Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote:(Though I still don't subscribe to FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYBODY!!)

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and while I'm not quite on board with free, I do think that our current educational system is going to leave most of our citizens under-prepared for the economy of the 21st Century. Without more education than what a High School diploma provides, most people will be on the dole. If we want more productive citizens in a 21st Century economy, they will need more education. Maybe it isn't "free college", but something like an additional couple of years of High School, vocational training or College.

The fact of the matter is that the demand for unskilled labor is plummeting like a rock in the US and without changes, a lot of people are going to be left behind. Free college may not be the best solution, but it has a lot of upside too.

Community college is already very cheap.

PLW wrote:Community college is already very cheap.

But it's not quite fulfilling the need(s), and it's mostly a jumping off point to a 4(+) year college.

Pyperkub wrote:Maybe it isn't "free college", but something like an additional couple of years of High School, vocational training or College.

The fact of the matter is that the demand for unskilled labor is plummeting like a rock in the US and without changes, a lot of people are going to be left behind. Free college may not be the best solution, but it has a lot of upside too.

This we can discuss. Sadly that is not the discussion anywhere I've read... Other than here...

Pyperkub wrote:

PLW wrote:Community college is already very cheap.

But it's not quite fulfilling the need(s), and it's mostly a jumping off point to a 4(+) year college.

My wife is going to school for $3000 a semester before federal tax credits (which are considerable). This is two 1/2 years of community college and 2+ of major university. There is zero chance you will ever convince me this is impossible or unnecessary for the student to fund. Even if we were to borrow every cent, it would be roughly the amount of a car loan when all said and done.

Now, if you want to talk about zero interest government loans? Fine. Including vocational work in our education system? Even better.

But free four year college for everyone? Hell, no.

noxiousdog wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

PLW wrote:Community college is already very cheap.

But it's not quite fulfilling the need(s), and it's mostly a jumping off point to a 4(+) year college.

My wife is going to school for $3000 a semester before federal tax credits (which are considerable). This is two 1/2 years of community college and 2+ of major university. There is zero chance you will ever convince me this is impossible or unnecessary for the student to fund. Even if we were to borrow every cent, it would be roughly the amount of a car loan when all said and done.

Now, if you want to talk about zero interest government loans? Fine. Including vocational work in our education system? Even better.

But free four year college for everyone? Hell, no.

Thinking more along the lines of more mandatory education/training paid for like high school. College would count if you can cut it, or skilled trades/arts or military/peace corps, etc.

Something to ensure that people have the tools necessary to be productive in the 21st century economy and not a drag on it.

Pyperkub wrote: Thinking more along the lines of more mandatory education/training paid for like high school. College would count if you can cut it, or skilled trades/arts or military/peace corps, etc.

Something to ensure that people have the tools necessary to be productive in the 21st century economy and not a drag on it.

And that's the rub. This is skills. It's hard enough getting people to partake of a high school education. How are you going to force them into a skilled education? If they want it, they can get it. I just way too much possibility for abuse of the system. People going to ridiculously overpriced schools (which will just make them more overpriced as demand will increase), and taking non-productive studies (assuming we could even agree on what is productive or non-productive).

I totally agree with having the tools available, but it needs to be a partnership, not a giveaway.

noxiousdog wrote: But free four year college for everyone? Hell, no.

Once upon a time, it was common for corporations to invest heavily in their workforce. Before the GI bill granted him free college, my dad was an apprentice tool and die maker for Westinghouse.

I would expect a "free college" initiative to come with strings attached. It's available to those who serve in the military, so that's one string. A corporate-sponsored college system should probably marry the student to the corporation -- the student gets a paid education; the sponsoring company gets X number of years of contractual services at a predetermined salary that might be somewhat lower than market price (astute companies would include a bonus program to keep up motivation and performance).

In the past 30 years, the cost of college has exploded (something like 1200%) and the burden has shifted almost entirely to the student. Now, there isn't much of a difference between a grad making $50,000 per year but paying off $10,000 debt per year for 5 years as opposed to a sponsored student not incurring college debt but only making $40,000 for a 5 year contract, except there's a much greater chance that the latter will be working the entire 5 years and in his chosen profession. It also aligns the skills of graduating students with the needs of the market place; cutting way back on students graduating with massive debt and unmarketable skills.

There are some career paths that don't fit well with this model, and for that, students can also do things the old fashioned way and have their parents pay for their education. I'd wager that some law, specialty medical, and sales positions might have enough variable earning potential in 5 years (or more, as advanced degrees would add to the contract) to not want to be limited by contractual obligations.

This would appeal those who need it the most - disadvantaged or those without marketable skills for one reason or another. They can't afford the current system, and they are currently likely to be a net drain on the economy. The poor are an economic drain in many ways -- push them up to middle-class, and suddenly you stop the bleeding and add a productive tax-payer, or net economic positive, to the economy. I don't know how well Bernie's campaign has crunched the numbers, but I suspect this sort of "entitlement program" has greater economic dividends than any other (such as, you know, taxing the poor even more).

As much as I like hearing what he's saying, I don't think Bernie has the resume to be president. He would be an interesting choice as vice-president, though and I would like to see Hillary agree to let him run with his education initiative as part of the deal.

I would actually expect a Latino Vice President from Clinton. I can even see Biden as a possibility again (AFAIK, there aren't any restrictions on VP terms), but he would fit much better on a Sanders ticket, IMHO (for the National Security rep, as well as the connection to Obama's Presidency).

I think a pretty strong argument can be made for the economic benefits of having a well educated population.

Which is not to say that I have a strong personal opinion on the topic of "free" college one way or another.

And as an aside, the challenges of higher education should be on mastering the subject matter, not on figuring out how to afford it, in my opinion.

GreenGoo wrote:I think a pretty strong argument can be made for the economic benefits of having a well educated population.

In addition, the polling divide on Trump between voters with a college education vs. voters without one creates a pretty compelling argument for the non-economic benefits of an educated population.

Germany provides free university education, even to foreigners. I read that 10,000 Americans are enrolled there and much of the instruction is in English. Their objective is to attract (and hopefully retain) an educated workforce in the face of their low fertility rate. Germany's doing pretty well. I also read that Tennessee provides free community college for all citizens. I don't think Tennessee's doing all that well.

Kraken wrote:Germany provides free university education, even to foreigners. I read that 10,000 Americans are enrolled there and much of the instruction is in English. Their objective is to attract (and hopefully retain) an educated workforce in the face of their low fertility rate. Germany's doing pretty well. I also read that Tennessee provides free community college for all citizens. I don't think Tennessee's doing all that well.

Free university education... to those who want to go and are cut out for it. The German education system is better in a lot of ways because they don't assume everyone needs to go to college. There's not the cultural pressure that electricians and plumbers are much lower class than nurses and computer techs, and as such, they highly value vocational training.

Other Facts wrote: Germany had extremely low tuition and fees – around $600 per student. In other words, around $14,000 less than what students here have to pay.
Germany has a lower percentage of students go on to college than we have here in the U.S.

In many ways our college system is broken like our health care system. It doesn't have to be more expensive, but it is. I'm still not sure where there money's going as they are both theoretically non-profit. I do know pumping more money into isn't the answer.

NPR, 2012

Kevin Carey, the director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation, believes the student debt crisis reflects larger, troubling trends in higher education — among them excessive spending by colleges and universities, which drives up tuition, and declining government support for public universities as state and local governments face budget crises.
...
Where does that money go? To all sorts of things, including administrative and teaching costs, scholarships, sports teams and elaborate new construction projects.

"[Colleges and universities] compete with one another not to make money, but for status and prestige, so they buy things that increase their status and prestige in relation to their competitors," Carey tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "They're big on construction. ... They're always building things."
...
Meanwhile, university administrations have grown — meaning colleges are now employing more provosts, deans and assistant deans than ever before.
...
To change things, Carey says, colleges need to rein in spending — and perhaps modify their educational models. He points to Harvard, MIT and Stanford's recent experiments with noncredit online classes, which anyone can take around the world.

"I deal with the students so their parents don't have to! I have babysitting skills!"

Someone is paying for Germany's education system. It's about as "free" as "free" healthcare up here.

There is this weird tendency for people to think things are free when they don't personally have to pay for them. And that makes sense when the context is limited in scope. But often the context in our discussions in R&P are a nation's healthcare system, or in this case, a nation's education system. In that context I think it's important to remember that it's only free for the students because others have agreed to cover the costs for them. Whether you agree that it's a good idea for a nation to pay the way for the nation's youth or you think it's better to make students pay for themselves directly, the money has to come from somewhere.

The US has a very strong (and useful, and important) personal responsibility philosophy. If you can't lift yourself up by your own bootstraps, well, maybe you don't deserve to be lifted up at all. That has its own merits, but it has some negatives too. A nation like Germany has decided that those gainfully employed and paying taxes will pay the way for kids to get educated. Eventually, those kids will become gainfully employed at which point they WILL pay for education. But it will be through taxes, and the education will be for OTHER people. And they will be BETTER equipped to handle the costs of paying for an education, because by the time they are asked to pay for it, they are already gainfully employed, fulltime.

So Germany's "free" education system is more like a deferred payment system. Get your education today for 0 down, and a lifetime of payments later. Which really isn't all that different from some American educations. Borrow thousands (hundreds of thousands?) now and a lifetime of paying it back.

GreenGoo wrote: So Germany's "free" education system is more like a deferred payment system. Get your education today for 0 down, and a lifetime of payments later. Which really isn't all that different from some American educations. Borrow thousands (hundreds of thousands?) now and a lifetime of paying it back.

Isgrimnur nailed it. It's not paying for college that is the problem. It's very simple to get a quality college education for the price of a nice car that will pay itself back very, very easily. There are plenty of government grants, very affordable loans, and work programs.

The problem is the skyrocketing cost at socially acceptable universities and lack of respect for non-college skilled labor. It has nothing to do with not enough cash.

noxiousdog wrote: It's not paying for college that is the problem. It's very simple to get a quality college education for the price of a small housethat will pay itself back very, very easily.

FTFY

Kurth wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: It's not paying for college that is the problem. It's very simple to get a quality college education for the price of a small housethat will pay itself back very, very easily.

FTFY

Bull.

University of Houston - Clear Lake: 32,000 for 4 years. Before any tax credits, grants, or financial assistance.
You can cut that down considerably with two years of community college first.

noxiousdog wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

PLW wrote:Community college is already very cheap.

But it's not quite fulfilling the need(s), and it's mostly a jumping off point to a 4(+) year college.

My wife is going to school for $3000 a semester before federal tax credits (which are considerable). This is two 1/2 years of community college and 2+ of major university. There is zero chance you will ever convince me this is impossible or unnecessary for the student to fund. Even if we were to borrow every cent, it would be roughly the amount of a car loan when all said and done.

Now, if you want to talk about zero interest government loans? Fine.

The average price of a community college is about [Edit: 3300] but the average price for a state university is $9400. That averages out to about [Edit 6300] a year.

Personally, I'd rather try to keep the costs in those public institutions from going up by increasing state funding that have been shrinking, in order to keep the price affordable (but not free), than by changing student loans to be interest free.

Defiant wrote:
Personally, I'd rather try to keep the costs in those public institutions from going up by increasing state funding that have been shrinking,

What?

noxiousdog wrote:University of Houston - Clear Lake: 32,000 for 4 years. Before any tax credits, grants, or financial assistance.
You can cut that down considerably with two years of community college first.

I'm seeing $12,213 per 12 credit hour semester from your link non resident (meaning non state subsidized) for undergrad, which includes books.

Assuming about 120 credits to graduate minimum, that's 122,000 for a four year degree. Room and board not included. I'm totally missing where you get your numbers.

There are tons of ways to discount/have this subsidized though, as you suggest. Firstly, by becoming a resident.

LordMortis wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:University of Houston - Clear Lake: 32,000 for 4 years. Before any tax credits, grants, or financial assistance.
You can cut that down considerably with two years of community college first.

I'm seeing $12,213 per 12 credit hour semester from your link non resident (meaning non state subsidized) for undergrad, which includes books.

Assuming about 120 credits to graduate minimum, that's 122,000 for a four year degree. Room and board not included. I'm totally missing where you get your numbers.

There are tons of ways to discount/have this subsidized though, as you suggest. Firstly, by becoming a resident.

If keeping costs low is your top priority, wouldn't you go to an in-state school and not an out-of-state school?

Also, if you're taking 12 credits a semester, its going to take you five years to finish (unless you're going to summer school). People finishing in 4 years usually take 15 credits a semester. And usually, IIUC, once you pay for full time (12 credits) you can take more credits (up to some limit) without paying more.

Defiant wrote:chart

You miss my point.

The cost is independent of who pays for it.

His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

Isgrimnur wrote:His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

Yes, that. I think that going to a public institution should stay "affordable" (but not free) to the students, even if it requires more government funding.

Isgrimnur wrote:His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

And yet, it's still very affordable unless you're buying social status.

noxiousdog wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

And yet, it's still very affordable unless you're buying social status.

Perhaps (although location will affect that cost. I find it amusing that Vermont has one of the most expensive public schools). But the costs to students are growing at a very high rate, doubling over a ten year period.

Defiant wrote: And yet, it's still very affordable unless you're buying social status.

But the costs to students are growing at a very high rate, doubling over a ten year period.

So, quit treating the symptoms and treat the problem.

You mean having the government pay a greater share of the costs?

Colleges decided 20 years ago to institute tiered pricing. If you have money or access to money or relatively poor academic credentials (for the school), you pay more. You pay less if you're poor and/or scholarships. In economic terms, it was to incentivize applicants and create a perception of value.

California chased after unsubsidized out of state students, then foreign students whose wealthy parents often viewed financial contributions to the school on top of full tuition as simply the price of admission.

The result has been empire building and a deterioration of academic focus by chasing the money.

Zarathud wrote:Colleges decided 20 years ago to institute tiered pricing. If you have money or access to money or relatively poor academic credentials (for the school), you pay more. You pay less if you're poor and/or scholarships. In economic terms, it was to incentivize applicants and create a perception of value.

The result has been empire building and a deterioration of academic focus by chasing the money.

Are you talking about public or private schools? We're talking about public schools, though I know some private schools have institutionalized what youre talking about (with some schools being free to those who are poor, but it, of course, requires getting in) using their (large) endowments to pay for them.

Defiant wrote:

Arizona #1!! Arizona #1!!

noxiousdog wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

And yet, it's still very affordable unless you're buying social status.

My question to you is: Why (in general) do you think people are willing to pay extra (sometimes orders of magnitude extra) for social status?

GreenGoo wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:His point is that the cost to the student has increased partially because they're replacing lost state funding with higher student costs.

And yet, it's still very affordable unless you're buying social status.

My question to you is: Why (in general) do you think people are willing to pay extra (sometimes orders of magnitude extra) for social status?

Because in America status will get you a lot farther than education.

GreenGoo wrote: My question to you is: Why (in general) do you think people are willing to pay extra (sometimes orders of magnitude extra) for social status?

They want it, so they justify it to themselves. In some national and a few regional cases there are definitely networks built. Being a University of Texas, LSU, or Texas A&M grad around here will certainly make it more likely to get an interview, but it's not because of the quality of the education. Certainly there are schools that have a higher quality of education, Rice, MIT, etc, but that's not a money argument, that's a qualifications to get in argument.

Defiant wrote:Are you talking about public or private schools? We're talking about public schools, though I know some private schools have institutionalized what youre talking about (with some schools being free to those who are poor, but it, of course, requires getting in) using their (large) endowments to pay for them.

In Michigan (the only universities I watch), public schools are as Zarathud describes. They have been chasing the boutique lifestyle to chase dollars, which costs dollars, which requires more boutique offerings, to chase more dollars. EMU was a modest instate cost for a commuter when I started in 88, the price tripped in the 8 years it took me to get a 4 year degree. In that time they built a business center, golf course, stadium, and convention hall, none of which were generally beneficial or freely available for the students and their educations and more was being built after I left.

12 credit hours in 88/89 was about $700 after all of the fees were tacked on.
12 credit hours was around $2400 when I graduated in 95.
Today the suggestion is that it's around $4000, which isn't too bad for 20 years worth of inflation and considering all of the tax credits that were not available to me that are available now. I thought it was going to be a whole hell of a lot worse. *shrug*

$36,000 for a degree from Eastern without going to community college doesn't sound crazy outrageous to me.

I have no idea how much government subsidy has changed in that time.

http://www.emich.edu/finaid/process/cost.php

noxiousdog wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: My question to you is: Why (in general) do you think people are willing to pay extra (sometimes orders of magnitude extra) for social status?

They want it, so they justify it to themselves. In some national and a few regional cases there are definitely networks built. Being a University of Texas, LSU, or Texas A&M grad around here will certainly make it more likely to get an interview, but it's not because of the quality of the education. Certainly there are schools that have a higher quality of education, Rice, MIT, etc, but that's not a money argument, that's a qualifications to get in argument.

Around here Status opens doors. The UofM commands more respect than any other university by far. There is a brotherhood that goes beyond networking... And then there's the networking...

I agree with you and Rip, and I think it's important enough that it can't be ignored. When you say "you can get a reasonably priced education" it's true, but it is missing some fundamental aspects. Specifically, the "getting a job afterward" attribute of a community college education is going to be much lower than an Ivy League education, and that is mostly unrelated to the teaching skills, learning environment and subject matter.

I think we're all clear here, that when we are talking about education, we are mostly talking about employability as the primary goal of education. I personally believe there is an aspect to education that is all about personal improvement and growth and fulfilment, but I'm less focused on the economic costs of achieving that.

So if education = employment as generally accepted for these discussions, then we can't leave out aspects of education that affect future employment.

If I'm Daddy Warbucks and can send Annie to Harvard (let's say) then it is slightly disingenuous of me to wave my hand, say "bah" and point to an affordable community college education as evidence that education is not too expensive. (note this is not directed at ND specifically, even though it seems like it).

Learning things might be affordable still. Getting an "education" is becoming less so.

GreenGoo wrote:I agree with you and Rip, and I think it's important enough that it can't be ignored. When you say "you can get a reasonably priced education" it's true, but it is missing some fundamental aspects. Specifically, the "getting a job afterward" attribute of a community college education is going to be much lower than an Ivy League education, and that is mostly unrelated to the teaching skills, learning environment and subject matter.

Nobody has advocated a 2 year degree from a community college as a goal. The goal is a 4 year degree. There are many ways to accomplish this goal from two years at CC and then 2-3 at a major university, to a regular state school, to major state school, to a private school, to Ivy league or equivalent.

And the social status argument doesn't hold water unless you plan on sending everyone to the same school. The University of Eastern Michigan is not going to command the same respect as the University of Michigan.