3 ms·
The solution though, isn't to stop providing money to students for college. If you don't have Pell Grants, Stafford loans and the like, lower income bracket ind
by AaronFriel 13y ago
The solution though, isn't to stop providing money to students for college. If you don't have Pell Grants, Stafford loans and the like, lower income bracket individuals would never be able to afford college. There is a simple fact: I could not pay my way through my Midwest university education without these things. I will graduate and be in debt, but I'll be better off having done it. Certainly the experience is worthwhile.
The solution though, as some people propose, is not to end subsidies for lower income individuals. I see several people putting forth the argument that people are the most efficient at allocating money for themselves. That is not true except in an Ayn Rand novel. If people were so rational, everyone would go to college because the expected value of college still dwarfs the cost of college. Even for those individuals who would graduate with a significant amount of debt, it is far more worth it to have a degree than not.
So, how would a society reduce the cost of college education without removing the supports that enable low income individuals to enroll? Instead of giving colleges free money, we need to re-orient our structure of providing support for students that need it so that the college has the right incentives. For example, tying the cost of college to graduate's earnings.
Right now, a university gets money merely for pursuing higher levels of enrollment. There is no financial incentive for the university to involve students in student organizations, in leadership roles in their community, in politics or in networking. There is a tenuous link between those activities and pursuing alumni programs, but from what I've seen, alumni programs are a post-hoc solution to funding. A university sees an alumnus has done very well, and seeks to share in their wealth.
Let's simplify: the cost of a college education is 3-5% of aggregate gross income for the rest of your life. People who go on to be tremendously successful will benefit their university, and the university will have an incentive to churn out more tremendously successful people. This tax could be enforced by the IRS, automatically deducted in most cases, and manually reported elsewhere.
Now no one has to worry about the stress of student loans, and universities have every incentive to provide the highest quality education possible to maximize the value of their students. No more flooding the rosters of the university with under- and unqualified adjuncts in order to support higher enrollment numbers at lower costs to pad the pockets of administration. No more cutting student involvement to pad the athletics program.
- eigenvector 13y ago> If people were so rational, everyone would go to college because the expected value of college still dwarfs the cost of college. No, the expected value of a college degree is a result of a labour supply/demand curve and it wouldn't remain the same if you drastically shifted the supply curve. If everyone went to college, the additional earning power of a college graduate relative to the mean would be zero.
- _delirium 13y agoThis is true within a fixed labor market, but it gets more complex with globalization. If a country's educational mix changes, its position vis-a-vis the world labor market can also change. How to manage that in a way that produces a net-positive outcome is more complex, though. The Danish educational strategy is more or less betting on "going upmarket" via levels of education that are much higher than the global norm. Denmark can't compete on price, so the idea is to get everyone a high level of education and position the entire country as essentially a high-end consulting/services firm. Hence a goal to have 50% of people have bachelor's degrees by 20xx (I don't remember the target date). Part of hitting those numbers is maintaining the structure where not only is there no tuition, but students are paid to attend university (about $900/month if in good standing and studying full-time).
- randomdata 13y ago> Hence a goal to have 50% of people have bachelor's degrees by 20xx Interestingly, the college enrolment rate is 66% in the USA with around 30% of the population completing. Similarly, in Canada, the university enrolment rate is 50% with 25% of the population completing. Given that, it seems that the only way we might even be able to come close to a 50% degree attainment rate, in North America at least, is to force everyone into college or make it so easy that anyone can do it. Neither solution is one I would feel comfortable getting behind just to meet artificial targets. Can you shed some more light on how the Danes hope to be able to achieve this beyond the financial aspect? What makes their population more successful in academic pursuits?