|
yet the country leading the world in economy (EDIT- soon to be leading) and education is heavily statis
that country wouldn't happen to have a quarter of the worlds population, would it? perhaps that accounts for the wealth they are creating. meanwhile a nation that has < 25% of their population, which for a long time practiced laissez-faire capitalism, still creates more wealth every year. And as far as conditions of people are concerned, I'd much rather live in Hong Kong (bastion of laissez-faire) than China.
|
Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 in student loans to help finance her business-management degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a good investment will delay her career, her marriage and decision to have children.
Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time. - Mod Edit -
If you would like to read the article that this poster copy/pasted in its entirety, check it out on the Wall Street Journal's website.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 19 2012 03:22 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:59 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 02:48 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:20 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 01:57 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 01:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 00:13 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 00:00 Equity213 wrote:On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils. I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering. That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve. Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label. You are quite right. My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue. On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually. Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids. There is also different models Montessori amongst others. I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case. I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts. Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare. It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible.
Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide).
It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide.
Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools.
|
Actually I think all student loans owed to the government should be forgiven.
|
On April 18 2012 09:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: i dont like it. no one forgave my parents student loans that they spent years working off, so why does anyone else deserve it? balderdash.
Someone cut me with a knife!, I think you deserve to be cut with a knife too! What kind of logic is that! o.o
|
On April 19 2012 03:37 logikly wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Between the ages of 18 and 22, Jodi Romine took out $74,000 in student loans to help finance her business-management degree at Kent State University in Ohio. What seemed like a good investment will delay her career, her marriage and decision to have children.
Ms. Romine's $900-a-month loan payments eat up 60% of the paycheck she earns as a bank teller in Beaufort, S.C., the best job she could get after graduating in 2008. Her fiancé Dean Hawkins, 31, spends 40% of his paycheck on student loans. They each work more than 60 hours a week. He teaches as well as coaches high-school baseball and football teams, studies in a full-time master's degree program, and moonlights weekends as a server at a restaurant. Ms. Romine, now 26, also works a second job, as a waitress. She is making all her loan payments on time.
They can't buy a house, visit their families in Ohio as often as they would like or spend money on dates. Plans to marry or have children are on hold, says Ms. Romine. "I'm just looking for some way to manage my finances."
High school's Class of 2012 is getting ready for college, with students in their late teens and early 20s facing one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make.
Total U.S. student-loan debt outstanding topped $1 trillion last year, according to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it continues to rise as current students borrow more and past students fall behind on payments. Moody's Investors Service says borrowers with private student loans are defaulting or falling behind on payments at twice prerecession rates.
Most students get little help from colleges in choosing loans or calculating payments. Most pre-loan counseling for government loans is done online, and many students pay only fleeting attention to documents from private lenders. Many borrowers "are very confused, and don't have a good sense of what they've taken on," says Deanne Loonin, an attorney for the National Consumer Law Center in Boston and head of its Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project.
Enlarge Image
Jon Lowenstein/NOOR for The Wall Street Journal Danielle Jokela will have paid $211,000 for $79,000 in student loans by the time the debt is paid off in 25 years.
More than half of student borrowers fail to max out government loans before taking out riskier private loans, according to research by the nonprofit Project on Student Debt. In 2006, Barnard College, in New York, started one-on-one counseling for students applying for private loans. Students borrowing from private lenders dropped 74% the next year, says Nanette DiLauro, director of financial aid. In 2007, Mount Holyoke College started a similar program, and half the students who received counseling changed their borrowing plans, says Gail W. Holt, a financial-services official at the Massachusetts school. San Diego State University started counseling and tracking student borrowers in 2010 and has seen private loans decline.
The implications last a lifetime. A recent survey by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys says members are seeing a big increase in people whose student loans are forcing them to delay major purchases or starting families.
Looking back, Ms. Romine wishes she had taken only "a bare minimum" of student loans. She paid some of her costs during college by working part time as a waitress. Now, she wishes she had worked even more. Given a second chance, "I would never have touched a private loan—ever," she says.
Ms. Romine hopes to solve the problem by advancing her career. At the bank where she works, a former supervisor says she is a hard working, highly capable employee. "Jodi is doing the best she can," says Michael Matthews, a Beaufort, S.C., bankruptcy attorney who is familiar with Ms. Romine's situation. "But she will be behind the eight-ball for years."
Private student loans often carry uncapped, variable interest rates and aren't required to include flexible repayment options. In contrast, government loans offer fixed interest rates and flexible options, such as income-based repayment and deferral for hardship or public service.
Steep increases in college costs are to blame for the student-loan debt burden, and most student loans are now made by the government, says Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, a private lenders' industry group.
Many private lenders encourage students to plan ahead on how to finance college, so "your eyes are open on what it's going to cost you and how you will manage that," says a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, a Reston, Va., student-loan concern. Federal rules implemented in 2009 require lenders to make a series of disclosures to borrowers, so that "you are made aware multiple times before the loan is disbursed" of various lending options, the spokeswoman says.
Both private and government loans, however, lack "the most fundamental protections we take for granted with every other type of loan," says Alan Collinge, founder of StudentLoanJustice.org, an advocacy group. When borrowers default, collection agencies can hound them for life, because unlike other kinds of debt, there is no statute of limitations on collections. And while other kinds of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, student loans must still be paid barring "undue hardship," a legal test that most courts have interpreted very narrowly.
Work & Family Mailbox
Columnist Sue Shellenbarger answers readers' questions Deferring payments to avoid default is costly, too. Danielle Jokela of Chicago earned a two-year degree and worked for a while to build savings before deciding to pursue a dream by enrolling at age 25 at a private, for-profit college in Chicago to study interior design. The college's staff helped her fill out applications for $79,000 in government and private loans. "I had no clue" about likely future earnings or the size of future payments, which ballooned by her 2008 graduation to more than $100,000 after interest and fees.
She couldn't find a job as an interior designer and twice had to ask lenders to defer payments for a few months. After interest plus forbearance fees that were added to the loans, she still owes $98,000, even after making payments for most of five years, says Ms. Jokela, 32, who is working as an independent contractor doing administrative tasks for a construction company.
By the time she pays off the loans 25 years from now, she will have paid $211,000. In an attempt to build savings, she and her husband, Mike, 32, a customer-service specialist, are selling their condo. Renting an apartment will save $600 a month. Ms. Jokela has given up on her hopes of getting an M.B.A., starting her own interior-design firm or having children. "How could I consider having children if I can barely support myself?" she says.
When Debt Takes Over Potential consequences of taking out too many student loans
--Delays in buying a car or purchasing a home
--Postponement of marriage and childbirth for financial reasons
--Parents feel pressure to take out loans or otherwise help with payments
--Risk for parents who co-sign loans of losing homes, cars and other assets
--Little ability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy
--Inability to get credit cards or home or car loans
--Inability to rent a home because of high debt-to-income ratio
--Being forced to deal with private collection agencies in the event of default
--Having liens placed on bank accounts or property in a default*
--Facing collection fees of 25% of amount owed in a default
--No statute of limitations on collection efforts
--Having wages garnisheed
--Possible loss of state-issued professional licenses
--Reduction of Social Security payments**
--Seizure of tax refund**
*Used primarily by private lenders
**Government loans only
Source: WSJ reporting/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304818404577350030559887086.html
Write to Sue Shellenbarger at sue.shellenbarger@wsj.com
What a terrible terrible post. wall of text, anecdote poorly copied and pasted without any content of your own. Edit to be a link or hidden in spoiler please.
|
College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
|
On April 19 2012 03:00 zhenherald wrote: Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count.
This type of thought process is the same one that fuels the notion that it is worthless to explore astrophysics. Just because a degree gives you no workplace skills does not mean you should not pursue it. The acquisition of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is one of the most noble human traits, and if we reduce higher education to workplace education, then we're basically eliminating our capacity to dream and advance as a society.
And for reference, I studied engineering. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my hero.
|
I don't like it. This is a law aiming at the curing the symptoms but not the ailement itself.
As for the content of the law... has anybody calculated it through already? If it's 10 percent for 10 years, how much can the state expect the average student to pay back? How much would the state have to subsitute for him? In Germany, there the system is like you have to pay everything back that was given to you as a credit, but there are no interests (and ofc they don't expect you to use up 60% of your income for monthly paybacks). If you finish with a good score and reasonably fast, you even get part of the debt annulled. What about such a system?
|
On April 19 2012 03:54 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 03:00 zhenherald wrote: Im sorry but this is redicoullous. all this bill will do is encourage the prevailing trend of students going to university for useless programs (art history etc) and rack up huge debt learning stuff that isn't useful in a work environment. And no, sounding cool at Starbucks while you make cofee doesnt count. This type of thought process is the same one that fuels the notion that it is worthless to explore astrophysics. Just because a degree gives you no workplace skills does not mean you should not pursue it. The acquisition of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is one of the most noble human traits, and if we reduce higher education to workplace education, then we're basically eliminating our capacity to dream and advance as a society. And for reference, I studied engineering. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my hero. If a student wishes to study art history for their own entertainment and not apply it at work that is their own business and I applaud them, so long as they do not expect the rest of us to pay for it.
There are two kinds of education: There is universal education that the government pays for. There is private education that the customer pays for.
Creating a system where society selects those who are already most likely to succeed and confers an even greater advantage upon them while forcing everyone to pay is about as regressive as it gets.
If college were universal, then I would be fine with having the government pay, but when only the top 3rd are fortunate enough to get a full college education and when they already out earn those without degrees by $20K/year I see no reason why the government should subsidize them, when there are plenty of poor that need help.
|
On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison.
do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs.
|
On April 18 2012 17:10 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote:Commence Rant/ Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America. Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries. source: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htmFor myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance. So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit. /End Rant Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first?
Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
|
I've read through 7 pages of this thread, and it seems the arguments against it are either about the proper role of government(lol) or something about government spending.
Does anybody have an argument against it outside of an idealist framework? Seriously, nothing here is about to demonstrate that this is a bad idea.
Also,
On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools. This is poorly reasoned. Just because there are inefficiencies within public schools, it doesn't follow that home schooling is as good as, or better than, public schools.
|
On April 19 2012 04:04 BlueRoyaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison. do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs. The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
|
On April 19 2012 04:25 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:04 BlueRoyaL wrote:On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison. do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs. The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more.
Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads.
|
On April 19 2012 03:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 03:22 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:59 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 02:48 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:20 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 01:57 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 01:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 00:13 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 00:00 Equity213 wrote:On April 18 2012 23:53 LaNague wrote: studying should be free, thankfully it basically is in my region in germany, just got to pay some fee that everyone has to pay that pays for social stuff like food and transportation.
The teaching part of a university is NOT expensive, buy one cruise missile less and you payed it for a few thousand people for a year.
look at this... "lucky to go to college", sounds like medieval times oO Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils. I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering. That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve. Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label. You are quite right. My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue. On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually. Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids. There is also different models Montessori amongst others. I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case. I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts. Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare. It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible. Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide). Show nested quote +It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools. The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already.
As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below.
And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field.
All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective.
|
On April 19 2012 04:31 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:25 meadbert wrote:On April 19 2012 04:04 BlueRoyaL wrote:On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison. do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs. The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more. Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads. This isn't about mere assets or debts, it is also vastly more about the ability for the two respective parties to repay their debts/loans and to have a good standard of living.
Short and long term non-graduates will have it worse off( I think their rate of unemployment is about ~6% higher than college graduates across most time periods) both in terms of getting a job, keeping a job, and the earning potential of said job.
Additionally, if your argument was to be correct, then we'd likely see fewer and fewer people attempting to pursue a college degree. If it wasn't net-beneficial to an individual to graduate from college during a recession, then our college enrollment rates wouldn't be at an all-time high, as the costs for going to college would outweigh any benefits.
|
On April 19 2012 04:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 03:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 03:22 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:59 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 02:48 mcc wrote:On April 19 2012 02:20 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 01:57 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 01:44 TheAngryZergling wrote:On April 19 2012 00:13 Talin wrote:On April 19 2012 00:00 Equity213 wrote: [quote]
Socialists (i dont mean that as an insult) always defend their programs by saying "its better than guns and bombs". Well thats true, but it still doesnt make it right. Its still selfishly squandering the resources of this world, stealing from society to build things THEY think are good. Your just offering up the lesser of two evils. I just can't wrap my head around how having your population properly educated translates to selfishly squandering resources of the world and an "evil" in yours. Equating "properly educated" with going to a 4 year college would definitely lead to massive resource squandering. That's a fair point, however the quality of pre-college education is rather poor as well, so either way the money to have your people "properly" educated (however you define it) would have to go somewhere and come from somewhere - so in the end you have the same problem you need to solve. Also relative to how resources are being squandered and what they're being squandered on, no investment in education, no matter how irrational, would be deserving of that label. You are quite right. My personal (and absurd) point of view is that in order to make big investments in education pay off we would first need an effort to try to shape public opinion to have more value placed on stronger relationships between parents and their children (more investment of parents' discretionary time into their kids lives primarily, but not exclusively, in regards to education). Unsurprisingly, I don't have half a clue what to suggest to improve that but I'd happily accept a tax rate of 70% if needed to implement a solution to that issue. On April 19 2012 02:01 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The real problem with education comes from having a state monopoly on K-12. First of all I think it's very easy to educate yourself without relying on an institution to do the heavy lifting for you. One can easily obtain the work of any significant thinker online or @ a book store. But having a government monopoly on primary and secondary education leads to terrible results. Virtually all schools have the same authoritarian model. Kids sit @ a desk and listen to a teacher talk, scribble notes furiously and do BS assignments. They are punished if they are not totally obedient and subservient to the teacher. Whatever merit this model may have for conditioning us towards obedience and becoming little solider / worker drones it certainly does not unleash the inherent creative capacity we are all born with. What we should have is choice and competition. Have tons of different schools with tons of different approaches to how the kids are taught, what they are taught, the structure etc. This would result naturally if there were a free market in education instead of a government monopoly. We understand implicitly that the government is incapable of handling the food supply, that if we had a government monopoly on food people would starve to death or at least eat moldly bread that you have to wait in line for. The same thing happens in education, children starve intellectually. Except that thankfully there isn't a state monopoly on K-12. I have always planned on homeschooling my kids. There is also different models Montessori amongst others. I could somewhat understand homeschooling if there is not any decent public school in reach (although moving elsewhere seems to be better solution), but if there is even half-decent school it is a bad idea to homeschool. Are you at least a teacher, do you have good (as in college level) konwledge of math, physics, chemistry ? If not, you would be doing your kids a disservice. Or maybe US schools are terrible, but you can still help your kids after school if that is the case. I appreciate your concern. My wife went to a 4 year uni for Elementary education. I have a college level grasp of math & physics. Regardless of these qualifications I believe homeschooling is better because mass education can't compete with 1 on 1 interaction where the teacher has a huge personal investment in the results of their efforts. Perhaps it is true that US schools are terrible and Czech schools have achieved the order of magnitude greater efficiency and efficacy required overcome to distinction I listed. I've only seen what happens in and the results of US schools. I certainly think US schools are terrible to the point where I view their merits as only minimally more than being a daycare. It should not be regardless of those qualifications. Without them it would just be a bad idea. It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. And considering stories from people going on "exchange" programs to US high schools I am inclined to believe that some US schools may be so terrible. Aside from (to one degree or another) having to limit educational progress to the lowest common denominator I would find it hard to believe that any teacher even with a masters degree in both education and their specific subject would be able to answer on the spot all questions their students may have. I don't think even a college education would provide such capable and immaculately rounded teachers. Not even close. However, with 1 on 1 education the instructor can look up every question the student would ask (at least until they reach a level of knowledge light years beyond what they would a standards defined and guided education could provide). It still is suspect idea as homeschooling does not serve in other functions beside academic education that schools should provide. Of course homeschooling can't serve all the functions that schools provide. But schools aren't the only place that those functions can be provided. Homeschooled kids can still play sports, be in band, hang out with friends, be exposed to a wide variety of positive and negative social experiences, and be exposed to difficult, potentially conflicting world views & beliefs.Those are all certainly important just don't need to be provided by the long time wasting process that are our schools. The problem is not actually looking for an answer, but knowing what to look for and understanding it to properly dumb the answer down to appropriate level. That is hard to do without having some level of knowledge already. As for basic schools and wasting time. For most children there is "age-appropriate" knowledge and thus the speeding up the process is not really possible/wanted. And for children that could go faster it would mean separating them from their peers and that is also not the greatest solution. So there is no problem with inefficiency as speeding things up is not really useful. For those kids that parents want to learn more, there is always enough time after school. Of course best possible solution would be public schools where kids would be n on 1 with a teacher (n very low). Some group homeschooling could partially simulate it, but not completely, see below. And after basic school, there should be separation between people based on skills as one speed is no longer viable. But at that point, where homeschooling would actually had biggest benefits, homeschooling is completely out of question unless the parent studied the same field. All those social experiences are extremely hard to replicate in ways you describe, not impossible, but very hard. The point is to make the child used to people of as many different backgrounds, characters,... as possible. Real public schools in cities do that rather well, but the activities you describe are more often than not rather selective. I met a lot more varied and interesting people homeschooling than I ever did in public school. I also got a lot more out of it academically than I did from public school. Although I'll agree that homeschooling can't work for everyone, I disagree with a lot of the generalizations you make.
Also, mcc, heads up, you're at 2499 :D
|
On April 19 2012 04:21 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 17:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 18 2012 16:42 NEOtheONE wrote:Commence Rant/ Education is grossly overcharged. It is utterly preposterous what we have to pay on average here in America. Expenses, Tuition Fee & Living Costs
US Universities fall under two major categories: public (state supported), and private (independent) institutions. International students’ tuition expenses at state schools are based on nonresident costs, which are still usually less expensive than those of private universities. It’s important to note that the cost of a program in a US school does not necessarily affect its quality. A brief idea can be got from the following table:
University Type Average Tuition Fees (annual in U.S. Dollars) Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 15,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 20,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 10,000 The tuition fee is different for different universities and varies widely with courses. It can vary from as low as $ 5000 a year for state universities to as much as $ 30000 per annum for some private universities. For more specific details, please contact the universities.
Living Expenses
The approximate annual living expenses are about $10,000, which includes accommodation as well as other daily expenses. However, the expenses are different for different people depending on the lifestyles and this is just a rough idea. The main expenses can be split up as:
Rent $ 400 per month (you can live alone with that amount in a place like Auburn or share an apartment with 6 people in NY) Groceries $ 100 per month Utilities $ 100 per month Phone $ 100 per month Sundry $ 200 per month So, about $1000 per month is a good estimation. Most people can survive with $700-$1000 a month. The key here is to share apartments/houses so that you save on the utilities, fixed charge portion of phone and to some extent on groceries. source: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htmFor myself, I went to a private institution and lived there. So tuition +room +board was approximately $29,000 per year. I received a scholarship for $8500 per year and a grant of $4500 per year. The other $16,000 per year came in the form of loans split between my parents and myself. Tack on 3 years of graduate school for my Masters degree in Counseling and I am looking at $60,000 that I personally owe (before interest). I am greatly in favor of the idea of not having to pay back the full $60,000 plus interest over a 10-15 year period (which makes the $60,000 turn into more like $90,000-100,000). In addition to that debt, I have to obtain and maintain my license to practice counseling, which there are two levels of and I have to pay someone to supervise me 1 hour per week (which could cost anywhere from $40 to $140 per week) while I accumulate 1900 hours of counseling work (that's about 2 years working full time so 104 weeks ish minimum) to obtain the second level of licensure so I can work with people who have insurance. So it's fair for me to shell out all this money just to help people, but it's ignorant to ask the government to make paying it back a little more reasonable? I call bullshit. /End Rant Isn't it your fault you went to get your masters before getting a job first? Wow, the level of ignorance in this thread. The year before I graduated college is when the enconomy started to tank so when I graduated we were full into the recession. I wanted to get my masters because in order to be a counselor you are REQUIRED to have Masters degree and a license from the state. I tried to get a job anywhere at all so i could work while getting my degree, but I was unable to get so much as an interview. I even talked to a career counselor and redid my resume and still did not find a job. So I focused on getting my Masters. Thankfully, I just got a Graduate Assistantship, which is paying for this and next semester as well as giving me some pocket money, but I am getting laid off in the fall so they can hire someone full time, so it's back to taking one last loan. Also, I start my 600 hour internship this summer (20 hours per week UNPAID), which makes getting a job for one semester in the fall really impractical.
You tried getting a job anywhere at all and you couldn't with a bachelors? How many interviews did you go to, and how many places did you apply to senior year? Maybe you should have taken some time off before getting your masters?
Talking to your counselor is usually something you do your junior year, when you're looking for internships, not senior year.
What it sounds like to me is that all the people who can't find jobs, or even get interviews, are in this situation because they didn't work hard enough during school, or didn't do the research needed. I don't go to an ivy league school, I didn't have any internship (because I worked two jobs during college), and got plenty of interviews, and I honestly didn't even apply to THAT many (maybe 100 total). I'm not going to deny it, the process was fairly brutal, considering how selective they can be due to only hiring a few people, but my god, if you had at least a 3.4 GPA in a non-worthless major and you can't get any interviews... it's either the school you attended or you're doing something wrong.
On April 19 2012 04:31 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:25 meadbert wrote:On April 19 2012 04:04 BlueRoyaL wrote:On April 19 2012 03:53 meadbert wrote: College grads make an extra $20K/year over those with just high school degrees. That is $500K over 25 years. I am okay with $200K of that going to pay back student loans.
this is the biggest bullshit statement. it may have some truth statistically but its so stupid to make that kind of comparison. do you realize how difficult it is for recent college graduates to find a job, period? even people that graduated with strong majors have difficulties finding jobs. The economy sucks and we all are suffering, but however bad it seems as a college graduate, those without degrees are suffering worse and need help more. Right because those without a college degree are over $60,000 in debt (which absolutely must be paid back) on top of house/car loans. So while the non-graduates are struggling to put food on the table, the graduates are struggling to put food on the table and have a huge debt weighing over their heads.
Why the heck do you have a car loan and house loan if couldn't find a job? lolz wtf?!
Instead, you should rent somewhere cheap, with roommates, and buy a cheap, used car, if you don't have the money to support what you want. Simple as that.
|
As a future grad student who is going to be going into 300k+ debt, I can easily say that it's simply ridiculous how high tuition and interest rates are. If they are going to be putting us this deep into the hole, they need more programs that offer loan forgiveness. Signed the petition. You don't truly appreciate how much debt, work, time, effort it all is until you actually go into that much debt yourself. Support this.
|
|
|
|
|
|