The Hillary Clinton thread

[Defiant]

While there is a concrete benefit from social status, I've not been focused on that. Especially since that issue would be exactly the same if there were FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL!

For the typical person who has a top priority of keeping costs low while getting a college education, in-state public schools are the way to go.

If you can afford to go to a status school, especially one that will open doors to you, have at it. (Or if you're bright enough to get scholarships or such to go to a top tier school)

But for most people, it's public school. And, IMO, we want to have government funding to make sure that the costs are, and remain, affordable.

[Jeff V]

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.

It's not always as simple as that. An MBA from a state business school might get you a middle management job at a decent company, whereas an MBA from Harvard might instantly get you on an executive track somewhere. Talent only gets you so far...you need the opportunity as well and some paths are just very open when the prize is massive salaries.

However, in most cases, the biggest impact is what you do right out of college. As your career progresses, your education gradually fades to a check box on a job application (___ Has Degree). And after enough time passes, even that might not matter if you have the talent to do the job. There's been an increase in recent years of talented people opting out of the higher education/higher debt tandem, either latching on with mentors who recognize their potential or starting their own companies in the first place.

[noxiousdog]

But for most people, it's public school. And, IMO, we want to have government funding to make sure that the costs are, and remain, affordable.

Government funding doesn't do anything for the costs. It just makes everyone else pay for them, masks the cost, and universities get richer.

[Defiant]

But for most people, it's public school. And, IMO, we want to have government funding to make sure that the costs are, and remain, affordable.

Government funding doesn't do anything for the costs. It just makes everyone else pay for them, masks the cost, and universities get richer.

The costs to students. I thought I made that clear.

[GreenGoo]

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.

The social status pursuit will never end, and so there will be a scale (range in price) no matter how low (or high) the minimum education costs are. That makes this a lot more complicated than a simple economic problem with an (solely) economic solution. It would help if money was not AS important as it currently is in determining who gets to go to what school (obviously other merits are evaluated too, I just wish money was less important).

Things like the system in Germany can reduce this sort of thing, but not eliminate it entirely. Competing for the "best" schools takes on different aspects than having a Daddy who can cut the biggest cheque.

In any case, I was not suggesting that status and networking replace the importance of knowledge in an education, only that they matter too, and must be factored into any discussion of education costs.. My 20-something version of myself would never have even entertained the idea that networking mattered in an education. I had very different priorities back then, I guess.

I'd also state that when I was college aged, Universities here accepted almost NO credit earned at a college, so you either went to college or university. You couldn't do 2 years in college and then transfer into university in 3rd year. You would absolutely have to start in first year (although 2 years of successful college would positively impact your ability to be accepted at University) and if you were VERY lucky, get a couple of course credits. I'm pretty sure today things have moved a bit closer, at least in certain fields, so that it is easier to get more credits when moving from college to University, but still no where near 1 for 1.

To make the above clear, there is no "transfer" between college and university. You would simply quit doing one and start doing another. They are (or were) 2 separate entities. Universities gave degrees, which were certified (by who, I can't recall. Government regulations?) while Colleges gave diplomas, which weren't certified (although still better than the fly-by-night "colleges" like Herzing or whatever, from both a status and a knowledge statepoint).

Both Universities and colleges receive public funding of course. This is socialist china after all.

[LordMortis]

I'd also state that when I was college aged, Universities here accepted almost NO credit earned at a college, so you either went to college or university. You couldn't do 2 years in college and then transfer into university in 3rd year. You would absolutely have to start in first year (although 2 years of successful college would positively impact your ability to be accepted at University) and if you were VERY lucky, get a couple of course credits. I'm pretty sure today things have moved a bit closer, at least in certain fields, so that it is easier to get more credits when moving from college to University, but still no where near 1 for 1.

To make the above clear, there is no "transfer" between college and university. You would simply quit doing one and start doing another. They are (or were) 2 separate entities. Universities gave degrees, which were certified (by who, I can't recall. Government regulations?) while Colleges gave diplomas, which weren't certified (although still better than the fly-by-night "colleges" like Herzing or whatever, from both a status and a knowledge statepoint).

Both Universities and colleges receive public funding of course. This is socialist china after all.

In The States we largely use college and university interchangeably. The reality is we still consider Universities as colleges though we don't consider all colleges as universities. I don't know why.

We would always say where did you to college, never where did you go to university.

In Michigan, you can transfer most of your Freshman and Sophomore years from one college or university to another university in most cases and would often be considered wise to do so if you are concerned about affordability more than "the college experience" It also not uncommon to get a two year associates decree from a community college and roll some (usually, like 30 of 130) of those credits into a bachelor's degree at a university.

[noxiousdog]

For the state of Texas all accredited community colleges will transfer to all state schools.

[LordMortis]

For the state of Texas all accredited community colleges will transfer to all state schools.

Each university here has "equivalency lists" for what transfers from one place to another and what it counts as and a maximum amount of transferable credits with the idea being you can't take 120 CC credits at Washenaw and then go to the UofM up the road, take your last 12 credits and get your UofM degree. I don't know how the magic works, but it all works by formula, so you can plan for it.

Such and such university accepts this many student transfers, historically requiring this specific GPA from this community college. If you maintain that GPA, you should get in. If you are tracking for a degree in mudcastles, then you should can safely take this 16 classes and they will apply as these other 16 classes. It's all pretty cookie cutter in most cases as long as you plan. If you don't plan (and achieve your plan) then you could be in for a lot of classes that don't get you toward a goal.

[GreenGoo]

I actually don't have solid information on the exact nature of University and College up here, despite attending both.

What I said was true at the time of my getting an education, but I don't (and never did) have formal knowledge of the whys and wherefores.

If anyone knows the details (be they Canadian or otherwise) I'd be interested in hearing it.

When I went through, Nurses were either college educated (so they had a diploma, paid less, spent less time in school) or university educated (full degree, full price, 4 years). Both were employable as nurses in hospitals (universal healthcare, so less variation specific to any given hospital) but typically the Uni-nurses were considered (after some years of nursing experience) for the management jobs and other perks of employment (for example higher status jobs).

About a decade ago (maybe more) some colleges were able to get their nursing programs accredited, which resulted in colleges providing degree programs in nursing. That is the first time I had heard of a college being accredited and being "allowed" to issue degrees.

Other programs may have followed suit, although I'm not sure which. Given that college and university nurses were hired into the same jobs right out of school, the 2 programs were already pretty close.

I should also mention that colleges around here offer both white collar and blue collar type education, so you could learn to be a code monkey or welder at the same school. To the best of my knowledge Universities don't offer anything along those lines.

[noxiousdog]

This discussion is exactly like the health care argument, only less time critical and cheaper.

Both industries are for the most part non-profit.
Both have wildly different costs depending on where you go.
Both get you mostly the same care.
Both are escalating in cost.
Both have generic and name brand alternatives.

[noxiousdog]

But for most people, it's public school. And, IMO, we want to have government funding to make sure that the costs are, and remain, affordable.

Government funding doesn't do anything for the costs. It just makes everyone else pay for them, masks the cost, and universities get richer.

The costs to students. I thought I made that clear.

You did, but it's irrelevant and non-productive. Are you really suggesting it's ok for college costs to rise 10% per year indefinitely as long as the public funds it?

[El Guapo]

This discussion is exactly like the health care argument, only less time critical and cheaper.

Both industries are for the most part non-profit.
Both have wildly different costs depending on where you go.
Both get you mostly the same care.
Both are escalating in cost.
Both have generic and name brand alternatives.

Although the name brand products have more inherent value in the education sphere. In medicine people go to name brand hospitals because they then feel like they're getting better care, even if objectively they are not (so a rational, fully-informed person would not choose the name brand options for higher prices in most cases). In education, though, the name brand has an objective value as an elite credential, such that a rational fully informed person might well choose the name brand university for higher price.

[noxiousdog]

This discussion is exactly like the health care argument, only less time critical and cheaper.

Both industries are for the most part non-profit.
Both have wildly different costs depending on where you go.
Both get you mostly the same care.
Both are escalating in cost.
Both have generic and name brand alternatives.

Although the name brand products have more inherent value in the education sphere. In medicine people go to name brand hospitals because they then feel like they're getting better care, even if objectively they are not (so a rational, fully-informed person would not choose the name brand options for higher prices in most cases). In education, though, the name brand has an objective value as an elite credential, such that a rational fully informed person might well choose the name brand university for higher price.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is there any evidence that says a University of Houston is significantly different than a Baylor? ($40,000 vs $120,000)

[El Guapo]

This discussion is exactly like the health care argument, only less time critical and cheaper.

Both industries are for the most part non-profit.
Both have wildly different costs depending on where you go.
Both get you mostly the same care.
Both are escalating in cost.
Both have generic and name brand alternatives.

Although the name brand products have more inherent value in the education sphere. In medicine people go to name brand hospitals because they then feel like they're getting better care, even if objectively they are not (so a rational, fully-informed person would not choose the name brand options for higher prices in most cases). In education, though, the name brand has an objective value as an elite credential, such that a rational fully informed person might well choose the name brand university for higher price.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is there any evidence that says a University of Houston is significantly different than a Baylor? ($40,000 vs $120,000)

Not in every case, but almost certainly in at least some cases. I can tell you that there is an enormous difference between the career options of someone who graduates from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale law and someone who graduates from (say) Fordham law, even though I am fairly confident that the legal education at all those places are roughly comparable.

I suspect that the same effect holds true for at least some name brand non-law universities. I am curious if there's been much research on this, though.

[LordMortis]

I think he's saying objectively that the exactly same Harvard law degree will statically get you a better paying job than will an NYU law degree, even if you get the same level of education because of the value of name recognition or networking or snobbery or whatever, whereas you don't care if Dr Oz or Dr Frankenstein sets your broken arm as long as it's set right.

[Rip]

But for most people, it's public school. And, IMO, we want to have government funding to make sure that the costs are, and remain, affordable.

Government funding doesn't do anything for the costs. It just makes everyone else pay for them, masks the cost, and universities get richer.

The costs to students. I thought I made that clear.

Yet it still holds true that they will pay for it down the road, or someone else's. It doesn't make the actual education more affordable anymore than rent-to-own no credit car dealers make automobiles more affordable. It actually makes it more because the people who pay have no effective mechanism for getting value for their money. They pay what they are told because they have no choice.

[RunningMn9]

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Let's assume Little RM9 wants to follow in his dad's footsteps and go to the Rutgers College of Engineering. For the moment, assume that he will commute there (presumably your wife is commuting). That's $7734. If he wants to live on campus, that's another $6192. That's per semester. So to live at a state university in NJ, that's a cool $13926 per semester. And that's only because he's "lucky" enough to live in NJ. If we were forced to flee to PA to avoid the soul-crushing property taxes here, that cost goes up $9000. Per semester.

For a public state university. The notion that Rutgers has the balls to charge anyone $23000 *per semester* nauseates me. That's more than it cost for my entire four years there.

My point - even our local county college - that $3000 isn't even getting you one year. What does the above quote mean? I cannot connect the "$3000 per semester" to the next sentence.

[noxiousdog]

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Let's assume Little RM9 wants to follow in his dad's footsteps and go to the Rutgers College of Engineering. For the moment, assume that he will commute there (presumably your wife is commuting). That's $7734. If he wants to live on campus, that's another $6192. That's per semester. So to live at a state university in NJ, that's a cool $13926 per semester. And that's only because he's "lucky" enough to live in NJ. If we were forced to flee to PA to avoid the soul-crushing property taxes here, that cost goes up $9000. Per semester.

Don't add room and board. For the most part those costs are pretty comparable across universities and wouldn't be much different if you were living in an apartment.

For a public state university. The notion that Rutgers has the balls to charge anyone $23000 *per semester* nauseates me. That's more than it cost for my entire four years there.

And you can add that to my medical analogy. Variable pricing.

My point - even our local county college - that $3000 isn't even getting you one year. What does the above quote mean? I cannot connect the "$3000 per semester" to the next sentence.

We are paying roughly $3000-$4000 per semester at both Houston Community College and University of Houston - Victoria. The costs went up a few hundred with the transition.
Assuming your $8000 per semester, once you adjust for real estate and cost of living, it's not drastically different. You're probably subsidizing more Rutgers research than you are at UH Victoria. $64,000 (before tax credits, etc) doesn't strike me as ridiculous either considering the cost of living there.

[Defiant]

Are you really suggesting it's ok for college costs to rise 10% per year indefinitely as long as the public funds it?

1. Are total costs actually rising that high? (If it's going up 10% per year, that would mean cost per students would increase ~159% in 10 years?)
2. Given that government spending had gone down (at least in most states) and that the share of spending from tuition has gone up, eg:

And given that tuition has only gone up 99% over 10 years, even if the government spending hadn't dropped, where's the other 60% coming from? (I suppose grants and the like? I'm ok with that, actually...)


Anyway, getting back to your question, I consider making sure that public universities are and remain affordable to be the top priority. As to rising costs of universities as a whole, that remains an issue - some of which makes sense (eg, modernizing resources to meet the demands of the 21st century) while some of them may not. But that is a secondary priority to making sure a basic level of public college is affordable to students.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that room and board at/near NYU is a bit higher than the same at/near Texas Tech.

[noxiousdog]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that room and board at/near NYU is a bit higher than the same at/near Texas Tech.

Of course it is. But room and board is going to be paid whether you go to school or not. I'd further suggest that it's probably cheaper to live at Texas Tech than it is a similar apartment in Lubbock.

[RunningMn9]

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

I'm late to the party, but this is like the 10th time I've seen you insinuate this. Maybe it's just that we are from different parts of the country - but shit is insane here. And that's for mediocre state schools. Private colleges have gone plaid up in these parts.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that room and board at/near NYU is a bit higher than the same at/near Texas Tech.

Of course it is. But room and board is going to be paid whether you go to school or not. I'd further suggest that it's probably cheaper to live at Texas Tech than it is a similar apartment in Lubbock.

It wasn't when I went there. I moved out of the dorms to an apartment because I realized how badly I was getting screwed.

[Defiant]

One would think, if cost were the most important factor, you would live with your family and go to a local school, if that's an option (it isn't for everyone)

[noxiousdog]

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

I'm late to the party, but this is like the 10th time I've seen you insinuate this. Maybe it's just that we are from different parts of the country - but shit is insane here. And that's for mediocre state schools. Private colleges have gone plaid up in these parts.

You just said it costs $64k to go to Rutgers which is better than a mediocre state school. That's not insane for something that will last for the rest of your life, won't really cost $64k, will be of financial and personal value, and you can get low interest long term loans for.

And yes on private schools. I also posted the costs for Baylor, which is my point. Is there any evidence that going to Baylor is any better than going to University of Houston? I can't imagine that for 97% of the people it makes a difference. And yet, people are willing to go there.

Why? And why should I subsidize them?

[Defiant]

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Let's assume Little RM9 wants to follow in his dad's footsteps and go to the Rutgers College of Engineering. For the moment, assume that he will commute there (presumably your wife is commuting). That's $7734. If he wants to live on campus, that's another $6192. That's per semester. So to live at a state university in NJ, that's a cool $13926 per semester. And that's only because he's "lucky" enough to live in NJ. If we were forced to flee to PA to avoid the soul-crushing property taxes here, that cost goes up $9000. Per semester.

For a public state university. The notion that Rutgers has the balls to charge anyone $23000 *per semester* nauseates me. That's more than it cost for my entire four years there.

My point - even our local county college - that $3000 isn't even getting you one year. What does the above quote mean? I cannot connect the "$3000 per semester" to the next sentence.

He's saying for the first two years, Little RM9 goes to NJ Community College, and then, for the last two years, he goes to Rutgers College of Engineering (or if you've moved, to whatever state (commonwealth?) university they have there). That would bring the price down considerably. Especially if he only goes to an in-state school, not an out of state school.

[LordMortis]

One would think, if cost were the most important factor, you would live with your family and go to a local school, if that's an option (it isn't for everyone)

That's what I did... because it was an option. It still took nearly 8 years for me to get a 4 year degree while working full time. My parents wanted me to live at home even longer until I could afford to pay cash for house. At 25, I think I was easily the oldest of all of my friends still living with mom and dad so that wasn't going to happen. If I could do it all again, I would take them up on it. Although, if I could do it all again, I'd have used status connections to take a job at Ford through my old man rather than spend 8 years getting a four year degree and starting a career at 25 at entry level anyway.

You only appreciate the wisdom of mom and dad after you are no longer able to benefit from it.

[noxiousdog]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that room and board at/near NYU is a bit higher than the same at/near Texas Tech.

Of course it is. But room and board is going to be paid whether you go to school or not. I'd further suggest that it's probably cheaper to live at Texas Tech than it is a similar apartment in Lubbock.

It wasn't when I went there. I moved out of the dorms to an apartment because I realized how badly I was getting screwed.

Fair enough. Why would anyone live on campus then other than the places where Freshmen have to?

[Defiant]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that room and board at/near NYU is a bit higher than the same at/near Texas Tech.

Of course it is. But room and board is going to be paid whether you go to school or not. I'd further suggest that it's probably cheaper to live at Texas Tech than it is a similar apartment in Lubbock.

It wasn't when I went there. I moved out of the dorms to an apartment because I realized how badly I was getting screwed.

Fair enough. Why would anyone live on campus then other than the places where Freshmen have to?

Are you talking about generally or specifically the above case?

I would imagine in NYU, it's quite a bit cheaper to live on campus than off campus. I would imagine in most places, prices tend to be comparable to off campus alternatives.

And of course there are potential issues like location and safety.

[noxiousdog]

Are you talking about generally or specifically the above case?

I would imagine in NYU, it's quite a bit cheaper to live on campus than off campus. I would imagine in most places, prices tend to be comparable to off campus alternatives.

And of course there are potential issues like location and safety.

Yeah. I was just musing. I know that typically people stay on for security (both physical and emotional) early and move off late. I didn't realize there was as big a discrepancy as he mentioned, but casual apartment look-ups in Lubbock showed a pretty wide spread from on campus housing.

[RunningMn9]

$64,000 (before tax credits, etc) doesn't strike me as ridiculous either considering the cost of living there.

It's fucking absurd. The cost of living here is about 25% higher than the cost of living there (well, the Houston area anyway). That doesn't seem like it warrants a 256% increase in the cost of tuition at a public state school.

20 years ago, the cost of a four year degree was about $20,000. Inflation over 20 years bumps that to about $30,000. $64,000? That's nonsense (and yes, Rutgers is a mediocre state school).

Don't get me wrong - I've already laid out a path for my son on how he can get the cost of that same piece of paper way, way lower. If he graduates in the top 15% of his class, he can be eligible for the NJ Stars program (assuming Christie doesn't kill it), which pays for the first two years at a county college. Then, if he keeps his grades up there, he can transfer to finish up at Rutgers, getting $2500 off per year (I think). That creates substantial savings to him that enables a much cheaper education.

But that's only achieved through a combination of hard work (by him, through needing to achieve and maintain good grades), sacrifice (by him, in forgoing living away at college) and subsidies (from the State of NJ to the tune of about $12,000). Which I think is the principle thing that people are talking about here, no? There are plenty of ways that the State can seek to alleviate the burden of a higher education (by spreading it over a much larger population). Has anyone talked about Oregon's Pay It Forward concept in here yet?

My point in bringing this up was to understand the cost you were talking about - and how $3000 per semester connected to X years at county/major university. It made no sense.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Lol, I see Rmn9 beat me to the inflationary calculations etc. Believe it or not, I hadn't see his post while I was writing mine.


Rmn9's references to his alma mater got me curious, so I checked the tuition fees for mine. If I remember my original tuition correctly, it looks like tuition has gone up 800% (almost exactly) since I attended in 1989 (so..26 years or so). Is that a reasonable increase? I don't actually know. Just checked and inflationary costs cover probably 74% of that, so that leaves over 700% increase attributed to other reasons.

That said, I can easily see a student with a decent summer job being able to afford his tuition every year, but that doesn't cover eating, sleeping, books, myriad of additional university fees, or having any sort of life that doesn't involve going to school then going home again, day after day, for 4 years.

[Zarathud]

Both public and private institutions have chased the model, with varying degrees of success. I discussed its implementation in the mid 90s by a Catholic University President, watched my sister benefit from it at another private University a decade later, then discussed its implementation the the last decade with admissions officers in Illinois and California state schools with a national reputation.

[noxiousdog]

Don't get me wrong - I've already laid out a path for my son on how he can get the cost of that same piece of paper way, way lower. If he graduates in the top 15% of his class, he can be eligible for the NJ Stars program (assuming Christie doesn't kill it), which pays for the first two years at a county college. Then, if he keeps his grades up there, he can transfer to finish up at Rutgers, getting $2500 off per year (I think). That creates substantial savings to him that enables a much cheaper education.

But that's only achieved through a combination of hard work (by him, through needing to achieve and maintain good grades), sacrifice (by him, in forgoing living away at college) and subsidies (from the State of NJ to the tune of about $12,000). Which I think is the principle thing that people are talking about here, no? There are plenty of ways that the State can seek to alleviate the burden of a higher education (by spreading it over a much larger population). Has anyone talked about Oregon's Pay It Forward concept in here yet?

Then we are on the same page. Clearly the costs are rising, but just throwing public money with no strings attached isn't the answer. By the same token, as consumers, we should be utilizing our choices rather than just demanding someone else pay for it.

[Isgrimnur]

For $500 a month over a year, you can live in a hall at Texas Tech that still relies on ceiling fans for climate control. And no longer receiving a price break for the misery. On the bright side, you get to live closer to Arts and Sciences than the business students and athletes in their A/C-cooled towers.

[Defiant]

I'd still be interested in knowing the average total costs of students per year ((Government Funding/# of Students) + Tuition + Fees) at Public schools over time (adjusted for inflation). Google has failed me.

[Zarathud]

Part of the issue is that we're NOT throwing state and federal money anymore. Illinois colleges and universities that don't have this model and outside support are in danger of shutting down due to our state budget crisis. Who picked up the cost? Student admissions who often have to pay it back in loans. That worked when there were well-paying jobs with stable careers. Now, graduates are lucky to get a job they'll keep for up to a year. It's disgusting.

My alma mater charged $7-8,000 tuition per year in the 1990s, and now charges $37,000 per year. Median household income was $52,623 in 1990 and $53,657 in 2014. My parents were well under the median, so I graduated with $15,000 in debt (before law school), but a student with a similar deal now would leave with $100,000 in debt. I could have paid off my debt in 6 months after graduation (assuming all other expenses were paid), but that's impossible now.

I don't agree that free education is the answer, but young people have a reason to be angry about college -- primarily due to job and income prospects. Trump blames illegal immigrants; Sanders blames colleges. Neither is right -- it's the economy, stupid.

[LordMortis]

I don't agree that free education is the answer, but young people have a reason to be angry about college -- primarily due to job and income prospects. Trump blames illegal immigrants; Sanders blames colleges. Neither is right -- it's the economy, stupid.

Holy Crap, that's like twice in a year Zarathud and I appear to be on the same page in a political discussion.

Lock the thread now before one of us goes off!

[Kraken]

One would think, if cost were the most important factor, you would live with your family and go to a local school, if that's an option (it isn't for everyone)

That's what I did... because it was an option.

My story is somewhat similar. I lived with the parents while getting my associates degree (2 years) at a junior college (since rebranded a community college) and saving enough money to move into a cheap apartment. Then I moved out and got my bachelors degree in 2 years at a state university. My parents paid for tuition and I paid for everything else, working part-time jobs. Of course, back then tuition was comparatively cheap -- we're talking a few hundred bucks a semester. Textbooks cost almost as much as the tuition did.

It was still a stretch and, because of some misfortune, my parents couldn't pay for my last year. I got through that by cobbling together a small scholarship, social security disability, food stamps, home heating assistance, the aforementioned jobs, and selling blood plasma twice a week. There were some unemployment benefits mixed in there too, back when one had to keep a little booklet showing one's job application attempts and stand in line to get a check.

Thanks to all that government assistance I managed to graduate with no debt, as did most of my peers. Which, come to think of it, is what Sanders wants to bring back.

[Rip]

You owe a debt. Just Uncle Sam is covering it. He will be collecting a vig throughout your life.