Because the difference in lifetime income was very large back then as it is now.
I’m all for reducing the cost of higher education and perhaps colleges offer more unnecessary frills than they need to but you are proposing that we cut off funding. This means less access for poor students. Who knows if tuition will one day drop to the point where you can work your way through Northwestern while eating at the soup kitchen and sleeping on you friends couch but until that day comes, you will be restricting access.
Stating that it’s possible to save a lot of money by doing such things such as eating at the local shelter is NOT the same thing as stating that college students should be hanging out at homeless shelters.
If you don’t understand the difference, that’s unfortunate but it any event I am not interested in a discussion with someone who exaggerates and twists my position, i.e. someone who strawmans me.
And most of these claims have not stood up to scrutiny. For example, I went and got the budget figures for the state of North Carolina and it does not appear that the massive increases of tuition at NCSU are the result of reduction in state support.
With respect to the other factors mentioned, such as increased staffing, higher salary levels, and change in mission – those are not inconsistent with my position. Generally speaking colleges have had a lot more money to play around with and it’s unsurprising that they would hire more people, increase salaries, and expand their mission in order to justify themselves.
In short, your rebuttal is largely hand-waving.
It’s very simple: Your position is that the only evidence and argument supporting the claim that increased tuition is a result of increased student loans and grants is that the two things have increased over time. My position is that the support for my position is more solid because an inference of such a relationship is supported by common sense and basic economics. Not to mention that the other explanations put forward have not stood up to scrutiny.
That’s not an answer to my question, which was simple and reasonable and aimed to figure out what exactly you were disputing. I’m not going to waste my time if you insist on playing hide the ball with your position.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but the most logical conclusion is that you’ve finally realized that you’ve been wrong all along and have decided to cut your losses. I agree with RNATB that it’s prolly for the best.
Can you quote anyone saying that? If not I think you should apologize to people for misstating their position. I don’t remember anyone in the thread insisting on that.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I don’t recall saying that I felt unwell or poorly in any way, so I’m not sure why you would think something would make me feel better. Can you quote me saying that?
I do feel free, tho, because I’m an American. And I agree with many of the points made by other posters that show conclusively that there is a need for the DOE.
Does it really matter? Your thesis is that the availability of student loans is driving up the cost of college and that removing student loans would cause a return to the prices of the good old days. It doesn’t matter why so many more degrees are needed. As long as they’re needed, your thesis does not hold. You can argue that there ought to be plenty of jobs available to an intellegent, hard working person with an 8th grade education, but that’s a different topic.
And yet if you’re caught having someone else take your tests, you’re expelled. So maybe not. And it’s still off topic. Whatever the value is, dropping student loans won’t reduce the cost of admission.
Not to my original descriptive point, no. However, there is also a normative argument in play: There has been a suggestion that the availability of student loans is a big positive in that it has resulted in a big increase in the number of college graduates. I dispute that there is a lot of value in this change.
It’s a topic which has been implicitly raised in this thread.
If by “cost” you mean “price,” then I would disagree with you. If by “cost,” you mean the amount of money that a college spends per student, I would still disagree with you.
That’s okay, it was becoming tiresome for me, as well
Okay, I call for a cite now. Show me an example of a post-secondary school in the U.S. (it doesn’t even have to be a four-year accredited college, I’ll settle for an accredited vocational school) that doesn’t participate in the Federal Student Loan program, which is not otherwise subsidized by taxpayers, a religious body or a foundation and which provides a comparable training program at a substantially lower tuition and per student cost than schools in the FSL program.
You do not dispute, you dismiss. Not the same thing. If you were disputing, the sentence would go on to say " because . . . . "
QUOTE=brazil84;14780946]It’s a topic which has been implicitly raised in this thread. . .
[/QUOTE]
Not really. It may have been something you were thinking about. It may have been one of your motives. But that’s something that’s inside your head, not something implicit in what you’ve said.
QUOTE=brazil84;14780946]If by “cost” you mean “price,” then I would disagree with you. If by “cost,” you mean the amount of money that a college spends per student, I would still disagree with you.
[/QUOTE]
Disagree. Dismiss. Whatever.
This thread has been one long whine of “That’s not important - I don’t know why anyone would think THAT was important.” And then changing what’s being whined about. No plan to put something better in its place, just an identification of something Not Believed In and the claim that if it went away things would magically be better. I don’t like that omelette. If we disbanded the omelette, we’d have the eggs back in their shell again.
And what’s being dismissed keeps changing. First it’s the Department of Education. No purpose. What? Not no purpose - studnet loans?
Well, student loans, no purpose. Drive up cost. No student loans, no need for DOE. What? Not drive up cost - demand drive up cost?
Well, should be no demand. I don’t see demand. Dismiss demand. No demand, no high cost (not proven, but asserted and partially plausible). No high cost, no student loans. No student loans, no DOE. What, evidence of demand?
Dismiss demand. No need for college. College stinks. Only think you need college. If no need for college, then no demand. No demand, no high cost (np). No high cost, no student loans. No student loans, no DOE. What? Need college for jobs?
Well, shouldn’t need college for jobs. Dismiss need. Quit going to college, job requirements will change (no, you didn’t say that, but I’m not sure how else you would get to enough well paying jobs that don’t require college.
And on, and on. Perhaps next we don’t really need jobs that pay all that much. We only think we do.
Yes, really. For example, the following are quotes from other posters in this thread:
Clearly these are normative statements, i.e. the poster is asserting or implying that there is substantial value in increasing college attendance.
Do you agree that the persons who posted these statements are going beyond the issue of the connection between student loans and tuition?
Again, what exactly is the difference?
I’m not sure what you mean by “whine,” but it was other posters who brought up the normative argument about access. So if you have a problem with that, you should take it up with them.
