Paying for higher education

[Master of Ossus]

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

That is absolutely not what they said. Once again, you're completely ignoring the availability of no-cosigner loans for students, which any google search will show exist.

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.

Can you ignore the central argument that facilities do not typically cost tuition dollars any longer?

"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.

I did nothing of the sort you dishonest cunt.

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.

Which I did. I simply re-weighted them to average the salaries of professors by institution rather than by professor (because the largest private schools all happen to be the ones that pay the highest salaries) to show that the private schools are NOT paying more than CUNY schools for professors. They're very comparable.

Even so, how do you account for religious schools? Which pay more for staff and professors then the CUNY system.

Precisely the same mechanism: the largest religious schools are also the ones that pay the most. And, incidentally, even a direct "average salary" measure of full-time faculty differs by only 2.3% ($74,476 vs. $72,712)--hardly some grand showing of the lower costs of government overseen colleges. So, AT BEST, your two major factors for why it's more efficient to have government oversight for colleges and universities offer one or two percent in savings, and more realistically they offer none at all.

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

I consider a >50% difference in salary to be "huge" for comparable schools within the same system. The average full-time faculty member of Graduate Center is paid over $97,000 per year. The average at NYC Tech is a little over $64,000. Indeed, NO $5,000 range will capture a majority of facilities within the CUNY Senior College system. There is too much variation within the CUNY schools' average salaries.

Again, what kind of evidence do you want?

Evidence that fucking supports the claims that you evidently pulled out of your ass. You made the claims. You back them up. Show the elasticity of demand for colleges with respect to tuition. Correlate college applications or attendance or what-have-you with average cost of attendance. Show SOMETHING that indicates that these anecdotes you cling to (assuming that they're even true) are anything but extraordinary outliers.

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?

Of course I do: as well they should. It's a statement that you can't lump all of the CUNY system together for purposes of reputation when obviously their senior colleges are vastly different from their community college program with its retarded open-admit policy.

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.

Hunter is ranked second nationally in terms of value and Brooklyn is ranked eighth by Princeton Review (out of almost 400 institutions). OOOH! Big difference.

As for their quality of student, though, Brooklyn College admits fully ten percent more of its applicant pool than Hunter College (40% vs. 30%). It also trails in both ends of the SAT range (25th-75th percentiles for SAT verbal are 450-560 vs. 480-580 and for math it's 490-590 vs. 500-600). Overall, in terms of selectivity, Hunter is in the top 7% while Brooklyn is only in the top 16%. Hunter enjoys slight advantages in numerous other categories, and since these aren't top-10 schools overall, that's more than enough to explain a big difference in rankings (since the gap between institutions is largest at the tails). Source for Hunter and [url=http://www.citytowninfo.com/school-prof ... yn-college].

Incidentally, given that Hunter college ranks in the top 6% of institutions nationally in terms of salary, and Brooklyn is in the top 8%, it sort of puts the lie to your claims that these schools enjoy a spectacular cost-advantage over private institutions nationally in the realm of faculty salaries, don't you think?

[Alphawolf55]

That is absolutely not what they said. Once again, you're completely ignoring the availability of no-cosigner loans for students, which any google search will show exist.

can you please just show me these reputable private no signer loans then that don't require income or a good credit score?

" Without a credit check you would need to find a credit-worthy co-signer. No reputable lender will just agree to a student loan without first checking into your financial history; so avoid any company that says it would."

They say without good credit, you'll need a cosigner,if you lack both then what?

"Which I did. I simply re-weighted them to average the salaries of professors by institution rather than by professor (because the largest private schools all happen to be the ones that pay the highest salaries) to show that the private schools are NOT paying more than CUNY schools for professors. They're very comparable.

I'm sorry It might be because I haven't slept for two days, but I'm confused by your statement. You reweighted the salary of professors by the school rather then judging the salary of the professor by the professor?.

"Hunter is ranked second nationally in terms of value and Brooklyn is ranked eighth by Princeton Review (out of almost 400 institutions). OOOH! Big difference.

As for their quality of student, though, Brooklyn College admits fully ten percent more of its applicant pool than Hunter College (40% vs. 30%). It also trails in both ends of the SAT range (25th-75th percentiles for SAT verbal are 450-560 vs. 480-580 and for math it's 490-590 vs. 500-600). Overall, in terms of selectivity, Hunter is in the top 7% while Brooklyn is only in the top 16%. Hunter enjoys slight advantages in numerous other categories, and since these aren't top-10 schools overall, that's more than enough to explain a big difference in rankings (since the gap between institutions is largest at the tails). Source for Hunter and [url=http://www.citytowninfo.com/school-prof ... yn-college]..

Hunter is ranked 38 overall I believe and Brooklyn COllege is ranked 63. Also you admit, the difference isn't really that large. That's my point, one college can be ranked 9.7 out of ten, another 9.6 yet have 20 ranks different.

"Of course I do: as well they should. It's a statement that you can't lump all of the CUNY system together for purposes of reputation when obviously their senior colleges are vastly different from their community college program with its retarded open-admit policy.

Okay now I got you. See we misunderstood each other. I've only been talking about the Senior Colleges, which still have a fairly open admit policy, at least compared to alot of schools especially if you're trying to transfer, thus alot of lower quality students graduate from the system. My point is that CUNYs have a good reputation in academic circles which is why their graduates with high grades get into good graduate programs (for example my girlfriends sister got into Columbia through Hunter). But the schools have a reputation among alot of people for being for lower quality students, that's alot of people look down on them. When you get outside the city, alot of people mistake the name into believing it's like a community college (they don't understand that NYC has the resources of several states and thus their colleges should be treated like state universities)

"Evidence that fucking supports the claims that you evidently pulled out of your ass. You made the claims. You back them up. Show the elasticity of demand for colleges with respect to tuition. Correlate college applications or attendance or what-have-you with average cost of attendance. Show SOMETHING that indicates that these anecdotes you cling to (assuming that they're even true) are anything but extraordinary outliers..

Wait are you changing what you're asking? You were asking before for me to prove that CUNY's aren't given proper respect by the private sector, now you want me to correlate tuition price with job finding?

I'm not saying how much your college cost will determine your job, your employer isn't going to know how much you paid for college. I said at one point that people sometimes write off cheap colleges as lesser quality because of their price. UMass is cheap but also very well respected in both academics in private circles, so I could never prove that.

The reason I'm asking is what kind of proof you want because there are different typwes of evidence one could go by. Do you want like asurvey of business leaders? The opinion of the officials heading the schools? Or numbers showing how well graduates do when they get out of CUNY? The only problem with the latter is that the lower quality students (Which the CUNY Have alot of) will defintely lower the numbers quite a bit, and I feel like you're arguing that the higher class students are respected, so I don't feel like it'd be fair to use something like that. I'm asking, what would you consider to be something accurate and fair for such a diverse college?

"I consider a >50% difference in salary to be "huge" for comparable schools within the same system. The average full-time faculty member of Graduate Center is paid over $97,000 per year. The average at NYC Tech is a little over $64,000. Indeed, NO $5,000 range will capture a majority of facilities within the CUNY Senior College system. There is too much variation within the CUNY schools' average salaries.

Is that really fair though? The Graduate Center might be listed with the Senior Colleges, but it's not like the other colleges. It's not undergrad like most of the others but mostly doctoral and master programs, it has far less associative and assistanting professors, it's going to have a higher salary. Granted even if you disclude that, the City and Baruch seem pay almost 10,000 better then some other Manhattan School based schools when it comes to overall faculty. Baruch might be because it's a more specialized school focused strongly on business, I'll admit I have no idea whats up with City though, I mean it's the oldest with the most money but I doubt that has anything to do with it Even so, the CUNYs are still paying less on average when you compare schools of similiar size.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding me. I never said or at least meant that switching to a federally controlled system would lower tuition dramatically right away. I was saying that schools are going through constant inflation and that a federally controlled school system might be better at controlling that then a privately controlled college system.

Granted shouldn't we be comparing expenditures as a whole of CUNY vs expenditures as a whole of similiar private schools?

[K. A. Pital]

Realistically, you can't make university education completely free to the general public without imposing some other limits on entry.

What's wrong with good old exams? Exams are a better way to gauge whether a person is even qualified (or capable) to get a higher education. If you fail the exams, your intellect is clearly lacking and you can't get the education. On the other hand, if there are no or few entry tests, but a lot of monetary requirements, that makes it possible for rich idiots to get the education they want. Which is not good.

[Master of Ossus]

can you please just show me these reputable private no signer loans then that don't require income or a good credit score?

" Without a credit check you would need to find a credit-worthy co-signer. No reputable lender will just agree to a student loan without first checking into your financial history; so avoid any company that says it would."

They say without good credit, you'll need a cosigner,if you lack both then what?

Way to check up on the unsupported claims of second-hand information. Do you know how to use a computer?

I'm sorry It might be because I haven't slept for two days, but I'm confused by your statement. You reweighted the salary of professors by the school rather then judging the salary of the professor by the professor?

Yes. The average salary paid to the average professor at the private colleges is only higher than the average CUNY system to which they were compared because the highest-paying private colleges are by far the largest two, and their high salaries swamp the much lower paying majority of the institutions. When you just average the average salary paid by the private institutions, the private institutions pay lower salaries than CUNY (with the exception of Teaching College, since it doesn't hire associate or assistant professors). Precisely the same thing is true with the religious schools--the highest paying institutions are also the largest. When you eliminate the bias caused by the number of professors, again the religious schools come out with lower average salaries than CUNY. In fact, even with that bias, they're barely more than CUNY.

Hunter is ranked 38 overall I believe and Brooklyn COllege is ranked 63. Also you admit, the difference isn't really that large. That's my point, one college can be ranked 9.7 out of ten, another 9.6 yet have 20 ranks different.

True. When you're smack dab in the middle of a bell curve, tiny differences in the trait can lead to large differences in ranking. That's not an issue with the ranking system itself (or the Bell Curve). It's a statement that in the middle of a curve, the observations will be close together. Only at the edges do you get wild differences reflected in ranks. (This is confirmed because, while the ranks of schools in the middle change pretty regularly, the very top schools have been quite stable over the years--so, e.g., Yale Law can be a lot better than Harvard Law, even though they're ranked #1 and #2, and so over 15 years Yale might always be ranked #1, even though it would be very unusual for a school to be ranked #50 for several years in a row just because of more-or-less random variations in the observations of the ranker). This is inherent in a ranking system, though. It's not something that you can get rid of by using a different methodology, provided that you're still trying to place schools in rank-order.

Okay now I got you. See we misunderstood each other. I've only been talking about the Senior Colleges, which still have a fairly open admit policy, at least compared to alot of schools especially if you're trying to transfer, thus alot of lower quality students graduate from the system.

What? They do? These colleges are in many cases ranked among the top-20% of selectivity in schools.

My point is that CUNYs have a good reputation in academic circles which is why their graduates with high grades get into good graduate programs (for example my girlfriends sister got into Columbia through Hunter). But the schools have a reputation among alot of people for being for lower quality students, that's alot of people look down on them. When you get outside the city, alot of people mistake the name into believing it's like a community college (they don't understand that NYC has the resources of several states and thus their colleges should be treated like state universities)

Does it not occur to you that academic graduate programs have different requirements in incoming students than employers do in recent graduates? It's easily possible for a school with an excellent program for getting people into graduate schools could simultaneously output relatively weak candidates for jobs, particularly given an open-admit policy (which, again, I'm very surprised that they have).

Wait are you changing what you're asking? You were asking before for me to prove that CUNY's aren't given proper respect by the private sector, now you want me to correlate tuition price with job finding?

It's hardly "changing what [I'm] asking." You've made all of these claims, and you haven't supported any of them. You've failed to show even fundamental aspects of your original claim: that government-overseen schools enjoy substantial cost advantages over purely private ones, for example.

The reason I'm asking is what kind of proof you want because there are different typwes of evidence one could go by. Do you want like asurvey of business leaders? The opinion of the officials heading the schools? Or numbers showing how well graduates do when they get out of CUNY? The only problem with the latter is that the lower quality students (Which the CUNY Have alot of) will defintely lower the numbers quite a bit, and I feel like you're arguing that the higher class students are respected, so I don't feel like it'd be fair to use something like that. I'm asking, what would you consider to be something accurate and fair for such a diverse college?

So what you're saying is that institutions should be graded based on the highest-quality students they graduate, rather than on typical students? That's ridiculous. Statistics on the performance of students vs. their outcome is obviously a better way to measure the perception of quality of the institution.

Is that really fair though? The Graduate Center might be listed with the Senior Colleges, but it's not like the other colleges. It's not undergrad like most of the others but mostly doctoral and master programs, it has far less associative and assistanting professors, it's going to have a higher salary. Granted even if you disclude that, the City and Baruch seem pay almost 10,000 better then some other Manhattan School based schools when it comes to overall faculty. Baruch might be because it's a more specialized school focused strongly on business, I'll admit I have no idea whats up with City though, I mean it's the oldest with the most money but I doubt that has anything to do with it Even so, the CUNYs are still paying less on average when you compare schools of similiar size.

No, they're not. Hunter College is in the top-6% of institutions nationwide, in terms of faculty pay. Brooklyn's in the top-8%. City College is in the top-5%.

And, again, even ignoring Graduate Center, City and is still paying roughly 25% more than NYC Tech. Again, this isn't indicative of a government-overseen system enjoying big cost-advantages over private institutions.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding me. I never said or at least meant that switching to a federally controlled system would lower tuition dramatically right away. I was saying that schools are going through constant inflation and that a federally controlled school system might be better at controlling that then a privately controlled college system.

Evidence? I've explained, with support, that the main driving factors behind the increase in costs of attendance are higher lab costs and higher education-related expenses. Those aren't things that the government can control through oversight.

Granted shouldn't we be comparing expenditures as a whole of CUNY vs expenditures as a whole of similiar private schools?

Why would the difference matter? I don't follow.

[Skgoa]

Realistically, you can't make university education completely free to the general public without imposing some other limits on entry.

What's wrong with good old exams? Exams are a better way to gauge whether a person is even qualified (or capable) to get a higher education. If you fail the exams, your intellect is clearly lacking and you can't get the education. On the other hand, if there are no or few entry tests, but a lot of monetary requirements, that makes it possible for rich idiots to get the education they want. Which is not good.

In Germany you have to get a high school diploma, though many universities offer entrance exams, too. There are a few fields you can only get into, if you had good grades or waited for a while. Medicine is the prime example, there are just to many people who want to study that. Note however, that people can still attend the lectures and learn, they just don't get credit for it.

[Alphawolf55]

Way to check up on the unsupported claims of second-hand information. Do you know how to use a computer?

I'm confused, did you link the right page? If you click apply, it immediately says you need a cosigner on the second page, andit says so on the front that you, your credit to be in good standing.

Does it not occur to you that academic graduate programs have different requirements in incoming students than employers do in recent graduates? It's easily possible for a school with an excellent program for getting people into graduate schools could simultaneously output relatively weak candidates for jobs, particularly given an open-admit policy (which, again, I'm very surprised that they have)

It could but it wouldn't change that the schools has good rankings on paper but not be seen as high itself.

So what you're saying is that institutions should be graded based on the highest-quality students they graduate, rather than on typical students? That's ridiculous. Statistics on the performance of students vs. their outcome is obviously a better way to measure the perception of quality of the institution.

No I'm saying you might say that and if you did, it wouldn't be ridiculous.

Why would the difference matter? I don't follow.

Faculty in this comparison covers professors, but we should consider the cost of janitors, grounds keepers, building upkeep, cafeteria workers.

Additionally, CUNY only hashigher paid if you disclude the top branch and include a mean rather then a median since Wagner and Touro havesuch lower numbers.

[Archaic`]

Realistically, you can't make university education completely free to the general public without imposing some other limits on entry.

What's wrong with good old exams? Exams are a better way to gauge whether a person is even qualified (or capable) to get a higher education. If you fail the exams, your intellect is clearly lacking and you can't get the education. On the other hand, if there are no or few entry tests, but a lot of monetary requirements, that makes it possible for rich idiots to get the education they want. Which is not good.

Nothing wrong with it at all, though very troublesome and logistically unwieldy for any university running them now, realistically. Not to mention a pain in the arse for students who may need to sit multiple university entrance exams all around the same period, as a just in case against not getting into their 1st choice of uni. Integrating it into the High School system has worked well here, so that the exams are standardised for each state and run by the government, but our education isn't exactly free either.

[xt828]

It's widely seen by the year 13s as free, in that they're not immediately out of pocket for it, and if they get around to nationally standardising the end of high school testing then that'll really get the system on a good footing.