Jump to conclusion, fall off mountain.
My proposal is to look at other countries solutions to this and evaluate.
Not a problem if the person wins the lottery also.
You do realize you are saying that I, personally, should not have had the opportunity to succeed?
If it weren’t for student loans, I would be struggling at the bottom of society, rather than a productive, tax-paying middle class professional in a public service position.
Your plan would have literally ruined my life. We need to allocate opportunity on talent and ambition, not on what people’s parents happen to make.
Perhaps what we need isn’t to abolish student loans, but to make many of them unnecessary.
75-100 years ago the government expanded the availability of free public education to include high school, and by 1940 or so, most kids went to high school and maybe half got their diploma. This was to ensure that kids growing up here had the opportunity to receive enough education to make them useful, productive assets to our economy.
Today, most kids go to college, and maybe a third get their diploma, after paying out of pocket (or getting a loan) for the cost. Today, a college education is vital to being considered for serious productive employment. Yet our government has (nearly) abandoned the idea of providing a high level of public education, and is only willing to foot the bill for a level of education that nobody serious about providing for their (future) family would be satisfied with.
Indeed. If states were willing to fund universities to the point that tuition was $0, the problem of student loans would go away, well, not overnight because people still have them, but would be eliminated going forward.
I’d be happy having my taxes go up so we can have a more educated populace, but living in Red State land I don’t think that’s going to happen.
College doesn’t even need to cost money at all. Look at Norway. Its free for everyone there and it seems to work quite well.
Well here’s an article that lays out the difference in tax rates between Norway and the U.S. It’s not that college doesn’t cost money in Norway, it’s that college doesn’t cost money for the students. If we could get the rich (and by rich Norway is referring to people who make over $124,000 per year) to pay income tax of 43.9%, we might be able to offer “free” college too.
I mean that tuition increases are far outpacing inflation at a rate that is unsustainable.
Thanks for the article - it’s a good read. On a more macro level, state government de-prioritizing education funding is as you say a huge contributor to increased costs at the tuition level. But if we step back and think that if less loans were available, universities would be less able to cost shift this to students, and be forced to make other types of cuts.
Or maybe universities wouldn’t be able to make cuts, and individuals would need to make more rationale choices about the value of that education. This may shift more individuals towards less expensive options if the opportunity costs of college outweigh the potential benefits. This would have the biggest impact in areas of study that typically result in lower pay. That’s probably a good thing - the way to fund these areas that may not have direct economic value but provide societal value none the less is not on the backs of students. That is something we as a society should determine and provide grant or other types of transfer payment funding towards.
In any event, increased liquidity in the student loan market definitely impacts the supply side of the equation - it’s not surprise that rates of tuition increase as well. This is not to say this is the only factor causing this, or even the biggest.
There is a difference between price ($0 in Norway) and cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
When I graduated in 1974, the state of Missouri was spending about 22% of its budget on education, with a goodly portion of it going to higher education. By 2010 that portion of the state budget had dropped to 15%, and more of that was focused on elementary and secondary education.
And according to the College Board, that’s fairly typical around the country.
When I graduated there were 23,000 students on my campus. This year, despite a more selective admissions policy than when I was there, the total is >35,000.
If I’m a university president and my public funding is being cut while more students are fighting to get in despite tougher admission standards, of course I’m going to have to raise tuition. And if I’m a student, I’m going to need more money from somewhere. Naturally, that chain is going to filter down the systemn, from the more prestigious schools to the less, down to the community college system.
Did you learn anything from the people who responded to your last thread on the “ridiculous things colleges waste money on”?
To save others a click, the example “lays out the difference” for only one specific executive. Starting with $537k salary, he takes home $301k in Norway, while he’d be left with $360k in Massachusetts or $382k in Florida. With the Norwegian’s money being stolen like that, it’s a big surprise he hasn’t emigrated or quit working altogether.
This is why I love SDMB. Discussion focuses on the hidden subtleties, evident only to expert economists. And, Spoiler, when McDonald’s offered me free fries the other day, we’re they faking it too?
What do you think the purpose of a university is? To be a trade school? Or to give a broad education and support research in many areas?
BTW, a salary cap for faculty wouldn’t destroy the sociology department, it would destroy business and engineering schools. Business school professors make more than English professors because of competition.
BTW, got a cite for the supposed explosion in administration?
It’s not just Norway. Zero tuition is common in Europe. My daughter had a boyfriend from England whose mother did not have a lot of money, to put it mildly, but he was able to go to a good university and get out of it without debt. She went to grad school in business in Germany - tuition was around $500 per semester, chicken feed.
Our kids don’t have loans, and I would have come out ahead if they raised taxes and cut tuition. Now in Germany not everyone gets to go to college, you have to pass certain tests, so there are downsides. But it is not breaking the bank over there. And they don’t have a loan crisis.
Are we just talking about government backed student loans? Or any loans at all?
I could support eliminating the former, but not the latter. Telling colleges “You’ll get paid regardless of what your students can afford, whether or not they learned any valuable skills, whether or not they can get a job, and whether or not they are even capable of successfully completing a college course” is probably not the best idea at a time when tuition costs are doubling every few years.
Of course, anyone should be able to lend people money for any reason. I just expect banks with profits on the line to exercise more diligence than the government before handing $50,000 to an 18 year old with dreams of a career in theater education.
Warning, PDF:
http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Trends_LaborForce.pdf
The first graph on page 6 shows that for full time university employees, “support staff” increased employment by 275,000 jobs between 1987 and 2007, while full time instructors only increased by 175,000 in the same period.
Of course, they increased employment by 675,000 part time instructors over the same period. So I don’t know. I first heard “highly paid administrative positions that didn’t exist 40 years ago are eating up all these tuition increases” a few years ago on NPR.
Which leads me to ask, just what are the qualifications to get into one of those colleges in Europe? What sort of tests do you have to take, what scores you have to achieve, what marks in school do you have to have posted, etc.?
Once you’re admitted to college, what grade average do you have to maintain to stay in? Are you allowed to change majors, even if it means having to take additional courses which would mean staying in school longer? Could you take a part-time schedule, live in non-standard housing or otherwise be flexible in your college life?
In the U.S., even students with poor academic credentials can attend a community college and demonstrate their ability to handle college-level material. Students can change majors as many times as the school will allow, even change schools entirely if they want.
This setup is mostly due to the student paying tuition, which gives him/her considerable power in the process. How does it work in other countries?
As I pointed out, while the specific example given was of someone making $537k, the same tax rate would apply to anyone making over $124k.
I don’t think we can discuss tuition rates in other countries without including how they pay for the costs. I didn’t mean to imply that I wouldn’t support the type of taxpayer support for education available in many European countries. I was just pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be the political will in the U.S. to pay for tuition through taxation.
First part - yes
Second part - no
Look at cost’s even with community colleges. No one can pay out of pocket, even if parents do subsidize (and how many parents can do that?). But you HAVE to pay it unless you get a scholarship or grant. So 18 year olds are faced with “Either live a life of student debt or you don’t go to college.” I would classify it as predatory lending.
I have a question, is there any breakdown of what expenses actually are? With grants and donations, I find it hard to believe that Colleges are so expensive to run, but I don’t really know.
Sure, almost every university has them. My alma mater’s latest budget is at this PDF.
In case you don’t feel like reading, page 3 (by page numbers, not of the PDF), has the expeditures. 73% goes to academics, 27% to “student and campus support”. However, the 73% is broken down into 44% research and 21% instruction (scholarships, academic support, and public service make up the remaining 9%).
If you’re curious, the previous page lists revenue. 21% comes from tuition, incidentally matching instructional costs exactly. “Sponsored operations” and grants together make up 51% of the budget, so the research arm seems to be making a profit. State appropriations are only 16%.