Explain how what you are quoting supports your assertion about limiting humanity’s potential.
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.
You could always make them refundable tax credits, as with the EITC.
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 [del]country[/del] [del]planet[/del] 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?
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.
I beg your pardon.
O/T:
Don’t be silly. Free things don’t cost money. That’s why they call it “free.”
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.
I truly cannot tell if you believe this or are being sarcastic.
That’s a cute opinion, but there’s nothing even remotely factual about it.
It’s what families do when they have sufficient excess money to do so. When you’re just making enough to get by, or even still struggling to pay off your own student loans, that’s a lot trickier to navigate.
In a 2014 survey by the Federal Reserve, 47% of the respondents indicated they would be unable to cover a $400 emergency expense without borrowing money or selling something, including 14% who simply wouldn’t be able to cover it, period. A 2017 survey by CareerBuilder had more than half of the respondents (56%) admitting they saved less than $100/month; that’s retirement, their emergency fund, their kids’ education, and any other savings account.
Ummm . . . I’m pretty sure you missed the entire conversation. Ultra said the program would be massively expensive and most students would leave the program. I pointed out that if most students left the program the cost would drop dramatically. You jumped in saying attendance numbers had nothing to do with cost. I showed you why that was stupid so now you’re talking about economies of scale?
In case you were unaware economies of scale apply to per item cost not to total cost. For instance i have to buy a mold to make children’s toys. The mold costs $10k and the plastic for the toy costs $0.10. If I only make 1 toy they toy costs 10,000.01 if I make 10,000 toys they each cost $1.10 that is where economies of scale come into play but my total project cost to make 1 toy was $10,000.01 while to make the 10k toys it was $11,000. So I spent more money to make more toys.
Why don’t you explain why you think large colleges don’t have smaller budgets then small colleges? Here I’ll start you off the total CU Boulder FY18 budget was $1.8 billion while the Colorado School of Mines budget was 304 million
And reducing the number of students going to public school is going to raise the cost to educate each of those students. And if we’re “right back where we started” then we still have a loan program for everyone else plus more expensive education for each public school student.
Lake Area Tech is one of those for-profit colleges required to show those statistics, at least until Devos gets her way.
Incidentally, the agency that gives their accreditation (Higher Learning Commission) is under fire from the Office of the Inspector General for how they monitor for-profit colleges.
Well maybe sort of but its under the South Dakota state technical education commission. Incidentally they won the Aspen prize for #1 2 year college in 2017
Also Barak Obama go there to give the 2015 commencement address?
the school was also profiled in the Harvard Business Review.
Also covered in Time magazine.
so I dont think they are the greedy for profit school your thinking.
You seem to think Irishman is attacking Lake Area Tech. You might want to reread what you quoted.
Urbanredneck, I can see how you might have read my post as a criticism of Lake Area Tech’s quality.
My point was touched upon previously in this thread by the discussion on oversight of for-profit colleges, and how Obama instituted the requirements that they maintain and publish the performance statistics that you are lauding Lake Area Tech for showing. It’s unlikely they would be doing so otherwise. And Besty Devos is busy trying to undo that policy.
As an aside, I mentioned the accreditation issue. I’m not sure what the “South Dakota state technical education commission” is supposed to be. The school is managed by the South Dakota Department of Education Board of Education, but that is not an accrediting institution. Accrediting is a separate oversight.
Incidentally, that Wikipedia page states that the primary culprits for accrediting standard looseness with for-profit schools is via the national accrediting agencies, not the regional ones set up by the DoE. So that puts a better light on Lake Area Tech, being overseen by a regional accreditation agency. Of course, as cited, that agency has come under criticism for how it oversees for-profit schools, so while overall regional accreditation is seen as more stringent, there is still weakness in the for-profit area.
Lake Area Tech seems like a quality technical school. However, the two biggest names in technical school from a few years ago (ITT Tech and DeVry) both had major issues with overstating their employment rates and student loan practices. Thus the scrutiny on for-profit tech schools.
Just clowning around, there.
Ok, I see your point now.
Due to the fact that tech schools dont offer traditional coursework you see at the university level, accreditation is trickier. For example at Mitchel Tech, their HVAC program is accredited by somebody called the Esco Group. Their culinary department by the American Culinary Association.Here is a link to their accreditation page.
Interestingly, Lake Area Tech, plus several others in South Dakota like Southeast Area Tech, located in Sioux Fallsactually started out as traditional high school vo-tech programs. STI still is under the Sioux Falls School Board. A few years ago the state of South Dakota decided to push and promote their programs, making them full adult technical schools while still having high school students.
It has worked out well for South Dakota. They get a talented workforce with skills in demand by employers in the state also like 70% of graduates stay in South Dakota.
BTW, Any school like Devry which spends so much money on commercials and gives their recruiters bonus money should not be trusted.