Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Non issue: Cost of Higher Education

[Tromni]

First off Chris, I think it's silly to tilt at windmills by bringing in "conservativism" when you disagree with someone. Attack Bob's argument, which you've done. There's no need to attack a straw man by taking on an entire worldview with a nine word dismissal.

As for high education prices, I personally spent an awful lot of money on a 4 year college education from a prestigous school. I don't believe my time there in any way offered me new knowledge that will serve me in the workplace. Rather, I think I paid the school tens of thousands of dollars for what amounts to a piece of paper and a line on my resume. I admit that I graduated recently, and perhaps in the fullness of time I will realize that I learned a great deal while there.

Based on my own experience, I think that a college education is a luxury and not a necessity. Certainly, a college education will not make you a better plumber, mechanic, or carpenter. That's what a trade school is for. And if you're a poor person in America, an AA from a trade school will do you a million times more good than some phoney-baloney degree in "gender studies" or "fundamentals - issues and texts" (to name two exciting majors available at my alma mater.)

As for the documentation that those with college educations earn higher wages, remember that those studies only show correllation and not causation. I firmly believe that I would be just as successful in life with or without a degree on the wall. Many smart folks would have done enormously well in life without having to take a college class on mitosis or the teapot dome scandal. Perhaps this is in fact a causal relationship, but it's also possible that one does not cause the other at all. That's why these studies are interesting, but not really meaningful.

I agree that primary and secondary education are important. I disagree with the notion that the government is best able to provide that education. That is why the decision of how/where to educate children should be left up to parents. If you prefer to homeschool your kids, good luck and god bless. If you prefer the public school or choose a private school, that's fine too.

And Chris, if the government is going to pay for everyone's college education, wouldn't that mean the government would have to write checks to religious institutions like Christendom and Notre Dame? If not, our free college educations would require enormous infrastructure investments since our state colleges are well over capacity already.

And if college education were free, there would be no incentive (in fact a strong disincentive) to graduate. Many of my friends could afford only 3 or 4 years of college, so they worked their tails off to graduate in that time. If they had had unlimited money, they most likely would have slacked off a bit or a lot.

I think higher education is a highly messy issue. And my general belief is that the more messy the issue, the farther away the government should stay.

[bob_TCC]

For the record, my parents only paid for my books during college and I would often purchase used books to reduce the cost. I then lived at home and drove 50+ minutes to college everyday. I paid for my gas and food myself and all of my tuition was paid for via scholarships (at first) and loans. So, I'm fully aware of the financial burden that comes with a higher education.

However, I certainly do not believe that it was the responsibility of other Americans to pay for me to go to college. Instead, I know that my investment in my own future is paying off each and every day.

Now, tell me, my parents would be considered to be middle class or maybe even upper middle class. However, I graduated with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering with a couple hundred dollars in my savings/checkings accounts and thousands of dollars in student loans. How am I really any different than someone else who has poor parents, but graduated with the same degree, the same couple hundred dollars in their savings/checkings accounts and thousands of dollars in student loans?

Should that person have zero debt upon graduation simply because they have poor parents? I don't see that as being fair.

-Bob

[bob_TCC]

Just some additional thoughts...

I'm 15 years out of college and still paying off my $70,000 worth of student loans.  And, that was WITH $20,000 worth of Pell Grants along the way.

If you paid that much 15 years ago, then you paid too much. All too often, students and their parents are unwise and burden themselves with too much debt related to higher education simply because they wanted to go to a particular school instead of deciding which school was best based on what they could afford. Honestly, except for a few careers, the name on the diploma means little. It's more about the fact that someone went through the process.

What I find suprising is it is a supposedly middle class joe promoting it.  What a shame.

What's a shame? That a middle class guy spends more time worrying about how to better himself than trying to find ways to have others or the government do it for him? No shame in that.

Bob, we had a discussion in the Kuo topic where I stated that the religious right could do more to help the poor, particularly in the area of public policy.  Educational financial assistance to the needy is one policy area where this is true and, unfortunately, your position on educational assistance provides a grand example of my point.

Oh, so you believe that the only educational assistance comes from the government? I think you'll find that there are a large number of co-op programs, grants and scholarships that are provided by the private sector - even many provided by religious organizations. Guess what? Even many "evil" companies offer educational assistance to their employees.

But, hey.  That is the very root of "conservatism", the very definition of it.  That being the protection of inherited wealth and privilege.

I didn't inherit any wealth. Instead, I inherited a strong work ethic that tells me to get out and earn everything. That, my friend, has done more for me than any check from the government would have ever provided.

-Bob

[Sheesh]

Educational attainment is directly linked to income potential - and actualized earned income. There are many reports that back this up. The higher your educational attainment, the higher your income will be.

Here is only one report available on the net. US Census Report on Income and Educational Attainment

Hardly a luxury. Hardly a "worthless" diploma.

And, I was attacking CONSERVATIVES in general. Their policies regarding education reflect the most basic way for them to conserve their wealth.

Bob, you keep pushing this myth of a work ethic. I agree that one has a DUTY to work hard in life. Well, during my college years I worked 3 minimum wage jobs, one full time, while taking a full line of classes. Graduated with honors for both my Baccalaureate and Masters. Tell me: How about Georgie Boy Bush? He sure has a grand work ethic.........and, my work ethic continues to pay off the debt I incurred. How about rich people like Georgie Boy? Nope. He didn't have to pay for anything.

And, he is not alone.

Again, I restate: It is a shame that the religious right and other conservatives give lip service about helping the poor when the very best thing that they could do to help the poor is promote public policies that allow them easier access to a secondary education. This used to be the case with the religious of our country, long ago, but now it is all about saying that the poor don't succeed because they have a faulty "work ethic" when in many instances it is more about inequality of opportunity and a staring line that is far behind their wealthy counterparts.

[bob_TCC]

Tell me:  How about Georgie Boy Bush?  He sure has a grand work ethic.........and, my work ethic continues to pay off the debt I incurred.  How about rich people like Georgie Boy?  Nope.  He didn't have to pay for anything.

Not sure what he has to do with this discussion, but I'm sure you just figured it was time to throw his name in since a discussion focused on the merits of the ideas isn't going so well. Here you go: Bush! Bush! Bush! Here's a few more: Bush! Bush! Bush! Checking... Nope. You're still losing on the ideas.

Anyways, I've given very specific ideas and examples - including personal experiences - and I'm not really seeing where you are answering my questions or pointing out that my logic is flawed. Instead, you're simply returning to the talking points of "Bush is Bad", "The religous right doesn't care", "Lack of opportunity", "Republicans this", "Conservatives that" and on and on and on. Of course, mix a little bit of socialism in and the argument is complete.

By the way, why doesn't the Democratic Party and Liberals around the country simply form a private sector organization that funds all of these programs? There's nothing stopping it! Oh wait, maybe it's because they don't actually believe these things - especially if it means that they have to fund them personally. Instead, it's all just part of the class warfare game that is meant to lock the poor and lower middle class into voting time and time again for their candidates - just to find out (or not realize as the case may be) that they don't really get anything in return.

-Bob

[Sheesh]

It is about class warfare, and the Republicans / Conservatives have been winning - as has been shown through the continuing decline of the middle class, growing numbers of poor, and outstanding increased wealth of the upper class in our country the last decade. Their policies - particularly taxes and social programs (like Pell Grants and other forms of educational assistance) - have illustrated this facet of our politics today.

I just find it quite disheartening that many poor and middle class people are acting as dupes for these conservative policies. But, I have faith that the pendulum will swing against them, as it did after the robber baron era of the 1890s with the populist movements on the early 20th century. History DOES repeat itself.

[bob_TCC]

Here's a good example of a personal example and related question that was avoided:

Now, tell me, my parents would be considered to be middle class or maybe even upper middle class. However, I graduated with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering with a couple hundred dollars in my savings/checkings accounts and thousands of dollars in student loans. How am I really any different than someone else who has poor parents, but graduated with the same degree, the same couple hundred dollars in their savings/checkings accounts and thousands of dollars in student loans?

Should that person have zero debt upon graduation simply because they have poor parents?

-Bob

[Sheesh]

I didn't avoid your question, I answered it in an earlier post. I think BOTH of you should have ZERO debt. Yours, mine, and everyone else's parent's tax dollars should have paid for your education - much like yours, mine and everyone else's primary education was. And, our future tax dollars would then also pay for yours, mine, and everyone else's children's education in the future.

Of course, this is for PUBLIC and not PRIVATE institutions. If you choose a private institution in either case, it is on your own dime. And, understand, I believe in a PROGRESSIVE tax system whereby the more you make, the more you are taxed (i.e. the wealthy take on a larger share of the public burden).

This is how it used to be in California - until Ray-Guns changed things.

[bob_TCC]

I didn't avoid your question, I answered it in an earlier post.  I think BOTH of you should have ZERO debt.

Well, we agree that both students should be treated equal. Or, do you only believe that if the education is free?

-Bob

[Sheesh]

It can only be if education is free. There is no eqaulity if the wealthy kids get off scott-free while the poor and middle class kids are burdened with debt in the start of their adult life.

You would think that achievements in life should be based on merit rather than the social status of your parents. Burdening the poor and middle class with huge debt IS NOT MERIT BASED.

[Tromni]

First off Chris, attacking ideas is quite worthwhile, as usually it can help us to reject the bad ones and strengthen the pretty good ones. Attacking people proves absolutely nothing, regardless of who they are. I can think of two human beings in the history of the world who never did anything evil: Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Everyone else is a sinner, plain and simple, myself as much or more than many. Ad hominem attacks don't do anything for your argument and quite frankly make you look desperate/unwilling to legitimately engage on the issues.

It is a shame that the religious right and other conservatives give lip service about helping the poor when the very best thing that they could do to help the poor is promote public policies that allow them easier access to a secondary education.

And Chris, this is where we disagree. The "very best thing" we can to do help the poor is a matter of judgement. You've judged the answer to be government assistance with education. I've judged the answer to be the personal dignity that comes with doing something for yourself. We're both working toward the same goal, we just have different opinions on how to get there. If you can't acknowledge this, there's no point in debating since the argument will always devolve into something nasty and personal.

And as for the study you have sited, it doesn't address my primary criticism of such a study, namely that it has no way to project how much money a person who is bright enough to get a doctorate would make without actually getting the degree. That distinction was made in my undergraduate economics classes by a teacher who happened to be a democrat. He argues, and I concur, that someone with a PhD would still make far more money without any college degree than someone who dropped out in high school. So whatever your position on the issue of education, you still cannot claim a correllation is the same as a causal relationship.

[bob_TCC]

It can only be if education is free.  There is no eqaulity if the wealthy kids get off scott-free while the poor and middle class kids are burdened with debt in the start of their adult life. 

My personal example shows that your argument is flawed. My parents would be considered middle class or upper middle class. However, my parents did not believe that it was their responsibility to pay for my higher education (something I agree with them on). Therefore, despite the fact that my parents were not poor, I graduated with debt. Under your approach, I would have been starting out behind the students with poor parents. Is that fair?

-Bob

[Sheesh]

If education was free for all, how would you be behind the poor kids? I don't get your logic.

[Sheesh]

To add, from yesterday's news:

The rich are getting much richer, much faster than everyone else

In 2004, the richest 1 percent of households - 719,910 of them, with an average annual income of $326,720 - had 19.8 percent of the entire nation's pretax income. That's up from 17.8 percent a year earlier, according to a study by University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez.

The study, titled "The Evolution of Top Incomes," also found that the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans - 129,584 households in 2004 - reported income equal to 9.5 percent of national pretax income.

However, median, or midpoint, family income rose only 1.6 percent between 2001 and 2004, when adjusted for inflation, according to the Federal Reserve. Median family real net worth - a family's gross assets minus liabilities - rose only 1.5 percent during those four years.

Those are very sluggish income-growth rates compared with the four years between 1998 and 2001, when median family income grew by 9.5 percent and median family real net worth grew by 10.3 percent.

Experts disagree on the causes, but they're in near agreement that this trend threatens to erode a fundamental American belief about fairness.

"It's not the actual getting ahead in America that's so important - it's been Americans' deep belief that they have the opportunity to get ahead. And if you lose that, there's damage to our society," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who until last year was the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and before that was chief economist for President Bush.

In coming years, income inequality is sure to be a rallying cry in political debates over everything from raising the minimum wage to federal spending on education to overhauling the tax code.

Most theories on why the rich are getting richer focus on why everyone else isn't. Some explanations include the declining power of labor, the influx of illegal immigrants, the offshoring of jobs and global competition that holds down wage growth.

Education has widened income inequality, too. Americans with college degrees earn nearly twice as much as those without them.

But education hasn't been a ticket to income growth lately.

Between 2000 and 2005, workers with four-year college degrees saw their wages fall 3.1 percent, adjusted for inflation. Only two groups, who together make up just 3.4 percent of the workforce, saw inflation-adjusted wages rise. They were workers with doctoral degrees or specialty degrees, such as medicine or law, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

[bob_TCC]

If education was free for all, how would you be behind the poor kids?  I don't get your logic.

It's currently not free for all. It's free for some. Plus, most proposals to increase the number of students that would get a higher education for free do not include all students. Instead, they focus only on the poor and lower middle class since the "rich" don't need any help.

So, I'll agree with you... Either make it free for all or make us all pay the same amount. Anything less than that is not fair.

-Bob

[Marino63]

First off, not everybody NEEDS college nor is it beneficial to everyone.

Seen any poor plumbers lately? Poor HVAC specialists? Poor auto mechanics?

I took my car in to a shop recently to get some work done. They had their labor rates posted- seventy-five dollars an hour. Assuming a 40 hour week, that comes to $156k a year or just a wee bit less than Congressmen make. We hear alot about "elite" politicians (and rightfully so in many cases) but do we hear much about "elite" auto mechanics? And yet they make about the same money.....

Sorry, but I don't think college should be free to everyone. I'm not even wholly convinced that it should be available to everyone. In the current system, there are far too many students who are basically taking up space rather than working on bettering themselves. Yet because they paid their way in (or the taxpayers did), even though they might take ten years to graduate, they can't be expelled for gaining the system, thus freeing up a spot for students who are truly hungry to succeed.

If anyone deserves a free college education, it would be individuals who have served the country, either in the military or in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps. Nothing we can do for such people is enough. I'd be for 1 year of free education for each year served.

There are billions of dollars available for college via public and private scholarships. Many are based either soley or at least largely on grades (incentive to achieve in high school) but many aren't. Some are demographically-based, some based on your major and some on your ethnicity. It's YOUR fault if you don't apply for as much in scholarships as you can.

As far as things such as Pell Grants and other such assistance, I have no problem with them at all. That said, I'd approve such grants only after ALL other avenues of funding are exhausted. Apply for all the scholarships you can and THEN we talk about giving you taxpayer money.

Loans should be at low interest rates (Prime or even lower) so as to make them affordable. They should also be conditional on guaranteed repayment to the point of having some of your post-college wages garnisheed. Loans should be on a 20-year repayment schedule and a student would be well advised to consider his choice of college and major bearing that schedule in mind. If he could get a degree in his field at a state college with a debt load of only $25000 versus same degree at an Ivy League school with a $125000 debt load (assuming equal future earnings potential), maybe state college would be fine.

While it is true that the income for the highest wage earners has been increasing, it is also true that their tax burden has been increasing. I've posted those statistics elsewhere but will gladly find and respot them in this thread if necessary. I find it interesting that the Left accuses the Right of practicing "class warfare" when it is the opposite that is true- the Left has raised waging class warfare to a true art form. Is it "fair" when the top 10% of wage earners pay some 40% of all income taxes and the bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 3%? Well, no....if you're a Liberal, the top is STILL not paying enough. Absurd.

[Tromni]

I agree Robert.

But just to pre-empt possible criticism, don't forget that posted rates rarely equal actual hourly earnings of the workers. My own hourly rate costs the customer $120/hr. I see about $30/hr on my paycheck.

That said, a quarter of a $75/hr rate is still immensely good.

And having several family members with college degrees and no useful skills whatsoever, I certainly think that learning a trade is much more productive. I love my aunts and cousins, but too many have lots of letters after their names and work retail because they never really learned anything in all those years in colllege.

Besides, we keep giving more degrees to the teachers in this country and the results keep getting worse. So either the degrees are meaningless as measures of intelligence and talent, or Karl Rove is beaming stupid rays into our children through cable TV.

[kooljazz1966]

Well..to tell you the truth.........

My roots are dirt poor!....however, from the womb life and school has been easy or a breeze in one respect for me and excruiciatingly painful in another respect.

It took 10 years after high school for the dust to settle me down....


I was raised in an environment were I thought it was the government's or people's responsiblity to ensure I was taken care of...by god this is America of all places!!!

First, you must understand..advanced academics through life was fairly easy for me...quite frankly a bore...which was likely my downfall, for a lack of a better descrip.

Fast Forward, from 1984-88 I wasted a full ride scholarship...and am now 20 months out from retiring from the Army, 2 wars and many deployments laters. I got my Associates in MNGT. Will try for my bachelors before I walk away. But the bottomline for me, when free education was handed to me on a silver spoon, I took it for granted...When I had to pay for stuff my self...it became a different story altogether. Funny part of it all is I know I have already claimed my Master's in something in the next 4 years guaranteed. I will foot the bill. Yes, I'm stupid....But I will have the paper on the wall to prove it!

-Jazzzzzzz

[Sheesh]

I haven't had time to read ever line of the above posts (busy weekend) and will later, but I will say that I agree college isn't for everyone. We (as a country) are not very good at helping people identify their work-like strengths and weaknesses at a young age, and then helping to direct (and IMHO) make it affordable for them to learn and engage in that endeavor.

There IS a myth that everyone should go to college. Some need vocational colleges, an area of instructional and applied learning that used to be a large part of our educational structure. I'd would suspect that the decline in vocational institutions might be correlated to our manufacturing decline as a country over the last 20+ years.

I understand that some european countries are very good at this.

[Marino63]

Back when I was in High School, I was on the debate team. Among the topics we debated was alternatives to the current educational system we had in the US.

In my research, I grew to admire the Japanese system of education. Basically, everyone got the same education for six years. At that point, you took an VERY difficult achievement test, the results of which fast-tracked you into advanced academic, mainstream academic or vocational education streams. I believe you took a second test at the end of your eighth year of education that further refined your educational stream. Believe you me, the SAT and the ACT (which I took twice) had NOTHING on these tests. Not only that, but the pressure on the kids who were taking them was far higher than on our SAT-takers here. regardless of your SAT score, you can still go to college of some sort; fail the Japanese test and there are only a bare handful of private academic academies that will accept you and they are very expensive (easily as costly as the most elite prep schools here).

The end result of the Japanese system is a sort of academic Darwinism that greatly benefits Japanese society. Even if you exclude the fact that, due to the inherent nature of Japanese society, there are fewer negative distractions to and a greater emphasis placed on academic achievement, you'd have to agree that there would be fewer marginal students and less need for remedial education in such a system.

I have a strong suspicion though that, because of the vast (and sadly growing) differences in culture in the United States and an ever-decreasing emphasis on assimilation, coupled with a reluctance among educators to put the successef of students first even (or perhaps especially) if that means pushing them to achieve such an educational system could never work here. We're going to have a take a stand at some point as to what is more important: an educated and competitive student body or one that doesn't know crap but feels real good about themselves.