Posted on 09/09/2015 10:15:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
In 1987, President Reagan's secretary of education, Bill Bennett, published a now classic New York Times op-ed titled “Our Greedy Colleges” in which he argued that the government's attempts to make higher education more accessible may have also accidentally made it more expensive. “If anything,” he wrote, “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” Ever since then, academics have sparred over whether the so-called Bennett hypothesis is really true. Do colleges actually take advantage of all those federal grants and loans by hiking their prices? And if so, are some schools even more callous about it than others?
Economists have delivered inconsistent answers to those questions over the years. (I reviewed the research back in 2012 while Vox's Libby Nelson published a great, updated rundown in August). But it’s always seemed possible that Bennett's idea contained at least a grain of truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
quote “people aren’t supposed to willingly pay more for an investment”
um.. they dont and aren’t, that’s exactly the issue, If THEY were paying this wouldn’t be an issue.
And student loans dont count as them paying. Kids have little to no ability to think far into the future and how the decisions they make today will impact them years from now.
Yeah, I was being funny.
I’ve got a great idea! How about we really educate our kids in K-12?
Here is an example I know of. Granted it is a massage school. Charge was 4,000 for tuition. Now that the school is certified and student loans of 6,000 are available the tuition is now 10,000. Really Not kidding.
Colleges didn't create this situation but they are definitely benefiting from the artificiality created by (you guessed it) the Supreme Court in the disastrous Griggs vs Duke Power case.
Before this stupid ruling companies could IQ test and aptitude test to see if applicants were qualified. The SCOTUS said that was discrimination so colleges stepped in to the gap.
“Colleges didn’t create this situation but they are definitely benefiting from the artificiality created by (you guessed it) the Supreme Court in the disastrous Griggs vs Duke Power case.
“Before this stupid ruling companies could IQ test and aptitude test to see if applicants were qualified. The SCOTUS said that was discrimination so colleges stepped in to the gap.”
I was wondering if something like that had happened. I hadn’t heard of Griggs vs Duke Power.
Unsurprisingly it has its poisonous roots in the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The same Act that Hannity and Glenn Beck stupidly like to hail as a great achievement for America.
I see no end in sight.
I just found out a degree from University of Denver, private school, costs $248,000. From CU Boulder, public school, it is $200,000.
Wages are not keeping up with college costs.
I hate to sound like a liberal, smack if you think I am, but only the wealthy can afford college at those rates, so it will be the wealthy that make the money.
Until people figure out how to educate themselves and until business stop demanded college, this will not change.
I wrote that using English in my head. *sigh*
The answer in the op-ed section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Sunday said the answer was more big bags of money that would just magically appear from Harrisburg.
Yeah, made my head explode.
Bingo! As long as any entity knows the fed is funding it their cost to operate is going to continue to skyrocket. Healthcare being a prime example.
Make them dischargeable in bankruptcy.
They need that paper now because of all the bitching and lawsuits over testing of potential job applicants, is far easier to just say “must have degree” and weed out most of the losers that way.
People still don’t get it...student loans is a “front” for funneling more money into education. The kids aren’t paying them back, the government gives them amnesty from paying back the loan...it is a gov subsidy, nothing more.
Conservatives—Religious People —we should start low income colleges-—two year or Four Year college. Hire experienced people at a low cost to teach— Not high priced Professors —No tenure—No Propagandists. Maybe people who have experienced life, lead troops in battle, writers, the better High School teachers, Elderly folks that can’t find jobs but would want to work PT. Keep costs low and stick to basics—solid education. Do it right. If you have a Drama Department present “HMS Pinafore” and “Tom Sawer” Not “Bath-house” or “Waiting for Gidot”. A chain of good—budget colleges might be the answer.
only if it sticks the school with the bill. We don’t want a bunch of free loaders filing bankruptcy and sticking the government with the bill.
In-state tuition at CU Boulder is much lower (though still a lot of money).
We're there already, or rapidly getting that way. Schools have been riding the gravy train too long and have gotten complacent. Between that, and generous internal financial aid packages (usually given to The Usual Suspects to promote "diversity"), is resulting in a perfect storm on college campuses.
As State funding dries up, we're already seeing problems with the 3rd tier schools - typically small private diploma mills, or the colleges that were far overstretched already. A fair handful have gone out of business, or are about to.
Second Tier schools - think "safety schools" - will see a winnowing out. Those who can adapt, either by going online, or distinguishing themselves in some manner by focusing on a specific discipline or two, or simply by offering less financial aid, will likely be OK. However, don't bet too hard on adaptation - many staff and faculty are of the mindset that "It's always been OK, and it will always continue to be OK". Bluntly, they've no concept of "Zero Dollars" ..... Money is just something finance complains about, occasionally. Places that continue cluelessly like this will hit the wall like a bug hitting a windshield.
First Tier Schools - think elite private colleges, or Big State U - have truly an unimaginable amount of fat to burn through before they get into trouble. There will be the usual protesting and caterwauling when the 3rd Assistant Dean of Campus Diversity gets cut along with her entire staff, but the cuts will be made. For the most part, these places will come out leaner and probably meaner - read, more liberal, as the most aggressive admins eat their own.
Just what I see happening. It will take a long, long time. Remember that colleges are on a four year cycle, and this downswing is just starting. It may be a decade before things hit bottom.
But a bottom will be found.
Add in boarding, fees, books, labs, misc expenses.
But I'm not sure that you can staff them with high-school teachers. The whole idea of college is that the material is a lot tougher and the professors have to have a much higher level of expertise in the field they are teaching.
As for propagandists, this seems to be an issue only in subjects that you might not want to teach at a college that is helping people get jobs.
Ultimately you want a college that is really going to give you something for your money. Maybe people wouldn't want to pay to learn college subjects from people who are not familiar with the forefront of knowledge.
The bottom line is: What are colleges spending money on now that could be eliminated while still making possible a high standard of learning?
Boarding, fees, and books were already added in to the figures for in-state college costs on the page I linked to.
According to those figures, a Colorado resident would be charged something closer to $120000 for 4 years at CU, even in engineering or business, vs. the $200000 that was mentioned earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.