patrick.net

lostand confused says

That is because the gubmnt makes students as slaves. You can borrow huge sums for a degree with no job prospects and then can never default on it. So colleges can charge any amount-if they were limited by the rules of say car companies , then the whole dynamic would be different. You don't see car prices going up massively?

They couldn't if there was more competition. All the government does is increase demand by helping folks who weren't born into money have an opportunity to get a secondary education. If we have more supply, and more competition, then prices wouldn't be rising like they are.

That would require a lot more than 'improving' the education system.

Care to explain?

Call it Crazy says

Nice way to backtrack and try to climb out of the hole you created.

Ha, I think this thread shows us who the truly clueless one is here. Even when posters explain an economic concept to you, it still goes right over your head.

Backtrack?? wtf are you talking about? I've forgotten more about economics than you know. You barely understand the difference between earned and unearned income, for Christ's sake.

errc says

That would require a lot more than 'improving' the education system.

Care to explain?

Seriously? Education results aren't solely predicated on the quality of teaching that occurs in schools, are they? It's not difficult imagining some inner city schools being given the very best teachers and heavy funding and still getting relatively poor results. You can use your imagination to work out why.

Every time they subsidize something they end up making it very expensive, so this plan frightens me. College is already expensive due to government subsidies, just imagining 350Billion more expensive.

I know some of you think it's a great idea, but it never works out that way. Businesses always end up raising prices when subsidies kick in, to absorb all that additional income.

There are many ways of limiting the demand (and cost) of college. For example, make all public colleges free, but make the admission standards so high that choosing a private college is effectively a significant, known downgrade. Eliminate publicly funded student loans, as they would only be used for private colleges. All that would remain are private student loans.

If it took a 1500, minimum to get into the state uni - then the private colleges would become a bunch of half-wits who's daddies could cut a check, so the privates would offer the same free deal to top students to keep them coming.

No one would offer private student loans without the guarantee of collection. Make them dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Everyone else, 1-2 years post secondary voluntary trade school, publicly funded just like public high school. High graduation requirements - cut-throat, if you don't make grades you are out.

Take the $70B that is currently going to all colleges (in the form of Pell grants, etc) and send it to state colleges only. Take the $30B in student loan interest and also send that to state colleges only. That is $100B for state colleges only. 14MM state college students currently, translates into about $7100 per student, per year. By making a 1350 (lets say top 10%) requirement for admission - you limiting the student body to 1.4MM students. $71k per student - phew, what an education they would get!

Let the rich people figure out how to compete with that...

control point says

There are many ways of limiting the demand (and cost) of college

Is that really the goal? Limit the demand for education??

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

FortWayne says

Every time they subsidize something they end up making it very expensive, so this plan frightens me. College is already expensive due to government subsidies, just imagining 350Billion more expensive.

I know some of you think it's a great idea, but it never works out that way. Businesses always end up raising prices when subsidies kick in, to absorb all that additional income.

Fortwayne if you could bottle that absolute, and spike the Liberal Koolaide with it, you would be a great man.

The absolute best way to improve the school system would be to privatize it.

tatupu70 says

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

Because we already have too many college graduates, and subsidizing something that we already have too many of is just plain stupid.

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

Wow--I guess we hit the limits of your understanding already. You've proven to be even dimmer than I expected.

Are you unable to imagine creating more supply of educational centers? Dan has written often on what the future of education should be. It's not that hard to figure out. Well, for most of us anyway.

zzyzzx says

tatupu70 says

How about we raise the supply instead? So everyone can attend college for a reasonable sum

Because we already have too many college graduates, and subsidizing something that we already have too many of is just plain stupid.

lol--we have too many high school dropouts, too many high school educated, too many some college educated. The least of our problems is too many college grads.

Even better than cutting college funding---why not just kill off a bunch of people? That would really cut demand.

Call it Crazy says

Here's a novel concept, stop subsidizing college costs with federal backed loans... Guess what would happen to tuition costs if colleges knew students couldn't get easy money by just signing their names on loan docs.

Great--another advocate of a caste system. If you're not born into money, eff you.

This is the CRA of edu loans. Just like they gave out loans to the people who had a high likelyhood of not paying back, (and their credit score reflect than), these loans will go to the liberal arts, communications, outdoor studies, and create bad degrees as much as the CRA helped boast up bad loans. It may even jack up tuition prices, because the less skin one has in the game, the less they care about what the costs are.

The people who become doctors, scientists, econ, and some of the other societal contributors would do so regardless. Funny how I have friends from asia who parents would mortgage their house for a son/daughter in a science degree.

tatupu70 says

Great--another advocate of a caste system. If you're not born into money, eff you.

You can still work your way through college. I've done it TWICE!!! I think the real problem is that you are too fucking lazy to do that.

It will mean just higher salaries and benefits for college administrators. FSU president retired with $235,000 a year retirement and the next day hired by Florida State for $300,000 a year. Total in 2 years more than average state of Florida employee is paid in 30 years. TK Wetherell. Same for provost, and many many state college and university presidents and administrators. Ripping off taxpayers, students and their parents along with tuition increases. Greedy immoral crooks. Same all over the country $200, $300,000 salaries that they could not earn anywhere else in the world.

Shall we say "desperate?" Is she totally clueless about who pays for everything? I can't believe Democrat silver spoons? They think money grows on trees.

zzyzzx says

You can still work your way through college. I've done it TWICE!!! I think the real problem is that you are too fucking lazy to do that.

What is it with you and CIC? Why do you constantly try to make things about the poster instead of the topic at hand? Is it because you know you're wrong?

zzyzzx says

It will mean just higher salaries and benefits for college administrators. FSU president retired with $235,000 a year retirement and the next day hired by Florida State for $300,000 a year. Total in 2 years more than average state of Florida employee is paid in 30 years. TK Wetherell. Same for provost, and many many state college and university presidents and administrators. Ripping off taxpayers, students and their parents along with tuition increases. Greedy immoral crooks. Same all over the country $200, $300,000 salaries that they could not earn anywhere else in the world.

Why don't you believe in the free market? Is it that difficult to find some more teachers and a few buildings? Is it that difficult for established universities to create online programs? I would think that the market could create plenty of supply easily.

And if not, then the free market isn't working, and some sort of regulation is needed.

tatupu70 says

lol--we have too many high school dropouts, too many high school educated, too many some college educated. The least of our problems is too many college grads.

Even better than cutting college funding---why not just kill off a bunch of people? That would really cut demand.

Careful tatu, you might be accused of being a "Say'sian" with talk like this. I think our current situation reflects an underutilization of post secondary education itself. Government investment to increase demand for educated workers themselves is the best use of public funds, imho.

The net effect in increasing college participation throughout the population is a transfer of the cost of career training from the employer to the employee. Much better for the employer when his employees have already been taught professional writing or general salesmanship (at their own cost) before coming on the payroll. Would prefer we focus public funding for high education on those who are most educatable, myself. We all benefit very little from Pell grants and Direct Loans to C students. Especially C students at private institutions in anything lower than Tier I.

control point says

We all benefit very little from Pell grants and Direct Loans to C students. Especially C students at private institutions in anything lower than Tier I.

I'm not sure about that. I think we've had several Presidents that were C students. Whether they used Pell grants is really irrelevant because it shows that C students with the proper education can be very valuable to society.

Regardless, however, my point is that if we're going to limit the number of people who go to college it should be done by merit. Not by how much money your family has, like it is now. The reason college campuses are full is because every kid from a wealthy family goes to school, regardless of their grades or test scores. If you have money, there will be a school that takes you.

tatupu70 says

Regardless, however, my point is that if we're going to limit the number of people who go to college it should be done by merit. Not by how much money your family has, like it is now. The reason college campuses are full is because every kid from a wealthy family goes to school, regardless of their grades or test scores. If you have money, there will be a school that takes you.

I agree, this is basically the plan I laid out above. Free public education for the top performers. No possibility of public higher education for anything less than a top performer. Remove public funding for student loans and make them truly unsecured by making them dischargeable in bankruptcy.

If private schools want to compete for top performers, they will need to make it free for them as well. In order to pay for the cost of this, they will need to charge a sufficiently high amount from rich daddies to cover the cost of these "free" rides. If private schools do not offer "free" rides to top performers, then they will attract no top performers - significantly reducing the quality of their graduates. If the quality of their graduates falls, it will be less likely that the rich will pay for this diminished value "inferior" education.

Eliminating the transfer of default risk to the government, and eliminating the additional statutory security of this debt, will make the cost of it (given current default rates) so high it would no longer be a viable option. Very few lenders would offer $50-100k of unsecured debt to a C student. The chance of payback is low.

Great--another advocate of a caste system. If you're not born into money

----------

Bless your bleeding heart. You care so much more about the poor than the rest of us that you'd want to help them out with a lifetime of debt so that they can get a piece of paper deeming them more educated. I'm sure they owe you a big thank you

errc says

Bless your bleeding heart. You care so much more about the poor than the rest of us that you'd want to help them out with a lifetime of debt so that they can get a piece of paper deeming them more educated. I'm sure they owe you a big thank you

I don't recall saying they should have a lifetime of debt. That's your plan. I want to create more schools/programs so there is competition for students and tuition goes down.

And it's a bit more than a piece of paper saying you're educated. You actually are more educated. Which is why businesses value it.

tatupu70 says

What is it with you and CIC? Why do you constantly try to make things about the poster instead of the topic at hand? Is it because you know you're wrong?

It's because you are the one who is wrong. There is nothing wrong with working your way through college. you just think work is too good for you to do it and/or think things should be handed out to people who should be working for it. Get a job!

zzyzzx says

There is nothing wrong with working your way through college. you just think work is too good for you to do it and/or think things should be handed out to people who should be working for it. Get a job!

Working your way through college is great. But it's a bit of an antiquated notion at this point. How is a high school educated person going to earn enough to pay for a $40K+/year education? It was possible 30 years ago, but I'm not sure it's feasible anymore.

So you think the ability to get an education should be decided by the birth lottery?

tatupu70 says

Working your way through college is great. But it's a bit of an antiquated notion at this point. How is a high school educated person going to earn enough to pay for a $40K+/year education? It was possible 30 years ago, but I'm not sure it's feasible anymore.

So you think the ability to get an education should be decided by the birth lottery?

Some people work their way through college today. I did it in the 80's and 90's, and it wasn't a problem either time. You just don't want to work. Your just another liberal elitist who thinks that working in fast food is "too good" for white people. I have had jobs where I picked up trash!

zzyzzx says

Some people work their way through college today. I did it in the 80's and 90's, and it wasn't a problem either time. You just don't want to work. Your just another liberal elitist who thinks that working in fast food is "too good" for white people. I have had jobs where I picked up trash!

lol--you have no idea what I have done in the past or what I do now. It's not relevant to the discussion because we're not talking about me.

Working in fast food is fine. But you're not going to pay for a college education flipping burgers. You get that--right?

Call it Crazy says

Which shows AGAIN why you're so fucking clueless...

What fool pays $40K a year for college?

People who want to go to the best universities, apparently.

Call it Crazy says

Which shows AGAIN why you're so fucking clueless...

What fool pays $40K a year for college?

Are you kidding me? That's pretty close to the AVERAGE.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=76

Your own state school is slightly better at $26.2K in state, but $41.5 out of state

http://admissions.rutgers.edu/Costs/TuitionAndFees.aspx#3

That's before books, spending money, etc. I'd add another $3K at least.

Call it Crazy says

I didn't ask you what the school CHARGES, I asked what fool PAYS $40K a year...

Apparently I got my answer who the fool is....

You.

Call it Crazy says

I didn't ask you what the school CHARGES, I asked what fool PAYS $40K a year...

Apparently I got my answer who the fool is....

huh? If the average cost is $35K, then roughly half of the college students are paying $35K. I figured you'd be able to reach that conclusion on your own.

Call it Crazy says

What fool pays $40K a year for college?

Stepping back a bit, we again have Democrats (Ds) identifying a huge albatross around the neck of the middle class. The Ds are looking for solutions, and the Republicans (Rs) are cock-blocking.

Even the people on this board understand the negative impact on prices that easy money has. So, we can see a problem with the Ds solution. But, the Rs again offer no solution - not the candidates or anyone on this board. They just deny the issue, piss and crap on everything, and blame it on illegal immigrants, blacks, women, and political correctness.

Lofty pie in the sky populist rabble rousing schemes is NOT a solution.

Expecially when you got Monsters like Gruber in the wings waiting to take ownership of those projects the Libs greenlight.
Liberals don't have solutions they have ideas that change based on what needs to be said to win the vote.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/

If you have student debt, you will be able to refinance your loans at current rates, with an estimated 25 million borrowers receiving debt relief. Typical borrowers could save $2,000 over the life of their loans.

Hillary just bought my vote. This will save my wife and I $5K to 10K / yr. The fed gov subsidizes the shit out of house refis, and then provides a tax deduction on interest. They inexplicably won't do the same for student loans, which is odd considering an education is a much more noble way to spend money than outbidding someone else for a spot and throwing up an over-sized crap-shack. If the republicans would offer any type of solution, they could play ball. Of course, when it comes to the general election, the anti-Hillary option will be a train-wreck for all sorts of other reasons. So, she would likely be the best option anyway.

CaptainShuddup says

Liberals don't have solutions

Ds have imperfect solutions, which are necessarily crappy compromises with obstructionist toady Rs. Take Obamacare as an instance. It has lowered medical costs and hugely increased the rate of insured people. So, it was a solution that solved some problems with our shitty health-care industry. But, it was a crappy compromise, and inferior to a single payer system. We got it, b/c Obama ran to the right of Clinton (who favored a single payer system), and worked with the obstructionist Rs enough to get something to pass. The Rs of course wanted something private (because public is always inferior), and they wanted to appease their insurance industry buddies.

tatupu70 says

I want to create more schools/programs so there is competition for students and tuition goes down.

There isn't any lack of schools to go to. The competition is for the bill of goods called the good schools. The education industry has sold this sad lie to virtually every parent and high school educator and apparently to you. The education industry has built these gold plated education verseille palaces to sell themselves as a "good school". These edifices to ego can't be undone so the only option is to charge huge amounts of money to support them. Yes student loans and grants are the problem. Tuitions have gone up in lockstep with the rise in federal aid for 35 years. Coincidence, I think not.

There are plenty of options if you don't want to rack up huge loans. Community colleges will get you half way home on the cheap, especially if you live with mommy and daddy. But who wants to admit little johnny is in community college instead of harvard. Bill of goods sold.

You might have to move somewhere and work for a year to establish residency, but there are schools with good reputations that are less than 5k a year or roughly 400 a month. You can still get in state tuition at my alma matter University of Texas Pan Am for 6k a year. Plus living in the Rio Grande valley is dirt cheap. Anyone that can't put aside 400-500 a month isn't really trying very hard. You can do military service. You can do ROTC. You can do public service. You can go overseas, germany has free tuition. Spain, france, and italy is little as 500 a year. I knew someone who at 16 took college courses on an exchange (living with relatives) in europe, stayed for 2 years and transferred back to the US as a junior at 18 into a really high end school on a scholarship because they spoke 3 languages fluently. Never got a high school diploma, just a ged. There are lots of ways to skin a cat.

The whole thing is a gigantic scam that virtually every parent has bought into hook, line, and sinker marching like lemmings through the process without thinking at all. It can't be fixed either. There is far too much money and ego involved for that to happen.

Call it Crazy says

There you have it folks... This is why this guy makes it to the top of Patnet's idiot lists..

He doesn't know the difference between COST and PAY!!

You've really gone off the deep end this time CIC.

bob2356 says

The education industry has sold this sad lie to virtually every parent and high school educator and apparently to you

Nobody has sold anything to me. You didn't see me making an appeal to authority or quoting any supposed expert. I'm just going by data. Cost of secondary education is rising at a rate much higher than inflation. So, supply is not keeping up with demand. bob2356 says

Yes student loans and grants are the problem. Tuitions have gone up in lockstep with the rise in federal aid for 35 years. Coincidence, I think not.

Of course it's not a coincidence. Student loans allow people who couldn't afford to go otherwise, get to University. With no student loans, demand would be lower and prices would follow. The question is why hasn't supply gone up as tuition has risen?? If there was competition among schools for students, tuition wouldn't be rising.

Call it Crazy says

Tat, You are such a fucking idiot!

CIC--you really should know when to shut the fuck up. This conversation has been way over your head for probably the last 25 posts. You clearly don't understand basic economics or why federal aid results in higher prices. Why don't you go post some more Republican polling data.