Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 53 of 53

Thread: The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    If you look at college spending and staff, you will find they have almost universally massively increased their staff levels overall, while roughly maintaining the same number of teaching staff. As I said, the spending isn't going to the teaching staff, it's going to support staff that feeds a bureaucracy that isn't necessary for those schools. And it isn't making the lives of those professors any easier - indeed, as support staff increases, the amount of paperwork professors must submit also increases. That's the system being fed by tuition increases.

    This is why it's now cheaper to go to Harvard than Cal State University Northridge. Note the article tries to spin it as cuts by the state, but they detail the cuts as 12.5%, but that tuition has doubled. A 12.5% cut does not equal a doubling of tuition to make up for it - the doubling comes from a massive increase in support staff for the most part.
    Like I said before, I can't speak for California (this article is focuses on California higher education and provides a link to an article regarding the state of higher education in Maryland); however, I have a fair amount of experience with Colorado's higher education sector. If I remember correctly, California once had one of the lowest higher education costs in the United States. Sadly, this no longer seems to be the case.

    Perhaps those involved in higher education in other states would care to share their insights ([MENTION=3316]Fenris[/MENTION])...
    Last edited by Devoid; March 23rd, 2012 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Added Fenris reference. Only teacher I know offhand here.

 

  • #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Sure. But the loans artificially inflate what people will pay. They are unsecured loans - we don't do that for free markets, only for controlled markets. You want to make it a free market, then offer no Government loans at all and let banks decide if they want to loan people student loans. You'll see prices drastically drop.
    So you consider an unsecured loan a subsidy?

  • #48
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,409

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Gazebo View Post
    So you consider an unsecured loan a subsidy?
    I consider an unsecured loan backed by the U.S. Government as a subsidy, of course. You don't view giving someone a loan backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government as a benefit that other types of debtors do not get?

    If there were no student loan program, and would-be students had to pay for it themselves or get a loan from a bank, the amount those students could pay would be drastically lower than it is right now with the existing student loan program. Now that's not to say I am against the student loan program - I just think it's silly to think of this system as the free market. It's not.

    And given it's so heavily impacted by the Government intervening in the system, we should work to place additional safeguards that prevent inflation of the cost of College to take too much advantage of that Government-backing. You do that by decreasing the total sum students can borrow each year.
    Last edited by Mistwell; March 23rd, 2012 at 09:53 PM.
    I like hats.

  • #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Strithe View Post
    No, I see great value in an educated populace. I don't see the value in creating thousands of 22 year olds with $100,000 in debt & career prospects no better than someone with a high school diploma. All the structured thought & communications skills in the world aren't going to help you get around the fact that much of your income is going to go to paying off for what amounts to an over-priced placemat.
    So as an employer you wouldn't give an edge to an individual who completed 4 more years of schooling and somehow managed to pay for it over a person who just completed a diploma from a poorly taught high school?

    Also, you SHOULD be learning a lot of the things you mentioned in High School. The problem is that in many areas high school ends up being just a holding pen for teenagers. Illitearcy rates in some inner city schools are 1 in 3. In my case I spent much of my first year in college taking high-school level math, science, & english (the easiest A's I ever got). The reason? Most of my peers struggled due to the craptastic job done by most high schools in teaching the basics.
    Yes. I feel education deserves much more focus than it receives.

    You also seem to be subsrcibing to academic snobbery: the assumption that any education outside of academia doesn't involve any logical thought process or communications skills. It's about as ridiculous as the war hawks ho claim that military service is the only way to learn discipline.
    So my claims that the Trades should be just as important as degree programs lead you to believe I was an academic snob? I believe all life experience is beneficial. Just as I would give an edge to a degree over a diploma I would give an edge to job experience over non-experience. This seems pretty simple to me.

    The welding classes I mentioned involved a lot of reading & communications skills, as well as mathematics & basic material science. You've got to know the properties of various metals in order to weld them properly, and the fact that even low power arc welding involves enough electrical energy to easily fry a human being to a crisp or highly combustible chemicals makes organization & proper communication (even little things like how you tap someone on the shoulder while they're working) critical.
    Yes. It is equally important...more so in some cases...less in others.

    Even something as "idiotic" as working in or running a fast-food store requires organization, communication, and logical thought or the whole operation devolves into chaos.
    There is nothing idiotic about working in a fast-food restaurant. I helped develop new hire policy and procedure for a national company focusing on furniture sales: one of the listed bullets for acquisition was fast-food restaurant experience. It is fast paced, organized, team oriented, and requires significant multitasking.

    I have 8 years of post-secondary education: I borrowed no money, and received no money from family--I worked the entire time. In fact, it took me four years before I entered university to save up my first two years of tuition--working at a McDonalds. You have significantly misunderstood my position.

    I'm confused, earlier you implied that colleges were the only places I could learn rational thought & proper communications skills? Now they're also ruthless profiteers and thought police? You do realize those are mutually-exclusive traits?
    You're not wearing tinfoil on your head whole you're typing this...are you? Any extended education in a professional setting (not only schools) will improve thought, reason, and communication. The politics in any business can be trying.

    This is in part because government support tends to be low to nonexistent. You can't milk the student body for as much cash because in many cases they're paying out of pocket, or in some cases they've already interviewed with the company that's footing the bill for their training. It's also why voctional programs tend to be much shorter.
    Perhaps there is a disconnect here. You are able to apply for student loans regardless of whether they are academic or trades based in Canada. I thought that was true in the States as well...in fact I think my cousin got a student loan for his electrical just a couple of years ago...am I missing something?

    I think you're either reading too much into what I said ...
    We probably both are.

    I don't really get the whole macro vs. micro argument either...
    Most people don't. That is why it is so prevalent in conversation and media...and doesn't resolve anything.

    Just because something is social good does not mean we MUST do it in the most inefficient & ridiculously expensive manner possible.
    Criticism without solution is what we get a lot when these types of discussion come up...I know I do it all the time. But, it boggles my mind that there is a thought that a tailored solution would be less of a bureaucratic mess than an average. I mean that is how they form averages...less expensive, covering most bases, not total encompassing...rather than more expensive, covering all based, totally encompassing. I guess this general argument always baffles me.

    I never said must. But, I think it is better than none...which I don't think you are saying.

    Plus, I think certain aspects of the "everyone should go to college" culture are destructive. For another, it feeds the belief that NOT achieving at least a bachelor's degree constitutes some sort of social inferiority. I know people who still feel genuine emotional pain because they dropped out of a bachelor's, masters, or doctorate program.
    I think it is wholeheartedly a bad idea. I would love to see apprentice programs right in secondary school including entrepreneurial, merchant, trade, administration, nursing, technical, business, and academic. All of these things should be treated on par. I have a hard time seeing the social aspect coming from legislation...I see the social aspect feeding legislation.

    For one thing, it's the kind of one-size-fits-all macro-perspective that is the root cause of most human suffering & oppression.
    I know you think this is profound. Let me assure you: it isn't.

  • #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    I consider an unsecured loan backed by the U.S. Government as a subsidy, of course. You don't view giving someone a loan backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government as a benefit that other types of debtors do not get?

    If there were no student loan program, and would-be students had to pay for it themselves or get a loan from a bank, the amount those students could pay would be drastically lower than it is right now with the existing student loan program. Now that's not to say I am against the student loan program - I just think it's silly to think of this system as the free market. It's not.

    And given it's so heavily impacted by the Government intervening in the system, we should work to place additional safeguards that prevent inflation of the cost of College to take too much advantage of that Government-backing. You do that by decreasing the total sum students can borrow each year.
    Well. I was conveniently (for my argument) ignoring the loan market. I could definitely see how other lenders would feel threatened by government loans. But, I see the rest of the market being rife for their product and thus didn't consider it a problem.

    I see where you are coming from: look how dentistry works off of the insurance market as an example. But, we must bear in mind these sprung from a need to accommodate a larger section of the populous. The idea that the elimination of such programs would magically reduce student costs is ridiculous...that is why they were created in the first place. We would revert back to a certain set of people only having access to higher education. Now if you are talking about terms and caps I can understand that...but that is such a degree of regulation that it would be hard-pressed to sell in the States I imagine.

    Keep in mind that most post-secondary institutions only admit a certain number of applicants. While the accessibly of student loans has increased the number of potential students, this demand is effectively controlled by the schools through admission and facility. The idea that the elimination of student loans would streamline this process in any way...with the exception of reduced applicants...I think is short sighted. And could even potentially increase student cost depending on the new target demo for the 'new' market.

    It just really seems to be a silly gamble. And I really see it as an argument for the deterioration of product over reduction of cost.

    As for the glut of administration...I think that has really been sprung into action from the success of marketing overseas. The sheer untapped resources available...prodded with the new administration, has backfired in some situations and boomed in others. It will sort itself out. They are still businesses.
    Last edited by Wild Gazebo; March 24th, 2012 at 02:40 AM. Reason: added: And I really see it as an argument for the deterioration of product over reduction of cost.

  • #51
    I'm going to school now, at 32, and living off of student loans. While my situation is different than most (I won't have to use loans to pay for school, as the SRS office is picking up the tab), I think a significant problem is that too many people are focused on degrees from "big" colleges, and ignoring the cheaper community colleges available. Right now, I'm going to the largest community college in Kansas, which is the third largest college in the state. A full, 18 hour course load costs about $2500 in books and tuition each semester, and so could be covered in it's entirety by a Pell grant. A full course load at our largest college, KU, is about $5,000 each semester.

    Now, KU is a big school, as Kansas goes. Most lecture classes are 150-250 students. (In comparison, my biggest class is 24 people, before withdraws and drops.) And from what I hear, a significant portion of their students simply aren't ready for this large, impersonal environment, and would do much better in a community college setting. Unfortunately, it seems there's still a stigma in some people's minds about attending a community college, and so they try to stick it out in an environment that's almost guaranteed to make them fail. This leads to college drop outs with several thousands in debt, and no degree to make themselves any money.

    So, I don't think forgiving debt will do anything, unless we take steps to make sure students are in the proper arena for their learning needs.

  • #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Sky View Post
    So, I don't think forgiving debt will do anything, unless we take steps to make sure students are in the proper arena for their learning needs.
    Is that the government's job...or the individuals?

    I know it gets peoples dander up to think that we are paying for peoples mistakes...but that is really catering to the exception rather than the mean.

  • #53
    WIS is my dump stat! Fenris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Province
    Long Island, NY
    Oratio
    2,190

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    If you look at college spending and staff, you will find they have almost universally massively increased their staff levels overall, while roughly maintaining the same number of teaching staff. As I said, the spending isn't going to the teaching staff, it's going to support staff that feeds a bureaucracy that isn't necessary for those schools. And it isn't making the lives of those professors any easier - indeed, as support staff increases, the amount of paperwork professors must submit also increases. That's the system being fed by tuition increases.
    When was the last time you were on a California campus Mistwell? Having been a student and having taught at all three levels in the state, I did not see "massive increases" in staffing. On the contrary, I saw loads of layoffs, reductions, and furloughs. I saw this reduction in administration, research assistants and support staff.

    I sat on budget committees. I saw where the dollars were coming from and to where. Much of the problem in California can be traced back to Prop 13. We had a very good, very affordable system of higher education in place. The baby boom of the 80s destroyed the eduction system. As the population buble rippled through the system, districts had to shift resources around to cope with a massive influx of students. Most the the problem in the higher education system was too many students. All the schools had higher and higher enrollments. Enrollments where the student was paying a small fraction of the cost of the education. Couple the limited revenue from property taxes with the collapse of the Aerospace and defense industries as well as the closure of several important military bases and California hit a revenue deficit. It couldn't affort to educate more and more students and keep paying the lion's share of it. THAT is what prompted tuition increases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell
    This is why it's now cheaper to go to Harvard than Cal State University Northridge. Note the article tries to spin it as cuts by the state, but they detail the cuts as 12.5%, but that tuition has doubled. A 12.5% cut does not equal a doubling of tuition to make up for it - the doubling comes from a massive increase in support staff for the most part.
    Really? Wow, talk about some skewed statistics. The only thing I can even begin to say is figures don;t lie but liars can figure. These stats are so skewed as to be irrelevant. The COST of an eduction is different. The affordability may be different, but the article doesn't cover the who gets that "generous student aid". They cherry-picked the data. As for support staff, the second article equivocates between administration and administrators. A subtle distinction. I will say that much of the increase I have seen has been in the area of fund raising, schools are adding executives/administrators to increase fund raising to combat increasing costs. Sadly most college/university presidents are hired on their ability to fund raise, not run an educational institution.
    A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit under.

    Play By Post Games

  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •