• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:34
CEST 13:34
KST 20:34
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group B [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 29531 users

The Looming U.S. Giant

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Normal
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 01:34:57
December 12 2012 01:04 GMT
#1
Nope, not referring to godzilla, robots, 2012 or laserbeams!.... Something much more mundane but just as serious. Student debt.

Quote;

"It’s been called a debt bomb waiting to explode. The next bubble on par with the subprime mortgage mess. A crisis that’s taking a toll on an already-weak economy.

Whichever scary word you prefer, there’s no doubt that student-loan debt looms as a major long-term problem facing the country’s population of college graduates and beyond. The economy might be seeing a modest recovery of late, but there doesn't seem to be any relief for this pocket of borrowers.

There’s no shortage of data that tell the story.

Outstanding student loan balances rose to $956 billion as of Sept. 30, an increase of $42 billion from the second quarter of 2012, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of New York November report on household debt. And that’s an 80% increase from five years ago, when total student loan debt totaled $530 billion. (Meanwhile, in October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau clocked outstanding student loan debt in the U.S. at $1 trillion.)" -

Source- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scope-of-student-debt-crisis-holds-generation-back-221008826.html

So here's the intuitive problem for me, the U.S. is continually going to trend toward a service side economy, especially for White Americans, then it will trickle down to Hispanics and some AA's and NA (Natives) here and there. Everyone wants a piece these days instead of settling for lower end jobs. This is logical, and completely rational so no one needs to feel bad about it.

What's worse is that this collegiate demand is also contributed towards by corporations and small business who are increasingly cutting training programs and in house education off towards FULL degrees to save a buck, and are simply demanding higher education for even mundane jobs (like machine shop ect) so collegiate demand isn't going to end soon. So here's the question, what are some ideas to resolve this? There are no easy answers so I hope to see some hard answers

Someone pointed to the problem of the degree shoppers/consumers who crowd the degree field for no practical purpose other than to go to school, so self blame must be evident and pointed out in education somehow.
heroyi
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1064 Posts
December 12 2012 01:12 GMT
#2
dont have enough grasp of the economic theories to give a rationale answer.

All I know is that college education system doesn't make sense. Go out and enrich your lives with education and become skilled but be buried in debt.

Then again, a lot of these debts have a high correlation with the degree and field chosen.

I know people who go get loans, student loans mind you, and use that money to go pay off a car, trips to Europe. I know people who have degrees in English and some bs in business and wonder why they cant land a job or hold a non-minimum wage job. People have this wrong illusion that if you hold this magical paper called degree then you are entitled to some 6 figure salary despite the quality of the degree...
wat wat in my pants
FeUerFlieGe
Profile Joined April 2011
United States1193 Posts
December 12 2012 01:15 GMT
#3
If this continues, then in the future either:

a. People will stop going to University. University will once again be for the rich, outstanding students, legacy, ect, and most people will probably go to tech schools to get a degree.

b. Government gets it's shit together and improves the education system of this country.

I hope b.

To unpathed waters, undreamed shores. - Shakespeare
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 01:18:32
December 12 2012 01:16 GMT
#4
On December 12 2012 10:12 heroyi wrote:
dont have enough grasp of the economic theories to give a rationale answer.

All I know is that college education system doesn't make sense. Go out and enrich your lives with education and become skilled but be buried in debt.

Then again, a lot of these debts have a high correlation with the degree and field chosen.

I know people who go get loans, student loans mind you, and use that money to go pay off a car, trips to Europe. I know people who have degrees in English and some bs in business and wonder why they cant land a job or hold a non-minimum wage job. People have this wrong illusion that if you hold this magical paper called degree then you are entitled to some 6 figure salary despite the quality of the degree...


I agree, some people just go to college for the loans or to put off working on the farm or continuing the job at Wal Mart (who can blame them lol?). Fault certainly must attributed towards some of the degree consumers there taking an easy or BS art/business/architecture (sorry man.. gotta start somewhere) degrees. Some of these people earning these degrees don't know any better, some do but don't think far ahead of personal or aggregate societal consequences.

Perhaps then part of the solution is absolving or alleviating debt in degree areas that are important economically for the foreseeable future. However that too runs risk of over saturating those degree areas and putting strain on colleges nation wide to handle the incoming demand of those students switching over.

On December 12 2012 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
If this continues, then in the future either:

a. People will stop going to University. University will once again be for the rich, outstanding students, legacy, ect, and most people will probably go to tech schools to get a degree.

b. Government gets it's shit together and improves the education system of this country.

I hope b.



Those may be natural or even desirable consequences but it does nothing to defuse the bomb of debt. It's there, waiting....
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
December 12 2012 01:24 GMT
#5
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.

As the American economy continues to remove middle class style jobs and income inequality continues to grow and accrue to the top there will be an even higher premium to enter that class.

Anyway, here is a good article on Harvard's tuition costs in the context of Harvard's endowment: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/paying-tuition-to-a-giant-hedge-fund/
Klipsys
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1533 Posts
December 12 2012 01:28 GMT
#6
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.
Hudson Valley Progamer
heroyi
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1064 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 01:34:45
December 12 2012 01:30 GMT
#7
On December 12 2012 10:16 forgottendreams wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:12 heroyi wrote:
dont have enough grasp of the economic theories to give a rationale answer.

All I know is that college education system doesn't make sense. Go out and enrich your lives with education and become skilled but be buried in debt.

Then again, a lot of these debts have a high correlation with the degree and field chosen.

I know people who go get loans, student loans mind you, and use that money to go pay off a car, trips to Europe. I know people who have degrees in English and some bs in business and wonder why they cant land a job or hold a non-minimum wage job. People have this wrong illusion that if you hold this magical paper called degree then you are entitled to some 6 figure salary despite the quality of the degree...


I agree, some people just go to college for the loans or to put off working on the farm or continuing the job at Wal Mart (who can blame them lol?). Fault certainly must attributed towards some of the degree consumers there taking an easy or BS art/business/architecture (sorry man.. gotta start somewhere) degrees. Some of these people earning these degrees don't know any better, some do but don't think far ahead of personal or aggregate societal consequences.

Perhaps then part of the solution is absolving or alleviating debt in degree areas that are important economically for the foreseeable future. However that too runs risk of over saturating those degree areas and putting strain on colleges nation wide to handle the incoming demand of those students switching over.

See now you sound like Rick Scott, gov. of FL, who wanted to inject more into the STEM classes and kill off other "non-important" majors like anthro, arts, etc...

People dont realize you CAN get a job with any degree but they don't realize that if you have/chose anthropology major...don't expect to have:
1) a high paying job out of school
2) a salary in that field in which that will comfortably help pay off your living conditions AND debts

Instead, to get a 6 figure salary with an Anthropology degree you gotta work your ASS off to get there. Because those are usually reserved in very high positions in that job field.

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."

edit:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.

Agree with everything said here.

People don't know how to feel when someone goes on about how they dont have formal education like college but yet do well financially cause of their job they own and run. It is always funny since education is so highly valued (which it should be however people shouldn't be/feel berated for not going to college)
wat wat in my pants
Skeltons
Profile Joined May 2011
22 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 01:32:51
December 12 2012 01:31 GMT
#8
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
December 12 2012 01:37 GMT
#9
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).


My body is ready for some economically inclined members here like ParallelUniverse or JohnnyBno who seem to be proficient on the subject but just have philosophical differences (saying that very lightly).
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
December 12 2012 01:42 GMT
#10
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."


But there are degrees like that. Any degree from an elite university ---> easy path to consulting or banking [well, less so now] that gets you a 75-125k job that does not use anything you learned in the previous 4 years. Law degree from an elite university does the same thing. The only thing that I used from law school at work was the existence of law-search engines.

But maybe people from the hard science side can speak of their experience re: using the things they've learned in school as a valuable job skill vs. the fact that they went to school is the reason they got a job.

Learning vs. Guild-like-entry-level-gate-keeping.
heroyi
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1064 Posts
December 12 2012 01:55 GMT
#11
On December 12 2012 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."


But there are degrees like that. Any degree from an elite university ---> easy path to consulting or banking [well, less so now] that gets you a 75-125k job that does not use anything you learned in the previous 4 years. Law degree from an elite university does the same thing. The only thing that I used from law school at work was the existence of law-search engines.

But maybe people from the hard science side can speak of their experience re: using the things they've learned in school as a valuable job skill vs. the fact that they went to school is the reason they got a job.

Learning vs. Guild-like-entry-level-gate-keeping.

Usually this happens if you choose a specific business degree. The example I use is of one where the majority of people get a very general and broad degree. Also it depends on the extracurricular things they have achieved (internships etc...) and even connections (a lot of times if you have connections and hold a degree from somewhere reputable, you can easily get a nice job like you described above).

I am talking about the people who get a degree in who knows what and do the bare minimum (strictly does only classes and graduate). These people will most likely not land a nice job that they keep envisioning themselves.
wat wat in my pants
Sub40APM
Profile Joined August 2010
6336 Posts
December 12 2012 02:05 GMT
#12
On December 12 2012 10:55 heroyi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."


But there are degrees like that. Any degree from an elite university ---> easy path to consulting or banking [well, less so now] that gets you a 75-125k job that does not use anything you learned in the previous 4 years. Law degree from an elite university does the same thing. The only thing that I used from law school at work was the existence of law-search engines.

But maybe people from the hard science side can speak of their experience re: using the things they've learned in school as a valuable job skill vs. the fact that they went to school is the reason they got a job.

Learning vs. Guild-like-entry-level-gate-keeping.

Usually this happens if you choose a specific business degree. The example I use is of one where the majority of people get a very general and broad degree. Also it depends on the extracurricular things they have achieved (internships etc...) and even connections (a lot of times if you have connections and hold a degree from somewhere reputable, you can easily get a nice job like you described above).

I am talking about the people who get a degree in who knows what and do the bare minimum (strictly does only classes and graduate). These people will most likely not land a nice job that they keep envisioning themselves.

I guess thats true. But when you mean bare minimum, do you also mean get crap grades? Again, I know plenty of people who did 'the bare minimum' of just doing decently in school and getting high paying jobs for just showing up. Of course I suppose they did work hard to get into those elite universities in the first place but I always thought that was strange about the world -- that the decisions you make as 16-17 year old will have staggering ramifications for your earning potential just because you got into Brown or Harvard over Michigan or Cornell.
TeCh)PsylO
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3552 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 02:15:49
December 12 2012 02:10 GMT
#13
People holding degrees fared significantly better during the recession than those without:

[image loading]

I agree with the sentiment that going 80,000 in debt for an English degree doesn't make any sense. Of course, English majors aren't finance majors for a reason. Nevertheless, people holding a degree on average will make significantly more income over the course of their life. I don't see how the a "bubble" could burst. High debt levels that are not dischargable in bankruptcy will hinder consumer spending, but not wipe out billions of dollars in wealth. Loans can now have longer payment structures, which lowers monthly bills and provides slightly more relief through inflation. Banks betting on students still have one of the safest investments around (compared to the lauded small business for example, which often fail).
People change, then forget to tell each other - Susan Scott
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
December 12 2012 02:29 GMT
#14
What do you expect? They live in a society which rewards debt and irresponsible financial behavior. Companies which bet and leveraged too much get bailed out when things get rough, countries rack up debt and get bailed out when their insolvency threatens international markets. Government will pay for your food, housing, etc. if things get too rough for you. As the OWS crowd gains market share, the possibility of college debt forgiveness continues to rise. Not to mention our monetary policy incentivizes debt over savings. If things ever get bad enough, just tell your creditors "sorry, I'm not paying you." Likely they will give in and allow you to pay pennies on the dollar, or you will be in a big enough crowd that some government program will step in to help people out, like they did with home foreclosures.

If you aren't getting in on the debt racket in modern America, you are a fool imo. I know I am a fool at least. I got my AA at a community college, working towards a bachelor's now, and I don't have a single penny of debt yet. There are tons of cheap schools out there, but people have been brainwashed to think their life will be shit if they don't go ivy league.

This is where we blame the free market for college being expensive and call for more regulation, which was the cause of high tuition and costs in the first place.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 06:17:58
December 12 2012 02:35 GMT
#15
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).


Bubbles burst when the assets turn out not to be worth what you thought they were worth. In this case, that will happen when students start defaulting on their debt, die without paying it, and so on. At that point the asset (i.e. the debt held by the entity which gave the loan) will be devalued and you will have a financial crisis if a lot of this happens at once.

The value of the student loan is predicated on that student being able to pay it back sometime in the future. If they can't, it has no value.

edit: didn't know you couldn't default on student loans. I tried
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 02:40:25
December 12 2012 02:38 GMT
#16
I don't know a single person who majored in something "worthwhile", got a good GPA, went to career fairs, and started job hunting DURING their college career that did not get a job starting at least at ~$50,000.

Not a single person. Why? Oh yeah, because I we kept up to date with each other because we continually saw each other at all the interviews out there. Interviews aren't hard to obtain whatsoever, if you know what you're doing.

Problem is there are too many student morons out there that think they shouldn't even bother looking until they graduate. Most people go to university to get a better job. Don't you think you should have fucking investigated it while you were at school, paying so much money and getting into so much debt? There's over 2,500 jobs on my college board site being offered. I've asked countless people how many of those jobs they applied to while they were still an undergrad (that didn't have jobs while they graduated). Every answer has been under 15 applications.

Go fucking figure you never got a job, and now you're scrambling and applying to everything *after* you're done.

You should not have excessive amounts of student loans if you saved money prior to college, worked 20 hours a week during college, and 40 hours a week during summer. There's also the community college option. And rent can be dirt cheap if you live with other people (split with others I've paid $250 at one place and $375 on another, at a beach front in a ritzy area).

If you don't have a job, are borrowing an excessive amount of money, etc. then you better not have your own damn room.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 12 2012 02:47 GMT
#17
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.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
December 12 2012 02:51 GMT
#18
On December 12 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
dcemuser
Profile Joined August 2010
United States3248 Posts
December 12 2012 02:56 GMT
#19
On December 12 2012 10:04 forgottendreams wrote:Someone pointed to the problem of the degree shoppers/consumers who crowd the degree field for no practical purpose other than to go to school, so self blame must be evident and pointed out in education somehow.


It's easy (and lazy) to blame consumers, but consumers aren't the ones who set up the system.
Pseudoku
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada1279 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 02:59:14
December 12 2012 02:58 GMT
#20
Maybe they need to implement a co-op system like at UWaterloo.

Co-op helps considerably (depending on program) with student expenses from my experience. Basically I haven't had to take a student loan since my first year (they actually wouldn't give me any loans because I was making enough money from my co-op job). I made enough from my co-op job to cover rent and tuition, plus have a good amount to spare [which means I can pay off my debt as soon as I graduate]. My co-op sequence does 4 months work, 4 months study, 4 months work, 4 months study, etc. so the 4 months you work covers (or helps) with the expenses from the 4 months of study.

Edit: It also gives 2 years of work experience before you graduate!
Logic fails because we are lazy.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:05:37
December 12 2012 03:05 GMT
#21
On December 12 2012 11:51 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
OsoVega
Profile Joined December 2010
926 Posts
December 12 2012 03:07 GMT
#22
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.
Chewbacca.
Profile Joined January 2011
United States3634 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:15:09
December 12 2012 03:10 GMT
#23
On December 12 2012 11:58 Pseudoku wrote:
Maybe they need to implement a co-op system like at UWaterloo.

Co-op helps considerably (depending on program) with student expenses from my experience. Basically I haven't had to take a student loan since my first year (they actually wouldn't give me any loans because I was making enough money from my co-op job). I made enough from my co-op job to cover rent and tuition, plus have a good amount to spare [which means I can pay off my debt as soon as I graduate]. My co-op sequence does 4 months work, 4 months study, 4 months work, 4 months study, etc. so the 4 months you work covers (or helps) with the expenses from the 4 months of study.

Edit: It also gives 2 years of work experience before you graduate!


Yeah this is the program that they have at my school, for Chemical Engineering at least. Basically everyone in our program gets a job that pays ~$20/hr, some of them even provide you housing if the job isn't near your home.

It really helps pay for college for those that don't have scholarships, and for those who do it is like $10000ish dollars earned each co-op term.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 12 2012 03:10 GMT
#24
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Pseudoku
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada1279 Posts
December 12 2012 03:10 GMT
#25
On December 12 2012 12:05 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
Logic fails because we are lazy.
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
December 12 2012 03:11 GMT
#26
Obviously what needs fixing is not the loan system but the cost of tuition itself.
Writer
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:19:05
December 12 2012 03:14 GMT
#27
On December 12 2012 12:11 Souma wrote:
Obviously what needs fixing is not the loan system but the cost of tuition itself.

Unfortunately, the two are pretty much directly linked. And to those who place even a majority of the blame on the students of all people need to take long hard look at the labor market in the United States with education and wage levels in mind. Sure, there are tons of students out there pissing away their loan money, but I also know a lot of hard working kids who majored in their passion and are getting royally screwed, even some STEM'ers.

"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Ashakyre
Profile Joined October 2011
United States99 Posts
December 12 2012 03:29 GMT
#28
I'd like to add that the thing about creative majors is that you have to be creative about how you monetize it. They're generally not useless, you just have to extend your creativity into broader areas of your life.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:30:06
December 12 2012 03:29 GMT
#29
What sucks is I dont really feel like undergrad necessarily prepares you for the workforce (at least in Mechanical Engineering at MSU). Granted maybe I could have tried more in school and my experience would be different.......but everyone I have spoken to feels the same way.

The problem is though.......even though college doesn't provide you with a tangible skill in most cases, you still need it to get a job due to competition etc. It seems like a big scam. The more people with college degrees the more you need one to compete for jobs because of HR criteria. The more universities can charge and the less they are motivated to provide you with a better education.

Seems like one big fucked up feed back loop (just like the global economy nowadays where it feels like we are in a race to the bottom )
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
December 12 2012 03:37 GMT
#30
College is what you make out of it. It's not some magical entity that grants you +10 to job and life sk33lz. It is wise to intern, network, and study, or else you're not much different from what you were in high school once you graduate... just older, and more tolerant to alcohol.
Writer
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
December 12 2012 03:40 GMT
#31
On December 12 2012 12:37 Souma wrote:
College is what you make out of it. It's not some magical entity that grants you +10 to job and life sk33lz. It is wise to intern, network, and study, or else you're not much different from what you were in high school once you graduate... just older, and more tolerant to alcohol.



It doesnt provide you a skill though. I found mechanical engineering to be so broad its almost like reading a pamphlet. If I had a tangible skill or something I'd feel more confident and feel like my time at college was worth it (I know it was worth it in a sense that it was basically required for me to get a job nowadays). I just feel like something is wrong, either with the curriculum or what is expected you or something. The way the system works nowadays from my experience is broken.

How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
theinfamousone
Profile Joined February 2011
United States103 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:44:21
December 12 2012 03:41 GMT
#32
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Once a year you get to go on vacation and on the weekends you can watch football or whatever.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:44:53
December 12 2012 03:44 GMT
#33
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
WTFZerg
Profile Joined February 2011
United States704 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:45:44
December 12 2012 03:44 GMT
#34
Frankly, I have very little pity for people who go to college and rack up ridiculous amounts of debt without any thought or consideration to the future. Far, far too many students go to either private or out-of-state universities and end up paying $80,000 for a bachelor's degree they could have paid much, much less for if they bothered to actually shop around. Also, for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to look down on community colleges as somehow beneath them, when in reality doing your first two years at a community college not only reduces your out of pocket expenses, but all but guarantees your admittance to a state university so as long as you don't do abhorrently.

And another thing: Not everyone has to go to college. But, for whatever reason, people seem to look down upon those who work skilled blue collar jobs. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and HVAC personal all make respectable incomes without college education. Tech schools need to be more strongly emphasized by the high school system instead of this "GO TO COLLEGE" mentality that is poured down the throats of people who have no interest in it.

At the end of the day, were I not planning on going to school for Law, I would not even be in college.
Might makes right.
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 03:48:28
December 12 2012 03:47 GMT
#35
On December 12 2012 12:40 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:37 Souma wrote:
College is what you make out of it. It's not some magical entity that grants you +10 to job and life sk33lz. It is wise to intern, network, and study, or else you're not much different from what you were in high school once you graduate... just older, and more tolerant to alcohol.



It doesnt provide you a skill though. I found mechanical engineering to be so broad its almost like reading a pamphlet. If I had a tangible skill or something I'd feel more confident and feel like my time at college was worth it (I know it was worth it in a sense that it was basically required for me to get a job nowadays). I just feel like something is wrong, either with the curriculum or what is expected you or something. The way the system works nowadays from my experience is broken.



Yeah that's what I said haha. It doesn't provide you a skill unless you take advantage of other opportunities that are provided to college students, such as internships/lab assistants/whathaveyou. I definitely do think colleges should include in their curriculum some kind of skill-based training, but there are plenty of opportunities already available.
Writer
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
December 12 2012 03:53 GMT
#36
The "bubble bursts" by the debt load on consumers being too high to spend their income. Since default isn't possible with student loans, the debt will eventually be too high of a burden for the economy to function at potential, and prevent people from borrowing to buy things like houses and cars, as well as buy more basic things like food. I imagine it will act more as a multiplier of a burst than an actual burst, piggybacking on some other collapse.

Imagine what happened with housing, where defaults were the initial problem, but now people are deleveraging housing debt in houses that are worth much less than expected, forcing massive cuts in disposable income for the average household. This rapid shift in paying down debt cut the economic output and income of people who were fine on their own mortgage/debt. The crisis that involves student debt will probably start with something like the Tech bubble burst, but then hang around like the great recession.
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:00:23
December 12 2012 03:54 GMT
#37
On December 12 2012 12:44 WTFZerg wrote:
Frankly, I have very little pity for people who go to college and rack up ridiculous amounts of debt without any thought or consideration to the future. Far, far too many students go to either private or out-of-state universities and end up paying $80,000 for a bachelor's degree they could have paid much, much less for if they bothered to actually shop around. Also, for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to look down on community colleges as somehow beneath them, when in reality doing your first two years at a community college not only reduces your out of pocket expenses, but all but guarantees your admittance to a state university so as long as you don't do abhorrently.

And another thing: Not everyone has to go to college. But, for whatever reason, people seem to look down upon those who work skilled blue collar jobs. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and HVAC personal all make respectable incomes without college education. Tech schools need to be more strongly emphasized by the high school system instead of this "GO TO COLLEGE" mentality that is poured down the throats of people who have no interest in it.

At the end of the day, were I not planning on going to school for Law, I would not even be in college.


This is alot of the problem with social science peoples who say, well I respect blue collar or STEM but now that I've planned it its too late. While stating the problem you are still contributing the saturation of the law field.

I would know myself because I too am in law school and heard it alot in polisci and hear it now in law. There's only one upshot for me in that Native American lawyers for tribes somehow still in demand economically by tribes, if I wasn't going to practice that I would be entering a mine field, and yet I know I'm contributing toward the problem. I always look back say, hell if I knew what a joke law school turned out to be I'd go to med school, yet I simply didn't. Besides debt alleviation solutions, social engineering and encouragement towards STEM into the political system should be encouraged.
WTFZerg
Profile Joined February 2011
United States704 Posts
December 12 2012 04:00 GMT
#38
On December 12 2012 12:54 forgottendreams wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:44 WTFZerg wrote:
Frankly, I have very little pity for people who go to college and rack up ridiculous amounts of debt without any thought or consideration to the future. Far, far too many students go to either private or out-of-state universities and end up paying $80,000 for a bachelor's degree they could have paid much, much less for if they bothered to actually shop around. Also, for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to look down on community colleges as somehow beneath them, when in reality doing your first two years at a community college not only reduces your out of pocket expenses, but all but guarantees your admittance to a state university so as long as you don't do abhorrently.

And another thing: Not everyone has to go to college. But, for whatever reason, people seem to look down upon those who work skilled blue collar jobs. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and HVAC personal all make respectable incomes without college education. Tech schools need to be more strongly emphasized by the high school system instead of this "GO TO COLLEGE" mentality that is poured down the throats of people who have no interest in it.

At the end of the day, were I not planning on going to school for Law, I would not even be in college.


This is alot of the problem with social science peoples who say, well I respect blue collar or STEM but now that I've planned it its too late. While stating the problem you are still contributing the saturation of the law field.

I would know myself because I too am in law school. There's only one upshot for me in that Native American lawyers for tribes somehow still in demand economically by tribes, if I wasn't going to practice that I would be entering a mine field, and yet I know I'm contributing toward the problem. I always look back say, hell if I knew what a joke law school turned out to be I'd go to med school, yet I simply didn't.


Never said I was going to work as a lawyer in any fashion, only that I plan on attending Law school.

Two reasons I'm pursuing law:
1) The law fascinates me.
2) I want to work in Federal law enforcement. Something like the FBI.

And, at any rate, with a Bachelors in Economics (in progress) and a Masters in Finance (next step) combined with an actually pretty decent resume (from retail to the USPS to database development for JPMorgan) chances are I will be able to find a job.
Might makes right.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 04:02 GMT
#39
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.
theinfamousone
Profile Joined February 2011
United States103 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:10:30
December 12 2012 04:05 GMT
#40
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market only you can repossess a law degree (I have a friend who graduated from law school a year ago, still hasn't passed the bar exam and doesn't really care since there's no jobs anyway). You can't get blood from a turnip as they say. What happens to those who fail out of medical school after a year or two paying $50,000/year for tuition?

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. There's another problem that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:11:20
December 12 2012 04:08 GMT
#41
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.
RebirthOfLeGenD
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
USA5860 Posts
December 12 2012 04:12 GMT
#42
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.

I remember reading somewhere that basically, government guarantees loans so students can't default on them. So the people who give out the loans are literally taking no risk. So when students stop paying them, the loans get transferred to basically a debt collector agency who then charges them more fees on top of the interest. The agency that collects the unpaid debt was owned by the people who initially gave out the loan too lol.

So basically, you take out a loan and you pay it back, cool they made interest. You take out a loan and you fail to pay it back the government pays them back, and then an agency they own gets paid more money to collect that debt that the government already paid them for. So they technically made more money by you defaulting, which gives them incentive to give out reckless amounts of student loan money.

I am pretty sure I read that on another TL thread about the same issue. I found it hilariously horrifying. I personally don't see why state colleges charge any money what so ever. A long time ago we decided that a high school education was necessary so it should be paid for, but now college is considered the necessary thing to be successful/productive so why isn't it paid for? I think the ridiculous price comes out of the necessity that people place on it, tied with how much money people can make off of stupid loans since they are literally no risk investments.

I could be wrong, but I think it would probably greatly help if high school actually served a purpose, like taught trades or useful courses. Basically if there were significantly less required courses so it basically functioned more like college so that people would leave with a skill and an idea of what to do as opposed to high school essentially functioning as a college prep. If high school actually gave kids useful skills then maybe there would be less of a demand for college degrees.
Be a man, Become a Legend. TL Mafia Forum Ask for access!!
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:17:44
December 12 2012 04:15 GMT
#43
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
11739 Posts
December 12 2012 04:29 GMT
#44
I think people going to college right out of high school is typically a mistake. So many have no clue what they want to do out of high school, so they go to college and waste time with classes while trying to figure out what they'd like to do. The thing is, college/uni doesn't give you any information on what the real world is like, so they're just spinning their wheels. If people had more of an idea of what to expect in the real world, they could use their degrees much more effectively, and would probably figure out what to choose a lot more easily.

I see a lot of people bashing English degrees here, but the only reason that English isn't useful to more people is that they don't know how to apply the skills they learned in English to the real world. There are a lot of organizational, and analytic skills that transfer VERY well to the business world. If you back that up with a business minor, and maybe go on to get an MBA, then you can very well get a high paying job: it just takes a bit longer. It's not like the STEM degrees necessarily translate into a high paying job immediately anyway. I was told by upper leadership in the company I work for (an oil company, which I'll choose to not name) that my proposed plan for college is a good one (English major, business minor, then an MBA; although one person suggested a business major, English minor). The thing is, it's a harder road to travel; you certainly can't expect to walk out of college and get a high paying job on some board straight out of college. College is the tip of the iceberg, that's why experience is so important (and why internships are so good to get).

So many people believe that their degree entitles them to a high paying job, or it entitles them to pick and choose what kind of work they'll do, and that's why they fail. I hear people in the office complaining about some work that gets dumped on us, with statements like "this is like a slap in the face to us. We have degrees in X; we shouldn't have to do this shit!" Your degree doesn't dictate to the company what you get to do in your job role, it just helps get an interview. If the work is unsatisfying, then prove your worth and move out of your low-level role. But people can't see this. It's hard to put everything into words. It all starts with this overly entitled feeling that we have here. Everyone "shouldn't have to" do XYZ, but they're thinking in terms that don't apply; the fact is they do have to do those things. It's this mentality that creates the problem.

Given the path that I've chosen, I know that it's not going to be an easy road to travel, but I can absolutely get to where I want to be with these degrees, because they'll help provide the skills I need to get there, and through my current job, I'll get supplementary skills that I can apply as well (like Six Sigma green belt certification, which is very popular, for some reason, in the business world right now). That, and probably a PM certification, since I'll likely try to go into consulting for a few years, then move into a more stable situation (and I have a few people I know that can help with this). But the difference between me at 25, and the 18 year old English major with no real world experience, is that I understand that the degree is just the beginning of my work (in addition to probably being a better communicator/technical writer than they are, despite my incoherent ramblings here). I know what I'm getting myself into, whereas they think getting any old degree guarantees that they'll make $80k coming out.

On December 12 2012 12:44 WTFZerg wrote:
Frankly, I have very little pity for people who go to college and rack up ridiculous amounts of debt without any thought or consideration to the future. Far, far too many students go to either private or out-of-state universities and end up paying $80,000 for a bachelor's degree they could have paid much, much less for if they bothered to actually shop around. Also, for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to look down on community colleges as somehow beneath them, when in reality doing your first two years at a community college not only reduces your out of pocket expenses, but all but guarantees your admittance to a state university so as long as you don't do abhorrently.

And another thing: Not everyone has to go to college. But, for whatever reason, people seem to look down upon those who work skilled blue collar jobs. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and HVAC personal all make respectable incomes without college education. Tech schools need to be more strongly emphasized by the high school system instead of this "GO TO COLLEGE" mentality that is poured down the throats of people who have no interest in it.

At the end of the day, were I not planning on going to school for Law, I would not even be in college.


That's seriously so dumb, but I see it all the time. It's probably because all the washouts go there. All the weird people, and dumb people go to a CC because they couldn't get a scholarship to go to a major university, or they couldn't get loans, or they have poor parents. It's the same as it is with everything in the USA, everyone is trying to uphold an image, and it's far more impressive to people that don't matter if you go to X University for four years, than if you go to a CC, then transfer into a four year uni.
I'm never gonna know you now \ But I'm gonna love you anyhow.
Discarder
Profile Joined July 2012
Philippines411 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:31:21
December 12 2012 04:30 GMT
#45
Sorry, I'm not American, but I think this is a problem everywhere. In my country, people who graduate from
college or masters or doctorate consider themselves to be high up in the employment food chain.
Companies take degrees waaay waaay too seriously. In prestigious companies, HR segregates resumes that are
graduates of Ateneo De Manila, University of the Philipines or La Salle. (Elite schools in our country)
In my case, I graduated computer science in a 2nd rate university and I was able to survive by buying and selling magic
the gathering cards (ripping off people) instead of loans. I didn't like the idea of loans at all. Its like digging a hole for yourself. If I can survive with the little resources I have, then that is enough. Just like in sc2.
I polished my programming skills and got to be a programmer in the same company. Right now,
I just wait for requests to improve the systems and most of the time I just watch youtube or tv series at the office while
I earn more money than I deserve. On the sides I do part time racket/jobs for extra income with little skill needed and I can do anything I want and still manage to save for passive investments. I'm a lazy person hehe.



In my opinion, rather than investing in degrees. People should learn more skills. Especially technical ones.
Fixing cellphones, computers, repairing cars and other specialized skills. Things that can actually benefit people
I think vocational and technical schools are underrated.

I think the only reason you must go to university is because you want a degree than can give you the license to do something you really aspire/love to do. Like becoming a doctor because you want to help sick people. That is passion.
If you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life.


Sorry if I got a little off topic.

You can take the lion out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the lion
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
December 12 2012 04:30 GMT
#46
debt is a burden, the worry is that this contracts the consumer economy even more.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
11739 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:42:03
December 12 2012 04:32 GMT
#47
On December 12 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.


That's such a bullshit excuse to me. People just aren't willing to go through some hardships to see a better outcome on the other side. So they rack up insurmountable debts to live a certain lifestyle during college, because all the other kids are doing it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I already make $50k/year without a college degree, but I've been smart and saved a good portion of my income, and am now able to pay for school without any debt. But I think I just did things wisely. I made some friends, friends knew people in positions of power and helped get me an interview, and then I did well through that process and got hired. This can be done with contracting companies as well. I think a lot of people get too married to their role, as well. For instance, one could get brought on as a contractor in a role, then show the aptitude to do more than just that role, and apply for jobs internally. But people become complacent, and never apply for other jobs, and since they never showed any ambition, their contract runs out, and they're gone. Companies hire good workers, if you show that you're a good worker (it's how I got my current role, which I hate, but it has opened a lot of opportunities to develop career skills that will transfer within here, or to another company).
I'm never gonna know you now \ But I'm gonna love you anyhow.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 04:47:54
December 12 2012 04:47 GMT
#48
On December 12 2012 13:32 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.


That's such a bullshit excuse to me. People just aren't willing to go through some hardships to see a better outcome on the other side. So they rack up insurmountable debts to live a certain lifestyle during college, because all the other kids are doing it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I already make $50k/year without a college degree, but I've been smart and saved a good portion of my income, and am now able to pay for school without any debt.

For some folks, it is a bullshit excuse. But your anecdotal experience does not correlate with the overall picture of the current labor market in reference to entrance level debt and education value, and I'm inclined to think that you amongst a few others are simply expecting the worst when it comes to the plight of your fellow man. Instead of a knee-jerk "well its obvious all these stupid fucks are irresponsible, why couldn't they be like me!" why not go with an attempt at understanding that a huge number of people find themselves in places of financial distress by no agency of their own, whether that take the shape of a cosigner losing their job or a sudden illness that pushes back a degree a few years. For others, misfortune can come down to something as simple as not making it through the last stage of an interview repeatedly.

Let me put it this way. The US economy is currently undergoing a fair amount of international transitive distress as it is forced to change the manner with which it produces a labor force that better reflects global standards of skilled/unskilled labor costs and respective educational requirements. Additionally, banks in general are literally fucking everybody, even themselves. The entire system is being shaken and transformed, and yet a flimsy vilification of those with literally the least ability to change or weather the storm are who you are choosing to blame, and I really do not think this makes sense. Again, I recognize that part of moving forward is going to include more fiscal responsibility on the part of those who take on student loans, but this is only a small part of the overall problem.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 05:03:56
December 12 2012 04:47 GMT
#49
I think some people here has an unrealistic view of the world. I'm seeing way too much blame on individual students for all the debt that we're seeing.

First off, we need to remember the backdrop for our current situation; a terrible economy. This is probably the biggest thing that drives people to go to college. Your odds of getting a job without a college degree are terrible in this economy. Not only that, but the pay that you are going to get is going to be abysmal, especially with the pathetic labor/wage/benefit standards in this country. This drives so many people to go to college; you go so you can use up 4 years to kind of "wait out the storm" and so you can come out with a Bachelor's so you have a better chance of getting any job.

Moreover, we see huge amounts of debt because people are pushed into going to good schools. Because of the fact that the market is becoming so over-saturated with degrees, you need not only a degree, but one from a good school to differentiate yourself. Going to CC and then your local state school isn't going to increase your chances of getting a job by that much when compared to the host of individuals that went to respected private institutions or the top state schools. Furthermore, this will still land you with some measure of debt.

Not only this, but it's not like state schools are much cheaper. I'm coming out with over $50,000 in debt and I go to an expensive ($48,500/year) private institution. However, if I would've gone to the University of Minnesota (my local school), I would have had to pay more per year out-of-pocket, and my family barely squeaks over the poverty line in terms of income. Other state schools? Out-of-state tuition would make just about all of them cost just as much as the school I'm currently at, and they would've given less financial aid. Long story short, financial aid in this country is fucked up, and is rarely helpful.

Finally, even if all of these issues weren't a big deal, we need to remember that paying for school yourself isn't a guaranteed thing. Rent is NOT cheap anymore, jobs are NOT available for people who don't have college degrees. It is incredibly difficult to get job in high school relative to the difficulty of getting one 10 years ago, so there's no guarantee of being able to save up money for college, or getting a job to work at while you're in college.

Of course there is some blame to be had by students. Plenty of students just go to college because it's "what you do" and slack off, get degrees that are hard to market and don't work with them, etc. etc. It's been said many times. But people need to see a bigger picture; the entire system is just really fucked up, and there is nothing going for the consumer at this point.

Another thing to point is is how aggravating it is when people blame the degree. The first thing that I always here about the job discussion is how I probably shouldn't be getting a degree in philosophy if I want to get a solid job (I am applying to Ph.D. programs and hoping to become a professor). Would a society where everyone got "practical" degrees be any good? Would a society where everyone held a math/econ/business/science degree be enjoyable or even prosperous? How would life be with a complete lack of individuals with creative skills be? Furthermore, how about we actually think for a second and reflect on all of the skills social sciences/arts/humanities teach that "practical" degrees are woefully deficient on? Writing skill, speech skills, working in groups, analytic skills, etc. These are incredibly important skills to just about any job, and any humanities/social science/arts degree will cultivate these skills significantly more than a math/econ/business/science degree will. People are far too narrow-minded, blaming the degree as opposed to how an individual uses their degree.

THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores. Once a year you get to go on vacation and on the weekends you can watch football or whatever.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.


This is ridiculous. There is no moral imperative that makes work "work" and not enjoyable; there is no directive that says that only your evenings and weekends can be enjoyable. It is entirely feasible to say that people should pursue a job that they enjoy. This isn't being lazy or idealistic; it's being smart. It's basically common sense that people are more productive and happier when the thing they spend the most time doing (working) is enjoyable to them. You sound like some grouchy old man from the 50's that is just bitter that people are working to try to make their careers enjoyable when he had to slave away at something he hated for 50 years.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Mallard86
Profile Joined May 2011
186 Posts
December 12 2012 04:52 GMT
#50
Theres 4 problems with student debt today.

-Degree mills. Students at for profit schools which result in worthless degrees are eligible for loans.

-High schools give college the only priority when preparing students. Fact is that most students in high school will not or should not go to college yet every goal and testing metric is based on preparing students for college. Schools should have vocational and nondegree professional programs and society should stop pushing people towards this all or nothing goal of college. If you make that change then less people will be compelled to waste time and money in colleges where they dont belong or colleges that are worthless because they are unaccredited.

-State funding cuts. Of all the social programs the government can offer, education is far and away the best one to put money in, especially colleges. It is one of the few that actually generates a return on investment yet we have this misguided policy of spending money on health care and welfare and cutting funding towards universities. The buck is passed on and students are seeing tuition and fees increase at rates 10 times higher than employment salaries are increasing.

-Irresponsible burrowing habits. Some of this goes hand in hand with those degree mill universities. I see so many students using loan money to go on vacation or buy a car rather than using that money on education and living expenses. My roommate graduated with 70k in debt at a school which has 2.5k annual tuition rates because she was not responsible with her loans. They need to be a little more strict with loans so that students dont abuse them.
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
11739 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 05:05:57
December 12 2012 05:00 GMT
#51
On December 12 2012 13:47 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:32 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.


That's such a bullshit excuse to me. People just aren't willing to go through some hardships to see a better outcome on the other side. So they rack up insurmountable debts to live a certain lifestyle during college, because all the other kids are doing it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I already make $50k/year without a college degree, but I've been smart and saved a good portion of my income, and am now able to pay for school without any debt.

For some folks, it is a bullshit excuse. But your anecdotal experience does not correlate with the overall picture of the current labor market in reference to entrance level debt and education value, and I'm inclined to think that you amongst a few others are simply expecting the worst when it comes to the plight of your fellow man. Instead of a knee-jerk "well its obvious all these stupid fucks are irresponsible, why couldn't they be like me!" why not go with an attempt at understanding that a huge number of people find themselves in places of financial distress by no agency of their own, whether that take the shape of a cosigner losing their job or a sudden illness that pushes back a degree a few years. For others, misfortune can come down to something as simple as not making it through the last stage of an interview repeatedly.

Let me put it this way. The US economy is currently undergoing a fair amount of international transitive distress as it is forced to change the manner with which it produces a labor force that better reflects global standards of skilled/unskilled labor costs and respective educational requirements. Additionally, banks in general are literally fucking everybody, even themselves. The entire system is being shaken and transformed, and yet a flimsy vilification of those with literally the least ability to change or weather the storm are who you are choosing to blame, and I really do not think this makes sense. Again, I recognize that part of moving forward is going to include more fiscal responsibility on the part of those who take on student loans, but this is only a small part of the overall problem.


Well, that's not what I was trying to say, but I was on a roll, and it came out. There was a post just a few above yours that touched on people being wildly irresponsible with their student loans (using it for cars, vacations, etc), and I incorrectly combined the two ideas. I agree with what you're saying, but for whatever reason, combined your thoughts with the irresponsibility of some loan takers, and then made a blanket statement. Dumb, and irresponsible, but I did it anyway.

The problem is multifactoral, though, and a single post here, maybe even a thousand posts, isn't really enough to define the problem. But people will still argue extremely hard for one reason, when, in fact, it's probably all of the reasons combined that make up the problem we face.
I'm never gonna know you now \ But I'm gonna love you anyhow.
Mordoc
Profile Joined April 2011
United States162 Posts
December 12 2012 05:05 GMT
#52
This is my understanding and opinion, so tell me if I am wrong, about students going to college "for the experience and for some sort of a degree".

Far too many students are in college just because they think they are supposed to be there.
Either they don't know how to not be in school, their parents make them, they don't want to grow up, or because they think learning about comparative literature will enrich their lives. They have every right to do so, but looking around my college campus shows FAR too many students here who really probably shouldn't.

Sure they are passing classes fine, but they aren't really 'the college type', and they aren't getting their worth (in time, if not money). On the other hand, I believe people who are taking a calculated risk to pursue a professional degree, and know how it will be paid for by a job or otherwise, (the typical example is a student for engineering) is a completely reasonable thing, assuming they actually WANT to be there, and WANT to learn how their specialty will work.

Going to college to get a degree for more future money without considering the costs is often unsatisfactory and certainly not a good idea, if you do not want to learn.
cavalier117
Profile Joined April 2011
United States430 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 05:07:02
December 12 2012 05:05 GMT
#53
On December 12 2012 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."


But there are degrees like that. Any degree from an elite university ---> easy path to consulting or banking [well, less so now] that gets you a 75-125k job that does not use anything you learned in the previous 4 years. Law degree from an elite university does the same thing. The only thing that I used from law school at work was the existence of law-search engines.

But maybe people from the hard science side can speak of their experience re: using the things they've learned in school as a valuable job skill vs. the fact that they went to school is the reason they got a job.

Learning vs. Guild-like-entry-level-gate-keeping.


except that doesnt happen at all.... anywhere...

i know your high school counselers and academic advisors tell you that you need perfect grades, and a vast array of extra curriculars and go to harvard to get the job of your dreams, but its not true.

in the grand scheme of things, employers only care about 2 things;
1: what experience do you have?
2: how do you know and what is your connections?

three stirling examples of people i know
1: BA in financing and Accounting from Duke Business school (top ten school for business) went for an emphasis on stock markets. had a decent internship and was tied for highest in class. bright future right? nope, his internship was in a management firm and really wasnt experience, and none of his references counted for anything either because they were not part of his field he wanted. its been 9 monthes, no job. (one thing to note here, he COULD get a good job in either financing or accounting, but he still wants into the trade markets so he's still trying)

2:got his BA in Business Administration, then went directly to grad school for his MBA. (in business school, your initially taught that getting your MBA is like climbing the top of the mountain, then basejumping back to earth to an easy job with a high pay, also read as BULLSHIT) he has graduated, MBA in hand, looking for a management position in several companies. none will hire him. Why? no management experience. let me put this into perspective. he grew up in the hometown as Cabelas (a billion dollar outdoors company) he went to school with the kids of the VPs and board of Directors. he started wortking for Cabelas, when he was 16, he got an internship with them through college, as an assistant to the VP of sales.(EVERYONE knew him) And when he graduated from grad school at 26, working for Cabelas for 10 years. they STILL wouldnt give him a position indicative to his qualifications. why? no actual management experience.

3:Friend graduated from a decent state college, in computer science. he was always a computer genius and we were pretty sure he was gonna get a job programming or coding. anyways. he went to New York to a Facebook event on hacking. successfully hacked whatever they presented him. and made friends with various ppl in the IT security at Facebook. Where's he at now? Living in Palo Alto working for FB in internet security (making bank)

what the story here? its not where you went to school, or what u did in it. Employers really dont care about your GPA (most wont even check it) so those extra ribbons you wore on graduation? yea they will continue to look good, in your closet. its about WHO you know, (networking will get you further in life than anything you will EVER do in college, so if you do anything in college, meet people with connections and hang on to them) and what you have done.
Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
December 12 2012 05:06 GMT
#54
On December 12 2012 14:00 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:47 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:32 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.


That's such a bullshit excuse to me. People just aren't willing to go through some hardships to see a better outcome on the other side. So they rack up insurmountable debts to live a certain lifestyle during college, because all the other kids are doing it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I already make $50k/year without a college degree, but I've been smart and saved a good portion of my income, and am now able to pay for school without any debt.

For some folks, it is a bullshit excuse. But your anecdotal experience does not correlate with the overall picture of the current labor market in reference to entrance level debt and education value, and I'm inclined to think that you amongst a few others are simply expecting the worst when it comes to the plight of your fellow man. Instead of a knee-jerk "well its obvious all these stupid fucks are irresponsible, why couldn't they be like me!" why not go with an attempt at understanding that a huge number of people find themselves in places of financial distress by no agency of their own, whether that take the shape of a cosigner losing their job or a sudden illness that pushes back a degree a few years. For others, misfortune can come down to something as simple as not making it through the last stage of an interview repeatedly.

Let me put it this way. The US economy is currently undergoing a fair amount of international transitive distress as it is forced to change the manner with which it produces a labor force that better reflects global standards of skilled/unskilled labor costs and respective educational requirements. Additionally, banks in general are literally fucking everybody, even themselves. The entire system is being shaken and transformed, and yet a flimsy vilification of those with literally the least ability to change or weather the storm are who you are choosing to blame, and I really do not think this makes sense. Again, I recognize that part of moving forward is going to include more fiscal responsibility on the part of those who take on student loans, but this is only a small part of the overall problem.


Well, that's not what I was trying to say, but I was on a roll, and it came out. There was a post just a few above yours that touched on people being wildly irresponsible with their student loans (using it for cars, vacations, etc), and I incorrectly combined the two ideas. I agree with what you're saying, but for whatever reason, combined your thoughts with the irresponsibility of some loan takers, and then made a blanket statement. Dumb, and irresponsible, but I did it anyway.

The problem is multifactoral, though, and a single post here, even maybe a thousand posts, isn't really enough to define the problem.

Word, having come from a massive state school myself, I was surrounded by quite a few kids who were obviously only in Columbus to see the Buckeyes play and get fuckin hammered, so I can sympathize. And I do agree that the problem is quite complicated, though I do not see that as a reason to despair or not attempt to figure out solutions. Gotta at least try.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
cavalier117
Profile Joined April 2011
United States430 Posts
December 12 2012 05:11 GMT
#55
On December 12 2012 13:00 WTFZerg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:54 forgottendreams wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 WTFZerg wrote:
Frankly, I have very little pity for people who go to college and rack up ridiculous amounts of debt without any thought or consideration to the future. Far, far too many students go to either private or out-of-state universities and end up paying $80,000 for a bachelor's degree they could have paid much, much less for if they bothered to actually shop around. Also, for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to look down on community colleges as somehow beneath them, when in reality doing your first two years at a community college not only reduces your out of pocket expenses, but all but guarantees your admittance to a state university so as long as you don't do abhorrently.

And another thing: Not everyone has to go to college. But, for whatever reason, people seem to look down upon those who work skilled blue collar jobs. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and HVAC personal all make respectable incomes without college education. Tech schools need to be more strongly emphasized by the high school system instead of this "GO TO COLLEGE" mentality that is poured down the throats of people who have no interest in it.

At the end of the day, were I not planning on going to school for Law, I would not even be in college.


This is alot of the problem with social science peoples who say, well I respect blue collar or STEM but now that I've planned it its too late. While stating the problem you are still contributing the saturation of the law field.

I would know myself because I too am in law school. There's only one upshot for me in that Native American lawyers for tribes somehow still in demand economically by tribes, if I wasn't going to practice that I would be entering a mine field, and yet I know I'm contributing toward the problem. I always look back say, hell if I knew what a joke law school turned out to be I'd go to med school, yet I simply didn't.


Never said I was going to work as a lawyer in any fashion, only that I plan on attending Law school.

Two reasons I'm pursuing law:
1) The law fascinates me.
2) I want to work in Federal law enforcement. Something like the FBI.

And, at any rate, with a Bachelors in Economics (in progress) and a Masters in Finance (next step) combined with an actually pretty decent resume (from retail to the USPS to database development for JPMorgan) chances are I will be able to find a job.


the Highest Degree that is desired by the FBI, and who they hire the most are Accouting Majors. (yes, even for things like special agents)

Law school not required
Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
11739 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 05:12:54
December 12 2012 05:11 GMT
#56
On December 12 2012 14:06 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 14:00 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:47 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:32 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:05 theinfamousone wrote:
I have a few ideas on how the bubble will burst for those that are asking. One main problem is 50% of those who graduated a year ago are still unemployed. That's apocalyptically low as those are the future prime wage earners of the country (or at least supposed to be) and the rate you start out with has an immense bearing on the future of your career often times. When they can't pay back their loans, they're delinquent, those who are lending money to student shy away from it/require higher interest rates. Well students have to have that money so they're willing to pay the higher rates, well that makes those loan payments higher when they get done. Well that means more delinquencies. The cycle self reinforces until all hell breaks loose. Add on to that the fact that tuition rates rise on average 8% a year, far faster than inflation, and you can see how this situation is not sustainable. That's basically what happened to the housing market.

That's just the face value of the student loan bubble. One of the problems that isn't quite as intuitive is the long term problem that's more of an undertone, a hidden cost. Those hidden costs are that each $1 spent paying back these loans is less money people are spending on the goods and services that keep the economy afloat. For example. I am getting a pharmacy doctorate degree. This degree used to be a bachelor's degree up until ~15-20 years ago. So all those who graduated before they changed it to a 4 year professional degree had ~$130,000 + interest over 10-20 years, that they kept in their pocket that anyone who graduated after they made the new requirement such as myself do not have. Well, the problem is that that's $130,000 less money being spent on going out to eat supporting local restaurants etc. etc. that make the world go round. Then all the money those restaurant owners would've made doesn't get spent on whatever they would've bought etc. and down the line it goes. So as college tuition increases and interest rates increase, here comes more downward pressure on the economy.


Except the bolded part isn't true. That quoted figure includes underemployment, NOT just unemployment. Underemployment makes up a majority of that figure. And the rate you have to pay back your student loans is dependent upon your income. Not making much? You're paying less back.

This is not true in the case of private loans, which are making up an ever increasing portion of total student loan share, especially as state schools cut scholarship funds and students are forced to make up the difference. Private loans now account for $150 billion of total student debt. Again, a lot of people are making poor choices when it comes to allocating student loan debt, but the system is practically set up to encourage such behavior.


That's such a bullshit excuse to me. People just aren't willing to go through some hardships to see a better outcome on the other side. So they rack up insurmountable debts to live a certain lifestyle during college, because all the other kids are doing it. Maybe I'm lucky in that I already make $50k/year without a college degree, but I've been smart and saved a good portion of my income, and am now able to pay for school without any debt.

For some folks, it is a bullshit excuse. But your anecdotal experience does not correlate with the overall picture of the current labor market in reference to entrance level debt and education value, and I'm inclined to think that you amongst a few others are simply expecting the worst when it comes to the plight of your fellow man. Instead of a knee-jerk "well its obvious all these stupid fucks are irresponsible, why couldn't they be like me!" why not go with an attempt at understanding that a huge number of people find themselves in places of financial distress by no agency of their own, whether that take the shape of a cosigner losing their job or a sudden illness that pushes back a degree a few years. For others, misfortune can come down to something as simple as not making it through the last stage of an interview repeatedly.

Let me put it this way. The US economy is currently undergoing a fair amount of international transitive distress as it is forced to change the manner with which it produces a labor force that better reflects global standards of skilled/unskilled labor costs and respective educational requirements. Additionally, banks in general are literally fucking everybody, even themselves. The entire system is being shaken and transformed, and yet a flimsy vilification of those with literally the least ability to change or weather the storm are who you are choosing to blame, and I really do not think this makes sense. Again, I recognize that part of moving forward is going to include more fiscal responsibility on the part of those who take on student loans, but this is only a small part of the overall problem.


Well, that's not what I was trying to say, but I was on a roll, and it came out. There was a post just a few above yours that touched on people being wildly irresponsible with their student loans (using it for cars, vacations, etc), and I incorrectly combined the two ideas. I agree with what you're saying, but for whatever reason, combined your thoughts with the irresponsibility of some loan takers, and then made a blanket statement. Dumb, and irresponsible, but I did it anyway.

The problem is multifactoral, though, and a single post here, even maybe a thousand posts, isn't really enough to define the problem.

Word, having come from a massive state school myself, I was surrounded by quite a few kids who were obviously only in Columbus to see the Buckeyes play and get fuckin hammered, so I can sympathize. And I do agree that the problem is quite complicated, though I do not see that as a reason to despair or not attempt to figure out solutions. Gotta at least try.


Agreed, again. It's a problem that we have to solve, and I think it's ludicrous to only leave it to those that are supposedly qualified (current politicians, etc). Those same people are the people we entrusted in the first place, and the problem was created with them in place (whether or not it was because of them, or in spite of them). An intelligent person with good ideas could come up with a very good solution to the problem, and that person could potentially be on this forum. If such an idea came up, then it's up to that person (and like minded thinkers) to get those ideas to people in positions of power to make changes.
I'm never gonna know you now \ But I'm gonna love you anyhow.
Uzee13
Profile Joined June 2012
United States17 Posts
December 12 2012 05:21 GMT
#57
The entire education system is foolish. I highly recommend for you to search YouTube for Sir Ken Robinson's talks, especially his TED talk "Do Schools Kill Creativity?". If you search that, you should have no problem finding it. It is incredible insightful and part of it shows why Degrees are steadily meaning less and less. Our education system today teaches kids that they must go down a few certain paths, deemed by the government to be the right ones. The process is highly limiting for kids and breeds them to all go to college to get there degree in things they most likely hate.
From and economic stand point, I don't see how the United States can continue to be an economic super power unless major changes happen pretty soon.
Keep calm and carry on
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 05:47 GMT
#58
On December 12 2012 14:05 cavalier117 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:42 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."


But there are degrees like that. Any degree from an elite university ---> easy path to consulting or banking [well, less so now] that gets you a 75-125k job that does not use anything you learned in the previous 4 years. Law degree from an elite university does the same thing. The only thing that I used from law school at work was the existence of law-search engines.

But maybe people from the hard science side can speak of their experience re: using the things they've learned in school as a valuable job skill vs. the fact that they went to school is the reason they got a job.

Learning vs. Guild-like-entry-level-gate-keeping.


except that doesnt happen at all.... anywhere...

i know your high school counselers and academic advisors tell you that you need perfect grades, and a vast array of extra curriculars and go to harvard to get the job of your dreams, but its not true.

in the grand scheme of things, employers only care about 2 things;
1: what experience do you have?
2: how do you know and what is your connections?

three stirling examples of people i know
1: BA in financing and Accounting from Duke Business school (top ten school for business) went for an emphasis on stock markets. had a decent internship and was tied for highest in class. bright future right? nope, his internship was in a management firm and really wasnt experience, and none of his references counted for anything either because they were not part of his field he wanted. its been 9 monthes, no job. (one thing to note here, he COULD get a good job in either financing or accounting, but he still wants into the trade markets so he's still trying)

2:got his BA in Business Administration, then went directly to grad school for his MBA. (in business school, your initially taught that getting your MBA is like climbing the top of the mountain, then basejumping back to earth to an easy job with a high pay, also read as BULLSHIT) he has graduated, MBA in hand, looking for a management position in several companies. none will hire him. Why? no management experience. let me put this into perspective. he grew up in the hometown as Cabelas (a billion dollar outdoors company) he went to school with the kids of the VPs and board of Directors. he started wortking for Cabelas, when he was 16, he got an internship with them through college, as an assistant to the VP of sales.(EVERYONE knew him) And when he graduated from grad school at 26, working for Cabelas for 10 years. they STILL wouldnt give him a position indicative to his qualifications. why? no actual management experience.

3:Friend graduated from a decent state college, in computer science. he was always a computer genius and we were pretty sure he was gonna get a job programming or coding. anyways. he went to New York to a Facebook event on hacking. successfully hacked whatever they presented him. and made friends with various ppl in the IT security at Facebook. Where's he at now? Living in Palo Alto working for FB in internet security (making bank)

what the story here? its not where you went to school, or what u did in it. Employers really dont care about your GPA (most wont even check it) so those extra ribbons you wore on graduation? yea they will continue to look good, in your closet. its about WHO you know, (networking will get you further in life than anything you will EVER do in college, so if you do anything in college, meet people with connections and hang on to them) and what you have done.


Complete bullshit. Quite frankly, your friends either were looking for jobs beyond them, or are simply terrible interviewers. I received tons of interviews and had nothing near those qualifications. My firm I'm at has been hiring like crazy. There's thousands of thousands of jobs on college boards at any time. Most employers DO screen for GPAs.

All my friends and I that actively pursued jobs while still in school all received offers from multiple firms and had tons of interviews each. Many turned downs tons of proposals. If a company is hiring from your school, there's a reason for that. It's because the want candidates from your school. That's why they have on campus interviews, and then interview like 30+ people that apply.

If people can't even get interviews, it's because their resumes suck. I have had zero connections to EVERY single job interview I went to. I had two extremely strong recommendations for a Deloitte Consulting position from two TOP performing Deloitte consultants and didn't even manage to get the interview because I completely blew a preliminary case study that was supposedly a "get to know what the field is about!" type event hosted by the finance association.

Current job? Literally just applied online, didn't know anyone, went through the normal process, got hired. Drove 2 hours to the interviews during finals week. Finished an interview, drove back up, barely made finals in time one quarter. You have to do whatever it takes to get the job, but if you put in effort, you'll get a job. If you don't, you didn't try hard enough during your college career, or you completely blow at interviewing, you're going for jobs way above what the market wants you for (aka your MBA friend thinking he can start right off in a management position? that sounds ridiculous to me with no experience), or you're doing something else wrong.
Skullflower
Profile Joined July 2010
United States3779 Posts
December 12 2012 06:18 GMT
#59
My only problem with college is that I really don't see the point of taking all these bullshit math classes when I'm not touching anything STEM related. Can anybody tell me why the fuck I need to pass Calculus to get a Business major?
The ruminations are mine, let the world be yours.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 12 2012 06:25 GMT
#60
On December 12 2012 15:18 Skullflower wrote:
My only problem with college is that I really don't see the point of taking all these bullshit math classes when I'm not touching anything STEM related. Can anybody tell me why the fuck I need to pass Calculus to get a Business major?


Might as well learn SOMETHING interesting while you're there
shikata ga nai
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
11739 Posts
December 12 2012 06:37 GMT
#61
On December 12 2012 15:18 Skullflower wrote:
My only problem with college is that I really don't see the point of taking all these bullshit math classes when I'm not touching anything STEM related. Can anybody tell me why the fuck I need to pass Calculus to get a Business major?


Logic. That's why you have to go through all those classes as a kid too. It's to expand your mind and teach you different ways of approaching various problems. You'll likely never crunch numbers, or use any of the algorithms from Calculus, but you're a better, more well rounded thinker having taken a calc class (if you actually pay attention, and learn something, instead of having a friend do the work for you).
I'm never gonna know you now \ But I'm gonna love you anyhow.
hp.Shell
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2527 Posts
December 12 2012 08:02 GMT
#62
I think one of the major problems with the student loan system is people can rack up basically as much debt as they want with no credit to speak of. Student loans are basically loans that are given without taking the time to learn about the person that is being invested in. Talk about a bad investment.

When I was in school, I didn't know what the workforce was like, so I didn't value the idea of an engineering degree enough. I thought I'd eventually graduate, but there was no deadline. I got depressed and had a hard time socializing at the lowest point, and basically stayed stuck in that rut for two years. On top of it I had deaths of people and pets that were close to me to grieve.

What I did was try to beat the system and ride through my depression. Okay, I'll quit beating around the bush and I'll just explain.

You don't have to pay back student loans until a few months after you do either
A graduate, or
B drop out / get kicked out of university (for bad grades or bad behavior)

So if you're someone like me, when I first started I went through mostly elective classes first instead of core engineering classes, so my GPA was really close to 4.0. Then some engineering mixed in and it dropped to about 3.8 but it was still mostly electives. Then the depression phase kicked in. I basically had no friends and stopped going to class and started failing almost every class I was in, and I pulled a B or C in electives that I could cram. In order to be able to postpone loan payment, I had to be enrolled in 6 hours a semester. That's two classes. So I had about 33-36 credits worth of As and Bs, and then for 4 semesters I failed 6 hours. So at the end of the day I'm left with a cumulative GPA of about 2.28, which was high enough for my college to say "you're fine, keep going" rather than simply dismiss me.

This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university. All the person would have to do is take and pass 6 hours of classes every semester, take out more money than they need in student loans, and go drink wine in Europe with their harem of shopaholic girlfriends. Then if they never meet requirements to graduate they don't have to pay it back ever, as per the terms of the loan. Hell, I knew people who were majoring in just about every field of engineering because they didn't want to go work. There was one guy who had a major in electrical and computer engineering and was working on his computer science major, and he wasn't paying back loans because he's been in school for 10 years.
Please PM me with any songs you like that you think I haven't heard before!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 12 2012 08:25 GMT
#63
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university. All the person would have to do is take and pass 6 hours of classes every semester, take out more money than they need in student loans, and go drink wine in Europe with their harem of shopaholic girlfriends. Then if they never meet requirements to graduate they don't have to pay it back ever, as per the terms of the loan. Hell, I knew people who were majoring in just about every field of engineering because they didn't want to go work. There was one guy who had a major in electrical and computer engineering and was working on his computer science major, and he wasn't paying back loans because he's been in school for 10 years.


you sir might have just saved the free world. you're the new keynes
shikata ga nai
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 12 2012 16:18 GMT
#64
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Tobberoth
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden6375 Posts
December 12 2012 16:29 GMT
#65
I don't think there are many good ways to solve it. In Sweden, you're paid by the government to study (and you can take a loan on top of that if you want, for living expenses) and studying is free. Yet people still get pretty big debts (usually by studying abroad) and many of them can never pay it back.
Gentso
Profile Joined July 2010
United States2218 Posts
December 12 2012 17:47 GMT
#66
From my experience after graduating, the issue with recent graduates not getting jobs is that employers look for both a degree AND skills with experience. As it stands, and entry level doesn't exactly mean entry level skills, it means entry level pay. Having graduated with a degree in IT, a lot of the entry level jobs I was looking at required years of experiece, which is an interesting paradox. Colleges need to communicate to students that doing internships and resume building is an absolute necessity. Personally, I've learned and put a ton more things on my resume in 2 months of working at a small/medium size company than 4 years at college. To be honest, my IT education was a joke and it didn't prepare me at all for working with technology. Most of my courses were theory or beyond entry level skills. It really begs the quesiton why the degree is necessary in the first place, seeing as I could have prepared myself for a technology job much more efficiently and in 1/4th of the time without it!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 12 2012 17:49 GMT
#67
yes, you're now expected to do several years of indentured servitude before you can have enough experience for an "entry level" position. that's a barrier to social mobility if I ever saw one.
shikata ga nai
UndoneJin
Profile Joined February 2011
United States438 Posts
December 12 2012 19:38 GMT
#68
Plumbing/Electrical/Construction/HVAC etc. etc. needs to just be offered by colleges so that these kids going to college are actually getting a skill as opposed to a rough idea of how business works or a background in writing. The student debt is kind of a different problem alltogether, the entire world is debt ridden at this point. The best thing that could happen would be for more individuals to pick up trades that have value straight out of school.
I've been lost since the day I was born ----- You're gonna carry that weight
Jermstuddog
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2231 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 19:47:43
December 12 2012 19:47 GMT
#69
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.
As it turns out, marines don't actually cost any money -Jinro
Jermstuddog
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2231 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 19:54:54
December 12 2012 19:51 GMT
#70
On December 12 2012 10:15 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
If this continues, then in the future either:

a. People will stop going to University. University will once again be for the rich, outstanding students, legacy, ect, and most people will probably go to tech schools to get a degree.

b. Government gets it's shit together and improves the education system of this country.

I hope b.



In the IT field, this is somewhat already the case, only it's more along the lines of:

a. University is useless in IT for everybody who doesn't care to climb the management ladder, which is unnecessary anyway as 1st-tier management often gets paid less than Sr. Engineers.

b. If you want to get a degree, whatever company you work for usually has some sort of shitty "furthering education" system where they pay for your classes. You go to as many classes as you can for free (or as little out-of-pocket as possible) and take as long to get a degree as the math adds up to.


*bonus: there really isn't anywhere one can go to learn about networking/server management in a classroom setting. Certifications are what the IT field really values, and the best way to get those is through self-study and looking shit up on the internet. It's almost like being able to speak another language. The concepts aren't hard, but nobody understands wtf you're talking about, so you just tell them to give you a raise and you'll take care of it
As it turns out, marines don't actually cost any money -Jinro
cLAN.Anax
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United States2847 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 20:13:06
December 12 2012 20:06 GMT
#71
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


This is so unbelievably true. This whole "college kids are getting the short end with no jobs and high debt!" thing is totally beyond me because many take majors that aren't seen as valuable in the business world. My school has an 80+% job/grad. school confirmation post-graduation, but that's because the people who graduate have competitive degrees in sciences, mathematics, engineering, and the like. + Show Spoiler +
we like to joke that the other 20% are are English and history majors
I'm a student in geology/geophysics; managed to get picked up by a mining company after graduating. Most of my classmates either go to grad. school or work for oil or natural gas exploration companies.

People need to realize that while a diploma between two students may look completely identical to you, a potential high-paying employer sees it in a greatly different light if your degree is in engineering as opposed to 12th century French literature. Focus on the skills and experience that an employer finds valuable, not "Oh, yeah, I have a diploma."

Edit:

So here's the intuitive problem for me, the U.S. is continually going to trend toward a service side economy, especially for White Americans, then it will trickle down to Hispanics and some AA's and NA (Natives) here and there. Everyone wants a piece these days instead of settling for lower end jobs. This is logical, and completely rational so no one needs to feel bad about it.


What? That sounds like terrible advice in my opinion. Those low-paying "undesirable" jobs provide valuable work experience for people. They then use this experience and even the skills they learn from said job to gain a competitive edge over other candidates for employment. Yes, it can depend on what job one is actually doing, but anything you can put on your resume is a plus. Also, you gain contacts that will help you network with future employers, employers who will see your hard work and offer you more money for your abilities, skills, and/or services.

These sorts of jobs seem to be viewed as though they'll be working there for their entire life. But really they're "entry-level" positions, places to step up from. They're what help you begin your career, not where you expect to end it.
┬─┬___(ツ)_/¯ 彡┻━┻ I am the 4%. "I cant believe i saw ANAL backwards before i saw the word LAN." - Capped
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 12 2012 20:12 GMT
#72
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.

What do you mean my point doesn't matter? I wasn't trying to say that people never have an incentive to do this because it ends up being more expensive.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 20:25:09
December 12 2012 20:17 GMT
#73
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 not Warcraft in space!
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 20:29:49
December 12 2012 20:23 GMT
#74
On December 12 2012 10:30 heroyi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:16 forgottendreams wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:12 heroyi wrote:
dont have enough grasp of the economic theories to give a rationale answer.

All I know is that college education system doesn't make sense. Go out and enrich your lives with education and become skilled but be buried in debt.

Then again, a lot of these debts have a high correlation with the degree and field chosen.

I know people who go get loans, student loans mind you, and use that money to go pay off a car, trips to Europe. I know people who have degrees in English and some bs in business and wonder why they cant land a job or hold a non-minimum wage job. People have this wrong illusion that if you hold this magical paper called degree then you are entitled to some 6 figure salary despite the quality of the degree...


I agree, some people just go to college for the loans or to put off working on the farm or continuing the job at Wal Mart (who can blame them lol?). Fault certainly must attributed towards some of the degree consumers there taking an easy or BS art/business/architecture (sorry man.. gotta start somewhere) degrees. Some of these people earning these degrees don't know any better, some do but don't think far ahead of personal or aggregate societal consequences.

Perhaps then part of the solution is absolving or alleviating debt in degree areas that are important economically for the foreseeable future. However that too runs risk of over saturating those degree areas and putting strain on colleges nation wide to handle the incoming demand of those students switching over.

See now you sound like Rick Scott, gov. of FL, who wanted to inject more into the STEM classes and kill off other "non-important" majors like anthro, arts, etc...

People dont realize you CAN get a job with any degree but they don't realize that if you have/chose anthropology major...don't expect to have:
1) a high paying job out of school
2) a salary in that field in which that will comfortably help pay off your living conditions AND debts

Instead, to get a 6 figure salary with an Anthropology degree you gotta work your ASS off to get there. Because those are usually reserved in very high positions in that job field.

Again, people don't understand when you have, for example, a business degree you aren't going to be using that degree as a ticket to riches. Instead you have to use the education you experienced while obtaining the degree to help you go take the initiative (working on resume, job experiences, insight to start a business etc...) NOT "oh hi, i got a bachelor in business, can i has 40000000000 dollar paycheck."

edit:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.

Agree with everything said here.

People don't know how to feel when someone goes on about how they dont have formal education like college but yet do well financially cause of their job they own and run. It is always funny since education is so highly valued (which it should be however people shouldn't be/feel berated for not going to college)


this is actually not that good of an argument.

not all STEM fields pay that well

biology and chemistry majors on average don't really make that much post grad, also you forget that the more people who pursue such fields, the lower the collective wages will be (if that is even possible)

business majors actually on average (not all but quite a few) make more than a decent number of STEM fields.

if you're talking STEM here then you're reall jsut talking about mathematics, statistics, physics engineering and that's it, and a lot of those 'high paying jobs' in those fields aren't even in those fields --- they're in business, i should know since i started off in STEM fields never wanting to actually pursue anything related to STEM.

many professional fields also use examination systems where passing marks are set by the participants involved (for example actuarial). therefore wages are high because professional societies are effectively artificially curbing supply. of workers to keep wages high. course you can argue "but we need standards!", however logically it isn't possible for everyone to become one.
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 20:38:59
December 12 2012 20:36 GMT
#75
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, it's essentially free money for schools lol. most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.
Daumen
Profile Joined July 2011
Germany1073 Posts
December 12 2012 20:45 GMT
#76
I never rly understood the US- Forprofit school system, but basically its Universitys demand Money from the Students, right?
So then the Students need to loan Money (from Banks?), thats the Student loan? plx Educate me on this, I have no idea, also could someone plx tell me how much Money you need for this? (I heard that some ppl have to work like slaves to pay off the debt)
President of the ReaL Fan Club.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:05:51
December 12 2012 20:49 GMT
#77
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.

This is actually a fairly efficient system that pushes professors to their limits to do the best job for little to no payment (i.e. they get paid only if they outperform the others by a long shot). So as a university you get much better quality of both teaching and research (no that it's done by separate people), and it costs you almost no money.
This is not Warcraft in space!
Ropid
Profile Joined March 2009
Germany3557 Posts
December 12 2012 20:54 GMT
#78
On December 13 2012 05:45 Daumen wrote:
I never rly understood the US- Forprofit school system, but basically its Universitys demand Money from the Students, right?
So then the Students need to loan Money (from Banks?), thats the Student loan? plx Educate me on this, I have no idea, also could someone plx tell me how much Money you need for this? (I heard that some ppl have to work like slaves to pay off the debt)

It actually makes sense, I feel. In Germany, I guess the idea is that the government will get its money invested into people's education back in the future through more taxes in a better economy than what would be the case without free college tuition. If this is true, investing into education means more income over a student's lifetime, this also means the student loans in the US make sense for the student. The financing is simply privatized, the people have to take out a loan, but will pay less taxes in their life than people in Germany.
"My goal is to replace my soul with coffee and become immortal."
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:06:30
December 12 2012 21:00 GMT
#79
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
December 12 2012 21:04 GMT
#80
On December 13 2012 05:17 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
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...
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:10:25
December 12 2012 21:05 GMT
#81
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.

I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple.

It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective.
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:09:00
December 12 2012 21:08 GMT
#82
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 21:12 GMT
#83
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)


Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 12 2012 21:17 GMT
#84
Part of it also has to do with having high school kids make decisions on their career early on. Hell, even people in university can barely get a grip on their career choice.
Power of Ze
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:21:59
December 12 2012 21:17 GMT
#85
On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)


Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).


it depends on who you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors (mostly ones that want to teach high school) who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis.

as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes? certainly i feel it is more difficult than say accounting, or management majors (who will probably make more than them).

generally i think proof based courses are far harder than applied ones are, so that may be my bias.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:23:55
December 12 2012 21:21 GMT
#86
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.
This is not Warcraft in space!
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 21:22 GMT
#87
On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)


Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).


it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis.

as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes?


You mean in the logic based courses?

It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes?

From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs.
Rassy
Profile Joined August 2010
Netherlands2308 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:30:25
December 12 2012 21:22 GMT
#88
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).



I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol.
Or rather, his ability to work in the future.
The student earnings potential is the colleteral.
I guess when that potential would drop dramatically, the loans might be a problem, and will probably be defaulted.


Off topic rant:

They making everyone into slaves.
So manny people who worked all their live, yet they have a negative net worth due to buying a house at the wrong time in a crazy inflating/deflating cycle.
Imagine this, your 40 and worked all your life like crazy, and yet you still own less then nothing.
Some students will go the same way, working till they 50 and still having a student debt and a mortgage.
They still own nothing and are more poor then the first hobo you meet on the street who has no debts at all.
It realy is a shame what they are doing to the people
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
December 12 2012 21:23 GMT
#89
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.


wouldn't the best professors opt to focus even more time on doing research that not only increases their resume value, earning potential, and reputation?
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
December 12 2012 21:27 GMT
#90
On December 13 2012 06:23 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.


wouldn't the best professors opt to focus even more time on doing research that not only increases their resume value, earning potential, and reputation?

The very best professors that have a tenured position or have a chance to get one would. But in many universities tenured positions are getting eliminated and replaced by casual research only and casual teaching only positions, so you do either one or the other are paid only if you do it far better then others.
This is not Warcraft in space!
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:33:50
December 12 2012 21:28 GMT
#91
On December 13 2012 06:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)


Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).


it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis.

as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes?


You mean in the logic based courses?

It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes?

From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs.


isn't the point of education to increase the pool of students who have better developed skills? mathematics education in this country is ridic bad i think precisely because there is not good incentive structure for talented people who are good at both the technical knowledge and expressing that knowledge to other individuals. i know for a fact that I do well in many of those courses not because the teacher is 'so good', but because i'm good at teaching myself new things. i generally only go to class as a survey of the material and to ask very specific questions (and of course to pick up participation points if there are any or to pick up things that may not be in the book (usually very few, but can't rule out that possibility.

there will always be students who will succeed not matter how bad the course is...i think it does a disservice to students as a whole if the classroom is structured so that most pass through without grasping the concepts that are supposed to be taught to them, and the few who would have done good, do good anyways.


i'm not sure how the whole mathematics education thing works out, I just remember being quite surprised that ANY of my fellow classmates were education majors
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 21:29 GMT
#92
On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).



I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol.
Or rather, his ability to work in the future.
The student is the colleteral.


No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to.

If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan.

Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit.

Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 21:31 GMT
#93
On December 13 2012 06:28 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.


even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)


Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).


it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis.

as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes?


You mean in the logic based courses?

It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes?

From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs.


isn't the point of education to increase the pool of students who have better developed skills? mathematics education in this country is ridic bad i think precisely because there is not good incentive structure for talented people who are good at both the technical knowledge and expressing that knowledge to other individuals. i know for a fact that I do well in many of those courses not because the teacher is 'so good', but because i'm good at teaching myself new things. i generally only go to class as a survey of the material and to ask very specific questions (and of course to pick up participation points if there are any or to pick up things that may not be in the book (usually very few, but can't rule out that possibility.


i'm not sure how the whole mathematics education thing works out, I just remember being quite surprised that a lot my fellow classmates were education majors


Sorry, I'm not sure where you're really going towards with your posts.... I'm at work on my lunch break, which just ended, so I probably didn't have time to adequately read.....
Rassy
Profile Joined August 2010
Netherlands2308 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:33:26
December 12 2012 21:33 GMT
#94
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 21:53:12
December 12 2012 21:36 GMT
#95
On December 13 2012 06:29 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).



I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol.
Or rather, his ability to work in the future.
The student is the colleteral.


No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to.

If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan.

Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit.

Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises.


that most of the money going into education is for consumption purposes and not investment. most of the increase in dollars goes towards not providing a better education for students or making sure professors are teaching people in a better way, but towards conspicuous consumption ( better reputation, better facilities that only a fraction of students actually end up using) etc....

sorry quoted wrong post.

as a whole you need smart people to be able to pursue fields that aren't necessarily financially rewarding (well at least how things are set up now). why would anyone in their right mind pursue education, if they have the skills to do something that pays better.

if you follow the argument that better pay results in better performance (a very specious argument in of itself, but one that current economic is based on), then yes, at least that money should be used to increase who well students are taught (whether that be professor pay, setting it up so that professors have a better incentive to teach, provididing facilities that are useful for students to succeed etc..., not towards the increasing costs associated with administratiion, reputation (based on faulty measures), etc...
Veldril
Profile Joined August 2010
Thailand1817 Posts
December 12 2012 21:37 GMT
#96
On December 13 2012 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?


I don't really understand why someone would say "earning potential" is a tangible asset...

A house is tangible because it is an physical object. Possibility of student getting good salary is not because it is only a probability and not a very ensuring one too.
Without love, we can't see anything. Without love, the truth can't be seen. - Umineko no Naku Koro Ni
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 22:47:05
December 12 2012 22:35 GMT
#97
On December 13 2012 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?


Earning potential is irrelevant in this case, unless you're trying to string it to a manner of "ability to pay back loan" which I already addressed in likelihood of default.

"Earning potential" is not collateral, although if you're not paying technically they can garnish your wages...

On December 13 2012 06:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:29 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).



I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol.
Or rather, his ability to work in the future.
The student is the colleteral.


No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to.

If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan.

Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit.

Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises.


that most of the money going into education is for consumption purposes and not investment. most of the increase in dollars goes towards not providing a better education for students or making sure professors are teaching people in a better way, but towards conspicuous consumption ( better reputation, better facilities that only a fraction of students actually end up using) etc....

sorry quoted wrong post.

as a whole you need smart people to be able to pursue fields that aren't necessarily financially rewarding (well at least how things are set up now). why would anyone in their right mind pursue education, if they have the skills to do something that pays better.

if you follow the argument that better pay results in better performance (a very specious argument in of itself, but one that current economic is based on), then yes, at least that money should be used to increase who well students are taught (whether that be professor pay, setting it up so that professors have a better incentive to teach, provididing facilities that are useful for students to succeed etc..., not towards the increasing costs associated with administratiion, reputation (based on faulty measures), etc...


Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).
zdfgucker
Profile Joined August 2011
China594 Posts
December 12 2012 23:06 GMT
#98
It should be illegal to charge so much money for education. Honestly, there are very few countries that get it right, from what I remember Denmark is one of them. Students receive some money for studying there, as studying is a job. You're giving up on the option of working now and invest time and energy in your future, you should not be punished extra by being forced into debt-slavery.
fLDm
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-12 23:26:13
December 12 2012 23:20 GMT
#99
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 12 2012 23:38 GMT
#100
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Show nested quote +
Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
December 13 2012 00:01 GMT
#101
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.





How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
December 13 2012 00:12 GMT
#102
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?


While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.

And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
December 13 2012 00:16 GMT
#103
On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?


While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.

And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.


I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.


How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
December 13 2012 00:23 GMT
#104
On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?


While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.

And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.


I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.




...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Sephiren
Profile Joined September 2012
United States85 Posts
December 13 2012 00:26 GMT
#105
It seems to me that currently people who go to college generally come from parents who also hold degrees. Yet, they cannot pay for college so they get loans. They go through University and get their degree, then enter the workforce. They can eventually pay off their student loans, but they can't save enough to pay for their kids college when that time comes around, so the cycle continues.

But with the increase in demand for University (as said in the OP due to corporations cutting training, as well as the fact that a degree is somewhat commonplace these days, i.e. you need one to get a decent job, or else TONS of experience) and the increase in tuition prices (>>inflation) AND coupled with the recent economic recession AND the fact that recent graduates have been hit the hardest (about 7.7% unemployment nation-wide, but something crazy like 20% for recent college graduates, and even higher for young people without degrees) which means statistically they will have much less successful careers than their parents (look it up, there some interesting stats on what unemployment once in your career means for your future, and the effect it has on a career path if you suffer from it early on--see motleyfool.com) then something has gotta give.

It's like demand is going up, but consumer spending potential is going way down, but cost to supply the service is going way up as well. Hrrrmmmmm...

but i'm no economics stud, so tear me apart. GOgo


Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 00:38:27
December 13 2012 00:29 GMT
#106
On December 13 2012 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?


While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.

And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.


I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.




...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.



Not necessarily. Here in Michigan if you are a teacher with a Masters (seems fairly easy to get compared to some other Masters degrees) and say 10 yrs experience, you can make like 70k with summers off. Thats pretty fucking amazing to me. Im an engineering major and with the job market nowadays Im not sure Ill be making 70k in 10 years and I sure as hell wont be getting 2.5 months off.

Obviously this can vary from District to District but I would be willing to bet 2.5months off happens more often than not.

Also, with theres quite a bit of Job Security in the teaching field once you have been in a district for something like 10 years. Obviously it can be VERY stressful early on and you will be first out if your district makes cuts.....but once you have been there for a while you have it made. Nowadays with the economy with the way it is......I have tremendous fears about ever being able to own a house. Things like......If i lose my job how easy/soon will I find another one with similar pay? Its quite a scary picture.

How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 01:40:49
December 13 2012 00:37 GMT
#107
On December 13 2012 06:04 forgottendreams wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
This is not Warcraft in space!
Jermstuddog
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2231 Posts
December 13 2012 00:43 GMT
#108
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.

I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple.

It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective.


I really dislike the attitude and side of the argument you take with such highlights as "he should have saved more money", "he should have thought more about his degree", and "it's not like he's paying any taxes anyway".

None of those deal with the problem that a dude with a college degree has no way to enter the field of his choice due to having to work to feed his family and not being able to participate in a very specific 'after-schooling' credentialing program that generally takes over a year to complete and provides a very modest raise afterward.

You are busy attacking the character of a person who pursued a higher degree with the best of intentions and sure, maybe a bit of ignorance, when the whole point has nothing to do with him, but the system that is in place here.

You think my brother is the ONLY student debt holder who has no intention or means to pay back his loan?

You think what he's doing is not a common practice in this nation?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but of all the people I know with significant student debt, only ONE of them is doing anything to deal with it in the intended fashion of paying it back. Everybody else is busy with paying the bills of life and looking for a way to extend the duration of their loan so that they never ever have to actually pay.

Cry more about how irresponsible my brother is. In the mean time, the college loan bubble will burst.
As it turns out, marines don't actually cost any money -Jinro
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 01:02:54
December 13 2012 00:50 GMT
#109
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university.

Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Well, who cares. It doesn't change much for them anyway.

In my field an average professor gradutes 20 PhDs. Only a few of those highest degree holders manage to find a skilled job outside of university (most employers prefer not to hire eggheads). Then for ~10 PhDs left without a job there will be only one professor position during their lives. If those PhDs who land a job are paid 5 times less and have no job security, it doesn't change the picture much, since anyway the career prospects are beyond horrible.
This is not Warcraft in space!
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 13 2012 00:55 GMT
#110
Man, I didn't know it was that bad over there.
Power of Ze
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 01:21:25
December 13 2012 01:16 GMT
#111
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.

And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job.

Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist).
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
December 13 2012 01:20 GMT
#112
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether.

IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 01:23 GMT
#113
On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether.

IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.


Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7215 Posts
December 13 2012 01:31 GMT
#114
On December 13 2012 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether.

IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.


Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned.



I work in automotive and deal with plastics. Im effectively a manager of a component on a vehicle. I learned very little if anything about manufacturing, plastics, tooling etc.


Theres tons of things in my job that I deal with that an academic environment would be PERFECT to learn the training for. And it would be applicable to basically any type of manufacturing, not just automotive. But of course those classes werent offered.

My point I guess is, I feel like for what the cost is, you dont get very much aside from a piece of paper. I think that is wrong. With the competitive job market, you basically need a degree whether its applicable or not. This is driven by HR and costs being cut for training/mentorship programs when you are hired. Universities and students know this so costs are going up and the actual education is mediocre at best.
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 01:41 GMT
#115
On December 13 2012 09:43 Jermstuddog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:
On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:
On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university

One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student.


My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter.

-He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree.

-He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years.

-He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters.

-He can't afford to pay back his loans

-Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free.

What happens when the house of cards falls down?

A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.


I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.

I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple.

It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective.


I really dislike the attitude and side of the argument you take with such highlights as "he should have saved more money", "he should have thought more about his degree", and "it's not like he's paying any taxes anyway".

None of those deal with the problem that a dude with a college degree has no way to enter the field of his choice due to having to work to feed his family and not being able to participate in a very specific 'after-schooling' credentialing program that generally takes over a year to complete and provides a very modest raise afterward.

You are busy attacking the character of a person who pursued a higher degree with the best of intentions and sure, maybe a bit of ignorance, when the whole point has nothing to do with him, but the system that is in place here.

You think my brother is the ONLY student debt holder who has no intention or means to pay back his loan?

You think what he's doing is not a common practice in this nation?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but of all the people I know with significant student debt, only ONE of them is doing anything to deal with it in the intended fashion of paying it back. Everybody else is busy with paying the bills of life and looking for a way to extend the duration of their loan so that they never ever have to actually pay.

Cry more about how irresponsible my brother is. In the mean time, the college loan bubble will burst.


Except it's extremely relevant. How is that any different than deciding you want to be a laywer, going and getting your undergrad in criminology, then being dumbfounded when you realize you have to go to law school after and pass the BAR? You should have realized that when you decided to get your undergrad.

The fact is your brother is a poor planner. If prerequisites exists for the job he wants, then he has to complete the prerequisites. He can't go and say "oh, I did 75% of the prerequisites, and you won't give me the job!? FUCK! Gimme my money back!!"

The family issue just compounds his issues of poor planning. Was he using student loans not only to support himself, but his family? Are you expecting student loans to provide for a family's wellbeing? That's more than irresponsible, it's nonsensical. Maybe before he went back and got his undergrad, his wife should have gotten a job to provide supplementary income in the meantime? Sometimes, I can understand the logic in that "the government should support/provide for you while you get an education." I cannot understand the logic "the government should pay not only for you, but a bunch of other people as well."

"Everyone else" using it to pay the bills sound like a bunch of idiotic mooches to me. For the most part, I don't agree with the people that are condescending towards those who need welfare to support themselves. But to have the attitude of "fuck it, I'm going to borrow money with zero intention to pay it back" is ridiculous.

So sorry everyone you seem to know is in such a predicament. I suggest you find a more intelligent posse to hang with. Pretty much everyone I know found jobs (some underemployed) and are paying back their loans. Some were retarded and took out way too much loans, but it was apparent they were doing so and now they are reaping the consequences. However, I don't know anyone in with such a "mooch of others" mentality you're describing, and it only makes my pity level drop.

The bubble might burst, sure. And the very possibility of things like that happening is why I have a savings account set up of money that I don't touch. It's the same reason I'm not buying a new car anytime soon until I develop an adequate safety net, even though my income would permit a serious upgrade. It's the reason I didn't buy a $600 TV on Black Friday. Because I save a good portion of my income and don't blow it like most of the idiots out there. Worked at 15 by riding a bus to another city to work (only place that would hire at 15), worked two jobs during college (although one wasn't very demanding), worked full time every summer, commuted to school for years I couldn't afford rent, and lived in places that would make my rent payments between $250-$375 when I first moved out. I'm good at saving money, and I'm good at financially planning. If you're (generally speaking) not, that's your fault and ignorance, not mine.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 01:48 GMT
#116
On December 13 2012 10:31 Sadist wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 10:23 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 10:20 Sadist wrote:
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.


We are going to have to agree to disagree. My only class that prepared me for my current job was Senior Design (in essence managing a project from start to finish yourself). the only classes were almost always too basic or a waste of time altogether.

IMO its a scam and tuition is going to keep rising regardless of how well students are educated.


Then you did not get a typical engineering job, I would assume. Of course, that's a major assumption, but I can't imagine learning the fundamentals of the purpose of engineering would not be at the very least relevant to your profession. I mean, is your job title "Mechanical Engineer"? I'm not saying it should have prepared you fully, anecdotally I've heard engineers (in the broadest sense of the term) tell me they've utilized around ~10-15% of what they learned.



I work in automotive and deal with plastics. Im effectively a manager of a component on a vehicle. I learned very little if anything about manufacturing, plastics, tooling etc.


Theres tons of things in my job that I deal with that an academic environment would be PERFECT to learn the training for. And it would be applicable to basically any type of manufacturing, not just automotive. But of course those classes werent offered.

My point I guess is, I feel like for what the cost is, you dont get very much aside from a piece of paper. I think that is wrong. With the competitive job market, you basically need a degree whether its applicable or not. This is driven by HR and costs being cut for training/mentorship programs when you are hired. Universities and students know this so costs are going up and the actual education is mediocre at best.


Except those would be too specific. The thing is, it would be a massive disservice if classes got overly specific like that, because if you can't find a job after you get a degree due to market saturation, you cannot effectively apply your skills anywhere else. If you're effectively a manager, maybe a management emphasis would have been great for you, which is indeed offered at most schools.

Something you can learn in the first 2 weeks at a job... like learning the management position relative to the automotive market you're in, isn't something that you'd need to learn in college. Learning management itself, such as an effective managerial skillset, the purpose of management, etc. would be much more useful, I presume.

Is there a reason your job in the first place targeted mechanical engineers for hire? If they didn't, that just means you got a job not related to your field. If they did, there's probably some underlying reason they wanted engineers specifically and not other majors.

I don't understand how this relates to costs going up for universities. Costs are going up for universities because of budget cuts. Universities, at least in California, lose money for each additional student they take upon. That's why admissions rates are being lowered. Without the subsidies from the government to the budget, the schools can't afford to admit as many students as they were previously. They simply don't have the money.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 01:49:46
December 13 2012 01:48 GMT
#117
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.

And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job.

Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist).


...So, if you are fortunate enough to find a job at all without a degree (let alone one that works with you going to school), a decent enough place to live at a cheap price, people to live with, and sacrifice good opportunities (there's a reason people try to go to higher-end schools; having a community college degree doesn't exactly make you competitive), then you can maybe get by without accruing debt.

And your last paragraph is ridiculous. This is such a huge issue because it isn't just the people at the margins not getting jobs; it's huge chunks of recent graduates who are doing well in school but still have to build up debt and then can't find jobs.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 02:10:17
December 13 2012 02:02 GMT
#118
On December 13 2012 10:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 10:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:01 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 13:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:44 Sadist wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:41 theinfamousone wrote:
On December 12 2012 10:28 Klipsys wrote:
One of the problems is no accountability for people's majors. Really, anyone majoring in art history/English/ liberal arts better have a really good fucking idea what they're getting themselves into. Another issue is EVERYONE thinking they need to go to college. There is a stigma attached with not having a degree, and it's disturbing. We need to adjust our thinking to believe that trade-schools are just as worthy of an investment of time as a degree. Owning your own plumbing business is not an awful thing, and at this point plumbers are doing better than most 9-5 desk jockeys.


THIS

This is exactly right. I think literally the majority of Americans go to college because they think "it's what you do after high school" as goes the line from Orange County (the movie with Jack Black from 2002). If you don't go to college, then somehow you are only half a person. So they don't know what they want to do, but they know they have to eventually otherwise they'll hate themselves forever, and it only gets harder to finish a degree as you get older. Then they just take random classes for a few years racking up debt trying to figure out something they "like" (because Americans are so far removed from reality that they think any job you don't like doing you should either be a bitch/douche to everyone and take it out on them, or quit).

Well that's all well and good (not really but that's the expression) except for the fact that most people would rather learn about psychology, art, and dancing then math and chemistry (aka the hard sciences). Since Americans are so far removed from reality that life's not always like it is in the movies where you become a paleontologist like Ross in Friends, or do whatever Chandler did, sitting in an office getting paid a lot of money, or being an actor like Joey, and don't realize that in the real world half your day is working and it sucks (it's "work", if it was supposed to be fun, it would be called "play"), and the other half is trying to stay caught up with all of your home chores.

Until people get a clue, this will be an ongoing problem. The funny thing is, college really isn't really prepare you for your field very well most of the time. Most of what you do at work is a combination of on the job training, and having common sense, which taking multiple choice tests and copying and pasting essays from sparknotes sadly doesn't help with. I'm not saying an education isn't necessary for a lot of fields, but for at least half of what we would consider decent paying jobs, it shouldn't be required. What employers should be more concerned with is training people properly themselves, and then seeing how it goes on a probationary period. Then you've got people that are terrible at their job and/or hate their job.

tldr; Americans are terrible at picking majors and taking life seriously, and employers perpetuate the fallacy because they're too lazy to properly find the right people for the right jobs.



I agree with this all completely. IMO all of this you need to go to college thing is driven by employers.


Except employers aren't deluded like you think they are. Besides the fact that for certain majors, such as Engineering, Accounting, etc. it's 100% necessary to have a proficiency in the area (and if you don't have it, then they'll have to train you out of their own pockets), it's widely known that employers do NOT think university adequately prepares you for a career.

Rather, it's a method to weed out the driven from the mediocre. Why hire someone with a 2.5 GPA when you can hire someone with a 3.5 GPA? All things equal, someone with a 3.5 is a harder worker or is more bright. Sure, some people are better test takers than others. But it's an amazing signal nonetheless about your attributes. They want to see that you'll take that career seriously at their firm. They don't want you if you "oh, sounds like a good career" on a whim. They want to see that you've dedicated four years to learning the subject material as best as possible and have performed well in that area. That way, they know you're serious, motivated, and willing to stick around.



My point was that my engineering courses didn't adequately prepare me for my career. Maybe it was because Mechanical Engineering is just too broad and shouldn't be lumped into one major.


Do you not see the problem with your post? If school is only meant to weed out the driven from the mediocre and employers know university doesn't adequately prepare you for your career.........

it means its a huge scam. You are paying tons of money for a slip of paper that HR uses to "weed people out". Thats just wrong. And because everyone KNOWS you can't get most positions without a degree nowadays the younger population has been taking it up the ass with the debt.

I had a scholarship so Im not in very much debt myself (only about 7k) but I can see from other peoples perspectives how broken the system is. I have empathy for the people who are 50k+ in debt with the job market being the way it is and with wages stagnating/going down. Adjusted for inflation in Engineering you start at a lower pay than previous generations and you most likely have fewer opportunities to make more money since less companies give yearly raises and shit than before.


It's not a scam because it's widely known (you might have missed out on that point though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

I learned about it as well as heard about it in high school quite a bit before I went to college. Not only was it formally "taught" (more so mentioned) by a teacher in a class, but it was considered common knowledge at the same time.

It's not wrong at all. There's nothing even remotely unethical about companies requesting people with degrees. All they say is "we have a job that has these requirements and will pay $X. Please apply here. We will select who we deem the most qualified. Here are our prerequisites." There is no problem with screening. If I start my own company, you're going to tell me there's something wrong with preferring to hired someone who has a degree rather than someone who doesn't? That's utter nonsense. I get to choose who I hire for my business.

Also, if you think someone who goes into a mechanical engineering career would not benefit significantly more from a Mechanical Engineering major as opposed to an Economics major, you're crazy. I don't know anything remotely even about Mechanical Engineering. I don't even know anything about basic vocabulary. In fact, I'm not even 100% sure what a Mechanical Engineer even DOES in the first place. My only impression is that they ensure the constructural integrity of a building.

I have limited empathy because there's little reason to accumulate $50k in debt in the first place. If you were working part time during college, had very cheap rent (because you had 2 roommates in the same room), ate frugally, went to community college, saved during the summer, etc. you should not be in disproportionate amounts of debt. If you didn't have a job and decided to go to a 4-year university anyways and just took out loans, lived on campus with one of those ridiculous school meal plans, and spent $20 per day on food, then you're an idiot in my eyes.

And to top it off, Engineering majors are still getting hired in droves. Not all sectors of the economy are hurting. For example, if you wanted to go into Accounting or Engineering, you're pretty much going to get a job if you performed well, had internships, and applied when they were hiring. But if you sat on your ass, had a C+/B- average, and did nothing to distinguish yourself from your peers, you're less likely to get a job.

Because it's not that there are no jobs out there. There's only relatively less jobs out there. The top performers are still going to find a job without a problem, they are largely unaffected by the economy, assuming they went through the right processes/channels. The above average performers also generally are still getting jobs fine. It's the "slightly-above-average", mediocre, and underperformers (C's get degrees!) that are hit the hardest here. Of course, this is not a universally applicable statement and there are exceptions. In short, those that were at the margin of barely getting jobs before are those that aren't getting jobs (although the rest may be making on average marginally less for the same jobs that still exist).


...So, if you are fortunate enough to find a job at all (let alone one that works with you going to school), a decent enough place to live at a cheap price, people to live with, and sacrifice good opportunities (there's a reason people try to go to higher-end schools; having a community college degree doesn't exactly make you competitive), then you can maybe get by without accruing debt.

And your last paragraph is ridiculous. This is such a huge issue because it isn't just the people at the margins not getting jobs; it's huge chunks of recent graduates who are doing well in school but still have to build up debt and then can't find jobs.


If you can't find a job at all you're doing something wrong. It's not hard to find a job. It *is* hard to find a job that's worth your degree. I'm not kidding in the slightest. If you can't find a job at all, you're most likely lazy. Unemployment for recent college grads has been around ~7% for ages, up from ~5% before the recession. So if you're one of those 2/100 people... you're at the margin. If you're in that 7%, that sucks, but I'm going to guess you got straight C's. Underemployment is the issue. Pretty much all the college grads are finding jobs that are paying $10/hr or maybe even less.

Margins can be interpreted widely. I didn't mean it as slim, I meant it more so those at the bottom are those that are being hurt the most. If you wanted you could interpret margin to mean 30% people more than before. All I'm saying is that if it's 30% more than before, that 30% is comprised mostly of those that were the worst performers that still managed to get jobs in the past.

If you're performing well in school and you take appropriate actions, you WILL get a job. That is no question. My school board itself has 2,500+ jobs listed at any moment in time. Monster has a ridiculous amount as well. I got plenty of interviews. My peers got plenty of interviews. The only reason is we took initiative and we had something to sell about ourselves. Like I said prior, I don't know a single person that had above average credentials, started looking for a job early, and applied to many places that didn't get a decent offer.

I was Scholarship Chair of my fraternity, I had access to plenty of people's GPAs, how they were performing in classes, etc. and all the other things they were doing. I knew what people were involved in on a fairly large scale. Every single damned person who was looking got a job. To continue, I was part of the Accounting Association. Every single damned person who graduated the year before me got a job. Every.... single... one. Because they were involved, went to the correct networking events, etc. I went on SO MANY job "workshops" (where they rent out a classroom and tell you about positions they're hiring)... do you know the average attendance of these? Around TWELVE PEOPLE. They were advertised profusely at career centers, etc. I tried to get people to go like crazy. The typical response for not going? "Oh, I have a midterm the next day" "Oh, I have work that day" or some other bullshit excuse. Make damned time for your career, not the present. These were the events that if they liked you, from simply asking maybe one or two questions, you were guaranteed an interview simply because you showed up.

I'll always remember going to the Experian workshop where they were advertising multiple positions in an excellent rotational program. Two years of training in multiple rotational positions, amazing amount of exposure, development of extremely useful skills, $50,000+ starting salary, full benefits, the works. HR went out on campus, set up booths in different areas, had signs, posted it on the career fair website, had flyers in the career fair, were approaching people to come. They had 8 people show up. They ordered 8 pizzas from Dominos because they expected a large turnout. I took home two pizzas and guaranteed an on campus interview 2 weeks later (which was also successful because I interviewed with the friggin' person I networked with after the workshop on a 1-on-1 basis since no one else was around to talk!!!).
LunaSea
Profile Joined October 2011
Luxembourg369 Posts
December 13 2012 02:45 GMT
#119
On December 13 2012 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 09:16 Sadist wrote:
On December 13 2012 09:12 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:
On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:
On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high?

Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating.


quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition.

administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability.

This is changing now.

Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities).

Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant.

Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing.


only furthers my point thank you

some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final).

the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation.

i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)

But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.

I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.


...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?

Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.

You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.

Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.

As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).


Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.


In what sense?


While elementary school educators work the least, there aren't any educators (K-12 or professors) that get "large breaks" throughout the day, "significantly more" days off than a typical job, or massive summer breaks (the retirement benefits and job security are very questionable as well). Even elementary school teachers work all day, and when they're not teaching their class, they have several other faculty-related things to do (faculty meetings, workshops, homework to grade, extra tutoring, administrative appointments beyond their class, etc. etc.). Once you're into middle school or high school teaching, the workload is already higher than your average worker; not only do you have class throughout the day, but you have significantly more homework to work through, workshops and meetings to attend, etc. etc. Furthermore, this stuff goes on through the summer, too. Summer isn't just some kind of break for teachers like it is for young students; there are things like job evaluations, summer workshops (lasting days in some cases), and additional meetings to re-evaluate school and teaching policies. Sure, summer isn't as hard for teachers as it is for other professions, but teachers have a much higher workload during the school year than most professions do.

And don't even start with professors. They work far more than anyone else out there for far less pay.


I don't necessarily buy this. While i have a ton of respect for teachers and I think it is an admirable profession, Summers off is a HUGE bonus. It eats at me every so often that my vacation consists of 2 weeks a year and a nonpaid vacation week during Christmas. If I knew I had to work hard throughout the year but had 2.5 months off to travel and live my life I would take it in a heart beat.




...But that doesn't happen. At least in Minnesota, teachers don't just get June-August off; while they get far more time off than usual, they still have to be around for administrative-related business throughout much of the summer. Yea, you can probably take a week vacation to travel here or there, but that's no different from other professions. Furthermore, teachers generally get paid far less during the summer or not at all.


Come to Luxembourg, as a secondary school teacher you'll make around 8k € / month + huge vacations.
"Your f*cking wrong, but I respect your opinion" --Day[9]
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 03:07:43
December 13 2012 03:04 GMT
#120
On December 13 2012 09:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
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).
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 03:20 GMT
#121
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....
chenchen
Profile Joined November 2010
United States1136 Posts
December 13 2012 03:32 GMT
#122
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
powerade = dragoon blood
BirdKiller
Profile Joined January 2011
United States428 Posts
December 13 2012 04:02 GMT
#123
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.
Elurie
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
4716 Posts
December 13 2012 04:06 GMT
#124
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.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 04:12:14
December 13 2012 04:09 GMT
#125
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.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 04:54 GMT
#126
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.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 05:15:20
December 13 2012 05:14 GMT
#127
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.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 05:34:54
December 13 2012 05:22 GMT
#128
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.
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
December 13 2012 05:37 GMT
#129
There are different types of financial aid. There are grants, there are subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, scholarships, and work study.
Writer
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 05:55 GMT
#130
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.
BamBam
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
745 Posts
December 13 2012 06:10 GMT
#131
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).
"two is way better than twice as one" - artosis
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 06:29:39
December 13 2012 06:12 GMT
#132
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.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44112 Posts
December 13 2012 06:40 GMT
#133
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.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Euronyme
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden3804 Posts
December 13 2012 06:43 GMT
#134
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.
I bet i can maı̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̨̨̨̨̨̨ke you wipe your screen.
BamBam
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
745 Posts
December 13 2012 06:51 GMT
#135
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.
"two is way better than twice as one" - artosis
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 07:01:24
December 13 2012 06:59 GMT
#136
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.
Writer
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 07:14 GMT
#137
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.
Joedaddy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1948 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 07:22:33
December 13 2012 07:20 GMT
#138
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

I might be the minority on TL, but TL is the minority everywhere else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 07:24 GMT
#139
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.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44112 Posts
December 13 2012 07:30 GMT
#140
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).
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Souma
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
December 13 2012 07:32 GMT
#141
Buying used books on Amazon is nice. I don't even mind if people already highlighted stuff (saves me the trouble).
Writer
kafkaesque
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
Germany2006 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 07:42:01
December 13 2012 07:39 GMT
#142
I'm not too familiar with student loans in the US, on what amount to they cap out?

10k? 20k? 50k? And what's the average debt you're in once you finished?

I know it's capped at 10k € in Germany and it's usually not a problem to pay back, since you have five years after graduating until the re-payment has to begin.
| (• ◡•)|╯ ╰(❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 11:42 GMT
#143
On December 13 2012 16:39 kafkaesque wrote:
I'm not too familiar with student loans in the US, on what amount to they cap out?

10k? 20k? 50k? And what's the average debt you're in once you finished?

I know it's capped at 10k € in Germany and it's usually not a problem to pay back, since you have five years after graduating until the re-payment has to begin.


Federal loans cap out at some point, but you can always find private loans. Not sure about average debt, it seems to vary quite largely.

There's a 6-month window until you need to start paying it back.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 15:08:11
December 13 2012 15:06 GMT
#144
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 13 2012 15:22 GMT
#145
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 13 2012 15:27 GMT
#146
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 13 2012 15:43 GMT
#147
The military is a good option in Canada at least.
Power of Ze
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
December 13 2012 16:01 GMT
#148
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.


It isn't irrelevant because any guaranteed transfers are transfers to places that give you little to no competitive edge aside from actually having the degree (and in some cases, employers will think, "Why did he get a degree from such an easy school when so many other applicants went to better schools?")
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 21:09:55
December 13 2012 20:59 GMT
#149
On December 14 2012 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.


It isn't irrelevant because any guaranteed transfers are transfers to places that give you little to no competitive edge aside from actually having the degree (and in some cases, employers will think, "Why did he get a degree from such an easy school when so many other applicants went to better schools?")


What? Some of the best public schools in the nation are guaranteed transfer schools (TAG - Transfer Admission Guaranteed).

Just in California, UCSD (ranked 8th in the nation), UCD (also tied for 8th in the nation), UCSB (10th in the nation), UCI (12th in the nation), UCSC (32nd in the nation), UCR (46th in the nation) all participate.

Univeristy of Virginia, ranked 3rd in the nation, has TAG.
Georgia Institute of Technology, ranked 7th in the nation, has TAG.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, ranked 10th in the nation, has TAG.

Before I manually check anymore for your blatant disregard for fact checking, that means out of the top 12 univerisities in the nation, 7 of them have guaranteed transfer programs. Please don't tell me you're limited. And that's not to mention beyond the most prestigious univeristies, the general state schools all have them as well. Not to mention these are only the schools with guanteed transfer programs - nothing is preventing you from applying to other premier schools like UC Berekely (#1) or UCLA (#2) that have ~26-29% transfer acceptance rates.

On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.

Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.

chenchen
Profile Joined November 2010
United States1136 Posts
December 13 2012 21:22 GMT
#150
On December 14 2012 05:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.


It isn't irrelevant because any guaranteed transfers are transfers to places that give you little to no competitive edge aside from actually having the degree (and in some cases, employers will think, "Why did he get a degree from such an easy school when so many other applicants went to better schools?")


What? Some of the best public schools in the nation are guaranteed transfer schools (TAG - Transfer Admission Guaranteed).

Just in California, UCSD (ranked 8th in the nation), UCD (also tied for 8th in the nation), UCSB (10th in the nation), UCI (12th in the nation), UCSC (32nd in the nation), UCR (46th in the nation) all participate.

Univeristy of Virginia, ranked 3rd in the nation, has TAG.
Georgia Institute of Technology, ranked 7th in the nation, has TAG.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, ranked 10th in the nation, has TAG.

Before I manually check anymore for your blatant disregard for fact checking, that means out of the top 12 univerisities in the nation, 7 of them have guaranteed transfer programs. Please don't tell me you're limited. And that's not to mention beyond the most prestigious univeristies, the general state schools all have them as well. Not to mention these are only the schools with guanteed transfer programs - nothing is preventing you from applying to other premier schools like UC Berekely (#1) or UCLA (#2) that have ~26-29% transfer acceptance rates.

Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.

Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.



All of the schools you named with "TAG" are complete crap except maybe UVA in terms of employment opportunity, rigorous curriculum, and graduate admissions opportunity compared to schools that are actually good.

Berkeley and UCLA are decent, but admissions for community college transfers is far from guaranteed and transfer students start at such awful positions that it is almost impossible though not entirely unlikely to match the academic rigour of the schedules of students admitted directly from high school.

While name dropping these "top universities," you fail to consider the fact that top private universities and liberal arts colleges in the US are much more competitive, much more selective, oftentimes much more rigorous despite accusations of grade inflation, and provide much more opportunities in post-undergrad life. UCSD and UCD aren't "top 12," . . .they wouldn't even be top 50 if you consider "good" private universities like the eight ivies, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, NYU, Carnegie Mellon, and the hordes of good liberal arts colleges that provide excellent undergrad education . . . .

So no, going to community college is not a very good path into good universities.
I guess it can be a decent path into decent universities, but good universities draw undergrads overwhelmingly exclusively from high schools.
powerade = dragoon blood
cLAN.Anax
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United States2847 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-13 21:42:06
December 13 2012 21:40 GMT
#151
(Sorry, was going back to the Amazon and textbooks thing. Wasn't aware how far the discussion had progressed. Pardon me...)

+ Show Spoiler +
On December 13 2012 16:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 13 2012 16:24 FabledIntegral wrote:
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).


Amazon's a lifesaver for me too. The bookstore's finally been pricing competitively, but with their rewards card, I rack up tons of points each semester. Plus, it beats the bustle in the bookstore right before classes start.
┬─┬___(ツ)_/¯ 彡┻━┻ I am the 4%. "I cant believe i saw ANAL backwards before i saw the word LAN." - Capped
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 13 2012 22:40 GMT
#152
On December 14 2012 05:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.
Why do you care so much that it is irrelevant, if you truly believe it is? That sounds like a job for moderation... it's not like I was trying to discredit your arguments with that.

Regardless, I don't find it irrelevant. Going away to a good school has many advantages over staying with your parents and going to a local community college, regardless of whether or not you transfer. These advantages are only available to the wealthy if we don't allow significant borrowing of money. I'm not saying opportunities are going to be equal in every respect for rich vs poor people, just that we shouldn't gloss over some of these differences specifically with regard to going away to a good school when the topic of conversation involves entitlement to this type of college experience.

Whether or not you got to live in a freshman dorm and do freshman things is determined by if you go away to college or not. Whether or not you got the spring break experience at Cancun is not determined by whether you went to college or not, so I have no idea why you chose this example.

Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.
You consider the disadvantages negligible. I think most people in this discussion will disagree with you on this. I don't think it's wrong if someone chooses to take your suggested route if they aren't wealthy, but I also don't think it's wrong for some to be motivated to take the route many Americans do by going away to college immediately, even though it required borrowing.

What's wrong with bringing up being an RA as an example? It's an example of another disadvantage of taking the transfer route instead of the good route. The number of students it affects is far from negligible. Obviously if that was the only drawback to transferring it wouldn't be significant, but it was just an example. I also haven't heard of this before about how transfers get priority for registration; they usually get the same priority as other people with the same standing. However, if your major requires a 5 course sequence and you only plan to spend junior and senior year on campus, you are going to be a super senior for half a semester. Often there are ways to work around this, but it is much less troublesome to simply start at the same school you will finish at if you can.... then you can have your whole course career planned from the getgo if you want.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-14 01:09:20
December 14 2012 01:08 GMT
#153
On December 14 2012 06:22 chenchen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 05:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.


It isn't irrelevant because any guaranteed transfers are transfers to places that give you little to no competitive edge aside from actually having the degree (and in some cases, employers will think, "Why did he get a degree from such an easy school when so many other applicants went to better schools?")


What? Some of the best public schools in the nation are guaranteed transfer schools (TAG - Transfer Admission Guaranteed).

Just in California, UCSD (ranked 8th in the nation), UCD (also tied for 8th in the nation), UCSB (10th in the nation), UCI (12th in the nation), UCSC (32nd in the nation), UCR (46th in the nation) all participate.

Univeristy of Virginia, ranked 3rd in the nation, has TAG.
Georgia Institute of Technology, ranked 7th in the nation, has TAG.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, ranked 10th in the nation, has TAG.

Before I manually check anymore for your blatant disregard for fact checking, that means out of the top 12 univerisities in the nation, 7 of them have guaranteed transfer programs. Please don't tell me you're limited. And that's not to mention beyond the most prestigious univeristies, the general state schools all have them as well. Not to mention these are only the schools with guanteed transfer programs - nothing is preventing you from applying to other premier schools like UC Berekely (#1) or UCLA (#2) that have ~26-29% transfer acceptance rates.

On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.

Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.



All of the schools you named with "TAG" are complete crap except maybe UVA in terms of employment opportunity, rigorous curriculum, and graduate admissions opportunity compared to schools that are actually good.

Berkeley and UCLA are decent, but admissions for community college transfers is far from guaranteed and transfer students start at such awful positions that it is almost impossible though not entirely unlikely to match the academic rigour of the schedules of students admitted directly from high school.

While name dropping these "top universities," you fail to consider the fact that top private universities and liberal arts colleges in the US are much more competitive, much more selective, oftentimes much more rigorous despite accusations of grade inflation, and provide much more opportunities in post-undergrad life. UCSD and UCD aren't "top 12," . . .they wouldn't even be top 50 if you consider "good" private universities like the eight ivies, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, NYU, Carnegie Mellon, and the hordes of good liberal arts colleges that provide excellent undergrad education . . . .

So no, going to community college is not a very good path into good universities.
I guess it can be a decent path into decent universities, but good universities draw undergrads overwhelmingly exclusively from high schools.


We're talking about a public system with government funded money. Private colleges can charge a ton (average around ~$40k+ in tuition per year as opposed to ~$12k), and I don't exactly see a solution to that. Do you suggest that we use taxpayer money to give students money to pay the tuition fees of whatever the private school is charging? I mean, if you want to go to USC.... should the government cover that? I'll agree that I don't see a viable method existing now to attend private universities without incurring large amounts of debt due to the tuition costs itself, but I don't think that's an issue.

Quite simply, private institutions, due to the nature of them being private, will also give the wealthy an advantage over those that are not wealthy. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware they're more competitive. I didn't forget about them, I attempted (and apparently failed) to specify I was referring to public colleges only.

However, I fail to see how the public institutions I listed are "far from competitive" or anything of that nature. Lots of the Fortune 500 companies all hire from these universities (at least the Universities of California). KPMG, E&Y, Deloitte, PwC all hire from these schools for accounting. Insurance giants State Farm, Liberty Mutual, Travelers, etc. all hire from these schools. Consulting firms such as Hitachi Consulting, Edwards Lifesciences, Deloitte Consulting, all hire from these schools. Credit rating bureau giant Experian hires from these universities. Not to mention the UC's make you competitive for Med school as they are rated extremely highly for their sciences. Engineers, from UCI at least, are also a highly desired major from firms like EMC. These are all positions that start $50k+, which if you ask me, is a very competitive salary exiting college.

I hope your definition of competitive isn't exclusive to trying to graduate with a job at 6-figures or something of that sort. We don't need a system in place that guarantees something like that, but that's my opinion.

EDIT: Rereading my post I do see that I failed to mention that I was referring to only public schools.
WeeKeong
Profile Joined October 2010
United States282 Posts
December 14 2012 01:13 GMT
#154
no one talked about the bubble, everyone is just discussing about college.

So here it goes,

The housing bubble burst because of this.
1. A single person could purchase many houses on loan.
2. The person only purchases the house because he feels that the price will go up in the future (Speculation) Whether the person would pay the loan back is COMPLETELY dependent on the price of houses in the future.
3. These loans were packaged and traded many times over with much deceit and immorality.

On the other hand
1. Most people only pay for one college education.
2. Whether these people pay their debts back does not depend on the price of college in the future.
3. These loans are not being packaged into time bombs based on whether the people can pay it back.

Since the demand is not based on speculation, there is no college education bubble. Every person who goes to college feels that this education has a higher value than the student loan he will incur in the future. Whether it is true, it is debatable, but the fact is that the demand is genuine.

Regardless, even though there is no bubble, there is still a cause for concern. The reason why people believe that there is a bubble is probably because the demand and price is increasing.

Why is the demand increasing?
Ask your president who wants every single person to go to college and incur a huge debt.

Why is the price increasing?
When the government makes it easier to get larger student loans, it would make sense for colleges to increase their prices as well. This would cause the public who feels that college should be accessible for everyone to appeal to the government to increase student loans. (eg. Occupy Wallstreet) This would once again lead to colleges increasing their prices in order to increase profits. This cycle continues.

If governments do not provide student loans, colleges would not dream of setting such high prices as they would not get many students and hence their profit would be low. College would be much cheaper, but much more inaccessible. This would be fine.... If the public feels that college is not for everyone. However, most of the public supports the president when he says that every single person should go to college.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-14 01:34:12
December 14 2012 01:19 GMT
#155
On December 14 2012 07:40 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 05:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.
Why do you care so much that it is irrelevant, if you truly believe it is? That sounds like a job for moderation... it's not like I was trying to discredit your arguments with that.

Regardless, I don't find it irrelevant. Going away to a good school has many advantages over staying with your parents and going to a local community college, regardless of whether or not you transfer. These advantages are only available to the wealthy if we don't allow significant borrowing of money. I'm not saying opportunities are going to be equal in every respect for rich vs poor people, just that we shouldn't gloss over some of these differences specifically with regard to going away to a good school when the topic of conversation involves entitlement to this type of college experience.

Whether or not you got to live in a freshman dorm and do freshman things is determined by if you go away to college or not. Whether or not you got the spring break experience at Cancun is not determined by whether you went to college or not, so I have no idea why you chose this example.

Show nested quote +
Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.
You consider the disadvantages negligible. I think most people in this discussion will disagree with you on this. I don't think it's wrong if someone chooses to take your suggested route if they aren't wealthy, but I also don't think it's wrong for some to be motivated to take the route many Americans do by going away to college immediately, even though it required borrowing.

What's wrong with bringing up being an RA as an example? It's an example of another disadvantage of taking the transfer route instead of the good route. The number of students it affects is far from negligible. Obviously if that was the only drawback to transferring it wouldn't be significant, but it was just an example. I also haven't heard of this before about how transfers get priority for registration; they usually get the same priority as other people with the same standing. However, if your major requires a 5 course sequence and you only plan to spend junior and senior year on campus, you are going to be a super senior for half a semester. Often there are ways to work around this, but it is much less troublesome to simply start at the same school you will finish at if you can.... then you can have your whole course career planned from the getgo if you want.


The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.

On December 14 2012 10:13 WeeKeong wrote:
no one talked about the bubble, everyone is just discussing about college.

So here it goes,

The housing bubble burst because of this.
1. A single person could purchase many houses on loan.
2. The person only purchases the house because he feels that the price will go up in the future (Speculation) Whether the person would pay the loan back is COMPLETELY dependent on the price of houses in the future.
3. These loans were packaged and traded many times over with much deceit and immorality.

On the other hand
1. Most people only pay for one college education.
2. Whether these people pay their debts back does not depend on the price of college in the future.
3. These loans are not being packaged into time bombs based on whether the people can pay it back.

Since the demand is not based on speculation, there is no college education bubble. Every person who goes to college feels that this education has a higher value than the student loan he will incur in the future. Whether it is true, it is debatable, but the fact is that the demand is genuine.

Regardless, even though there is no bubble, there is still a cause for concern. The reason why people believe that there is a bubble is probably because the demand and price is increasing.

Why is the demand increasing?
Ask your president who wants every single person to go to college and incur a huge debt.

Why is the price increasing?
When the government makes it easier to get larger student loans, it would make sense for colleges to increase their prices as well. This would cause the public who feels that college should be accessible for everyone to appeal to the government to increase student loans. (eg. Occupy Wallstreet) This would once again lead to colleges increasing their prices in order to increase profits. This cycle continues.

If governments do not provide student loans, colleges would not dream of setting such high prices as they would not get many students and hence their profit would be low. College would be much cheaper, but much more inaccessible. This would be fine.... If the public feels that college is not for everyone. However, most of the public supports the president when he says that every single person should go to college.


It was definitely discussed, and the issue did not stem from individuals buying multiple houses based on speculation of house values increasing. The majority of the homeowners owned single residences. I'm not sure how the # is a relevant factor in here anyways, which I'd like you to explain.

To your second point, why exactly do they have to be directly related? People take out loans for themselves with the speculation it will improve their earning potential, thus allowing them to pay back the loans in the future (speculation). Thus you can argue a person's ability to pay back their student loans (if we hypothetically permit the ability to default) is completely dependent on their future earnings. If the earning potential is not improved and stays stagnant, then the person will default, and the loans will not be paid back.

It has the same result - loan taken out upon speculation that a certain asset will generate a net profit that exceeds the cost of the loan in the first place. The fact there is no tangible asset for collateral only hurts your argument - if someone defaults on a mortgage, the loanholder can recoup at least a fraction of their capital. If someone defaults on something without collateral, it can be viewed as a total loss. Generally, if there's no collateral, interest rates are higher to compensate for this risk. However, with student loans, they are kept artificially low beyond what the market rate would be, making the situation even more dire.

Profits also aren't relevant to public universities. I may have missed the memo earlier, but I dont' think there's an issue of private universities being unaffordable. I was under the assumption public education is reaching levels where it is not affordable or manageable. I may have missed the boat on this one.

The loans being packaged does not play a massive role either. If there's a massive occurrence of "default" on student loans (assuming it becomes possible), then the value of all existing student loan assets is going to plummet, whether or not they are in default. If there exists a massive plunge in these intangible assets, it would cause huge ripples and billions of dollars in losses as suddenly reserves go to hell.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 14 2012 02:14 GMT
#156
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 14 2012 21:26 GMT
#157
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

Show nested quote +
RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 14 2012 23:31 GMT
#158
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 01:58 GMT
#159
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 02:48:11
December 15 2012 02:47 GMT
#160
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 03:15 GMT
#161
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 03:29:17
December 15 2012 03:27 GMT
#162
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 03:45 GMT
#163
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.
Grohg
Profile Joined March 2011
United States243 Posts
December 15 2012 03:51 GMT
#164
College costs way too much but it is the best investment you will make if you use it appropriately. As was mentioned before, school doesn't magically give you a tangible benefit by paying for tuition. You have to put in the effort and really dig in to get a return. However, if you attend a good school, get involved in your classes rather than sleeping in because your prof doesn't take attendance, and surround yourself with like-minded students and faculty, you will get way more out of the experience than you put in via tuition. The college experience isn't just about the fun nights and weekends (there's nothing wrong with having fun, mind you). It's also not just about the academics. Mentally developing into an adult and learning to responsibly live on your own is a major component of a successful college career.

Is the cost too high? Hell yes it is...but as long as you take full advantage of the opportunity to go to college, the investment will pay for itself and more.
You can't spell slaughter without laughter.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 03:52 GMT
#165
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
WTFZerg
Profile Joined February 2011
United States704 Posts
December 15 2012 03:58 GMT
#166
I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.

All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it.
Might makes right.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 04:00 GMT
#167
On December 15 2012 12:58 WTFZerg wrote:
I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.

All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it.

I specifically did (I could be an exception in this regard). After my freshman year I did much less networking/meeting/etc. And that's aside from more general social development.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
ArvickHero
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
10387 Posts
December 15 2012 04:02 GMT
#168
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective
Writerptrk
WTFZerg
Profile Joined February 2011
United States704 Posts
December 15 2012 04:02 GMT
#169
On December 15 2012 13:00 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 12:58 WTFZerg wrote:
I could see the "freshman experience" being worthwhile to people who go immediately from highschool to college at 17, but besides that? Eh.

All the "freshman experience" really gives you is a bit of networking experience, really. I would be extremely surprised if you actually got anything worthwhile out of it.

I specifically did (I could be an exception in this regard). After my freshman year I did much less networking/meeting/etc. And that's aside from more general social development.


Right. Okay. I concede that it's probably good from a networking standpoint. While I've always thought that going directly from high school to college is a silly idea, the "freshman experience" could probably come in handy in granting some much needed networking skills.
Might makes right.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 04:02 GMT
#170
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
This is Aru
Profile Joined August 2010
United States91 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 04:07:47
December 15 2012 04:07 GMT
#171
A lot of interesting information and thoughts here. One thing that resonates with me is that there are some degrees that are going to be essential, not necessarily to the individual, but to our society as a whole. Nuclear Engineers are going to be neede in HUGE numbers, very soon.

Now the maturing “boomer” generation is poised to cause yet another upheaval in society, as large numbers of them retire from the workplace. The electric power industry alone will have to replace nearly 100,000 skilled workers—more than 25,000 of them in the nuclear industry—by 2015, a fact that is driving industry partnerships with educational institutions and spurred creation of the Get Into Energy website.


Souce: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/insight/insight-web-extra/help-wanted-25000-skilled-workers/
aka Kasaaz
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 04:12 GMT
#172
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 10:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
The point is that a system exists to allow those who do not come from a background of wealth to get a quality education without incurring unreasonable amounts of debt. The reason I'm saying the "freshman experience" is irrelevant because the only argument that comes from that is that the wealthy get to have a more enjoyable experience than the poor. If the only financially sound route for the poor is to go through community college, then they "miss out" because they don't have the money. This is true, but irrelevant to the point that a system still exists in place for them to propel themselves upward socioeconomically.

At the same time, I'm not sure how attending a 4-year off the bat makes you more motivated than someone attending community college then transfers with TAG. Like, at all.

The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

RA is a terrible example because you're saying "oh if you transfer, you are ineligible for a specific job on campus that has 80 openings." The number of RAs to none RAs is such a disproportionate number that it rounds to zero. It's little different than a hypothetical situation where "if you transfer, you are ineligible to work at the food cafeteria on campus." I mean, of course the RA position is better than a cafeteria position with better overall compensation when factoring rent, it's such an insanely negligible factor in terms of over relevance to "ability to graduate with a degree without outrageous debt." It's not like being an RA is something that any nontransfer student can to do mitigate their debt as there is such limited positions. 99.99% of nontransfer students also do not become RAs.
I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.
ArvickHero
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
10387 Posts
December 15 2012 04:13 GMT
#173
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.
Writerptrk
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 04:19 GMT
#174
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 11:14 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
The 'experience' is not just for entertainment; it is a learning experience. Not all learning occurs in classes. Keep in mind I'm not arguing there is an inherent entitlement... just that you are missing out.

[quote]I think you underestimate how many people become RA's if you are saying 99.99% of nontransfer students do not become RA's. There is an RA or two for every hallway in every residence hall.

Even so, it's not sufficient to stand alone... it's just one example of many. I still do think that transferring is a viable option for many students, by the way.... I'm not trying to say it's bad advice.


The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 04:20 GMT
#175
I wasn't "well matched" with the campus experience but it was good for me. The culture at my school was a bit different from normal however so that data point may be meaningless
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 04:25:14
December 15 2012 04:20 GMT
#176
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 06:26 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]

The supposed "learning experience" about being a freshman still doesn't really hold weight to the original subject though. Which is ability to go through college without incurring extremely large amounts of debt due to the system.

You're right - 99.99% was a terrible number to use. I should have used something like 98-99%.

Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

Show nested quote +
I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

Show nested quote +
You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 04:25 GMT
#177
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.
shikata ga nai
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 04:33 GMT
#178
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 08:31 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
Yea you are right; it is more about motivators for warning to go to college than ability to. Cursorily related, but not pivotal by any means.


Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 04:51:26
December 15 2012 04:44 GMT
#179
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 10:58 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]

Well exactly, motivators for wanting to go. But wants are not needs, as mentioned. Part of the "I would have liked to go to Cancun for Spring Break" was mentioned because that's a want, and it is "part of the college experience" you mentioned.

I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Show nested quote +
Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

I must admit though your consistent attempt to debate that "all things are relative" is more than minorly frustrating. While I am fully aware it's not a good practice to speak in absolutes, your arguments are hinging upon that premise. Specifically, that we cannot blame people for pursuing something they find value in if they cannot afford it (tried to word it as best I could from how I'd think you might word it). Financial responsibility comes first beyond the vast majority of things in life. Inability to be financially responsible is what results in the ridiculous environment we have today. Objectively speaking, Americans are not financially responsible in aggregate. We spend more than we make income wise. It's fucking ridiculous. Too many people just "hope" the situation will fix itself, or the future will be better. The opposite mentality needs to be in place - things might go to the shitter, so have a safety net.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 04:56:46
December 15 2012 04:53 GMT
#180
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 11:47 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I disagree here. You absolutely must go away to college to get that freshman/dorm experience. You do not absolutely need to go away to college to get that Cancun Spring Break Experience.

The difference between wants and needs is also tricky; some are saying you need to get a 4 year degree from a top school in order to get a top job, which definitely isn't true. Likewise, getting a top degree guarantees nothing. For all you know, the freshman experience (or any other of the advantages of not starting at a local commuter school) could lead into a better opportunity/job/etc than the degree from the top school. We don't know for sure what we will need, but we do know what we will likely benefit from.

This is why I think it's important not to focus entirely on how to get people certain degrees at certain schools without incurring huge debts. It's a great goal, but not the only important or relevant thing if the goal is to empower those who aren't rich through college education.


Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is legitimate motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 04:54 GMT
#181
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.


Because I am not bamboozled by this chimaera of objectivity, I have no problem with making "subjective" statements. Would you like to make a subjective statement of your own? Or perhaps an objective one. I will of course hold you to the most exacting standards of objectivity. My statements are both subjective and correct, and by making them I additionally implicitly demand that you accept them as well. You are welcome to make a rebuttal. This is what we in the biz call "discourse."

The arbitrariness of a dividing line does not imply the arbitrariness of the category. The amount of education required to be a participant in a functional democracy increases with the complexity of the problems facing the polity. Because we live in an increasingly complex world, we will have educate our populace to an increasing degree. A high school degree is not enough. A business degree is not enough, and doesn't even cover the correct subjects. At the bare minimum, I think that, if we were to have a functional democracy, you would need to have most voters attain at least a well-rounded bachelor's in the liberal arts.

Of course education is never complete. That's why one should avoid at all costs wasting time and effort doing anything else.
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 05:07:04
December 15 2012 04:57 GMT
#182
On December 15 2012 13:53 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]

Hardly. The freshman experience is a luxury, not a necessity. I don't understand how you can argue it's a necessity anymore than Spring Break in Cancun. It's a really fun experience, and that's it. Your arguments are based on such loose premises of "well what if something awesome happens from it?" I mean, what if something awesome happens at community college? What if you network with someone there?

These "what ifs" are silly. None of these are even remotely pivotal in obtaining the degree to propel yourself upward in society. A degree is. It will, objectively, eliminate an incredibly important prerequisite required for tens of thousands of more jobs out there than if you had not gotten said degree.

The important factor is enabling our youth to pursue a higher education and get a degree without being swamped in unnecessary amounts of debt, not pay for them to have a fun time and great experience in their free time when they aren't in school. They can do that on their own perogative, with their own money, if they have it.

I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.


It's not a degree of intensity, as you constantly put it. It's a distinction between necessity and luxury. Yes, I do realize, as you've pointed out, they aren't quite binary. Maybe I should put it this way, and see if we can just see our differences here.

Economically speaking, I think the government should be very limited. It should exist to the point where it provides a framework in society for anyone to be successful and achieve at minimum a "middle class" socioeconomic status.

Economically speaking, you believe government should go beyond merely providing reasonable avenues for the public to increase their socioeconomic status, but also believe they should, at the taxpayers expense, go beyond this by also paying for/subsidizing entertainment matters that people may or may not find value in.

I don't necessarily disagree with what I just (possibly incorrectly) stated your viewpoint is, as there are things that can fall into that category such as museums, public libraries, etc. (which goes to your point of "things being relative in degree"). While necessity vs luxury (at least in economics) can be made binary fairly easily, I'm still going to have to disagree with you in your points. The matter we are talking about, I see it completely 100% as a luxury.


On December 15 2012 13:54 sam!zdat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.


Because I am not bamboozled by this chimaera of objectivity, I have no problem with making "subjective" statements. Would you like to make a subjective statement of your own? Or perhaps an objective one. I will of course hold you to the most exacting standards of objectivity. My statements are both subjective and correct, and by making them I additionally implicitly demand that you accept them as well. You are welcome to make a rebuttal. This is what we in the biz call "discourse."

The arbitrariness of a dividing line does not imply the arbitrariness of the category. The amount of education required to be a participant in a functional democracy increases with the complexity of the problems facing the polity. Because we live in an increasingly complex world, we will have educate our populace to an increasing degree. A high school degree is not enough. A business degree is not enough, and doesn't even cover the correct subjects. At the bare minimum, I think that, if we were to have a functional democracy, you would need to have most voters attain at least a well-rounded bachelor's in the liberal arts.

Of course education is never complete. That's why one should avoid at all costs wasting time and effort doing anything else.


At this point we are so far at the opposite end of the spectrum on this matter it's not worth even debating.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 04:59 GMT
#183
On December 15 2012 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:53 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.


It's not a degree of intensity, as you constantly put it. It's a distinction between necessity and luxury.

What is a necessity and what is a luxury is an opinion, or requires a subjective rating system. By the way I made a couple of minor edits since you quoted, although I don't think it changes anything significantly.

What you consider a necessity and what you consider a luxury is not what every other person in this discussion would. If there was an absolute way to decide what isn't necessary and what is, then I would agree with you 100%.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 05:00:30
December 15 2012 04:59 GMT
#184
On December 15 2012 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:53 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:27 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I never said the 'fun' had anything to do with it. And I agree having a degree is more important than most of the other things in terms of empowering the less-fortunate to be successful as adults. It is not the only relevant thing though. I definitely think living on campus has much more potential to contribute towards your success than an April vacation in Cancun (even in my own life I have several examples of this). I don't think I emphasized enough that 'the freshman experience' which I've defined loosely is still only one advantage of starting at the 'good' school you plan to graduate from.

As I'm trying to say, the main idea of this thread has to do with enabling poorer citizens to get useful college degrees without lots of debt, but the underlying goal is to empower these citizens without massive debt, and thus a degree from school X is not the only thing that matters.

Just a guess, but are you someone who chose to go to a commuter school to save money, transferred later, and now are defending such a decision? It might explain why you are so passionately arguing on this issue. Most of my friends/etc went away to the school of their choice from the getgo, often without the funds to pay for it easily, and I see how they all benefited (myself included), and how some of them have suffered as well.


Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.


It's a distinction between necessity and luxury.


Is that an.... objective distinction?

Think carefully before you answer.

On December 15 2012 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
At this point we are so far at the opposite end of the spectrum on this matter it's not worth even debating.


lol k
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 05:12 GMT
#185
On December 15 2012 13:59 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:53 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]

Except nothing about the freshman experience is critical to one's life. It's a positive experience for many, yes, at a very costly price. However it's a complete luxury, as I've pointed out multiple times. A degree is not considered a luxury in today's society.

How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.


It's not a degree of intensity, as you constantly put it. It's a distinction between necessity and luxury.

What is a necessity and what is a luxury is an opinion, or requires a subjective rating system. By the way I made a couple of minor edits since you quoted, although I don't think it changes anything significantly.

What you consider a necessity and what you consider a luxury is not what every other person in this discussion would. If there was an absolute way to decide what isn't necessary and what is, then I would agree with you 100%.


As I edited in my previous post as well, sure, there's a grey area if you want. But the entire area is not grey. I cannot possible imagine anyone being able to argue that the "freshman experience" is not a luxury. And if they could, I'm sure they could argue that "Spring Break in Cancun" is just as much a necessity.

The point is you have to be a realist on the matters, especially when it concerns finance. We are a financially irresponsible nation, not keeping within our budget in the remotest of sense, because of overspending. Spending needs to be limited to necessities to keep the budget balanced. Only after its balanced can we look at luxuries. And no, you cannot use "well it's because of defense spending!!" to justify financial irresponsibility elsewhere. Whether or not defense spending or whatever else is actually necessary is irrelevant to the fact it's being spent anyways, and that it's not an available portion of the budget until that's changed. And until it's changed, you have to accept that and realize we don't have the money to spend on what are absolute necessities. As mentioned, it's all about being realistic.

And for the love of god, please do not say "what's realistic to you might not be realistic to someone else."
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
December 15 2012 05:13 GMT
#186
On December 15 2012 14:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 13:59 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:53 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:25 sam!zdat wrote:
I would adamantly oppose the notion that the function of education is job training, and that its value can be measured in those terms. You cannot have a functional democracy if you do not educate your citizens. It is therefore the responsibility of any polity that wants to call itself democracy to educate its citizens.


Everything you said is wholly subjective. Also, I didn't state that it's necessarily the function of education. I did state it's [close enough of] a necessity for the poor to move up in society in terms of wealth, which is a necessity. The issue with your statement is there is no definitive point at which you can call someone "educated" by what you're implying, as apparently a high school education is not enough. But then would you say someone without a masters isn't educated? A PhD? Don't get me wrong, education should definitely be encouraged.

On December 15 2012 13:33 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:20 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:13 ArvickHero wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:02 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't think my freshman dorm experience was "crucial", though it was a huge convenience and a lot of fun. In fact, I know quite a few ppl who got negatively impacted by it .. just my personal perspective

Yes this is a very good point actually... I would be interested to see how many people aren't really well-matched with the on campus freshman experience, and were hurt for it in the long run.

I assume you could take the drop out rate as the base of the number of ppl negatively impacted by the freshman dorm experience (a lot of assumption I know, but gotta start somewhere), and then there's those who graduate in the end but struggled.

I know that for a few of my friends, they dropped out because they were exposed to too much partying/drugs via the freshman dorms, and others fell behind in school work because they felt like they had infinite free time (since you didn't have to cook or commute, and friends really close by, no self control because there's no parents). And there's those who just didn't fit in at all, and felt like even more of an outcast/loner .. resulting in either a negatively impacted psyche or a dropout.


Regardless of it having a positive impact, it's still a luxury. Many things that have positive impacts on your lives can be defined as luxuries. Massages/vacations reduce stress, but are a luxury. Video games can be an outlet for those without many friends, but are a luxury. Freshman dorms can be a great way to meet new people a new friends (how exactly is it great for actually networking? Because these friends go places? Don't call that networking then - call it a great place to meet new friends).

On December 15 2012 13:19 micronesia wrote:
On December 15 2012 13:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 15 2012 12:52 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
How 'crucial' something is is a value on a spectrum.... you don't need a good college degree to be successful, and you won't be successful just because you have a good degree. However, there's a reason why I'm agreeing getting a good degree is more important than any other of the things I've brought up individually. You, however, seem to think that anything that isn't individually very important is so negligibly unimportant that it should never be brought up in your presence.

Everything else being equal, you are more likely to be financially successful in life (to pick a common metric) if you spend four years at a good college prior to getting a good bachelors than you are if you spend two years at a local small college and then transfer. If you think I am wrong, then in lieu of some serious data/statistics this is a good point to just agree to disagree. If you think I'm not necessarily wrong, but it's irrelevant, then once again this is simply a good point to agree to disagree.

Any reason why you didn't address my last question in the previous post? Was I wrong?


No, I think that the government itself should only provide necessities, not luxuries. Because degrees are becoming a necessity for much of society, it is crucial a viable method is in place to ensure people can achieve these degrees. The value argument is super weak in this case because anyone can say something is of value to them. Which is why, once again, it's a luxury.

As I said, necessity is a degree of intensity thing... not a binary value. It's certainly more of a necessity to get a good degree if you want a good job than it is to live on campus freshman year, by a long shot. I haven't denied that. The 'value argument' doesn't depend on what people think is of value to them; it's a question of what actually is of value to them. I won't deny this is a tricky thing to quantify.

I would love to see any stats you have referring to transfer vs nontransfer students, beyond the insane amount of lurking variables that one would suspect would skew results towards nontransfer students being more financially successful. For example, nontransfer students is more likely to be comprised of the top performing high school students who received scholarships. Nontransfer students are more likely to come from a wealthy background. Nontransfer students (just a guess), being more likely to come from a wealthy background, probably have to spend less time dedicated to a job while simultaneously attending school.

Yea this would not be an easy thing to study, but it's possible it's been done... I do not know.

You are half right - I attended a four year university without going to community college, but commuted 45 minutes away from home to do so as I could not afford to live on campus without taking out student loans. I am under the impression that the vast majority of people in the United States are financially responsible. I would have loved the freshman experience; in fact, I really, really wanted it. But it was something I recognized as a luxury and not a necessity. Nothing about it was crucial to be a successful person financially.

You had to decide where to draw the line... was it worth spending an extra 5-10k a year for you to live on campus? This will vary from person to person. Thus, it's more difficult to justify having the government get involved in making it easier for a student to live on campus freshman year if they choose to (just as an example, once again), but far from impossible, as compared to justifying having the government make good degrees at least attainable in some way by poorer students.


You can objectively define degrees by the amount of jobs that require a 4-year bachelors as a prerequisite.
How does this counter what I was saying? Your objective definition of 'degrees' is simply a higher number for getting a bachelors than many other things I feel are important to consider when it comes to empowering citizens through education. Just because it's the 'best' doesn't mean it's the only thing that the government should consider having a hand in.

Also, you're failing to miss the point I'm making. You're asking "is it of value to the individual." THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!! The question is "is this financially feasible?" I don't care how much value it is to you - if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. If you take out loans, you have to pay them back - simple. There's no arguing that it's a necessity brought upon by society and thus incurring that debt was unavoidable, which is the premise of the entire argument of this topic!

Do you think the government should somehow use public money to help make college more affordable for poorer people? If no, then that explains why I can't understand the point you are making.

Whether something is 'avoidable' or not is also not a binary value... there are degrees to which something is avoidable.


I unfortunately don't understand your first paragraph how it was written at all... would you mind revising or rewording it maybe?

I'm of the opinion government involvement should generally be at a minimum. The government also has used public money to make college significantly more affordable, namely at community colleges where the cost is incredibly small, which is awesome. I am not against making the cost of public (emphasizing as private universities were brought up earlier) much more affordable, as long as it is the tuition cost that is decreased (well, and maybe books). I am wholly against subsidizing the cost of living on campus, etc, although the reducing the most of tuition should relatively make living on campus more affordable, which is a plus/plus.

Okay I understand your overall stance better then. The thing I was talking about earlier is really just rehashing the same discussion so I don't think it's even worth clarifying it.

You think having access to a four year degree is important enough to justify some government subsidization. You don't think living on campus or starting at your four year school of choice is important enough to justify some government subsidization. That's fine, but I insist that the distinction between the two is still a degree of intensity thing: it's not that one is truly necessary and the other isn't; it's that one has a big affect on your ability to get a job and the other doesn't (have a big affect), among other reasons. Many countries do have the government subsidize university study to the point that even poor students can live on campus. You probably think that's going overboard. I don't think the list of what is/isn't worthy of government subsidization, when it comes to college-level education, that you employ, is non-negotiable.

edit to your edit:

I've never been trying to justify over-borrowing... just justifying the motivation to take more risk with borrowing than is wise... there is motivation there.

another edit: remember, our discussion started because you took a passing comment I was making about why people might feel motivated to enter a debt-heavy lifestyle as a college student... but not why they were justified in doing so.


It's not a degree of intensity, as you constantly put it. It's a distinction between necessity and luxury.

What is a necessity and what is a luxury is an opinion, or requires a subjective rating system. By the way I made a couple of minor edits since you quoted, although I don't think it changes anything significantly.

What you consider a necessity and what you consider a luxury is not what every other person in this discussion would. If there was an absolute way to decide what isn't necessary and what is, then I would agree with you 100%.


As I edited in my previous post as well, sure, there's a grey area if you want. But the entire area is not grey. I cannot possible imagine anyone being able to argue that the "freshman experience" is not a luxury. And if they could, I'm sure they could argue that "Spring Break in Cancun" is just as much a necessity.

The point is you have to be a realist on the matters, especially when it concerns finance. We are a financially irresponsible nation, not keeping within our budget in the remotest of sense, because of overspending. Spending needs to be limited to necessities to keep the budget balanced. Only after its balanced can we look at luxuries. And no, you cannot use "well it's because of defense spending!!" to justify financial irresponsibility elsewhere. Whether or not defense spending or whatever else is actually necessary is irrelevant to the fact it's being spent anyways, and that it's not an available portion of the budget until that's changed. And until it's changed, you have to accept that and realize we don't have the money to spend on what are absolute necessities. As mentioned, it's all about being realistic.

And for the love of god, please do not say "what's realistic to you might not be realistic to someone else."

Hahaha don't worry I wasn't planning on saying that. I agree with you in a general sense about financial responsibility for the country.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 05:13 GMT
#187
college is not what's irresponsible about our nation. we can debt finance mindless consumption but we can't educate our fucking children? give me a motherfucking break
shikata ga nai
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24648 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 05:15:24
December 15 2012 05:15 GMT
#188
On December 15 2012 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
college is not what's irresponsible about our nation. we can debt finance mindless consumption but we can't educate our fucking children? give me a motherfucking break

Yes there is definitely a lot of preferential treatment of other people/entities over 18 year old non-wealthy people, when it comes to financial backing by the government.

I'm looking forward to the college debt bail-out that will never happen XD
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 05:15 GMT
#189
On December 15 2012 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
college is not what's irresponsible about our nation. we can debt finance mindless consumption but we can't educate our fucking children? give me a motherfucking break


You have massive reading comprehension issues. Also you typically aren't a child by the time you hit college.

I will give you the break you requested. I suggest you utilize it to read prior posts.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 05:20 GMT
#190
You're not even a good sophist.
shikata ga nai
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 05:23 GMT
#191
we can't change things until they change, so lets change these other things until the other things change.
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 05:25 GMT
#192
On December 15 2012 14:23 sam!zdat wrote:
we can't change things until they change, so lets change these other things until the other things change.


My initial statement appears to be correct. Your problem lies with reading comprehension issues. It being accompanied by some nonsensical dribble makes it even more amusing.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 05:33 GMT
#193
this one is my favorite:

On December 15 2012 14:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
We are a financially irresponsible nation, not keeping within our budget in the remotest of sense, because of overspending.


a fine mind for the perception of causation! We do not keep within our budget! Why??? overspending!!!!
shikata ga nai
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 05:42 GMT
#194
On December 15 2012 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
this one is my favorite:

Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 14:12 FabledIntegral wrote:
We are a financially irresponsible nation, not keeping within our budget in the remotest of sense, because of overspending.


a fine mind for the perception of causation! We do not keep within our budget! Why??? overspending!!!!


Apparently I need some "redundant repetition" for you to grasp the meaning. Duly noted.
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
Profile Joined March 2010
United States257 Posts
December 15 2012 05:53 GMT
#195
English-Creative Writing Major winging it =D
Its going to be a glorious day, I feel my luck could change
ziggurat
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada847 Posts
December 15 2012 05:56 GMT
#196
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 06:03 GMT
#197
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


More or less what I've been advocating the past few threads.
dreamsmasher
Profile Joined November 2010
816 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 08:49:12
December 15 2012 08:43 GMT
#198
On December 14 2012 06:22 chenchen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 14 2012 05:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 01:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.


It isn't irrelevant because any guaranteed transfers are transfers to places that give you little to no competitive edge aside from actually having the degree (and in some cases, employers will think, "Why did he get a degree from such an easy school when so many other applicants went to better schools?")


What? Some of the best public schools in the nation are guaranteed transfer schools (TAG - Transfer Admission Guaranteed).

Just in California, UCSD (ranked 8th in the nation), UCD (also tied for 8th in the nation), UCSB (10th in the nation), UCI (12th in the nation), UCSC (32nd in the nation), UCR (46th in the nation) all participate.

Univeristy of Virginia, ranked 3rd in the nation, has TAG.
Georgia Institute of Technology, ranked 7th in the nation, has TAG.
University of Wisconsin - Madison, ranked 10th in the nation, has TAG.

Before I manually check anymore for your blatant disregard for fact checking, that means out of the top 12 univerisities in the nation, 7 of them have guaranteed transfer programs. Please don't tell me you're limited. And that's not to mention beyond the most prestigious univeristies, the general state schools all have them as well. Not to mention these are only the schools with guanteed transfer programs - nothing is preventing you from applying to other premier schools like UC Berekely (#1) or UCLA (#2) that have ~26-29% transfer acceptance rates.

On December 14 2012 00:27 micronesia wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:22 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 14 2012 00:06 micronesia wrote:
You can get pretty much unlimited student loans, unlike almost any other type of loan which requires credit worthiness, collateral, etc. The reason why is because there's no way for a college student to become credit worthy by 18, but we still need people getting college degrees, and don't want a caste system. It's kind of a no-in situation, though.

edit: By the way, I agree that you can save a lot of money by attending a local community college but there are two drawbacks:

1) Less prestige meaning harder to get a good job down the road
2) You miss that freshman year on campus experience which can be an important part of a person's life

One of my friends by the way got his undergrad pretty much for free on academic merit, then financed a masters from Carnegie Mellon U entirely on loans, and owes a LOT of money now... he immediately got a six figure job upon graduating and won't have any trouble paying it back.... this is the system we have right now.


1) is irrelevant with guaranteed transfer programs to a 4-year university.
2) is a terrible argument. They don't get an awesome experience...? I've never been to Hawaii.... should that be covered?? If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. The purpose of covering people's education isn't so they can have a good time, it's so they can get a quality education.

I was pointing out drawbacks, not arguments for why you should have to pay for me to go to college, or anything like that. No need to be so argumentative. They are both indeed drawbacks.

Transferring to a school is not as good as being there, as it messes up the progression of your program in many cases, and gives you less seniority for lots of other things they offer such as, for example, being a resident assistant, which can save you lots of money.

Furthermore you miss out on the experience I referred to in #2. Again, you shouldn't be calling it an 'argument' as it was just an advantage of going to a four year 'away' school off the bat, not an argument.



Drawbacks in the sense that you "don''t get a fun experience" is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Just like I'm not bringing up it's a drawback I didn't ever go to Cancun for Spring Break and get the "experience" during college. The discussion is revolving around opportunities and alternatives available to students/prospective students and their ability to finance education.

Transferring to a school has negligible disadvantages, I can't even believe you brought up RA as an example, which makes up an insanely minute proportion of the population that it becomes negligble. Also, most schools give transfer students seniority over existing students for class selection. Beyond that, there really aren't almost any distinguishable differences I'm aware of.



All of the schools you named with "TAG" are complete crap except maybe UVA in terms of employment opportunity, rigorous curriculum, and graduate admissions opportunity compared to schools that are actually good.

Berkeley and UCLA are decent, but admissions for community college transfers is far from guaranteed and transfer students start at such awful positions that it is almost impossible though not entirely unlikely to match the academic rigour of the schedules of students admitted directly from high school.

While name dropping these "top universities," you fail to consider the fact that top private universities and liberal arts colleges in the US are much more competitive, much more selective, oftentimes much more rigorous despite accusations of grade inflation, and provide much more opportunities in post-undergrad life. UCSD and UCD aren't "top 12," . . .they wouldn't even be top 50 if you consider "good" private universities like the eight ivies, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, NYU, Carnegie Mellon, and the hordes of good liberal arts colleges that provide excellent undergrad education . . . .

So no, going to community college is not a very good path into good universities.
I guess it can be a decent path into decent universities, but good universities draw undergrads overwhelmingly exclusively from high schools.



ucsd (and i believe UCD)

are both top 50 universities. even considering those schools...at least based on the metric that US news provides which is what most universities (and students) are going by.

if ur talking about highly selective schools with good education (smith, swathmore, pomona college, etc..., those aren't even ranked in the same category (due to them not offering Ph.D. programs, not being 'research universities'. the only reason its not as important to major in a 'harder major' in these schools is because the re they have built is enough to get their 'liberal arts majors' hired at big companies that other students at other univeriities typically don't get.
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 15 2012 16:10 GMT
#199
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.

Pretty much sums it up nicely here.
Power of Ze
Tal
Profile Blog Joined May 2004
United Kingdom1014 Posts
December 15 2012 16:35 GMT
#200
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


I agree that if someone is spending that much for that subject, that it's crazy. But once you move away from the extremes its a little more tricky. In the UK, a lot of our greatest rock bands (and those most successful commercially) took Fine Art degrees, which are the posterchild for 'degrees that sound like a waste of money'.

There are a lot of people who by living in the university environment, and studying something they find fascinating, eventually do turn out to have made a good investment. But it's one that's hard to predict, and asking 18 year olds to view university in terms of earning potential, or 'true value' is something few will be able to do. It's something a lot of graduates with the benefit of hindsight still find hard to gauge.

But, with the modern day fees being so high, something does need to change...maybe online learning will lead to some kind of cheaper hybrid universities, which will let people expand their mind without putting themselves into debt for the next 20 years.
It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you will be when you can't help it.
ziggurat
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada847 Posts
December 15 2012 16:43 GMT
#201
On December 16 2012 01:35 Tal wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


I agree that if someone is spending that much for that subject, that it's crazy. But once you move away from the extremes its a little more tricky. In the UK, a lot of our greatest rock bands (and those most successful commercially) took Fine Art degrees, which are the posterchild for 'degrees that sound like a waste of money'.

There are a lot of people who by living in the university environment, and studying something they find fascinating, eventually do turn out to have made a good investment. But it's one that's hard to predict, and asking 18 year olds to view university in terms of earning potential, or 'true value' is something few will be able to do. It's something a lot of graduates with the benefit of hindsight still find hard to gauge.

But, with the modern day fees being so high, something does need to change...maybe online learning will lead to some kind of cheaper hybrid universities, which will let people expand their mind without putting themselves into debt for the next 20 years.

Online education is interesting to me. I have no doubt that this is a great way to learn. But when you go to a university, are you really paying to learn? Or are you paying for the prestige of a degree?

I always thought it was funny that most university classes are open to the public. This is a very expensive product! People pay thousands of dollars to be able to go to these classes, right? But anyone from the public can just walk in and hear the lectures for free. So what is it that people are really paying for?

To me this seems like a challenge for online education. People can learn a lot online, but it's not a substitute for a piece of paper that you can show an employer.

FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 17:00 GMT
#202
On December 16 2012 01:35 Tal wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


I agree that if someone is spending that much for that subject, that it's crazy. But once you move away from the extremes its a little more tricky. In the UK, a lot of our greatest rock bands (and those most successful commercially) took Fine Art degrees, which are the posterchild for 'degrees that sound like a waste of money'.

There are a lot of people who by living in the university environment, and studying something they find fascinating, eventually do turn out to have made a good investment. But it's one that's hard to predict, and asking 18 year olds to view university in terms of earning potential, or 'true value' is something few will be able to do. It's something a lot of graduates with the benefit of hindsight still find hard to gauge.

But, with the modern day fees being so high, something does need to change...maybe online learning will lead to some kind of cheaper hybrid universities, which will let people expand their mind without putting themselves into debt for the next 20 years.


If it's really that bad as you say that they cannot comprehend financial responsibility at 18, they should probably hold off on going to college. It is not exactly a hard concept.
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 15 2012 17:21 GMT
#203
You also have to consider that some universities are already moving towards online education, with no sign of letting up on the costs
Power of Ze
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 15 2012 19:19 GMT
#204
Partly, you guys have to understand that the University is not solely there to provide a service to students. That is part of it. But teaching is only half of an academic's job. Keep that in mind when you are talking about costs of education.
shikata ga nai
forgottendreams
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1771 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-15 21:05:28
December 15 2012 20:58 GMT
#205
On December 16 2012 02:00 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 16 2012 01:35 Tal wrote:
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


I agree that if someone is spending that much for that subject, that it's crazy. But once you move away from the extremes its a little more tricky. In the UK, a lot of our greatest rock bands (and those most successful commercially) took Fine Art degrees, which are the posterchild for 'degrees that sound like a waste of money'.

There are a lot of people who by living in the university environment, and studying something they find fascinating, eventually do turn out to have made a good investment. But it's one that's hard to predict, and asking 18 year olds to view university in terms of earning potential, or 'true value' is something few will be able to do. It's something a lot of graduates with the benefit of hindsight still find hard to gauge.

But, with the modern day fees being so high, something does need to change...maybe online learning will lead to some kind of cheaper hybrid universities, which will let people expand their mind without putting themselves into debt for the next 20 years.


If it's really that bad as you say that they cannot comprehend financial responsibility at 18, they should probably hold off on going to college. It is not exactly a hard concept.


I think you have part of a solution, not all of it. There should be, literally a course in high school where people need to be taught financial and higher educational responsibility.

Still left on the table is what to do with the exponential tuition increases, employer pressures onto higher ed degrees that will keep higher ed degree demand consistently rising, loan structuring and the existing debt itself that cannot be ignored.

As far as online uni's go, my undergrad was a leader in the state for online courses, yet when I considered enrolling in them what I found was they were actually either just as expensive or more expensive than physical courses. Interestingly, the "online" books they offered to go were only like 20 bux cheaper than the physical versions on top of it. Online courses *should* be cheaper, but at least over here they aren't, why?
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
December 15 2012 21:01 GMT
#206
On December 16 2012 05:58 forgottendreams wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 16 2012 02:00 FabledIntegral wrote:
On December 16 2012 01:35 Tal wrote:
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


I agree that if someone is spending that much for that subject, that it's crazy. But once you move away from the extremes its a little more tricky. In the UK, a lot of our greatest rock bands (and those most successful commercially) took Fine Art degrees, which are the posterchild for 'degrees that sound like a waste of money'.

There are a lot of people who by living in the university environment, and studying something they find fascinating, eventually do turn out to have made a good investment. But it's one that's hard to predict, and asking 18 year olds to view university in terms of earning potential, or 'true value' is something few will be able to do. It's something a lot of graduates with the benefit of hindsight still find hard to gauge.

But, with the modern day fees being so high, something does need to change...maybe online learning will lead to some kind of cheaper hybrid universities, which will let people expand their mind without putting themselves into debt for the next 20 years.


If it's really that bad as you say that they cannot comprehend financial responsibility at 18, they should probably hold off on going to college. It is not exactly a hard concept.


I think you have part of a solution, not all of it. There should be, literally a course in high school where people need to be taught financial and higher educational responsibility.

Still left on the table is what to do with the exponential tuition increases, employer pressures onto higher ed degrees and the loan structuring itself.

As far as online uni's go, my undergrad was a leader in the state for online courses, yet when I considered enrolling in them what I found was they were actually either just as expensive or more expensive than physical courses. Interestingly, the "online" books they offered to go were only like 20 bux cheaper than the physical versions on top of it. Online courses *should* be cheaper, but at least over here they aren't, why?


I believe they're offered as more of a convenience thing than anything. I plan on getting my masters in ~2 years at Boston University, and the program is online. It's going to be ~$20k per year, with my employer only reimbursing me $6k per year, meaning by the end I'll have spent $28k (I'll continually get $6 per year until it's "paid off" although no calculations for interest or anything exist). Kinda a bummer, as you said, it's nearly the same cost as normal tuition.
yandere991
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Australia394 Posts
December 16 2012 00:12 GMT
#207
It still baffles me why pulling bullshit from a movie scene and analyzing poetry is compulsory in schools but basic economics and personal finance are not.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 16 2012 01:56 GMT
#208
On December 16 2012 09:12 yandere991 wrote:
It still baffles me why pulling bullshit from a movie scene and analyzing poetry is compulsory in schools but basic economics and personal finance are not.


Because then it would be harder to engage in predatory financial practices.
shikata ga nai
Nightfall.589
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada766 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-16 02:53:24
December 16 2012 02:43 GMT
#209
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


If economists can't accurately predict whether or not a particular degree is going to be useful in four years time, how do you expect an 18 year old to?

I'll give you women's studies, but I don't think all the people who were starting their business undergrads in fall 2004 could have predicted that their degrees would end up to be less useful then the paper they were printed on. And I betcha that neither did the people going into computing in 1998. Neither did the people who went into education in my home province. (Despite the province not being in a recession, the government increased class sizes, shut down schools, and froze the education budget. That may or may not have been after they'd have given themselves a raise.)

Combine all this with the college town locations of many American universities (Where, due to distance, most students can't just cut living costs by staying with their parents), and you've got a recipe for spending way too much money on the gamble that four years from now your degree will be of any use.
Proof by Legislation: An entire body of (sort-of) elected officials is more correct than all of the known laws of physics, math and science as a whole. -Scott McIntyre
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-16 03:36:26
December 16 2012 03:24 GMT
#210
The might be a solution that has a potential to achieve all three goals at once:
  • reduce student debt
  • reduce government budget deficit and/or reduce taxes
  • make higher education available for everybody


The solution is to cancel tenured positions in public colleges and universities, cancel government-supported student loan program and encourage public universities and colleges to move their auxiliary services (sports, counseling etc) to pay-per-use basis.

The result will be that universities will be able to save a lot of money by cutting all professorial salaries to $15000-$30000 per year with no benefits, cutting spending on auxiliaries (basically outsourcing them and letting students pay on individual basis) and cutting administration (which is currently bloated to manage all the auxiliary services). Additionally most courses can be tought online, and university buildings can be rented out to private companies (which would help paying utility bills and maintenance).

All these changes combined may lower the cost of degrees to $2000-$5000 per year. With such prices students will be able to afford higher education with little-to-no loans. The quality of education can also be greatly enhanced, since professors will have to put a lot of effort into teaching to remain employed if there are no tenure tracks. Additionally if professorial pay is lowered to $15000-$30000 per year for full load, profs will have no money for leisure activities and will spend more time at work and deliver better results.

The problem is solved
This is not Warcraft in space!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 16 2012 03:33 GMT
#211
brb gonna go grab my pitchfork
shikata ga nai
scFoX
Profile Joined September 2011
France454 Posts
December 16 2012 04:57 GMT
#212
On December 16 2012 12:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
The might be a solution that has a potential to achieve all three goals at once:
  • reduce student debt
  • reduce government budget deficit and/or reduce taxes
  • make higher education available for everybody


The solution is to cancel tenured positions in public colleges and universities, cancel government-supported student loan program and encourage public universities and colleges to move their auxiliary services (sports, counseling etc) to pay-per-use basis.

The result will be that universities will be able to save a lot of money by cutting all professorial salaries to $15000-$30000 per year with no benefits, cutting spending on auxiliaries (basically outsourcing them and letting students pay on individual basis) and cutting administration (which is currently bloated to manage all the auxiliary services). Additionally most courses can be tought online, and university buildings can be rented out to private companies (which would help paying utility bills and maintenance).

All these changes combined may lower the cost of degrees to $2000-$5000 per year. With such prices students will be able to afford higher education with little-to-no loans. The quality of education can also be greatly enhanced, since professors will have to put a lot of effort into teaching to remain employed if there are no tenure tracks. Additionally if professorial pay is lowered to $15000-$30000 per year for full load, profs will have no money for leisure activities and will spend more time at work and deliver better results.

The problem is solved


So your solution to university tuition is essentially to make being an university professor have no job security and be paid a salary which is lower than practically every salary prospect at PhD level? Who would accept these conditions? Motivating someone by slashing their salary so "they will have less money to spend time doing something else" is a red flag in any company concerning working conditions.

You also seem to be thinking that teaching is the only thing expected of a tenured professor, which isn't remotely true. University professors aren't high school teachers. Aside from the usual administrative work, he is also expected to conduct research (publish regularly in particular), most have grad students and they need to be at a level of understanding of their field which is not achieved by simply teaching. I have high doubts that the changes you propose will improve the quality of education. In fact, most professors will either seek positions in private or foreign establishments or quit the profession altogether, both of which create a situation of draining of competence.

I have no opinion on the outsourcing of sports; I was under the impression that this was already the case.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 16 2012 04:59 GMT
#213
he's trolling
shikata ga nai
paradox719
Profile Blog Joined January 2012
United States30 Posts
December 16 2012 05:15 GMT
#214
The undergraduate degree doesn't necessarily matter all that much. You can be an English or History major, go to medical school, and make enough money to pay off your debt just fine
"There is little that can withstand a man who can conquer himself" - Louis XIV
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-16 10:27:24
December 16 2012 10:04 GMT
#215
On December 16 2012 13:57 scFoX wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 16 2012 12:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
The might be a solution that has a potential to achieve all three goals at once:
  • reduce student debt
  • reduce government budget deficit and/or reduce taxes
  • make higher education available for everybody


The solution is to cancel tenured positions in public colleges and universities, cancel government-supported student loan program and encourage public universities and colleges to move their auxiliary services (sports, counseling etc) to pay-per-use basis.

The result will be that universities will be able to save a lot of money by cutting all professorial salaries to $15000-$30000 per year with no benefits, cutting spending on auxiliaries (basically outsourcing them and letting students pay on individual basis) and cutting administration (which is currently bloated to manage all the auxiliary services). Additionally most courses can be tought online, and university buildings can be rented out to private companies (which would help paying utility bills and maintenance).

All these changes combined may lower the cost of degrees to $2000-$5000 per year. With such prices students will be able to afford higher education with little-to-no loans. The quality of education can also be greatly enhanced, since professors will have to put a lot of effort into teaching to remain employed if there are no tenure tracks. Additionally if professorial pay is lowered to $15000-$30000 per year for full load, profs will have no money for leisure activities and will spend more time at work and deliver better results.

The problem is solved


So your solution to university tuition is essentially to make being an university professor have no job security and be paid a salary which is lower than practically every salary prospect at PhD level? Who would accept these conditions? Motivating someone by slashing their salary so "they will have less money to spend time doing something else" is a red flag in any company concerning working conditions.

You also seem to be thinking that teaching is the only thing expected of a tenured professor, which isn't remotely true. University professors aren't high school teachers. Aside from the usual administrative work, he is also expected to conduct research (publish regularly in particular), most have grad students and they need to be at a level of understanding of their field which is not achieved by simply teaching. I have high doubts that the changes you propose will improve the quality of education. In fact, most professors will either seek positions in private or foreign establishments or quit the profession altogether, both of which create a situation of draining of competence.


Thanks for your opinion. The fact is that many professors in US nowadays already receive such salary with no benefits, but there is still a massive oversupply of profs and those who want to become them. Some of them also get more than full-time load and work on the weekends/evenings to get a bit more money. The salaries can be made even lower, and you will still get enough highly qualified PhD holders to fill all positions. Even if you don't train that many PhDs at home, a lot of them will be coming from abroad.

These (so-called adjunct) professors that are not paid well are doing teaching only and are not involved in research or research-related administrative work, and judging by the pools they do their job much better than tenured professors who do research.

And as for continuing research and training PhDs, why do universities have to pay for it? Professors who want to do research can apply for competitive research grants. If academia and public thinks that their research proposal is the best, they will get the money to do research. Otherwise if all research in university is supported, the research quality might get worse.

Also people in science and higher education are usually very passionate about their work. Many professors will continue to teach and/or do research even if they are not paid at all and are just given some food and a place to sleep. I've seen this scheme work quite well in Soviet countries after the collapse of Soviet Union. In many universities professors were not even given enough money to buy basic food (not even speaking about rent or any such luxuries), but they continued to do excellent work and continue to do it now.

So it works, and some univerities are getting there. They stilll keep high tuition fees, but they can lower them considerably if the need arises (if student loan support discontinues).
This is not Warcraft in space!
scFoX
Profile Joined September 2011
France454 Posts
December 16 2012 10:52 GMT
#216
On December 16 2012 19:04 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 16 2012 13:57 scFoX wrote:
On December 16 2012 12:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
The might be a solution that has a potential to achieve all three goals at once:
  • reduce student debt
  • reduce government budget deficit and/or reduce taxes
  • make higher education available for everybody


The solution is to cancel tenured positions in public colleges and universities, cancel government-supported student loan program and encourage public universities and colleges to move their auxiliary services (sports, counseling etc) to pay-per-use basis.

The result will be that universities will be able to save a lot of money by cutting all professorial salaries to $15000-$30000 per year with no benefits, cutting spending on auxiliaries (basically outsourcing them and letting students pay on individual basis) and cutting administration (which is currently bloated to manage all the auxiliary services). Additionally most courses can be tought online, and university buildings can be rented out to private companies (which would help paying utility bills and maintenance).

All these changes combined may lower the cost of degrees to $2000-$5000 per year. With such prices students will be able to afford higher education with little-to-no loans. The quality of education can also be greatly enhanced, since professors will have to put a lot of effort into teaching to remain employed if there are no tenure tracks. Additionally if professorial pay is lowered to $15000-$30000 per year for full load, profs will have no money for leisure activities and will spend more time at work and deliver better results.

The problem is solved


So your solution to university tuition is essentially to make being an university professor have no job security and be paid a salary which is lower than practically every salary prospect at PhD level? Who would accept these conditions? Motivating someone by slashing their salary so "they will have less money to spend time doing something else" is a red flag in any company concerning working conditions.

You also seem to be thinking that teaching is the only thing expected of a tenured professor, which isn't remotely true. University professors aren't high school teachers. Aside from the usual administrative work, he is also expected to conduct research (publish regularly in particular), most have grad students and they need to be at a level of understanding of their field which is not achieved by simply teaching. I have high doubts that the changes you propose will improve the quality of education. In fact, most professors will either seek positions in private or foreign establishments or quit the profession altogether, both of which create a situation of draining of competence.

I have no opinion on the outsourcing of sports; I was under the impression that this was already the case.


Thanks for your opinion. The fact is that many professors in US nowadays already receive such salary with no benefits, but there is still a massive oversupply of profs and those who want to become them. Some of them also get more than full-time load and work on the weekends/evenings to get a bit more money. The salaries can be made even lower, and you will still get enough highly qualified PhD holders to fill all positions. Even if you don't train that many PhDs at home, horedes of them will be coming from abroad.

These (so-called adjunct) professors that are not paid well are doing teaching only and are not involved in research or research-related administrative work, and judging by the pools they do their job much better than tenured professors who do research.

And as for continuing research and training PhDs, why do universities have to pay for it? Professors who want to do research can apply for competitive research grants. If academia and public thinks that their research proposal is the best, they will get the money to do research. Otherwise if all research in university is supported, the research quality might get worse.

Also people in science and higher education are usually very passionate about their work. Many professors will continue to teach and/or do research even if they are not paid at all and are just given some food and a place to sleep. I've seen this scheme work quite well in Soviet countries after the collapse of Soviet Union. In many universities professors were not even given enough money to buy basic food (not even speaking about rent or any such luxuries), but they continued to do excellent work and continue to do it now.

This level of exploytation saddens me, but is it works it will be done.


I concede your point that the supply of academic jobs is higher than the demand. It's true that teaching and research is in no small part a matter of passion.

I don't agree however on this statement:

And as for continuing research and training PhDs, why do universities have to pay for it? Professors who want to do research can apply for competitive research grants. If academia and public thinks that their research proposal is the best, they will get the money to do research. Otherwise if all research in university is supported, the research quality might get worse.


First, all research is not supported by the universities themselves. The research grant system you suggest is already in place and in fact provides most of the funding professors have at their disposal. This is so prevalent in fact that a lot of time-consuming work is done in project management instead of actual research.

Secondly, PhDs (especially done in collaboration with corporate research) are frequently funded by research grants, or their stipends would be even worse than they currently are (in the US, I have heard they are especially bad). It makes sense though that their training is at least partly taken charge of by the universities, since they are the ones responsible for validating their diploma.

Lastly, you minimize the importance of public research in technological advancement. Their role in fundamental science in particular has been critical in the past century's breakthroughs. Just imagine where we would be today if quantum physics or relativity hadn't come about (no superconductors, no GPS, ...). There is a place for research which has no direct profit, because it can ultimately lead to further advancements. That doesn't mean that we can't be smart about evaluating what research could be useful, but universities have a clear role in this.

Of course, I am only speaking about research in science, as that is what I'm most familiar with. I find liberal arts harder to quantify, but there must be similar arguments which can be put forward too.

Anyway, things are probably going to turn out the way you say (some signs are already there), which is frankly depressing. If the pursuit of knowledge is sacrificed to the profit of circular innovation (i.e. rehashing old stuff), our society will ultimately end up stagnating.

One last statement: I also despise the concept of devaluating whole professions based on the fact that people would do it even if they weren't paid for it. Especially in science, peer review is monopolized by publishing in online journals which are expensive as hell (~$500 to publish a 10-page article, subscriptions are prohibitive). The only other way to get well-known is to participate in conferences, which implies participation and travel fees. I highly doubt that someone only given money for food or even lodging can afford that on his own right now. The world has become much more competitive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-16 23:43:50
December 16 2012 20:01 GMT
#217
Oh dear god he IS serious

Yes, let's only do academic work the market demands. That's a sure way to avoid tyranny!!

edit: because the market IS the tyrant. What you need to do is SHIELD the university from the market! Don't you understand that we are a plutocracy? And now you want to put the one institution that is supposed to be a counter-hegemonic force in society under the control of the plutocrats? good grief

edit: the idea of the university is to protect unpopular ideas without protecting stupid ones
shikata ga nai
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-17 09:12:14
December 17 2012 09:07 GMT
#218
On December 17 2012 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh dear god he IS serious

Yes, let's only do academic work the market demands. That's a sure way to avoid tyranny!!

edit: because the market IS the tyrant. What you need to do is SHIELD the university from the market! Don't you understand that we are a plutocracy? And now you want to put the one institution that is supposed to be a counter-hegemonic force in society under the control of the plutocrats? good grief

edit: the idea of the university is to protect unpopular ideas without protecting stupid ones

Well, I was partly trolling, partly trying to picture where we might be heading now based on my own experience (I may be wrong). I don't like this direction at all, and I agree with you that unis should be shielded.

As for academic work being based on the market demand, it depends on the market. If market is represented by research and education committees, where academics distribute grants themselves, then add limited influence from public and industry, and it can be not that bad of a market for university development. If the market is general public only or polititians, then it's much worse, but that's where many universities seem to be getting.

What is also bad in the current system (and IMHO getting worse rapidly) is transparency and honesty. Some professors openly misinform PhD students promising a good career in academia (not my case, but happens all the time). The number of PhD students a university graduates is one of the main statistics that universities try to make as big as possible, while at the same time replacing tenured professors by adjuncts and knowing huge underemployment rates for PhDs. All this leads to a massive oversupply of academics.

It could be good for science (the more people the merrier lol), but then this oversupply gets combined with grant and job systems that decide who to reward depending on luck as much as skills and connections (and increasingly controlled by bureaucrats). It means that even if you are really brilliant, well connected and work hard, statistically you still have a very poor chance of building a career.

Such system is easier to exploit (including exploitation and control by external non-academic intersts), and that's where we seem to be going
This is not Warcraft in space!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 17 2012 09:17 GMT
#219
Sure wouldn't mind at all some academic structural reform if you were clever about it
shikata ga nai
ziggurat
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada847 Posts
December 17 2012 18:34 GMT
#220
On December 16 2012 11:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


If economists can't accurately predict whether or not a particular degree is going to be useful in four years time, how do you expect an 18 year old to?

I'll give you women's studies, but I don't think all the people who were starting their business undergrads in fall 2004 could have predicted that their degrees would end up to be less useful then the paper they were printed on. And I betcha that neither did the people going into computing in 1998. Neither did the people who went into education in my home province. (Despite the province not being in a recession, the government increased class sizes, shut down schools, and froze the education budget. That may or may not have been after they'd have given themselves a raise.)

Combine all this with the college town locations of many American universities (Where, due to distance, most students can't just cut living costs by staying with their parents), and you've got a recipe for spending way too much money on the gamble that four years from now your degree will be of any use.


It's usually not that hard to predict with degrees will be valuable. If you go to a course that teaches you how to do a particular job for which there is significant demand, that is a good start. Some good examples are going to med school, or nursing. Other obvious examples are trades like electrician, plumbing, etc. Engineering. Accounting. All these courses teach you specific skills that are necessary to work in specific fields.

Other examples like Law or Teaching are a bit different, because one could argue that the skills you need to do these jobs are largely common sense; but whether or not that's true, you normally can't work in these fields without the degree. So whether or not you learn any skills in these programs, you're required to complete them in order to enter the field.

Obviously spending a lot of time and money on any of these programs involves a calculated risk. You might say, the demand for nurses is high now, but it may not be so high by the time I graduate. True enough, and no one can guarantee this. Just like a lot of major decisions in life, you sometimes just have to get the best information you can and then go for it. As you may be aware, the demand for corporate lawyers dropped dramatically around 2009 and still hasn't really recovered, so people who went to law school and graduated in the last few years are doing a lot worse than expected. There are still jobs, just not as many and generally not as well-paying. These kind of risks are part of life, and I'm not trying to say that you can avoid them completely.

What you can avoid, however, is entering a program that doesn't have any clear path to employment. Like doing a degree in English literature, or honestly most arts degrees. The same is true of a lot of general science degrees. You just learn a bunch of information without being prepared to do any particular job. Probably also true of many business degrees, but most business schools at least have a strong focus on networking and getting you connections to prospective employers. If you are a highly energetic self-starter then you can find a job with any kind of degree (or none), but most people don't fit this category. The monetary value of degrees that don't prepare you to do a specific job is hard to gauge, and probably not that high is most cases.

Now I'm not saying that nobody should go and get a good liberal arts education. If that's what you want, then go for it. But don't expect it to be a good investment in terms of dollars and cents.









jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-17 19:07:50
December 17 2012 19:02 GMT
#221
Nevermind, I don't want to get dragged into this discussion lol
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
December 17 2012 21:04 GMT
#222
chickin
shikata ga nai
Elegance
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada917 Posts
December 18 2012 01:06 GMT
#223
On December 18 2012 03:34 ziggurat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 16 2012 11:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:
On December 15 2012 14:56 ziggurat wrote:
The biggest problem to me seems to be that prospective students are not very good at deciding if a particular education is a good investment. So we see people spending hundreds of thousands going to an ivy league school getting a degree in Women's Studies (to take an extreme example). And then complain that they can't pay off their loans. How in the world did these people ever imagine that they would pay off their loans? Or did they just not think about it at all?

Prices for tuition have skyrocketed, but prospective students seem willing to keep paying. This I don't understand. There needs to be a real shift in they way people look at education. Many people seem to have the philosophy that they'll just go to school and figure out the purpose later. In fact I did that -- but my tuition was only $5,000 per year so it was a bit more reasonable.

People who are thinking about going to school should have a good hard look at whether the program will be worth it. Will it increase their earning potential enough to justify the cost and the time away from their current opportunities? Or, if not, will the enrichment they get make it "worth it" in a non-monetary sense? But I don't think people who can't afford to pay back their loans have any right to complain if they didn't think ahead.


If economists can't accurately predict whether or not a particular degree is going to be useful in four years time, how do you expect an 18 year old to?

I'll give you women's studies, but I don't think all the people who were starting their business undergrads in fall 2004 could have predicted that their degrees would end up to be less useful then the paper they were printed on. And I betcha that neither did the people going into computing in 1998. Neither did the people who went into education in my home province. (Despite the province not being in a recession, the government increased class sizes, shut down schools, and froze the education budget. That may or may not have been after they'd have given themselves a raise.)

Combine all this with the college town locations of many American universities (Where, due to distance, most students can't just cut living costs by staying with their parents), and you've got a recipe for spending way too much money on the gamble that four years from now your degree will be of any use.


It's usually not that hard to predict with degrees will be valuable. If you go to a course that teaches you how to do a particular job for which there is significant demand, that is a good start. Some good examples are going to med school, or nursing. Other obvious examples are trades like electrician, plumbing, etc. Engineering. Accounting. All these courses teach you specific skills that are necessary to work in specific fields.

Other examples like Law or Teaching are a bit different, because one could argue that the skills you need to do these jobs are largely common sense; but whether or not that's true, you normally can't work in these fields without the degree. So whether or not you learn any skills in these programs, you're required to complete them in order to enter the field.

Obviously spending a lot of time and money on any of these programs involves a calculated risk. You might say, the demand for nurses is high now, but it may not be so high by the time I graduate. True enough, and no one can guarantee this. Just like a lot of major decisions in life, you sometimes just have to get the best information you can and then go for it. As you may be aware, the demand for corporate lawyers dropped dramatically around 2009 and still hasn't really recovered, so people who went to law school and graduated in the last few years are doing a lot worse than expected. There are still jobs, just not as many and generally not as well-paying. These kind of risks are part of life, and I'm not trying to say that you can avoid them completely.

What you can avoid, however, is entering a program that doesn't have any clear path to employment. Like doing a degree in English literature, or honestly most arts degrees. The same is true of a lot of general science degrees. You just learn a bunch of information without being prepared to do any particular job. Probably also true of many business degrees, but most business schools at least have a strong focus on networking and getting you connections to prospective employers. If you are a highly energetic self-starter then you can find a job with any kind of degree (or none), but most people don't fit this category. The monetary value of degrees that don't prepare you to do a specific job is hard to gauge, and probably not that high is most cases.

Now I'm not saying that nobody should go and get a good liberal arts education. If that's what you want, then go for it. But don't expect it to be a good investment in terms of dollars and cents.










Agree with this post. Hard for an 18 year old to do that though.
Power of Ze
Phunkapotamus
Profile Joined April 2010
United States496 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-18 02:36:12
December 18 2012 02:31 GMT
#224
I haven't had time to read all 12 pages so far, but this is a particularly interesting topic for me and I have been researching it for a long time.

Note: I speak in the most general case. Certainly there are exceptions to what I say here. With the sheer number of people in college, there will be many unique situations. My viewpoint is that of someone who went to college, experienced how insanely easy it was, and saw extremely dumb people pass their classes. I went to school with potential doctors, lawyers, and schoolteachers- NONE of them I would trust with any responsibility.

College was meant to be the one-stop shop to create a well rounded competent person in a particular field. This is no longer the case. Instead of teaching people how to learn, they teach people what to learn so that they may be instantly slotted in a business that does exactly what they were taught. This stagnates innovation, which stagnates demand.

Some fields still teach people the proper tools. However, a lot of schools caved in to "consumer" demand. Consumers being businesses who want specific skills, and students who want to learn them. This is wrong. Higher education has a responsibility to produce critical thinkers, not perfectly catered worker ants.

We like to laugh at sub-par schools like Phoenix Online, Westwood College, Devry, or ITT tech. Those schools are fairly obviously degreemills. However, it's not just them. It's sad how close a lot of state schools are to degree mills.

College is simply too costly and time consuming for the general case. And the general case doesn't cut it anymore. Every year, thousands of "general case" students graduate. Some get lucky and land entry level positions. Most don't- and thus have to figure out a different path in life to pay off their massive student loans.

I propose we start an apprenticeship program. Take the 50% underachievers out of college to begin with- they weren't going to go anywhere in the first place. With America's rotting infrastructure, and aging service technicians, apprenticeships for highly skilled labor jobs should be a great fit.
"Do a barrel roll"
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
The PondCast
10:00
Episode 50
CranKy Ducklings61
Liquipedia
GSL Code S
09:30
Ro8 - Group B
herO vs BunnyLIVE!
Zoun vs TBD
Crank 369
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Crank 369
Lowko331
ProTech112
Harstem 86
MindelVK 28
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 11098
Hyuk 7471
Sea 3435
Shuttle 878
ZerO 481
Mini 411
actioN 337
EffOrt 306
Soulkey 250
Stork 245
[ Show more ]
Last 203
Light 165
Zeus 146
TY 127
Pusan 73
ToSsGirL 60
JulyZerg 58
hero 46
Snow 44
sSak 39
Sea.KH 25
NaDa 21
Movie 20
Nal_rA 19
Noble 14
Barracks 13
Icarus 12
Yoon 12
HiyA 10
Rush 10
sorry 8
IntoTheRainbow 8
zelot 7
scan(afreeca) 6
ivOry 6
sas.Sziky 1
Dota 2
XcaliburYe650
XaKoH 435
boxi98326
Fuzer 253
League of Legends
JimRising 389
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss869
allub175
Super Smash Bros
Westballz18
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor192
Other Games
singsing2378
C9.Mang0522
B2W.Neo477
crisheroes422
DeMusliM336
Mew2King137
ArmadaUGS34
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream8594
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 1095
lovetv 8
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 19
• Airneanach8
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• WagamamaTV146
Upcoming Events
OSC
9h 27m
Replay Cast
12h 27m
OSC
12h 27m
WardiTV Invitational
23h 27m
OSC
1d 1h
Korean StarCraft League
1d 15h
SOOP
1d 21h
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
1d 22h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 23h
Cheesadelphia
2 days
[ Show More ]
CSO Cup
2 days
GSL Code S
2 days
Rogue vs TBD
TBD vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
5 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.