freeman3 wrote:Yes. And it makes it feel old. "When I was a kid it only cost $430 a quarter to go to college and you had to actually go to an actual building where the lecture was..."

A worthy question: why has the cost of college so outpaced inflation?

The answer to that might inform the solution. It's easy to say, "Let's make it free," but does that address the problem?

How does the repayment system work on student loans over there ? Back when I first went to university there were no tuition fees (or rather, the government picked up all of the tab) and the only loans I had to take were for maintenance. I came out with about £7000 of debt, which I've now repaid in full. Modern students have to take on way more debt than I did. Fees can be up to £9000 a year (it's capped at that level by statute) plus maintenance loans on top, so most are coming out with upwards of £30k debts. The way they repay that debt is different though. With me there was a certain cutoff point in earnings below which you could defer payment altogether but once you went above it you had to start paying back a hefty chunk every month, whereas today's students just have a small amount deducted at source and it increases very gradually as their pay goes up. Until you start earning at least £25-30k a year then you're not even covering the interest. In effect, although they pointedly refuse to call it that, the current system is a graduate tax. A large proportion of graduates will never repay their student loans, they'll just have one more deduction on their payslips till the day they retire. It's perfectly manageable financially because it's structured in such a way that the repayments are never going to be financially crippling (most people don't even notice them), but it does seem somewhat unfair.

Do you have something similar or are student loans a bigger deal for the people having to pay them back ?

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yes. And it makes it feel old. "When I was a kid it only cost $430 a quarter to go to college and you had to actually go to an actual building where the lecture was..."

A worthy question: why has the cost of college so outpaced inflation?

The answer to that might inform the solution. It's easy to say, "Let's make it free," but does that address the problem?

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the costs of tuition aren't really that closely tied to the actual costs of operation. At least with a lot of the private schools in the US, they seem to be competing with each other as if it were an arms race where the school's prestige increases with the cost of attending.

I guess I see it as simple supply and demand. College graduates make on average a lot more than high school graduates. So select colleges become in high demand by students who want access to good jobs. Government loans broaden the pool of "buyers". It's a seller's market for highly ranked schools. UCLA had 100,000 applications last year.

To keep costs in check I think subsidizing state colleges is the best way to go. UCLA's tuition has risen largely due to lower subsidies from the state.If it were me I would do the following:

(1) pay for state tuition for the top ten% of each high school graduating class;
(2) heavily subsidize state schools and colleges and require them to keep tuition increases to not increase over inflation;
(3) stop giving student loans for tech schools and other high default rate schools

This would allow the best student from everywhere the ability to graduate from college without high student loans, tiers below that would not seeing their tuition rising every year, and hopefully with a cheap good state alternative there would be downward pressure on private school rates.

freeman3 wrote:I guess I see it as simple supply and demand. College graduates make on average a lot more than high school graduates. So select colleges become in high demand by students who want access to good jobs. Government loans broaden the pool of "buyers". It's a seller's market for highly ranked schools. UCLA had 100,000 applications last year.

So, wait, you mean the costs are going up that much faster than inflation because of economics (supply and demand)? Interesting, especially in light of this:

To keep costs in check I think subsidizing state colleges is the best way to go.

So, raising the cost is a way of keeping demand (somewhat) in line, but then how will lowering the cost (via subsidy) do anything positive?

My point: I believe government money has been the single-largest driver in increasing tuition costs. There is no competition for money because there's so much government money on the table.

UCLA's tuition has risen largely due to lower subsidies from the state.

Weird, since Democrats have a strangle-hold on the State's legislature. How come Democrats hate working people so much?

If it were me I would do the following:

(1) pay for state tuition for the top ten% of each high school graduating class;
(2) heavily subsidize state schools and colleges and require them to keep tuition increases to not increase over inflation;
(3) stop giving student loans for tech schools and other high default rate schools

1. Elitist. How dare you suggest those who do well be rewarded???

2. Again, in doing this, aren't you (indirectly) encouraging schools to be bloated and inefficient?

3. I agree any school with a high default rate should not get student loans. How about extending that to majors that consistently result in default?

fate

A worthy question: why has the cost of college so outpaced inflation?

"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
So if the cost of providing an education has remained fairly stable, why does the price students pay keep rising?
The reason, say researchers, is that deep budget cuts in state funding for public higher education and shrinking subsidies at private schools have pushed a greater share of the cost onto students and their families.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-coll ... ising.html

1. It encourages competition. It also would help to cancel out differential advantages based on wealth, race, etc because it looks to top 10% from all high schools. Helps to make sure that no high- performing student is dissuaded from attending college because of cost, which is good for society overall. Think about it: every kid anywhere in America would know he/she can go to a really good school free as long as he gets good grades.

2. I think this is really analogous to health care. The state government can set how much the state school spends and controls how much they can raise tuition. Similar to Medicare where government just mandates rates and providers comply. So when state government provides most of the funding of the school they can keep costs in control just by saying that's all there is to spend make the most of it and , no , you can't raise tuition because you think you need more money. When the state tells the state college you're on your own then they start charging a lot more for tuition. Education is not a good we want educational entities maximizing their profit on.

3. I am ok with sticking to schools and not trying too closely to monitor which majors have higher default rates. Maybe it's just because I believe in the liberal arts education but I think looking at the school is good enough when it comes to default rates.

We could shut off government money but that would cause schools to cater to wealthier students and shut off access for poor and middle- class students. The only other way to keep a lid on educational costs is by government fiat . Just like we do with Medicare.

rickyp wrote:fate

A worthy question: why has the cost of college so outpaced inflation?

"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
So if the cost of providing an education has remained fairly stable, why does the price students pay keep rising?
The reason, say researchers, is that deep budget cuts in state funding for public higher education and shrinking subsidies at private schools have pushed a greater share of the cost onto students and their families.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-coll ... ising.html

If true, it's democratic. The people decided to pass the costs onto the students instead of the tax-paying public.

freeman3 wrote:1. It encourages competition. It also would help to cancel out differential advantages based on wealth, race, etc because it looks to top 10% from all high schools. Helps to make sure that no high- performing student is dissuaded from attending college because of cost, which is good for society overall. Think about it: every kid anywhere in America would know he/she can go to a really good school free as long as he gets good grades.

I can't believe you thought my objection was serious. :(

2. I think this is really analogous to health care. The state government can set how much the state school spends and controls how much they can raise tuition. Similar to Medicare where government just mandates rates and providers comply. So when state government provides most of the funding of the school they can keep costs in control just by saying that's all there is to spend make the most of it and , no , you can't raise tuition because you think you need more money. When the state tells the state college you're on your own then they start charging a lot more for tuition. Education is not a good we want educational entities maximizing their profit on.

If such schools were run more as a business, do you suppose things would change? I believe universities have fattened their staffing--teaching and non-teaching. At the same time, our public schools have cut staffing. Why is that?

I think, in part, it's because of (virtually) unlimited Federal loans to students. If K-12 was run the same way, we'd see more janitors, music teachers, etc.

3. I am ok with sticking to schools and not trying too closely to monitor which majors have higher default rates. Maybe it's just because I believe in the liberal arts education but I think looking at the school is good enough when it comes to default rates.

We could shut off government money but that would cause schools to cater to wealthier students and shut off access for poor and middle- class students. The only other way to keep a lid on educational costs is by government fiat . Just like we do with Medicare.

If you take $50K in student loans and major in Mexican Studies or Lesbian Sports History and can't find a job, whose fault is that?

Well, I knew you were joking about a liberal proposing an elitist plan. I just did not know if you actually agreed that it would be a good idea (or at least not objecting to it because of cost). My bad.

And if you major in history...you can always become a lawyer!

Fate

I believe universities have fattened their staffing--teaching and non-teaching

.
Why?
It contradicts the evidence offered. You have actual evidence for your claim?

"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
So if the cost of providing an education has remained fairly stable, why does the price students pay keep rising?
The reason, say researchers, is that deep budget cuts in state funding for public higher education and shrinking subsidies at private schools have pushed a greater share of the cost onto students and their families

When education becomes unaffordable that means that education becomes limited to only the elite.
Until the GI Bill after WWII, US colleges and universities were unaffordable for most working and middle class families.
It was the free education offered by the GI Bill that both increased competition at Universities, improving the quality of the students being granted degrees, and improved the educational levels of a larger percentage of the populace making competition on the job market and in the economy greater.

If the UMass report is right, and there has been nothing offered to refute it here but "belief", then by limiting money available is going to return the US to the Pre WWII situation. An elite minority.... Or its going to saddle those in the middle class with so much debt to pay for their education that the financial benefit to post secondary education is severely curtailed. And again starts to force less competition at universities and a lowering of quality.

For society as a whole, greater competition in Universities is best. In the US, some elite schools reinforced that competition by attracting the best and brightest from India and China. But the trend for those students now is to return home after school... There is no lasting benefit to the host nation, and only a passing benefit to the Universities (tuitions.)

rickyp wrote:Fate

I believe universities have fattened their staffing--teaching and non-teaching

.
Why?
It contradicts the evidence offered. You have actual evidence for your claim?

"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
So if the cost of providing an education has remained fairly stable, why does the price students pay keep rising?
The reason, say researchers, is that deep budget cuts in state funding for public higher education and shrinking subsidies at private schools have pushed a greater share of the cost onto students and their families

Sure, "aggregate," "teaching services," and "student-related services" over the last 15 to 20 years--this is evidence against what I said? It might be and it might not be.

I'm not restricting myself to 15 or 20 years. The problem has been growing for quite some time.

Here's my evidence: Go back 70 years. Did all these ridiculous majors exist? Go to the page of a large public university, like UCLA. Look at the list of majors. Give room for new technology (i. e. Computers would not have been offered 70 years ago). Focus on the liberal arts degrees. Now, how many of them are rather meaningless in terms of finding a job? Many of them!

All of the profs and all the support staff for those majors are a WASTE of money. If they disappeared tomorrow, the world would not be any the poorer. All of those positions exist because of government largesse.

When education becomes unaffordable that means that education becomes limited to only the elite.
Until the GI Bill after WWII, US colleges and universities were unaffordable for most working and middle class families.
It was the free education offered by the GI Bill that both increased competition at Universities, improving the quality of the students being granted degrees, and improved the educational levels of a larger percentage of the populace making competition on the job market and in the economy greater.

Thank you for that pointless interlude.

If the UMass report is right, and there has been nothing offered to refute it here but "belief", then by limiting money available is going to return the US to the Pre WWII situation. An elite minority.... Or its going to saddle those in the middle class with so much debt to pay for their education that the financial benefit to post secondary education is severely curtailed. And again starts to force less competition at universities and a lowering of quality.

For society as a whole, greater competition in Universities is best. In the US, some elite schools reinforced that competition by attracting the best and brightest from India and China. But the trend for those students now is to return home after school... There is no lasting benefit to the host nation, and only a passing benefit to the Universities (tuitions.)

College is not for folks who cannot achieve academically. We now have 4-year institutions offering remedial English and remedial math. That's insanity.

We need to take a step back and determine what the purpose of higher education is before we blindly grant more funding. If the goal is simply to occupy young people's time and society wants to pay for that, then you are right, rickyp. On the other hand, if we actually want people equipped to do professional-level occupations and to push our society to new levels of technology, then the system needs some changes.

Is Hillary in (more than political) trouble? It seems so and the weight seems to grow daily.

It’s enough for retired Defense Intelligence Agency chief Gen. Michael Flynn, who served in that role for President Barack Obama, to call for Hillary to withdraw from the presidential race:

Flynn and other high-ranking former intelligence officials told TheDCNF they are alarmed that some of the nation’s most highly classified documents contained in a secretive program called the Special Access Program (SAP) were transferred to Clinton’s unclassified home server.

The documents “had to be moved off electronically or removed out of the secure site physically, then it had to be put onto an unclassified email system,” Flynn said. “Someone who does this is completely irresponsible, but totally unaccountable and shows a streak of arrogance to the American public that is unworthy of anyone thinking they can run for President of the United States.”

“This is unbelievable,” Flynn said. “I don’t think anybody should be talking about her being potentially the next President of the United States.”

He’s not the only intelligence professional to make that case. The Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock quotes several intel veterans about the dangerous nature of these revelations:

Placement of SAP-classified information on a non-secure server was the “single, most dangerous security violation that can ever happen to the United States,” said Col. James Waurishuk, former deputy director of intelligence for the U.S. Central Command.

SAP material was “the most stringently compartmented and protected information in the entire U.S. government,” said Waurishuk, who worked on the White House National Security Council during former President George H.W. Bush’s tenure.

Special Forces Col. James Williamson (Ret.) told TheDCNF that SAP classified documents are “the most sensitive of sensitive information” and that normal classified storage facilities, called Special Compartmentalized Information Facilities (SCIF), cannot provide adequate protection for SAP information.

And, Hillary had this stuff on her home server. She's either incompetent or scheming beyond belief. In either case, she should not be President.

Fate

Sure, "aggregate," "teaching services," and "student-related services" over the last 15 to 20 years--this is evidence against what I said?

Yes. It is a summary of a scholarly study by U Mass.
It beats your unsupported assertions and opinions.

And once again you seem to think that the GI Bill was pointless.

Second, management guru Peter Drucker wonders if future historians might rate the G.I. Bill as the most important "event "of the 20th century. Why? It produced the most highly educated workforce in world history at the precise moment the American economy transitioned from an industrial to a technological one.

And this was based upon free education. How free?

The bill committed Uncle Sam to paying for fees, books, and tuition up to $500 per year. A monthly subsistence allowance was provided as well. To put this into perspective, Harvard College charged $400 per year for tuition in 1944 and 1945. The Bill would entirely pay for a Harvard degree, and with some thrift, a Veteran could leave Cambridge with pocket cash

.

First, the G.I. Bill actually made money for the federal government. By 1955, the end of the WWII G.I. Bill period, the total cost of the bill was $14.5 billion. The Department of Labor and Commerce estimated that by 1964, G.I. Bill Veterans already paid an additional $20 billion in tax revenue due to better paying jobs, courtesy of the G.I. Bill. Edwin Kiester’s article, "The G.I. Bill May Be the Best Deal Ever Made by Uncle Sam,” well describes the Bill’s economic impact.

Your own countries history provides the evidence to support free education for those worthy of a University education...
A return to a "market" for higher education just plants often un-penetrable obstacles in the path of those who should be educated.

http://www.eastern.edu/american-dream-a ... ill-rights