Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:57 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Presumably "whether loans are outstanding or not" would be extended to "whether the recipient went to college or not." Because there are probably people who didn't go to school who would have gone at the discounted price. So basically it's a one time case payout to anyone between the ages of 22 and 35 or something
So a guy age 30 who never had any designs on going to college and was satisfied taking over his father's farm gets his "tuition" reimbursed, but a 36 year old with loans outstanding does not?
  #202  
Old 04-25-2019, 02:59 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
This idea has good roots, but as usual is overly simplistic.

Rather than just dumping 90% of student debt, let's start with allowing it to be discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, as it was, once upon a time. Or perhaps a special court where the student shows insolvency without actually going thru formal bankruptcy.

Then, let's crack down on crappy high pressure diploma mills, where a lot of the bad debt originates.

Free College? Ok, let's us start by making sure that two year colleges across the USA are nearly free, with small fees. In many areas they already are. So a easy, relatively inexpensive change.

Then a Federal scholarship program for those who graduated from a two year college*, but will have issues on paying for the next two years. Before we start writing checks and giving away freebies to someone who may just drop out after their freshman year, lets us see they are committed to a higher education by finishing two years at a community or other 2 year college first.

* based on financial need.
Maybe you should consider running for President. One more candidate, with common sense no less, couldn't hurt.
  #203  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:11 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So a guy age 30 who never had any designs on going to college and was satisfied taking over his father's farm gets his "tuition" reimbursed, but a 36 year old with loans outstanding does not?
Maybe we make people swear under oath that they would have gone to college if tuition hadn't been so high and give them an amount of money equal to difference in wages between their actually career path and their projected (college educated) career path for the rest of their lives.


This is all getting pretty ridiculous
  #204  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:29 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Snipping mine.

Because they want to? Heaven forbid we let our children do things because they enjoy them instead of because it will look good to a scholarship committee.
Guess what? No one is stopping them from doing what they want. However, society shouldn’t be obligated to pay for other people’s short sightedness or to indulge pointless hobbies.
  #205  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:42 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Guess what? No one is stopping them from doing what they want. However, society shouldn’t be obligated to pay for other people’s short sightedness or to indulge pointless hobbies.
Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the comment you quoted. Chisquirrel is talking about kids participating in extracurricular activities (debate team, German club, track and field, volunteer work, etc., etc.) solely or primarily for the purpose of having something to write on their scholarship forms. How does that relate to what you wrote?
  #206  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:05 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Maybe we make people swear under oath that they would have gone to college if tuition hadn't been so high and give them an amount of money equal to difference in wages between their actually career path and their projected (college educated) career path for the rest of their lives.


This is all getting pretty ridiculous
I think Warren's proposal is pretty ridiculous and the patch kits that are proposed to be applied to it to make it work even somewhat are making it moreso. Respectfully, yours is like that.

So, what if this farmer swears, under penalty of perjury, that if tuition had not been so high, he would have been a brain surgeon. Not just any regular brain surgeon, mind you, but the best damn brain surgeon in the world and he estimates, conservatively, that he would have been a multi-millionaire.

First, how would you ever prove that he swore falsely? Second, how do you estimate his career salary? What if he says he would have moved to (pick locality where income for brain surgeon is the highest)? I mean, his mother swears she remembers him talking about that! He always complained that he never wanted to be a farmer! I swear!

Last edited by UltraVires; 04-25-2019 at 04:07 PM.
  #207  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the comment you quoted. Chisquirrel is talking about kids participating in extracurricular activities (debate team, German club, track and field, volunteer work, etc., etc.) solely or primarily for the purpose of having something to write on their scholarship forms. How does that relate to what you wrote?
Because doing something in demand to earn something you’d like is the whole basis of the world’s economy. No one is arguing against people doing what they enjoy.
  #208  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:25 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Respectfully, yours is like that.
Woosh
  #209  
Old 04-25-2019, 04:43 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,670
1. Well since the federally guaranteed student loan program is the root cause of the skyrocketing tuition cost, maybe the government should be part of the solution. Washing away all of the student loan debt doesn't seem to me be the solution though. I'm big on personal accountability. Since the amount and terms of these loans was known by the individuals that borrowed the money, I have little sympathy. And, yes I was opposed to the bank bail outs as well.

2. The federal government providing incentives to state governments to construct more universities, or increase enrollment at existing universities might be a good solution. By creating more supply to offset the demand created by the guaranteed student loan program, tuition rates should come down.

3. And it's not the fluff degrees that some students get that is the problem. It's that 65% of students that start college never finish. So the majority of these people that have student loan debt, have no degree. It's like borrowing money to buy a car or a house, and you never receive it. Again, it comes back to personal accountability. Don't enroll in college and rack up student loans if you don't have the where-with-all to follow through.
  #210  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:08 PM
pigtwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think the idea is that if you are a Division I football prospect with a chance to make the NFL, then great, this will not affect you.

But if you are a women's volleyball player, for example, whose talent level was barely good enough to get a scholarship and have no designs on taking your volleyball career any further, then why, first, as a parent dedicate thousands of dollars to these volleyball camps and travel teams starting when the child is in the womb, and second, once you start school, why devote countless hours to practicing volleyball and travelling, and playing on the team, when the government is going to pay your way anyways.

It's not just sports, but also academics. I remember my senior year filling out applications and writing essays to different scholarship boards explaining what experiences I could share by growing up in a small town, what I would do to educate people on the evils of drunk driving, or how I felt the Lions Club was a positive influence that could help the community.

Also, more importantly, was putting my nose to the grindstone to get good grades and studying for the ACT to get good test scores to get into school. Engaging in extracurricular activities was also considered (at least we were told) important.

If it is all free anyways, why should a high school student do anything but make the bare minimum to pass if he or she has no designs on an elite school?
I haven't read the whole thread(only the most recent conversations) so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. If I understand correctly your concern is that if college is free why would high school students try hard in academics or sports if it's all free? The answer could be that not all schools would accept you if you have poor grades or do not have some other extracurricular achievement. There would be a free college that would have to accept you, but similar to private high schools, there would be better schools that can have admission requirements. Those could be free or paid.

The way it seems to me that "free college" should work would be just an extension of high school. Albeit "free college" in this scenario is a little different than just an extension of high school. Choosing a college would largely be the same as it is now. Except there are a sub-set of colleges that would be free.

If a student had the money or academic achievement they could pay(or get scholarships) to more prestigious colleges. Paid colleges would still work the same as they do now.
  #211  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:16 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,670
As I said above, the current college drop out rate is 65%. If all college was free, I would expect that rate to increase substantially, especially if paying for college isn't an incentive to stay and finish.

What a waste of educational resources.
  #212  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:21 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Woosh
You got me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pigtwo View Post
I haven't read the whole thread(only the most recent conversations) so forgive me if this has already been mentioned. If I understand correctly your concern is that if college is free why would high school students try hard in academics or sports if it's all free? The answer could be that not all schools would accept you if you have poor grades or do not have some other extracurricular achievement. There would be a free college that would have to accept you, but similar to private high schools, there would be better schools that can have admission requirements. Those could be free or paid.

The way it seems to me that "free college" should work would be just an extension of high school. Albeit "free college" in this scenario is a little different than just an extension of high school. Choosing a college would largely be the same as it is now. Except there are a sub-set of colleges that would be free.

If a student had the money or academic achievement they could pay(or get scholarships) to more prestigious colleges. Paid colleges would still work the same as they do now.
Then what have we accomplished by paying for the "free" college? Businesses will look at the free college as an "extension of high school" and on job listings instead of saying "bachelor's degree required" it will say "non-free college degree required."

You will still hear the cries about how rich kids get to go to good schools, but poor people are stuck with the shitty free ones. What happens when middle class kids take out loans so that they don't have to go to the free schools? We are right back where we started, except we have paid a metric shitton of money to make some schools "free."
  #213  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:24 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Sorry for missing it, but about your point of how students would try because there are minimum acceptance requirements, that was what I meant. Not just the minimum to pass high school, but the minimum to be accepted to college. No need to try any harder because there are now no such thing as scholarships since it is all free anyways.
  #214  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:43 PM
pigtwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

Then what have we accomplished by paying for the "free" college? Businesses will look at the free college as an "extension of high school" and on job listings instead of saying "bachelor's degree required" it will say "non-free college degree required."

You will still hear the cries about how rich kids get to go to good schools, but poor people are stuck with the shitty free ones. What happens when middle class kids take out loans so that they don't have to go to the free schools? We are right back where we started, except we have paid a metric shitton of money to make some schools "free."
You've accomplished the same thing that "cheap" colleges and community colleges currently accomplishing. People still go to those today. Except that they're now accessible to everyone. The world is more complex than terrible college on one side and golden perfect college on the other. As I mentioned this is basically the situations high schools are in right now. If you want to send your kid to a great high school it will cost a lot but will probably give them an advantage. If you can't afford it at least you can still go to a "free" high school.

I disagree that all students would go to paid colleges. I think with free colleges being an option the value proposition for paid colleges would change and taking out loans would be less attractive. With their being a substantially cheaper option for college the market could decide the price of the paid colleges. Currently if you NEED a college degree to get any sort of reasonably good job you're forced to get a degree. So you're essentially a captured customer forced to pay whatever. This is inherently non-capitalistic and thus the price can spiral out of control. Providing a set of free colleges would at least mitigate this some.

Obviously some people would still take out loans to go to better schools. But plenty of people would use the free colleges and be perfectly fine. I went to a not very good college and got a fairly good job. There would plenty of room for people getting degrees from not great schools.
  #215  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:47 PM
pigtwo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sorry for missing it, but about your point of how students would try because there are minimum acceptance requirements, that was what I meant. Not just the minimum to pass high school, but the minimum to be accepted to college. No need to try any harder because there are now no such thing as scholarships since it is all free anyways.
The free colleges wouldn't have acceptance requirements but the paid ones could. And there would still be scholarships for the paid colleges.

Obviously there would be a lot of details but I could imagine better free colleges that do have acceptance requirements. Maybe there is some terrible ramification of that but at first I don't see why there couldn't be.
  #216  
Old 04-25-2019, 05:48 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

If it is all free anyways, why should a high school student do anything but make the bare minimum to pass if he or she has no designs on an elite school?
I didn't get the part that loan forgiveness equals free tuition. I thought people got loans for a portion of the cost of college and paid the rest.
  #217  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:14 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You will still hear the cries about how rich kids get to go to good schools, but poor people are stuck with the shitty free ones. What happens when middle class kids take out loans so that they don't have to go to the free schools? We are right back where we started, except we have paid a metric shitton of money to make some schools "free."
I don't think that this argument works. If rich kids are going to paid schools and middleclass kids are taking out loans to go to paid school then the free college shouldn't cost a metric shitton since very few people would be left to go to free college. We also wouldn't be no where we would have effectively means tested free college and given poor kids a better education.

Really, i think there are two separate issues being discussed in the thread free college and student loan forgiveness. I think that the government should provide its citizens enough education that they can take care of themselves. It doesn't seem like a high school graduate has the skills to take care of themselves. I would guess that an AA degree or some trade school would be the minimum so I'd support that being free. Beyond that I'd like to see states fund higher education better. It's embarrassing that CU Boulder only receives 4.5% of its funding from the state of Colorado and I would support another Morrill Act. That's not free college though.

Separate from that is what to do about the student loan crisis. I think were going to have a major economic problem as millennials are leeching off boomers to deal with their massive debt. We're seeing major milestones being delayed like marriage or buying a house due to the debt load. I'm not sure that moving individual debt to societal debt really helps the situation though. The millennials already have a lot of the previous generations debts coming due so I generally don't think this will help.
  #218  
Old 04-25-2019, 06:57 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 22,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post

You really need to step up your dot-connecting game if you think that supports your stated assertion.
  #219  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
You really need to step up your dot-connecting game if you think that supports your stated assertion.
Which part(s) of my assertion do you feel are yet unsupported?
  #220  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:26 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I don't think that this argument works. If rich kids are going to paid schools and middleclass kids are taking out loans to go to paid school then the free college shouldn't cost a metric shitton since very few people would be left to go to free college.
Walk us through that one? The cost of college is not a function of how many people are attending, if that's what you're suggesting.
  #221  
Old 04-25-2019, 10:47 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Guess what? No one is stopping them from doing what they want. However, society shouldn’t be obligated to pay for other people’s short sightedness or to indulge pointless hobbies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because doing something in demand to earn something you’d like is the whole basis of the world’s economy. No one is arguing against people doing what they enjoy.
These seem to be expressing very different and even contradictory sentiments.

Consider a high school student participating in an extracurricular activity: band, a service club, feeding the homeless, tennis, whatever. Should they be rewarded (via a scholarship, extra funding for college, etc.) for participating?

Your first comment quoted above says no:if they doing it just because they want to we have no obligation to give them anything. Your second comment quoted above says yes, if they're doing it to earn something then that is the basis of the world's economy and they should earn something. That seems to be at best a very perverse set of incentives.

So, what is your real position? In what if any circumstances should a student be rewarded for extracurricular activities?
  #222  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:00 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
These seem to be expressing very different and even contradictory sentiments.

Consider a high school student participating in an extracurricular activity: band, a service club, feeding the homeless, tennis, whatever. Should they be rewarded (via a scholarship, extra funding for college, etc.) for participating?

Your first comment quoted above says no:if they doing it just because they want to we have no obligation to give them anything. Your second comment quoted above says yes, if they're doing it to earn something then that is the basis of the world's economy and they should earn something. That seems to be at best a very perverse set of incentives.

So, what is your real position? In what if any circumstances should a student be rewarded for extracurricular activities?
No they aren’t contradictory. One is in response to a comment about kids doing what they wish strictly for their own reasons.

Hey, I’m not the one who awards scholarships. Other people do. So if they want to award a scholarship based on activity or gender or whatever that’s up to them. I’m just saying that if kids want a particular scholarship they ought to focus their efforts on that.

Now, I think all of this is missing the big picture though. College isn’t for everyone. And dumbing down standards in education does no one any favors. Increasing money via guaranteed loans does no one any favors.

What I’d like to see is more certifications that mean something that people could study for via online tools. If you go on YouTube you can watch world class videos on all sorts of subjects. The fact that people need to spend 4-6 years and up to $200k to get a piece of paper is archaic.

Last edited by octopus; 04-25-2019 at 11:01 PM.
  #223  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:13 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Their are scholarships galore.

<snip>

open there wallets.
Now come on!

ETA: where did you say you got your degree from again?

Last edited by Ambivalid; 04-26-2019 at 12:15 AM.
  #224  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:00 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because doing something in demand to earn something you’d like is the whole basis of the world’s economy. No one is arguing against people doing what they enjoy.
Except UltraVires in the post I replied to. If you're not going to follow along...
  #225  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:58 AM
poweroftheglory is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This is the problem in a nutshell. Student loans are good on an individual level and wasteful on a societal level. Young people who are in debt for college should be upset, but they should be upset at the actual problem, the mandatory nature of college, and the subsidies the government is paying to the greedy college administrators.

A hypothetical, there is a pageant where all of the eligible maidens in a country compete for a chance to marry one of 10 aristocrat bachelors. Those who succeed will live the cushy life of a duchess and those who fail will have to live normal lives like the rest of us. Since the pageant is about beauty, someone has the idea to get plastic surgery before the pageant and then they win one of the spots. Soon everyone who competes in the contest is having lots of plastic surgery and because plastic surgeons are scarce the price is bid up 10 and 20 times what it was when only a couple of people were using plastic surgery. Many women are burdening themselves with huge amounts of debt for the plastic surgery and the vast majority are not winning the pageant anyway. So the government starts handing out loans and subsidies for plastic surgeries. The plastic surgeons see this and raise their prices accordingly.

A dishonest senator decries the situation and says that the solution is for the government to provide free plastic surgery for everyone who wants it. Others say we should do away with the pageant and stop wasting so much money on plastic surgery. Those people are called haters of beauty and asked why they don't want poor girls to grow up and marry aristocrats.
The solution to this analogy is to murder the aristocrats and confiscate their assets.
  #226  
Old 04-26-2019, 08:47 AM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 4,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Walk us through that one? The cost of college is not a function of how many people are attending, if that's what you're suggesting.
Sure it is. It may no be the sole variable but it doesn't cost the same to educate 5 kids at 10,000. Say there are 300 kids in a econ 101 lecture a and the 101 proff teaches 7 sections. If 2,100 freshmen don't come to the school, that teacher can be fired, so can all of their grad students and we can shut down the lecture hall which probably enables us to fire a janitor. Further those kids wont go on to take 102 or 201 so we can probably fire 3 more professors and their grad students along with another janitor and at this point probably a maintenance person as well. Say the professors make 100K per year and grad students $5K and there is a grad student for every 100 students so we'll fire 4 profs and 84 grad students janitors make 30K and the maintenance guy makes 40K. We just dropped the expenditure of the school by a million dollars per year before we even get to the other 5 classes those kids would be taking so really it's closer to 6 million per year or about $3,000 per student.

Of course, that doesn't work for a single student leaving a school but considering low income kids are currently make up about 13% of all college freshmen the other 87% leaving for paid colleges would make the cost of this project much smaller.
  #227  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:04 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
(Some) parents spend big bucks on sports training, but I couldn't tell you the scale.
Some anecdotal costs of 'sports training' would include club (travel) ball, and practices, not to mention pitching, or batting coaches, volleyball training or the agility training that is becoming more and more prevalent.

Club ball costs in excess of $12,000/year (which does not include travel expenses). Any training you do could easily run you over $400/month

All in the hopes that my snowflake(s) get a full ride to some decent college. Granted, it is also because I want my child to excel in something they are passionate about so I would pay it even without the hopeful scholarship.

But it does cost 'big bucks'
  #228  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:48 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
No they aren’t contradictory. One is in response to a comment about kids doing what they wish strictly for their own reasons.

Hey, I’m not the one who awards scholarships. Other people do. So if they want to award a scholarship based on activity or gender or whatever that’s up to them. I’m just saying that if kids want a particular scholarship they ought to focus their efforts on that.
You didn't really answer the question. A huge proportion of the scholarships and aid available comes from the colleges themselves and other parts of the government; it's not just some random people handing out money. Should kids receive additional aid and a step up on their college funding for participating in extracurriculars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What I’d like to see is more certifications that mean something that people could study for via online tools. If you go on YouTube you can watch world class videos on all sorts of subjects. The fact that people need to spend 4-6 years and up to $200k to get a piece of paper is archaic.
There's a difference between education and training, however. Sure, you can learn to do X by watching videos or reading blog posts, for many values of X (changing the oil pump on your truck, installing SQL Server on your network, filing a civil complaint and summons for a lawsuit, preparing a 1099-MISC with the IRS, etc., etc.). This is training, and you can get good training.

Education, however, is about _WHY_ you want to do X, why X is a better choice in a particular set of circumstances, and when Y or Z is a more appropriate choice. You can learn to install a SQL server from a video, but is that even the right tool for what your clients/employers are trying to do? How do you figure out when it is better to install SQL Server locally, versus RDS on AWS versus a hosted NoSQL solution versus a pre-built COTS application? These are questions for which there is no one "right" answer that applies to everybody; you need to be able to elicit your users' goals and business requirements and the often unstated assumptions underlying their project, to gather and synthesize information, to use what you have gathered to develop a plan, and then communicate that plan to management and to end-users. Those are skills you don't learn from a video; those are skills that require a lot of practice and give-and-take and feedback and two-way communication with real people in the real world (especially people who don't necessarily have the same interests and goals and knowledge as you do).

The specific software language you learn, or the specific accounting rules or the specific case law, will be outmoded or outdated before you get very far in your career, and you'll have to learn a new language or new rules or new laws and cases. A good education, however, teaches you how to think like a programmer or an accountant or a lawyer. That education is what you are paying $200K and spending years of your life to obtain.
  #229  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:06 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
You didn't really answer the question. A huge proportion of the scholarships and aid available comes from the colleges themselves and other parts of the government; it's not just some random people handing out money. Should kids receive additional aid and a step up on their college funding for participating in extracurriculars?



There's a difference between education and training, however. Sure, you can learn to do X by watching videos or reading blog posts, for many values of X (changing the oil pump on your truck, installing SQL Server on your network, filing a civil complaint and summons for a lawsuit, preparing a 1099-MISC with the IRS, etc., etc.). This is training, and you can get good training.

Education, however, is about _WHY_ you want to do X, why X is a better choice in a particular set of circumstances, and when Y or Z is a more appropriate choice. You can learn to install a SQL server from a video, but is that even the right tool for what your clients/employers are trying to do? How do you figure out when it is better to install SQL Server locally, versus RDS on AWS versus a hosted NoSQL solution versus a pre-built COTS application? These are questions for which there is no one "right" answer that applies to everybody; you need to be able to elicit your users' goals and business requirements and the often unstated assumptions underlying their project, to gather and synthesize information, to use what you have gathered to develop a plan, and then communicate that plan to management and to end-users. Those are skills you don't learn from a video; those are skills that require a lot of practice and give-and-take and feedback and two-way communication with real people in the real world (especially people who don't necessarily have the same interests and goals and knowledge as you do).

The specific software language you learn, or the specific accounting rules or the specific case law, will be outmoded or outdated before you get very far in your career, and you'll have to learn a new language or new rules or new laws and cases. A good education, however, teaches you how to think like a programmer or an accountant or a lawyer. That education is what you are paying $200K and spending years of your life to obtain.
Look, I got a degree in engineering and honestly there isn’t much that went into that degree that couldn’t have been learned online. Maybe a few of the seminar classes or labs needed time at a facility but 90% didn’t. All the stuff about dealing with clients and specific solutions are typically not a huge part of an undergraduate degree program.

Colleges nowadays are in business, much like any other entrenched institution, to grow and perpetuate themselves. If it were strictly to educate people the costs could be reduced 75% or more.

Last edited by octopus; 04-26-2019 at 11:08 AM.
  #230  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:56 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
Seems to me that three parties contribute to excessive, unrepayable college debt:

1. Colleges (for profit or not) charge tuition which greatly exceeds likely earning potential following graduation. Or colleges admit students whom they know have little chance of completing the program - but they hold them on the books as long as they are able to beg/borrow/steal their tuition payments..

2. Lending institutions profit from granting these loans - simply because they obtain a secure "lien" on a young person's lifetime earning potential, with substantial government security.

3. Students take on debt, with insufficient consideration of how they will repay it.

Which of these 3 parties ought to receive what portion of the benefit from any loan forgiveness? If I were to support ANY degree of loan forgiveness, I'd want to see CONSIDERABLE attention given to the banks and schools that profited from this situation, while not providing value commensurate with the tuition paid.

Early in the thread someone mentioned not getting in-state tuition because they were not emancipated. Well, that sounds like a choice that was made - to NOT pursue emancipation, AND to attend an out-of-state school. Other folk might attend a 4 yr residential school, instead of 2 yrs at a community college. I'm not sure what public policy goals would persuade me that "forgiving" such bad decisions is anywhere near the top of my short list for expensive gov't programs.

I'm sorry, but the opportunity to study whatever one wants wherever one wants is not at the top of my list. Sure, if we upended everything in America, and drastically revised our priorities such as stripping defense spending and increasing taxes, we could expand access to education. But I'm not seeing that happen any time soon. So until that happens, I'm not eager to subsidize unwise spending and institutional greed.

Rather than "building more colleges," we need to re-examine the education needed to perform various jobs. College CAN'T be for everyone, unless it is dumbed down beyond recognition. So encourage schools that offer 2-year degrees, certificate programs, apprenticeships, and the like, and give incentives to employers who hire such people rather than 4-year grads. Heck, could even give some limited incentive for employers to assist such hires in achieving higher education...

Moreover, whether or not EVERYONE gets a college degree, why should we assume the economy is going to magically create that number of decent-paying jobs which will allow loan repayment?

No, this hard left liberal is not a fan of college debt forgiveness or college for everyone.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #231  
Old 04-26-2019, 01:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
No, this hard left liberal is not a fan of college debt forgiveness or college for everyone.
Do I have to assume that you can be in favor of forgiveness of the debt in cases where the institutions clearly committed fraud or misled their students? What about if the forgiveness is based on the means of the individual and that the industry they wanted to get into fizzled?
  #232  
Old 04-26-2019, 01:49 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
Sure it is. It may no be the sole variable but it doesn't cost the same to educate 5 kids at 10,000. Say there are 300 kids in a econ 101 lecture a and the 101 proff teaches 7 sections. If 2,100 freshmen don't come to the school, that teacher can be fired, so can all of their grad students and we can shut down the lecture hall which probably enables us to fire a janitor. Further those kids wont go on to take 102 or 201 so we can probably fire 3 more professors and their grad students along with another janitor and at this point probably a maintenance person as well. Say the professors make 100K per year and grad students $5K and there is a grad student for every 100 students so we'll fire 4 profs and 84 grad students janitors make 30K and the maintenance guy makes 40K. We just dropped the expenditure of the school by a million dollars per year before we even get to the other 5 classes those kids would be taking so really it's closer to 6 million per year or about $3,000 per student.

Of course, that doesn't work for a single student leaving a school but considering low income kids are currently make up about 13% of all college freshmen the other 87% leaving for paid colleges would make the cost of this project much smaller.
If you can actually show that higher education is in the diseconomies of scale region of the cost curve, hie thee to thine nearest high-impact journal with that discovery. Just be ready to address the existing literature on the topic.

Last edited by Ruken; 04-26-2019 at 01:52 PM.
  #233  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:13 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Except UltraVires in the post I replied to. If you're not going to follow along...
Where did I say people cannot do what they enjoy? You were the one that mentioned doing things that one enjoys.

My point was that high school students would be disincentivized from doing certain extracurricular things, which they now do to get scholarships, when college is free.
  #234  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:19 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Look, I got a degree in engineering and honestly there isn’t much that went into that degree that couldn’t have been learned online. Maybe a few of the seminar classes or labs needed time at a facility but 90% didn’t. All the stuff about dealing with clients and specific solutions are typically not a huge part of an undergraduate degree program.

Colleges nowadays are in business, much like any other entrenched institution, to grow and perpetuate themselves. If it were strictly to educate people the costs could be reduced 75% or more.
I agree. For all of the talk about how college educates people in a broad sense, so that when were are at a party we can intelligently talk about trade policy or something along those lines, when the costs are so massive, is it really worth it for that benefit?

And, if so, college is just a terrible way to go about it. I think Dave Barry said something along the lines of college was about 10% education, 10% designing new devices to smoke marijuana, 40% trying to get laid, and 40% trying to get beer out of the carpet. From my undergraduate experience, that is pretty much accurate.

I don't know if I would go so far as you and say that people can just watch YouTube videos to learn things, but there must be a more streamlined and less wasteful method of getting the average person educated on basic things for society.

Why can high schools not do it? Why are people graduating from high schools and still so ignorant in many respects? Couldn't the effort be directed there as we are already paying for it? I mean, we are already providing 12 years of free education. Why will 14 or 16 be objectively better?
  #235  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:22 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where did I say people cannot do what they enjoy? You were the one that mentioned doing things that one enjoys.

My point was that high school students would be disincentivized from doing certain extracurricular things, which they now do to get scholarships, when college is free.
But doesn't that free them up to do things they actually want to do rather than spending their time doing things they don't want to do?

It also means parents don't have to spend time and money in support of activities that are only being undertaken to be able to access college.

Frankly I don't see the issue with this.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #236  
Old 04-26-2019, 02:24 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree. For all of the talk about how college educates people in a broad sense, so that when were are at a party we can intelligently talk about trade policy or something along those lines, when the costs are so massive, is it really worth it for that benefit?

And, if so, college is just a terrible way to go about it. I think Dave Barry said something along the lines of college was about 10% education, 10% designing new devices to smoke marijuana, 40% trying to get laid, and 40% trying to get beer out of the carpet. From my undergraduate experience, that is pretty much accurate.

I don't know if I would go so far as you and say that people can just watch YouTube videos to learn things, but there must be a more streamlined and less wasteful method of getting the average person educated on basic things for society.

Why can high schools not do it? Why are people graduating from high schools and still so ignorant in many respects? Couldn't the effort be directed there as we are already paying for it? I mean, we are already providing 12 years of free education. Why will 14 or 16 be objectively better?
Humanity has been gathering knowledge for millennia. You think its possible to learn all of that in 12 years by the age of 18? Why do you want to limit humanity's potential?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #237  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:19 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Seems to me that three parties contribute to excessive, unrepayable college debt:

1. Colleges (for profit or not) charge tuition which greatly exceeds likely earning potential following graduation. Or colleges admit students whom they know have little chance of completing the program - but they hold them on the books as long as they are able to beg/borrow/steal their tuition payments..

2. Lending institutions profit from granting these loans - simply because they obtain a secure "lien" on a young person's lifetime earning potential, with substantial government security.

3. Students take on debt, with insufficient consideration of how they will repay it.

Which of these 3 parties ought to receive what portion of the benefit from any loan forgiveness? If I were to support ANY degree of loan forgiveness, I'd want to see CONSIDERABLE attention given to the banks and schools that profited from this situation, while not providing value commensurate with the tuition paid.

Early in the thread someone mentioned not getting in-state tuition because they were not emancipated. Well, that sounds like a choice that was made - to NOT pursue emancipation, AND to attend an out-of-state school. Other folk might attend a 4 yr residential school, instead of 2 yrs at a community college. I'm not sure what public policy goals would persuade me that "forgiving" such bad decisions is anywhere near the top of my short list for expensive gov't programs.

I'm sorry, but the opportunity to study whatever one wants wherever one wants is not at the top of my list. Sure, if we upended everything in America, and drastically revised our priorities such as stripping defense spending and increasing taxes, we could expand access to education. But I'm not seeing that happen any time soon. So until that happens, I'm not eager to subsidize unwise spending and institutional greed.

Rather than "building more colleges," we need to re-examine the education needed to perform various jobs. College CAN'T be for everyone, unless it is dumbed down beyond recognition. So encourage schools that offer 2-year degrees, certificate programs, apprenticeships, and the like, and give incentives to employers who hire such people rather than 4-year grads. Heck, could even give some limited incentive for employers to assist such hires in achieving higher education...

Moreover, whether or not EVERYONE gets a college degree, why should we assume the economy is going to magically create that number of decent-paying jobs which will allow loan repayment?

No, this hard left liberal is not a fan of college debt forgiveness or college for everyone.
I would add onto this;

1. Many if not most people are currently working outside their degree fields anyways. The best tech people I have ever known were all self taught. They learned by doing things like buying old broken computers and fixing them.

2. On your #2 post, some for profit colleges are terrible about this. I have a friend who spent about $80,000 going to Devry because they promised him a 6 figure job after graduation. I know another person who spent about $40,000 for a court reporter course and found out there were no jobs in that area. Even regular colleges back in the day would lie about employment opportunities or say things like "follow your dreams" to get students into worthless programs. This is why I like colleges like Lake Area Tech who actually can show a. how many students graduated 6 months ago b. where they are working, and c. how much they are making. Granted most colleges are way too big to allow this.
  #238  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:21 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
I would like posters from other countries that do offer free college to jump in and give their takes on these questions.
  #239  
Old 04-26-2019, 03:43 PM
Haldurson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 214
The way I look at it, we needed an educated populace, so we created free public school. Unfortunately, due to the shortages of skilled Americans, too many jobs are being outsourced. So I see sending more people to college, particularly those most at risk of continuing a cycle of poverty, as a public good, if not an actual necessity. But I do have problems with certain pieces of her platform. What I'd really rather see is a return to low-interest loans that and the kinds of scholarships and government grants that I Was able to take advantage of back when I was in college. I'd love to see more states do what my state is doing, with allowing people below a certain income threshold, to go to 2 or 4 year city and state colleges for free (they do have to agree to work within the state for at least as long as their education takes). Her Wealth tax, while in PRINCIPLE, a great idea, might, imho, backfire, driving more and more wealthy people to send their money overseas. I really do like Elizabeth Warren, but in this particular case, I think there are better ways to accomplish what she is trying to accomplish.
  #240  
Old 04-26-2019, 04:41 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Do I have to assume that you can be in favor of forgiveness of the debt in cases where the institutions clearly committed fraud or misled their students? What about if the forgiveness is based on the means of the individual and that the industry they wanted to get into fizzled?
The first - possibly. But I'd like to see action against the institutions. And as a general matter, I'm not sure the government compensates the victims of fraud.

The second, less likely. Isn't that essentially covering someone's bad investment? Why not bail out everyone who starts a business that fails in the 1st year?

i DO think the gov't should allow all manner of loan consolidations and refinancing, to allow school debtors to get more favorable terms.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #241  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Humanity has been gathering knowledge for millennia. You think its possible to learn all of that in 12 years by the age of 18? Why do you want to limit humanity's potential?
Explain how what you are quoting supports your assertion about limiting humanity’s potential.
  #242  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:29 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I do want my children (and grandchildren) to have it better than me. That's why I don't want them burdened with these massively expensive pieces of economic idiocy.

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So you actually want your kids and grandkids burdened with ever increasing student loan debt? You do know this problem is getting worse over time right? You do realize you are kicking the can down the road and you are screwing over our subsequent generations simply out of spite right? I'm not arguing that this exact plan is perfect or that we should definitely do this, but the attitude of "well I got screwed, so dammit my kids and grandkids had better get screwed just as much!!!" seems abhorrent to me.
It works out okay for the individual outliers who will presumably avoid the pitfalls of crushing student loan debt even WITHOUT such a program in place (which suggests that paying for the program would be a net liability to their personal balance sheets).

When one begins with such presumptions, opposition to the proposal is kind of a no-brainer.

(N.B. I offer no assurances that this describes the basis of Shodan’s objection. I would be grateful for his ACTUAL objections (and their foundations) in the event that it doesn’t.)

That said, the notion that increased funding would be absorbed primarily by the entities currently benefiting from the current funding levels is a factor that could use some consideration. I’m reminded of my time in Hawaii, when it seemed that housing costs (for everyone) rose in step with military housing allowances.
  #243  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:38 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'm not sure how you'd do this without drastically changing the effect vs what Warren is proposing. Most people fresh out of college hardly pay any federal income tax anyway. It would take years or decades for them to use enough tax credits to pay off $100k in loans.
You could always make them refundable tax credits, as with the EITC.
  #244  
Old 04-26-2019, 05:44 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I think an educated populace is a very good thing and very important to the health of our society.

I know the GOP does not agree with this. "I love the poorly educated!" and all that.

It's ok to just own that your party does not want American citizens to be educated.

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans...ke-news-634474
It’s also okay to acknowledge the objectively true, undebatable fact that the Republican Party needs to be eradicated (or annihilated, whatever it takes to make it not exist anymore), for the good of the country planet species.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 04-26-2019 at 05:45 PM.
  #245  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:15 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
It’s also okay to acknowledge the objectively true, undebatable fact that the Republican Party needs to be eradicated (or annihilated, whatever it takes to make it not exist anymore), for the good of the country planet species.
It’s long been unsurprising to see TDS in even the most unrelated threads. Why not debate the merits of the proposal or education in general?
  #246  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:19 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Of course you could just print money and give everyone a check. No need to tie it into poor personal financial decisions. Why distort the market further and reward time and effort wasted on worthless degrees?

I paid off my student loan because I only borrowed what I needed and deliberately chose a degree that had demand and earning potential. If octopus can get a decent paying engineering degree what’s stopping others?
Nothing in particular. But I feel like I’m being invited to infer that, given a pool of candidates no less motivated and diligent than you proved to be, 100% of them can successfully navigate the path you navigated.

40% seems plausibly aspirational, IFF current financial roadblocks are eliminated.
  #247  
Old 04-26-2019, 06:20 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It’s long been unsurprising to see TDS in even the most unrelated threads. Why not debate the merits of the proposal or education in general?
I beg your pardon.

O/T:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
It’s also okay to acknowledge the objectively true, undebatable fact that the Republican Party needs to be eradicated (or annihilated, whatever it takes to make it not exist anymore), for the good of the country planet species.
  #248  
Old 04-26-2019, 09:41 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Free college. Free healthcare.

Where will they find all that money?
Don’t be silly. Free things don’t cost money. That’s why they call it “free.”
  #249  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:32 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,284
No, I do not want my kids or future grandkids burdened by high college debt.

This is why my wife and I and the kids grandparents started a college fund for them when they were born. I will do the same for future grandkids.

Its what families do.
  #250  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:44 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Don’t be silly. Free things don’t cost money. That’s why they call it “free.”
I truly cannot tell if you believe this or are being sarcastic.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017