|
On December 13 2012 12:04 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet... Well, look at Japan. Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China. Results? Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt. If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better. A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses. Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system. Well, generally Japan is the shining example, the summit of economics. Obviously it would be nice to be them, relatively homogenous, non adversarial, longer hours and so forth but I'm just not sure this is really possible for the hulking mass of multiculturalism and regional differences that is the U.S. Any general thoughts on how to overhaul the US education system? I mean collegiate wise, the answers for overhauling the K-8 system are a little more apparent and would be controversial over here (a flexible, but rigorous nationally mandated curriculum, cutting back of books and longer hours would hit nerves of both liberals, conservatives and corps unfortunately).
Japan is also one of the most depressed nations in the world. And yeah, as mentioned, extremely long hours, insanely high pressure....
|
On December 13 2012 12:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 12:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet... Well, look at Japan. Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China. Results? Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt. If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better. A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses. Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system. Well, generally Japan is the shining example, the summit of economics. Obviously it would be nice to be them, relatively homogenous, non adversarial, longer hours and so forth but I'm just not sure this is really possible for the hulking mass of multiculturalism and regional differences that is the U.S. Any general thoughts on how to overhaul the US education system? I mean collegiate wise, the answers for overhauling the K-8 system are a little more apparent and would be controversial over here (a flexible, but rigorous nationally mandated curriculum, cutting back of books and longer hours would hit nerves of both liberals, conservatives and corps unfortunately). Japan is also one of the most depressed nations in the world. And yeah, as mentioned, extremely long hours, insanely high pressure....
I think that a much better example for "success" would be Sweden.
Higher GDP per capita than Japan. Higher standard of living than Japan. Almost matches longevity of Japan.
Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries in the world.
Much lower suicide rate.
Free/dirt cheap education from primary through postgraduate . . . . lol
|
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
|
On December 12 2012 12:10 Pseudoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 12:05 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 11:51 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 11:35 sam!zdat wrote:
In this case, that will happen when students start defaulting on their debt, die without paying it, and so on. Well you can't default on student debt, and most students don't die for many decades after they go to college, so this doesn't seem like a looming bubble to me. Well, with any luck, that won't be the case with more fair student credit considerations. I would be interested to hear of a proposed system that is balanced in that it does not make student debt into a noose around your neck and at the same time does not encourage 18 year olds to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at top schools, immediately declare bankruptcy, default on their loans, and start their credit history over, 7 years later, or however long the current rules are. I think UWaterloo's co-op system is nice for this. The Government of Ontario [Canada] gives businesses who hire co-op students some tax credits [http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/credit/cetc/]. I will get my degree with little to no debt while gaining 2 years of work experience in a related field.
University of Cincinnati has similar co-op offerings in many of their programs. And before the economy went to shit, the school apparently had no troubles finding students those PAID co-ops (students are welcomed to find their own as well); but now probably lucky to land one that pays. A Bach degree takes 5 years with the alternating semesters of school-work thing, including summer. I wonder why more schools don't have such arrangement. The only down side is having to move every semester if the jobs are not within the same city. Small price to pay though.
I wish I had gone to UC DAAP.
|
On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios.
|
On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios.
You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich.
Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume.
I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years.
|
On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years.
Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality.
First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off.
|
On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off.
The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
There are different types of financial aid. There are grants, there are subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, scholarships, and work study.
|
On December 13 2012 14:37 Souma wrote:
There are different types of financial aid. There are grants, there are subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, scholarships, and work study.
Financial aid is typically specifically aid that is like a grant. Subsidized/unsubsidized loans on the other hand are referred to as student loans. Maybe not all places have this vocabulary and I'm wrong, but this is the impression I'm under.
|
On December 13 2012 14:22 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off. The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever.
I'd like to see you try borrowing 50k from the U.S. government and then try to give the finger to the IRS when they come to collect. Seriously, go ahead and do it, I'm very interested in the outcome.
In truth you have a very skewed view over what classifies as personal choice. While sure its a "choice" to go to college, its also a "choice" to pay your taxes. In both cases it isn't really a choice at all as its really an ultimatum. In truth what future does anyone who doesnt have a college education have when all employers have started making a 4-year a requirement for the most basic of jobs?
Then you continue onwards to saying how it would be awful for our taxes to increase to pay for the education of these people. To which I say, "WHAT?!" Even after I graduate and choose to stay in America I'd be willing to continue paying taxes on education even though I myself wouldn't personally be invested in it because I don't want to live with a bunch of stupid people. Remember - one day you will most likely need surgery, however minor. You cant tell me you are perfectly fine with someone who has an AA conducting surgery on you (because he couldn't afford to go to med school) just for the sake of not having to pay an extra amount of taxes. And if that is indeed the case, you are an extremely selfish person that obviously cares little about making the world you live in better for everyone.
I'm just amazed at how you try to rationalize an inhospitable environment for college students by saying "No, its really this easy!" Without taking into consideration that not everyone has mommy and daddy to rely on for housing, or that not everyone has a choice to be frugal with their money when they have expenses they need to pay or completely disregard the fact that jobs today that dont require a degree (Which is basically a waiter/pizza delivery) Aren't receiving enough hours to pay for their overinflated degree (in truth the most you can really expect is 20).
|
On December 13 2012 15:10 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 14:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off. The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever. I'd like to see you try borrowing 50k from the U.S. government and then try to give the finger to the IRS when they come to collect. Seriously, go ahead and do it, I'm very interested in the outcome. In truth you have a very skewed view over what classifies as personal choice. While sure its a "choice" to go to college, its also a "choice" to pay your taxes. In both cases it isn't really a choice at all as its really an ultimatum. In truth what future does anyone who doesnt have a college education have when all employers have started making a 4-year a requirement for the most basic of jobs? Then you continue onwards to saying how it would be awful for our taxes to increase to pay for the education of these people. To which I say, "WHAT?!" Even after I graduate and choose to stay in America I'd be willing to continue paying taxes on education even though I myself wouldn't personally be invested in it because I don't want to live with a bunch of stupid people. Remember - one day you will most likely need surgery, however minor. You cant tell me you are perfectly fine with someone who has an AA conducting surgery on you (because he couldn't afford to go to med school) just for the sake of not having to pay an extra amount of taxes. And if that is indeed the case, you are an extremely selfish person that obviously cares little about making the world you live in better for everyone. I'm just amazed at how you try to rationalize an inhospitable environment for college students by saying "No, its really this easy!" Without taking into consideration that not everyone has mommy and daddy to rely on for housing, or that not everyone has a choice to be frugal with their money when they have expenses they need to pay or completely disregard the fact that jobs today that dont require a degree (Which is basically a waiter/pizza delivery) Aren't receiving enough hours to pay for their overinflated degree (in truth the most you can really expect is 20).
As I stated, financial aid, at least at the office at my school, referred exclusively to the aid you didn't have to pay back. Which is why in the original post I stated that it was only if you qualified for it by not making enough (pretty much anyone can get student loans).
IRS also doesn't collect, I don't believe.
Also, despite your attempt to portray a skewed view, you included absolutely zero points to refute what I stated. To make it even further, your analogy concerning taxes, despite being a personal choice, is fairly irrelevant. Also, the vast, vast majority of college students in fact do have a house to live with mom and dad. If you look at the numbers, a staggering amount of college grads are moving back with their parents.
How exactly is the environment inhospitable? Also, get a second job if you're part time. Not to mention the jobs you mentioned pay tips.
Personally I think the better system is heavily heavily subsidized loans in the sense of ~2% interest (not deferred). Although I'm scared it'd encourage even more loans.
|
On December 13 2012 12:32 chenchen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 12:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 12:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet... Well, look at Japan. Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China. Results? Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt. If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better. A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses. Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system. Well, generally Japan is the shining example, the summit of economics. Obviously it would be nice to be them, relatively homogenous, non adversarial, longer hours and so forth but I'm just not sure this is really possible for the hulking mass of multiculturalism and regional differences that is the U.S. Any general thoughts on how to overhaul the US education system? I mean collegiate wise, the answers for overhauling the K-8 system are a little more apparent and would be controversial over here (a flexible, but rigorous nationally mandated curriculum, cutting back of books and longer hours would hit nerves of both liberals, conservatives and corps unfortunately). Japan is also one of the most depressed nations in the world. And yeah, as mentioned, extremely long hours, insanely high pressure.... I think that a much better example for "success" would be Sweden. Higher GDP per capita than Japan. Higher standard of living than Japan. Almost matches longevity of Japan. Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries in the world. Much lower suicide rate. Free/dirt cheap education from primary through postgraduate . . . . lol
Other countries that are generally revered as high-achieving and "doing pretty much everything right" when it comes to education (equity, proper funding, respected educators, more emphasis on teaching and discovery rather than standardized scoring and stress, etc.) include Finland, Singapore, China, and occasionally South Korea. Those are generally our gold standards when we do educational comparative research and speak of emulation.
Unfortunately, there are about a dozen really obvious reasons as to why we can't just snap our fingers and copy exactly what they do. And quite frankly, most of those reasons have nothing to do with our classrooms. It's not exactly in the control of the educators. They're mostly political and economic reasons.
For starters, the geographical structure of the United States is completely different than any of those countries. Those countries (size and population) are essentially comparable to any one of our fifty states. Our country is much bigger, making organization much harder.
They have national, universal standards, and fewer and less strict regulations than we do. On the other hand, we have a bunch of disorganized state standards (not a national curriculum) and teachers are forced to be so focused on them (because of standardized testing) that they have less time for open projects, collaborative student learning, and discovery-based instruction. And guess what? Those high-achieving countries have far less national testing and focus far more on student discovery.
Those countries have already established equity laws and regulations, without having to create arbitrary and poorly-created goals and benchmarks (like No Child Left Behind), and since their countries are so small comparatively- and they have direct federal funding- it's very easy for the money to get from point A to point B. On the other hand, our money goes from the federal level to the state level to the district level, and only if we're deemed worthy by subjective standards that cause stress and panic at all ranks (officials, administrators, teachers, students, etc.), so the trickling down happens at a very poor, staggered rate- if at all.
Successful education ideas exist, and have existed for a while. While there are plenty of bad and lazy teachers (like in any profession), there are even more good, motivated ones who know how to do their job, and they do it well. It's not the education part that needs solving. We- as educators- know what needs to be done to have success in our classrooms. It's not a mystery. It's just that our country's education system is fundamentally broken at the most important levels.
|
On December 13 2012 12:32 chenchen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 12:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 12:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 12 2012 10:24 Sub40APM wrote:
Pretty logical progression really. Death of blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style ---> growing importance of college degree as a signal for employers 'look, iam more qualified' ---> growing demand for college ---> growing exploitation of people's hope for a better life by colleges to jack up tuition --> dilution of just a generic college degree --> increased competition for 'elite' degrees ---> higher costs all around.
I guess the real problem is a bit deeper. Why did all the blue collar jobs that afford middle class style life style die? Why does USA no longer need many blue collar workers? IMHO the answer is threefold: 1. More automation (a lot of manufacturing is now done by robots, construction and farming involves much more machinery etc) 2. Loss of blue collar jobs to cheaper countries like China, India, Mexico etc. 3. Overall saturation and diminishing resources, i.e. very little unused land left in US, huge oil and industrial supplies imports (less easy to get resources left in US). I guess you can't really revert these three phenomena bar some huge ecological disaster or a world war. The only possible ways forward are increasing inequality and debt or complete revamp of educational system. What do you think? This is just an extremely good post and actually touches on a thread I made earlier back in the dizzle. This succinctly summarizes the long term economic problems of the U.S.; the "automaton creep" is not going to stop anytime soon. Sure it's taking over menial jobs, but it's presence is slowly being felt in medicine and law even. What's going to be left are managerial roles, servicing roles or programming that are going to increasingly demand higher and higher education as competition is squeezed. Frankly, I don't exactly see a solution here quite yet... Well, look at Japan. Automation is far beyond that in US, big population on a tiny peace of land, no resources, all manufacturing either done by robots or moved to China. Results? Great living standards and life longetivity, extremely low crime rate, very low unemployment, little inequality and small external debt. If not for 2011 tsunami, Japan would be even better. A lot of it has to do with proper education and good conditions for high tech businesses. Sure, students in Japan also have to take loans, and it's difficult for many to find a good job straight after graduation, but in general the situation looks better than in US. US needs a revamp of its educational system. Well, generally Japan is the shining example, the summit of economics. Obviously it would be nice to be them, relatively homogenous, non adversarial, longer hours and so forth but I'm just not sure this is really possible for the hulking mass of multiculturalism and regional differences that is the U.S. Any general thoughts on how to overhaul the US education system? I mean collegiate wise, the answers for overhauling the K-8 system are a little more apparent and would be controversial over here (a flexible, but rigorous nationally mandated curriculum, cutting back of books and longer hours would hit nerves of both liberals, conservatives and corps unfortunately). Japan is also one of the most depressed nations in the world. And yeah, as mentioned, extremely long hours, insanely high pressure.... I think that a much better example for "success" would be Sweden. Higher GDP per capita than Japan. Higher standard of living than Japan. Almost matches longevity of Japan. Consistently rated as one of the happiest countries in the world. Much lower suicide rate. Free/dirt cheap education from primary through postgraduate . . . . lol
Sweden has a mortgage crisis on the way. There's a new trend that people aren't even trying to pay off their loans as they're just too big to make an impact on. The house market in the bigger cities is simply over valued. The house prizes are through the roof. We're talking 200.000USD for an apartment where you can only fit in a bed. Our banks have a GDP of 4 times the national GPD, so if they default they'll bring the nation down with them.
The education in and of itself is free. Our student debt comes from loans to students who don't want to work along side their studies, and take low interest, tax funded loans to keep themselves afloat during their studies.
|
On December 13 2012 15:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:10 Energizer wrote:On December 13 2012 14:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off. The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever. I'd like to see you try borrowing 50k from the U.S. government and then try to give the finger to the IRS when they come to collect. Seriously, go ahead and do it, I'm very interested in the outcome. In truth you have a very skewed view over what classifies as personal choice. While sure its a "choice" to go to college, its also a "choice" to pay your taxes. In both cases it isn't really a choice at all as its really an ultimatum. In truth what future does anyone who doesnt have a college education have when all employers have started making a 4-year a requirement for the most basic of jobs? Then you continue onwards to saying how it would be awful for our taxes to increase to pay for the education of these people. To which I say, "WHAT?!" Even after I graduate and choose to stay in America I'd be willing to continue paying taxes on education even though I myself wouldn't personally be invested in it because I don't want to live with a bunch of stupid people. Remember - one day you will most likely need surgery, however minor. You cant tell me you are perfectly fine with someone who has an AA conducting surgery on you (because he couldn't afford to go to med school) just for the sake of not having to pay an extra amount of taxes. And if that is indeed the case, you are an extremely selfish person that obviously cares little about making the world you live in better for everyone. I'm just amazed at how you try to rationalize an inhospitable environment for college students by saying "No, its really this easy!" Without taking into consideration that not everyone has mommy and daddy to rely on for housing, or that not everyone has a choice to be frugal with their money when they have expenses they need to pay or completely disregard the fact that jobs today that dont require a degree (Which is basically a waiter/pizza delivery) Aren't receiving enough hours to pay for their overinflated degree (in truth the most you can really expect is 20). As I stated, financial aid, at least at the office at my school, referred exclusively to the aid you didn't have to pay back. Which is why in the original post I stated that it was only if you qualified for it by not making enough (pretty much anyone can get student loans). IRS also doesn't collect, I don't believe. Also, despite your attempt to portray a skewed view, you included absolutely zero points to refute what I stated. To make it even further, your analogy concerning taxes, despite being a personal choice, is fairly irrelevant. Also, the vast, vast majority of college students in fact do have a house to live with mom and dad. If you look at the numbers, a staggering amount of college grads are moving back with their parents. How exactly is the environment inhospitable? Also, get a second job if you're part time. Not to mention the jobs you mentioned pay tips. Personally I think the better system is heavily heavily subsidized loans in the sense of ~2% interest (not deferred). Although I'm scared it'd encourage even more loans.
To qualify for that Financial Aid you essentially have to be living on your own and have no one claim you as your dependent (as you need to be making less than ~$25k). Yet that cutoff range completely screws over those who stay with their parents as they cannot afford to live on their own, thus forces loans. And I said the IRS collects because if you choose to not pay back your loans, your wages/tax refund can be garnished by them.
As for my analogy of taxes it is exactly the same as not going to college. There is no real choice as there are no employers who hire those without some type of degree "because they can". Just like there's no real choice to not paying taxes otherwise the IRS starts garnishing everything they can from any income you earn. And yes I do know that there is a vast amount of people who are forced to relocate to their parent's house and thats because of the overinflated amount of people with degrees that enter the market, and while sure some people may have picked a harder degree to get a job with than others, the fact remains that 50% off everyone who gets a degree wont get a job anytime soon.
I also find it hilarious how you think that just because the jobs I listed pay tips, therefore must be high paying. You obviously have never worked as a server so let me give you some grips of reality. In truth most restaurants only pay on average $3/hr as a base, nothing more. Sometimes you get lucky and end up getting $4 but usually its within the $2-$3 range. Then you have to consider that most restaurants limit you to at most 3, maybe 4 tables. While sure that sounds nice at first, you then have to realize that those tables are never always filled except for maybe 2 rotations during rush hour (lunch/dinner) the rest of the time you're working on half that at best. Not to mention there are the bad tippers, the no tippers, the people who decide to spend more than an hour at your table tippers... all screw with your total pay/hour. At the end of the day you would be lucky to make anything higher than $50 on tips, and yet that would be your pay. Oh! And you also dont work more than 30 hours a week as businesses just hire more servers to avoid hitting that 30 hour limit before obamacare starts affecting their business.
I'm still baffled that you believe the current system is fine where you force college students to just take out loans for their education - It fails to solve the underlying issue which the the immense amount of debt that student loans have which is caused by vastly overpriced education which has no limitations to how much they can charge. There really is no reason why the government shouldn't be paying for college students to finish their education in the same way many governments in Europe already do. All it does is ensures that the overall population acquires advanced education which in turn (in economic terms) increases human capital and gives some options for people to start their careers in whatever field they wish to specialize in without need of worry over how deep their pockets can go.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 13 2012 14:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 14:37 Souma wrote:
There are different types of financial aid. There are grants, there are subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, scholarships, and work study. Financial aid is typically specifically aid that is like a grant. Subsidized/unsubsidized loans on the other hand are referred to as student loans. Maybe not all places have this vocabulary and I'm wrong, but this is the impression I'm under.
It's all under the umbrella of financial aid. When you apply for financial aid they calculate what your financial need is, including how much of each category you can receive up to (for example, your financial need may be like 15K, and so you may be eligible for $5K worth in grants, $5K worth in subsidized loans, $1K worth in work study, and the rest in unsubsidized loans).
On December 13 2012 15:51 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 15:10 Energizer wrote:On December 13 2012 14:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off. The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever. I'd like to see you try borrowing 50k from the U.S. government and then try to give the finger to the IRS when they come to collect. Seriously, go ahead and do it, I'm very interested in the outcome. In truth you have a very skewed view over what classifies as personal choice. While sure its a "choice" to go to college, its also a "choice" to pay your taxes. In both cases it isn't really a choice at all as its really an ultimatum. In truth what future does anyone who doesnt have a college education have when all employers have started making a 4-year a requirement for the most basic of jobs? Then you continue onwards to saying how it would be awful for our taxes to increase to pay for the education of these people. To which I say, "WHAT?!" Even after I graduate and choose to stay in America I'd be willing to continue paying taxes on education even though I myself wouldn't personally be invested in it because I don't want to live with a bunch of stupid people. Remember - one day you will most likely need surgery, however minor. You cant tell me you are perfectly fine with someone who has an AA conducting surgery on you (because he couldn't afford to go to med school) just for the sake of not having to pay an extra amount of taxes. And if that is indeed the case, you are an extremely selfish person that obviously cares little about making the world you live in better for everyone. I'm just amazed at how you try to rationalize an inhospitable environment for college students by saying "No, its really this easy!" Without taking into consideration that not everyone has mommy and daddy to rely on for housing, or that not everyone has a choice to be frugal with their money when they have expenses they need to pay or completely disregard the fact that jobs today that dont require a degree (Which is basically a waiter/pizza delivery) Aren't receiving enough hours to pay for their overinflated degree (in truth the most you can really expect is 20). As I stated, financial aid, at least at the office at my school, referred exclusively to the aid you didn't have to pay back. Which is why in the original post I stated that it was only if you qualified for it by not making enough (pretty much anyone can get student loans). IRS also doesn't collect, I don't believe. Also, despite your attempt to portray a skewed view, you included absolutely zero points to refute what I stated. To make it even further, your analogy concerning taxes, despite being a personal choice, is fairly irrelevant. Also, the vast, vast majority of college students in fact do have a house to live with mom and dad. If you look at the numbers, a staggering amount of college grads are moving back with their parents. How exactly is the environment inhospitable? Also, get a second job if you're part time. Not to mention the jobs you mentioned pay tips. Personally I think the better system is heavily heavily subsidized loans in the sense of ~2% interest (not deferred). Although I'm scared it'd encourage even more loans. To qualify for that Financial Aid you essentially have to be living on your own and have no one claim you as your dependent (as you need to be making less than ~$25k). Yet that cutoff range completely screws over those who stay with their parents as they cannot afford to live on their own, thus forces loans. And I said the IRS collects because if you choose to not pay back your loans, your wages/tax refund can be garnished by them.
Depends on the state and school really. For California residents attending UC, you can get full tuition covered with Cal Grants if your family income is below $80K.
|
On December 13 2012 15:51 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 15:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 15:10 Energizer wrote:On December 13 2012 14:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 14:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 13:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 13 2012 13:02 BirdKiller wrote:
I see this issue as a sum of personal/individual responsibility:
1. Person decided he or she wanted to go to college, and therefore was willing to pay for it.
2. Person could not pay college all on its own, and so took out loans.
3. The person takes out the loan, clearly knowing how much he or she would have to pay in the future, and that's it's simply borrowed money.
4. Person goes to college, whatever that person does in college, whether it be picking some major, slacking/excelling in courses, having to take extra years, should be indifferent to the amount that person has borrowed and to the borrower.
5. Person graduates college.
At this point, the borrower basically paid for that person's education, and it's time that person pays it back. I can't really sympathize anyone who has debt blaming "the system" or the world on this. That person made the choice to go to college. That person made the choice to borrow money. That person made the choice to do whatever he or she did in college.
In all of these stages, that person could and should have researched more into how debt will affect him/her and his/her employment opportunities to better prepare after graduation. There are some exceptional cases where the world is evil and decides to make a person's life just miserable, but that's no excuse nor reason to ease the financial obligations of everyone who has student debt; that's almost analogous to saying obese people should be given slack because 1% are caused by genetics.
Instead of fixing "the system" or the world, that person should have fixed him or herself up. You borrow. You pay back.
So the system is always fine and the fault is always on the individual? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Post-secondary education is (barring extreme luck) the only way to achieve social mobility, and so you're essentially blaming individuals for wanting to improve their socioeconomic status and doing it by the only means available, and debt is, for the majority of students, the only way to pay for school. No one is saying that people shouldn't have to pay their debt back; the problem is that the ridiculous cost of college (which equals extreme amounts of debt) coupled with the improbability of obtaining a decently-paying job after college results in impossible debt scenarios. You continue to ask how ridiculous other people sound when it's not really ridiculous at all. Education has a price to it. Quite simply, it costs money to educate someone. You can make a choice in life. You can go to college and pay the money, or not go to college and not pay the money, while simultaneously making money in the meantime. It's as simple as that. It has to be funded somehow. Some countries fund it mostly through taxation, meaning you'll still pay for it, just over your life time. At the same time, taxation is lopsided, so basically it's funding people's education primarily through the rich. Why should another person have to pay for your education? They pay for their own, you pay for your own. This way, taxes are less, and those that don't choose to go to college don't have the burden of paying taxes that are collected for the sole reason of funding education. For those that can't afford education, there's financial aid. For those that should be able to afford it, there's student loans for funding as well. But in all reality, you should have saved some money before hand. If you haven't, then you still have multiple options. Besides applying for various scholarships and grants, community college is a viable option that costs a negligible amount and has a guaranteed transfer program to a four year accredited university in many cases. At the same time, you can take two years off, work full time, live frugally, and save up money. Be smart, don't start a family or take upon any extreme financial obligations, then go to college when you're 21 instead of 18, with a savings of say ~$6,000 to get you started at community college. Continue working throughout community college for two years, accrue another $2,000. Finish two years of university while still working part time, come out with ~$15k debt and a worthwhile degree, as well as job experience on your resume. I don't see a problem here. And this is assuming you're making minimum wage, not something like $10/hr, which while nothing special, is substantially more over multiple years. Not only do you continue to completely miss the point, you have this fairy tale-esque view of the world that doesn't conform to reality. First off, the problem isn't that people have to pay for education; I explicitly said that. The problem is that the system is so fucked up that the only route to social mobility is one where crushing student debt is largely unavoidable. Furthermore, your concept of how financial aid works is horribly inaccurate. "Financial aid" that is given to those without money is usually just more loans that further the debt problem. You really just sound like some privileged white guy who doesn't understand the reality of the problems faced by those that are worse off. The problem indeed is that people have to pay. That's the entire fundamental issue. To insinuate there is something wrong in that employers have certain demands for employment is completely practical. To continue, financial aid never has to be paid back, ever. I'd like to see you try borrowing 50k from the U.S. government and then try to give the finger to the IRS when they come to collect. Seriously, go ahead and do it, I'm very interested in the outcome. In truth you have a very skewed view over what classifies as personal choice. While sure its a "choice" to go to college, its also a "choice" to pay your taxes. In both cases it isn't really a choice at all as its really an ultimatum. In truth what future does anyone who doesnt have a college education have when all employers have started making a 4-year a requirement for the most basic of jobs? Then you continue onwards to saying how it would be awful for our taxes to increase to pay for the education of these people. To which I say, "WHAT?!" Even after I graduate and choose to stay in America I'd be willing to continue paying taxes on education even though I myself wouldn't personally be invested in it because I don't want to live with a bunch of stupid people. Remember - one day you will most likely need surgery, however minor. You cant tell me you are perfectly fine with someone who has an AA conducting surgery on you (because he couldn't afford to go to med school) just for the sake of not having to pay an extra amount of taxes. And if that is indeed the case, you are an extremely selfish person that obviously cares little about making the world you live in better for everyone. I'm just amazed at how you try to rationalize an inhospitable environment for college students by saying "No, its really this easy!" Without taking into consideration that not everyone has mommy and daddy to rely on for housing, or that not everyone has a choice to be frugal with their money when they have expenses they need to pay or completely disregard the fact that jobs today that dont require a degree (Which is basically a waiter/pizza delivery) Aren't receiving enough hours to pay for their overinflated degree (in truth the most you can really expect is 20). As I stated, financial aid, at least at the office at my school, referred exclusively to the aid you didn't have to pay back. Which is why in the original post I stated that it was only if you qualified for it by not making enough (pretty much anyone can get student loans). IRS also doesn't collect, I don't believe. Also, despite your attempt to portray a skewed view, you included absolutely zero points to refute what I stated. To make it even further, your analogy concerning taxes, despite being a personal choice, is fairly irrelevant. Also, the vast, vast majority of college students in fact do have a house to live with mom and dad. If you look at the numbers, a staggering amount of college grads are moving back with their parents. How exactly is the environment inhospitable? Also, get a second job if you're part time. Not to mention the jobs you mentioned pay tips. Personally I think the better system is heavily heavily subsidized loans in the sense of ~2% interest (not deferred). Although I'm scared it'd encourage even more loans. To qualify for that Financial Aid you essentially have to be living on your own and have no one claim you as your dependent (as you need to be making less than ~$25k). Yet that cutoff range completely screws over those who stay with their parents as they cannot afford to live on their own, thus forces loans. And I said the IRS collects because if you choose to not pay back your loans, your wages/tax refund can be garnished by them. As for my analogy of taxes it is exactly the same as not going to college. There is no real choice as there are no employers who hire those without some type of degree "because they can". Just like there's no real choice to not paying taxes otherwise the IRS starts garnishing everything they can from any income you earn. And yes I do know that there is a vast amount of people who are forced to relocate to their parent's house and thats because of the overinflated amount of people with degrees that enter the market, and while sure some people may have picked a harder degree to get a job with than others, the fact remains that 50% off everyone who gets a degree wont get a job anytime soon. I also find it hilarious how you think that just because the jobs I listed pay tips, therefore must be high paying. You obviously have never worked as a server so let me give you some grips of reality. In truth most restaurants only pay on average $3/hr as a base, nothing more. Sometimes you get lucky and end up getting $4 but usually its within the $2-$3 range. Then you have to consider that most restaurants limit you to at most 3, maybe 4 tables. While sure that sounds nice at first, you then have to realize that those tables are never always filled except for maybe 2 rotations during rush hour (lunch/dinner) the rest of the time you're working on half that at best. Not to mention there are the bad tippers, the no tippers, the people who decide to spend more than an hour at your table tippers... all screw with your total pay/hour. At the end of the day you would be lucky to make anything higher than $50 on tips, and yet that would be your pay. Oh! And you also dont work more than 30 hours a week as businesses just hire more servers to avoid hitting that 30 hour limit before obamacare starts affecting their business. I'm still baffled that you believe the current system is fine where you force college students to just take out loans for their education - It fails to solve the underlying issue which the the immense amount of debt that student loans have which is caused by vastly overpriced education which has no limitations to how much they can charge. There really is no reason why the government shouldn't be paying for college students to finish their education in the same way many governments in Europe already do. All it does is ensures that the overall population acquires advanced education which in turn (in economic terms) increases human capital and gives some options for people to start their careers in whatever field they wish to specialize in without need of worry over how deep their pockets can go.
You don't need to qualify as independent for financial aid, although it makes it substantially easier. Your parents income is compared to relevant expenses to determine if you qualify. Not to mention if you're a dependent you're receiving at least half of your support from your parents. If your parents are smart enough to gift you money, then you can qualify as independent when they truthfully support much more than 50%.
There's a real choice as in the sense that alternatives are available, besides the fact that apparently only 36% of 18-24 year olds in 2009 were enrolled in college. Community college effectively cuts your tuition rates in half, as you only have to attend two years as opposed to four. You are also not required to attend college at any point, meaning you can delay it and save income in the meantime. As I'll point out for like the third time in this thread, recent college graduation unemployment is only at 2% worse than it was prior to the recession. It's around 7% as opposed to previously 5%. You're referring primarily to underemployment, which is a legitimate issue, but it's silly to say they can't find jobs when they clearly can.
Serving jobs are notably higher wages than minimum wage. I know quite a bit about them considering I've lived with 3 of them and my ex-gf of nearly 2 years was a server at Chilis the entire time we dated. The average wage of a server is listed at $21,000 per year. This does not include the unreported tips, which are generally half of what was earned (might be declining as more people pay with card). This is averaging about 50% more income than minimum wage, without accounting for nonreported tips.
Forcing students to take out loans is little different than having higher tax rates, with the exception the individual is more responsible for what they decide to spend. Of course, this is why I mentioned I'd prefer incredibly low interest rates. In that sense, you could view your loans as a tax you're effectively paying off for the rest of your life, which is similar to having to pay increased taxes for the rest of your life, with the exception taxes fluctuate more with your income. But if you paid $X amount to get an education, shouldn't you eventually pay off that amount over your lifetime, regardless of how much you make?
There is little value to me in someone else "enriching" themselves with a philosophy major. To me, the "knowledge" they gained has little utility and little contribution to social welfare. Consequently, because our values disalign, instead of spreading the costs we can make the individual accountable for their own. If he values enriching himself with philosophy, he can see the pricetag of doing so and contemplate the cost/benefit.
Either way I'm not a fan of the rising tuition costs in the first place. My point thus far has been targeted at displaying that the student loans people are accruing are highly unnecessary and due to poor financial planning and frivolous spending. That, and if you perform exceptionally while in school, you still will get a job. There are still plenty of jobs out there, there's just a lot less than before.
|
The first and best place to start in cutting the expense of higher education is textbooks. Out of my 5 classes this past semester the cheapest book I bought was $89.00 and the most expensive was $249.00. The best part? The $249.00 was loose leaf paper with 3-hole punches. There was no binding and no way to sell it back.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember seeing a book at Barnes&Noble for 249 bucks, ever. Its a racket, and how they've avoided price fixing accusations is beyond me (tin foil hat? maybe, but screw those guys!)
Seriously though, this is one area where I'd be all for some government regulation. I'm sick to death of paying thousands of dollars every semester so I can sit in a class and listen to a bunch of fresh out of highschool kids opine about the leadership qualities of Lady Gaga. There needs to be accountability for the professors and the material being taught if they are going to be the benefactor of taxpayer dollars. I'm tired of having classes where it takes the professor 3 different attempts and 50 minutes to figure out how to get the right answer to a question from last week's homework.
There is a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in higher education. Colleges are getting fat off the government's teat and steadily pushing prices higher and higher while the quality of their service seems to be getting worse and worse. Cut the fat and you could educate 2 people for the current cost of 1. Schools would comply because they know that federal student aid is a big part of their bread and butter.
/rant off
|
On December 13 2012 16:20 Joedaddy wrote:
The first and best place to start in cutting the expense of higher education is textbooks. Out of my 5 classes this past semester the cheapest book I bought was $89.00 and the most expensive was $249.00. The best part? The $249.00 was loose leaf paper with 3-hole punches. There was no binding and no way to sell it back.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember seeing a book at Barnes&Noble for 249 bucks, ever. Its a racket, and how they've avoided price fixing accusations is beyond me (tin foil hat? maybe, but screw those guys!)
Seriously though, this is one area where I'd be all for some government regulation. I'm sick to death of paying thousands of dollars every semester so I can sit in a class and listen to a bunch of fresh out of highschool kids opine about the leadership qualities of Lady Gaga. There needs to be accountability for the professors and the material being taught if they are going to be the benefactor of taxpayer dollars. I'm tired of having classes where it takes the professor 3 different attempts and 50 minutes to figure out how to get the right answer to a question from last week's homework.
There is a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in higher education. Colleges are getting fat off the government's teat and steadily pushing prices higher and higher while the quality of their service seems to be getting worse and worse. Cut the fat and you could educate 2 people for the current cost of 1. Schools would comply because they know that federal student aid is a big part of their bread and butter.
/rant off
For the ones that qualify, which in my experience have been the majority but not all, Amazon works wonders for textbooks. Free shipping, significantly cheaper prices than the school bookstores (like ~60% price), and then they buy back your books for like 75% of the price you bought it from them. It made book costs for me near negligible when I found out.
|
On December 13 2012 16:24 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 16:20 Joedaddy wrote:
The first and best place to start in cutting the expense of higher education is textbooks. Out of my 5 classes this past semester the cheapest book I bought was $89.00 and the most expensive was $249.00. The best part? The $249.00 was loose leaf paper with 3-hole punches. There was no binding and no way to sell it back.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember seeing a book at Barnes&Noble for 249 bucks, ever. Its a racket, and how they've avoided price fixing accusations is beyond me (tin foil hat? maybe, but screw those guys!)
Seriously though, this is one area where I'd be all for some government regulation. I'm sick to death of paying thousands of dollars every semester so I can sit in a class and listen to a bunch of fresh out of highschool kids opine about the leadership qualities of Lady Gaga. There needs to be accountability for the professors and the material being taught if they are going to be the benefactor of taxpayer dollars. I'm tired of having classes where it takes the professor 3 different attempts and 50 minutes to figure out how to get the right answer to a question from last week's homework.
There is a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in higher education. Colleges are getting fat off the government's teat and steadily pushing prices higher and higher while the quality of their service seems to be getting worse and worse. Cut the fat and you could educate 2 people for the current cost of 1. Schools would comply because they know that federal student aid is a big part of their bread and butter.
/rant off
For the ones that qualify, which in my experience have been the majority but not all, Amazon works wonders for textbooks. Free shipping, significantly cheaper prices than the school bookstores (like ~60% price), and then they buy back your books for like 75% of the price you bought it from them. It made book costs for me near negligible when I found out.
I agree. While buying books from the university bookstores were outrageously overpriced, Amazon had every book I ever tried finding, for much cheaper (and you can always find a shitty copy for really cheap too, if you want).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
