3 ms·
I'm not sure restricting higher-ed to the ultra rich is the panacea you think it might be. Because what you are doing is creating a system where only the rich,
by cloudsec9 3y ago
I'm not sure restricting higher-ed to the ultra rich is the panacea you think it might be.
Because what you are doing is creating a system where only the rich, or the upper-middle class (who can cosign or take out loans on behalf of their kids) get educated.
The whole purpose of these programs is to put advanced education into the sphere of people in more difficult circumstances.
- refurb 3y agoDo you think colleges will just keep tuition at $60,000 and shrink student population by 95%? Of course not, they’ll lower tuition or come up with their own loans. Easy money just makes things more expensive - education, housing, healthcare, whatever.
- cloudsec9 3y agoWell, I don't think that the student population will shrink by 95%; there are still lots of people who can get loans who think it's worth investing in their kids. And while there are a few higher-ed for-profits out there, most Universities and Colleges are not making profits of any kind. Some big ones might have general endowments, but most schools run break-even -- where would they get money to float loans? A big part of why higher ed jacked up tuition was because State and Federal spending was cut; I'm sure they'd be overjoyed to get better base funding and cut tuition across the board.
- lockhouse 3y agoColleges don’t have a monopoly on education. Thanks to the internet, learning is more accessible to people than ever.
- cloudsec9 3y agoWhile I agree with this in principle, I think many/most employers are looking for some kind of accredited proof. Even certifications can be gamed, so completing even a short program still does have value.