Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

soupslam1

Student Debt

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

I never argued for free. Never ever. I paid between $60-$65 a credit to go to Nevada on in-state tuition. Adjusted for inflation, of course, I think that is a perfectly reasonable price, give or take a bit, to ask students to pay. Whether they need loans to do it or not.

Students should struggle a bit. It is part of the experience, and builds better people long run. But they shouldn't be yoked with debt for their entire life.

And to your point, I don't think it's wrong to ask the beneficiaries of public education, people like literally everybody in this country, to help subsidize what is (or at least used to be) the finest public college system in the world. Just like the church asks you to do with BYU. Even the Mormon welders.

I agree about the beneficiaries, however, I trust the Church to control expenses at BYU and my contributions are voluntary.  I don't trust the government for one second to control the expenses of anything and I don't control the amount of my "contributions" to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sactowndog said:

typically ignorant and racist Trump supporter.   

This is getting phucking tiresome.  It was tiresome with the old mosquito abatement official in Lovelock.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, BYUcougfan said:

I agree about the beneficiaries, however, I trust the Church to control expenses at BYU and my contributions are voluntary.  I don't trust the government for one second to control the expenses of anything and I don't control the amount of my "contributions" to the government.

So other than about 250 years of state-sponsored colleges, in which a vast network of public universities became the envy of the world by educating tens of millions of people, regardless of religion or income, relatively inexpensively, not to mention the research those schools have fueled, we don’t have much information to go on to form an opinion on whether governments can do this effectively. So I can see why you wouldn’t trust the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

 

So other than about 250 years of state-sponsored colleges, in which a network of public universities became the envy of the world by educating tens of millions of people, regardless of religion or income, relatively inexpensively, not to mention the research those schools have fueled, we don’t have much information to go on to form an opinion on whether governments can do this effectively. So I can see why you wouldn’t trust the government.

Unless I missed something, we don't have 250 years of history of the Federal government paying the tuition for students.  We just have 40 years or so of the Federal government getting involved in a material way and look what has happened.  The cost of education has vastly outpaced inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

This is getting phucking tiresome.  It was tiresome with the old mosquito abatement official in Lovelock.

Then don’t say they must be an affirmative action recipient when just a little research could simply tell you in fact tuition was free to the UC’s in 1960.   Instead he makes a snarky comment about minorities versus everyone else.   And as typical he doubled down on after someone posted the data calling it fake news.  
 

ignorance and race baiting shouldn’t be acceptable on either side.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

Unless I missed something, we don't have 250 years of history of the Federal government paying the tuition for students.  We just have 40 years or so of the Federal government getting involved in a material way and look what has happened.  The cost of education has vastly outpaced inflation.

The federal government has a passive influence over state colleges. They don’t control expenses. The government guarantees federal loans, offers federal grants, offers tax credits for education expenses, chips in a bit for work study, and provide research grants. They don’t manage the budgets. That money has helped broaden access to public universities in a way that would’ve been unimaginable 100 years ago.

The cost side, well, that’s mainly the fault of state university systems, which have not constrained costs in an effort to recruit students. The loan system has enabled that, but it isn’t the sole issue. States have also backed off funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BYUcougfan said:

I agree about the beneficiaries, however, I trust the Church to control expenses at BYU and my contributions are voluntary.  

BYU is a very unique case though. You can't base an entire education system on a model of voluntary contributions. 

I do agree about the government's inability to control spending; at the same time I agree with NVGiant about the importance and benefits of a public university system. I've studied at public colleges in three countries: the US, the UK, and Germany:

US: very expensive

UK: pretty expensive

Germany: "free" (aka taxpayer funded, free to attend)

Now, comparing all three experiences, US colleges certainly offer their students more in terms of guidance, teacher responsiveness, service learning, etc. The quality of the class contents may not be better, but it's certainly a better experience. But are these differences worth thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in tuition fees? Oh, hell +++++ing no!

So the question isn't whether you can run an effective public education system at a reasonable cost - you can - but the question is, what's going wrong with our system, and how can we change it? How can we keep the things that make our universities great and get rid of unnecessary money wasters? Legislation plays a major role here. Prestige projects and runaway administrative costs as well.

By the way, some people think that in countries where universities are cheaper to attend, the taxpayer just foots the difference between cost to attend and price of education. That's not the case. You can easily look up some numbers yourself if you want - even most internationally very well regarded European universities are run at a fraction of the operating budgets of your typical American state university. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What College Cost 100 Years Ago

https://money.com/college-costs-100-years-inflation-1915/

A year’s tuition at Harvard would have run you just $150, while Stanford and many state universities charged nothing at all.

In this time of growing concern about college costs, we decided to take a look back, to 1915, and compare what college cost then to what it does today.

Here’s what 15 well-known colleges charged for tuition in 1915, according to a contemporary report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and other sources, as well as what they cost now. We’ve also noted what those 1915 costs would be in today’s dollars had tuition gone up at the same pace as consumer prices in general, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator.

The difference is instructive to say the least: a 2,263% rise in the consumer price index over the past 100 years, but a staggering increase of 42,930%, on average, in tuition costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Then don’t say they must be an affirmative action recipient when just a little research could simply tell you in fact tuition was free to the UC’s in 1960.   Instead he makes a snarky comment about minorities versus everyone else.   And as typical he doubled down on after someone posted the data calling it fake news.  
 

ignorance and race baiting shouldn’t be acceptable on either side.   

Says the guy who does it all the time. Comete mierda pendejo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, happycamper said:

IT IS A GOVERNMENT EDUCATION SYSTEM AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN!

Holy hell! Government makes everything worse but gets zero credit for creating the best tertiary education system in the world?

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT INCREASED REGULATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER STATE ACTORS IS A GOOD THING, IN FACT IT IS THE SOLE REASON THE PRICE OF EDUCATION HAS INFLATED TO THIS POINT!!

 

Holly hell, the reasons as to why college education is at the current price point have been beaten to death and moar gubbmit is the answer.  And yet you want moar gubmit to fix it before even letting market forces that are trending in a direction that would give anybody with a few electrons floating in their brain hope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be two schools of thought here at the end of the day.  Those who believe in personal accountability, learning from the mistakes of of previous generations and market forces and this who believe in the government, funded by the tax payers, needs to correct a "problem"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NVGiant said:

The federal government has a passive influence over state colleges. They don’t control expenses. The government guarantees federal loans, offers federal grants, offers tax credits for education expenses, chips in a bit for work study, and provide research grants. They don’t manage the budgets.. That money has helped broaden access to public universities in a way that would’ve been unimaginable 100 years ago.

The cost side, well, that’s mainly the fault of state university systems, which have not constrained costs in an effort to recruit students. The loan system has enabled that, but it isn’t the sole issue. States have also backed off funding.


For now.  Wait until the democratic party shaped by Bernie eventually gets in power.

The cost side was a predictable outcome of flooding government backed debt into higher education.  States predictably backing off funding was also a result of this.  While it may not be the sole reason, it is without a doubt the larges driving factor.  Thanks democrats (and a handful of republicans).

All I am saying, let's not blow anything up (elect Bernie) because if we just let it be, I believe It will correct to level here in the next 10-15 years, then we can make a better assessment of just how bad we +++++ed up and what if any corrective actions by big daddy government can be re-assessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Seems to be two schools of thought here at the end of the day.  Those who believe in personal accountability, learning from the mistakes of of previous generations and market forces and this who believe in the government, funded by the tax payers, needs to correct a "problem"

 

 

Way oversimplified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

When I did not over-simplify things, only happy bothered responding.

I’ll get back to your longer post in a bit. I’ve got a basketball game to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Yeah like those art history and mans religions classes had such a huge impact on my career. People that are interested in those subjects can do it on their own time instead of forcing you to spend an extra two years on the public’s and your dime. 

Civics may be warranted in K-12, but I don’t see that you should be forced to take it in college unless you’re a poli sci major.

The world needs more civics beyond high school and science as well.  Holy hell are there a lot of people out there that don't understand civics or science and look what that has brought upon us.  

I feel like students should get a well rounded education.  If people don't like science, they won't take any science.  If they have to, they might learn something and not turn into a damn anti-vaxxer and help bring once pretty much dead diseases back to life.  

What needs to happen is more apprenticeships at businesses.  Colleges were never meant to specifically prepare kids for one job.  It was a solid foundation and then employers played a part to help you become good at your job.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like the education I want for my kids is a lot different than what some of you posters want for your children. From my own experience, while getting my MBA in an executive program at UNM, I found that I learned just as much from my fellow students that I did from the professors and the textbooks. Such diverse life and business backgrounds...very enriching. From their personal experiences to expanding my thoughts simply by the questions they asked that never would have even crossed my mind. 

So I always pushed for my kids to get away from home and experience how the rest of the world lives. Immerse themselves in their education. Learn to become comfortable in places that aren't home..where you have to learn to problem solve without all the resources you have available at home. See how other cultures approach life. And also have full immersion...your job is your education. You don't need to run from class to a job. There will be plenty of time to run to jobs later. Stay on campus...join some clubs...simply talk to those around you.

Which leads to my complaint/reform request....why is there different tuitions for out of state students? So ass-backwards. I would think universities would want to have as much diversity as they could. That is the reform I would want...same tuition for every student accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Says the guy who does it all the time. Comete mierda pendejo. 

No, I call it out when I see it including to one of my best friends (a Trumper) who said and I quote “Are you going to nominate the butt +++++er”.

if you don’t like being called a bigot then I suggest you stop acting like one. Pretty +++++ing simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coalman29 said:

Seems like the education I want for my kids is a lot different than what some of you posters want for your children. From my own experience, while getting my MBA in an executive program at UNM, I found that I learned just as much from my fellow students that I did from the professors and the textbooks. Such diverse life and business backgrounds...very enriching. From their personal experiences to expanding my thoughts simply by the questions they asked that never would have even crossed my mind. 

So I always pushed for my kids to get away from home and experience how the rest of the world lives. Immerse themselves in their education. Learn to become comfortable in places that aren't home..where you have to learn to problem solve without all the resources you have available at home. See how other cultures approach life. And also have full immersion...your job is your education. You don't need to run from class to a job. There will be plenty of time to run to jobs later. Stay on campus...join some clubs...simply talk to those around you.

Which leads to my complaint/reform request....why is there different tuitions for out of state students? So ass-backwards. I would think universities would want to have as much diversity as they could. That is the reform I would want...same tuition for every student accepted.

Isn’t the logic that the in-state students have parents that helped subsidize the schools with their tax dollars? Also, seems like it could make schools in the more desirable states competitive to the point where you would have kids that could currently get in to a in-State school forced to move away from home because they can no longer get in to the nearest school. Also, wouldn’t those in-demand states just raise their tuition? Then you would have in-state kids from lower income families essentially priced out of the nearest universities. 

Seems like a really bad idea that could have a lot of negative side effects; I think the current system is better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...