Paying for higher education

[TimothyC]

The US formula is designed to eliminate the existence of such people--virtually all reputable and accredited colleges and universities offer full need packages for admitted students.

So let me get this straight, technically anyone (okay, anyone poor enough so he can't pay for it on his own) in the USA can get higher education for free? Or?

If they are smart enough to get into a top-of-the-line school then yes, they can get it for not quite free, but very low cost.

[K. A. Pital]

What if it's not a top-of-the-line school? What if they are smarter than most general school students, but not smart enough to enter a top school (such a situation is pretty easy to imagine). In the system we had when I received my education, such a person could easily outcompete the lower-ranking students at his home university and enlist, even if he was not good enough to go to the MGU or some other top school.

If what MoO had in mind was just a elite university or college grants system for the very best of the best, that was not what I was talking about.

[Alphawolf55]

"It's bullshit that people are dropping out due to costs.".

Again you haven't shown why this is true. I can point to real people who droped out claiming they couldn't cough up 12,000 dollars, I doubt they were just saying that. Even if you're right and our system does give out money based on need, if it's doesn't recognize need accordingly that's a flaw.

Additionally, I never mentioned this but I should've. Another reason why a 50-100,000 debt level is not ideal is because you have to pay it back right away. If you don't get a job right away that lets you pay it back you're getting set back with interest. Sure you can defer it and the absolve the debt if things get too bad, but that can do nightmares to your credit. It's easier to just pay it out of a tax so that when you can't pay it you're safe, but when you have a job you're paying your fair share, you might pay more in the long run, but it comes with added security, like welfare and health insurance.

Right. So University of California should be paying lower prices for textbooks and salaries than private sector colleges, then? And it should have lower tuition increases than other systems, right? And it should have cut costs that make the place look nicer but not much else, correct? Does it achieve any of these things?".

Isn't the University of California only like 3-5000 a year and their community colleges around 500 a semester? Also when has Californian government ever been smart about spending money.

Okay, I went to a liberal arts college that has around 1600 students, right now. Every employer that I've ever spoken to has heard of it--and not just ones in the immediate vicinity. The ranking system that people use is the Princeton Review, and it certainly does not just respond to increases in costs, and it certainly does get the word out about small schools that are doing good things.".

I went to a school of over 4000 students that was a fairly well ranked Liberal Arts college and no one heard of it except for its basketball team and Bing Crosby fans. Also the Princeton Review is fine but does it really showcase the different levels? Whats the difference between a scare rank 60 and a school rank 100, is the different score justified? and is every employer going to reach down and look it up right away?

[Master of Ossus]

What if it's not a top-of-the-line school? What if they are smarter than most general school students, but not smart enough to enter a top school (such a situation is pretty easy to imagine). In the system we had when I received my education, such a person could easily outcompete the lower-ranking students at his home university and enlist, even if he was not good enough to go to the MGU or some other top school.

If what MoO had in mind was just a elite university or college grants system for the very best of the best, that was not what I was talking about.

It's any accredited school (everything short of a diploma-mill). And it's not free, but you get financial aid sufficient to cover the cost of tuition. It's just like a loan package, so it differs from the European model in that sense only in that, instead of paying taxes for the rest of your life to cover the cost of your education, you pay on loans (and you get some grants and scholarships or what-have-you in some circumstances).

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, I see - it's just loans. But how is that different from just taking a credit at any bank and paying for your education up front? That's not "free" by any means. Paying taxes is different, because it's not you personally who is paying them; more often than not this is the task of your employer. However, you pay on loans on your own, out-of-pocket.

[Master of Ossus]

Again you haven't shown why this is true. I can point to real people who droped out claiming they couldn't cough up 12,000 dollars, I doubt they were just saying that. Even if you're right and our system does give out money based on need, if it's doesn't recognize need accordingly that's a flaw.

But it's not a flaw with the general philosophy of making people pay for their educations. Moreover, I'm guessing they were just saying that because no one has such liquidity problems that they can't get a student loan for $12,000 from a private lender or the government.

Additionally, I never mentioned this but I should've. Another reason why a 50-100,000 debt level is not ideal is because you have to pay it back right away. If you don't get a job right away that lets you pay it back you're getting set back with interest. Sure you can defer it and the absolve the debt if things get too bad, but that can do nightmares to your credit.

How? You're automatically granted a six-month deferral on student loans, and beyond that you can almost certainly get one that's discretionary from the lender. Moreover, the average debt-load for a student is only $21,000 on graduation, which is about what they'd reasonably expect to spend on a new car. If you prefer, it's probably between $250 and $300/month to pay it off in 10 years. Suffice it to say, this isn't nearly as big a problem as you're insisting. And, again, that's the average--people who are really conscious about their finances can easily get it lower.

It's easier to just pay it out of a tax so that when you can't pay it you're safe, but when you have a job you're paying your fair share, you might pay more in the long run, but it comes with added security, like welfare and health insurance.

No, it doesn't. You're not paying taxes into general programs and education, you're paying a specific tax that applies only to graduates of colleges under many European systems. That's completely uncapped, so if you end up in an unrelated field that makes tons of money, you have to pay an additional income tax on all of that.

Isn't the University of California only like 3-5000 a year and their community colleges around 500 a semester? Also when has Californian government ever been smart about spending money.

Its total cost is estimated at around $35,000 per year, depending on the campus. Oh, and btw, they have no grants and few scholarships available, so it's almost entirely in loans. In contrast, virtually all of the top-50 private schools have eliminated loans, so they're giving grants and scholarships up to the full demonstrated need of all of their students.

But now you're blaming this on the unique problems of California? Find another large university system that demonstrates these cost advantages that you're describing. Moreover, if you're critical of the American system only because of these specific examples that you can point to of people who claim that they were priced out of college, even though accredited colleges and universities give financial aid up to the full amount of demonstrated need (so they're not paying out of pocket), and even though private lenders are happy to make private student loans to students to cover expenses (because they also recognize that you're getting a 40% annual yield on your investment by going to college), and even though college attendance rates are at an all time high, then surely you'll recognize that it's a serious flaw to have public dollars with your taxpayer model financing University of California given that it appears to give few cost advantages over private institutions.

I went to a school of over 4000 students that was a fairly well ranked Liberal Arts college and no one heard of it except for its basketball team and Bing Crosby fans. Also the Princeton Review is fine but does it really showcase the different levels? Whats the difference between a scare rank 60 and a school rank 100, is the different score justified? and is every employer going to reach down and look it up right away?

From that, I'm guessing you went to Gonzaga which is really quite well known (to the point where people shouldn't have to reach down and look it up). But, no, I can't imagine that an employer would care about the difference between a school that's ranked 60 and one that's ranked in the low 100's. They're looking to separate out top- and bottom-tier institutions. There's a big difference between (say) Duke and Stanford and University of Georgia, for example, and everyone knows it. Further, anytime you have a ranking system you will invariably run into problems like this, but since your original criticism was that it responded only to increases in costs (which it absolutely does not do), it would tend to invalidate your claims about problematic rankings encouraging schools to spend inefficiently.

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, I see - it's just loans. But how is that different from just taking a credit at any bank and paying for your education up front? That's not "free" by any means.

No, it's not. That's the whole point. It makes education available to everyone; it doesn't mean it's "free."

Paying taxes is different, because it's not you personally who is paying them; more often than not this is the task of your employer. However, you pay on loans on your own, out-of-pocket.

How does that make a substantive difference? That's like saying that I'm only paying 6.2% of my salary into social security (up to whatever the ceiling is), rather than 12.4%, since that's what it costs my employers. Just because you make a tax difficult to see doesn't change its incidence, provided that the tax can still influence behavior, and forcing it on employers of college graduates will certainly affect their hiring practices because they'll take those taxes into account when deciding whether or not you're worth hiring and when setting salary and wages. I mean... the incidence of the tax has nothing to do with who signs the check at the bottom to pay it; it's determined by behavioral changes in response to the tax, and those most certainly do affect employees.

[K. A. Pital]

No, it's not. That's the whole point. It makes education available to everyone; it doesn't mean it's "free."

Does a loan truly make something "available to everyone"? I'm genuinely confused here, because we have loans for most if not all goods that are present in society. And yet, I do not see everything becoming accessible to everyone. There must be a problem with this line of reasoning.

How does that make a substantive difference? That's like saying that I'm only paying 6.2% of my salary into social security (up to whatever the ceiling is), rather than 12.4%, since that's what it costs my employers.

Actually, it does make a difference. The capacity of a large organization like a factory or company for long-term savings and long-term allocations of money to different purposes (including education) is undeniably far greater than that of the individual. Much more so in case of a government. The individual has too few resources at his disposal and even a small force-majeure can leave him without a single penny. This cannot happen with a government. So while the person in question can fail on his loans and many do so frequently, as I understand, the state cannot (or, at least, does it with a very low frequency and usually it is coupled with unprecended problems).

As I've read on Wikipedia (for a lack of better source), the student loans are exceptionally hard to discharge in bankrupcy, which poses a danger to the student. On the other hand, the taxation system does not have these failings. The education is granted without expecting a personal repayment of any loans, and later if the person has any sort of hardship, it does not impact his financial condition.

[Alphawolf55]

But it's not a flaw with the general philosophy of making people pay for their educations. Moreover, I'm guessing they were just saying that because no one has such liquidity problems that they can't get a student loan for $12,000 from a private lender or the government.

You kidding, try getting a loan at 20 years old, without a cosigner and a job.

How? You're automatically granted a six-month deferral on student loans, and beyond that you can almost certainly get one that's discretionary from the lender. Moreover, the average debt-load for a student is only $21,000 on graduation, which is about what they'd reasonably expect to spend on a new car. If you prefer, it's probably between $250 and $300/month to pay it off in 10 years. Suffice it to say, this isn't nearly as big a problem as you're insisting. And, again, that's the average--people who are really conscious about their finances can easily get it lower.

Again this is assuming you have assistancefrom your family, if you foot the entire bill yourself those monthly payments can rise to 750-1,200 a month. That's not a small amount anymore. Also what happens if he goes into a career that requires a 4 year degree but doesn't pay well? Or goes into a undergrad major that doesn't pay well but pays extremely well in grad, only to find out he misses the mark when it comes to grad school?

My problem is the system doesn't take into account the absence of parents paying, and if it did, where is the new money going to come from? The Federal Government? If so much money of tuition is coming from the Government, why not just have it be entirely funded. If from rich families,how is it functionally having kids of richer families footing more of the cost of education anydifferent then having a tax that does the same?

No, it doesn't. You're not paying taxes into general programs and education, you're paying a specific tax that applies only to graduates of colleges under many European systems. That's completely uncapped, so if you end up in an unrelated field that makes tons of money, you have to pay an additional income tax on all of that

Yeah and if you take a valued but low paying career it helps out, or don't have a job, or have to drop out due to illness, you save money.

Its total cost is estimated at around $35,000 per year, depending on the campus. Oh, and btw, they have no grants and few scholarships available, so it's almost entirely in loans. In contrast, virtually all of the top-50 private schools have eliminated loans, so they're giving grants and scholarships up to the full demonstrated need of all of their students.

But now you're blaming this on the unique problems of California? Find another large university system that demonstrates these cost advantages that you're describing. Moreover, if you're critical of the American system only because of these specific examples that you can point to of people who claim that they were priced out of college, even though accredited colleges and universities give financial aid up to the full amount of demonstrated need (so they're not paying out of pocket), and even though private lenders are happy to make private student loans to students to cover expenses (because they also recognize that you're getting a 40% annual yield on your investment by going to college), and even though college attendance rates are at an all time high, then surely you'll recognize that it's a serious flaw to have public dollars with your taxpayer model financing University of California given that it appears to give few cost advantages over private institutions.

UMass and Cuny system. Both tier one, both around 5,000 a year for residents.

From that, I'm guessing you went to Gonzaga which is really quite well known (to the point where people shouldn't have to reach down and look it up). But, no, I can't imagine that an employer would care about the difference between a school that's ranked 60 and one that's ranked in the low 100's. They're looking to separate out top- and bottom-tier institutions. There's a big difference between (say) Duke and Stanford and University of Georgia, for example, and everyone knows it. Further, anytime you have a ranking system you will invariably run into problems like this, but since your original criticism was that it responded only to increases in costs (which it absolutely does not do), it would tend to invalidate your claims about problematic rankings encouraging schools to spend inefficiently.

Correct, I went to Gonzaga,you'd think people wouldn't have to look it up. But almost no one I've talked to on the east coast has ever heard of it. Also the existence of a good ranking system hurts alot of graduates as well imo. For example like I said before, the CUNY schools are a tier one college and considered some of the best schools in the US by academic reports, but it's graduates are somewhat mistreated because of a perceived lack of quality in education. Even though it's on the same level of an university, it's still seen as a community college by alot of areas outside NYC academics, I'd argue a more thorough ranking system would allow employers and grad schools and other universities an easier evaulation of your quality of a student.

Additionally, the inability of colleges to have an easy way to showcase quality could defintely increase cost. It's no secret that people see large buildings and facilities as a definite sign of quality.

[Master of Ossus]

Does a loan truly make something "available to everyone"? I'm genuinely confused here, because we have loans for most if not all goods that are present in society. And yet, I do not see everything becoming accessible to everyone. There must be a problem with this line of reasoning.

When you are guaranteed to be provided a loan, that makes it available to everyone.

Moreover, if the US model for college is so exclusionary, why does the US top the list of countries in terms of college attendance rates and come in fourth in terms of college graduation rates? That's not in the nature of a system that excludes people based on finances. In fact, it rather seems quite inclusionary.

Actually, it does make a difference. The capacity of a large organization like a factory or company for long-term savings and long-term allocations of money to different purposes (including education) is undeniably far greater than that of the individual. Much more so in case of a government. The individual has too few resources at his disposal and even a small force-majeure can leave him without a single penny. This cannot happen with a government. So while the person in question can fail on his loans and many do so frequently, as I understand, the state cannot (or, at least, does it with a very low frequency and usually it is coupled with unprecended problems).

As I've read on Wikipedia (for a lack of better source), the student loans are exceptionally hard to discharge in bankrupcy, which poses a danger to the student. On the other hand, the taxation system does not have these failings. The education is granted without expecting a personal repayment of any loans, and later if the person has any sort of hardship, it does not impact his financial condition.

But a tax-based system doesn't encourage people to enter fields that offer high rewards, promoting study of subjects that are not socially valuable or highly risky, and removing accountability for studies from students. In addition, a tax-based model discourages people from going to college if they're expecting high incomes unrelated or only partially-related to their education in the future because it will tax them on their unrelated earnings.

Further, once again your criticism of the pay-to-play model is based only on US bankruptcy laws, which a European state presumably would not have to adopt.

[Master of Ossus]

You kidding, try getting a loan at 20 years old, without a cosigner and a job.

Yeah. They're called "student loans." You see them advertised on TV when back-to-school starts.

Again this is assuming you have assistancefrom your family, if you foot the entire bill yourself those monthly payments can rise to 750-1,200 a month. That's not a small amount anymore. Also what happens if he goes into a career that requires a 4 year degree but doesn't pay well? Or goes into a undergrad major that doesn't pay well but pays extremely well in grad, only to find out he misses the mark when it comes to grad school?

Wait, what? How does the payment of a guaranteed federal funds rate more than triple if you don't have assistance from your family?

And why should I sympathize with someone who goes through four years of a pre-pharmacy degree only to find out that his grades aren't good enough to get him into pharmacy school? At some point you have to have reasonable expectations for yourself.

My problem is the system doesn't take into account the absence of parents paying, and if it did, where is the new money going to come from? The Federal Government? If so much money of tuition is coming from the Government, why not just have it be entirely funded.

Because not much tuition money comes from the Federal government. And, also, if you have special hardships that aren't captured by the FAFSA, colleges take that into account when preparing their aid packages.

If from rich families,how is it functionally having kids of richer families footing more of the cost of education anydifferent then having a tax that does the same?

Rich families foot more of the bill under all models, but they're paying for quality institutions that treat them properly under the pay-to-play system.

Yeah and if you take a valued but low paying career it helps out, or don't have a job, or have to drop out due to illness, you save money.

Which only increases the cost of college attendance to people who actually use their degree.

UMass and Cuny system. Both tier one, both around 5,000 a year for residents.

Newsflash: when a state or local government heavily subsidizes attendance to institutions they get cheaper.

Too bad that these lower costs of attendance are completely unrelated to a cost-advantage from economies of scale. It's purely related to the fact that these systems are heavily financed by the state. When you look at (e.g.) Queen's College, their estimated cost for books (one of the key cost-related advantages you cited) was estimated at $938 per year. The nearby New York University (which is the second most expensive college in the country in terms of estimated cost of attendance) estimates $1000 for books per year.

Wow. Great job of reducing costs through economies of scale, there. You reduced ~2% of the total cost of attendance by ~6%.

Correct, I went to Gonzaga,you'd think people wouldn't have to look it up. But almost no one I've talked to on the east coast has ever heard of it. Also the existence of a good ranking system hurts alot of graduates as well imo. For example like I said before, the CUNY schools are a tier one college and considered some of the best schools in the US by academic reports, but it's graduates are somewhat mistreated because of a perceived lack of quality in education. Even though it's on the same level of an university, it's still seen as a community college by alot of areas outside NYC academics, I'd argue a more thorough ranking system would allow employers and grad schools and other universities an easier evaulation of your quality of a student.

Excuse me? Queen's College is the eighth-ranked liberal arts college in the country according to US News and World Reports and has also been ranked in the top-25 hottest schools. Only when you lump all of the CUNY colleges together is there a "perceived lack of quality," and that's largely because of their absurd open-admit policy which demonstrably reduces the quality of students.

Additionally, the inability of colleges to have an easy way to showcase quality could defintely increase cost.

What? US News & World Reports is expensive, or it's not easy to showcase quality? You're REALLY stretching, here, if you think that this doesn't apply to colleges that are priced according to states. How do the UC's, for instance, showcase their quality vis-a-vis each other? Is it easier or harder for them to compete against each other by showcasing good programs in lesser schools, or is it easier for them to showcase quality versus private schools?

It's no secret that people see large buildings and facilities as a definite sign of quality.

So in other words you want to create economies of scale by .... building big buildings and facilities? Does this make any sense at all?

[Big Phil]

Correct, I went to Gonzaga

You went to Gonzaga, and you don't know what student loans are or how to get them? Are you sure you don't mean Gonzaga Prep, because I have a hard time believing anyone who went to Gonzaga is too stupid to know what a student loan is?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, I see - it's just loans. But how is that different from just taking a credit at any bank and paying for your education up front? That's not "free" by any means. Paying taxes is different, because it's not you personally who is paying them; more often than not this is the task of your employer. However, you pay on loans on your own, out-of-pocket.

There's a bewildering array of programmes in the US, Stas.

Yearly: The poorest students can be awarded $5,500.00 in grants, $5,500.00 in subsidized loans (no interest in school and for 6 months after finishing school, then 4.5% interest), $1,000 - $1,500 in loans from another programme (terms same as the first loan programme but with 9 months grace after school), and then SEOG grants which I'm not sure of the maximums on. There's another grant programme for very high performing science students at the federal level, and then there's state grants, which give me around $8,000.00 a year from my state on top of this, in my case, but these vary by state and may be nonexistent in some. The grants of course need not be repaid, and I've received institutional grants before as well. Any money above this must be paid through loans which, up to your economic need, start accruing interest at 4.5% rate immediately, but the interest can be amortized into the loan amount while you're in school if you can't afford to pay it, which is usually the case. Student loan payments after graduation may also be deducted from your taxes.

Anyone whose educational costs exceed their estimated family contribution must take out private loans if their family cannot in reality pay for the remainder of their education.

Personally I favour that engineering, medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, and a variety of related hard science fields should have guaranteed payment of all expenses without loans, and repayment of existing student loans by the government, if they can maintain an overall 3.0 GPA or better (the equivalent of an average performance of 83 - 87% in all classes at my university) in that field and don't switch majors, from the moment they enter that major, or obtain that GPA level in it.

[Alphawolf55]

Yeah. They're called "student loans." You see them advertised on TV when back-to-school starts..

News flash, student loans alot of times require cosigners as well, for example the Wells Fargo Student Loan requires either 12,000 a year income or a cosigner. There are things like federal loans,but they won'tcover the full cost of education alot of times.

Wait, what? How does the payment of a guaranteed federal funds rate more than triple if you don't have assistance from your family?
And why should I sympathize with someone who goes through four years of a pre-pharmacy degree only to find out that his grades aren't good enough to get him into pharmacy school? At some point you have to have reasonable expectations for yourself. ..

Assuming that you're footing the bill yourself entirely. Thecostof a 4 year school is far more then 12,000 dollars. So either a short term payback program will become far more expensive or you'll pay a far longer term.

Also I don't mean they failed out of undergrad. I mean that they did awesome in Undergrad but Med School being alot different showed they weren't meant to be doctors. Alot of people drop out of med school.

Because not much tuition money comes from the Federal government. And, also, if you have special hardships that aren't captured by the FAFSA, colleges take that into account when preparing their aid packages.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I was told by some accept colleges that my family makes far too much money for me to get any assistance even though they weren't going to help.

Again you keep claiming that all colleges will make sure you can afford school and that anyone who claims they couldn't get help is lying, but done nothing to show that's the case.

Which only increases the cost of college attendance to people who actually use their degree.

How does that address my point at all?

Too bad that these lower costs of attendance are completely unrelated to a cost-advantage from economies of scale. It's purely related to the fact that these systems are heavily financed by the state. When you look at (e.g.) Queen's College, their estimated cost for books (one of the key cost-related advantages you cited) was estimated at $938 per year. The nearby New York University (which is the second most expensive college in the country in terms of estimated cost of attendance) estimates $1000 for books per year.

Wow. Great job of reducing costs through economies of scale, there. You reduced ~2% of the total cost of attendance by ~6%..

You also ignored myother points. The CUNY system also far more directly controlls teacher salaries and has far more modest campus grounds. It's not about economy of scales by itself. It's about having a governing body who can make sure costs are kept down.

Excuse me? Queen's College is the eighth-ranked liberal arts college in the country according to US News and World Reports and has also been ranked in the top-25 hottest schools. Only when you lump all of the CUNY colleges together is there a "perceived lack of quality," and that's largely because of their absurd open-admit policy which demonstrably reduces the quality of students.

Did you read my post at all? I didn't say that CUNY was lowly ranked, in factI said the opposite. I said it has an undeserved low reputation among the private sector.

What? US News & World Reports is expensive, or it's not easy to showcase quality? You're REALLY stretching, here, if you think that this doesn't apply to colleges that are priced according to states. How do the UC's, for instance, showcase their quality vis-a-vis each other? Is it easier or harder for them to compete against each other by showcasing good programs in lesser schools, or is it easier for them to showcase quality versus private schools?

Most business don't just pick up a copy of US News & Report when looking at your application, and like I said reading them is hard to compare colleges of similiar tier. I never said that state schools can showcase quality, I said the Federal Government should get involved and introduce a more thorough ranking system, having around 4 tiers for hundreds of institutions isn't always the best idea.

So in other words you want to create economies of scale by .... building big buildings and facilities? Does this make any sense at all?

No I'm saying that one of the advantages of the Federal Government having some control is making sure money isn't spent on purely cosmetic things. Having a new fancy library building, or quad or giant fitness center are great for attracting students, but they drive up cost and don't always add to the learning experience.

You went to Gonzaga, and you don't know what student loans are or how to get them? Are you sure you don't mean Gonzaga Prep, because I have a hard time believing anyone who went to Gonzaga is too stupid to know what a student loan is?

Yes I went to Gonzaga. And where did I say there's no such things as student loans? I merely said it can be difficult for those who aren't register as needy to get them.

[Xon]

Demand for higher education is booming around the world; to help increase the supply, many countries, including Germany, Ireland and Spain, have begun charging students, as America has long done.

This type of doublethink is infurating. Raising prices does not increase supply when you have raising demand especially when operating costs are relatively constant. It means blatent profiteering at the expense of those who have not choice.

[Alphawolf55]

I thought what they're saying is that the costs for the most part are covered by the Government and to fund the increasing amount of people going to college, they're going to start charging students directly.

[Archaic`]

Realistically, you can't make university education completely free to the general public without imposing some other limits on entry. Even then, unless your limiting factors are amazingly stringent, you're still looking at a glut of people getting university degrees in areas of relatively little practical demand and use, which has flow on economic effects. There's no point graduating all these people with degrees at great expense (to the government and therefore to the taxpayer, if it's "free"), if those people can't then get employment and support themselves, rather than ending up in unemployment queues. Not to mention how much a glut of university graduates actually devalues having a bachelors degree in the first place. IRL, teach tutorial classes for undergraduate business students, and I can quite confidently say that more than half of the students I see really have no business being there. A large number are only there because getting a university degree has become practically expected for anything above burger flipper or retail. It's worse in the harder sciences, where there seems to be no point in doing the degree if you're not going to go and do an honours at the absolute minimum.

To some extent though, that problem is driven by the universities themselves. There's a great many universities which simply wouldn't survive without getting more and more student fees to pay their ever growing expenses. Students who expect to pass, even when they're doing nothing to deserve it, and who cry bloody murder when you make them actually put some effort into things.

[ray245]

Realistically, you can't make university education completely free to the general public without imposing some other limits on entry. Even then, unless your limiting factors are amazingly stringent, you're still looking at a glut of people getting university degrees in areas of relatively little practical demand and use, which has flow on economic effects. There's no point graduating all these people with degrees at great expense (to the government and therefore to the taxpayer, if it's "free"), if those people can't then get employment and support themselves, rather than ending up in unemployment queues. Not to mention how much a glut of university graduates actually devalues having a bachelors degree in the first place. IRL, teach tutorial classes for undergraduate business students, and I can quite confidently say that more than half of the students I see really have no business being there. A large number are only there because getting a university degree has become practically expected for anything above burger flipper or retail. It's worse in the harder sciences, where there seems to be no point in doing the degree if you're not going to go and do an honours at the absolute minimum.

To some extent though, that problem is driven by the universities themselves. There's a great many universities which simply wouldn't survive without getting more and more student fees to pay their ever growing expenses. Students who expect to pass, even when they're doing nothing to deserve it, and who cry bloody murder when you make them actually put some effort into things.

I thought that the current trend in the market is that you need a bachelor degree to get a relatively well-paid job and that if you cannot obtain a degree, you are essentially don't have a high chance of even earning a decent middle-class income?

Is it even possible to reverse the trend and the mentality that is held by employers, that a person without a bachelor degree is worth hiring?

[Master of Ossus]

News flash, student loans alot of times require cosigners as well, for example the Wells Fargo Student Loan requires either 12,000 a year income or a cosigner. There are things like federal loans,but they won'tcover the full cost of education alot of times.

If you google "no cosigner student loans" you'll get hundreds of companies that offer precisely the service that you're insisting do not exist. It's simply not a necessity to get a student loan, nor does it even substantively alter the calculations I did earlier to show that it's a reasonable investment.

Assuming that you're footing the bill yourself entirely. Thecostof a 4 year school is far more then 12,000 dollars. So either a short term payback program will become far more expensive or you'll pay a far longer term.

IF you don't go to one of the top 50 institutions in the country that don't use loans as part of their financial aid packages.

Also I don't mean they failed out of undergrad. I mean that they did awesome in Undergrad but Med School being alot different showed they weren't meant to be doctors. Alot of people drop out of med school.

Bullshit. The ten year graduation rate for medical school is over 96%--which is the highest of any graduate or professional field (doctoral students dropped out at around a 38% clip over that time frame). In addition, a study in the UK found that the dropout rate in medical school was heavily correlated with science grades, with people who did well in college and high school science classes being far less likely to drop out of medical school.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I was told by some accept colleges that my family makes far too much money for me to get any assistance even though they weren't going to help.

Again you keep claiming that all colleges will make sure you can afford school and that anyone who claims they couldn't get help is lying, but done nothing to show that's the case.

It's not a statement that "all colleges" will help students, but rather that a huge number of options exist to assist students and, yes, that the good schools in the country have almost uniformly and demonstrably committed to eliminating cost as a reason for students not to go to their school. Again, almost all of the top 50 schools in the country have eliminated debt as a component of their financial aid packages--everything is grants and scholarships for students who can demonstrate need.

But more importantly, I can't be asked to show a negative (that these vaguely defined people either do not exist or that they are lying)--you have to show positively that cost is a factor in getting people not to go to college. This hasn't been done at all, and lots and lots of circumstantial evidence argues heavily against it (e.g., the US has a higher college attendance rate than any other country--including ones that use essentially pure tax-based models for paying university tuitions; the US has a graduation rate among the highest of any country even though it only occasionally offers tax-based universities; the average debt load for a college student is far from crippling; no one going to school today at one of the top 50 colleges in the country will have any student loans at all when they graduate; student loans are an extremely good investment even if the student is paying for an extremely expensive college and is receiving very little student aid).

Too bad that these lower costs of attendance are completely unrelated to a cost-advantage from economies of scale. It's purely related to the fact that these systems are heavily financed by the state. When you look at (e.g.) Queen's College, their estimated cost for books (one of the key cost-related advantages you cited) was estimated at $938 per year. The nearby New York University (which is the second most expensive college in the country in terms of estimated cost of attendance) estimates $1000 for books per year.

Wow. Great job of reducing costs through economies of scale, there. You reduced ~2% of the total cost of attendance by ~6%..

You also ignored myother points. The CUNY system also far more directly controlls teacher salaries and has far more modest campus grounds.

Evidence? But oh, great, it offers lesser campus services than other schools that charge.

It's not about economy of scales by itself. It's about having a governing body who can make sure costs are kept down.

And in one of the key cost-related areas in which you said there were powerful gains to be made through government oversight, we found that there were no such gains. Provide evidence that Queen's College professorial salaries are lower than those for private institutions of comparable quality.

Did you read my post at all? I didn't say that CUNY was lowly ranked, in factI said the opposite. I said it has an undeserved low reputation among the private sector.

Provide evidence for this bullshit claim. Show that Queen's College degrees, for example, are not valued by the private sector.

Most business don't just pick up a copy of US News & Report when looking at your application, and like I said reading them is hard to compare colleges of similiar tier. I never said that state schools can showcase quality, I said the Federal Government should get involved and introduce a more thorough ranking system, having around 4 tiers for hundreds of institutions isn't always the best idea.

So... what would you have the Federal Government do differently? How do you organize a ranking system better than US News & World Reports?

No I'm saying that one of the advantages of the Federal Government having some control is making sure money isn't spent on purely cosmetic things. Having a new fancy library building, or quad or giant fitness center are great for attracting students, but they drive up cost and don't always add to the learning experience.

And? Sometimes they do improve the learning experience, as any student who's attended a UC school will tell you: their facilities are CRAP and actively detract from the student experience. But moreover, the financing of virtually all major buildings that are constructed on college campuses in the PRIVATE sector (and many, many public school buildings) are paid for by targeted alumni donations and have nothing to do with tuition money from students. It is simply a false dilemma to suggest that funding to build new and better facilities raises tuition costs today.

[Alphawolf55]

IF you don't go to one of the top 50 institutions in the country that don't use loans as part of their financial aid packages.

What if one doesn't go to a college that's one of the top 50?

Evidence? But oh, great, it offers lesser campus services than other schools that charge.

How is a big campus and good gym equipment important to a students learning?

Also for CUNY salaries http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/de ... 124/5/1732

Provide evidence for this bullshit claim. Show that Queen's College degrees, for example, are not valued by the private sector.

What would suffice for this? Salary after graduation? Types of jobs they get? but why so focused on Queen's? Hunter which is higher ranked, or Brooklyn College? Queen's is only in the top 10 when it comes to value, which is gets because of it's extremely low cost.

Additioanlly I work in NYC, I know a disproportationate amount of people who graduated CUNY schools but work retail and stuff like that. Additionally, if you go outside the city, people assume CUNY's are community colleges including which is basically what I was asked, when I applied for jobs and I told them about my plans to try the CUNY system out.

Again you said it yourself, that CUNYS have such a open door policy of acceptance that their image is diminshed, so what makes you think their degrees are so respected outside the field of academics?

So... what would you have the Federal Government do differently? How do you organize a ranking system better than US News & World Reports?.

Mostly I'd add more tiers and get rid of some specific rankings. For example Hunter, Queens and BC are almost entirely similiar in education quality but Hunter is ranked 20 places above BC. Additionally I feel like having a more official ranking would make transfering easier and would help new colleges deal with lack of reputation, but anyways I don't know why you're focusing this much on an offhand comment.

[Serafina]

Wait, in some places you don't have to pay to go to college? Wtf? That is just so antithetical to anything I've ever known it seems bizarre. Not that I'm against it. I just didn't realize it existed. Huh.

I didn't want to spam the thread - but yes, in many countries you pay little or next-to-nothing for college education.
In Germany, you pay a maximum of 500€ (about 700$) for each semester (depending on your state), unless you go to a private college (which are not necessarily the best - even rich kids go to public ones). IIRC, some states demand nothing. And that's a pretty recent development, half a decade ago everything was totally free.
Furthermore, you don't have to pay anything if you get BAFöG ("Federal Education-assistance money) - whether you get it or not depends on your parents income and their amount of kids. Basically, it's a interest-free loan from the state that is supposed to cover rent, food etc. It's normally sufficient, so students don't have to work (tough many still do) if they get it.


Edit: Oh, FFS - i didn't want to quote, i just wanted to send this via PM. Mods are free to delete this.

[Skgoa]

Wait, in some places you don't have to pay to go to college? Wtf? That is just so antithetical to anything I've ever known it seems bizarre. Not that I'm against it. I just didn't realize it existed. Huh.

I didn't want to spam the thread - but yes, in many countries you pay little or next-to-nothing for college education.
In Germany, you pay a maximum of 500€ (about 700$) for each semester (depending on your state), unless you go to a private college (which are not necessarily the best - even rich kids go to public ones). IIRC, some states demand nothing. And that's a pretty recent development, half a decade ago everything was totally free.
Furthermore, you don't have to pay anything if you get BAFöG ("Federal Education-assistance money) - whether you get it or not depends on your parents income and their amount of kids. Basically, it's a interest-free loan from the state that is supposed to cover rent, food etc. It's normally sufficient, so students don't have to work (tough many still do) if they get it.

Actually, depending on which city you study in, you might have to pay up to ~700 Euros, if you add all the other fees. (For subsidized food in the cafeteria, the miriad forms of student representation, a half-year ticket for public transport...) The normal fees have been around a looong time. Its just the stupid* 500€ tuition fee that many states governed by the conservatives have introduced. Hamburg has recently introduced another "college loan" system, students can now get the (already massively reduced) fee payed by the city, they just have to pay it back (interest free) a couple of years after they finish their studies.
Regarding BaFöG: Only a small portion of those who would need it, get it. I know quite a few students (including myself), who work because apparently their parents are rich, even though they can't/won't hand their child the kind of money the government (and they/we) think(s) is the very basis of subsistence. Generally speaking, the ones who are lucky to get full BaFöG are the students who have the highest income. I even know someone who is on housing subsidies (Wohngeld), because her parents just can't pay and the amount of BaFöG she gets is ridiculously small. Actually, most students I know work, regardless of wether or not they get anything from anyone.
If all else fails, many states offer student loans. Those are interest free loans, too. The differences are: 1. you have to pay the whole sum (afair BaFöG repayment is limited to 10,000€ in many states), 2. anyone studying in Germany can get it and 3. you can get more money than through BaFöG and even more crucial, you get to decide how much money you want to get. (I.e. you don't have to pay back more than what you needed.) And if you are very lucky, you study in one of those few states who cap the total amount of college loans you have to pay back...
The only problem with that is of course, that you are in dept when you get your degree. While you don't have to start repaying for a couple of years and/or until you have a high enough income, its still an uncomfortable situation.

Which reminds me that I have been meaning to apply for a stipend for quite a while now...


* Because a) in most states its not used for anything worthwhile, since operating costs are covered by the state anyways and b) its actually so low that the additional costs it creates negates most of the profit.

[Archaic`]

I thought that the current trend in the market is that you need a bachelor degree to get a relatively well-paid job and that if you cannot obtain a degree, you are essentially don't have a high chance of even earning a decent middle-class income?

That's exactly the trend, said much more clearly than I did. ^^;

Is it even possible to reverse the trend and the mentality that is held by employers, that a person without a bachelor degree is worth hiring?

Over time, it should be. An increasing focus on trades training would certainly help. If they get integrated into or taken over by universities, they'd probably lose a bit of the current stigma that seems to be against them, while allowing universities to hold onto similar numbers of students and maintain their revenue streams.

[Master of Ossus]

What if one doesn't go to a college that's one of the top 50?

Then you either learn to deal with going to Amherst or you have to take on loans.

How is a big campus and good gym equipment important to a students learning?

1. Having a good gym on campus obviously improves the educational experience because it allows students to stay on campus more frequently, apart from all of the ancillary health benefits of allowing students to participate.
2. Having a big campus also induces students to remain on campus, which demonstrably alters the student experience of college.

But I also think you're ignoring that this entire thing is a false-dilemma fallacy. As I've pointed out: tuition dollars typically do not go towards financing new buildings on campus.

Also for CUNY salaries http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/de ... 124/5/1732

Apart from Teachers College (which is very high because they have no associate or assistant professors), it's pretty hard to pick up a pattern as to which schools are paying more for their faculty. Columbia, for instance, pays its average full-time faculty member less than Graduate Center (which, for its part, pays more for its average full-time faculty member than any private school except the aforementioned Teachers College). Indeed, two private colleges (Wagner and Touro) pay their full-time faculty less than any CUNY institution.

Indeed, when you just average the full-time pay by school, rather than by professor and remove Teachers' College, the CUNY senior colleges pay more per faculty member than the private institutions you're comparing them to. The main driver of the difference you appear to be citing between CUNY senior college salaries and private salaries is that the two highest-paying private colleges (NYU and Columbia) in New York are also the largest, and so a much higher proportion of the professors in the private college list are from high-paying institutions than on the CUNY list.

It's not a difference between state-run and private. It's an institutional difference in the schools. Indeed, this is confirmed by the very fact that there's also a huge variation within CUNY, which is where you claimed that the government operations would restrict the growth of salary.

To review: of the two factors you cited in which government-overseen colleges would have a major cost advantage, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever for a cost advantage in either. Books cost the same, and salaries don't appear to be too different, if they are at all.

What would suffice for this? Salary after graduation? Types of jobs they get? but why so focused on Queen's? Hunter which is higher ranked, or Brooklyn College? Queen's is only in the top 10 when it comes to value, which is gets because of it's extremely low cost.

Well, okay, do it for any of them. Provide some evidence to support your claims, though.

Additioanlly I work in NYC, I know a disproportationate amount of people who graduated CUNY schools but work retail and stuff like that. Additionally, if you go outside the city, people assume CUNY's are community colleges including which is basically what I was asked, when I applied for jobs and I told them about my plans to try the CUNY system out.

Again you said it yourself, that CUNYS have such a open door policy of acceptance that their image is diminshed, so what makes you think their degrees are so respected outside the field of academics?

Uh... the fact that their flagship institutions are universally highly rated by every major rating system?

Also, you do realize why I find statistics much more informative than "I know a guy who says he's in this position," no?

Mostly I'd add more tiers and get rid of some specific rankings. For example Hunter, Queens and BC are almost entirely similiar in education quality but Hunter is ranked 20 places above BC. Additionally I feel like having a more official ranking would make transfering easier and would help new colleges deal with lack of reputation, but anyways I don't know why you're focusing this much on an offhand comment.

Okay, so you disagree with a few particular rankings based on... what? Your own impressions?

And which ranking system are you using, precisely? Provide evidence for your differential in rank, and for your claims that they are "entirely similar in education quality."

[Alphawolf55]

Then you either learn to deal with going to Amherst or you have to take on loans.

Okay you admit loans will have to be taken out. Now will you admit that if you need a private loan, you'll most likely need a cosigner? These guys would agree. http://www.collegescholarships.org/loan ... t-loan.htm

"1. Having a good gym on campus obviously improves the educational experience because it allows students to stay on campus more frequently, apart from all of the ancillary health benefits of allowing students to participate.
2. Having a big campus also induces students to remain on campus, which demonstrably alters the student experience of college.

But I also think you're ignoring that this entire thing is a false-dilemma fallacy. As I've pointed out: tuition dollars typically do not go towards financing new buildings on campus.."

Got anything to prove that "great campus=better education?" You cite the CUNY system as so great and so respected and they don't have a huge campus and their gym is pretty modest.

"Apart from Teachers College (which is very high because they have no associate or assistant professors), it's pretty hard to pick up a pattern as to which schools are paying more for their faculty. Columbia, for instance, pays its average full-time faculty member less than Graduate Center (which, for its part, pays more for its average full-time faculty member than any private school except the aforementioned Teachers College). Indeed, two private colleges (Wagner and Touro) pay their full-time faculty less than any CUNY institution.

Indeed, when you just average the full-time pay by school, rather than by professor and remove Teachers' College, the CUNY senior colleges pay more per faculty member than the private institutions you're comparing them to. The main driver of the difference you appear to be citing between CUNY senior college salaries and private salaries is that the two highest-paying private colleges (NYU and Columbia) in New York are also the largest, and so a much higher proportion of the professors in the private college list are from high-paying institutions than on the CUNY list.

It's not a difference between state-run and private. It's an institutional difference in the schools. Indeed, this is confirmed by the very fact that there's also a huge variation within CUNY, which is where you claimed that the government operations would restrict the growth of salary.

To review: of the two factors you cited in which government-overseen colleges would have a major cost advantage, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever for a cost advantage in either. Books cost the same, and salaries don't appear to be too different, if they are at all."

You can't just take out the big colleges and change the numbers. The comparison is between how big private colleges do things and CUNY do things, since CUNY is so big it's fair to include Columbia and NYU in those numbers. Even so, how do you account for religious schools? Which pay more for staff and professors then the CUNY system.

What do you mean huge variations within CUNY, most salaries are within 5,000 dollars of each other?

Well, okay, do it for any of them. Provide some evidence to support your claims, though.

Again, what kind of evidence do you want?

Uh... the fact that their flagship institutions are universally highly rated by every major rating system?

Also, you do realize why I find statistics much more informative than "I know a guy who says he's in this position," no?

Except you yourself admitted that the CUNY system has a perceived slight against it because it has such an open acceptance policy. You can't just say "Well, it seems anyone can go so it doesn't seem their students are as highly respect" and then go "But their degrees are still really respected by everyone, even people who never heard of them!"

You don't think that a college with a reputation that accepts lower quality students isn't going to have a lower reputation?

"Okay, so you disagree with a few particular rankings based on... what? Your own impressions?

And which ranking system are you using, precisely? Provide evidence for your differential in rank, and for your claims that they are "entirely similar in education quality."

I provided an example. Hunter and Brooklyn college have a gap between their rankings, even though if you talk to the professors, they'll admit there's not much of a difference, the fact that anyone who goes to one of the schools can take classes at the other suggest that the quality isn't too much of a difference.