dozen when it comes to applications. And I'd wager some of the applicants will have actually worked for 4 years instead of gone to school and probably have an A+, Network+, MCSE and those guys are way ahead in terms of hiring, and worth paying more because they have demonstrated that they can actually do the job.
Part of the problem is that your teachers and the education industry have been lying their asses off about what a decent job for your education level actually is. That degree is not worth what you paid for it. And had you waited and done it later, you'd be 4 years ahead in work experience and your work would probably be chipping in towards that degree as well.
But the schools have convinced that said degree is the key to happiness and life and an amazing job even though you have no work experience at all. And since you believe it and are willing to pay them huge amounts of cash for it the price keeps going up.
The education system is a racket, but there are enough suckers that buy into it that it's become self perpetuating. There are community colleges and other ways to go about that won't land you 100k in debt. But everybody wants the fancy piece of paper.
Part of the problem is that your teachers and the education industry have been lying their asses off about what a decent job for your education level actually is. That degree is not worth what you paid for it. And had you waited and done it later, you'd be 4 years ahead in work experience and your work would probably be chipping in towards that degree as well.
But the schools have convinced that said degree is the key to happiness and life and an amazing job even though you have no work experience at all. And since you believe it and are willing to pay them huge amounts of cash for it the price keeps going up.
The education system is a racket, but there are enough suckers that buy into it that it's become self perpetuating. There are community colleges and other ways to go about that won't land you 100k in debt. But everybody wants the fancy piece of paper.
Yep, pretty much all of this.
In my experience, though, the racket runs pretty deep in the public education system. Nobody, not a single person, in my high school suggested to me that a community college was a good idea. Quite the opposite: when I made it clear to my teachers/counselor/etc. that I was going to a community college after high school, everybody tried to talk me out of it.
Nope, it was all "you must go to a four-year university!" all the time. Visits from college reps, assemblies where some guy from University of California shows us charts about how much more money we make with a degree from UC versus just a high school diploma, college application workshops, FAFSA workshops...
Don't worry about that debt, kid. You'll pay it off easily because a Bachelor's degree will make you rich!
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
They told me the same thing. Perhaps I can sue them and they can pay my debts.
Posts
Yes, annnnd maybe.
Yes. Still bad, but better.
Whether better in an opportunity cost sense, I don't know. That would depend on alot of other factors.
There is a pretty substantial logistical problem with expanding the length of time spent in public education: right now, the end of public education and the end of mandated parental support occur at roughly the same age. Extending the former without extending the latter would effectively just re-enforce the education gap between lower- and middle-/upper-class families, as lower-class families would be far less likely to be able to afford supporting their child through further years of education even if said education is nominally free. And if you extend the length of mandated parental support, you end up with something akin to a regressive tax, in that middle- and upper-class families are typically already supporting their children far beyond the minimum required age and thus will not notice the change.
It's not that the market is better for college grads now than then, its worse, but it's substantially worse for people who just have HSED
These are reasonable concerns, although I think they could be addressed; for instance, by making higher education not only free but also compatible with work-study, or by offering free residence and dining plans along with admission. These are obviously not possible in our actual political climate. We would not accept the redistribution that would entail. But I think they are reasonable ideas when we think about the ideal arrangements we could enter into given our productive capacity and material needs.
SU is comparative to Harvard in cost now. My how the times have changed.
Cost of HU per year:
$61,172 (includes healthcare)
Cost of SU per year:
$53,790 (+ healthcare)
But schools like SU and HU get fucking tons of scholarships thrown at them as opposed to something like Bumfuckia State College.
Is it time to consider modifying the 3 month summer break? A reorganization of the school year that spreads out the breaks between semesters more evenly and adds 1 month of school a year to the calendar would effectively add a year to primary school education, and potentially more if you can reduce the need to recap previous year's learning at the start of fall.
What the fuck is causing it to rocket up? I'm in school now, at UMUC - my classes run $788 per, not counting books. And while I am almost done, and have incurred a fraction of the debt (relatively), I can't imagine it going up more considering that with online schools, the quality of classes will wildly vary between professors.
The economy took a shit, and more people have headed back to school. That means an increase in demand with minimal change in supply(schools hiring new teachers and expanding trails demand), and unless there is some special magical something about education, that pretty much means price is going to increase.
Like a lot of folks here I kinda disagree with for profit education and feel that education is if not a right or public good, a good investment for societies to make. I think education is kinda special and demand shouldn't necessarily dictate price, but that's not something that the folks running a lot of schools believe.
Also, in a lot of places states have been subsidizing schools less, so students have to pay more of the cost of schooling. At the same time, students have better access to student loans, so they can 'afford' to pay more for school, so the increased price isn't hurting demand.
They are also making a lot of infrastructure investments with the addition of online classes and Education Management, while in the long run that will cut costs we are still paying off the start up costs and lenders are being kinda tight with their money so schools are probably being forced to pay this infrastructure on a shorter timeline than is ideal.
Are you telling me attending these universities costs that much per year, not counting living costs like food etc?
Holy shit education is insanely expensive in america. Why doesn't the state subsidize it?
That includes room + meal plan I believe IIRC from their websites. I think Harvard one includes more than the SU one.
These are big name universities though, like, they exist for their names. SU because of the sports teams and Harvard because it's one of the oldest in the US. Plus if you come from Harvard you're probably rich, so, we should pay you more money.
So, some Googling kinda confirms that.
Edit: Source!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/public-college-costs-surge-8-3-percent/
I think Harvard has pretty generous financial aid. I recall hearing their endowment is large enough that they don't really need to charge as much (or at all) for tuition, but since many of their students can afford it, they still do.
did someone say this already? creditors would become totally hostile to lending to students, resulting in less loans and less people getting the financial aid they need.
students are essentially judgment proof to begin with. if we don't give creditors some carrots, why would they ever lend any money to a student?
i thought i read a time article that said something about us spending more money per capita on education than pretty much any other developed countries but getting less out of it.
i agree that throwing money at the problem probably won't solve it. we already spend too much as it is (assuming the concept of spending too much on education even exists).
Most states slashed their higher education budgets in the last couple of years. The schools still need as much money as before to operate, and if the state is giving them less they have to make it up in higher tuition costs. This also explains why public university tuition has increased much more dramatically than private school tuition.
You're absolutely right. If I got accepted to Harvard in High school (some of the students did) it was a 100% full ride through for free just because they wanted academically strong kids.
Sure. I just don't think the cows should be sacred. I think it's a discussion that we need to have, and on a national level. That would assume that there is a national level on which to have it.
I would be too, just as you said in a later post there's a lot of cultural resistance to it. In my experience, there's resistance not just to more full-time education, but part-time education during working years too.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In the U.S., we're shutting down colleges and talking about how people would be better off becoming welders. At this rate, we'll be the new Mexico in twenty years.
Though several European countries simply look at that and say "Market failure", because that's really what it is. Long-term, the market benefits from a highly-educated workforce. But individual creditors as rational market participants are not be willing/able to shoulder the risk of the investment, that probably isn't going to pay off until +decades. Hence, short-term, the creditors take rational actions that are bad for them and society at large in the long-term. It becomes a typical examples of the things where you need the State, because the market can't handle it.
(Of course, there's also some political/philosophical considerations involved. Someone mentioned earlier than if education was free there'd be "market ineffeciencies", and while there are some, we accept those on the general premise that it's better to have an ineffecient market than a deficient democracy.)
Harvard doesn't give merit-based scholarships. I think most of the "top-tier" schools are like that.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There are far cheaper schools that cost a fraction of that. The problem of education costing too much for what you get out of it is from stupid people taking on huge debt to get into insanely priced schools for a liberal arts degree that isn't worth spit. And then being pissed at world + dog that they didn't land a dream job that never existed after and aren't living the high life that they are entitled to by virtue of going to that fancy school.
It's really a staggering amount of self-entitlement and arrogance that would make the CEO of Goldman Sachs blush.
was he poor as shit? They offer needs based scholarships, to students that have sufficient academic merit to be accepted to the school. If that student has a really high level of need, the cost could conceivably be quite low.
Yes, dirt poor.
I do not look forward to see what's going to happen.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
those are private universities whose student base is generally very wealthy. It's been a few years but I believe my tuition plus room and board was $10k a year at a state school. I had veteran benefits though so I didn't end up paying for it.
most of my co-workers with 100k+ in loans have technical degrees in computer science and IT and they can't find a job outside phone support.
but you make a good point by equating people trying to find a decent job for their education level and people that cheated the public out of billions of dollars and crashed the economy.
What happens if you can't pay your student loans? I should probably know this.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
You can request a deferment (temporary stop on payments, but interest continues to accrue), a forbearance (where they outright forgive part or all of your debt), or negotiate an amended payment plan.
If you don't do any of these things, they can garnish your wages or take your assets.
If you literally have no money, no wages, and no assets, and they refuse to offer a forbearance, they basically just bill you and wreck your credit rating. But at that point, you're homeless and starving so I think your credit score would be the least of your worries.
If the issue is that you have a job, but it doesn't make enough to pay your loans, then you can usually negotiate a different payment plan.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I wonder if I could get a forbearance. I have a decent credit rating (smart credit card usage) and I'd really not like to tank that for whenever I can get out of this slump.
Le sigh!
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If you have a direct federal loan, they have to give you a one-time 6-month deferment if you request one.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
On a side note, I swear I've filled this stuff out before online (the deferment paper) but I can't seem to find it anymore.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Decent job for your education is laughable. Unless you're a lawyer or a doctor you're going to have to start off at the bottom and work your way up. As someone who actually has had to hire IT people that degree pretty much qualifies you for an entry level helpdesk position, you know moving computers around and imaging/installing them. It will pay about 35,000 bucks. After years of working yourself up that ladder you might qualify for a sysadmin sys eng position. And to be completely honest you're still a dime a dozen when it comes to applications. And I'd wager some of the applicants will have actually worked for 4 years instead of gone to school and probably have an A+, Network+, MCSE and those guys are way ahead in terms of hiring, and worth paying more because they have demonstrated that they can actually do the job.
Part of the problem is that your teachers and the education industry have been lying their asses off about what a decent job for your education level actually is. That degree is not worth what you paid for it. And had you waited and done it later, you'd be 4 years ahead in work experience and your work would probably be chipping in towards that degree as well.
But the schools have convinced that said degree is the key to happiness and life and an amazing job even though you have no work experience at all. And since you believe it and are willing to pay them huge amounts of cash for it the price keeps going up.
The education system is a racket, but there are enough suckers that buy into it that it's become self perpetuating. There are community colleges and other ways to go about that won't land you 100k in debt. But everybody wants the fancy piece of paper.
Yep, pretty much all of this.
In my experience, though, the racket runs pretty deep in the public education system. Nobody, not a single person, in my high school suggested to me that a community college was a good idea. Quite the opposite: when I made it clear to my teachers/counselor/etc. that I was going to a community college after high school, everybody tried to talk me out of it.
Nope, it was all "you must go to a four-year university!" all the time. Visits from college reps, assemblies where some guy from University of California shows us charts about how much more money we make with a degree from UC versus just a high school diploma, college application workshops, FAFSA workshops...
Don't worry about that debt, kid. You'll pay it off easily because a Bachelor's degree will make you rich!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
(Only half-joking)
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The school tried to talk both of them out of it because it would "look bad"