6 ms·

>>the unwillingness to let government play a role (through taxation, grants, etc)<< This is not meant as a personal attack, but your claim that government does

by liber8 14y ago

>>the unwillingness to let government play a role (through taxation, grants, etc)<< This is not meant as a personal attack, but your claim that government doesn't play a role in American education is false. The U.S. government plays a massive role and is, arguably, the single biggest factor in the cost of American higher education. The federal government doles out many grants, but more importantly, it subsidizes student loans to cover tuition. This means just about anyone with a pulse can obtain a loan to cover tuition to whatever school they want to attend, regardless of what the student wants to study. Colleges large and small know this, and have dedicated staffs to help students obtain these loans.

Shivetya 14y ago
which is why many colleges do not feel a need to hold back the costs of an education. With near unlimited borrowing ability available colleges have simply kept raising tuition to keep pace with available funding. That and an incredible marketing push akin to how diamonds were marketed, as in you have to have a degree/diamond
- mirsadm 14y ago
  That makes no sense. In Australia the government will happily hand you the best loan you can get for a University education. The loan is indexed at inflation and you don't need to pay it back until you earn a certain amount of money. It doesn't cost anywhere near $45k/year to study here and the cost of living in Australia is significantly higher than almost all places in the US.
  - readme 14y ago
    How does it not make sense? If more people can afford college, the price will increase because college is a finite resource. It's basic supply and demand. The government subsidizing college educations causes the price of education to increase. Whether you pay it back in 2 years or 20 years, the price is higher. You also pay for it later, when you become a working taxpayer.
    - raphinou 14y ago
      Should education really be handled as an economical resource? I don't think so...
      - readme 14y ago
        Why? Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, all are, and they're more important than education. Furthermore, many people don't have them. BTW government run healthcare is still an economic issue. The only difference is that there's one choice and it's compulsory.
- wybo 14y ago
  There is a simple solution for this (even if your argument makes sense) and that is that the government also sets the legal maximum tuition fees. In the Netherlands the government subsidizes universities per student they take on, provides a monthly stipend to students (from about $400 to $800 depending on whether your parents income, with the possibility to borrow more) and sets yearly home-student tuition-fees (at $2200). And still Dutch universities perform quite well in the world-rankings (all 14 roughly between spot 40 and 200). Admittedly this is made easier by the fact that the Netherlands does not have any private universities (of any fame and influence), and the fact that things have been organized like this for a long time now... After having spent 5 years in university, having a debt of even $40.000 is considered a lot here.
  - notlisted 14y ago
    Precies! Weet je ook waar ik vandaan kom :-)
  - liber8 14y ago
    This is not a simple solution. This is yet another government solution to a government-created problem. The "solution" breeds more problems of its own, which will in turn require more "simple" government solutions. If you need an example of this, take a look at our federal tax code. The simple solution is to stop subsidizing loans to any student for any degree.
    - JPKab 14y ago
      Can you clarify your statement? Would you agree with subsidizing loans to good students, with impoverished backgrounds, choosing a degree which is in high demand in the marketplace(just an example)? I, for one, am apalled at the gov't subsidizing the huge number of art, fashion, music degrees that they do. I would be curious to see the default rates on these sorts of loans.
      - liber8 14y ago
        No. If the degree is in high demand, there’s no need to subsidize it. Either banks will lend based on the student’s projected ability to repay the loan or employers (who need people with the skill the student will be learning) will subsidize the student’s education. People like to believe basic economic principles like supply and demand don't apply to things like education or healthcare, even when the evidence stares them in the face. (See millions of unemployable liberal arts graduates and the voracious demand for computer science majors.) re student loan default data, this is very difficult to determine. First, many subsidized loans are being deferred, and thus not counted as "in default", even though they are not being repaid. The only data I can find quickly on the web only goes through 2009, which is obviously going to be dramatically lower than the default rate today.
- notlisted 14y ago
  This is very very true, and an oft-ignored side effect of the housing bubble if you ask me. "Expensive?!? Just take a second mortgage to get all that new equity in your house." Don't even get me started on the diamond thing. "Two monthly salaries". Good job De Beers (and Harvard/Yale/Vassar).
notlisted 14y ago
I meant a bigger role. Think: * extending loans directly instead of letting privatized banks make the money * building new universities and work towards accredited alternatives (eg 10K BA) * pushing people to existing universities via financial incentives * establishing a max. tuition increase for private universities or risk losing any governmental funding (e.g. indirectly, no extend loans to people who attend private institutions) * tax private uni endowments (often running in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, and mostly unused) to fund public education etc etc
userulluipeste 14y ago
Offering to take insane amouts of (bancrupcy-immune) debt is a bad incentive for someone wishful to get a college education.

by liber8 14y ago

Shivetya 14y ago

which is why many colleges do not feel a need to hold back the costs of an education. With near unlimited borrowing ability available colleges have simply kept raising tuition to keep pace with available funding. That and an incredible marketing push akin to how diamonds were marketed, as in you have to have a degree/diamond

mirsadm 14y ago
That makes no sense. In Australia the government will happily hand you the best loan you can get for a University education. The loan is indexed at inflation and you don't need to pay it back until you earn a certain amount of money. It doesn't cost anywhere near $45k/year to study here and the cost of living in Australia is significantly higher than almost all places in the US.
- readme 14y ago
  How does it not make sense? If more people can afford college, the price will increase because college is a finite resource. It's basic supply and demand. The government subsidizing college educations causes the price of education to increase. Whether you pay it back in 2 years or 20 years, the price is higher. You also pay for it later, when you become a working taxpayer.
  - raphinou 14y ago
    Should education really be handled as an economical resource? I don't think so...
    - readme 14y ago
      Why? Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, all are, and they're more important than education. Furthermore, many people don't have them. BTW government run healthcare is still an economic issue. The only difference is that there's one choice and it's compulsory.
wybo 14y ago
There is a simple solution for this (even if your argument makes sense) and that is that the government also sets the legal maximum tuition fees. In the Netherlands the government subsidizes universities per student they take on, provides a monthly stipend to students (from about $400 to $800 depending on whether your parents income, with the possibility to borrow more) and sets yearly home-student tuition-fees (at $2200). And still Dutch universities perform quite well in the world-rankings (all 14 roughly between spot 40 and 200). Admittedly this is made easier by the fact that the Netherlands does not have any private universities (of any fame and influence), and the fact that things have been organized like this for a long time now... After having spent 5 years in university, having a debt of even $40.000 is considered a lot here.
- notlisted 14y ago
  Precies! Weet je ook waar ik vandaan kom :-)
- liber8 14y ago
  This is not a simple solution. This is yet another government solution to a government-created problem. The "solution" breeds more problems of its own, which will in turn require more "simple" government solutions. If you need an example of this, take a look at our federal tax code. The simple solution is to stop subsidizing loans to any student for any degree.
  - JPKab 14y ago
    Can you clarify your statement? Would you agree with subsidizing loans to good students, with impoverished backgrounds, choosing a degree which is in high demand in the marketplace(just an example)? I, for one, am apalled at the gov't subsidizing the huge number of art, fashion, music degrees that they do. I would be curious to see the default rates on these sorts of loans.
    - liber8 14y ago
      No. If the degree is in high demand, there’s no need to subsidize it. Either banks will lend based on the student’s projected ability to repay the loan or employers (who need people with the skill the student will be learning) will subsidize the student’s education. People like to believe basic economic principles like supply and demand don't apply to things like education or healthcare, even when the evidence stares them in the face. (See millions of unemployable liberal arts graduates and the voracious demand for computer science majors.) re student loan default data, this is very difficult to determine. First, many subsidized loans are being deferred, and thus not counted as "in default", even though they are not being repaid. The only data I can find quickly on the web only goes through 2009, which is obviously going to be dramatically lower than the default rate today.
notlisted 14y ago
This is very very true, and an oft-ignored side effect of the housing bubble if you ask me. "Expensive?!? Just take a second mortgage to get all that new equity in your house." Don't even get me started on the diamond thing. "Two monthly salaries". Good job De Beers (and Harvard/Yale/Vassar).

notlisted 14y ago

I meant a bigger role. Think: * extending loans directly instead of letting privatized banks make the money * building new universities and work towards accredited alternatives (eg 10K BA) * pushing people to existing universities via financial incentives * establishing a max. tuition increase for private universities or risk losing any governmental funding (e.g. indirectly, no extend loans to people who attend private institutions) * tax private uni endowments (often running in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, and mostly unused) to fund public education etc etc

userulluipeste 14y ago

Offering to take insane amouts of (bancrupcy-immune) debt is a bad incentive for someone wishful to get a college education.