Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Elizabeth Warren, Reduce Loan Rates For Students  
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...th-warren-student-loans-91079.html



I think this is a good idea, she is correct. If we can float the big banks, why cannot we help the students of this country? This is so typical, give it to the big guys, screw everybody else. The price of education is absurd in this country for the middleclass. My niece is starting in the Fall, she has top, top grades, she is receiving a big discount because of student aid at a Boston School. When I heard the figures for her loan, I was shocked. It is mind boggling to me. How the hell she will pay it back is beyond me.

[Edited 2013-05-11 18:27:56]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
159 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3379 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

I also agree with Sen. Warren's statement. Why should those responsible for almost crashing the economy (and saved by the government) get loans at comfortable rates and make billions in profits while a student, with the potential of becoming the next Einstein of a particular field, get higher rates?

To me, it sounds like the system actually punishes those who want to succeed while rewarding those who make risky decisions.

Not only students, but Average Joe should also be able to get a loan at a comfortable rate as well.

I've taken only 3 loans totaling up to $7k so I'm not in a dire position where debt will be unmanageable, but I do think about many others who may take up 3 times that amount to finish perhaps just one academic year. Is the system fair then?

[Edited 2013-05-11 19:42:44]


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Keep in mind that high student debt hurts the economy because graduates stuck with today's lower salaries aren't going to be purchasing as much if they have loans to pay off. They're not going to be buying homes, they're not going to be buying cars, they're not going to be taking the risk of getting more loans to start a business. None of that is good for the economy.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3465 times:

I'm all for better student loans, lower rates and more of a grace period. Not an economics expert, but student loans seem like a very good investment. It's not a way for the government to make money but a way to give students a chance to go to college and get a good education.

Never had to get loans, but I'm surprised at some of the rates my friends are paying for them. Very high



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

I don't even know why this is a debate. I honestly do not know what justification there is for not lowering student loan rates.

The only justifications I can come up with are so cynical, I'm afraid to voice them.


User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8294 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

Maybe they are trying to deincentivize going to college in lieu of the burgeoning manufacturing jobs that will return once the CIA has successfully completed Chinese economic sabotage.   


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 5):
Maybe they are trying to deincentivize going to college...
The world needs ditch diggers too...

 Wow!



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 5):
Maybe they are trying to deincentivize going to college

I know you are being sarcastic, but I think it is important to promote alternatives to college (not by jacking up student loan rates or anything.) You can lead an extremely successful life without going to college and college just isn't for everyone. I'd like to see trade schools and other programs promoted more



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
Not an economics expert, but student loans seem like a very good investment.

Well, I am an Economics expert (such as they exist, I have degrees in the subject and I work in the field). And the flood of money into the system via student loans is the greatest factor responsible for the sky-rising costs of tuition and everything involved with going to college.

When I was a student, very few people got student loans. If you came from a poor family who could not help pay for school, you worked towards getting some sort of scholarship - there were quite a lot of them around. If you were a diligent student, you would go to school. Athletic scholarships were pretty rare - academic scholarships were the norm. There were a huge number of them. My grandmother established such a scholarship years ago specifically for good students from poor families from around the town she grew up in - and there were hundreds of thousands of such scholarships.

The scholarship fund (for which I am one of the administrators) used to offer full 4-year scholarships for two new students every year, and we got about 50 applications per year (most of whom obviously applied to many scholarships). Now we only get a ten or twelve per year - students aren't bothering with the scholarship route, they go the easy route of student loans, since they aren't means-tested anymore, and "federally guaranteed".

If this sounds suspiciously like sub-prime loans, that's exactly what it is like. And just like the sub-prime loans and the explosion of cheap-money mortgages caused the prices of homes to climb to record heights (before they crashed), the same thing is happening with college tuitions. Make more money available, the price goes up.

Imagine what would happen if the Federal government announced that it was getting out of the student loan business completely, shutting down sallie mae. I'd bet that (after a lot of screaming), college tuitions would drop by 50%, maybe more, in a matter of months, as Universities try to fill empty seats. Of course cuts would have to be made in some of the more extravagant expenditures universities have gotten used to, like fancy new stadiums.

[Edited 2013-05-11 22:34:22]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
If this sounds suspiciously like sub-prime loans, that's exactly what it is like.

   That was my first thought. Isn't student loan debt already unmaneageable and growing?

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
The price of education is absurd in this country for the middleclass.

I think part (most?) of the problem is there is so much money, including loans, aid, and scholarships, chasing a relatively inelastic supply of school desks. If anything, perhaps schools should have access to lower interest to increase capacity--that will go a lot farther to reducing costs than giving students more money to chase a slowly growing supply of spots.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
If we can float the big banks, why cannot we help the students of this country?

I understand the frustration with banks but this is just a cheap soundbite that doesn't take into account the consequences of boosting demand for education without doing much for the supply side--schools will just raise prices faster and fill the same number of spots.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3379 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
I'd bet that (after a lot of screaming), college tuitions would drop by 50%, maybe more, in a matter of months, as Universities try to fill empty seats.

Maybe...or maybe some staff might be cut as well while keeping the tuition at the same level. I cannot imagine an Ivy League university or others like MIT dropping tuition just to accommodate students. That would be seen as a loss of prestige.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Maybe...or maybe some staff might be cut as well while keeping the tuition at the same level. I cannot imagine an Ivy League university or others like MIT dropping tuition just to accommodate students. That would be seen as a loss of prestige.

I don't think they'd have a choice, plus the high end universities are keenly aware of the disconnect between the quality of their education (it ain't THAT good) and the price. As any economist will tell you, a $2000 state university education might be 2x as good as a $1000 community college education, but a $60,000 Ivy League education isn't 60x as good as your local community college. Tuition is completely out of whack and I think it has to do with so much money chasing so few seats. I think there will some major changes forthcoming in the industry as a) people realize they're not getting what they pay for (and can't afford ultimately) and b) a lot of education content moves online, on-job, and starts to eliminate some of the less-than-necessary requirements--ie did I really neec to take that West African literature course if I'm an engineering major?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Imagine what would happen if the Federal government announced that it was getting out of the student loan business completely, shutting down sallie mae. I'd bet that (after a lot of screaming), college tuitions would drop by 50%, maybe more, in a matter of months, as Universities try to fill empty seats. Of course cuts would have to be made in some of the more extravagant expenditures universities have gotten used to, like fancy new stadiums.

   Universities are building ridiculous new facilities that have nothing to do with educaiton to woo students, because they can pay, regardless of the source or whether they'll ever pay back that source over their lifetime.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
I think this is a good idea, she is correct.

Education is one of the relatively few things government should actually help fund to a significant degree. That's how you wean people off welfare. Give them the chance at education and don't subsidize the inability or unwillingness to take the opportunity.

That said, her idea seems awfully arbitrary. There are plenty of reasons why student loans should not be treated like Federal Reserve loans to large banks.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Well, I am an Economics expert (such as they exist, I have degrees in the subject and I work in the field).

The primary difference between an economist and a fortune teller is the office.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
If this sounds suspiciously like sub-prime loans, that's exactly what it is like. And just like the sub-prime loans and the explosion of cheap-money mortgages caused the prices of homes to climb to record heights (before they crashed), the same thing is happening with college tuitions. Make more money available, the price goes up.

The cost goes up because people are willing to pay it, and people are willing to pay it because they don't really have to pay it and can finance it instead.

And there is even more societal pressure to go to college than there is to own a house, which doesn't help. People feel they need a college degree, and employers will demand it even if it's totally unnecessary simply because they can.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
I cannot imagine an Ivy League university or others like MIT dropping tuition just to accommodate students. That would be seen as a loss of prestige.

I want to say that at least one (Harvard?) actually has policies in place that forbid their students to take on debt. It will be paid for out of pocket in combination with student aid packages. I doubt the big name schools would be affected too much by changes in government loan policies as they all have large endowments.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
People feel they need a college degree, and employers will demand it even if it's totally unnecessary simply because they can.

I think that's starting to change slowly but surely. I've definitely seen a lot of managers that once upon a time would require an MBA regardless start to question why they do so, never mind that the premium companies pay for it is almost never worth it. Furthermore I know several airlines that would recruit at Ivy Leagues for relatively rote positions, that are starting to shift to more reasonable schools for any number of reasons. As I mentioned I really think we're on the cusp of people really starting to question the value of the education they're paying for, both as students and as employers.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):

Keep in mind that high student debt hurts the economy because graduates stuck with today's lower salaries aren't going to be purchasing as much if they have loans to pay off. They're not going to be buying homes, they're not going to be buying cars, they're not going to be taking the risk of getting more loans to start a business. None of that is good for the economy.

You realise that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever don't you? It only hurts the future economy, but that is the same with all debt, including (particularly!) government debt. All you're doing is bringing future consumption forwards, the idea hopefully is that by bringing the consumption of education to today rather than consumption of cars tomorrow, you'll be able to earn a return on that investment/consumption in the future to allow you to still consume cars in the future. Naturally you earn no return when you do a worthless liberal arts degree, that becomes just deadweight loss. No better or worse than a company that goes bankrupt.

The interest those individuals pay is for a return for past investment of the people giving them the loan who will now consume or reinvest that interest (good for the economy) along with the former students consumption in the form of the interest spread which goes to bank as a service rendered.

Debt is only bad if the return you're getting for consuming in the past rather than the present is lower than the costs of incurring that debt. That happens to be the case for many individuals today, that is not the government's fault that individuals took on debt that did not offer enough of a benefit to cover the costs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
And just like the sub-prime loans and the explosion of cheap-money mortgages caused the prices of homes to climb to record heights (before they crashed), the same thing is happening with college tuitions.

Just like the sub-prime mortgages and a house, the culture is reinforcing the notion that a college education is an absolute must have to the complete ignorance of the degree's value relative to price. This is only delaying the bubble and making the crash even worse.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
If we can float the big banks, why cannot we help the students of this country? This is so typical, give it to the big guys, screw everybody else. The price of education is absurd in this country for the middleclass

I agree that the price of education in this country is absurd, but the federal student loan policy is part of the problem and enables schools to keep raising prices.

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):

Keep in mind that high student debt hurts the economy because graduates stuck with today's lower salaries aren't going to be purchasing as much if they have loans to pay o

Yep. There's going to be a drag effect for quite some time because of structural shifts in the economy as increases in tuition have outpaced both inflation and average salary earned by college graduates. So students are not only have more debt (nominally) they will also be repaying that debt for a longer period of time because of lower salaries.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
It's not a way for the government to make money but a way to give students a chance to go to college and get a good education.

That's fine, but college isn't exactly the right choice for everybody. In some cases, it might be financially better to learn a trade. Being a plumber or electrician might be less prestigious than having a college degree, but it also means less debt, and financial stability.

I'm fine with the government providing some sort of financial support to enable students to attend college and acquire a higher education, but the current policy is just way too lenient. Student loans for higher education (not just college--think professional and graduate school as well) are too easy to obtain, and a whole cottage industry of for-profit educational institutions have sprouted up to take advantage of this free money provide by the federal government. The problem is that this policy in some ways hurts the same people it is designed to help--look at the number of students who are now burdened with debt who drop out before receiving their degree, or even after receiving their degree, wind up in jobs where they have no hope of ever repaying the debt. Meanwhile, the higher education administrators at these universities have
no incentive to reform or make their educational offerings more cost effective because they are getting their money up-front from the federal government.

Though the federal government currently makes a profit on student loans doesn't mean that it is always going to--student loan default rates are going to increase, but it will be a delayed effect since final maturity doesn't occur until 30 years or so (and then it's wiped out, but you still have to pay taxes on it).

Just because you can go to college (or pursue that additional graduate degree) doesn't mean that you should.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
And the flood of money into the system via student loans is the greatest factor responsible for the sky-rising costs of tuition and everything involved with going to college.

Not just college. Professional school and graduate school as well.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Make more money available, the price goes up.

See law schools, whose current crisis re student debt is seen as a bellwether for the rest of higher education. It is worth checking out "Failing Law Schools" by Brian Tamanaha.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
I'd bet that (after a lot of screaming), college tuitions would drop by 50%, maybe more, in a matter of months, as Universities try to fill empty seats

Law schools are facing a problem similar to that right now. Students have wised up and realized that the cost-benefit analysis of attending law school isn't worth it anymore given how poor the job market is for JDs. The problem is the administrative bloat at many of these schools that prohibits them from effectively rationalizing their costs (since their current cost model was based on the boom years of the 2000s) while tuition revenues are steadily decreasing. A temporary alternative is to increase overseas student recruitment.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
I cannot imagine an Ivy League university or others like MIT dropping tuition just to accommodate students. That would be seen as a loss of prestige.

Tuition has nothing to do with prestige at the elite schools--elite schools get their reputation for their academic strength, not cost of tuition. If cost of tuition was a factor re prestige, than George Washington University (most expensive tuition in the nation) would be seen as an elite academic institution on par with the Ivies, Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, Duke, et. al--but it's not.

In fact, many of the elite schools are doing the exact opposite--trying to make it more affordable for students from lower income families to attend, not by reducing sticker price, but by trying to minimize the amount of undergraduate debt that students take on.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
I want to say that at least one (Harvard?) actually has policies in place that forbid their students to take on debt.

Not exactly--but a handful of schools, like Harvard, Yale, Princeton (and I believe Stanford as well) have changed their policies so that all financial aid handed out by the school itself directly to the students is in the form of grants, not loans.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3283 times:

On the surface, this looks like a good idea, but, I like others understand that the increase in tuitions can be traced, in part, back to the availability of loans and grants and scholarships. When a school (or any other business, for that matter (see the discussion on medical provider charges)), is guarenteed money, why not raise prices?

Do we hold the schools accountable for their graduation rates? I guess some parents do when they make a choice as to where they send their kids. But, does the government, who underwrites these loans and many grants and scholarship, do they really look hard at schools and see if they're serving the communities they purport to serve?

Look, I'm probably on of the few conservatives that would love to consider higher education as a "public good". In my opinion, the more educated a populace, the better off that society and economy are, as a whole. Those folks will tend to contribute more and consume (from the public dole) less. But, in reality, as soon as we decide that higher education should be free, the costs of said education will explode. The colleges and universities will see this as more free money and begin to "compete" for this free money. The free money comes in the form of students.

To attract more students, they will try to get the best looking campus, the best faculty, the best sports team, the best graduation rate, the best (fill in the blank). All this costs money, so they will raise the tuition they charge the government on a per student basis. It's just creates a vicious circle.

This happens now, but the market provides some restraint to the costs. If the government removes that market restraint by cheapening the cost of money or elimintaing it completely....

Without oppressive governmental control and oversight, I just don't see how costs would be controlled.

Lowering the interest rate, and make the money cheaper, is just a few steps removed from that.

As pointed out, you'll just create a new bubble.

How about we do this:

If you take student loans, your first year is at whatever the prevailing rate is. Second year, you lose some off the rate, assuming you maintain, say a 'B' average. Third year a bit more...and so on. This incentivizes the student to perform in class and provides them with some return for their performance.

Of course, we have to find a way to ensure that the school doesn't just inflate the grades in order to keep the student in school and continue to rake in that tuition.

Is the cost of money too high for students? Maybe. But, what will happen if we lower that cost? What happens anytime the government throws around free or cheap money? You just have to look at the mortgage crisis to answer that question.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Maybe...or maybe some staff might be cut as well while keeping the tuition at the same level. I cannot imagine an Ivy League university or others like MIT dropping tuition just to accommodate students. That would be seen as a loss of prestige.


That's probably the best and most insightful indictment of higher education in this thread. Prestige over students.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21876 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3268 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
It only hurts the future economy, but that is the same with all debt, including (particularly!) government debt.

Debt on its own doesn't hurt the economy, debt that you can't pay off hurts the economy. If you go into debt in order to start up a business, but start turning a profit after a few years and make enough to pay back the loan plus interest and have lots left over, then the economy will be better off for it, since a business was created that otherwise wouldn't have been.

The problem is that while productivity has gone up and education requirements for even menial positions have climbed, salaries have been stagnant. So people need to spend money on the college education, but they're not being compensated accordingly so that they can pay off the loans. And since the government can't do anything about the compensation, something needs to be done about the loans.

The are, of course, lots of areas in which higher education funding could be improved. But reducing student loan interest rates is a big one.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
that is not the government's fault that individuals took on debt that did not offer enough of a benefit to cover the costs.

It may not be the government's fault, but it is the government's (and everyone else's) problem.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
But, in reality, as soon as we decide that higher education should be free, the costs of said education will explode.

I'm not so sure - I don't see the costs of education in other countries exploding, and college tends to be less expensive there than it is here.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3258 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
I'm not so sure - I don't see the costs of education in other countries exploding, and college tends to be less expensive there than it is here.

I'm fairly ignorant of higher education in other countries. Questions:

How are the educators' (teachers, administrators, etc.) salaries determined? Basically, are the salaries capped by the government?

Are the universities owned or controlled by the government?

Who owns the buildings and property?

How is tuition handled?

Who, if anyone is held accoutable to the schools' success?

The basic gist of what I'm getting at with my questions is: do the schools in Europe operate in a free market where the school is free to set policy, tuittion, fees and salaries or are those facets controlled, in whole or in part, by the various governments?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3252 times:

While schools for required education are lacking funds, shouldn't we be directing money there, then letting the free market determine rates for college loans, you know, like people say about that other elective in life, cable TV.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
When I was a student, very few people got student loans.

When did you go to college? The cost of going to college has risen as a vastly higher rate than average consumer prices. I'm sure you know that though.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/I...n_Articles/Education_Inflation.asp


When my parents went to school it was possible to work a relatively simple job (the sort college students typically work during the school year) and pay for school.

I barely was able to pay for my school which was relatively affordable (University of CA and Cal Poly SLO), but I worked full time each summer and as much as possible during the school year earning far more than minimum wage.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
The cost of going to college has risen as a vastly higher rate than average consumer prices.

The greater point being made though is that all of this cheap money is being used by colleges to finance projects which don't necessarily have a direct effect upon higher learning. That's an argument I understand.

I'm positive it isn't this simple, but it appears that colleges and universities are saddling graduates with copious sums of debt to earn a degree, which may or may not be of use in the workplace, then not using the fiscal discipline one would expect with those funds.

I don't know a whole lot about financing a college education though, quite honestly, so I've an open mind about it, and willing to listen to pro and con arguments about Sen. Warren's proposal.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 20):
When did you go to college? The cost of going to college has risen as a vastly higher rate than average consumer prices. I'm sure you know that though


Ask yourself why that's happened. What has happened in the last 20 or 30 years? Money has become cheaper and more widely available. The same thing that happened in the mortgage bubble.

The schools (and I'm generalizing) have been able to increase their tuition rates at higher rates than the average consumer prices because the money they're receiving from the students is cheaper (to the students) and the schools, with the help of the government have been able to sell a four year college degree is essential to being successful in life.

Yes, the world needs ditch diggers, but it also needs plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mechanics, etc. These are all fairly well paying jobs that do not require higher education.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3225 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
The basic gist of what I'm getting at with my questions is: do the schools in Europe operate in a free market where the school is free to set policy, tuittion, fees and salaries or are those facets controlled, in whole or in part, by the various governments?

I don't know about most other European countries that much, but around here Finland universities are entirely state owned and funded, there really aren't any significant tuition fees. Thus everybody with good enough abilities and motivation has same chances to get university level education no matter how much money they/their parents have. Overall this system seems to work very well, I'm glad we have it.

I think Sweden, Norway and Denmark have more or less similar system.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23):
I don't know about most other European countries that much, but around here Finland universities are entirely state owned and funded, there really aren't any significant tuition fees.

And the salaries?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23):
Overall this system seems to work very well, I'm glad we have it.

As I've said, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but quite simply, it goes completely against our economic system and our system of government.

I'm a firm believer that education should be considered a public good. That means government control of all the economic facets of the system: salaries, tuition rates, fees, properties, etc.

It would probably need a constitutional amendment. And, I really don't think I'm being melodramatic about it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
That's fine, but college isn't exactly the right choice for everybody. In some cases, it might be financially better to learn a trade. Being a plumber or electrician might be less prestigious than having a college degree, but it also means less debt, and financial stability.

Yes I agree, I mentioned that in reply 7. I've made that point to a few people. Nothing wrong with not being smart enough or suited for college, they have knowledge in other areas and are just as smart as anyone else... just not in calculus or literature. But they can sure tell you what is wrong with your car when I have no idea, for example

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Look, I'm probably on of the few conservatives that would love to consider higher education as a "public good".

I'm with you on this... strictly adhering to any ideology is not good which is why I'm now hesitant to label myself as anything because I don't fit in any category's ideology (any more.) I think education is extremely important to a country, healthcare is now doable if done correctly, but that is for another thread.

I don't think, however, just throwing money at it will solve the education problem. We need to look at other countries' approaches and decide as a country which direction to go... why reinvent the wheel? I'm sure there are some good programs out there that aren't as, pardon the stereotype, "socialist" ask completely free, but still offer a chance for all kids to go to college if they apply themselves and still maintain a bit of capitalist interests, which aren't completely bad if kept in check

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
Yes, the world needs ditch diggers, but it also needs plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mechanics, etc. These are all fairly well paying jobs that do not require higher education.

Exactly, but I think more could be done to promote these programs or expand upon them. Hardly anyone I talk to really knows about them, I don't have a great knowledge on them myself, but it's perfect for those who hate Shakespeare and Calculus but are very competent mechanically and ambitious. Again, would love to see what some of our European friends do across the pond, I'm sure they have some good ideas



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
And the salaries?

Hmm I guess they are more or less government regulated too, at least I doubt there's any significant difference between salaries in our different universities, after all they are all more or less equally respected.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
Universities are building ridiculous new facilities that have nothing to do with educaiton to woo students, because they can pay, regardless of the source or whether they'll ever pay back that source over their lifetime.

To be fair, a lot of the crazy facilities being built are being built with donor money or by schools for which the sports actually are a major moneymaker. Football is a money pit for a lot of schools, but a gold mine for some. The palatial facilities are the exception rather than the rule.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Look, I'm probably on of the few conservatives that would love to consider higher education as a "public good". In my opinion, the more educated a populace, the better off that society and economy are, as a whole.

The government should be funding education because that is welfare. It's stupid that this country basically says that if you don't want to work in school that it's okay, we'll just give you a welfare check instead.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
I'm a firm believer that education should be considered a public good. That means government control of all the economic facets of the system: salaries, tuition rates, fees, properties, etc.

It doesn't need to go that far. There just needs to be some government oversight of how colleges operate. Send government inspectors to take stock of the costs, facilities, academics, etc. of each college that wants to allow its students to get federal aid. Then, the government can be more liberal about giving money to students wanting to attend schools that score well and be tighter about funding students at schools where the education is a worse value.



[Edited 2013-05-12 10:21:19]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Send government inspectors to take stock of the costs, facilities, academics, etc. of each college that wants to allow its students to get federal aid.

Shouldn't the free market be allowed to reign? Higher education is fully elective.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
It doesn't need to go that far.


I disagree. If we decide it's a public good, then we need to treat it as such. Just like the military, full control by the government, so that salaries are controlled and costs are controlled. Of course, the military isn't the absolute best model to emulate, especially on the cost side, but that's my position. Of course, it's also a pipe dream; can you imagine the court challenges when the Department of Education says a tenured (yeah, let's get rid of that) history professor's salary should be 'X'?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
To be fair, a lot of the crazy facilities being built are being built with donor money


My alma mater just built a Tuscan inspired grand entry arch. I was speechless until I found out that the entire thing was donated by an alumnus. What are you going to do? I would rather have seen him donate the money towards the school's general fund, but it's his money to spend.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
It's stupid that this country basically says that if you don't want to work in school that it's okay, we'll just give you a welfare check instead.


Once again, we are incentivizing bad behaviour.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25):
I don't think, however, just throwing money at it will solve the education problem.


Nope, in this case, I thinking choking off the cheap money would be a start. But, the schools have to respond by reducing tuition and expenses. Whether they want to cut salaries or maybe some programs is up to them, but they will have to respond to the diminishing supply of cash.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25):
Exactly, but I think more could be done to promote these programs or expand upon them.


Agreed. My brother-in-law barely passed high school, joined The Army and pretty much failed there (got in with the wrong crowd) and got booted out. We pretty much saw him spiralling into a real crappy life with no real prospects. He got "lucky" and got a girl pregnant, who he married. She was the best thing that happened to him. She encouraged him to go to trade school and now he's an apprentice electrician and is doing incredibly well for the position he was in just 7 years ago.

We, as a society, need to make sure those opportunities are widely available.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 26):
Hmm I guess they are more or less government regulated too,

That's my point.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 23):
I don't know about most other European countries that much, but around here Finland universities are entirely state owned and funded, there really aren't any significant tuition fees. Thus everybody with good enough abilities and motivation has same chances to get university level education no matter how much money they/their parents have. Overall this system seems to work very well, I'm glad we have it.

It has another set of features as well.

- Unlike in America, where students are pushed by social pressures to "go to college, or be branded a failure" European state-funded universities are not considered the only path to success. You have decent apprenticeship programs and other paths to a decent career.

- Such universities are not as tolerant of goofball degrees. The universities in Finland for instance allocate their resources so that they produce skills that society needs. For every 100 scientists and engineers, they might allocate only 10 for sociologists and 18th century literature majors. In America students are given money (getting themselves into a mountain of debt - but a 20-year old does not understand what that means yet) to get a degree in whatever they are interested in (translation: subjects that seem easy to pass, justifying staying in college and going to all those cool parties and avoiding entering "the real world" as long as possible. That's how you get huge numbers of people getting degrees in Art History, Literature, Philosophy, or African-American Studies - jobs that are virtually worthless outside academia, and will ensure only a job as a Subway Sandwich Artist.)

What we are seeing in America is the result of several generations of propaganda (you MUST go to college) plus the government policy of pushing loans onto kids who really don't know what debt means - their only exposure to debt before this was maybe an Exxon credit card with a $100 limit.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
Shouldn't the free market be allowed to reign? Higher education is fully elective.

For practical purposes it isn't. Besides, it fits with the liberal desires for egalitarian society. I don't care who your parents are, if you show you have the ability the government will pay for you to go to school. The educational system is your welfare, take it or leave it. The government should no longer subsidize poor decisions.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Just like the military, full control by the government, so that salaries are controlled and costs are controlled.

Under that model the universities would be contractors. But the basic difference is that the military is working for the country, but education is working for the students. They are the ultimate beneficiaries of the system, not the government.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Of course, it's also a pipe dream; can you imagine the court challenges when the Department of Education says a tenured (yeah, let's get rid of that) history professor's salary should be 'X'?

Tenure is a piss poor way to do business, and really accomplishes the opposite of what it's supposed to. But so is a blanket salary for certain positions. Having been there and done that, I can tell you that not all professors are created equal.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
In America students are given money (getting themselves into a mountain of debt - but a 20-year old does not understand what that means yet) to get a degree in whatever they are interested in (translation: subjects that seem easy to pass, justifying staying in college and going to all those cool parties and avoiding entering "the real world" as long as possible.

I don't agree that the government should be pushing students one way or another. However, expanded government aid for students should be largely in the form of loans as it's a terrible idea to let people sit at the table and play with government money. Students need a skin in the game.

The government should manage such things like a bank: how well will it pay off? That should be a major consideration when scoring degree programs for government support.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
That's probably the best and most insightful indictment of higher education in this thread. Prestige over students.

Great article looking at a case study of such behavior: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ty-fights-its-rich-kid-reputation/

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
it goes completely against our economic system and our system of government.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
That means government control of all the economic facets of the system: salaries, tuition rates, fees, properties, etc.

Here's part of the problem--the prevalence of private higher education in this country, whose establishment (Harvard in in 1636) preceded the founding of the nation itself.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Then, the government can be more liberal about giving money to students wanting to attend schools that score well and be tighter about funding students at schools where the education is a worse value.

The biggest offenders, in my opinion, are not the state universities or public universities, which can still be bargains compared to private universities. It's lower-tier private colleges/universities that charge nearly as much as top-tier universities (and the students that take out debt to attend them) that are the main problem. I'd agree that the government needs to be much more proactive at monitoring students at these institutions, and maybe consider ending federal loans for private higher education altogether. There really isn't an accountability mechanism for private universities--at least one that doesn't respond rapidly to changing conditions--whereas public universities are at least technically accountable to the various states that they are located in.

The ideal solution would be some way of forcing universities to have more skin in the game--right now, they get all of their money up front from loans.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 32):
The biggest offenders, in my opinion, are not the state universities or public universities, which can still be bargains compared to private universities. It's lower-tier private colleges/universities that charge nearly as much as top-tier universities (and the students that take out debt to attend them) that are the main problem.

They are by far the worst offenders when it comes to bang for the buck. Small name, big price tag.

I'd propose a system to work roughly like this:

For students at a given institution to be eligible for federal student aid, the degree program needs to undergo a federal evaluation every several (probably not more than four) years. Between evaluations, the tuition should either be frozen or subject to only small increases not more than the inflation rate.

The evaluation should look at everything and be specific to every degree program, graduate and undergraduate. The government should be interested in what students learn, graduation rates, where students end up when they graduate, on campus facilities, local cost of living, earning potential of the degree, and so on in order for each degree program at each school to get a "bang for the buck" score.

Then the federal government should be more willing to offer better aid packages and lower interest rates for those degrees which present a better value. And certainly students and institutions would take notice.

As it is now, the system allows students to do the equivalent of getting a $50k loan for a used Civic.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
Shouldn't the free market be allowed to reign?


Not if we decide that higher education is a public good.

What you seem to forget is that we are not allowing the free market to reign. The government is injecting cheap money into a system that doesn't need that money. So, what happens? The system finds ways to spend that money. They over-hire, they over-pay, they over-buy and then, in order to maintain this over-spending, they over-charge. But, that's not a problem, because simple and short-minded people like Elizabeth Warren exist to provide more cheap money to people that can't afford it.
That is the definition of a freaking economic bubble. Buy cheap things at a high price. Add in the cheap money and you have people who have no business buying into the bubble happily feeding it.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
Higher education is fully elective.


You'd think so. But, what has the government, the schools, the teachers, the counselors, the parents, the grand-parents, the employers, the economists, etc. been telling the kids since the were old enough to sputter there first mono-syllabic babel? You gots to go to college!

Hell, I do it with my kids.

The schools have quietly and not so quietly fed this fiction and are the beneficiaries of this lie.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
They are the ultimate beneficiaries of the system, not the government.


I disagree, the ultimate beneficiary of a well educated, functioning, contributing person is society.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
The educational system is your welfare, take it or leave it.

Not my welfare. My family established a chair, or whatever it's called, at Cal Berkeley years ago for scholarships in a particular field of study. Talk about spending your kid's inheritance. (That drops me into the 'puts my money where my mouth is' class.)

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
What you seem to forget is that we are not allowing the free market to reign.

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm asking why we don't allow the free market to reign. The only two people I knew of my generation who took out college loans went bankrupt on them a few years after leaving school. Crazy. Now I'm reading that the government is making a profit on college loans. When is the gov't in the business of financing cheap money at a profit that in the end doesn't have a test on it for the appropriateness of its use?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
Hell, I do it with my kids.

So even though you think it's wrong, you perpetuate it. A unique way of doing things, I must say.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
I disagree, the ultimate beneficiary of a well educated, functioning, contributing person is society.

Just because you have a degree or two does not make you well-educated. I've known people with Ivy League educations who were embarrassingly ignorant (paraphrasing the words of Ronald Reagan, "they know a lot of things that just ain't so"), and I've known people who never graduated High School (mainly older generation, but not all) who were highly knowledgeable and functional in fields of science, technology, economics, etc.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36):
Just because you have a degree or two does not make you well-educated.

You missed the "functioning, contributing" part of my mini-rant. You need all three for a college education to have paid off in a macro-economic, at least in my opinion.

A timely
[Edited 2013-05-12 12:46:06]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Well, the linking screwed everything up in the above post. For some reason the linking isn't working. It's screwing everything up.

This is a timely article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...estment-former-132020890.html?vp=1

"The problem, Bennett says, is people going to second-tier schools, majoring in less-marketable liberal arts fields, and taking on debt to do so."



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
I disagree, the ultimate beneficiary of a well educated, functioning, contributing person is society.

That's exactly the sort of ass backwards, collectivist, liberal thinking that needs to die a quick and painful death.

School isn't for society, school is for the student. Students have to be there for themselves to be successful. Not for their parents, not because society says they should be, but because they believe it's the best for them.

The government should improve access to education. I don't care if your parents are in prison or are billionaires, you should be able to go as far through the educational system as your ability and work ethic can take you. If someone decides they'd rather have a baby and drop out of school, that's up to them. Just don't come around wondering where the welfare check is. The government should make sure the water is accessible, but whether people want to drink it is their business.

I never once thought I went to college to contribute to society, help mankind, or pay more tax to help the federal budget. I went to college because that's what you do to get paid so you can have the McMansion and nice car that you can park in the acres of parking lot at the local Walmart. I didn't go to college, stay late studying, or do any of that crap for my parents and I sure as hell didn't do it for the good of society. I did it for me.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
My family established a chair, or whatever it's called, at Cal Berkeley years ago

I'm sure they meant well anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
School isn't for society, school is for the student. Students have to be there for themselves to be successful. Not for their parents, not because society says they should be, but because they believe it's the best for them.

Yup, they have to be succesful for themselves. But, their success should lead to a succesful society, in the end.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I never once thought I went to college to contribute to society, help mankind, or pay more tax to help the federal budget.

Neither did I, but in the end (at least so far) my college education, among other things, has allowed me to earn a decent living, contribute to society, participate in the economy, etc. It is the ultimate result if followed through on, but it is not always, in fact I would say it is rarely the case that that folks go to school in order to "make the world better".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I did it for me.

So did I.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
That's exactly the sort of ass backwards, collectivist, liberal thinking that needs to die a quick and painful death.

I need to save that one...no one has ever even implied that I have liberal thinking.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
School isn't for society, school is for the student. Students have to be there for themselves to be successful. Not for their parents, not because society says they should be, but because they believe it's the best for them.

Why should my tax dollars go to helping the student?*

I fail to see why you're for government to stay out of almost everything except for education, which you have benefited off of, and a ton of defense spending, which would help you land a job at Lockheed or something.

It's either a big coincidence or you just base your ideology off what is best for you, with no other consistency. If your parents kicked you out and you couldn't support yourself with your retail job and had to resort to welfare, I have a feeling you'd be all of the sudden for it...

*I'm all for helping to fund education, I'm just posing the question



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 34):
ecause simple and short-minded people like Elizabeth Warren exist to provide more cheap money to people that can't afford it.
That is the definition of a freaking economic bubble

I'd be fine with a modified approach--do it for the kids/adults that have already taken on the debt, but be much more restrictive in how you apply these new standards going forward to prevent the moral hazard problem from occurring and attempting to gradually deflate the bubble.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
My family established a chair, or whatever it's called, at Cal Berkeley years ago for scholarships in a particular field of study
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39):
I'm sure they meant well anyway

Nothing wrong with that. That's private money, and people can spend it however the way they want it--and it's scholarship money (grants) so it doesn't contribute to the student reliance on federal loans. It's no different than any other private scholarship--and while Berkeley is certainly liberal, it's still a damn good school.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
Yup, they have to be succesful for themselves. But, their success should lead to a succesful society, in the end.

That's where liberal thinking gets derailed: too much "We the People" and not enough "I the person." You want an affluent town? Find a couple thousand affluent people.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
I need to save that one...no one has ever even implied that I have liberal thinking

It's important to note that schools don't exist for society, they exist for the students. I don't give a rat's ass what some fifteen year old gets on his algebra test. He should, but I don't.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Why should my tax dollars go to helping the student?*

Because that's the equalizer. People say welfare is needed to help people out of poverty but all it really does is make bad decisions pay off. The system should be set up for people to go as far as they want to with their ability and work ethic. All you can do is put the opportunity there for people, whether they take it is another matter entirely and not one anyone can control.

I don't want to give the impression that the government or educational system should be set up so that having money isn't an advantage, (the inheritance tax is a joke) as that isn't really fair to those who have money. It just needs to be so that not having money isn't a disadvantage.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
I fail to see why you're for government to stay out of almost everything except for education, which you have benefited off of, and a ton of defense spending, which would help you land a job at Lockheed or something.

Education is how you make sure the gap between rich and poor, or more importantly, the ability of the poor to become better off stays in check, without punishing success or rewarding idiocy.

Defense is just purely because 1) the landscape is changing whether anyone likes it or not, 2) winding down two major operations is going to lower costs anyway and 3) ten years of combat hasn't done any favors for the equipment.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
It's either a big coincidence or you just base your ideology off what is best for you, with no other consistency.

Yeah basically. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
If your parents kicked you out and you couldn't support yourself with your retail job and had to resort to welfare, I have a feeling you'd be all of the sudden for it...

No I wouldn't be for it, but that's a moot point anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Because that's the equalizer. People say welfare is needed to help people out of poverty but all it really does is make bad decisions pay off. The system should be set up for people to go as far as they want to with their ability and work ethic. All you can do is put the opportunity there for people, whether they take it is another matter entirely and not one anyone can control.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Education is how you make sure the gap between rich and poor, or more importantly, the ability of the poor to become better off stays in check, without punishing success or rewarding idiocy.

You do realize that is actually the argument for welfare, the way it's supposed to be and not the right wing's vision of getting people dependent on government. I'm not saying there isn't a ton of problems with it, but you're argument for the government getting involved in education can easily be molded into the welfare discussion. I mean, I guess everyone has their own opinion, but it doesn't seem very consistent

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
It's either a big coincidence or you just base your ideology off what is best for you, with no other consistency.

Yeah basically. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

Where I was getting at with that is instead of making up these eloquent arguments, you could just come out and say you're for it because it suits you. It would save a lot of time on these forums because the threads often devolve into you vs a bunch of posters  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
If your parents kicked you out and you couldn't support yourself with your retail job and had to resort to welfare, I have a feeling you'd be all of the sudden for it...

No I wouldn't be for it, but that's a moot point anyway.

But didn't you just say you were for whatever helps you out? I mean I guess I can get behind that even if I disagree, but your logic for what the government should and should not do is misleading... you argue out an ideology when in fact it's just what helps you out. See the disconnect I'm observing?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 44):
You do realize that is actually the argument for welfare, the way it's supposed to be and not the right wing's vision of getting people dependent on government.

Not really. You don't throw money at poor people, throw opportunity at them. If they don't want to put in the work that's fine, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize that decision. There's no getting around the fact that at some point, the kids who were in class doing what they were supposed to end up paying for the kids who skipped to go get high. I'm not saying I have a problem with people just wanting to cruise through life with a joint and a Playstation, but I'm not willing to pay for it.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 44):
Where I was getting at with that is instead of making up these eloquent arguments, you could just come out and say you're for it because it suits you.

Diplomacy is the art of letting others have your way. Just because it helps me doesn't mean I'm wrong.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
Not really. You don't throw money at poor people, throw opportunity at them.

You don't have very much opportunity when you work two full time jobs and can hardly pay for food and bills. You don't have much opportunity when you're entire housing community is the slums and everyone resorts to crime, dragging you down with you. Have you ever talked to some dirt poor people?

We all have this idea that people on welfare are lazy and they want to be on government assistance forever. We also think that they can just "try harder" and get out of welfare. Well, that is very incorrect. There will always be scum abusing the system, and some welfare laws really do just throw money at people and not opportunity, but the good laws are there to create a situation where their heads can stay above water. You can't even think about what you are gonna do on the island if you're legs are tied to rocks and you are fighting for air.

What good are college incentives for people that can't even make it that far? You were blessed to have not had to worry about the crap poor people went through, your first actions as an adult were going to college where you were given your first opportunity to succeed. Growing up, you weren't given that option, you started off successful

Having slums and dirt poor people does nothing good for society, only harms it. And although you don't care about society, it ultimately does affect you negatively. We're not asking for an arm and a leg from you, just a bit, and the odds are, it will benefit you indirectly throughout your life



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 21):
The greater point being made though is that all of this cheap money is being used by colleges to finance projects which don't necessarily have a direct effect upon higher learning. That's an argument I understand.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
Ask yourself why that's happened. What has happened in the last 20 or 30 years? Money has become cheaper and more widely available. The same thing that happened in the mortgage bubble.

I see that point buried in there, but it was buried under a pretty thick mound of "back in my day" self-righteousness and, in my opinion, ignorance. See here:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
When I was a student, very few people got student loans. If you came from a poor family who could not help pay for school, you worked towards getting some sort of scholarship

This is out of tune with today's reality. If you are middle class today, you are not getting a meaningful scholarship unless you have some very unique qualification. You also are not financing an education with a job at subway or the local bookstore. That is all fundamentally different than a generation ago. To claim otherwise is unjust.

To suggest that you shouldn't go to school if you don't qualify for a scholarship or have funds to finance it outright is unfair. While I agree that university degrees are overrated and other great career paths exist, this shouldn't be based on your family wealth.


User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8294 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
And although you don't care about society, it ultimately does affect you negatively.

Least of all that early Saturday morning home invasion robbery once he has achieved the lifestyle he is working toward.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
You don't have very much opportunity when you work two full time jobs and can hardly pay for food and bills.

People don't just magically end up that way. The number of people who as workers are genuinely useless doing anything more than being a warm body is not huge. Not everybody can go get a Ph.D, but then not everybody needs it either.

There are reasons why employers aren't hiring these people for better wages, it isn't just because they don't like them. They might have been convicted of a crime, or just decided when they were young that they would be better off not going to school.

Everybody has negative influences in their lives. Resisting them is not the responsibility of the government.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
You don't have much opportunity when you're entire housing community is the slums and everyone resorts to crime, dragging you down with you.

So now we're supposed to write people checks to not commit crimes and do what they're supposed to do? It sucks to be in a bad environment like that, but it's on the people themselves to not fall into a worse situation for themselves. The government should fund schools to provide a way out, but actually travelling the route to a better life is on the individual.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 46):
What good are college incentives for people that can't even make it that far?

There need to be improvements on the sub-college levels too.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 47):
If you are middle class today, you are not getting a meaningful scholarship unless you have some very unique qualification. You also are not financing an education with a job at subway or the local bookstore. That is all fundamentally different than a generation ago. To claim otherwise is unjust.

Part of the reason education costs so much is that people are willing to pay for it because 1) They feel the societal pressure to do it, 2) They are told it will pay off no matter what and 3) They can get easy loans to pay for it. It's easy to not care that the price is bad when you can just finance it.

It's the same dynamics that caused the housing bubble. You weren't "Living the American dream" unless you owned a home, it's an asset that will only appreciate in value, and all you have to do is sign here on the mortgage. Don't worry that the rate might explode, you'll sell your house for a profit or refinance to a better deal before anything bad can happen.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7980 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
There are reasons why employers aren't hiring these people for better wages, it isn't just because they don't like them. They might have been convicted of a crime, or just decided when they were young that they would be better off not going to school.

Again, there are people like that, but there is a big chunk of underemployed people in this economy that are more than willing to work but let's face it, the economy sucks

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
So now we're supposed to write people checks to not commit crimes and do what they're supposed to do? It sucks to be in a bad environment like that, but it's on the people themselves to not fall into a worse situation for themselves. The government should fund schools to provide a way out, but actually travelling the route to a better life is on the individual.

Welfare should be the last thing there is. We need to provide good education, a good economy that produces jobs, attract businesses, etc and most lower class problems will fix themselves. And yes, people do f*** themselves up and it's no fault but theirs but then they have kids and that's where I get concerned. I'm with ya... give people the opportunity but if they want to be stupid, let them. But I want the young kid in the inner city to have opportunity. Better lower education and access to higher education/trade schools is vital, but welfare to an extent, is needed. I'm not even arguing for a ton of it, just enough to keep people living above poverty (poverty by our definitions, not Africa poverty obviously, 99.9999% of us are above that)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
We need to provide good education, a good economy that produces jobs, attract businesses, etc and most lower class problems will fix themselves.

The first one requires the government, and the rest of those items require the government to get out of the way.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 50):
And yes, people do f*** themselves up and it's no fault but theirs but then they have kids and that's where I get concerned.

That's part of why you have school and the like: to get a good influence in kids' lives. Not everybody gets good parents but there are plenty of people who had shitty parents and turn out just fine. I'm sick of the demographic excuse making.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Part of the reason education costs so much is that people are willing to pay for it because 1) They feel the societal pressure to do it, 2) They are told it will pay off no matter what and 3) They can get easy loans to pay for it. It's easy to not care that the price is bad when you can just finance it.

It's the same dynamics that caused the housing bubble. You weren't "Living the American dream" unless you owned a home, it's an asset that will only appreciate in value, and all you have to do is sign here on the mortgage. Don't worry that the rate might explode, you'll sell your house for a profit or refinance to a better deal before anything bad can happen.

I'm struggling to see what this has to do with this statement of mine:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 47):
. If you are middle class today, you are not getting a meaningful scholarship unless you have some very unique qualification. You also are not financing an education with a job at subway or the local bookstore. That is all fundamentally different than a generation ago. To claim otherwise is unjust.

I agree that university should not, by default, be the option for everyone. I agree that it does not always pay off. I fail to see why finances should be the deciding factor. It should be based on ability. If you graduate from a great high school in the US with above a 4.0 have extracurricular activities (say a few sports), and get into say, University of Washington, UC Berkeley, or MIT (no reason for those choices), why should the fact that your parents aren't sitting on a pile of cash mean that you can't go?

Look at other countries in the first world.

I firmly believe that most people who don't like easy access to things like education and healthcare are people who have never really had to worry about it themselves.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 52):
I'm struggling to see what this has to do with this statement of mine:

Because nobody really cares how much a college education costs since they all feel it's a necessity and there are people willing to finance it.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 52):
why should the fact that your parents aren't sitting on a pile of cash mean that you can't go?

It doesn't mean they can't go. They'll go and take out loans to do it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

Federal student loans are one of the biggest ponzi (lack of a better word atm) schemes ever created. Anyone who has them like myself knows this.

[Edited 2013-05-12 19:54:59]


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 52):

I firmly believe that most people who don't like easy access to things like education and healthcare are people who have never really had to worry about it themselves.

What you don't seem to get is that you don't make something more accessible by throwing money at it. You might temporarily make it more affordable for the bottom 10-20%, but then the laws of economics inevitably take over and you end up having made it more expensive for everyone, and driving the bottom out again.

I know the Student loan program was established for noble reasons. But unintended consequences like this are the rule rather than the exception when government programs start screwing around with markets. Just as happened with Sub-Prime loans.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 47):
This is out of tune with today's reality. If you are middle class today, you are not getting a meaningful scholarship unless you have some very unique qualification. You also are not financing an education with a job at subway or the local bookstore. That is all fundamentally different than a generation ago. To claim otherwise is unjust.To suggest that you shouldn't go to school if you don't qualify for a scholarship or have funds to finance it outright is unfair. While I agree that university degrees are overrated and other great career paths exist, this shouldn't be based on your family wealth.

I could not agree more, as I said about my niece, very smart, top grades, but not wealthy. When she finish's school, even with a big assistance package from the school, she will owe a ton of money. You cannot save more than a pittance from part time work while in high school. She works at a drug store while going to school, it just about pays her driving expenses to get to the job.

Everyone who is qualified should have the opportunity to further their education, it should not be for only the wealthy as it was in the past. As someone who knows what it is to go to bed cold and hungry in my past. I can tell you what is important at that time, food and heat, certainly not school. That is why welfare laws are so important, it should at the very least, let you go to school with some food in your stomach and cloths on your back, so you can learn, not suffer. In the last thirty years, we have lost the opportunity for the middleclass which was gained during the previous seventy years. Let us put the blame where it belongs, the loss of opportunity to share in the American Dream for millions, while untold wealth accumulates for the already wealthy. The loss of job opportunity which built the middleclass, and paid the taxes to feed the less fortunate and educate those who had the ability to learn has been very destructive to our economy and country.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56):
I could not agree more, as I said about my niece, very smart, top grades, but not wealthy. When she finish's school, even with a big assistance package from the school, she will owe a ton of money. You cannot save more than a pittance from part time work while in high school. She works at a drug store while going to school, it just about pays her driving expenses to get to the job.

How many scholarship programs did she apply to? Just asking.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
How many scholarship programs did she apply to? Just asking.

In total, I really do not know. It was a fair number as far as I have been told. I know she has a great package from a very good school in Boston. When I heard the numbers about student assistance, I was impressed. I thought wow! When I heard the numbers for the entire cost per year, I was floored. My daughter came out of college with her degree debt free twenty years ago. I know that if I tried that today with the numbers that I heard from my niece, I would still be working at eighty.

[Edited 2013-05-12 20:31:11]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Susan warren is just spouting tired old rhtoric that dates back centuries. The money lenders are evil. The fact high risk people must pay higher rates is evil. The fact plane tickets cost more on Thanksgiving is evil. These should all be controlled / sold by the government, she reasons.

Interest rates are a price. People who hate capitalism obviously favor "price controls" to provide the illusion of giving lower income people access to more stuff.

The pernicious element in her logic is that capitalism can't do what she is asking... only the government can. The result is squalor for all.

Warren systematically attacks structures that house money, because she believes government officials and their glorious, powerful hands should be clenching all the money.

I think she's an interesting person, and when she goes down politically, she will go down big. She's a sound byte generator. The equivalent of Michelle Bachmann.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56):
That is why welfare laws are so important, it

Why would people attend college if the government provides everything for free?

Regarding your niece, is she intersted in low-cost options such as community college? The 2 most important statistics about a college are: (1) how fast can you graduate (2-3 years is ideal; 4 years is average) and (2) how cheap is it.

5 year programs with a master's built in are a strong option.

If people think taking out $100k in loans for a four year degree is reasonable, wow. Not a good option anymore. Private schools are for the affluent and wealthy. It's summer camp for rich kids.

A kid's future depends on degrees and (to a lesser extent) grades. School name & reputation count for... nothing... unless it is MIT, Harvard or Yale. Or maybe Princeton/Stanford on the outside. The rest... vanilla BA and should be done as cheap & fast as possible.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 60):
Why would people attend college if the government provides everything for free?

To get into jobs that have better salaries and better working environment than those with less education required perhaps? Nobody has to be hungry around here, no significant tuition fees or anything in any education level, healthcare covered by the government. Yet our colleges & universities have never lacked students.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
That's part of why you have school and the like: to get a good influence in kids' lives. Not everybody gets good parents but there are plenty of people who had shitty parents and turn out just fine. I'm sick of the demographic excuse making.

I don't think it's an excuse--they don't call it the poverty trap for nothing. If a child doesn't have any positive support from family and friends, s/he is not going to get it in the public school system, nor make wise choices, and likely will have children that do the same. On the other end of the spectrum, I know plenty of people with terrific family support, all the best schools money can buy, and they survive in spite of their terrible choices--in the wild they wouldn't last a minute were it not for their trust fund. Government is generally pretty terrible at 'righting these wrongs', but to think children in a hopeless environment are somehow going to find their way out of it in any meaningful number is delusionsal.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
s/he is not going to get it in the public school system

Not now certainly, as it stands currently, our deplorable public school system is in fact a major contributor to the poverty cycle.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
but to think children in a hopeless environment are somehow going to find their way out of it in any meaningful number is delusionsal.

They do, all the time so it isn't impossible, people prove it wrong everyday. There are of course a number of other government-sponsored factors contributing to the poverty cycle (i.e. generational welfare, incentivizing welfare recipients to have numerous children...etc), but just having an effective public education system that would stop contributing to the problem and start working to counteract it would go a long way.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Just like the military, full control by the government

Not necessary. For whatever reason, the US government has clearly shown that it is unable to run a successful public education system unlike other countries. It's incredibly inefficient, we spend the 2nd most amount of money per capita of any country in the world (Switzerland being 1st) and rank near last among industrialized countries in quality. Full government control is neither necessary nor desirable, simply return control of it to the states. The federal government can still help fund education to make it more accessible and provide basic oversight, but leave control of it to the states, it's how it was before the late 70's and before the decline in public education.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 63):
Full government control is neither necessary nor desirable, simply return control of it to the states. The federal government can still help fund education to make it more accessible and provide basic oversight, but leave control of it to the states

The simplest, easiest measure, IMHO, is to end federal student loans to private institutions, and only provide it to public institutions--and there are plenty of good, solid public universities that provide educations comparable to the "just below elite" level of private schools (and some are even ranked higher). It doesn't prevent the smartest students from attending elite institutions because most (if not all) of the elite institutions tend to have rather large financial endowments and are some of the most generous in terms of awarding student aid.

That way, the federal government pulls out of the private education market (which is very much a market, even if many of its participants are non-profit) altogether, and forces private institutions to compete based on quality and value per tuition dollar. If private institutions want to try to compete with each other to become the "new elite" let them do it on their own dime through raising money from their donors and competing for research grants from the government.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2836 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 63):
. Full government control is neither necessary nor desirable, simply return control of it to the states. The federal government can still help fund education to make it more accessible and provide basic oversight, but leave control of it to the states, it's how it was before the late 70's and before the decline in public education.


I'm not talking about K-12. I know that federal government intervention there has been an abject failure.

I'm just pointing out that we are under the illusion that our higher education system is operating in the free market, where it is not. When the schools are able to raise tuition/fees in response to the cheap/free money being pumped into the system by the government, we are not in a free market. We are in a market that is skewed by an oversupply of cash that "forces" the universities to act irrationally.

If we treat higher education as a public good, then we have to remove free market pressures from the equation. In order to do that, the government would have to take over every economic facet of higher education. That would require a change to the constitution.

Now, if the federal government completely exited the higher education, i.e. no grants, no scholarships, no Sallie Mae, etc. then it's quite possible that the same end would occur. The market will stabilize and tuition would have to drop...along with salaries.

Now, I'm not a very big fan of that action because we, as a society need to provide access to anyone who wants and has the intellectual ability to successfully complete a course of study. That has to happen and I really don't think the free market, in of itself, is capable of ensuring that access.

It's a hard problem to fix.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
I think this is a good idea, she is correct.

  

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
If we can float the big banks, why cannot we help the students of this country?

I would answer what you did just below.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
This is so typical, give it to the big guys, screw everybody else.
Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
The price of education is absurd in this country for the middleclass

Back when I still lived in Canada my girlfriend at the time had a tennis scholarship to FGCU, in the meantime I was attending York in Toronto. I was paying with no discounts, if I remember correctly, around $6,500 annually. The cost to a student in FGCU was around $20,000, once again IIRC. So 4 years, $80,000 ( as per the website "Out of State students should add $18,974 to tuition/fees" !!!) so about $156,000.00 for a BA if you're out of state.

In most places in Europe university is free to the student (day time regular classes), and the way it should be everywhere IMHO. A person pays enough taxes in his/her life, governments mishandle billions, the more educated a person the more they earn which means the more they pay in taxes. The world is a funny place.

If you are a person lucky enough to get an education in the USA, you are either from a rich family, a middle class family and will have debt for the next 10-20 years of your life, or from a lower class family and no education at all unless you can play sports.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 64):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 63):
Full government control is neither necessary nor desirable, simply return control of it to the states. The federal government can still help fund education to make it more accessible and provide basic oversight, but leave control of it to the states

The simplest, easiest measure, IMHO, is to end federal student loans to private institutions, and only provide it to public institutions--and there are plenty of good, solid public universities that provide educations comparable to the "just below elite" level of private schools (and some are even ranked higher).

Or better yet, just make tuition free at public universities. Between the endowments that these schools get as well as the grants from the federal and state governments, there's usually more than enough to fund the tuition for all attending students.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I'm not talking about K-12. I know that federal government intervention there has been an abject failure.

I realize that, but I'm saying that we have no reason to think the government would do any better with higher education than they've done with K-12.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I'm just pointing out that we are under the illusion that our higher education system is operating in the free market, where it is not.

No, it is indeed a very distorted market, but it operates in more of a free-market environment than K-12 public schools. Higher education is essentially "voucher-ized" as K-12 education is in certain districts, public universities have to compete for federal dollars against private universities. As a result, we do have excellent quality higher education institutions where US students catch up with their counterparts in other countries where public K-12 education was better.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
If we treat higher education as a public good, then we have to remove free market pressures from the equation.

Again, all of that is unnecessary. It's possible to maintain free market pressures which ensure quality and satisfaction while widening access without full-on, top-down government control. The voucher-like concept in place right now isn't actually a bad system, it just needs to be tweaked to curtail this flood of cheap financing that you correctly point out is warping the costs of higher education.

Quoting Redd (Reply 66):
Back when I still lived in Canada my girlfriend at the time had a tennis scholarship to FGCU, in the meantime I was attending York in Toronto. I was paying with no discounts, if I remember correctly, around $6,500 annually. The cost to a student in FGCU was around $20,000, once again IIRC. So 4 years, $80,000 ( as per the website "Out of State students should add $18,974 to tuition/fees" !!!) so about $156,000.00 for a BA if you're out of state.

Well that's why college students really need to check themselves and the value proposition of attending certain schools. In-state tuition for public universities can range from $6,500-$10,000 annually, so it's not like more cost-effective higher education options aren't available. Students just have to determine if it's worth $20,000 a year to go out-of-state to FGCU over, for example, staying in-state and choosing the University of Louisville for $9,000 a year.

[Edited 2013-05-13 09:05:03]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):

Now, if the federal government completely exited the higher education, i.e. no grants, no scholarships, no Sallie Mae, etc. then it's quite possible that the same end would occur. The market will stabilize and tuition would have to drop...along with salaries.

Now, I'm not a very big fan of that action because we, as a society need to provide access to anyone who wants and has the intellectual ability to successfully complete a course of study. That has to happen and I really don't think the free market, in of itself, is capable of ensuring that access.

But we DID do it properly at one time. That's what State universities were there for. They were subsidized by the state to ensure that tuition (for in-state residents) was affordable, and that was generally true. You could work your way through one of these state universities a few years ago - not easily - it might take you an extra year or two, but you could do it.

But then came student loans and everything went out the window.

Let's take an extreme example. Let's say the Federal government promised anyone who asked a student loan for whatever amount they needed, at a very low interest rate. Hell, let's even say that the Fed won't even ask for the money to be paid back. Effectively that makes college education "free". What do you think will happen to tuition rates? They will skyrocket of course. When your customer who hands you the check suddenly has unlimited funds, it is only natural that you can raise your prices. 50%. 100%. It's OK, they will pay it.

The actual situation is not so extreme, but is basically the situation we are in.

If you want to subsidize education for people that otherwise can't afford it - I have no issue with the concept. But let's go back to the model that works - Low in-state tuitions at state universities. There is nothing wrong with state universities. Some of them are among the world's best schools. But let the state legislatures negotiate the subsidies directly with the universities involved.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
If a child doesn't have any positive support from family and friends, s/he is not going to get it in the public school system, nor make wise choices, and likely will have children that do the same.

Possibly. Of course cashing checks from the government isn't going to help that either. Either way people should take responsibility for themselves instead of just blaming circumstances.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 63):
but leave control of it to the states, it's how it was before the late 70's and before the decline in public education.

Bad idea. I can just imagine what a school run by the state of West Virginia might be like.

Quoting us330 (Reply 64):
The simplest, easiest measure, IMHO, is to end federal student loans to private institutions, and only provide it to public institutions

Horrible plan. Many private schools are quite good and many public schools are expensive, especially if you're from out of state. All institutions and their degree programs, both public and private, should be scored for value by the government and have that taken into consideration for loans.

Quoting Redd (Reply 66):
Back when I still lived in Canada my girlfriend at the time had a tennis scholarship to FGCU

It seems that you're the one that could benefit from some time in FGCU's, somewhat extremist, economics program.

Actually considering some of the economic thought in this country, it might merit consideration to turn FGCU into an economics re-education camp.

Quoting Redd (Reply 66):
A person pays enough taxes in his/her life, governments mishandle billions, the more educated a person the more they earn which means the more they pay in taxes.

See now my reward for spending a lot and working hard for an education is paying higher taxes to subsidize my peers who were busy screwing around or having kids.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Or better yet, just make tuition free at public universities. Between the endowments that these schools get as well as the grants from the federal and state governments, there's usually more than enough to fund the tuition for all attending students.

No, it's important that there is a significant cost to the students so they have some of their chips on the table.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Again, all of that is unnecessary. It's possible to maintain free market pressures which ensure quality and satisfaction while widening access without full-on, top-down government control.


You know what? I don't care how it happens, so long as it happens.

Understand, that I am a Conservative with very strong Libertarian tendencies. And I'm advocating a bigger federal government involvement in this area. That's how strongly I feel about higher education, access to it, and the greater good that an educated citizenry and electorate can bring.

How it comes about, whether oppressive government control, to a voucher system to a "whatever", we need to get a handle on access, on cost, and on this cheap money that idiots; I'm sorry, short-minded people like Elizabeth Warren, seem to think will make everything better.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 68):
But we DID do it properly at one time. That's what State universities were there for. They were subsidized by the state to ensure that tuition (for in-state residents) was affordable, and that was generally true.


I'm all for it. How do we do it? The first step is to cut-off the cheap money, at the under-grad level. Cold Turkey. Make it go away. But, again, what does that do? It will force the schools to make some pretty tough decisions. And, quite frankly, I don't think that they, as an industry, are up to making the right decision.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 65):
I'm just pointing out that we are under the illusion that our higher education system is operating in the free market, where it is not. When the schools are able to raise tuition/fees in response to the cheap/free money being pumped into the system by the government, we are not in a free market. We are in a market that is skewed by an oversupply of cash that "forces" the universities to act irrationally.

I agree with you. It is absolutely disgusting that nobody wants to address the elephant in the room. Higher education costs so much because it can.

The Feds are willing to pump out money and lend it. The Universities get a nice big fat check in most cases. Round up as many people as you can to go to college and the money just keeps coming in. Unless you are an unfortunate school in Illinois where we are so broke that can't even pay the colleges for money they have lend to students.

The students then turn around, book a semester where they are not full time students and the money that is not spent on their classes for that year gets deposited in their bank accounts to do as they wish with it. Buy cars, boats whatever they wish. Yes, there is a clause that says you can't spend it on anything but school related things, but nobody follows that and there is no checks in place to make sure students don't do this.

-So the political, social and business corruption keeps on spinning :
**** Politicians gain favor with easy access to funds
**** Colleges can raise their rates because money is readily available from either the Feds or State level
**** Students can just borrow without any regulation and then BITCH that they are being charged too much, cant find enough money to go to college (total bs) and how the debt should be forgiven so they can go on with their lives.   

Circle back around and the cycle starts all over again.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 63):
but leave control of it to the states, it's how it was before the late 70's and before the decline in public education.

Bad idea. I can just imagine what a school run by the state of West Virginia might be like.

West Virginia actually did run several universities pretty much on their own until recent decades, WVU and Marshall University aren't/weren't bad schools in the slightest.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Or better yet, just make tuition free at public universities. Between the endowments that these schools get as well as the grants from the federal and state governments, there's usually more than enough to fund the tuition for all attending students.

No, it's important that there is a significant cost to the students so they have some of their chips on the table.

I'm not completely opposed to means-testing it, but students for the most part would have skin the game: their futures. If the voucher concept were maintained, students should of course have to demonstrate and maintain sufficient academic ability to receive the voucher/grant.


User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

And I am sick of this shit about costs being too high for the middle class.

I live near one of the best junior colleges in the nation and it is extremely affordable. 1500-2000$ a semester max with books, once you get your 2 year degree for CHEAP you can go finish your BA at a State school with in house tuition for no more than 11-12,000$ a year, unless you live somewhere absurd like the north east. Not to mention that a lot of places offer instate tuition to out of state kids.

Now, of course if you choose to live on campus it will be much higher because of room and board, but my experience has been that it is cheaper to work and get an apartment off campus.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Or better yet, just make tuition free at public universities. Between the endowments that these schools get as well as the grants from the federal and state governments, there's usually more than enough to fund the tuition for all attending students.

Tell that to SIUC , where just 3 years ago Illinois and the Feds owed them around $300 million in unpaid tuition.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Many private schools are quite good and many public schools are expensive, especially if you're from out of state

Once you get beyond the top 25, private schools and public schools are pretty similar in rankings. Public schools are only expensive/comparable to private school tuition if you go out of state--which is why you don't send your kid to a state school out of state, unless the state school is pretty damn good (ie UVA (the best university in Virginia), Cal-Berkeley, UCLA (in some years ranked higher than rival USC) or Texas (second only to Rice)).


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Students just have to determine if it's worth $20,000 a year to go out-of-state to FGCU over, for example, staying in-state and choosing the University of Louisville for $9,000 a year.

It's still not a great choice to have to make. A lot of money or a lot more money to get an essential service... Like I said before, children of rich families are guaranteed and education, if you're not from a rich family and have no skills to warrant a scholarship you're screwed, pretty much. The kid that is not too bright but can throw a ball gets a free ride, the kid that wants to get an education but can't throw a ball might have to contend with a 156,000.00 $ tuition fee.... It's very simple, the kid that can make money for a school, through what ever means gets a free ride, the kid that wants to have an education but is fairly average has to contend with 10-20 years of debt....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
See now my reward for spending a lot and working hard for an education is paying higher taxes to subsidize my peers who were busy screwing around or having kids.

Man, do you know where you your taxes go? Have you read the recent thread on congress buying over a 100 tanks that Army does not want? I'd suggest putting your anger towards useless spending and supporting education. It would really, really do any country some good, the USA included.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 67):
Well that's why college students really need to check themselves and the value proposition of attending certain schools. In-state tuition for public universities can range from $6,500-$10,000 annually, so it's not like more cost-effective higher education options aren't available. Students just have to determine if it's worth $20,000 a year to go out-of-state to FGCU over, for example, staying in-state and choosing the University of Louisville for $9,000 a year.

OMG thank you. These students are ordering a Cadillac Escalade BA education + crying about the bill. Pretty much all it is.

Other options are there for the taking... you can be a non-degree student at most large universities, getting college credit for a fraction of normal tuition prices.

Quoting flanker (Reply 73):
Now, of course if you choose to live on campus it will be much higher because of room and board

Major factor. Nobody said living in your own place, buying books & buying groceries is free. Actually somebody has to work for it...

Thought: if parents want to plan, college expenses usually happen 18 or 19 years after a baby is born. That's because most college kids used to be babies. And then actually grew up and became college kids. The more you know.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

While I applaud the folks in the Trades, I don't think the "average" trade worker can afford a home and raise a family on the wages that the trades offer...Sure there are some well paid Journey-persons, but with the cyclical nature of many of the trades, putting your kids through collage AND paying the mortgage AND putting food on the table is going to be pretty tough, if not impossible..I have read that with the housing market picking back up, contractors are having a very tough time finding trade folks to meet demand, because of the ups and downs of the market, folks are to skittish and have gone back to college to learn a more stable trade, which usually requires a degree of some sort.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 77):
Major factor. Nobody said living in your own place, buying books & buying groceries is free. Actually somebody has to work for it...

That's where they get a job and pay for that. Nobody said it's going to be free and easy.. well apart from the politics being played.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 72):
I'm not completely opposed to means-testing it, but students for the most part would have skin the game: their futures. If the voucher concept were maintained, students should of course have to demonstrate and maintain sufficient academic ability to receive the voucher/grant.

I could get behind grants as long as there are strings attached. In my experience, most of the lazy students not interested in working were the rich kids. They were the ones who switched majors, dropped out, or just skated by doing the bare minimum and retaking classes. It makes sense that it's easier to not care when your high school tuition was higher than for college.

I am against means testing for government aid however. As far as I'm concerned it needs to be a meritocracy: if you prove you have the ability and willingness, I don't care what color you are, who your parents are or how much money you have. Private scholarships and endowments can do whatever they want, but the government should only reward merit. The kid that grows up to cure cancer could be in a ghetto somewhere or could be in a gated community.

Quoting us330 (Reply 75):
Once you get beyond the top 25, private schools and public schools are pretty similar in rankings.

That is no reason to exclude private institutions from support.

Quoting Redd (Reply 76):
Have you read the recent thread on congress buying over a 100 tanks that Army does not want?

Yes, and if you'd read it you'd know that there are actually good reasons why buying them isn't actually a terrible idea. And the Army doesn't want to save money, they just want to spend it on something else.

At least if you buy a tank you get a tank at the end of it. Spending on welfare gets nothing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 78):
While I applaud the folks in the Trades, I don't think the "average" trade worker can afford a home and raise a family on the wages that the trades offer...

Does that mean that folks should not be in the "trades"? Should we take someone who is demonstrable unable to succeed in school yet is an exceptional carpenter and say he still has to go to school because he will not be able to own a house if he is "just a carpenter"?

Of course not. You know what? This country is supposed to provide equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. If someone can't make it successfully through a 4 year program, he should not be able to reap the rewards, such as they are, of a 4 year program.

Sorry, that's another fantasy pushed upon us that everyone should be able to own a house.

That's not to say such a person is not valuable. Quite the contrary, as has been stated before, the world still needs (those in the "trades"). And, they should be rewarded for the benefit they add to society...no more and no less.

Wasn't it Einstein that said (and I'll paraphrase): everyone is a genius, but if you measure genius by how well a fish climbs a tree, it will forever think it is stupid.

Absolutely correct, but, to keep the example, society favors those that can climb the tree and rewards them...the fish will still reap a reward commensurate with its "genius".

By the way...I know plenty of people in the "trades"; they don't do to bad, though their work is cyclical.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 74):
Tell that to SIUC , where just 3 years ago Illinois and the Feds owed them around $300 million in unpaid tuition.

I said 'usually', there are always exceptions, but see how most schools brag about the size of their endowment, this is actually what eventually drove Harvard and the other Ivy Leagues to essentially make tuition almost free for middle-lower class students. All of them used to brag how their endowments were so large that they could fully run their school, staffed, for X number of years without students.

Quoting Redd (Reply 76):
A lot of money or a lot more money to get an essential service...

1) It's not an "essential" service
2) Factoring in Pell Grants and many of the scholarships states offer to students, state universities are indeed very affordable to the middle class, and even more so if you work while going to school. The point is, affordable options are usually available. And I doubt those students foregoing affordable in-state schools to go into huge debt to go to beachfront FGCU are doing so for academic reasons.

Quoting Redd (Reply 76):
the kid that wants to get an education but can't throw a ball might have to contend with a 156,000.00 $ tuition fee

Patently untrue as I described above. It's very possible to get a good college degree and graduate with minimal (less than $20,000) to no student debt if one goes to a public in-state school.

Quote:
OMG thank you. These students are ordering a Cadillac Escalade BA education + crying about the bill. Pretty much all it is.

Indeed, sometimes it's just ridiculous. There was a story out a while back about a student whose parents said they'd pay half his tuition if he went to university and studied architecture or engineering. He refused because he wanted to go to culinary school, so he moved to California and went over a hundred thousand dollars into debt to go to this school. He graduated and couldn't find a job, now he's living in a van behind his parent's home. The article was trying to play it like we should feel sorry for him and the way student debt destroyed his life, which is BS of course...stupid is as stupid does, to quote one of my favorite movies.

Quoting bhill (Reply 78):
While I applaud the folks in the Trades, I don't think the "average" trade worker can afford a home and raise a family on the wages that the trades offer

Very much not the case, it's not uncommon for your average joe working in "the trades" to make more than a lot of college grads, and they are indeed very livable salaries especially considering that most of them live in areas with low costs of living.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
I could get behind grants as long as there are strings attached.

Of course, that goes without saying. I had just recalled reading an article not too long ago where it was discussed that fully covering public school tuition costs for all students would actually cost less than the current system, which isn't surprising to me. Obviously it shouldn't be that straightforward, there need to be conditions attached, but if access can be increased at less cost, I'm all for it.


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
At least if you buy a tank you get a tank at the end of it. Spending on welfare gets nothing.

First off, education is not welfare and if you believe that you are in dire need of one yourself. Next, if you support corporate welfare over the welfare or your fellow citizens you may want to review your own priorities.

One tank (6.25 million, a1 Abrams) is, in the cost of education in the USA a bachelors degree for 78 students, so this 100 tanks could educate 7800 (average not out of state students) students to a bachelors degree of which the average starting salary is $47,000 times 7800 equals 366,600,000 annually, of which taxes taken are 23900 per student taken(and you complain about Europe) per person on average and in total comes to 186,576,000. So if the US would spend that on the education of students it would come out in a surplus. Tanks are a 100% loss.

Support corporate welfare though, and give me a good reason. Do I need a tank....


User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
Factoring in Pell Grants and many of the scholarships states offer to students, state universities are indeed very affordable to the middle class, and even more so if you work while going to school. The point is, affordable options are usually available. And I doubt those students foregoing affordable in-state schools to go into huge debt to go to beachfront FGCU are doing so for academic reasons.

A person is going to school, a part time job is a great idea but the concentration should be on a persons studies. Affordable options, wow, we are talking about education, a right, not a privilege, for the privileged.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
Yes, and if you'd read it you'd know that there are actually good reasons why buying them isn't actually a terrible idea. And the Army doesn't want to save money, they just want to spend it on something else.

At least if you buy a tank you get a tank at the end of it. Spending on welfare gets nothing.

You are making a very poor argument. Buying a useless item, even with the fact that you at least have that item, is the same as "getting nothing", to use your words. And with welfare you generally have lower crime and lower incidence of health issues etc.

Welfare does have a purpose, at least as often as a tank has a purpose. You may not agree with it but it does.

Oh, and by the way, "And the Army doesn't want to save money, they just want to spend it on something else." is a definition of saving money (i.e. why do you save money?).

Quoting Redd (Reply 83):
One tank (6.25 million, a1 Abrams) is, in the cost of education in the USA a bachelors degree for 78 students, so this 100 tanks could educate 7800 (average not out of state students) students to a bachelors degree of which the average starting salary is $47,000 times 7800 equals 366,600,000 annually, of which taxes taken are 23900 per student taken(and you complain about Europe) per person on average and in total comes to 186,576,000. So if the US would spend that on the education of students it would come out in a surplus. Tanks are a 100% loss.

This is a false argument, if it were true we would just educate everybody to have a college degree and suddenly everyone would make more money. There must be effort and value and a desire expended by the individual wanting/getting the education for it to have any real value, in addition to suitable employment on the other end that requires said education. If this is not the case then that education is devalued and all wages will go down on average for those with a 4 year degree.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 80):
At least if you buy a tank you get a tank at the end of it. Spending on welfare gets nothing.

In the end money spent on welfare results in a society with less social problems and healthier population. Tank on the other hand is mostly useless piece of metal and fancy technology that really will most likely be never used for anything useful.

And no, I don't count shooting bunch of Islamic extremists or civilians in some far away place as a good use, Iraq and Afghan wars have already proved that wars against radical Islamic militias around those areas only do more harm than good.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 87, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 86):
Tank on the other hand is mostly useless piece of metal and fancy technology that really will most likely be never used for anything useful.

Delightful deterrent, though. 24/7/365. Don't even have to gas one up. Just park 'em in a row where the satellites can view them.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 88, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 83):
First off, education is not welfare and if you believe that you are in dire need of one yourself.

I never said it was. Education actually pays off, welfare does not. If you're looking to curb spending and waste, look at entitlements.

Quoting Redd (Reply 83):
so this 100 tanks could educate 7800 (average not out of state students) students to a bachelors degree of which the average starting salary is $47,000 times 7800 equals 366,600,000 annually, of which taxes taken are 23900 per student taken(and you complain about Europe) per person on average and in total comes to 186,576,000. So if the US would spend that on the education of students it would come out in a surplus.

Did we abolish income tax on people who don't go to college or work in the defense industry? The latter would be real cool if we did.

Quoting Redd (Reply 83):
Support corporate welfare though, and give me a good reason. Do I need a tank....

This is very simple, the Army decided they didn't really want the tanks that are available now, they want the tanks that are available later. Essentially, the government has decided that keeping the production line going is cheaper than shuttering it and then restarting it, which seems quite plausible and I've seen no numbers to the contrary.

Quoting tugger (Reply 85):
Buying a useless item, even with the fact that you at least have that item, is the same as "getting nothing", to use your words.

Too bad nobody pointed that out when FDR was planning the New Deal.

Quoting tugger (Reply 85):
Oh, and by the way, "And the Army doesn't want to save money, they just want to spend it on something else." is a definition of saving money (i.e. why do you save money?).

They aren't talking about giving money back to taxpayers. The reason they're waiting for upgraded M1s is because they had the replacement program cancelled. So if we did what the Army wanted, my guess is it would look like this 1) Shut down the M1 factory 2) Spend money now being spent on current M1s on some clean sheet program 3) A few years down the road buy the upgraded M1s, after reopening the factory and 4) Buying a bunch of whatever they would be spending today's M1 money on.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 86):
In the end money spent on welfare results in a society with less social problems and healthier population.

So the reason people shoot each other is that the government doesn't pay them off well enough? The extortion argument is perhaps the worst one in favor of welfare. Many poor people never resort to crime, and it isn't because the government pays them off.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 89, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
This is very simple, the Army decided they didn't really want the tanks that are available now, they want the tanks that are available later. Essentially, the government has decided that keeping the production line going is cheaper than shuttering it and then restarting it, which seems quite plausible and I've seen no numbers to the contrary.

This has been a historic fact, and yes, a real problem.

The only reason that the US is continuing to build and continuously improve Nuclear Subs (at a rate of 2 per year) is that if you shut down production, all the experts in the field will leave and take other jobs. 15 years down the road, when your sub fleet is getting worn out and needs replacing, it will take years to put together a team of designers and builders who know what the hell they are doing. Their first attempt will probably be full of mistakes that experienced sub crews would only shake their heads at, saying things like, "Sub-builders figured that one out 50 years ago." Their second or third design might be better. Which means shutting down General Dynamics Electric Boat this year might save you some money, but will ensure that you won't have a decent new submarine (If you should need it) for the next 20 or 30 years.

Same holds true for fighter jets, tanks and all sorts of specialty military hardware for which there simply is no private market for.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 90, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
This has been a historic fact, and yes, a real problem.

That's a different problem. Here you're talking about not forgetting how to build tanks, just the costs of having to shut down production and then restart it. Nobody's concerned that tank building expertise will disappear.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 89):
The only reason that the US is continuing to build and continuously improve Nuclear Subs (at a rate of 2 per year) is that if you shut down production, all the experts in the field will leave and take other jobs.

I suspect the Navy might want it faster, just a couple is all they can push onto the budget. The Los Angeles class was commissioned in 1976 and and the Ohio class in 1981. The plan was to replace the SSNs with the Seawolf class, but those were much too expensive.

The thing with subs and aircraft, particularly military specific types, are that they are so long lead that the development cycle must start maybe halfway through the life of its predecessor. The YF-22 flew all the way back in 1990 and the USS Seawolf entered service in 1997 after being laid down in 1989.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 76):
the kid that wants to get an education but can't throw a ball might have to contend with a 156,000.00 $ tuition fee....

That is untrue, facts given in my previous statements and others as well.

Quoting Redd (Reply 84):
A person is going to school, a part time job is a great idea but the concentration should be on a persons studies. Affordable options, wow, we are talking about education, a right, not a privilege, for the privileged.

Wrong on both counts there sir. Yes, education is affordable like many and myself stated previously. No, higher education is not a right for anyone.

Concentration on studies? That goes without saying, BUT If a student wants to get his or her ass through college they should face life, ACCEPT REALITY and either :

A. Work through it, although it will take longer ( I had and still do 2-3 jobs while full time )
B. Find all available resources like all the above stated. Very easy to do. (which I did)
C. Become good at a sport
D. Have flawless grades
E. Some or all of the above in no particular order

[Edited 2013-05-13 14:47:38]


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 92, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 84):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 82):
Factoring in Pell Grants and many of the scholarships states offer to students, state universities are indeed very affordable to the middle class, and even more so if you work while going to school. The point is, affordable options are usually available. And I doubt those students foregoing affordable in-state schools to go into huge debt to go to beachfront FGCU are doing so for academic reasons.

A person is going to school, a part time job is a great idea but the concentration should be on a persons studies.

Your education isn't degraded if you have to work while going to school.

Quoting Redd (Reply 84):
Affordable options, wow, we are talking about education

Yes affordable, there's nothing wrong with actually having to pay for higher education, I'm all for expanding access and ensuring it's an option available to those who don't have the financial means, but there's nothing inherently wrong with paying some amount to further your education.

Quoting Redd (Reply 84):
a right, not a privilege, for the privileged.

It's not a right, it is a privilege that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, earns through academic achievement. Making it a "right" infers that all deserve and are entitled to a college education without regard to their academic performance, ambition and life choices. I don't have a "right" to a college education if I don't study and make the requisite grades to be admitted to college.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 93, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

http://www.brown.edu/academics/grads...formation/international-applicants


I worked on the campus of Brown University at different times in my past career. I was always intrigued by the number of students that seemed to be from other countries. I also wondered how so many could afford Brown, while I, a native born of the so called rich nation of the United States could never even consider such an expensive education for my children. In the link above, it tells what a foreign student can expect to pay per year. I know there are subsidies etc. It just shows how 1. the wealthy go there, or 2. the students are being subsidized by their governments to study here, and go back to make their country a bigger challenge to the US.

I believe the naysayers should wonder what is happening here in the US because of the tremendous cost of education for the common folk. Something is out of whack here as usual. The wealthy get the best of everything, including education, that perpetuates the system of the special people who control. More and more of the non-special people fall by the wayside. This system worked for years because of the total number of jobs for the non-special people. The GI Bill did not hurt either, after the war. This is not so anymore. We have sent the jobs to Pakistan, look how good that is working for the workers there. We need (our) government to help (our) young get educated to compete against the young of other nations who are getting help from their government. Sen. Warren is correct, stop helping the people (who have it all) and start helping the people (who do it all)

[Edited 2013-05-13 18:15:11]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 94, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 93):
2. the students are being subsidized by their governments to study here, and go back to make their country a bigger challenge to the US.

Not all of them go back home. The H-1B has been a secret weapon for America for a long time.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 93):
The wealthy get the best of everything, including education, that perpetuates the system of the special people who control.

There's nothing wrong with that. The idea of giving your kids and grandkids a better life should ring a bell. You're goal is backwards: it doesn't matter if having money guarantees you a good education. The goal should be that not having money should not preclude one from getting a good education. And with so much means tested financial aid, all those rich kids in private school are saving the government money anyway by not being in the taxpayer funded system.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 93):
Sen. Warren is correct, stop helping the people (who have it all) and start helping the people (who do it all)

The government should stop helping the people who aren't interested in helping themselves and help the people who prove they have the ability and work ethic to succeed. Beyond that, I don't care what color you are or who your parents might be.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

I don't think we'll get answers and it may not even be reasonable to ask, but there are a relatively few vocal people on this thread. I genuinely wonder their background. Economic, educational, etc. My guess is that few or none would be upper middle class upbringing who went from high school straight to a university and financed it without help from their parents. Within the past 25 years. I hope to be proven wrong and to learn something other than that people like to protect their own turf and defend their own generations.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 96, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 95):
I don't think we'll get answers and it may not even be reasonable to ask, but there are a relatively few vocal people on this thread. I genuinely wonder their background. Economic, educational, etc. My guess is that few or none would be upper middle class upbringing who went from high school straight to a university and financed it without help from their parents. Within the past 25 years. I hope to be proven wrong and to learn something other than that people like to protect their own turf and defend their own generations.

I don't know what you're getting at, but I'll bite.

My parents were upper middle class. Went straight to University after High School. Parents helped out my first year (they paid for my dormitory room). After the first year, I was on my own, got my first economics degree 2.5 years later.Worked a couple of years, then went back for a couple of Masters' degrees, while working full time.

It certainly helped that I went to University of Texas with in-state tuition as an undergrad. It was dirt cheap (I think I paid about $400 tuition per 15-hour semester). Add $200-$300 per semester of mostly used books, my share of the apartment cost about $200 per month, I could scrape by pay my living expenses and school on my salary of around $700 per month (I worked as a school bus driver - I was even a Teamster )

That was just under 30 years ago.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 97, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
Too bad nobody pointed that out when FDR was planning the New Deal.

???

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 88):
They aren't talking about giving money back to taxpayers.

I understand, but again "saving money" does not mean to give it back. It can mean there is another use for it.

Quoting flanker (Reply 91):
A. Work through it, although it will take longer ( I had and still do 2-3 jobs while full time )
B. Find all available resources like all the above stated. Very easy to do. (which I did)
[...]
E. Some or all of the above in no particular order

  
I worked and had loans to make up the difference. I think it was a good thing and for me it was important (but boy did I envy those that had their education paid for them and did not have to worry about the cost and did not have to work   )

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
Yes affordable, there's nothing wrong with actually having to pay for higher education, I'm all for expanding access and ensuring it's an option available to those who don't have the financial means, but there's nothing inherently wrong with paying some amount to further your education.

Actually I think having to pay for it is an important element in ones education. I think it is especially important in that it does create a barrier that one must want to overcome to attain. You need to plan and then decide if it is worth the costs involved. And I don't mean as a barrier to prevent people from attending but to add value to the process.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 96):
It certainly helped that I went to University of Texas with in-state tuition as an undergrad. It was dirt cheap (I think I paid about $400 tuition per 15-hour semester). Add $200-$300 per semester of mostly used books, my share of the apartment cost about $200 per month, I could scrape by pay my living expenses and school on my salary of around $700 per month (I worked as a school bus driver - I was even a Teamster )

That was just under 30 years ago.

And today it is approximately $4,000 to 6,000 per semester depending on which campus and program you attend. Not to bad (and actually similar to UC).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRedd From Poland, joined Jan 2013, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 91):
No, higher education is not a right for anyone.

In your country it's a right for people with money. In Many countries around the world it is a right for every citizen.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 92):
Making it a "right" infers that all deserve and are entitled to a college education without regard to their academic performance,

It is a right for all people who want it. People that want it perform academically.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 91):
No, higher education is not a right for anyone.

It should be right for anybody with adequate motivation and abilities. Nobody should need to do multiple low paying jobs, take huge loans or fight for scholarships to get higher education. Students should be able to concentrate on learning, not on how they will manage to pay their studies.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 100, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2489 times:

There was a long piece in the Sunday opinion section of the New York Times this week with a lot of facts and figures on financing higher education, if anyone's interested:

Student Debt and the Crushing of the American Dream



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 101, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 95):
I genuinely wonder their background. Economic, educational, etc. My guess is that few or none would be upper middle class upbringing who went from high school straight to a university and financed it without help from their parents. Within the past 25 years. I hope to be proven wrong and to learn something other than that people like to protect their own turf and defend their own generations.

You are right. I overpaid. Just trying to help others avoid making the same mistake. There are cheap options out there -- use them.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 100):
There was a long piece in the Sunday opinion section of the New York Times this week with a lot of facts and figures on financing higher education, if anyone's interested:

Article has lots of random background, but no central theme. (Implicitly, banks should lower the debt limits & possibly start a central recording system to paternalistically control student borrowing at the student level across all banks).

Or, maybe Papa Bernanke's big ATM card can pay for the kids AND adults involved to goof off, another NYT standby no one would be surprised to hear.

To me, the central theme should be: Shop for education based on a price you are comfortable paying.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 102, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 98):
In your country it's a right for people with money.

You are quite wrong on that if you are implying that is is only for those privileged to have money or a rich family. Education costs money, that is not a bad thing, but anyone that needs to can get the money to get the education.

Quoting Redd (Reply 98):
In Many countries around the world it is a right for every citizen.

Just curious as to which countries you are referring as there are many different education systems out there. Some diverge at what we here in the USA call "10th grade", sending those students that wish to have a Trade skill onto trade school and apprenticeships, and those that want a "higher" education onto to that track.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 99):
It should be right for anybody with adequate motivation and abilities. Nobody should need to do multiple low paying jobs, take huge loans or fight for scholarships to get higher education. Students should be able to concentrate on learning, not on how they will manage to pay their studies.

Why not? Don't you need that very basic skill in life anyway? I think the problem is that too many students don;t think of the money and just pile up loans as if it were free money.

And as I asked above, which countries are you thinking of? I know there are some that do offer students everything "free" (I don't think room and board is free) but what is the education process there? Just curious. Somehow the higher education in the USA is generally considered the best in the world (yes, there are equally highly rated and of course some even higher rated schools and systems in the world, but the quality combined with the quantity of schools the USA has is tremendous).

Quoting Flighty (Reply 101):
You are right. I overpaid. Just trying to help others avoid making the same mistake. There are cheap options out there -- use them.

[...]
To me, the central theme should be: Shop for education based on a price you are comfortable paying.[/quote]
  

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 103, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 100):

There was a long piece in the Sunday opinion section of the New York Times this week with a lot of facts and figures on financing higher education, if anyone's interested:

I see nothing in the article about putting a stop to the forces that push tuition up and up every year. All people talk about is , "oh those poor students, under so much debt. Let's forgive the debt/reduce their payments" while at the same time not lifting a finger to prevent the next generation from digging exactly the same hole for themselves.

Stop feeding the beast. Eliminate the entire student loan concept as a principle means of paying for school. I'm all for subsidizing University education through the state universities that are present in every state (some states have a large number of state funded universities), but let the funding be directly between the states and the universities - let the university explain to the legislature why they have to up their prices 15% every year. When you give the money to the students, no such negotiations can take place. Imagine prospective students haggling over tuition rates...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 104, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting Redd (Reply 98):
In your country it's a right for people with money. In Many countries around the world it is a right for every citizen.

Nope, in this country, if you want to go to school, you can go to school. You can go to junior colleges, community colleges, state colleges, private colleges, trade schools, etc. Some cost more than others.

My family was hardly rich. We were immigrants. My mom and dad both worked their asses off to get the kids through high school (NYC Board of Education schools), neither one of them made it out of high school. My father offered each one of us exactly one semester (or the equivalent in cash) of tuition to CUNY and told us the rest would be up to us.

Each of us (3) took on some debt, we each got some small scholarships. But, we all finished school. My brother out of Baruch College-CUNY, my sister out of SUNY Stony Brook and me with an Associates from the Academy of Aeronautics, followed by a BA from Bellarmine College and an MBA from ERAU-online.

Yup, we took on some debt, but we all made some hard choices and sacrifices.

The problem is now, as we have pointed out ad-nauseum, is that university tuition is operating in a skewed market. There is too much cheap and free money out there and it forcing the universities to act irrationally in order to attract more of this free money.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 105, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 94):

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 93):Sen. Warren is correct, stop helping the people (who have it all) and start helping the people (who do it all)


The government should stop helping the people who aren't interested in helping themselves and help the people who prove they have the ability and work ethic to succeed. Beyond that, I don't care what color you are or who your parents might be.

I think the system is self policing, all according to ones ability, but one should have an opportunity to succeed to their own level. This is being denied to many today, by the sheer cost of education. I notice that nobody touched on the costs involved with a student from over (there) attending (Brown) over here. How can this be that students from (here) cannot afford to go there? (Brown) The whole point is, if their government pays the freight, and obviously they do, why does ours not do the same? We preach and preach about the need for education, but we really do nothing to change the system so that all according to their ability get a shot. We all know that kids of rich Alumni, somehow get a step up in their ability to get in to their Father's and Mother's school. Does money talk? It would seem so. That is the reason for this thread, money, money, and where and who gets it from our government. I would think Wall Street is ahead of the rest of us. I think Sen. Warren knows that also.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 106, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 105):
and obviously they do, why does ours not do the same?

Have you read nothing? Without instituting cost and salary controls, the government paying for all the education would cause tuition costs to explode.

The cost of tuition is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the easy access to cheap money.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 107, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
The cost of tuition is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the easy access to cheap money.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Cheap money from the Central Bank for a particular marketplace (housing, university tuition) never fails cause a bubble that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more detached from the true market value of the goods involved.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):

Have you read nothing? Without instituting cost and salary controls, the government paying for all the education would cause tuition costs to explode.

The cost of tuition is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the easy access to cheap money.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
The cost of tuition is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the easy access to cheap money.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Cheap money from the Central Bank for a particular marketplace (housing, university tuition) never fails cause a bubble that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more detached from the true market value of the goods involved.

Absolutely on both counts.

I am 27 and have one more semester to go. I can't begin to tell you the corruption in student loan deals. The fact hat a student can get a loan for $20,000 for the school year and only register half time both semesters and then POCKET 10,000$ is absolutely absurd.

Like I said before, I am a recipient of fed/state loans and academic grants from my university. My point is that ***************as long as the feds are willing to pump money into this system without any sort of control, the schools will keep increasing tuition costs because the money is there****************

Feel good/"fair" policies have produced effects that were probably not intended. It needs to be fixed or it will keep ballooning out of control.

Also, I say again, this notion that people can't get student loans is BS. It is not a WALLSTREET/ RICH PEOPLE VS US problem. I'ts a Higher Education/"Free"money / Feds lending problem without checks and balances.

[Edited 2013-05-14 21:19:04]


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 102):
but anyone that needs to can get the money to get the education.

At a serious cost. In first and probably even 2nd world countries we compete with, the only cost is that you are a good student.

Do you not think that it's a problem that rich people can go to good schools and poor people can't?

Quoting tugger (Reply 102):
Just curious as to which countries you are referring

Do some research.

And for the record, people who are talking about working your way through community college maybe transferring to a state school - - - that is NOT what I'm talking about. If you are a really top shelf student who is qualified to go to basically any university you want, why should being middle class be the reason that you can't do it? Don't we want to put our best foot forward? Invest in the future of our country?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 110, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 105):
if their government pays the freight, and obviously they do, why does ours not do the same?

Because 70% marginal tax rates make me want to vomit, as they should any reasonable person. Who knows? Deep six welfare and entitlements, and maybe there will be money to pay the freight for education, which is a much better investment anyway. Not to mention that the government already will pay for those who serve in the military.

The solution isn't more "We the people" but rather more "Me the person."

Quoting flanker (Reply 108):
Like I said before, I am a recipient of fed/state loans and academic grants from my university. My point is that ***************as long as the feds are willing to pump money into this system without any sort of control, the schools will keep increasing tuition costs because the money is there****************

Exactly. Raise tuition 10% and all that happens is everybody's loans get 10% bigger.

Just like the housing market. Somebody gets a $100k loan for a house and two years later the next buyer wants a $150k loan to buy the same house. So what does the bank do? Just loan out $150k.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
And for the record, people who are talking about working your way through community college maybe transferring to a state school - - - that is NOT what I'm talking about. If you are a really top shelf student who is qualified to go to basically any university you want, why should being middle class be the reason that you can't do it? Don't we want to put our best foot forward? Invest in the future of our country?

Like we said before you CAN go, take the loans out. Nobody is stopping you. ALSO nobody said it was going to be without cost.

The other easy way for ***********ANYONE to get student loans is to wait until you're no longer a dependent and the money from the feds starts to FLOW FREELY to you since your parent's earnings are no longer a cause for not lending. ************



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 112, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

PRO TIP OF THE DAY



WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE NOT A DEPENDENT AND APPLY, YOU WILL GET 100% ASSISTANCE



I believe this is at age 21 if I am not mistaken

That is what I did and I have never been without funding. Also helps that with part time jobs, you never make more than 20k a year so that will not hinder anything.

[Edited 2013-05-14 21:39:11]

[Edited 2013-05-14 21:40:27]


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 113, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
Do you not think that it's a problem that rich people can go to good schools and poor people can't?

As pointed out ad nauseum, the avenues are plentiful for acquiring a college education if you're poor and have the grades. The problem I have is that I don't think our current public education system does well enough to set students up for success when they need to, regardless of socioeconomic status.


Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
If you are a really top shelf student who is qualified to go to basically any university you want, why should being middle class be the reason that you can't do it

I suggest you do some research of your own. If you're really a top-flight student from a middle class family and get into the likes of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown...etc, almost all essentially comp tuition for students whose families make less than $80,000-$100,000.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 114, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 112):
WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE NOT A DEPENDENT AND APPLY, YOU WILL GET 100% ASSISTANCE



I believe this is at age 21 if I am not mistaken

I'm not sure it is an age, I think it's based on whether or not someone is a dependent. As far as I know, an 18 year old on their own isn't a dependent but a thirty year old with a disability (or for that matter, and elderly parent) could be.

But you're right that it is important that students, and particularly their families, try to maximize financial aid. If you want to help your grandkids for instance, don't put the money in their name or your kids' names so it doesn't get counted. And do estate planning so a college student might not find themselves getting a considerable sum of money while in college which could cause financial aid to evaporate.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 113):
If you're really a top-flight student from a middle class family and get into the likes of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown...etc, almost all essentially comp tuition for students whose families make less than $80,000-$100,000.

   The colleges that can cause problems are the middling private schools with elite price tags.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
I'm not sure it is an age, I think it's based on whether or not someone is a dependent. As far as I know, an 18 year old on their own isn't a dependent but a thirty year old with a disability (or for that matter, and elderly parent) could be.

I am speaking in terms of *federal financial aid*. In their eyes, you are a dependent until 21 for * financial aid*. After that age you no longer need your parent's tax returns, so basically if you make no money, you're considered ultra low class and will receive 1000000% tuition, except for grants which may or may not be getting lack of funding on state level.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 116, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2320 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
At a serious cost. In first and probably even 2nd world countries we compete with, the only cost is that you are a good student.

No, not a serious cost. Unless you want an Ivy League education or attend want to attend some private institution. There are options. Again, community colleges, trade schools, junior colleges, state and city universities. Do they cost money? Yes.

But, if you get a degree in something other than today's equivalent of "Basket Weaving", you should be able to get a return on your investment. That's what education is...an investment.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 117, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2305 times:

Well, at the very least the Federal Government is making money off the student loans--$50.6 billion in 2013, according to this article citing to the CBO: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...loans-policy-profit_n_3276428.html

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8483 posts, RR: 9
Reply 118, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

I don't even know why this is a debate.

Because the banks make huge profits off of low economic level students. Actually, with the explosion of tuition costs the banks are also making huge profits off of middle class kids going to college.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
And the flood of money into the system via student loans is the greatest factor responsible for the sky-rising costs of tuition and everything involved with going to college.

The Universities have also some blame. They really got into playing the money game.

Moving existing debt to lower cost direct government loans isn't going to address those very high costs. But you CAN impact the thinking at universities if you tie government funding for research to the levels of affordability of their degrees. Start pulling research dollars from overpriced universities and you'll see some changes. Maybe it will be some of the top researchers moving more affordable schools to maintain their research funding, or maybe we'll see some decreases in costs.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
You realise that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever don't you?

It does make a lot of sense - especially when you compare it to the traditional costs of a university education in Australia. You can't buy a single year's worth of textbooks in a typical US University for the TOTAL cost of my wife's Physiotherapy education in Perth.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
All you're doing is bringing future consumption forwards

I was able to bring my first home "forward" with the GI Bill and we have enjoyed the benefits of that
earlier consumption our entire married life. Forget about how fast they can but a BMW because most intelligent ones won't blow all that money on one, Look at the impact of significantly delaying the purchase of their first home. That is what can make a huge, long term difference in both the family and the economy.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 14):
Naturally you earn no return when you do a worthless liberal arts degree, that becomes just deadweight loss.

Some companies would disagree. Stanley Marcus (the famous CEO of Neiman Marcus for years) was a strong believer in a Liberal Arts degree. He make it clear that he could teach them business when they started with the company, but university was where they were exposed to so many important ideas. He did pretty well with that approach when you look at the years where he led the company.

Another guy on the Liberal Arts side is Steve Jobs. Remember him? Download and look at his famous commencement address - where he talks about his time at university. Especially the Calligraphy class. Then look at his continual push to keep Apple at the intersection of Technology & Liberal Arts. If you think that is simply a slogan Google Jonathan Ive. Or Sir Jonathan Ive as the case may be.

My bet is that more companies have been screwed up by MBAs than by Liberal Arts majors.

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
In some cases, it might be financially better to learn a trade. Being a plumber or electrician might be less prestigious than having a college degree, but it also means less debt, and financial stability.

If you look around you will see "schools" that charge like a wounded bull to teach students a trade - especially where there is funding for a GI Bill. My personal preference is to get students into a real apprenticeship when they are about 16, with minimal class work. I want to see a tradesman graduate at 18 or 19 with the ability to earn a real living at that point.

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
but the current policy is just way too lenient.

You are looking short term. The financial institutions are the ones getting the sweet end of the deal and the government is being far too lenient in letting them continue with their programs. Refinance directly from the government and you have a boost to the economy that will last for generations.

BTW, it might also be a good idea to make the institutions of learning be responsible for the success of their students in their field of study, bribe it finance or plumbing or welding. Schools of all types are very good at rejecting any responsibility for performance of the students paying that big money.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 119, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
Because the banks make huge profits off of low economic level students. Actually, with the explosion of tuition costs the banks are also making huge profits off of middle class kids going to college.

Loans that the government guarantees. No banker in his right mind would loan an 18 year old $80,000 to get a degree in social work where they might make $35,000 a year when the graduate without having the government behind it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
The Universities have also some blame. They really got into playing the money game.

Their client base got access to money, so they took a cut. People can pay, so they might as well.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
Moving existing debt to lower cost direct government loans isn't going to address those very high costs. But you CAN impact the thinking at universities if you tie government funding for research to the levels of affordability of their degrees. Start pulling research dollars from overpriced universities and you'll see some changes. Maybe it will be some of the top researchers moving more affordable schools to maintain their research funding, or maybe we'll see some decreases in costs.

Dumb idea. The research dollars are handed out because the government needs something researched. There is little connection between being the best person to perform some project and working for a cheap or expensive university. You're making a connection between two largely unrelated things.

The government should vet student loans like every other financial entity: be more willing to put money towards things that are a good value, and less willing to fund things that are not.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
My bet is that more companies have been screwed up by MBAs than by Liberal Arts majors.

That's because liberal arts majors are standing outside holding signs and chanting about whales.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 120, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
BTW, it might also be a good idea to make the institutions of learning be responsible for the success of their students in their field of study, bribe it finance or plumbing or welding. Schools of all types are very good at rejecting any responsibility for performance of the students paying that big money.

I assume that you'll also agree that this should be the case in K-12, public and private?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
Because the banks make huge profits off of low economic level students. Actually, with the explosion of tuition costs the banks are also making huge profits off of middle class kids going to college.

Of course the banks are making a profit. Why shouldn't they. They problem is when the government under-writes these loans and tells the banks they have to reduce interests rates. Or, as the case is now (I think) the government is the direct lender at stupidly low rates.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
The Universities have also some blame.

If you've been reading, you'll see that that we have pointed that out. Universities see the government and all these grants and loans as cash cows. The cheap/free money makes the university act irrationally.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
I was able to bring my first home "forward" with the GI Bill and we have enjoyed the benefits of that earlier consumption our entire married life.

I forgot about the GI Bill. I really don't know how that worked (works?). But, in general, I don't have a problem with a student who has earned his tuition through service in the military.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
My bet is that more companies have been screwed up by MBAs than by Liberal Arts majors.

I'll agree here. Too many MBA's don't have a good leavening of liberal arts. I think it's very important for folks to have a broad education that touches on a lot of subjects. I just don't believe that a degree in Art History, Celtic Studies, Film, Hispanic Languages and Bilingual issues, Chicano Studies, Ethnic Studies, etc. will prepare someone for an actual job, except in the rare case where that person can go and teach the same program he just graduated from with a degree (with honors) in.

FYI, I choose Berkley because I knew I would find the course load I was looking for. These ridiculous degree programs exist from the East Coast to the West Coast and from border to border. They are certainly not exclusive to one school.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 121, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):
That's because liberal arts majors are standing outside holding signs and chanting about whale

Whales are old hat. If you are going to insult a bunch of people (which you do quite frequently), then I'd suggest updating the insult, or at least changing it up every now and then.

Go into the bio section of any major bank, hedge fund, financial institution, or law firm in this country, and look at the bachelors degree earned by the higher ups (and economics is considered to be a liberal art). Heck, go through an American Medical Association directory of MDs--liberal arts majors are very well represented there.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118):
BTW, it might also be a good idea to make the institutions of learning be responsible for the success of their students in their field of study, bribe it finance or plumbing or welding. Schools of all types are very good at rejecting any responsibility for performance of the students paying that big money.

I've been saying that for quite some time. Right now, the schools get their money up front.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 122, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
At a serious cost. In first and probably even 2nd world countries we compete with, the only cost is that you are a good student.

Absolutely, not here, money and greed for it, distorts everything.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
Do you not think that it's a problem that rich people can go to good schools and poor people can't?

Absolutely, a big problem for sure, but the system demands it. Who rigs the system? Take a guess.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
And for the record, people who are talking about working your way through community college maybe transferring to a state school - - - that is NOT what I'm talking about. If you are a really top shelf student who is qualified to go to basically any university you want, why should being middle class be the reason that you can't do it? Don't we want to put our best foot forward? Invest in the future of our country?

No question, you have hit the nail on the head. As I said way back, my niece is a perfect example. All this blather, and the system remains broken and getting worse. The original question is not answered. Why should students go deep into debt to a get an education in this wealthy, but extremely corrupt and greedy nation? Meanwhile, much poorer nations send their gifted on to higher education free so they can compete with us. Why are the banks and universities allowed to game the system? Why are the middleclass becoming like indentured servants to banks for many years to rise above their station? Why, because the system is rigged against those born into lower circumstances more than ever.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 123, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2216 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 121):
Go into the bio section of any major bank, hedge fund, financial institution, or law firm in this country, and look at the bachelors degree earned by the higher ups (and economics is considered to be a liberal art).

For each one of them, how many are working at Starbucks?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8483 posts, RR: 9
Reply 124, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):
There is little connection between being the best person to perform some project and working for a cheap or expensive university.

Remember the famous quote - "Follow the money"? Works the same at Universities - if the overpriced schools get black listed for research funding then the qualified researchers will go where the money is.

BTW, many times it is the researcher putting in for grants that is the "start" of the cash flow. Reserchers working at a black listed university would be looking for somewhere else to go.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119):
That's because liberal arts majors are standing outside holding signs and chanting about whales.

I gave you two examples of CEOs who understand the value of a Liberal Arts education - evan tossed in Jonathan Ive.

Name a company that has a higher market cap than Apple. (Don't bother with either Dell or Microsoft.)

That's not bad for a company that puts as much emphasis on Liberal Arts as Technology.

And all you have is whales?

BTW, how is the job search going?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
I assume that you'll also agree that this should be the case in K-12, public and private?

Private K-12 schools have to demonstrate their performance every year - which is why they generally advertise all of the acceptances to top schools that their graduates have received.

In public schools the situation is a bit different.

Start with the wide range of basic intelligence levels in public schools. Lots of kids there that private schools wouldn't touch - but the public schools have to take them in and educate them as best as they can.

Now, I'll assume that you expect the same test results from the kids in the "slow learners" group as you get from the AP Group. And, of course, the Special Needs students should be performing above average as well - eh what?

You might expect it, but I don't. I believe that standardized tests are a pretty ignorant approach to evaluate both teacher's performance and the school's overall grade. You may live in gaga land when it comes to education, but I believe in looking at the potential achievements of the various groups within a school.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 125, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
Remember the famous quote - "Follow the money"? Works the same at Universities - if the overpriced schools get black listed for research funding then the qualified researchers will go where the money is.

I don't care what the tuition is, if that's where the best researchers are that's where the money should go. There is no practical need to connect student aid funds and research funds.

I'm all for the government evaluating programs and not being as willing to loan money for students to pursue degrees that are a poor value. But that in no way means that the same university might not employ the right person for a given project.

It's like boycotting Walmart: it might feel good, but the main effect is that you spend more money for most of the stuff you buy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
I gave you two examples of CEOs who understand the value of a Liberal Arts education - evan tossed in Jonathan Ive.

How many people would buy Apple products if they didn't work right?

By the way, America had two major independent efforts at building electric cars: one run by an artist and the other by an engineer. Guess which one isn't bankrupt.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
BTW, how is the job search going?

Over. I start in a couple weeks.

[Edited 2013-05-16 20:26:07]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 126, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
In public schools the situation is a bit different.

Start with the wide range of basic intelligence levels in public schools. Lots of kids there that private schools wouldn't touch - but the public schools have to take them in and educate them as best as they can.

Now, I'll assume that you expect the same test results from the kids in the "slow learners" group as you get from the AP Group. And, of course, the Special Needs students should be performing above average as well - eh what?

You might expect it, but I don't. I believe that standardized tests are a pretty ignorant approach to evaluate both teacher's performance and the school's overall grade. You may live in gaga land when it comes to education, but I believe in looking at the potential achievements of the various groups within a school.

Well said. We are all not born with the same abilities. We are not all born into wealth. The land of opportunity, is not functioning as well as it used to.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 127, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
It's like boycotting Walmart: it might feel good, but the main effect is that you spend more money for most of the stuff you buy.

There are some people who have a higher standard, and are willing to pay more so local, small merchants survive. I deal with Union made items whenever possible, union companies whenever I can. I do not want to get off topic, but some things need saying.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 128, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
Do you not think that it's a problem that rich people can go to good schools and poor people can't?

Absolutely, a big problem for sure, but the system demands it. Who rigs the system? Take a guess.

Oh yeah, so I guess that's why "the system" at almost all the top schools in the country provide free tuition to any admitted students from poor to middle class families.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
The original question is not answered. Why should students go deep into debt to a get an education

It has been answered. Why should they? Because the government provides such cheap financing for education and students/parents are willing to pay.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Why are the banks and universities allowed to game the system?

Guess again. Who is it that backs those loans that the banks provide?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Why are the middleclass becoming like indentured servants to banks for many years to rise above their station?

Because the government subsidizes the poor while backing loan programs which incentivize the middle class to take on this enormous student debt.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 129, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Why should students go deep into debt to a get an education

This right here:
http://images.art.com/images/products/large/11717000/11717699.jpg

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127):
I deal with Union made items whenever possible, union companies whenever I can. I do not want to get off topic, but some things need saying.

I'm willing to pay for quality when it matters to me. But often it's not paying for quality, it's paying for some guy with a high school education to drive the King Ranch truck instead of the XLT.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Why, because the system is rigged against those born into lower circumstances more than ever.

Um no it isn't. Unless you're in college or have been in college recently, I don't think you're qualified to talk about the "system" you keep railing.

Like myself and others have stated a million times in other posts, anyone that is "POOR" can go to college with FULL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. I am one of those examples. I get fed loans/state grants and school grants ( good student) that cover my whole tuition which is about 20 grand a year. Except the last semester, since Illinois is so damn broke they have cut back on one of the grants.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 122):
Why are the banks and universities allowed to game the system?

Talking out of your ass. Read the last 50 posts. Nobody is gaming the system. The rules are set by the Feds and everyone is playing to them.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 126):
he land of opportunity, is not functioning as well as it used to.

YEA, you are right. The Feds are throwing basically unlimited amount of money for students to go to college. There are no checks and balances in the system and it is absolutely corrupt.

Every second idiot wants to go to college because its the thing that is expected and every other punk wants to go out of state to some university that is 60K a year because its the cool thing to do. BUT ITS OK, since the money is there all you have to do is fill out a FAFSA. Schools love it, more people go to college the more FAFSAs get filled out the more money they make.

It ain't the banks screwing you in the ass, its the system managed by the Feds.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 131, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
Now, I'll assume that you expect the same test results from the kids in the "slow learners" group as you get from the AP Group. And, of course, the Special Needs students should be performing above average as well - eh what?

Ken, I do not expect equal outcomes. I expect consistent year over year improvement. I expect that teachers that can not teach be removed the classroom. I expect that they be retrained (at their cost) or find a new job.

We found out here, that 41 teachers are being laid-off due to lower enrollment and shifting priorities. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem that it is the 41 lowest seniority teacher being laid-off. I would rather see the 41 least effective teachers laid-off.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 124):
Lots of kids there that private schools wouldn't touch - but the public schools have to take them in and educate them as best as they can.

How about Charter Schools?

Ken, you want to hold those who charge an arm and a leg for education responsible for performance, yet you say public schools are different. Yes, they are different. But, they educate the vast majority (I assume) of our kids and we are not hold them to the task.

Sorry, rant off topic, but it gets my freaking goat when we fail to hold those who take OUR money and fail to perform. And, I don't care who it is that's taking the money.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 132, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 109):
Do you not think that it's a problem that rich people can go to good schools and poor people can't?

This is totally untrue. The most reliable way to get money at my private, Catholic, somewhat prestigious but not elite undergrad university was need. Harvard and many of the Ivy League schools are essentially on a sliding scale basis. And in both cases, these are grants, not loans.

It's mainly crappy for profit schools that preclude poor students from attending. And they're probably better off for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114):
I'm not sure it is an age, I think it's based on whether or not someone is a dependent. As far as I know, an 18 year old on their own isn't a dependent but a thirty year old with a disability (or for that matter, and elderly parent) could be.

I believe dependency rules are different if you're talking about federal student aid. I think the age is 23.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 133, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...236/house-take-up-student-loan-fix


Yes indeed, the Masters of deceit are at it again. Our beloved congressmen from the right side of the aisle are going to fix it all. Why pay less, when you can pay more? No fixed rates, floating rates are the way to go. Imagine trying to plan your financial future with floating loan rates?

[Edited 2013-05-17 18:52:36] It would work as well as adjustable rate mortgages. That worked out well.

[Edited 2013-05-17 18:54:55]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 134, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting flanker (Reply 130):
Talking out of your ass. Read the last 50 posts. Nobody is gaming the system. The rules are set by the Feds and everyone is playing to them.

Nobody is gaming the system??? I beg to differ, everybody is gaming the system one way or another. That is how billion upon billion is spent in this country. Our billions by the way. Your description of how I talk, gives me credit for something that is a physical impossibility. If it was possible, would we have regional accents?  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 135, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
it's paying for some guy with a high school education to drive the King Ranch truck instead of the XLT.

He may have a high school education, but he is smart enough to have a job that pays well enough to afford the King Ranch. I know many higher educated folks who cannot even get a job which pays enough to afford anything new, especially here in R.I. When you come in hat in hand, they do not care about a paper, they want a worker, who they do not have to pay highly. That is all that matters, what they do not have to pay you.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 136, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 135):
He may have a high school education, but he is smart enough to have a job that pays well enough to afford the King Ranch.

...with the help of a labor cartel. And "smart" in this context might mean that he just shows up and doesn't get fired.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8483 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
There is no practical need to connect student aid funds and research funds

Agreed, but there are good reasons to direct research funding to universities that learn how to bring down the costs for students obtaining a degree.

The excessive increases in the costs of an education needs to face a black list for research funds. At the same time, those universities that deliver solid educations at an affordable cost should be rewarded with government research grants that they can deliver on. Even Gov Perry down in Texas (who I almost never agree with) is pushing for state funded schools to deliver a degree for $10,000. That requires a significant increase in tax revenues going into the system, but it delivers significant long term value for the state.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
I'm all for the government evaluating programs and not being as willing to loan money for students to pursue degrees that are a poor value.

You want to cut out those degrees of poor value? Start with the College of Education. IT costs the same to train a teacher as it does an Accountant, but teachers deliver such low levels of tax revenues compared to CPAs that they have to be considered poor value, money wise.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
Over. I start in a couple weeks.

Congrats!

Did you get a job where you wanted to be and in your field?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 128):
Because the government provides such cheap financing for education and students/parents are willing to pay.

They are doing a better job now with the banks taken out of the current programs. The need today is to refinance the existing loans that the financial sector holds. Re-work the programs to make them more affordable and deliver funding to schools that pull down costs.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 128):
Because the government subsidizes the poor while backing loan programs which incentivize the middle class to take on this enormous student debt.

I think it is important to remember that a lot of the older politicians (and their older constituents) clearly remember the day when it was possible to get a solid university education and graduate with zero debt. Families could budget a bit each month for Little Johnny's tuition and Little Johnny might have a part time job to help pick up some of the costs. An Accounting or Finance text book costs around $7 - $9 new.

Some state schools put a lot of effort into making an education affordable. At LSU there are dorm rooms under the seats at the football stadium - 5 to a room and the cost was abut $25 a semester. Full time tuition was also about $25 a semester. And a lot of jobs on campus for those who needed them.

Hate to think of what it is now, but people looking at education costs today need to understand where a lot of the older people come from.

BTW, a kid with a High School diploma could also get a decent job, work hard and be able to take care of his family.


User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Honestly the biggest rape comes at the book store, every semester.


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8773 posts, RR: 3
Reply 139, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
The cost of tuition is a symptom of the problem. The problem is the easy access to cheap money.

I believe it's possible to get cost of college education down to $5,000. Not just price; cost.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 136):
...with the help of a labor cartel. And "smart" in this context might mean that he just shows up and doesn't get fired.

Whoa whoa, BMI... If you know a lot of rich people, you see that only half of them are highly educated.

There are people in this country with real money... who earned it by employing themselves and others in a small business... not by going to dental school, law school etc.

To a lot of those people, $60k for a King Ranch is a few weeks' profits, or better yet, can be written off as a business expense.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 140, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Agreed, but there are good reasons to direct research funding to universities that learn how to bring down the costs for students obtaining a degree

The government ends up punishing itself. I don't care where the best researcher is for a given project or what their school might charge for tuition. The government should not forego better opportunities just to make a point about the value of an education.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
The excessive increases in the costs of an education needs to face a black list for research funds.

And if the right person for a given project works at a blacklisted institution, the American taxpayers are just going to have to suck it up and pay for an inferior job?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
You want to cut out those degrees of poor value?

I want the government to be less willing to loan out funds that are less likely to be paid back.

Say you have someone who wants a teaching degree from two institutions with similar academic credentials, so their graduates will be about as likely to have jobs and make similar salaries, the main difference being that tuition for one is significantly higher than the other. Since the student would have equal ability to repay a loan with both choices, the government would offer the same package of loans for both options, so the student would have to pay more out of pocket for the more expensive school. The government could even offer more grants and fewer loans in the package for the cheaper school.

Nobody should be handing out loans for $100k social work degrees, because the chances of it being paid off are poor. $20k for the state school is much more doable.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
Did you get a job where you wanted to be and in your field?

Yeah. Pretty good deal all told.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 139):
Whoa whoa, BMI... If you know a lot of rich people, you see that only half of them are highly educated.

There are people in this country with real money... who earned it by employing themselves and others in a small business... not by going to dental school, law school etc.

To a lot of those people, $60k for a King Ranch is a few weeks' profits, or better yet, can be written off as a business expense.

I was more speaking about unions and their higher prices for work that is often no better. Walmart has many of the exact same products of other, pricier, stores. I don't find that things made by unions (I don't bother to look honestly) are always or even mostly of better quality than nonunion manufactured goods. Unions know that too, otherwise they'd not be worried about right to work legislation. Usually the extra cost just lines workers' and union leaders' pockets.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 141, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 136):
with the help of a labor cartel. And "smart" in this context might mean that he just shows up and doesn't get fired.

That is highly unlikely. Who among us really believes that bull. There are slackers in every job, union, and non. Management and non. Educated and non. Highly educated and non. Education is not a magic pill for being a worker, or a non-producer. Even the military has them. By a huge margin, most people earn their money by working hard and producing. You are just starting a job, remember what you have preached on here.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15836 posts, RR: 27
Reply 142, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 141):
There are slackers in every job, union, and non. Management and non. Educated and non. Highly educated and non. Education is not a magic pill for being a worker, or a non-producer.

I never said there weren't slackers in every job. But the tendency of unions to emphasize seniority allows them to get raises and promotions not for being great at their job, but just good enough to not lose their job. There are jobs where seniority is really the best measure, but in many other cases the bar should be higher than just showing up.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 143, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 137):
I think it is important to remember that a lot of the older politicians (and their older constituents) clearly remember the day when it was possible to get a solid university education and graduate with zero debt. Families could budget a bit each month for Little Johnny's tuition and Little Johnny might have a part time job to help pick up some of the costs. An Accounting or Finance text book costs around $7 - $9 new.

No question, just like my daughter who is 46. Debt free. 4 year degree. Not so long ago this was possible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 140):
I was more speaking about unions and their higher prices for work that is often no better. Walmart has many of the exact same products of other, pricier, stores. I don't find that things made by unions (I don't bother to look honestly) are always or even mostly of better quality than nonunion manufactured goods. Unions know that too, otherwise they'd not be worried about right to work legislation. Usually the extra cost just lines workers' and union leaders' pockets.

My friend you have a lot to learn about life, working etc. I hope you remember your words 30 years from now. Hopefully you will understand by then. There is a system in place, that you will never beat, there is a power structure in place that you will probably never get into. I am content with my life, I am a union person, and I earned what I have through damned hard work. I have never taken anything. I earned it, as most others do. Judge not, lest you be judged, and found wanting.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 12
Reply 144, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
but in many other cases the bar should be higher than just showing up.

Absolutely ridiculous. I have never in my working career ever seen anyone who got paid for just showing up. It goes against all reason. I have seen men and women suspended and or fired for trying it.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

The cost of going to one of the hundreds of state colleges as a resident is completely affordable and anyone who goes to one would come out with a manageable debt load. Most of them have step colleges (community colleges) that guarantee admission to the primary university for motivated students who complete a transfer agreement. It used to be that out of state tuition was designed to allow more in-state admissions. The ridiculous student loan programs have changed that into a revenue generator that encourages you to go to an out of state school. If you can't afford to go out of state without loan, then maybe you shouldn't... Take it as a first lesson in personal financial accountability.

Besides, it's not about where you go. It's about what you learned, the fact that you finished and if you are capable of applying what you learned.