3 ms·

There are already very affordable college options - the reason many schools charge more is because of demand and exclusivity. This is another example of sensat

There are already very affordable college options - the reason many schools charge more is because of demand and exclusivity. This is another example of sensationalism. According to an article on Forbes -> "The average student loan debt for members of the Class of 2018 is $29,200" Is that really so egregious? Isn't it more likely that semi-skilled labor jobs disappeared increasing the demand to go to college for a good job? I don't think the loans are enough to justify the increase.

sokoloff 6y ago
I would say that if someone was housed, clothed, and fed for four years while they worked perhaps only at a summer job, that being only $29K in debt is quite a good deal. It's not just tuitions, books, and fees. You could make tuition and books free and someone still has to cover your living expenses for ~4 years of (mostly) not working at a paid job.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  29k in debt is the deal - that's the average of a graduating class, so people ARE finding ways to provide for their needs and go to school and come out with 29. *Assuming these numbers are accurate - I'm not here to get into a statistical debate on the numbers. But assuming that number is accurate.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    What's the variance in the set? how do you know it's not bimodal with many students having scholarships or parent paid tuition, food, and board; then other students mostly graduating with 50k plus debt?
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      In my less than complete research it seems the ranges are based from 27k-37k. Either way, that doesn't seem to to bad. So based on that number being relatively true, is that too high? Why is that too high?
      - thatcat 6y ago
        It's too high if the degree doesn't lead to employment or is not useful in employment. Consider the cost over a lifetime: it is much more than 27-37k after it is paid off and there is no way to discharge the debt. It's a risk that is put on students who are 17-18 and the effect is essentially to increase worker desperation of 21-22 year olds - suppressing labor costs to employers while increasing the monthly bills of the employee. Why should students pay for this while living for 4 years in poverty conditions when there is arguably little tangible benefit beyond checking a box required by employers?
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        > Why should students pay for this while living for 4 years in poverty conditions when there is arguably little tangible benefit beyond checking a box required by employers? They wouldn't. But there is a tangible benefit for many, that is why they are willing to spend this money to go to school. No one forces kids to go to school at 18 just like it doesn't force kids to blow money on credit cards and rack up debt, or buy cars on ridiculous interest rate loans, or spend high rent in over-priced apartments so they can be near the cool bars. No one forces kids to go to the private school for 40k a year over a local school at half the price. No one forces parents to not save more money for college, or to help their kids more. The fact that these things continue is evidence enough - the cost benefit is college is still worth it. I've seen little (besides rich white Silicon Valley types who are loaded railing against the establishment)evidence otherwise.
        thatcat 6y ago
        The fact that it continues is not evidence of effectiveness of educational ability, it’s evidence of structural entrenchment of the process due to the efficiency with which the process can extract value from students without options or perspective.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Getting a job is no evidence of effectiveness of educational ability either. No one actually learns how to do any job in high school either. It's just a credential representing a general level of intelligence.

sokoloff 6y ago

I would say that if someone was housed, clothed, and fed for four years while they worked perhaps only at a summer job, that being only $29K in debt is quite a good deal. It's not just tuitions, books, and fees. You could make tuition and books free and someone still has to cover your living expenses for ~4 years of (mostly) not working at a paid job.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
29k in debt is the deal - that's the average of a graduating class, so people ARE finding ways to provide for their needs and go to school and come out with 29. *Assuming these numbers are accurate - I'm not here to get into a statistical debate on the numbers. But assuming that number is accurate.
- thatcat 6y ago
  What's the variance in the set? how do you know it's not bimodal with many students having scholarships or parent paid tuition, food, and board; then other students mostly graduating with 50k plus debt?
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    In my less than complete research it seems the ranges are based from 27k-37k. Either way, that doesn't seem to to bad. So based on that number being relatively true, is that too high? Why is that too high?
    - thatcat 6y ago
      It's too high if the degree doesn't lead to employment or is not useful in employment. Consider the cost over a lifetime: it is much more than 27-37k after it is paid off and there is no way to discharge the debt. It's a risk that is put on students who are 17-18 and the effect is essentially to increase worker desperation of 21-22 year olds - suppressing labor costs to employers while increasing the monthly bills of the employee. Why should students pay for this while living for 4 years in poverty conditions when there is arguably little tangible benefit beyond checking a box required by employers?
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        > Why should students pay for this while living for 4 years in poverty conditions when there is arguably little tangible benefit beyond checking a box required by employers? They wouldn't. But there is a tangible benefit for many, that is why they are willing to spend this money to go to school. No one forces kids to go to school at 18 just like it doesn't force kids to blow money on credit cards and rack up debt, or buy cars on ridiculous interest rate loans, or spend high rent in over-priced apartments so they can be near the cool bars. No one forces kids to go to the private school for 40k a year over a local school at half the price. No one forces parents to not save more money for college, or to help their kids more. The fact that these things continue is evidence enough - the cost benefit is college is still worth it. I've seen little (besides rich white Silicon Valley types who are loaded railing against the establishment)evidence otherwise.
        thatcat 6y ago
        The fact that it continues is not evidence of effectiveness of educational ability, it’s evidence of structural entrenchment of the process due to the efficiency with which the process can extract value from students without options or perspective.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Getting a job is no evidence of effectiveness of educational ability either. No one actually learns how to do any job in high school either. It's just a credential representing a general level of intelligence.