8 ms·

The whole mess that is higher education sickens me. The bankers did this. They colluded with susceptible financial aid officers and corrupted and victimized.

The whole mess that is higher education sickens me. The bankers did this. They colluded with susceptible financial aid officers and corrupted and victimized. Now the rest of us are left holding the bag, as usual. Socializing the losses. This is unacceptable. I still think the idiots who took out the loans need to repay them, not be let off. You might say it is akin to modern day slavery, and I get that, but the fact of the matter is, it is the bankers who are looking for the write offs because a) they still get paid and b) they need those same suckers to take on loads more debt buying houses.

John23832 10y ago
Modern investment banking seems to be at the root of a lot of society's ills.
humanrebar 10y ago
Bankers didn't raise tuition and pile on fees on top of that.
- velodrome 10y ago
  Agreed. 1) The universities obtained massive loans to build fancy new buildings and that cost is simply being passed on to students. 2) The ease to obtain educational loans prevents universities from having any sort of revenue constraints. Constraints breed innovation. If there are no constraints, the universities have no incentive to reduce costs.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    I think some of that is certainly true. But it's also true that the costs of employing professional workers has increased, primarily in the guise of health care premiums. There are more parties involved in this chain than just a university and students. A health insurance company (or any service company) may be able to increase premiums knowing the university has access to easy money from students. And a public university (or any public institution) rarely has the option of laying people off and hiring ones with the right skills in order to maximize value. Universities are subject to so much political scrutiny that more popular options like hiring freezes or pay raise freezes are preferred, leading to this bizarre attrition that makes it difficult to get value out of your most expensive resource: faculty and staff.
    - velodrome 10y ago
      What about private institutions? Are they not subject to the same constraints? https://priceonomics.com/static/images/college-one/Yearly_Tuition_Resize.png https://priceonomics.com/static/images/college-one/Yearly_Tu... Also, if these institutions are interested in "maximizing value" then they should be perusing modified MOOCs (online course + office hours and on-site testing). They are not.
      - stinkytaco 10y ago
        > What about private institutions? Are they not subject to the same constraints? They are not, but they offer a very different set of problems. In that situation buildings are not the issue, but inflated tuition before loans. I appreciated the government coming down on for profit institutions and would definitely like to see more scrutiny of private colleges in regards to loans. >Also, if these institutions are interested in "maximizing value" then they should be perusing modified MOOCs (online course + office hours and on-site testing). They are not. That's just not true. Plenty of institutions are exploring these or using them, either to reach students that are not local or to teach local students. My dad works at a state university system and they are aggressively pursuing MOOCs, but there has been a great deal of push back from students and placement partners (businesses who the colleges partner with for placement of trade students). The other issue that comes up with MOOCs -- at least where I am -- is that students who might go to a local community college or small university are going to larger institutions in state because they can take courses online. That leads to a great deal of political hostility towards the large institutions.
        velodrome 10y ago
        > That's just not true. Plenty of institutions are exploring these or using them, either to reach students that are not local or to teach local students. In California, they kinda bricked the online courses (at the time). You would get no credit for the course if it was within your major. The material was also somewhat simplified. Also, the fact that you took an online course was looked down upon. > My dad works at a state university system and they are aggressively pursuing MOOCs, but there has been a great deal of push back from students and placement partners (businesses who the colleges partner with for placement of trade students). That sounds like great news. Your right, it seems to boil down to politics. Professors, by and large, are freaking out about a new proposed law to mandate accepting online course credit. “There is no possibility that University of California faculty will shirk its responsibility to our students by ceding authority over courses to any outside agency,” wrote the faculty senate in a strongly worded letter. https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/a-few-crazy-college-fees-that-are-driving-education-online/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/a-few-crazy-college-fees-t...
  - jrs235 10y ago
    I believe the increased costs stem more from administration bloat. For state schools in my state, capital funds for school buildings come from a different pool of money. And for any "student initiative" buildings, such as a rec center, current students vote to increase their student fees to help pay for them. Which is stupid. The are sacking their wants onto future students and increasing the costs for them with "non-education" related things. Most of these student fees are outlaid for more than 4 years. If you want a gym to workout in while a student, get a membership to an existing local fitness center. Don't force all the students to subsidize your wants.

John23832 10y ago

Modern investment banking seems to be at the root of a lot of society's ills.

humanrebar 10y ago

Bankers didn't raise tuition and pile on fees on top of that.

velodrome 10y ago
Agreed. 1) The universities obtained massive loans to build fancy new buildings and that cost is simply being passed on to students. 2) The ease to obtain educational loans prevents universities from having any sort of revenue constraints. Constraints breed innovation. If there are no constraints, the universities have no incentive to reduce costs.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I think some of that is certainly true. But it's also true that the costs of employing professional workers has increased, primarily in the guise of health care premiums. There are more parties involved in this chain than just a university and students. A health insurance company (or any service company) may be able to increase premiums knowing the university has access to easy money from students. And a public university (or any public institution) rarely has the option of laying people off and hiring ones with the right skills in order to maximize value. Universities are subject to so much political scrutiny that more popular options like hiring freezes or pay raise freezes are preferred, leading to this bizarre attrition that makes it difficult to get value out of your most expensive resource: faculty and staff.
  - velodrome 10y ago
    What about private institutions? Are they not subject to the same constraints? https://priceonomics.com/static/images/college-one/Yearly_Tuition_Resize.png https://priceonomics.com/static/images/college-one/Yearly_Tu... Also, if these institutions are interested in "maximizing value" then they should be perusing modified MOOCs (online course + office hours and on-site testing). They are not.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      > What about private institutions? Are they not subject to the same constraints? They are not, but they offer a very different set of problems. In that situation buildings are not the issue, but inflated tuition before loans. I appreciated the government coming down on for profit institutions and would definitely like to see more scrutiny of private colleges in regards to loans. >Also, if these institutions are interested in "maximizing value" then they should be perusing modified MOOCs (online course + office hours and on-site testing). They are not. That's just not true. Plenty of institutions are exploring these or using them, either to reach students that are not local or to teach local students. My dad works at a state university system and they are aggressively pursuing MOOCs, but there has been a great deal of push back from students and placement partners (businesses who the colleges partner with for placement of trade students). The other issue that comes up with MOOCs -- at least where I am -- is that students who might go to a local community college or small university are going to larger institutions in state because they can take courses online. That leads to a great deal of political hostility towards the large institutions.
      - velodrome 10y ago
        > That's just not true. Plenty of institutions are exploring these or using them, either to reach students that are not local or to teach local students. In California, they kinda bricked the online courses (at the time). You would get no credit for the course if it was within your major. The material was also somewhat simplified. Also, the fact that you took an online course was looked down upon. > My dad works at a state university system and they are aggressively pursuing MOOCs, but there has been a great deal of push back from students and placement partners (businesses who the colleges partner with for placement of trade students). That sounds like great news. Your right, it seems to boil down to politics. Professors, by and large, are freaking out about a new proposed law to mandate accepting online course credit. “There is no possibility that University of California faculty will shirk its responsibility to our students by ceding authority over courses to any outside agency,” wrote the faculty senate in a strongly worded letter. https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/a-few-crazy-college-fees-that-are-driving-education-online/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/a-few-crazy-college-fees-t...
- jrs235 10y ago
  I believe the increased costs stem more from administration bloat. For state schools in my state, capital funds for school buildings come from a different pool of money. And for any "student initiative" buildings, such as a rec center, current students vote to increase their student fees to help pay for them. Which is stupid. The are sacking their wants onto future students and increasing the costs for them with "non-education" related things. Most of these student fees are outlaid for more than 4 years. If you want a gym to workout in while a student, get a membership to an existing local fitness center. Don't force all the students to subsidize your wants.