it occurs to me that i received like, no preventative care advice after my cardiac scare. like... aren't there charts and scads of warnings and advice? my doctor was like 'once you feel better, you should exercise'
he didn't say shit about smoking or red meat or anything
just like, hey john when you feel up to it exercise strenuously, that's heart healthy
it's like 6 months later and i'm kind of reflecting on how when i was discharged there was no real tone of seriousness or urgency despite my almost having died
you never sent me my love note
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
This is pretty consistent which how Spool sees the public system as well. A view that it exist solely for the purpose of providing meaningless credentials.
one day i'll be making high 5 figures with a PRETTY HEALTHY 401k and then you'll all look silly
I didn't quote you, but I was essentially responding to your post. Essentially it's good sense for you to make a choice based on prestige, but it's super shitty in general that that's the way things are set up.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
For-profit universities simply shouldn't be eligible for federal student aid.
Education should be free.
Medical care should be free.
Food should be free.
Gasoline should be free.
Housing should be free.
Marijuana should be free.
o_O
Saying that for-profit universities shouldn't be eligible for federal student aid isn't saying anything remotely resembling saying "postsecondary education should be free."
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
it occurs to me that i received like, no preventative care advice after my cardiac scare. like... aren't there charts and scads of warnings and advice? my doctor was like 'once you feel better, you should exercise'
he didn't say shit about smoking or red meat or anything
just like, hey john when you feel up to it exercise strenuously, that's heart healthy
it's like 6 months later and i'm kind of reflecting on how when i was discharged there was no real tone of seriousness or urgency despite my almost having died
you never sent me my love note
you are correct
i am a self conscious and fickle youth
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
I study chemistry because I want to be a good chemist, not because I think it will get me a good job without any hunting (which I think happens a lot for many disgruntled students).
I mean, I'm all for a well rounded education, but a huge part of where we're at is a college degree is often not a sign of skillset or capability, it's a sign of class. If you can waste the money on a non-skills based education, you're our kind of people, you're hired! And as college became more widely available that didn't change. Which is unfortunate, because I can't tell you the number of people I know putting their college degrees to good use waiting tables or selling cable tv.
I was very off-put by Women's Studies at my Uni because only the privileged could afford to take classes about really important stuff like class issue and what not, with little to no job prospects. It was so ass-backwards. I found a bunch of essays talking about that problem, which made me feel a whole bunch better.
Interesting side-note: because I'm a conservative, I can't use the Women's Studies example without derailing the conversation. It's right up there with Art History and a collection of other degree programs (Peace studies degree, really? Really?!) that don't offer much of anything in the way of opportunity after graduation.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
A =/= B here, Spool. There is no worth in for profit universities. Full stop.
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Winky had the same experience with anime cons as I've had with metal festivals
That's exactly the kinda cross-over that I'd be expecting though
I study chemistry because I want to be a good chemist, not because I think it will get me a good job without any hunting (which I think happens a lot for many disgruntled students).
But chemistry majors have the easiest time finding jobs after graduating, correct?
I mean, I'm all for a well rounded education, but a huge part of where we're at is a college degree is often not a sign of skillset or capability, it's a sign of class. If you can waste the money on a non-skills based education, you're our kind of people, you're hired! And as college became more widely available that didn't change. Which is unfortunate, because I can't tell you the number of people I know putting their college degrees to good use waiting tables or selling cable tv.
I was very off-put by Women's Studies at my Uni because only the privileged could afford to take classes about really important stuff like class issue and what not, with little to no job prospects. It was so ass-backwards. I found a bunch of essays talking about that problem, which made me feel a whole bunch better.
Interesting side-note: because I'm a conservative, I can't use the Women's Studies example without derailing the conversation. It's right up there with Art History and a collection of other degree programs (Peace studies degree, really? Really?!) that don't offer much of anything in the way of opportunity after graduation.
It is really good if you want to go into LGBT non-profit work or rape and domestic violence non-profit work. That is about it. Or if you want to do it full time. I was kind of upset because gender and queer studies really interest me, but I am not of a class where I can pursue that kind of degree without a return on my investment. It made me really bitter that all these conversations about acknowledging privilege were led by a group of upper class white women/men talking for everyone of lower class status.
I study chemistry because I want to be a good chemist, not because I think it will get me a good job without any hunting (which I think happens a lot for many disgruntled students).
But chemistry majors have the easiest time finding jobs after graduating, correct?
Here comp sci grads have the highest straight from college employment rate, followed by chemists. I'm guessing the states might be different.
I study chemistry because I want to be a good chemist, not because I think it will get me a good job without any hunting (which I think happens a lot for many disgruntled students).
But chemistry majors have the easiest time finding jobs after graduating, correct?
Maybe? Pharma isn't what it used to be. I think you're doing it wrong if you pursue a technical degree with the expectation that you get to have any job you want. It sets you up for massive disappointment and failure.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
now you're back to thinking too much like a business. What universities trade in has its value heavily politically negotiated itself, never mind funding and so on. The current situation - where the state bureaucracy pulls funds, and then students blame the university and blame the state and the state tries to deflect pressure back onto the university and vice versa - is more or less what one would predict. And it is also likely the process that will grope its way haphazardly to a non-bubble outcome, via everyone trying to make some nebulous "university" eat the costs, and the universities fight back through monetizing as much of their activity as possible and trying to keep ahead of attempts to resist monetization. Foreign students are one funding source. Football is another. Accommodation is a third. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if in the future a whole series of universities simply become insolvent and everyone starts accusing everyone else of having wasted the money, generic "greed and corruption" is blamed, and then life just goes on.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think you're supposed to go to Law School after you secure a liberal arts degree.
Law school is probably the best example of how business-ifying higher ed has fucked up a lot of shit. The incongruity between law students graduated and new law jobs is a huge, gaping maw of sadness.
it is my opinion that where you get your bachelor's ceases to matter after you have a few years experience
unless you went to an ivy or a for-profit
i think that is almost certainly correct but where you go can certainly have an impact on how easy it is for you to find that first job
thankfully the field that interests me seems like one where it's p easy to find that first job regardless of where you graduate
for you in particular, then
wouldn't it make sense to choose a less expensive option that's not as prestigious
well i mean that would depend on the relative difference in either. excusing the specious example (because stanford would be free for me with no loans if i could get in), if i could go to stanford for 5% more than gettysburg, i would. but if it's like, an exorbitantly higher expense than the math becomes more difficult yes.
i mean, for me personally- since i'm the one we're talking about- it doesn't really matter. if i can't get into one of the schools that will meet all of my need with a free ride, i will be in the same debt anyway. the more expensive schools i'm looking at would just subsidize more of the cost on their end.
Posts
the first season on netflix was so good
you never sent me my love note
This is pretty consistent which how Spool sees the public system as well. A view that it exist solely for the purpose of providing meaningless credentials.
Education should be free.
Medical care should be free.
Food should be free.
Gasoline should be free.
Housing should be free.
Marijuana should be free.
I didn't quote you, but I was essentially responding to your post. Essentially it's good sense for you to make a choice based on prestige, but it's super shitty in general that that's the way things are set up.
--LeVar Burton
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
Education is pretty damn close to free with that there internet and them thar libraries.
unless you went to an ivy or a for-profit
Saying that for-profit universities shouldn't be eligible for federal student aid isn't saying anything remotely resembling saying "postsecondary education should be free."
Hmm.
yes
yes it is
you are correct
i am a self conscious and fickle youth
yeah
*rubs chin thoughtfully*
Okay, you've got my vote.
i think that is almost certainly correct but where you go can certainly have an impact on how easy it is for you to find that first job
thankfully the field that interests me seems like one where it's p easy to find that first job regardless of where you graduate
Interesting side-note: because I'm a conservative, I can't use the Women's Studies example without derailing the conversation. It's right up there with Art History and a collection of other degree programs (Peace studies degree, really? Really?!) that don't offer much of anything in the way of opportunity after graduation.
A =/= B here, Spool. There is no worth in for profit universities. Full stop.
That's exactly the kinda cross-over that I'd be expecting though
i read about it once, for field day, but i don't quite remember. can anyone help me out??
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
But chemistry majors have the easiest time finding jobs after graduating, correct?
for you in particular, then
wouldn't it make sense to choose a less expensive option that's not as prestigious
because if so I have words
Pictures of cats, pictures of boobs
now you're back to thinking too much like a business. What universities trade in has its value heavily politically negotiated itself, never mind funding and so on. The current situation - where the state bureaucracy pulls funds, and then students blame the university and blame the state and the state tries to deflect pressure back onto the university and vice versa - is more or less what one would predict. And it is also likely the process that will grope its way haphazardly to a non-bubble outcome, via everyone trying to make some nebulous "university" eat the costs, and the universities fight back through monetizing as much of their activity as possible and trying to keep ahead of attempts to resist monetization. Foreign students are one funding source. Football is another. Accommodation is a third. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if in the future a whole series of universities simply become insolvent and everyone starts accusing everyone else of having wasted the money, generic "greed and corruption" is blamed, and then life just goes on.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
Basically all the good things in life.
well i mean that would depend on the relative difference in either. excusing the specious example (because stanford would be free for me with no loans if i could get in), if i could go to stanford for 5% more than gettysburg, i would. but if it's like, an exorbitantly higher expense than the math becomes more difficult yes.
i mean, for me personally- since i'm the one we're talking about- it doesn't really matter. if i can't get into one of the schools that will meet all of my need with a free ride, i will be in the same debt anyway. the more expensive schools i'm looking at would just subsidize more of the cost on their end.