The Dirty Truth of Modern Higher Ed

[Paducah Home Theater]

I don't have much sympathy for those that take out student loans, kinda feels a little like welfair to me..

Welfare would be a good comparison if everybody were getting grants or 0% interest loans. That's hardly the case. The government and third party lenders are making good money off these loans. That's great that you worked your way through college, but those who got a loan didn't cost you a dime. At this point I think new cars have like half the interest rate, maybe less, and even a sub-prime house loan is significantly cheaper.

Edited November 26, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

I don't have much sympathy for those that take out student loans, kinda feels a little like welfair to me..

Welfare would be a good comparison if everybody were getting grants or 0% interest loans. That's hardly the case. The government and third party lenders are making good money off these loans. That's great that you worked your way through college, but those who got a loan didn't cost you a dime. At this point I think new cars have like half the interest rate, maybe less, and even a sub-prime house loan is significantly cheaper.

 

 

Not cheaper when so many are defaulting on paying back those loans. We all make choices in our lives that affect how our lives end up, I am now 50 and my daughter is 15 and my son is twelve. I decided to Waite to have kids, so I could better afford to take care of them and give them things. Is it truly my responsibility to pay welfare or other governmental assistance because my classmate with similar intelligence decided he didn't have to Waite to get his high school girlfriend pregnant, ruining his chances to work through an education to better himself. That is not his RIGHT, it was his CHOICE, and bad judgment.  You all are suggesting that the government is taking advantage of these kids, I am suggesting that my tax dollars should not even be made available to them, regardless of if it makes a profit or not!

 

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

 

I don't have much sympathy for those that take out student loans, kinda feels a little like welfair to me..

Welfare would be a good comparison if everybody were getting grants or 0% interest loans. That's hardly the case. The government and third party lenders are making good money off these loans. That's great that you worked your way through college, but those who got a loan didn't cost you a dime. At this point I think new cars have like half the interest rate, maybe less, and even a sub-prime house loan is significantly cheaper.

 

 

Not cheaper when so many are defaulting on paying back those loans. We all make choices in our lives that affect how our lives end up, I am now 50 and my daughter is 15 and my son is twelve. I decided to Waite to have kids, so I could better afford to take care of them and give them things. Is it truly my responsibility to pay welfare or other governmental assistance because my classmate with similar intelligence decided he didn't have to Waite to get his high school girlfriend pregnant, ruining his chances to work through an education to better himself. That is not his RIGHT, it was his CHOICE, and bad judgment.  You all are suggesting that the government is taking advantage of these kids, I am suggesting that my tax dollars should not even be made available to them, regardless of if it makes a profit or not!

 

Roger

 

 

 

Cause and effect! Teach them responsibility for making bad choices in life, do not give them a benefit for having made that bad choice! There are many "Smart" people out there that make bad choices, do they deserve to become all that they can be in spite of themselves, I think not....

 

Roger

[Paducah Home Theater]

Not cheaper when so many are defaulting on paying back those loans.

Cheaper in terms of the interest percentage that the consumer is paying, yes. Last I checked student loans just went up to the mid 6% range which is ridiculous. This was fairly recent so I don't know if this stuck or ever kicked in or what.

You all are suggesting that the government is taking advantage of these kids, I am suggesting that my tax dollars should not even be made available to them, regardless of if it makes a profit or not![/b]

Thinking that your hard earned tax dollars is going to people for student loans is a ridiculous thought when they're making so much money plus can print money out of thin air whenever they please. Your tax dollars is hardly in the picture.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/federal-student-loan-profit/3696009/

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

Not cheaper when so many are defaulting on paying back those loans.

Cheaper in terms of the interest percentage that the consumer is paying, yes. Last I checked student loans just went up to the mid 6% range which is ridiculous. This was fairly recent so I don't know if this stuck or ever kicked in or what.

You all are suggesting that the government is taking advantage of these kids, I am suggesting that my tax dollars should not even be made available to them, regardless of if it makes a profit or not![/b]

Thinking that your hard earned tax dollars is going to people for student loans is a ridiculous thought when they're making so much money plus can print money out of thin air whenever they please. Your tax dollars is hardly in the picture.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/federal-student-loan-profit/3696009/

 

Understand about printing money out of thin air, but it is still me and mine that will eventually have to PAY for that bad tab, so it still works out as my tax dollars. Your thought process seams like that of all these Obummer voters that all of their free chit is actually free?

 

Roger

[Paducah Home Theater]

I am now 50

Then you clearly don't know what's going on in the real world if you're going to rant about how you and your brother worked your way through school.

Here's the truth on the matter for anybody snubbing their nose at anybody who didn't work their way through college. My daughter is a freshman who is trying to work so I'm a little bit familiar with the latest costs.

1. Even a small hometown college like Murray State University in Kentucky has gone up tremendously. In-state tuition has went up to nearly $4,000 I think, but regardless of that, but, some, like Murray, force you to rack up other bills. All freshmen must live in the dorms and get the unlimited food plan. My daughter's bill ended up being $7,500 and that's only because the Kentucky Higher Education something or another kicks in money for good grades in high school. Without it, things would have been closer to $8,500 probably. Oh, and that doesn't include books. Add on another $1,000 or so for that and we're up to $9,500 per semester. And, unless they go nowhere and do nothing and receive hand-me-downs, you're going to have some costs in terms of incidentals, clothing, travel, etc. Basically unless your parents are poor or you get married and some socialist federal government programs kick in, you can't go there for less than $20,000 a year.

2. The prospects for an 18 year old being able to get a job that pays this much is extremely slim. All the older people got all the good part time jobs after the economy got wrecked in 08, but regardless, it's a ridiculous thought. Standard pay for an 18 year old worker is like $8 an hour. To pay for their $20,000 a year bill they would have to work 48 hours a week at an $8 an hour job, not counting taxes, with 100% of the earnings going towards their school bill, year round. I'm not saying it cant be done nowadays, but let's just say that this isn't reality for many kids.

Edited November 26, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[twistedcrankcammer]

 

I am now 50

Then you clearly don't know what's going on in the real world if you're going to rant about how you and your brother worked your way through school.

Here's the truth on the matter for anybody snubbing their nose at anybody who didn't work their way through college. My daughter is a freshman who is trying to work so I'm a little bit familiar with the latest costs.

1. Even a small hometown college like Murray State University in Kentucky has gone up tremendously. In-state tuition has went up to nearly $4,000 I think, but regardless of that, but, some, like Murray, force you to rack up other bills. All freshmen must live in the dorms and get the unlimited food plan. My daughter's bill ended up being $7,500 and that's only because the Kentucky Higher Education something or another kicks in money for good grades in high school. Without it, things would have been closer to $8,500 probably. Oh, and that doesn't include books. Add on another $1,000 or so for that and we're up to $9,500 per semester. And, unless they go nowhere and do nothing and receive hand-me-downs, you're going to have some costs in terms of incidentals, clothing, travel, etc. Basically unless your parents are poor or you get married and some socialist federal government programs kick in, you can't go there for less than $20,000 a year.

2. The prospects for an 18 year old being able to get a job that pays this much is extremely slim. All the older people got all the good part time jobs after the economy got wrecked in 08, but regardless, it's a ridiculous thought. Standard pay for an 18 year old worker is like $8 an hour. To pay for their $20,000 a year bill they would have to work 48 hours a week at an $8 an hour job, not counting taxes, with 100% of the earnings going towards their school bill. I'm not saying it cant be done nowadays, but let's just say that this isn't reality.

 

 

I worked my way through school, working as an extra hand on a farm and paying for my own home, so $20,000 CAN BE DONE, IT AIN'T EASY BUT IT IS DOABLE. My wife worked a full time job at the hospital, a second job three days a week at a doctors office to get her bachelors in nursing, all the while taking 18 credit hours of school, so don't tell me your kid has it hard, because I don't think you know...

 

And if you think $20,000 is even remotely expensive, I suggest you look into the price of Law school, my brother got lower degrees and worked jobs that they qualified him for in order to be able to pay for Law school.

 

My sister flunked out of college and worked her way up through various jobs without a degree to where she owns a 7,200 sp ft mansion built in 1913 that she paid $350,000 on the remodel.

 

I dropped out of Electrical engineering with the highest GPA in the program to get married, my bad mistake, but I later went back to school and paid for my own way when I was paying for my own home, it was only about 16 years since I graduated.

 

Please don't tell me that things have suddenly changed so much that these things can no longer be done, as they can! It only takes drive, intelligence and fortitude, qualities that VERYVERY few of our youth now days have, which should make it all that much easier for those that do to attain!

 

End of rant.... Roger

Edited November 26, 2014 by twistedcrankcammer

[Paducah Home Theater]

I worked my way through school

When exactly was this? What year?

 

My wife worked a full time job at the hospital, a second job three days a week at a doctors office to get her bachelors in nursing, all the while taking 18 credit hours of school, so don't tell me your kid has it hard, because I don't think you know...

Don't presume to think you know what I know. I was married, had a kid, was going to engineering school, worked 32 hours a week at a place that was a two hour round trip, four days a week, while taking 18 credit hours. I also started my internet sales business. I also worked several hours a week by telecommuniting from San Francisco, writing software for aerospace defense companies. The only way I got my school work done was staying up all night twice a week. I saved up enough to buy a house closer to work, but then I had to commute to school because I bought it while I was a junior. So, cry me a river, you're not impressing anybody.

Notice on all your posts you keep bringing up tuition only, which was done well in the past. It's a recurring theme which doesn't prove anything. 20 grand for an inexperienced 18 year old to come up with straight out of high school is quite different than the stuff you're talking about.

 

And if you think $20,000 is even remotely expensive, I suggest you look into the price of Law school, my brother got lower degrees and worked jobs that they qualified him for in order to be able to pay for Law school.

Like I said before, my wife went to law school, while we were married. I'm kinda familiar with the costs. Except we're not talking about 10 years ago or more. We're talking about today. So, it's kind of irrelevant.

 

Please don't tell me that things have suddenly changed so much that these things can no longer be done, as they can! It only takes drive, intelligence and fortitude, qualities that VERYVERY few of our youth now days have, which should make it all that much easier for those that do to attain!

Like I said before, it's possible, but not exactly reality for many kids, because yes, many things have "suddenly" changed over the last 10-12 years believe it or not, things are MUCH more expensive, and jobs that have traditionally helped people pay their own way are more scarce. Immediately coming up with $20,000 extra after the cost of living straight out of high school on your own is an insane proposition especially since most places won't hire you unless you're 17 nowadays. I graduated from this same school in 2001 and was able to pay less than $3,000 a semester for everything. When I moved out of the dorms all I had was tuition which was maybe $1,200 a semester at the most. Basically direct costs payable to the school have more than tripled, decent paying part time jobs are more scarce due to older folks snatching them up after the economy went south, indirect costs due to inflation such as gas money, groceries, apartment rentals, etc. have all went through the roof. Yeah, things have changed.

Edited November 26, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Jeff Matthews]

Things have definitely changed.  When I was in undergrad from 1986 - 1990, tuition at the University of Houston was about $350 per semester.  I worked part-time and was being paid something like $8 an hour or so.  It wasn't that hard.  You could work a couple of weeks, and tuition was covered.  Another week would cover books.  No big deal.

 

Tuition went through the roof because of unlimited student loan money became available. Roger is not understanding that.  This has changed things drastically.  Now, you might as well not try to work your way through, because it will take an awful lot of work and still not be possible on a practical level.  The norm has changed to student loans.  When the student loan spigot shuts-off (if it happens), tuition will fall back down to normal levels.

[Jeff Matthews]

Understand about printing money out of thin air, but it is still me and mine that will eventually have to PAY for that bad tab, so it still works out as my tax dollars.

 

Trust me.  Your tax dollars aren't paying for it.  

 

What was the national debt 30 years ago?

 

What is the national debt today?

 

You can see that nobody is paying for it, and everyone is putting it on the national credit card. 

[Fjd]

 

This is, for a private-equity firm, a remarkably attractive arrangement: the investors get their money up front, in the form of the tuition paid for by student loans. Meanwhile, any subsequent default on those loans is somebody else’s problem—in this case, the federal government’s. The arrangement bears a notable resemblance to the subprime-mortgage-lending industry of a decade ago, with private equity playing the role of the investment banks, underqualified law students serving as the equivalent of overleveraged home buyers, and the American Bar Association standing in for the feckless ratings agencies. But there is a crucial difference. When the subprime market collapsed, legislation dedicating hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bailing out the banks had to be passed. In this case, no such action will be necessary: the private investors have, as it were, been bailed out before the fact by our federal educational-loan system. This situation, from the perspective of Sterling Partners and other investors in higher education, comes remarkably close to the capitalist dream of privatizing profits while socializing losses.

 

 

 

Tuition went through the roof because of unlimited student loan money became available. Roger is not understanding that.  This has changed things drastically.  Now, you might as well not try to work your way through, because it will take an awful lot of work and still not be possible on a practical level. The norm has changed to student loans. When the student loan spigot shuts-off (if it happens), tuition will fall back down to normal levels.

 

 

In the latter response I believe that you may be forgetting about the 'predatory-like' practices outlined in your original post about those on the other side (private equity) making the 'profit' from the situation. 

 

While prices should drop to some lower level equilibrium, when you "shut-off the student loan spigot" the opportunity for individuals to actually attend college without some type of financial aid tends to decrease dramatically. 

[Jeff Matthews]

While prices should drop to some lower level equilibrium, when you "shut-off the student loan spigot" the opportunity for individuals to actually attend college without some type of financial aid tends to decrease dramatically. 

 

This is very true, but consider the phrase, "opportunity to attend college."  Read the original article referenced in the original post.  The question is whether it's all that much of an "opportunity" anymore.  There is a lot of data out there showing that for 50% of students (at least law school students), getting a degree is a disaster.  It tends not to help their odds of good employment, plus it straddles them with virtually life-long, non-dischargeable debt in staggering amounts, which almost seals their fate as regards financial security.

 

In short, colleges are creating hoards of debt-slaves, and that's not what many of us would contend is an "opportunity."  These statistics are showing to be the case in many other educational settings, as well, including undergrad.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Jeff Matthews

[Paducah Home Theater]

Ironically, we have a shortage of tech workers. There are all kinds of engineer jobs out there, with nobody to fill them. A degree is kind of necessary for this kind of work.

Teachers seem to be struggling though, lots of young grads willing to work for cheap so the old dogs are let go since they have to be paid a higher salary. Lots of them getting canned right before retirement.

There's way too many people still going into liberal arts too. Majoring in womens lib or history just isn't going to get you much in return nowadays.

As for attorney jobs, there's nothing stopping you from working for yourself. It's just that nobody wants to. Graduates want instant gratification starting with a good salary at an established company doing important work, and that goes well beyond just attorneys.

[Fjd]

 

While prices should drop to some lower level equilibrium, when you "shut-off the student loan spigot" the opportunity for individuals to actually attend college without some type of financial aid tends to decrease dramatically. 

 

This is very true, but consider the phrase, "opportunity to attend college."  Read the original article referenced in the original post.  The question is whether it's all that much of an "opportunity" anymore.  There is a lot of data out there showing that for 50% of students (at least law school students), getting a degree is a disaster.  It tends not to help their odds of good employment, plus it straddles them with virtually life-long, non-dischargeable debt in staggering amounts, which almost seals their fate as regards financial security.

 

In short, colleges are creating hoards of debt-slaves, and that's not what many of us would contend is an "opportunity."  These statistics are showing to be the case in many other educational settings, as well, including undergrad.

 

 

 

While I currently do not have the time to fully evaluate all aspects of the article, although I plan to in future, I did not overlook that aspect of the article and I believe that your comment that "colleges are creating hoards of debt-slaves" is directly reated to my point about the schools and the involvement of private equity firms looking to pull as much profit as possible from the situation. 

 

I believe there are multiple issues in play here and arbitrarily shutting down the financial aid programs would be a knee-jerk reaction that would not solve the overall issues at hand, and in general, the issue on how to raise the education level of the country. 

 

I know that without some level of financial aid, my girlfriends daughter would not have an opportunity to attend college and currently she is attending full time, working full time, and has as much help as I can give her to make ends meet.  If one of these aspects are omitted, her college aspirations go down the drain and she is frugal and not extravagant.

 

Given the above, yes, I agree that many students make very poor choices in a degree program, over extend themselves with debt, etc., etc., etc., and end up in an overwhelming situation.  There will always be a percentage of students that end up in this category. As eth2 says in his signature line, "I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now."

 

However, it seems that in certain respects we seem to have a type of 'disparate impact' situation at play where the schools (and private equity) are exploiting a type of 'loop hole' in the system for their own short term gain and dumping the collateral damage on the rest of us.  

 

Unfortunately, "I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now" is probably not a 'protected class' in relation to where these schools could be held accountable for targeting students, charging the astronomical tuitions and not delivering a job where the graduate could pay off the debt.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Fjd

[Jeff Matthews]

I believe there are multiple issues in play here and arbitrarily shutting down the financial aid programs would be a knee-jerk reaction that would not solve the overall issues at hand, and in general, the issue on how to raise the education level of the country.   

 

 

That's one of the major premises in the article.  Do we really need to keep pushing the idea that more education is always better?  As a result, we are churning-out hoards of over-qualified students.  Over-qualification is not, per se, bad, but it is enough to bring into doubt the value of the expectation that "everyone must go to college" for a better life.  Pretty soon, you have dog catchers with PhD's.

 

At some point, we have to realize what is in play.  On the one hand, the goal is to make education serve as the paved road out of serfdom.  On the other hand, education is creating a lot of serfdom.  If we reduce student lending, we reduce the number of serfs. This is quite the opposite of what we were traditionally led to believe, isn't it?  A great many people just might be better off not going to college.

[Mallette]

The answer is Competency Based Education.  As an Instructional Systems Technologist, this has been my model for technical training since the '80s.  It occurred to me in the mid-nineties that the public school model was totally inefficient and technologically archaic.  In fact, this epiphany came while reading a book on life in ancient Egypt and seeing an Egyptian tomb of a teacher...standing in front of lined up in rows students drawing on the ancient equivalent of a chalkboard.

 

All our students, public schools and secondary education as well, are over a century behind.  As taxpayers and as parents we are paying for massive infrastructure that has been rendered obsolete in it's present form.

 

Here's what should happen:

 

1. All public colleges and universities should be required immediately to offer competency based testing, at cost, to students. 

The majority of courses are purely academic and can be learned in a variety of ways.  Experientially, from books, by self-paced interactive courseware...it doesn't matter.  If they can pass the test they should get credit for the course without sitting in an overpriced classroom for x hours.  I hold that truth to be self-evident.  Private institutions wouldn't be required to do this...they'd do it on their own as the cost of getting a degree dropped radically and they are forced to compete.

 

2. The process should then gradually be introduced in the public schools. 

It's no secret that some students struggle to keep up with their grade group, while others underperform because they are bored stiff.  The entire 12 year program should be divided into levels that, when complete, provide an HS diploma.  The average home schooled student spends around 2 hours per day and graduates at the same time or sooner than their public schooled peers.  2 hours.  That should tell you how much you are spending on baby sitting and activities irrelevant to education.

 

What about band, orchestra, choir, sports, and shop?  These should be made into interest centers taught basically as they are now.  Football teams and such could be local "clubs," regulated by the state as they are now but placed outside the massive, unnecessary structures where they are now located.  Same for art, shop, and other skills-based courses requiring a human.  But the academic portions of these would be done either by home schooling, computer-based education, self-study, or whatever means and tested by state-devised competency examinations.  Of course, performance would be required by law as it is now.  Students not showing adequate performance would be put through Admission, Review, Dismissal (ARD) or Individualized Education Program (IEP) reviews to determine the issues and take action as required. 

 

What about the teachers?  Well, we'd certainly not need as many as we have now.  However, those remaining would do what teachers like to do best and are best at...working individually with students to help them through areas of difficulty.  I would propose that every neighborhood have a house or structure within safe walking distance of children dedicated to teachers rotating through them to provide these services as required. 

 

The savings to the taxpayers from a fraction of the buses, huge and costly campuses and physical plants and the like would be enormous.  The increase in educational efficiency would be mind boggling and would place the United States in an incredibly improved economic situation. 

 

What about the baby sitting?  Yes, this would create issues requiring a different approach.  I don't have an answer for it, but I don't think the current massive, redundant, archaic, and inefficient system can be justified simply to provide a babysitting service for most of the day along with a couple of hours’ worth of ineffectively provided education.

 

One personal illustration and an explanation of how this concept came to me. 

 

I'd been a training professional for 20 years and never given public education much thought until the mid-90s.  At that time, I headed a project for ARCO to produce a completely on-demand, computer-based system for a federally mandated offshore safety systems course.  It was a landmark project done by a bunch of my former students at the University of North Texas where I had taught non-broadcast media for training and such.  I had already begun to tell them what we were teaching would be obsolete in the near future due to the potential of computers as education tools.  I'd been exposed to and inspired by PLATO, WICAT, and other tools developed by DOD using mainframes and minicomputers for teaching purposes and the PC was just blooming.  I had no idea just how far these guys would take that concept.  They asked ARCO management to bring me in to manage what they'd started.  I won't go into the technical side, but they were over a decade ahead both hardware and software wise in what they had started.

 

When completed and certified by the Feds, this system reduced training time by 80 percent, and costs by 90 percent while producing far more consistent and superior results than the classroom version.

 

That's all it took.  I suddenly realized that most subjects are largely academic based and that the transfer rate could be radically improved by direct to student systems that asked questions, then taught prescriptively only those things the student didn't know at his or her own pace rather than being too fast for many, too slow for most, and a waste of time for others. 

 

The system I just described is the ONLY way to provide truly equal opportunity education.  It's not only the right thing to do, it saves huge amounts of money want will ensure competency.  The computer doesn't let you slide and is infinitely patient.  Some students may learn more, but NO student would be left behind without the required competency.

 

What do you think?

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

What do you think?

 

I think the baby-sitting aspect is extremely important.  If you use non-teachers as baby-sitters, you are going to get non-teaching. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

There's no profit in that scheme though. Plus, at least if you're a conspiracy theorist, quite honestly the government doesn't have time to cram a bunch of false history and propaganda down your throat.

[Paducah Home Theater]

The other thing I thought was odd is that schools and financial aid folks are actively encouraging students to take out loans, even if it's not directly for tuition, such as transportation and whatnot. It seems to be to the point of brainwashing. My daughter that I mentioned earlier had a steep bill but we had a college savings account started many years ago plus she got a scholarship. I had to explain to her many times that she does not need to take out a loan. Yeah I mentioned her earlier because I know the costs and know what her friends are going through but I never said she got a loan. She knew she could get it and really really wanted to but I had to convince her otherwise. Why is this? Why do financial advisors say such things? The only answer is that it's a racket, a big money making scheme.

What sucks is that they also encourage your family to cosign. So, usually there is no such thing as a default. If you don't pay, or even if you die, your parents are on the hook. Even if you declare bankruptcy it doesn't go away. I'm not going to cosign for her. She is welcome to bury herself in debt or get married and get free grants after my account runs out but I'm not cosigning for what would end up being the equivalent of buying a small lake house.

[Mallette]

I think the baby-sitting aspect is extremely important.

 

I said it was, and is a problem.   However, this method is extremely expensive and there is no public law mandate for babysitting, just a publically financed education.  If people don't want better education for their children, a greatly improved economy through better educated workforce entering at earlier ages, then they'll vote to stay with massive student debt and extremely expensive babysitting services.  Pretty dumb, and I am sure it will be supported by the teachers unions and government, but you can't really make people rational if they are dead set against it.

 

Dave