rickyp wrote: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.

No, no, no.

What do the terms I highlighted specifically mean? Is the guy who maintains the air-hockey table a "student-related service?"

And, I said I'm not interested in being limited to the last 15 to 20 years. Plus, anything that purports to be a study over "15 to 20 years" . . . sounds like some hodge-podgery, with all due respect. Is it a study of 15 years? 20? A period of time from 15 years ago to 20 years ago?

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.

I never said the GI Bill was pointless. If you are having a conversation with anyone on the planet, do you freely distort everything they say? If so, you must be horribly lonely.

And this was based upon free education. How free?

It cost them at least a couple of years in the military--which was too high a price for you.

Here's a thought for you: why not, for a change, argue against what is said instead of engaging in non-stop straw-man argumentation?

I, for one, would find it refreshing.

If you can't do that, what about asking clarifying questions. For example, "Did you mean to say the GI Bill was pointless?" That's a lot better than assuming that's what I meant and then trying to destroy an argument I never made.

Thank you so much.

Fate

I never said the GI Bill was pointless

.
I said "you seem to think the GI Bill is pointless"

Because you wrote this... after I illustrated how the GI Bill offered free education for a large group of Americans.,.....

Thank you for that pointless interlude

.

What else am I to infer?
Or should I just have realized that once again you can't actually recognize actual American experience as evidence .And put your comment down to your cognitive problems.

Whatever, I said,"seem to think" ... Besides giving you the benefit of the doubt on thought, it also opens the door to actually explain yourself completely. Though when faced with facts you usually can't.

Fate

What do the terms I highlighted specifically mean?

If you were genuinely interested you'd follow the links...
This is just evasion.

rickyp wrote:Though when faced with facts you usually can't.

Um, sure, okay.

Fate

What do the terms I highlighted specifically mean?

If you were genuinely interested you'd follow the links...
This is just evasion.

No, those categories are overly broad.

We have numbers from UCLA. The costs have soared.

If they had merely kept pace with inflation, the cries about student debt would be nonsense--because they would be no larger than they were in the past, adjusted for inflation.

I realize I was not clear on the identity of the law school. To clarify, the figures were for UCLA, 1985-1990; Loyola Law School, 1990-1993. Loyola is a private law school.

This says tuition costs have averaged a 5% increase over the last 10 years. http://blog.credit.com/2015/03/a-simple ... up-111295/

I'm sure inflation has not been 5% a year.

According to this, Harvard has increased 17x since 1971-72. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-coll ... ising.html

I think most people would like a 1600% ROI even if it took 45 years.

This one shows tuition went up 260% while consumer goods went up 120% between 1980-2014. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-coll ... ising.html

So, rickyp, "facts."

So what do you think is the explanation ?

Well, I think I have changed my mind. Bernie is saying things that I strongly believe in . Meanwhile, Hilllary has the 25 million super PAC that supports her, invoked Henry Kissinger's praise of her (anathema to any progressive), voted to support the Iraq War, has the Goldman Sachs speeches (and contributions from Wall Street). The reality is that Obama did not challenge the status quo about campaign finance and income inequality. Those are the big issues. And Hillary might try to do something in those areas but I can't see her mobilizing the type of grassroots energy and support to get past Republican obstructionism. And I don't think it likely Hillary would beat the Republican opponent, anyway. Enough with the prudential considerations! It's Janesian selection at this point. If Hillary wins I will support her but until then I'm going to support Bernie.

By the way, Bernie made an oblique reference to being Jewish when he said in the debate that because of his background if he won it would be historically significant (he mentioned a number if things, none of them directly mentioning he was Jewish, so it was pretty indirect). It's not a relevant consideration to me in evaluating his candidacy, but I wonder RJ if the Jewish community has had any reaction to his campaign based on his being Jewish.

Sassenach wrote:So what do you think is the explanation ?

I think there are a lot of factors. However, I think the largest is this: there is no particular incentive for colleges and universities to try to minimize increases. Well, sure, I guess they could do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's about it.

Young people need to go to college. Whatever parents can't or won't pay is available via grants, scholarships, and student loans.

When kids stop going to college in sufficient numbers, colleges and universities will have to manage costs. Until then, they'll do as they wish.

This is interesting:

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/brie ... 0br-03.pdf

Between 2000 and 2010 the total number of 18-24 yr olds in the US increased by 3,528,634.

Unfortunately I can't find a similar table showing the change since 1990, but we can probably figure it out roughly. The total population in 1990 was 249.6m. If we assume a similar proportion of the population was in the 18-24 bracket as was the case in both 2000 and 2010 then it would give a total number of 18-24 yr olds of 24,211,200. The figure for 2010 was 30,672,088. What this means is that if my assumption about the overall proportions was correct, there were approximately 6 and half million more 18-24 yr olds in the US in 2010 than there were in 1990.

Now the best figure I could find for proportions of the population who enrol into college is that 60% of the under-30 population had done it as of 2011. I think it reasonable to conclude that a similar proportion could be applied to the 18-24 demographic, but let's drop it down to 50% and assume that the remaining 10% comes from mature students. What it means is that in 2010 there were an extra three and a quarter million students compared to when Freeman went to law school. In fact the number is probably higher because there are over 750000 foreign students in American universities as well, a figure which has grown enormously over the last 20 years. How many new colleges have opened in the last 20 years ? I don't have an answer to that question. I did a brief google on it but couldn't find anything conclusive. From what I read on the wiki though, it would appear that the American university landscape was mostly established before the 1990s and hasn't radically altered since, so I suspect that the number of brand new colleges is rather low.

I think we may have found our answer here. Universities have no incentive to hold down fees when demand is outstripping supply by such a wide margin. What you really need is dozens of new institutions to be founded to deal with the excess demand.

Freeman:

Well, I think I have changed my mind. Bernie is saying things that I strongly believe in . Meanwhile, Hilllary has the 25 million super PAC that supports her, invoked Henry Kissinger's praise of her (anathema to any progressive), voted to support the Iraq War, has the Goldman Sachs speeches (and contributions from Wall Street). The reality is that Obama did not challenge the status quo about campaign finance and income inequality. Those are the big issues. And Hillary might try to do something in those areas but I can't see her mobilizing the type of grassroots energy and support to get past Republican obstructionism. And I don't think it likely Hillary would beat the Republican opponent, anyway. Enough with the prudential considerations! It's Janesian selection at this point. If Hillary wins I will support her but until then I'm going to support Bernie.

This strikes me as significant since I would characterize Freeman as an average Democrat. I bet lots of others are feeling similarly.

Freeman

By the way, Bernie made an oblique reference to being Jewish when he said in the debate that because of his background if he won it would be historically significant (he mentioned a number if things, none of them directly mentioning he was Jewish, so it was pretty indirect). It's not a relevant consideration to me in evaluating his candidacy, but I wonder RJ if the Jewish community has had any reaction to his campaign based on his being Jewish.

Not that I've noticed. Most of my Jewish friends seem to support Sanders, but I think that's because they are (hopelessly) liberal. Personally, I do like that someone from my tribe is doing something here, even though I don't agree with him politically. I'm also glad that it hasn't been much of an issue, although I wouldn't be surprised if that changed somewhat as he gets traction.

From Sander's victory speech in New Hampshire:

My friends, I am the son of a Polish immigrant who came to this country speaking no English, and having no money. My father worked everyday of his life, and he never made a whole lot. My Mom and Dad, and brother and I grew up in a small three and a half room, rent controlled apartment in Brooklyn, New York. My Mother, who died at a young age, always dreamed of moving out of that apartment, getting a home of her own, but she never realized that dream.

The truth is that neither one of my parents could ever have dreamed that I would be here tonight standing before you as a candidate for President of the United States.

Frankly, I thought this was a little inauthentic. Most American Jews wouldn't describe an ancestors as a Polish immigrant. I don't tell people that I am 1/4 Polish, 1/4 German, and 1/4 Latvian, and 1/4 Russian. My great grandparents all spoke Yiddish (and maybe 1 or 2 other languages too) and I am a Jewish-American. I'm not saying he was inaccurate; just a little inauthentic on this one.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:So what do you think is the explanation ?

I think there are a lot of factors. However, I think the largest is this: there is no particular incentive for colleges and universities to try to minimize increases. Well, sure, I guess they could do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's about it.

Young people need to go to college. Whatever parents can't or won't pay is available via grants, scholarships, and student loans.

When kids stop going to college in sufficient numbers, colleges and universities will have to manage costs. Until then, they'll do as they wish.

Yes, and as I understand it, the cost is in administrative services which fall under "student relates services" in the article that Ricky posted. Each school has a huge support network of Deans, Asst. Deans, heads of this or that to help kids with campus life as well as other administrative services.

Ricky:

Fate

I never said the GI Bill was pointless

.
I said "you seem to think the GI Bill is pointless"

Because you wrote this... after I illustrated how the GI Bill offered free education for a large group of Americans.,.....

Thank you for that pointless interlude

.
What else am I to infer?

You should infer that your interlude was pointless, not that the GI Bill was pointless. Actually, you don't have to infer it at all. It's precisely written that way.

Here is an interesting article on the causes of tuition hikes. Warning: liberal interpretation.

hikes.http://www.salon.com/2014/06/08/college ... the_media/

Sass, enrollment is increasing a lot, not just due to demographics but also to a higher percentage of people going to college.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1839 ... titutions/

Here are the stats about the number of colleges.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Combining the two data sets there were 12 million students and 3,231 2 and 4 year colleges in 1980. In 2011 there were 21 million college students and 4706 colleges. So for what's worth there was 1 college per 3,731 students in 1980 ; in 2011 it was 1 college per 4,462 students.

Not an enormous differential then. I was expecting more tbh.