5 ms·

Education costs have risen faster than health care costs, you have to try to find some way to contain it or every generation becomes more indebted. As long as t

Education costs have risen faster than health care costs, you have to try to find some way to contain it or every generation becomes more indebted. As long as the feds are going to throw free money at this, we need to find some way of controlling costs. IMO asking the university staff to tighten their belts and be fiscally prudent is going to get you about as far as trying to build 1000 new mid rise apt buildings in SF. So, what ideas do you have? I don't want to limit federal funds or limit access to education, but we can't have skyrocketing tuition like we have seen for the past 20 years.

turc1656 9y ago
I agree that universities are not going to tighten the purse strings unless they have no choice. The cause, as you mention, is the feds throwing money at the education system. Therefore, the only logical solution is to remove that. You say you don't want to limit access to education, but the world isn't perfect. If you want everyone to have access (meaning having access to funding via loans) then you must accept the consequences of that. I, personally, don't have an issue with limiting access. Education that involves universities with buildings, faculty, land to maintain, etc. are not infinite resources. The natural check on the usage of resources is cost. Presumably, you don't sit around letting your sink run all day because you would wind up with a massive water bill. If people want to go to college and get an education, there is a cost involved. There are always going to be those who are unable to pay due to extreme financial situations. But that's why there are scholarship programs, grants, etc. that exist. The education system used to work fairly well in this country several decades ago. You used to be able to go to college and pay for it in a very reasonable amount of time even through minimum wage jobs. Loans weren't even necessary. And when the end user pays the bills, the connection to cost is there so people pay attention to what it really costs because they bare the brunt of it right away and it's not hidden (so to speak) from them through loans that are paid off over 10-20 years. It was only when the government decided that something was "wrong" and needed to be improved that the system started going to shit and getting ever more expensive and the product (education) getting worse and worse - the quality of the education people are paying for nowadays is abysmal half the time. I discussed this recently in another thread with some specific numbers attached to my explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15647956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15647956
- trowawee 9y ago
  > The education system used to work fairly well in this country several decades ago. That is...a pretty remarkable claim. I think there are a fair number of people - lots of women, lots of people who grew up smart and poor, lots of non-white folks - who would contest that pretty stridently.
  - turc1656 9y ago
    What you're referring to were societal/cultural issues and artificial limitations to education. I'm referring purely to the quality of higher education for the price that was paid. Accounting for inflation, in real terms the price that was paid for college was a small fraction of what is being paid today. And anyone (who was not subject to artificial limitations on access) could pay for it in a very reasonable amount of time and not go into debt by working, as I showed in that link, ~250 hours a year at minimum wage to pay tuition - tuition assumed to be for one semester, not two - so double that to ~500 hours a year at minimum wage to pay for the whole cost of that year's tuition. That's extremely affordable and no one had to go into debt to do it. In fact my father did exactly this in the early 80's. He worked part time and went to school and had no debt upon graduating.
logfromblammo 9y ago
The answer is to build other accredited institutions that compete on costs. They can poach all those adjuncts from the established universities by offering them tenure-track positions, build no-frills dormitories, skip the fancy landscaping and neo-classical architecture, forego any formally sanctioned athletic programs, rely on the bare minimum of administrators, and focus on undergraduate instruction. And that could be a decent second life for abandoned retail shopping malls, too. It might also be nice for such an institution to adopt a libre-license or gratis-license policy for all course materials, such that textbooks and lecture notes are essentially sold for the printing and distribution costs, and electronic versions downloadable at no additional charge. And since some of those new colleges will fail, establish a succession plan to begin with, so that the student records can be easily maintained and transferred. Even if you cut established university costs to the bone, you still eventually run up against the problem that there isn't enough undergraduate instruction capacity in them to serve the growing demand for bachelor's degrees. You're going to need to build out anyway, and private universities aren't necessarily going to do enough of that if it drops the market price for tuition.

turc1656 9y ago

I agree that universities are not going to tighten the purse strings unless they have no choice. The cause, as you mention, is the feds throwing money at the education system. Therefore, the only logical solution is to remove that. You say you don't want to limit access to education, but the world isn't perfect. If you want everyone to have access (meaning having access to funding via loans) then you must accept the consequences of that. I, personally, don't have an issue with limiting access. Education that involves universities with buildings, faculty, land to maintain, etc. are not infinite resources. The natural check on the usage of resources is cost. Presumably, you don't sit around letting your sink run all day because you would wind up with a massive water bill. If people want to go to college and get an education, there is a cost involved. There are always going to be those who are unable to pay due to extreme financial situations. But that's why there are scholarship programs, grants, etc. that exist. The education system used to work fairly well in this country several decades ago. You used to be able to go to college and pay for it in a very reasonable amount of time even through minimum wage jobs. Loans weren't even necessary. And when the end user pays the bills, the connection to cost is there so people pay attention to what it really costs because they bare the brunt of it right away and it's not hidden (so to speak) from them through loans that are paid off over 10-20 years. It was only when the government decided that something was "wrong" and needed to be improved that the system started going to shit and getting ever more expensive and the product (education) getting worse and worse - the quality of the education people are paying for nowadays is abysmal half the time. I discussed this recently in another thread with some specific numbers attached to my explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15647956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15647956

trowawee 9y ago
> The education system used to work fairly well in this country several decades ago. That is...a pretty remarkable claim. I think there are a fair number of people - lots of women, lots of people who grew up smart and poor, lots of non-white folks - who would contest that pretty stridently.
- turc1656 9y ago
  What you're referring to were societal/cultural issues and artificial limitations to education. I'm referring purely to the quality of higher education for the price that was paid. Accounting for inflation, in real terms the price that was paid for college was a small fraction of what is being paid today. And anyone (who was not subject to artificial limitations on access) could pay for it in a very reasonable amount of time and not go into debt by working, as I showed in that link, ~250 hours a year at minimum wage to pay tuition - tuition assumed to be for one semester, not two - so double that to ~500 hours a year at minimum wage to pay for the whole cost of that year's tuition. That's extremely affordable and no one had to go into debt to do it. In fact my father did exactly this in the early 80's. He worked part time and went to school and had no debt upon graduating.

logfromblammo 9y ago

The answer is to build other accredited institutions that compete on costs. They can poach all those adjuncts from the established universities by offering them tenure-track positions, build no-frills dormitories, skip the fancy landscaping and neo-classical architecture, forego any formally sanctioned athletic programs, rely on the bare minimum of administrators, and focus on undergraduate instruction. And that could be a decent second life for abandoned retail shopping malls, too. It might also be nice for such an institution to adopt a libre-license or gratis-license policy for all course materials, such that textbooks and lecture notes are essentially sold for the printing and distribution costs, and electronic versions downloadable at no additional charge. And since some of those new colleges will fail, establish a succession plan to begin with, so that the student records can be easily maintained and transferred. Even if you cut established university costs to the bone, you still eventually run up against the problem that there isn't enough undergraduate instruction capacity in them to serve the growing demand for bachelor's degrees. You're going to need to build out anyway, and private universities aren't necessarily going to do enough of that if it drops the market price for tuition.