Interesting input on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vAFQIciWsF4#
!
Interesting input on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vAFQIciWsF4#
!
Money outlays by the government ought to be based on the institutions outcomes. If they produce crappy students with worthless degrees then "NO Money For You"
The Stache wrote:
It makes me wonder how much other unnecessary stuff is made "mandatory" for students, thus unnecessarily driving up the loan amounts.
An article from The Economist last summer:
"Vance Fried, of Oklahoma State University, recently conducted a fascinating thought experiment, backed up by detailed calculations. Is it possible to provide a first-class undergraduate education for $6,700 a year rather than the $25,900 charged by public research universities or the $51,500 charged by their private peers? He concluded that it is."
Summary of cost-cutting initiatives:
1) Separate research funding from teaching funding
2) Increase student-to-teacher ratios
3) Eliminate or consolidate programs with low participation
4) Puncture administrative bloat
Source:
http://www.economist.com/node/1892600915 years ago I was paying $100/credit for my Master's Degree. It was $200/credit if you were out of state. The total tuition cost was $3600 for the 36 credits, over four semesters.
Now it is $5,000 flat rate per 9 credit hours, or about $20k for the entire degree.
One of the statistics US News & World Report uses to rank schools is spending/student, so schools have a nice incentive to spend as much as they can. Why cut costs if it'll make your ranking go down?
Mr. Reality wrote:
Shut up Shawkoski!
So China has 10% annual GDP while managing their economy and development and they're the ones screwing up?
Just shaddup now, and stop flaunting your ignorance.
By the way, it's spelled 'eerie' you freakin' Neanderthal.
Gosh, I can't believe we're same species. It's so effin embarrassing.
[quote]trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:
The parallels are eery.
Stop looking at things in static terms; a lot of structures in life have histories and futures (precedence and consequence). Tomorrow won't look like today like yesterday doesn't look like today.
Aside from the past 10 years, where has China's managed economy been? Abusing the human dignity of its primarily agrarian citizens. Also, they aren't growing at 10% right now and every week there is evidence that their economy is cooling.
More importantly, where are they going to be in 20y? Don't believe the hype that they will "over-take" the U.S. economy. A lot can and will happen in the next 2y, 5y, and decade.
Eery is a variant spelling.
Mr. Reality, I am proud to have you as a member of our common species.
For-profit education is a whole other ball of wax. How do these entities even get accredited? I am concerned about the potential candidate that would even consider going to these schools as a viable alternative to bricks-and-mortar schools. I like high-tech "stuff" just as much as the next guy but some elements of life/education need to be grounded in an understanding of human nature. Part of that means sitting your @ss in a class and listening to a professor/taking exams.
rekrunner, I appreciate your understanding of the structural difference of these two kinds of debt but we are talking about fundamental differences/similarities and i believe the similarities and potential consequences outweigh minut differences in structure. In reference to scam and how this could play out: ok, so the gov/banks don't take it on the chin - instead, this time around, the consumer takes the brunt of the fall-out. Let's further our Incarceration-State and establish Debt-Prisons!
rekrunner wrote:
Actually these two situations are completely different.
Mortgages are secured by the property they buy. If banks are doing proper due diligence, the risk of loan defaults is expected and something that can be managed. The housing bubble crisis was mainly caused by legislation that enabled a Ponzi scheme like environment for home loans, coupled with the wide scale process of banks and lending institutions replacing due diligence with creative ways to make bad loans.
Go to "google.com" and do a search on "student loan scam". When you read a few of those links, you will see that student loan lenders are already well protected by federal legislation. In case of loan defaults, the student does not escape the loan obligation, and the lenders have unusual power to drastically increase interest, charge penalties, and to garnish salary, income tax refunds, social security and disability payments.
Come on man, your missing the whole point all together - remove the government outlays. People/markets should be making the "NO Money For You" decision not corrupt politicians. (now one may argue it takes educated People/markets to make critical decisions and where/how are they are going to get that education without state-subsidized college help.. it becomes a bit of a chicken or the egg issue.)In Another Ligh - I can tell you are a bright person who wants to make a difference in life but I need you to start to question things that you have been told your entire life that you now accept as fact. Begin with looking at your paycheck at the end of the week and question where 40% of it has gone.
In Another Ligh wrote:
Money outlays by the government ought to be based on the institutions outcomes. If they produce crappy students with worthless degrees then "NO Money For You"
Stache, This is hilarious on a few levels. Does a sitting president really do this kind of thing? Is this the way messages get communicated now? I felt it was kind of degrading.I'm a fan of JimmyF. (and the Roots) but this seemingly innocuous clip reinforces some people's destructive views on the best course of action. It's not a budget issue to me; true reduction in tuition will only happen through [relatively] free market mechanisms. And the best way to do this is a reduction in demand. Caps/quotas and regulation result in inefficiencies and failures (low quality education <- this is already happening and defaults)
The Stache wrote:
Interesting input on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vAFQIciWsF4#!
I didn't think it was degrading. After all, Clinton played the sax on Arsenio Hall's show. Remember that?
Of course, Clinton was just playing sax, not laying out policy, so there's that.
When typing my response that was the one presidential appearance that I had in the back of my mind and I agree with you on the difference, policy versus showing off talent.
How is it Congress's responsibility to set interest rates on college loans? I mean really, how do they come up with it?
I still can't believe that the market, while potentially heartless, can't supply and properly price student loans. What if market equilibrium rate is actually below the rate Congress is debate??? The potential exists that we are being price-gouged by Congress..!
Education is extremely expensive. Is ignorance the alternative?
Trance dance do grants and scholarships for low income students drive up the cost of education? I'd like to turn the discussion now to the more mainstream colleges and universities now. I'm talking the Universities of ... and the Colleges of Saint ...
Is their education still overpriced? Depends on the major of course.
The Stache wrote:
I didn't think it was degrading. After all, Clinton played the sax on Arsenio Hall's show. Remember that?
Of course, Clinton was just playing sax, not laying out policy, so there's that.
Clinton was not president at the time.
Cute skit. Wonder how many days he spent working hard on that.
Are you guys my little kitty kats ?
The next big bubble wrote:
It's time to face facts.
Yes.
Education is now only for the economic elite.
We have gone back to a complete class system
Mr. Moo wrote:
Education is now only for the economic elite.
Is this true? I went through Georgia Tech, and the state nearly paid for all of the last two years simply because I had a B average. I was neither economically nor academically elite, but I did work hard, study, etc. Do they not still have these type of scholarships programs for college students?
trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:
The parallels are eery.
The gov/fed kept interest rates at rock bottom-lows to make home ownership more affordable and now there is a debate about keeping interest rates on Stafford loans "reasonable" (ie. below what the market would serve).
Uh, they kept interest rates at rock-bottom lows to get us out of the 2001/02 recession. And, if you think the Community Reinvestment Act and federal government caused the housing bubble you should go back at look at how many CRA sub-prime loans they had go bust compared to at the private investment banks peddling derivatives.
People are irrational. This is the case if the government gets involved or not. In the case of housing then, and in the case of education today, an excessive rush to compete so individuals (or companies) can get rich quick is what inflated the bubble.
Big John wrote:
Is this true? I went through Georgia Tech, and the state nearly paid for all of the last two years simply because I had a B average. I was neither economically nor academically elite, but I did work hard, study, etc. Do they not still have these type of scholarships programs for college students?
How did you find time to play the geetar?