|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 12 2021 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. It’s not a fair comparison. You’re looking to compare the availability of student loans with price increases between the US and the UK but with price caps in England you cannot make a valid comparison.
My intention definitely wasn't to compare the loan availability, it was more to explain my understanding of what is the revenue stream for the university and what that does to its incentives to offer bells and whistles on top of an undergrad degree course. Loan availability should be only relevant if there are credit constraints (i.e. someone couldn't get a loan to pay tuition fees), which to my (limited) understanding is not the case in the US either.
|
On August 12 2021 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. He is saying that currently US students are not very price sensitive because the government pays and they have to pay it back over time. Going from that to a full government payed 'free' education makes them complete price-insensitive (because the government pays) and causes tuition fees to balloon (because they can charge whatever, the government pays). The UK might have price-insensitive students because the cost is fixed but costs don't balloon because the government has put a price cap. Prices literally cannot go higher and so can't balloon. Obviously if the US were to ever move to a 'free' education system (I highly doubt that will happen) it would have to be accompanied by the government imposing a price cap. Which is why it won't happen because that is 'socialist'. And if the Democrats were to get it through by a complete miracle I would expect the Republicans to remove the price cap as soon as they are in charge and then simply wait for prices to balloon and then complain its unsustainable...
I see. I thought the budget limit so implicit to the tax-funded option that I honestly didn't even consider that this was the argument. My bad there! And yes I fully agree that public ownership (or even direct public funding) of the wider university sector in the US seems, and for now is, out of reach as you said.
|
Are UK schools shittier than US schools or something, why does a US school require 50,000USD if the UK has price caps at a lower point, surely there’s some serious form of waste happening in the US that I’m not understanding about our colleges that has them collecting so much money from people for a reason other than necessity
|
It is important to note that federal student loans are only one part of the university cost picture. Historically, public universities received the bulk of their funding from state governments in the form of state budget allocations approved on a yearly basis in line with the appropriations process. That process served an important gatekeeper function that put a limit on just how much funding could come in and in what form. Austerity minded state politicians recognized the federal loan system as a university funding diversion they could milk for their political projects of tax slashing, which has led to increasing reliance on federal loans by universities year over year. That funding mechanism lacks the gatekeeping functions that the state process included, which is a big part of why budgets have bloated by orders of magnitude in proportion with attracting students as the sole channel for increasing funding. This is also why many state schools have been able to dramatically increase admission requirements while dangling fancier and shinier amenities and raising tuition costs; the process by which universities attract students has become significantly more detached from the material realities of the states in which the universities sit, the only thing they need to care about is bringing in students who bring large loan potentials with them.
Here is some good reading on the subject for those interested.
|
Where do people think this 3.5T is gonna get trimmed by Sinema and Manchin? Not clear to me which parts were left as negotiation fodder.
|
On August 12 2021 03:37 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. He is saying that currently US students are not very price sensitive because the government pays and they have to pay it back over time. Going from that to a full government payed 'free' education makes them complete price-insensitive (because the government pays) and causes tuition fees to balloon (because they can charge whatever, the government pays). The UK might have price-insensitive students because the cost is fixed but costs don't balloon because the government has put a price cap. Prices literally cannot go higher and so can't balloon. Obviously if the US were to ever move to a 'free' education system (I highly doubt that will happen) it would have to be accompanied by the government imposing a price cap. Which is why it won't happen because that is 'socialist'. And if the Democrats were to get it through by a complete miracle I would expect the Republicans to remove the price cap as soon as they are in charge and then simply wait for prices to balloon and then complain its unsustainable... I see. I thought the budget limit so implicit to the tax-funded option that I honestly didn't even consider that this was the argument. My bad there! And yes I fully agree that public ownership (or even direct public funding) of the wider university sector in the US seems, and for now is, out of reach as you said.
The conversation started with Biden delaying payment of student loans, while a lot of Dems gesture towards blanket forgiveness.
If we forgive student loans and do nothing else, we are explicitly opting for taxpayer-funded education with no cost cap. That's why it's relevant.
Obviously, "anything else" is off the table because Republicans/Machin, which is why this is even being considered.
|
On August 12 2021 07:05 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 03:37 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. He is saying that currently US students are not very price sensitive because the government pays and they have to pay it back over time. Going from that to a full government payed 'free' education makes them complete price-insensitive (because the government pays) and causes tuition fees to balloon (because they can charge whatever, the government pays). The UK might have price-insensitive students because the cost is fixed but costs don't balloon because the government has put a price cap. Prices literally cannot go higher and so can't balloon. Obviously if the US were to ever move to a 'free' education system (I highly doubt that will happen) it would have to be accompanied by the government imposing a price cap. Which is why it won't happen because that is 'socialist'. And if the Democrats were to get it through by a complete miracle I would expect the Republicans to remove the price cap as soon as they are in charge and then simply wait for prices to balloon and then complain its unsustainable... I see. I thought the budget limit so implicit to the tax-funded option that I honestly didn't even consider that this was the argument. My bad there! And yes I fully agree that public ownership (or even direct public funding) of the wider university sector in the US seems, and for now is, out of reach as you said. If we forgive student loans and do nothing else, we are explicitly opting for taxpayer-funded education with no cost cap. That's why it's relevant.
That much, at least, does seem true. I would hope that included in any policy proposal of "free tuition" is a systematic overhaul of how higher education is done in the US. Otherwise it is indeed unsustainable.
Not a lot of appetite for a larger education overhaul right now, though, so deferring student loans is all that's going to happen.
|
On August 12 2021 07:05 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 03:37 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. He is saying that currently US students are not very price sensitive because the government pays and they have to pay it back over time. Going from that to a full government payed 'free' education makes them complete price-insensitive (because the government pays) and causes tuition fees to balloon (because they can charge whatever, the government pays). The UK might have price-insensitive students because the cost is fixed but costs don't balloon because the government has put a price cap. Prices literally cannot go higher and so can't balloon. Obviously if the US were to ever move to a 'free' education system (I highly doubt that will happen) it would have to be accompanied by the government imposing a price cap. Which is why it won't happen because that is 'socialist'. And if the Democrats were to get it through by a complete miracle I would expect the Republicans to remove the price cap as soon as they are in charge and then simply wait for prices to balloon and then complain its unsustainable... I see. I thought the budget limit so implicit to the tax-funded option that I honestly didn't even consider that this was the argument. My bad there! And yes I fully agree that public ownership (or even direct public funding) of the wider university sector in the US seems, and for now is, out of reach as you said. The conversation started with Biden delaying payment of student loans, while a lot of Dems gesture towards blanket forgiveness. If we forgive student loans and do nothing else, we are explicitly opting for taxpayer-funded education with no cost cap. That's why it's relevant. Obviously, "anything else" is off the table because Republicans/Machin, which is why this is even being considered.
I'd be in favor of the feds bailing out lenders and then seizing control of the entire funding situation of universities. When the people paying are the same people managing the budget, costs will go down. The things that are important will keep their funding. Everything else will likely vanish into thin air.
Turning every university into "Community college + research laboratories" would be an enormous improvement. Lean, focused, no bullshit. No culture. Nada.
Small rant: College isn't for you to "fiNd YoUrSelF" and grow up. It is to functionalize you to contribute to society and gain fulfillment and cash as a payment for doing so. People need to be doing all this identity horse shit on their own time and not forcing universities to help you grow up. If people have hollow identities, we should have other resources for those people. Not an education thing.
On August 12 2021 07:21 LegalLord wrote:
Not a lot of appetite for a larger education overhaul right now, though, so deferring student loans is all that's going to happen.
And ultimately everything I say is pointless because the above is true lol 
|
My university loved loved loved selling their paradise culture bullshit, when the experience of getting the education was deeply ok. Well, unless you were a shiny business or finance student getting an executive education, then the classrooms you got had all the best tech and most comfortable furniture. The engineering professors were lucky if they got a classroom with air conditioning that worked. Ironic as we were learning how HVAC was supposed to work. But yeah, if you were there to buy into how amazing their culture is and blow the smoke, you got all the nice facilities, and if you were there to get your education in and move on, they didn't really care one way or another.
|
On August 12 2021 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
Are UK schools shittier than US schools or something, why does a US school require 50,000USD if the UK has price caps at a lower point, surely there’s some serious form of waste happening in the US that I’m not understanding about our colleges that has them collecting so much money from people for a reason other than necessity
UK schools like Oxford or Cambridge own a lot of assets and have a diverse investment portfolio that churns out a regular profit, not to mention attracting significant investments and donations from people that see it as a 'safe bet'. These institutions have been amassing wealth for centuries so even if there were no student fees, I'd expect they'd still be able to operate at a level above any US institution.
This only works, obviously, for the very few institutions that have been going on for centuries. The rest are significantly 'less snazzy' than US institutions that charge 50k+/year. There is a very clear and very narrow top tier in the UK, whereas the US has a much wider top.
Anyway, the point is kind of moot. US institutions charge 50k+ because they can. The education sector has been taking lessons from the commercial sector and bringing in that know-how for a while. We now spend stupid amounts of money in marketing (about 8-10% at my previous institution) because it brings a profit. The university experience has changed to match the customer model and we now provide a ton of services that have very little to do with learning but that are essential to attract the students. Hell, when I implemented a new degree programme at my previous institution, I had to do market research to make sure it'd turn a profit, otherwise, it wouldn't get the green light.
|
On August 12 2021 19:53 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
Are UK schools shittier than US schools or something, why does a US school require 50,000USD if the UK has price caps at a lower point, surely there’s some serious form of waste happening in the US that I’m not understanding about our colleges that has them collecting so much money from people for a reason other than necessity UK schools like Oxford or Cambridge own a lot of assets and have a diverse investment portfolio that churns out a regular profit, not to mention attracting significant investments and donations from people that see it as a 'safe bet'. These institutions have been amassing wealth for centuries so even if there were no student fees, I'd expect they'd still be able to operate at a level above any US institution. This only works, obviously, for the very few institutions that have been going on for centuries. The rest are significantly 'less snazzy' than US institutions that charge 50k+/year. There is a very clear and very narrow top tier in the UK, whereas the US has a much wider top. Anyway, the point is kind of moot. US institutions charge 50k+ because they can. The education sector has been taking lessons from the commercial sector and bringing in that know-how for a while. We now spend stupid amounts of money in marketing (about 8-10% at my previous institution) because it brings a profit. The university experience has changed to match the customer model and we now provide a ton of services that have very little to do with learning but that are essential to attract the students. Hell, when I implemented a new degree programme at my previous institution, I had to do market research to make sure it'd turn a profit, otherwise, it wouldn't get the green light.
This guy works for The Art Institute 
What I find crazy is how any place can label themselves a school and get accreditation or lie about. Look at Trump University... So first we need to start there.
|
On August 13 2021 01:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 19:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 12 2021 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
Are UK schools shittier than US schools or something, why does a US school require 50,000USD if the UK has price caps at a lower point, surely there’s some serious form of waste happening in the US that I’m not understanding about our colleges that has them collecting so much money from people for a reason other than necessity UK schools like Oxford or Cambridge own a lot of assets and have a diverse investment portfolio that churns out a regular profit, not to mention attracting significant investments and donations from people that see it as a 'safe bet'. These institutions have been amassing wealth for centuries so even if there were no student fees, I'd expect they'd still be able to operate at a level above any US institution. This only works, obviously, for the very few institutions that have been going on for centuries. The rest are significantly 'less snazzy' than US institutions that charge 50k+/year. There is a very clear and very narrow top tier in the UK, whereas the US has a much wider top. Anyway, the point is kind of moot. US institutions charge 50k+ because they can. The education sector has been taking lessons from the commercial sector and bringing in that know-how for a while. We now spend stupid amounts of money in marketing (about 8-10% at my previous institution) because it brings a profit. The university experience has changed to match the customer model and we now provide a ton of services that have very little to do with learning but that are essential to attract the students. Hell, when I implemented a new degree programme at my previous institution, I had to do market research to make sure it'd turn a profit, otherwise, it wouldn't get the green light. This guy works for The Art Institute What I find crazy is how any place can label themselves a school and get accreditation or lie about. Look at Trump University... So first we need to start there.
Also requiring to publish the scoring they get as part of any advertising if they pass. So you have a scale from failed up until world class.
|
United States44286 Posts
On August 13 2021 01:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 19:53 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 12 2021 03:41 Zambrah wrote:
Are UK schools shittier than US schools or something, why does a US school require 50,000USD if the UK has price caps at a lower point, surely there’s some serious form of waste happening in the US that I’m not understanding about our colleges that has them collecting so much money from people for a reason other than necessity UK schools like Oxford or Cambridge own a lot of assets and have a diverse investment portfolio that churns out a regular profit, not to mention attracting significant investments and donations from people that see it as a 'safe bet'. These institutions have been amassing wealth for centuries so even if there were no student fees, I'd expect they'd still be able to operate at a level above any US institution. This only works, obviously, for the very few institutions that have been going on for centuries. The rest are significantly 'less snazzy' than US institutions that charge 50k+/year. There is a very clear and very narrow top tier in the UK, whereas the US has a much wider top. Anyway, the point is kind of moot. US institutions charge 50k+ because they can. The education sector has been taking lessons from the commercial sector and bringing in that know-how for a while. We now spend stupid amounts of money in marketing (about 8-10% at my previous institution) because it brings a profit. The university experience has changed to match the customer model and we now provide a ton of services that have very little to do with learning but that are essential to attract the students. Hell, when I implemented a new degree programme at my previous institution, I had to do market research to make sure it'd turn a profit, otherwise, it wouldn't get the green light. This guy works for The Art Institute What I find crazy is how any place can label themselves a school and get accreditation or lie about. Look at Trump University... So first we need to start there.
They can’t for the purposes of loans etc. Not every institution that charges tuition is accredited. University isn’t a protected term, it’s not that all of these “universities” are accredited, it’s that anyone can make a for-profit university.
|
The U.S. census got released and it's the data set that will shape the House for the next decade. Expect bitter fights over redistricting and gerrymandering, especially with Republicans holding an advantage in controlling state legislatures and Democrats running out of time to get anything done, plus a SCOTUS that has not been favourable to Democrats in voting rights and redistricting. Analysts are saying Democrats could lose their House advantage going into the 2022 midterms off redistricting alone.
Though some have noticed it isn't a complete doom spiral for Democrats. Nate Silver and and David Wasserman point to population declines in rural areas and a spike in urban ones as favouring Democrats ultimately. States like Georgia are an example. Democrats also control or have sympathetic state Supreme Courts and governorships in key swing states MI, PA, WI, and NM for election maps unlike 2010, and if they wanted, could retaliate with gerrymandering of their own of GOP seats.
|
Northern Ireland27351 Posts
On August 12 2021 09:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 07:05 Belisarius wrote:On August 12 2021 03:37 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On August 12 2021 02:40 Oukka wrote:On August 12 2021 02:16 KwarK wrote:
England has tuition price caps (currently £9,250/year for undergraduate). It doesn’t matter how generous the loans are if there is a price cap. Exactly, so as far as I understood Belisaurus' post should make students completely price-insensitive and balloon the education costs. And I disagree with that logic. He is saying that currently US students are not very price sensitive because the government pays and they have to pay it back over time. Going from that to a full government payed 'free' education makes them complete price-insensitive (because the government pays) and causes tuition fees to balloon (because they can charge whatever, the government pays). The UK might have price-insensitive students because the cost is fixed but costs don't balloon because the government has put a price cap. Prices literally cannot go higher and so can't balloon. Obviously if the US were to ever move to a 'free' education system (I highly doubt that will happen) it would have to be accompanied by the government imposing a price cap. Which is why it won't happen because that is 'socialist'. And if the Democrats were to get it through by a complete miracle I would expect the Republicans to remove the price cap as soon as they are in charge and then simply wait for prices to balloon and then complain its unsustainable... I see. I thought the budget limit so implicit to the tax-funded option that I honestly didn't even consider that this was the argument. My bad there! And yes I fully agree that public ownership (or even direct public funding) of the wider university sector in the US seems, and for now is, out of reach as you said. The conversation started with Biden delaying payment of student loans, while a lot of Dems gesture towards blanket forgiveness. If we forgive student loans and do nothing else, we are explicitly opting for taxpayer-funded education with no cost cap. That's why it's relevant. Obviously, "anything else" is off the table because Republicans/Machin, which is why this is even being considered. I'd be in favor of the feds bailing out lenders and then seizing control of the entire funding situation of universities. When the people paying are the same people managing the budget, costs will go down. The things that are important will keep their funding. Everything else will likely vanish into thin air. Turning every university into "Community college + research laboratories" would be an enormous improvement. Lean, focused, no bullshit. No culture. Nada. Small rant: College isn't for you to "fiNd YoUrSelF" and grow up. It is to functionalize you to contribute to society and gain fulfillment and cash as a payment for doing so. People need to be doing all this identity horse shit on their own time and not forcing universities to help you grow up. If people have hollow identities, we should have other resources for those people. Not an education thing. Show nested quote +On August 12 2021 07:21 LegalLord wrote:
Not a lot of appetite for a larger education overhaul right now, though, so deferring student loans is all that's going to happen. And ultimately everything I say is pointless because the above is true lol
Disagree with you, for once!
Carving that niche for people to earn useful skills, while also ‘finding themselves’ was something we managed to do fine a generation ago.
Why we can’t manage it now with considerable technological developments, cheaper reproduction of information and access to said information would seem to be a considerable problem of the overall structure, how it intersects with the employment market etc etc.
|
On August 13 2021 04:49 PhoenixVoid wrote:The U.S. census got released and it's the data set that will shape the House for the next decade. Expect bitter fights over redistricting and gerrymandering, especially with Republicans holding an advantage in controlling state legislatures and Democrats running out of time to get anything done, plus a SCOTUS that has not been favourable to Democrats in voting rights and redistricting. Analysts are saying Democrats could lose their House advantage going into the 2022 midterms off redistricting alone. Though some have noticed it isn't a complete doom spiral for Democrats. Nate Silver and and David Wasserman point to population declines in rural areas and a spike in urban ones as favouring Democrats ultimately. States like Georgia are an example. Democrats also control or have sympathetic state Supreme Courts and governorships in key swing states MI, PA, WI, and NM for election maps unlike 2010, and if they wanted, could retaliate with gerrymandering of their own of GOP seats.
Interesting...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/
This is a roundup of the info so far. Nothing's going to happen for a while though, the earliest deadline is Virginia on Oct. 11. Most of the states are in 2022, so we might see previews, but nothing concrete for quite some time.
|
SCOTUS turned away the emergency petition appealing from the Seventh Circuit’s upholding of Indiana U’s mandatory vaccine requirement. Justice Barrett didn’t even refer the petition to the whole court for consideration. Pretty big deal.
|
so if we pretend everyone’s as dumb as I am, that reads that the mandate to be vaccinated to attend Indiana U is ruled as legal? And the most recent appointee played some important role in making that happen?
we take those
|
On August 13 2021 07:27 brian wrote:
so if we pretend everyone’s as dumb as I am, that reads that the mandate to be vaccinated to attend Indiana U is ruled as legal? And the most recent appointee played some important role in making that happen?
we take those
Pretty much. As a matter of binding legal authority, the Seventh Circuit’s decision that the uni’s mandate is legal is only controlling in that circuit, but what happened here will be referred to by those defending similar policies in other parts of the country, almost certainly to great effect.
Definitely worth celebrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
