What value does a college really offer?!

In recent years the United States housing market took a severe downturn as an artificially built up market was destroyed by an inability of homebuyers to pay for their unsecured loans. As a result, the government of the United States ended up bailing out the financial institutions who had issued the many loans to under-qualified home buyers. Today the US government has its hands in another loan process that is giving huge amounts of money to under qualified borrowers. That new debt accumulation is on a similar scale as a mortgage but without a home to live in. This fast growing debt bubble is student loans.
The average yearly college cost varies depending on the school. The average spectrum of tuition costs $3,000 per year for public two-year colleges, $7,500-$12,000 for public four-year schools, and around $27,000 per year for private nonprofit four-year colleges (CollegeBoard, 2010). These are the pricings undergraduates are faced with as of 2010.
One question that may be asked is: Why are private colleges so much more expensive? One of the reasons lies in the 90/10 rule in which private/vocational schools are legally forced to raise their tuition prices every time the government raises the financial aid available to students. They have to receive at least 10% of their incomes from non-federal government sources. To accomplish this, these schools are forced to increase their tuition costs or try and find external income sources. (InflationUS, May 14, 2011)
The US government has taken over the loan market for student financial aid. They are handing out loans to almost anyone. There is no requirement to show proof that you would be able to pay off this debt in the future. No employment record is necessary. The loaning body doesn’t even care how much is being borrowed for the type of degree received. This means that someone who is looking to become a chef and decides to go to a culinary school is given the same possibility for a loan as a pre-med student doing undergraduate work. They are both able to get the same amount of government loans with no differentiation between the future likeliness of timely repayment.
Because of these trends in lending practices, students are able to borrow more money than they need for their college expenses. There are very limited checks and balances in place to stop this and it ends up burdening the tax base in which these funds are drawn from. This is just one more draw on tax payers’ resources which should stay in the hands of those individuals.
The majority of students who qualify for large government substantiated loans would no longer be eligible to receive the copious funds under the direction and administration of private banks and lending institutions. These institutions would look for applicants who have potential to repay the balance of their loans. Beyond that they would keep a closer track on how much a student needs to borrow for their education, decreasing the over-lending that is common place under the Federal loan program.
By giving the loan process back to banks, it will allow competition in the private sector to come back into play, increasing the free market economic system’s ability to balance itself. Colleges would be forced to find ways to cut their costs to the balance of their student body in order to make education affordable, or be faced with the inevitability of closing their doors. This may be a positive step in increasing the value of a currently depreciated college degree.
According to The New York Times, Colleges are increasing their tuitions along the lines of 6% each year (Steinberg, October 22, 2010). The number of people attending college is also going up. As of 2009, 70% of high school students enrolled in college following graduation (InflationUS, May 14, 2011). If everyone has a college degree, the value of the degree becomes miniscule. Experience, passion, and motivation, along with many other traits in a productive individual, have become more of a value in today’s job market.
The college experience as we know it now will soon have to change once again to survive. Student are starting to demand change, as riots at UCLA have demonstrated. The student body was infuriated at a farcical 32% tuition increase, causing them to take action. This is a trend that may become much more common in the years to come.
This is no shock as an average college student has more than $20,000 in debt at graduation while the average salary for a new graduate is only around $30,000 (Weston, 2009). Many have been told, and will argue, that by going to college you will increase your long term earning potential by about a million dollars (InflationUS, May 14, 2011). This is a façade created by skewed facts and manipulation of data. A person who ends up with an increased earning potential of a million dollars will on average have at least a six year degree.
“A person who goes to college will make 1 million more in their lifetimes. Most people who make this much more take at least 6 years to graduate college. With average college price and a 5.15% annual inflation total cost to earn this extra 1mil will be about 186k. Paid back over 10 years at a 6% interest rate would be about 62k of interest for a total cost of 248k. Lost income would amount to about 212k over their 6 years of schooling if they didn’t hold a job. This makes it about 460K over 6 years to earn the chance at an extra 1 mil over a lifetime (InflationUS, May 14, 2011).” While these numbers could easily be high because of implausible number manipulation, even at half of the total cost NIA estimates, the six years of college will amount to about $175,000. This is still a hefty price tag to gamble with in hopes that a lifetime of work will accumulate a gain in overall income.
Accumulating large amounts of debt, that cannot be discarded by law, makes it a necessity to find a job immediate after graduation. With this huge amount of debt and a poor job economy " a whopping 85% of college seniors planned to move back home with their parents after graduation last May" according to Jessica Dickler of CNN Money (Dickler, November 15, 2010). In the past, graduates would find jobs and buy houses. Now they have student loans in the amount of mortgages without a home to show for it.
The amount of student loan debt is now higher than credit card debt. Fox Business reported, " nearly $830 billion of student loan debt compared to the more than $825 billion of credit card debt. Unlike credit card debt, people cannot have federally-guaranteed student loans erased by declaring bankruptcy. And the government can garnish Social Security payments and tax refunds if a person defaults on student loan payments (FOXBusiness, September 21, 2010)." This huge amount of debt, owned by tax payers through the Federal government, will soon be more than our economy can handle. This could easily lead to another bailout situation like that of the housing market when its loaning practices finally caught up to it. The debt forgiven by the printing of money will cause inflation and the depreciation of the US dollar.
While college is an important structure from which to extract information in a guided way, it is becoming or has become, depending on the source, a fiscally irresponsible path into the workplace. The availability of information is now at the tips of our fingers. We don’t need to retain the vast quantities of knowledge, propagated though colleges, to be productive members in today’s workplace. The focus is shifting to a workforce that must be able to manipulate and sort information based on a particular companies ideologies and standards. Past are the times when a single standard dominates an industry.
Adapt or die is a common phrase heard throughout businesses in our era. This is a motto that colleges must be willing to embrace. Student body activism must start being more common. The students of UCLA should be the spark that motivates others to take action and correct this dilapidated system that is currently in place. A movement to change the spending habits of the government should be set in motion. Allowing free market economy to correct the inequities of the current college loan system would be a good starting point. This would cause some colleges to close. It would cause others to go online and re-engineer their programs to be able to focus on the needs of specific industries while lowering cost. The technology and the infrastructure is available to move college in a more economically conscientious direction while increasing its focus on the specific needs of both the students and the industries that they will work for.
While college has its major flaws, primarily fiscal, it is still a path into a lifestyle of knowledge and prestige for those individuals motivated enough to take advantage of the opportunities that the institution presents. The Federal government must find its way out of the student aid market, find a way to somehow fix what they have in place, or risk continued devaluation of college education. Students must become more active in the shaping of our education system or forever be indebted by it. The power to promote and instigate change is within everyone’s grasp. It is a choice that must be embraced to facilitate the recovery of our education system, our economy, and the way our government is involved in our lives.

References
CollegeBoard, (2010). What It Costs to Go to College. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from College Costs: FAQs – BigFuture | College Board

Dickler, J (November 15, 2010). Boomerang kids: 85% of college grads move home. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm?iid=EL

FOXBusiness, (September 21, 2010). Student Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Card Debt-What to Do?. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/09/20/student-loan-debt-surpasses-credit-card-debt/#ixzz1aDE5hLJS

InflationUS, (May 14, 2011). College Conspiricy. [Streaming Media]. - YouTube National Inflation Association .

Steinberg, J (October 22, 2010). Average College Debt Rose 6 Percent to $24,000 in 2009. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from Average College Debt Rose 6 Percent to $24,000 in 2009 - The New York Times

Weston, L. P. (2009). How to blitz your college debts . Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/MoneyInYour20s/HowToBlitzYourCollegeDebts.aspx

If it offers the ability to make proper paragraphs than please, please go there.

But keep in mind, “Intro to Writing Succinctly” is a pre-req.

This doesn’t look like spam at all.

I appreciate that you used APA style in this post, but that’s a hold-over from paper and isn’t as good as inline hyperlinks are in web fora such as this one. Doing that is simple: Just click the blue globe with a chainlink under it and fill in the pop-up messages, or type text of the link. It’s less work than keeping references straight in your head.

Secondly, some visual whitespace between paragraphs is good. It is, in fact, pretty much required to get people to actually read your post. Hey, it took me a while to catch on, too.

Now, for the actual meat: I’m not of the mind that private-sector competition is necessarily a good thing. Here, for example, you’d have the businesses who make student loans effectively deciding which jobs Americans should be trained for on the basis of what they think the job market is going to look like 4-8 years from now, depending on the amount of post-secondary education needed to enter the job market in that field. (I believe a full M.D. is 8 years, correct?)

I do, however, broadly agree that the college system we have now is a big mass of bad incentives and needs to be reformed. However, I think more should be done at the elementary and high school level first, as that is essentially mandatory and, when we fix it, our problems at the higher levels will be fixed as well.

It actually is not spam. Believe it or not, it was written by a person with his own personal opinion and belief. Not that it matters, this is just another random text junkie in cyber space.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn’t mean the same essay wasn’t jizzed into a dozen different forums and newsgroups within twenty minutes.

But if that’s the case, you just responded to the jizzer.

Thank you Derleth for actually taking the time to read my text wall. It is correct that it generally takes 8 years to receive a full M.D. Also thanks for the tips, I will keep them in mind for future posts.

When it comes to education at lower levels, I find that your opinion rings true. Giving a clear picture of possibilities to those ready to enter college is essential for any reform that may come about. I am a huge advocate of technical schools and job specific training. Why, for example, should a programmer waist years of his/her life learning about physiology to fulfill some requirement for a degree when they are going to work on developing the next programming language? Thank you for giving me valuable feedback.

Luck has it that only you were privy to the joy that was this jizz. I didn’t put it on any threads other than this lovely one that you so happen to have read. Enjoy LIFE! Sincerely, Jizzmister! aka Olbaid 3 :smiley:

If you don’t know whether to use “waist” or “waste” in a sentence, maybe you’re not qualified to comment on education.

Luck has it that only you were privy to the joy that was this jizz. I didn’t put it on any threads other than this lovely one that you so happen to have read. Enjoy LIFE! Sincerely, Jizzmister! aka Olbaid 3 :smiley:

If you don’t know whether to use “waist” or “waste” in a sentence, maybe you’re drunk and just chatting to other people who find college education a giant hoop to jump through. Please note that when I say this I hold you in the lowest regard as I would any other student who is retarded and unable to grasp meaning from what is said in said in conversation. I find you as interesting and vital to this thread as a an upstart idea contrary to any personal belief! Oh, wait, I mean that I hold you in the utmost regard and hope that you continue to add your personal opinion of xyz to the conversation… or then again…

Starting off with an essay like that isn’t chatting, it’s bludgeoning.

First, a small comment from a programmer: Don’t think that most programmers get paid to develop languages. A lot of good programmers want to, but, frankly, programming languages are so plentiful that saying they’re “a dime a dozen” would attribute a value to the dime so low it would cause an economic collapse. Programming languages are part of the art of programming, and a lot of programmers are frustrated artists with canvases squirreled away in the attic.

I agree about trade schools, mostly to the extent that there are a lot of people who don’t benefit from any of the liberal arts requirements in the average university program. They don’t care, you can’t make them care, and forcing them to sit in a literature section is waste of everyone’s time and a serious inducement to academic dishonesty. High school is your last shot to make them care; if you haven’t done it by then, they’re 18, adults, and can legally tell you to get stuffed.

My idealized educational world works more like this: A lot of what we now consider college-level liberal arts classes are moved down to high school, which is liberalized to the extent we don’t attempt to keep kids with their chronological peers except for sports and PE in general. Kids (under-18s) who mentally can’t handle four years of thinking are, as in the German system, moved to trade schools; I doubt most students will actually take this path. People rise to what you set for them.

Post-secondary education has the four-year schools we now know as an option; given the high schools they feed from, they’ll have a chance to develop more advanced programs. Supplementing them are trade schools that produce people who know what they’re doing. If you don’t think that’s possible, tell me why learning a technical skill is necessarily dependent upon being a well-rounded individual. Yes, that includes medical skills as well.

Community colleges are educational outreach, and government funded as such; they pretty much need to both be online and provide Internet access, and might even benefit from taking public libraries under their wing to give them an incentive, and funding, to improve their holdings. They shouldn’t have age requirements, only skill and politeness standards, and there’s really no limit to what they can teach. Having them complement trade schools in some sense might be a good idea.

I’ll admit that MEGO long before I finished the OP.
I have several degrees in computer science, and know lots of programmers, and our knowledge of physiology is a bit lacking.
If you are going to school to invent a new programming language, you were born about 40 years too late. SIGPLAN Notices were full of mew languages in the '70s, and I created one for my dissertation, but there is not a lot of call for them anymore.

As for colleges, somewhere in the Times I read that the problem is that in the real world people make more money by being more productive. The productivity of professors though hasn’t changed much in years. As far as I can tell my friends who are professors teach even fewer classes than my profs did. However, to get profs, especially in areas where there is competition with industry, colleges have to match salaries - thus the problem, to some extent.

I see your point. I will refrain from collapsing proverbial walls of text on individuals such as yourself in the future. I should have addressed an issue and continued it through discussion. As it stands It is more like a unicorn horn made of a light saber inserted up a tightened sphincter… needless to say, slightly uncomfortable.

Well, some new (post-1980) languages do go on to become popular and successful, at least in a specific field; I can think of Python, Ruby, Objective-C, Perl, and Java.

Basically, a language needs a system to symbiotically attach itself to: C is attached to Unix, Java is attached to the Java Classpath, C++ is largely what’s attached to (Classic) Windows, Javascript is attached to web browsers, and R is attached to a large statistics-focused math library.

Right. I don’t really know how to solve this, beyond tenure (which can have problems), increasing government funding for higher education so it can keep up without putting tuition any farther over the top than it has to be, and leveraging the power of good lecturers through online videos. All those things are already being done to a certain extent.

People I know keep talking about the “education bubble” collapsing in the near-future, like the housing bubble did. I won’t lie, this is a big part of the reason why I haven’t gone back to school. I accumulated 10k in debt fairly quickly after my scholarship ran out, and I’m hesitant to run up another 50k+ to get the degree I want. It seems safer to just mark time at my current job until the cost of education starts going down.

mew language