5 ms·

> I don't understand why the public should be expected to subsidize a for-profit industry and not have carte blanc to regulate. If you don't like the regulatio

> I don't understand why the public should be expected to subsidize a for-profit industry and not have carte blanc to regulate. If you don't like the regulations, don't take the subsidy. I think the last thing any part of the higher education industry -- for-profit or not -- needs is more subsidies. If we want them to cost less, we need to take money out of them, not dump more money in. When I refer to cost, I mean total cost, not just the bill the university sends the student. The only thing worse than a bigger bill for a student enrolled at the university is a bigger bill for citizens who choose to not even attend university.

freehunter 12y ago
Sounds to me like he was suggesting more regulation in exchange for the current level of funding.
- nmrm2 12y ago
  The details of proposals vary. Generally the idea is a "compromise" whereby funding increases in exchange for regulation. I suspect in reality, given the current political climate, it will be "regulation, or we'll blindly slash funding"
nmrm2 12y ago
> I think the last thing any part of the higher education industry -- for-profit or not -- needs is more subsidies. edit: some revision. There are two forms of subsidy: direct funding for state systems, and loans. With respect to subsidies in the form of low-interest loans, the underlying premise of this position is both faulty and arrogant. Talk with any student. Odds are, they are acutely aware of how much debt they are taking on, and what that means for their life in the next 5, 10, 15 years. The trope about cognitively dissonant art majors is an exception, not the norm. More to the point, the position isn't even internally consistent. if the premise is accurate (again, wrt low-interest loans), then rate hikes on loans won't have any effect other than increased student debt and larger profit margins for major banks. With respect to state funding, all we need to do is look at historical data.
- crazy1van 12y ago
  The purpose of subsidized loans is to redirect debt towards a specific area. Society determines that people should be given preferential treatment if they are borrowing for certain purposes and they pass laws to reflect that. Typically these are things like higher education and homes. When this happens, it changes the calculus of an individual -- borrowing towards these specific purposes becomes more appealing because you get more for your money. I'm not arguing that this is either good or bad. However, I don't see the logic of both complaining that we spend too much on something while at the same time advocating more subsidies for those who want to borrow to buy more of it.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    This premise is also faulty; this isn't the calculus of most consumers of higher education. The calculus is more like "I need a college degree to get where I want in life. Period." > I don't see the logic of both complaining that we spend too much on something while at the same time advocating more subsidies for those who want to borrow to buy more of it. "we" the government, or "we" the individual consumer? It's possible for the individual to spend too much money on something precisely because the government isn't spending enough.
    - crazy1van 12y ago
      > "we" the government, or "we" the individual consumer? I mean the total of all spending. Although I contend that the two really aren't that different as government spending is just the aggregate of individual spending on government itself. > This premise is also faulty You are suggesting that subsidizing something can make the sum total of all spending on that thing go down? I completely disagree with that notion and I think this is the root of our disagreement. At least we found the crux of it. Even if neither side in the debate leaves convinced of the other side's position, I'm convinced it was worthwhile if the debate ends knowing more precisely where you disagree.
      - nmrm 12y ago
        > Although I contend that the two really aren't that different as government spending is just the aggregate of individual spending on government itself. America has a progressive tax system, so this sort of aggregation argument is over-simplistic. > You are suggesting that subsidizing something can make the sum total of all spending on that thing go down? Yes, absolutely. Even operating from your premises, spending more can decrease costs. In the case of no/low-interest loans, as long as the cost of defaults doesn't exceed the amount saved in interest paid to banks, everyone is spending less money on education. Combining no/low-interest loans with increased state funding for education significantly decreases the risk of default. So the "right answer" to minimizing spending is just a matter of simply arithmetic: C_f = Cost of state Funding C_d = Cost of Defaults B_i = Total money saved on interest payments (let's assume 5% rate with 20k load, probably higher if the entire market is unsubsidized) Then we want to maximize B_i - C_d + C_f. Since we have some amount of state funding and some subsidized loans, it's entirely plausible that increasing C_f could decrease C_d, because the loans are smaller and therefore risk of default is lower. Furthermore, decreasing C_d increases B_i since higher-interest unsubsidized loans will meet the new demand. Of course, there's a degenerate optimization: you can always just have zero subsidies. Most first world countries rightly give a shit about educating the non-independently-wealthy. But also: * I don't think "minimize cost" is a wise philosophy wrt education. Nations that do this tend to be sucky places to live/work. * America has a progressive tax system, so the aggregate reasoning of your first response is at least disingenuous.

freehunter 12y ago

Sounds to me like he was suggesting more regulation in exchange for the current level of funding.

nmrm2 12y ago
The details of proposals vary. Generally the idea is a "compromise" whereby funding increases in exchange for regulation. I suspect in reality, given the current political climate, it will be "regulation, or we'll blindly slash funding"

nmrm2 12y ago

> I think the last thing any part of the higher education industry -- for-profit or not -- needs is more subsidies. edit: some revision. There are two forms of subsidy: direct funding for state systems, and loans. With respect to subsidies in the form of low-interest loans, the underlying premise of this position is both faulty and arrogant. Talk with any student. Odds are, they are acutely aware of how much debt they are taking on, and what that means for their life in the next 5, 10, 15 years. The trope about cognitively dissonant art majors is an exception, not the norm. More to the point, the position isn't even internally consistent. if the premise is accurate (again, wrt low-interest loans), then rate hikes on loans won't have any effect other than increased student debt and larger profit margins for major banks. With respect to state funding, all we need to do is look at historical data.

crazy1van 12y ago
The purpose of subsidized loans is to redirect debt towards a specific area. Society determines that people should be given preferential treatment if they are borrowing for certain purposes and they pass laws to reflect that. Typically these are things like higher education and homes. When this happens, it changes the calculus of an individual -- borrowing towards these specific purposes becomes more appealing because you get more for your money. I'm not arguing that this is either good or bad. However, I don't see the logic of both complaining that we spend too much on something while at the same time advocating more subsidies for those who want to borrow to buy more of it.
- nmrm 12y ago
  This premise is also faulty; this isn't the calculus of most consumers of higher education. The calculus is more like "I need a college degree to get where I want in life. Period." > I don't see the logic of both complaining that we spend too much on something while at the same time advocating more subsidies for those who want to borrow to buy more of it. "we" the government, or "we" the individual consumer? It's possible for the individual to spend too much money on something precisely because the government isn't spending enough.
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    > "we" the government, or "we" the individual consumer? I mean the total of all spending. Although I contend that the two really aren't that different as government spending is just the aggregate of individual spending on government itself. > This premise is also faulty You are suggesting that subsidizing something can make the sum total of all spending on that thing go down? I completely disagree with that notion and I think this is the root of our disagreement. At least we found the crux of it. Even if neither side in the debate leaves convinced of the other side's position, I'm convinced it was worthwhile if the debate ends knowing more precisely where you disagree.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      > Although I contend that the two really aren't that different as government spending is just the aggregate of individual spending on government itself. America has a progressive tax system, so this sort of aggregation argument is over-simplistic. > You are suggesting that subsidizing something can make the sum total of all spending on that thing go down? Yes, absolutely. Even operating from your premises, spending more can decrease costs. In the case of no/low-interest loans, as long as the cost of defaults doesn't exceed the amount saved in interest paid to banks, everyone is spending less money on education. Combining no/low-interest loans with increased state funding for education significantly decreases the risk of default. So the "right answer" to minimizing spending is just a matter of simply arithmetic: C_f = Cost of state Funding C_d = Cost of Defaults B_i = Total money saved on interest payments (let's assume 5% rate with 20k load, probably higher if the entire market is unsubsidized) Then we want to maximize B_i - C_d + C_f. Since we have some amount of state funding and some subsidized loans, it's entirely plausible that increasing C_f could decrease C_d, because the loans are smaller and therefore risk of default is lower. Furthermore, decreasing C_d increases B_i since higher-interest unsubsidized loans will meet the new demand. Of course, there's a degenerate optimization: you can always just have zero subsidies. Most first world countries rightly give a shit about educating the non-independently-wealthy. But also: * I don't think "minimize cost" is a wise philosophy wrt education. Nations that do this tend to be sucky places to live/work. * America has a progressive tax system, so the aggregate reasoning of your first response is at least disingenuous.