The Great College Hoax
 

I saw this in Forbes this month... (thanks SD!)

I found this interesting, and in line with what I've thought about college since graduating and marrying into student loan debt. It's kindof long... but we can hack it.

The Great College Hoax
Kathy Kristof 02.02.09, 12:00 AM ET [forbes.com]

As steadily as ivy creeps up the walls of its well-groomed campuses, the education industrial complex has cultivated the image of college as a sure-fire path to a life of social and economic privilege.

Joel Kellum says he's living proof that the claim is a lie. A 40-year-old Los Angeles resident, Kellum did everything he was supposed to do to get ahead in life. He worked hard as a high schooler, got into the University of Virginia and graduated with a bachelor's degree in history.

Accepted into the California Western School of Law, a private San Diego institution, Kellum couldn't swing the $36,000 in annual tuition with financial aid and part-time work. So he did what friends and professors said was the smart move and took out $60,000 in student loans.

Kellum's law school sweetheart, Jennifer Coultas, did much the same. By the time they graduated in 1995, the couple was $194,000 in debt. They eventually married and each landed a six-figure job. Yet even with Kellum moonlighting, they had to scrounge to come up with $145,000 in loan payments. With interest accruing at up to 12% a year, that whittled away only $21,000 in principal. Their remaining bill: $173,000 and counting.

Kellum and Coultas divorced last year. Each cites their struggle with law school debt as a major source of stress on their marriage. "Two people with this much debt just shouldn't be together," Kellum says.

The two disillusioned attorneys were victims of an unfolding education hoax on the middle class that's just as insidious, and nearly as sweeping, as the housing debacle. The ingredients are strikingly similar, too: Misguided easy-money policies that are encouraging the masses to go into debt; a self-serving establishment trading in half-truths that exaggerate the value of its product; plus a Wall Street money machine dabbling in outright fraud as it foists unaffordable debt on the most vulnerable marks.

College graduates will earn $1 million more than those with only a high school diploma, brags Mercy College radio ads running in the New York area. The $1 million shibboleth is a favorite of college barkers.

Like many good cons, this one contains a kernel of truth. Census figures show that college grads earn an average of $57,500 a year, which is 82% more than the $31,600 high school alumni make. Multiply the $25,900 difference by the 40 years the average person works and, sure enough, it comes to a tad over $1 million.

But anybody who has gotten a passing grade in statistics knows what's wrong with this line of argument. A correlation between B.A.s and incomes is not proof of cause and effect. It may reflect nothing more than the fact that the economy rewards smart people and smart people are likely to go to college. To cite the extreme and obvious example: Bill Gates is rich because he knows how to run a business, not because he matriculated at Harvard. Finishing his degree wouldn't have increased his income.

All the while students have been lulled into thinking of the extra $1 million that will be theirs, they have been forced to disgorge an ever larger fraction of it in pursuit of the degree. While the premium that college grads earn over high schoolers has remained relatively constant over the past five years, the cost of acquiring a degree has risen at twice the rate of inflation, dramatically undermining any value a sheepskin adds.

Offsetting that million-dollar income discrepancy is the $46,700 four-year cost of tuition, fees, books, room and board at a public school and $99,900 at a private one--even after financial aid, scholarships and grants. Add all this to the equation and college grads don't pull even with high school grads in lifetime income until age 33 on average, the College Board says. Even that doesn't include the $125,000 in pay students forgo over four years.

"I call it the million-dollar misunderstanding," says Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, of the prevailing propaganda.

Not only are college numbers spun. Some are patently spurious, says Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA. Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar. Schools goose employment statistics by temporarily hiring new grads and spotlighting kids who land top-paying jobs, while glossing over far-lower average incomes. The one certainty: The average law grad owes $100,000 in student debt.

"There are a lot of aspects of selling education that are tinged with consumer fraud," Sander says. "There is a definite conspiracy to lead students down a primrose path."

Warped as the numbers are, they don't begin to account for the hidden cost of higher education: financing it. Borrowing has doubled over the past decade, to roughly $85 billion in new student loans in the 2007--08 academic year, bringing total student debt owed to well over half a trillion dollars. The average borrower went $19,200 into debt for a diploma in 2004, a 58% increase after inflation since 1993, according to the Project on Student Debt.

The proportion of students who graduate with more than $40,000 in debt jumped sixfold during that period, to 7.7% of the 1 million grads in 2004, or 77,500 people. Most will struggle for more than a decade to work it off, assuming relatively low 6.8% interest rates, the Project on Student Debt says.

For many, the terms are far worse. A decade ago nearly all student lending was of the low-cost, federally guaranteed variety, most of it with 6% to 8% interest kicking in only after a student left school. As costs outpaced such financing over the past decade, the share of student loans from "private" lenders rose from 7% to 23% of the market, or $20 billion in the 2007--08 academic year.

The rise of private student lending closely paralleled the subprime mortgage boom, which went from 8% of home loan originations in 2003 to 20% in 2006, before the housing meltdown sent that mortgage sector over a cliff. Private student loans resemble subprime mortgages in other ways, too. As banks and brokers did with subprime home loans, colleges and the lenders in cahoots with them commonly market private student loans alongside lower-cost alternatives, blurring the differences.

The key one is cost. Many private lenders tack 10% origination fees onto 18% variable interest rates (there is no legal limit), which begin accruing the moment a loan is funded. That has made private loans more than twice as profitable as government-guaranteed ones and lured heavy involvement from Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has called private lending "the Wild West of the student loan industry." Some problems he notes smack of subprime mortgage lending: lax disclosure requirements, variable interest rates that compound and make paying off the principal a Sisyphean task, and kickback agreements by which lenders pay loan originators--in this case, colleges--a cut of their revenues.

State and federal authorities have taken action to curb the outright bribery. No less illustrious institutions of higher learning than Columbia University, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania paid $1 million-plus each to settle charges of wrongdoing in the student loan market.

Yet investigations still found "troubling, deceptive and often illegal practices . . . involving lenders, educational institutions and financial aid officials," according to Cuomo's office and the Congressional Committee on Education & Labor. Don't count on Washington to provide any more safeguards than it did with housing. Department of Education oversight of the student loan industry has been deemed insufficient by the Government Accountability Office.

Lacking honest input, three-quarters of high schoolers still seek to go on to college, many deluded about the financial prospects it holds, says American Institutes for Research's Schneider. "Part of the drive is the idea it pays," he says. "We need somebody making more realistic statements about the risks."

The risks are hefty. Half of students entering college never earn a degree. Six in ten African-Americans depart without one. "Hundreds of thousands of young people leave our higher education system unsuccessfully, burdened with large student loans that must be repaid, but without the benefit of the wages a college degree provides," warned a 2004 Education Trust study.

Among the half of entering students fortunate enough to get through college, millions go into debt for two-year associate degrees. These alumni outearn high school grads by only $8,400 a year. (Community colleges currently enroll 11.5 million.)

Tracy Kratzer, 27, enrolled in the International Academy of Design & Technology in Orlando, Fla. in 2003. With visions of making big bucks as a Web designer, she didn't give much thought to the interest rate on her loan from Sallie Mae, the Fannie Mae of student lending. Kratzer didn't know it at the time, but she was part of an experiment that has proved disastrous for borrowers and shareholders of Sallie's parent, SLM Corp. It's called "nontraditional" lending.

"That's not a sociological term," Albert Lord, chief executive of SLM Corp., told an audience of financial analysts last fall. "It's basically kids and parents with poor credit who are at the wrong schools."

Sallie Mae was set up by the government in 1972 and began privatizing its ownership in 1997. It began nontraditional lending in the easy-money heyday of 2002, when it cut deals with dozens of trade schools to become their preferred subprime student lender. Over the next four years Sallie doled out about $5 billion to people like Kratzer, waiving the credit scores and cosigners formerly required for its loans.

The bill arrived last year after nontraditional borrowers began entering the workforce. Of the half no longer studying, Sallie had written off 15% of loans by last June, the most recent period for which it has released figures; another 24% were delinquent. Among traditional loans for four-year universities, writeoffs ran 2% and delinquencies 4.9%.

SLM set aside $884 million to cover these bad loans in 2007 and posted its first loss. It expects nontraditional-loan writeoffs to peak this year. SLM's stock has lost 80% since the beginning of 2007, wiping out $15 billion in value. Lord, who was unavailable for comment, is a 28-year company veteran. He made $72 million as chief executive in 2007 by unloading SLM stock before it tanked. Sallie largely abandoned nontraditional lending last January.

That's little consolation to Kratzer. Shortly after graduating with an associate of arts degree, she discovered that the high-paying jobs she'd hoped to qualify for go to people with bachelor's degrees and years of experience. After a bout of unemployment, when she lived off credit cards, Kratzer recently found an hourly job as a clerk at a magazine, where she earns less than the average high school grad. In the meantime her $14,000 student loan has mushroomed to $27,000--more than she makes in a year--and continues to accrue interest at 18% a year. She says collection agents for Sallie and others hound her to hit up relatives for the money she owes.

"My mom works in a restaurant. My stepdad is in prison," says Kratzer. "There are so many people like me out there. They don't get seen. They don't get heard."

Mindy Babbitt entered Davenport University in her mid-20s to study accounting. Unable to cover the costs with her previous earnings as a cosmetologist, she took out a $35,000 student loan at 9% interest, figuring her postgraduate income would cover the cost.

Instead, the entry-level job her bachelor's degree got her barely covered living expenses. Babbitt deferred loan repayments and was then laid off for a time. Now 41 and living in Plainwell, Mich., she is earning $41,000 a year, or about $10,000 more than the average high school graduate makes. But since she graduated, Babbitt's student loan balance has more than doubled, to $87,000, and she despairs she'll never pay it off.

"Unless I win the lottery or get a job paying a lot more, my student debts are going to follow me to the grave," she says.

Babbitt is no oddity. In fact, one in four college grads takes home considerably less than the top quartile of high school grads, according to a College Board study. Even some people with doctorates earn less than people without so much as an associate degree, it shows.

For an indication of how out of touch the degree factories are with economic reality there's no need to pick on UCLA's course in queer musicology or Edith Cowan University's degree in "surf science." U.S. universities also minted 37,000 history degrees in 2006, including 852 Ph.D.s. That for a field with fewer than 500 job openings and average pay of $48,500. Plumbers, by contrast, enjoyed 16,000 new jobs that year and earned only $6,000 less than historians, census figures show.

Of course, not all history majors want to become historians. For many a bachelor's degree is nothing but a stepping-stone to a professional degree. Joel Kellum is one of those. After graduating from the University of Virginia, he got into California Western. Kellum approached a law professor about the wisdom of borrowing for the tuition.

"He said, 'Don't worry,'" Kellum recalls. "'We had the same thing when we were in school.'"

Kellum filled out a fat packet of forms in his school's financial aid office. Weeks later, he says, he got a call asking him to sign over a check to the school without any discussion of the loan terms. Kellum complied.

Only after he graduated, and his payments came due, did he dig into the details. What Kellum discovered was that, instead of cheap government loans, the bulk of his debt was in Signature loans: variable-rate debt from Sallie Mae. Kellum's variable rate has ticked as high as 9% and his ex-wife's to as much as 12%.

Like many grads, Kellum and Coultas hit bumps along their career paths. They deferred payments once when they were unemployed and twice more after their children were born. Each time, Kellum says, Sallie Mae tacked on fees for the delay. When he was a few days late making payments, he says, he got hit with more fees, which also accrued interest, and with a scolding.

"When you're a second late, you get 20 or 30 calls," he says. "It [Sallie Mae's Signature loan] is coated as a sweet government loan, but you can get better interest rates, and better treatment, borrowing from Vito in downtown Brooklyn."

Like Vito, private student lenders don't dwell on the dollar cost of compound interest. Cathelyn Gregoire says she applied for financial aid at the Tampa campus of the design school Kratzer attended and was assured she'd receive a loan at a fixed 7% rate. Three months after classes began Gregoire received a $14,000 loan. Only after graduating did she discover she was being charged a variable 13.25%, plus a "supplemental fee" of 6%. Her loan balance had jumped to $20,000 by the end of 2007.

Gregoire is now a plaintiff in a federal suit in Connecticut, accusing Sallie Mae of targeting minorities with deceptive lending. Her lawyers are trying to make it a class action.

Sallie Mae denies wrongdoing and distributes rate disclosures when students apply for loans, according to spokesperson Thomas Joyce. Sallie's disclosure document warns in capital letters that the rate a borrower sees may not be the one he gets.

Joyce says Sallie's borrowers receive detailed paperwork within ten days of funding and can rescind their loans then. In reality loan checks often go directly to schools after classes have begun. To rescind a loan a student must get the college to return the money. The student must then find new funding or drop out.

Education lenders, unlike other consumer financiers, are not required to provide Truth in Lending disclosures before reeling in borrowers. A law passed last year requires advanced disclosure, but not until 2010.

Get caught in this quagmire and you're stuck for good. Consumers who go on a credit card binge stand a good chance of getting debt discharged in bankruptcy. Not so if they take out a loan to educate themselves. Those loans, per the 2005 bankruptcy law, are not dischargeable. One reason: Without this exception, every student would run through a bankruptcy between graduation and starting a career.

Who gets stuck with these toxic loans? As with subprime mortgages, the people who can least afford them. A disproportionate number of high-interest student loans go to low-income students attending for-profit institutions, according to a 2008 study by Charlene Wear Simmons, assistant director of the California Research Bureau, an arm of the state government.

"Borrowing, combined with other risk factors for not completing higher education (such as working too many hours, lack of adequate preparation and part-time attendance), puts many students, especially low-income and first-generation students, at a particular disadvantage," says a 2005 study by Lawrence Gladieux, an education policy consultant, and Laura Perna, assistant professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

It's too late to save the country from the housing finance bubble. But the college bubble is not quite as far along.

Oh boy, if you got me started on colleges nowadays, I think I would have about 9,000 total posts under the belt by the time I was over.

I'm closing my own can of worms. We'll see what other members contribute, but what the doc posted is very true.

So true. I just had a talk with my schools financial aid office. The government expects my parents to contribute a heafty amount, which in actuality is zero dollars and no cents. I get a measily amount for loans that, after ramen, books, tuition, and rent for a studio apartment with 10 other guys, i'm still in the negatives LoL.

I like how they mention the situations with the two law students. How can you contribute such a tiny portion after they both take home six figure salaries? Sounds like they bought a big house to match their degree and a fancy car(s) to toot around in, instead of prioritizing. They don't mention degrees such as comp sci and business. Historians can't really...i mean, honestly I don't know what type of money making ventures a historian can be used for on a wide scale. I can see where they got the sub 900 available jobs figure from, and the amount of individuals graduating...its just out of whack.

But the students also need to prepare and plan (as I was told yesterday). I've switched my major three times because after working in the industry, it wasn't really that exciting. I'm glad I only had to waste a little of my life figuring out that it wasn't for me, all while padding my resume and getting work experience vs those who are a slave to the 4.0 and are too busy to get any experience.

There are A LOT of college degrees that are pretty much worthless unless you plan on teaching primary/secondary (not a bad job at all), or continuing the cycle and being a college level educator sending more kids into the path of emptiness.

Truth be told, the cleaning staff at some Ivy league schools make more money than the undergrads that graduate from those programs. You know, how they spend all four years surrounded by ivory towers enlightening themselves with discussions about how much BHO wants to help the poor, but yet completely ignore the janitorial staff that may themselves or have family relatives that consist of that oppressed class.

I can virually guarantee you that I can find undergrads that privately (the same way half of liberals think Conservatives are just closet racists) think blue collar work like plumbing is below them. But, I guarantee you that I could start a plumbing business and kick all of their asses (on average) in salaries. Sure, some of them will eventually become the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, but they're few and far between.

Smart Money, January 2009 ran an article very similar to what Wu had above. It was a little less doomsday and sad (with the divorce), but it had real data regarding how the ivy league schools are basically a waste of money even if you earn a little more compared to State U once you get out. (I don't recall if it went into some of the graduate/professional programs at these schools, but that's in a different class in my book. Some of those programs are worth the money)

Yeah, but thats not how it was back in the day. I mean, was it? I don't know.

You know, how back in the day (as stated in the article) having a Bachelor's was prime time, with high school being the meal ticket, and doctorate meant $$$$, but with the already stated dilusion of the marketplace and...well...some employers think of having a Bachelor's as a "paying your dues" sort of gig. Most every application i've seen for anything over "oppressed peon II" requires a degree.

Sigh, the abundance of education for all.

The problem is so many counselors push college that it has basically watered down the value of the degree.

It's just going to continue to get worse.

The remedy is no better. Its tough to find experience in a market that
A) Has laid off but qualified professionals seeking for the same gig.
B) In an avoidance to obtain a degree from a cupcake college, take on a full load at a prestigious school and take on loans to avoid work (for people who won't want to hire you anyway because of your schedule).
C) Firms that require degrees to weed out the other half of the population.

Anyone want to speculate on a solution?

Wow, does this hit home :lol:

International Academy of Design & Technology in Orlando, Fla, my g/f son wanted to go to this place but wasn't accepted for the same thing as the young lady in that article - so he enrolled in Drexel instead at $40k a year :eek: Guess who is co-signing the student loans - his MOM - a single parent and the Dad isn't providing crappola. I said bad, bad move lady friend - you are gonna so sink when he finishes his schooling and he finds out unless he has already landed a job while on co-op - that he needs experience to get a good paying job. YOU will be liable for those loans as a co-signer when he can't pay up. There was no talking her out of it - he was a straight A student - he "deserved" the education :rolleyes:

On the other hand my son went to Community College for two years - paid his own way - worked his way through college - went onto a 2-year University to finish up to get his degree. All the while working and earning big bucks. The last 1-1/2 yrs of his schooling I said with the money you are making (he paid the last year in cash), time to start paying off your school loans to be debt free by the time you graduate. Which he did so - he was debt free when he graduated. I saw what Sallie Mae was going to do to him with interest accruing and said you don't want this happening - not when you are making this kind of money and pissing it away. Think smart with your money - not stupid. He took at look at the numbers I crunched and got the picture right away. Sometimes a parent needs to guide them financially through this horrible nightmare of financial disaster called "student loans".

Today he is employed full-time and with putting 25% of his paycheck into investments in less than three years he will accumulate $50k easily, if not more, and still be debt free.

If parents could do one thing for their kids, it would be to tell them, sometimes there are better ways to approach college than what they are telling you.

My son is 22 years old.

Funny you say that Hawk, because my one niece's husband is an Electrician at a College and I'm guessing he makes pretty damn good bucks there, as they live in a $400k home :lol: She's a teacher and makes good money, but for them to be living where they are, he has to be pulling in some good money as well where he is working.

Well done, that's how you're supposed to do it.

When I entered school I had a fair college fund started in the 80's by my grandparents, but it had taken a huge hit in early 2000's and so by the time I got to school I had enough to pay tuition, room, and board for one year. For years two and three I had to take out loans in addition to working part time to pay rent. For year fours and five (I stayed to get a second degree), I was able to pay my tuition and living expenses in full based on the paid internship I had landed and continuing to work part-time during the year.

I don't even know what the interest rate on my loans would have been, but I knew payment didn't start until 6 months after graduation. So I moved back in with my parents, put every cent of my now full time pay into savings, and cut a check for the entire amount with a week to spare before my first payment was due.

I was lucky in that I only accumulated $16,000 in student loans over the course of my degrees, while I've got friends upwards of $70,000 thanks to their private school educations. But it also wasn't easy moving back in with my parents, or putting away those "big' paychecks I was getting without blowing it all on new toys. I know people can get caught by these things through no fault of their own, but I also know a lot of people share the blame for their situation. Poor planning and living beyond your means is a good way to let that debt pile up. I'm still amazed whenever I talk to a friend who is employed full time and living rent-free with his or her parents, and yet they still "never have money". Where does it go?

so true --- State U gets the job done unless you need a job that requires connections (business, certain law jobs, etc.). If you are considering something in the healthcare field, you def. dont need the Ivy league debt to follow you around the rest of your life.

Cal Western is a crap school. It's practically a correspondence college. He's lucky he even found a job! ;)

He still got a Law Degree, and is a Lawyer and is able to practice. He was able to take the Bar Exam. You certainly do look down on educational pursuits don't you :rolleyes:

Take that Law Degree, move to another State, study up, take the Bar Exam there, get a better paying job - pay less in expenses and start paying down the student loans. There are ways out of the financial hole. One doesn't have to remain in that area to practice law, they can move around, as long as they are able to pass the Bar Exam in another state.

Yep, the health care field leaves it wide open - as long as you are able to pass the Board requirements in other states - if you wish to move around. It's not nearly as costly to get an education if you go into this field, with the exception of becoming a doctor, or along that line.

$194,000 in debt and they broke up? Sissies. We're staring down the barrel of $350,000 of student loan debt and still going strong.

Me thinks they lived beyond their means, if they couldn't handle the payments.

He's probably good at what he does which is why he's doing so well.

College is purely what you get out of it. If you take a bunch of slacker classes, major in history, and generally just don't seek out a career path . . . well, you're sunk. But for those of us who have career aspirations and work towards them while in college its almost a surefire guarantee of future success. Its kind of silly to just say college is a waste since some people graduate with tons of debt and no job, you have to look into the individual to find out the truth behind the story.

For the record I'm a senior at a public college (which you can probably guess from my name) who is majoring in an engineering (won't be more specific).

I think as BS degrees become more common, the major becomes more important in getting jobs. I think it is fair to assume an electrical engineer BS degree holder will have more job opportunities than a BS history degree holder.

This.

I'm a mechanical engineering student with 4 classes left after this semester. I paid for school for the first time last summer, as most of my scholarships don't cover summer classes. I still only had to pay about $300 after all my financial aid came in, though. The last two semesters I've also received so much financial aid that I get thousands in minimally-taxed disbursements from the school, moreso than previous semesters. Of course, I go to Wayne State University. An average semester costs about $5,000, so the grants and scholarships go much farther. I've been able to avoid paying a lot for books by buying cheap international editions on eBay or borrowing/trading from friends. I only live 10-15 minutes away from campus, so I have no room and board costs.

Last year, I worked two separate internships. One was at DTE Energy for about 4 monts at $17.50/hr, while the other was at Visteon for about two months at $21/hour. In addition to giving me enough money so that I don't really have to worry if my financial aid somehow comes up short, I already have experience when I apply for jobs when I graduate.

UW is a wussy college for scrubz.

Which is why I attend :nod: /jk

Of course he can get a job with a degree from a joke school like Cal Western. There's plenty of paperwork lawyers who simply cut and paste passages from legal scripts, but they'll never make partner. These guys that go back to college at 40 because they failed at their other career aren't the sharpest tools in the shed... :lmao:

Get a clue - not every person who graduates with a Law Degree wants to make "Partner".
Some go to work for the Government, some open their own practices, some work for small firms (not requiring 80 to 100 or more billing hours per week), etc.

I went to college during the Reagan years, after financial aid programs were cut to the bone. I didn't even consider a private school. I thought things were tough financially. I kept my grades very high, which resulted in good grants (enough to pay tuition). I graduated from an excellent public school with $5,000 in student loan debt.

I had no idea how much worse things would be for future students.

I think Dr. Wu is right. Hard-working parents save like mad to put their kids through school. I don't think you should walk up to a place like Bryn Mawr (for example), and just borrow the money to go. That's never been a smart thing to do.

You did it the right way as well. You didn't take money and blow it, you put it where it was needed to pay off those student loans. Most college students don't realize until it's too late how much they have racked up, and continue to rack up, until it's far too late. They are in too deep. Feels good though to be debt free from that, doesn't it :woot:

Have you noted that the more financial aid packages that exist, the higher tuition goes?

Colleges have figured out a way to soak just about every penny possible from those who go there. (The well-to-do pay progressively more than others.) This practice -- price discrimination -- is illegal in many other economic circumstances. Yet common place in Universities.

Or, check this NYT article from '97 (when tuitions were relatively modest compared to today's levels):

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/ee...llege.html

BTW, I think James Day (the consulting guy at the bottom) is completely wrong, economics-wise. Price discrimination produces the most value for the seller -- since colleges basically accept the same number of people every year regardless all charging more does is reduces the value of the school to students.

Yes, if you're smart and hardworking, you will most likely make lots of money without a degree, but college also opens many doors for the rest of us...especially if you attend a top tier school.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc grads have it a little easier. Many of these schools have instituted a "no loan" policy.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/new...wsreleases

Must be nice to have a war chest. Wish that was reality for all schools besides Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. I'm forced to bury myself for school around here and my school is actually cheaper than public school. Sadly, I've hit the ceiling of what I can do without a college degree.

Well there is something corrupt and sinister about the Ivy League model of university development. Greed overrides the best interests of students. Charitable donations are seen as the lifeblood of a university. With foreign/rich students willing to pay the high tuition, can we really say that admission is based purely on merit? Degrees are a dime a dozen, and debt in the tens of thousands; we are in danger of marginalizing higher education. My university's current president was hired mostly because he has a good record of raising money.

Trade schools need to grow back to what they were, and still are in Europe.

I miss the 80's. The whole shebang was only about $7,500 - $8,000 per year at State University:

Tuition $1650/year
Books $450
Dorms 15 meal plan $4500
Beer $500
Used bike as the old ones got ripped off once a year $50
Movies, dances, etc $350

Work/study at $3.85 per hour. Total debt out of college was about $10,000 at 5% and paid off in five years.

Professors promised that an easy $10 an hour job was waiting after graduation.

In reality my starting wage was $7 per hour, $7.25 the year after.

When the job market improved I finally was able to get a decent job that required a 4 year degree, so at least that piece of paper got my foot in the door.

At least he's going to a school where he's getting some experience already with the co-op.

Somebody at my college committed suicide, and then his roommate got straight As. True story.

This is why my kids are going to CUNY. Brooklyn College, Baruch College, Queens College and City College offer a first rate education at a fraction of the cost (around $2,100 a semester). If they really wanna get away, then they can goto SUNY Binghamton, another first rate college, which will only cost about $9K a semester.

NYU or Columbia? I think that's the policy at both schools. I remember a few years back when NYU had a pretty bad year with suicides and atempted suicides

What a load of crap. Talk about feelings of "entitlement." First, HE CHOSE to major in History, an almost useless major from the get go-- then compounded that by CHOOSING to go into massive debt to go to law school. Then he cries about the stress that his own choices brought into his life. Yes-- college is not cheap these days and no guarantee of success in life comes with that diploma. It never has.

lol, it's not the policy at those or any other school.

u sure? I coulda sworn hearing about how the roommate of someone who died at Columbia got an A for the semester.

They make at LEAST $200k/year ($100k/year each)- btw, which is something like in the top 5% to 10% of average earnings in the US in 1995 (the year the article cites). IMO, proof that it is worth it to go to college. This is just poor money management.

$200k in debt. That is $100k debt per person. With 12% interest?! My god, refinance that to a decent interest rate. Even with a 12% interest rate, their monthly loan repayments under a 10 year plan is $1,450 per person. Take home after taxes is $5,600 per month per person (assuming a $100k salary since it says they are making six figures each).

So lets see, combined they are bringing home $11,000 per month after taxes and student loan repayments are about $3000, leaving $8,000 per month spending money... Poor money management.

I've known people with $100-$150k/year that are worse off than people making $50k/year, just because people think they can live the "bling bling" lifestyle they see on MTV. They want to buy a yacht, a private jet and spend $15k on a vacation. That is spending well beyond their means. A $100k/year salary is enough for one person to live comfortably but not luxuriously.

No reputable school awards grades that way, think about it for a minute. You think you'd really pass Organic Chem and earn your BS just because your roommate jumped in front of a train? Come on now.

Yes, I agree - better some experience through co-op, then no experience at all. I just find the tuition at $40k a year myself, ridiculous to become a "Web Designer". I feel one would have been able to get the same degree for this at a less costly College, and not put the single Mom on the hook for the debt if the plans don't work out.

didn't you just say that someone at your school got straight As? or did you mean they earned it?

u're right about the policy, I just looked it up and it's one of those urban legends. Funny thing is, I coulda sworn I had heard it on TV or read it in the paper.

....it was a joke

:doh:

I think a bonafide in-state public Ivy (U Mich, UNC, U Wisc, UVa, UF, UAB, UC-whatever, UWash etc.) is the way to go unless you get into a classic Ivy (Harvard, Yale, Princeton). Everything else is a waste of money IMO

Some don't have any problems borrowing school $ nowadays. I know some full time students (couple) that borrow big $. They go on vacations with the $ (Hawaii, Bahamas, Disney) and have even borrowed school $ to run a Quixtar pyramid scheme for a while. They must be tens of thousands of $ in debt. No problem, they just keep pushing back graduation and borrowing more $. What gives?

when i went to college--no way in hell I was goin on vacations to Hawaii. Somethings not right with the school fundings program.

This is true, and many of these lawyers are not pulling down 6 figures. If the two lawyers in the OP weren't on the big firm track, I can see how they might fall behind on their debt. Especially if they tried to show flash in order to look successful to attract clients.

It's also a regional thing as well UChicago and Northwestern are big names in the Midwest. The classic Ivies dominate the position on top of the rankings because they encourage an atmosphere of pride and entitlement. I just wish we had more politicians and CEOs that didn't have the Ive League stamp.

Is UChicago private? IIRC it is.

Several items:

- The availability of loans has made college costs go sky-high. Think about it - if you went to a private univ. and had loans, was there a conscious decision to go into so much debt at the onset, or was it automatic (please note that I am NOT saying students are coerced into taking out loans - it's simply the "normal" thing to to and you don't even think twice about signing the papers)? When the customer has no concern for the cost of what they are purchasing (e.g. a student purchasing an education), there is little reason to participate on a price point and therefore tuition skyrockets. This is similar to what's happened with insurance and the cost of healthcare. You all see this if you tour colleges - how many colleges/Univ will tout how their faculty has X# Ph.D's or is prevalent in the literature? More likely you'll hear about their student union with all sorts of food, or their new multi-million $ gym with a great pool, or their new dorms with all sorts of nifty features.

- I've always wondered how people accumulate SO much debt - $200k for one person? Granted, if the tuition was $40k and you had $10k for living expenses you could do that in 4 years. My wife went back to school (she's a teacher with a BS and MA and went back to get a cert to be a principle, etc) and since I was a student at the time she took out loans. The school - a public CT Univ - was about $4k/semester for 2 classes ala-carte - yet we were offered nearly $20k/SEMESTER in FEDERAL loans! It was up to us to choose how much to accept. I actually called the school and asked what the catch was and asked "So I could go buy a car with the extra $$?" to which they replied "... well.... you'd have to pay it back" Well DUH! I guess it's very common for kids to take out loans in excess of tuition and live on the rest.... a very bad idea.

- I'm a proponent of letting a kid pay their way through college. Too often nowadays, college is the expected continuation of HS, and not all kids are ready/can handle college. So, classes are failed and they spend their time partying. If you knew that every class you took cost you, PERSONALLY, $2k (or whatever), you'd spend alot more time studying and less time partying. If, as a parent, you'd want to help your children, then fine - let them accumulate the debt then suprise them at graduation with a check.

- College is not for everyone, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with saying that. My father was an electrician - my FIL is an electrician, and even though I chose the college route (I have a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Yale), I probably use the skills I learned from my father more on a daily basis than my "formal" education. After all, does everyone know how much it costs to hire an electrician/plumber/carpenter/HVAC per hour??? ALOT more than I make! Sure trade work might be harder and more demanding physically, but please do not just go to college, get some nonsense degree, and be back in the same place you started, but 4 or 5 years older and deeper in debt.

I do agree that the lawyers in the OP could probably have 'worked it out' if they'd planned better. Though it does say that the husband was 'moonlighting' somewhere. Add to that the fact that they live in California where the cost of living and housing is pretty high. And the fact that they were lawyers and so they probably "needed" that BMW, for example.

However, I also have seen many many examples of regular folk living within their means but still with a mountain of school debt. There's also the small matter of people 18-24 not understanding the full ramifications of financing their education.... they don't know how much of a bite out of their income it's going to take, nor are they aware of the length of time that payment is going to be there.

Someone was critical of people choosing a history degree. This is really a point of contradiction that we've not resolved between the university and society. On the one hand you've got a job market that requires a degree to even get an interview... on the other hand you've got this idea that you should study something you are at least interested in. And the university usually has a list of jobs you can get with a history degree, or other liberal arts degree... and they are usually pretty broad.

I think (and I hope it's not just good old days syndrome) there was a time when a liberal arts degree was a fine degree that would get you a decent job. The whole idea of a 'liberal education' is lost now anyway, and 99% of schools do not provide a liberal education. Beyond that there are now millions of liberal arts majors... and it's one of those things where you tend to get lost in the shuffle. It seems that you really have to define yourself by your work and degree. Employers seem to have a lack of imagination when it comes to a resume and degree. If your degree and experience are not within some narrow confines of what they think would be a good fit, you don't get an interview.

Or, some just do it because they can (Caroline Kennedy).

I was just thinking about that the other day without this thread.

Those 18 hrs/week teachin is a real killer. How do you manage keepin up with the materials with those 1 month breaks between semesters & all summer off?

That's a great point considering the lenders know if you're going to a good school, you're more than likely not a deadbeat and will repay the loan.

Student loans are the best racket in town. About the only thing they can't do to force you to repay is take your thumbs.

Even if you're a deadbeat...student loans cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. Isn't that a nice racket? Charge 8-12% interest on money the Feds loan you at 0.25% with guaranteed return. IMO, if all the risk is taken out of the investment, then the reward should be taken out as well. I'd put an interest rate cap of the Fed Funds Rate + 1% on every student loan to reflect the fact that these loans are essentially risk-free to the lender.

Like any investment, college is no sure thing.

Only pays off when you invest in the right degree and the right college.

You should not invest only for a monetary return, but rather in order to do what you want to do for a living.

I know I could not have had a career doing what interests me without a college degree.

That was a movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123034/

Another element where you get screwed on the back end of this deal is the student loan interest deduction. Our leaders have seen fit to cap the amount of the deduction at $2500 a year. That's a joke.

If it was uncapped more people would itemize and go over the standard deduction... thus reducing the federal take. The fact that most people probably don't itemize may contribute to people not realizing that they are getting hosed in this arena.

This is a good point. My father got a history degree way back when. He then went on to qualify and join the Department of Defense Technical Intern program (I think the requirement to get in was that you could touch-type 40 wpm... pretty rigorous), and wound up with a life-long, 30+ year career as a IT specialist / Network administrator for various agencies within the DoD.
He never went back to school for an IT degree or any kind of technical education at all. Thirty years after finishing college, he was one of the most sought-after IT guys in the Pentagon with nothing but a History degree from Western Kentucky University.

I can say with a depressing amount of certainty that, thirty years from now, no one will have a similar story to tell, because you'd never get so much as your big toe through the door of an IT position without at least an associates degree in a "related field". Someone with just a history degree applying for an IT job is going to get laughed out of the building.

It's just competition. My father was an Engineer with only a GED.

Today, there are too many people with CS degrees to hire history majors for IT jobs.

OTOH, I've heard of high schoolers being hired as game programmers. Supply and demand.

Indeed, that's the issue. They are giving out CS degrees like candy, and as a result those people who could very well be better workers don't have a hope in hell of being considered. And because of that, more people have to get their CS degree to have a chance, and so if you want a leg up you need to have a masters, and then everyone gets their masters, and so you'll have to get your PhD, and then...

The point is 30 years ago a college degree in anything meant you were a good worker and were most likely capable of doing any job put in front of you, whether it was in your "field" or not. They were far less expensive then, and orders of magnitude more valuable. Now, half of the college degrees earned are barely worth the paper they're printed on, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Do we see the issue here?

Man WTF Where are you guys getting these federal loans from LoL. I cannot even get fed loans to cover three semesters of in state tuition.

Wow great read. I'm wondering what happened to the couple that got a divorce though. You would think making a combined 200k+, they could knock out that debt pretty quick.

Looks like more of living beyond their means.

It seems part (I say 'part' because it is not the crux of your post) of what you're playing at is that there has been a lowering of standards in regards to college coursework. I must concur. I have a BS in IT and it was a farking breeze. The degrees I have certainly have made a difference in my career but they were too damned easy to obtain. I have been doing IT work for years and just blew through all the courses, even the unfamiliar ones. That's not cool. I think I'm a pretty smart guy...but I'm no genius - there should have been some challenge in achieving those degrees (the certs, on the other hand, took some studying). Lucky (for my employers) I have a genuine passion for the trade and keep my skills current, cogent, and sharp. Many around me do not, and it shows in their work. I shouldn't have to teach those around or above me simple things I learned years ago. :shake:

It seems that graduating college (in many cases) is now more a proof that you're willing/able to pay for a degree and have the stamina to keep with it rather than a proof that you are talented or proficient in a given subject.

Yes. College courses need to be a lot more challenging if we're going to stop their value in the workplace from continuing to plummet. Unfortunately, this is going to mean a lot of colleges telling students "Yes, you failed, that's tough" and denying admission altogether... something they're probably not going to be willing to do in the face of losing profits and funding.

All through high school I kept hearing "You're not going to be able to get away with this in college!" and "You're in for a surprise!"
You want to know the truth? College was no easier or more difficult than high school. The material was obviously more advanced and more focused on my field, but I had to put in no more effort than I had been, and I was studying in a pretty "difficult" field.

I dunno, maybe it seems easier in retrospect than it really was. I'll admit that's a possibility. But it doesn't feel that way.

What did you major in? For me (engineering), college was a large increase in studying and working on projects. My elective liberal arts classes were a breeze though.

The statistics that colleges hate to share [cnn.com]

"Education" has become a sham...at every level...

Educational institutions certainly are shady, but I don't place all of the blame for students failing to overcome debt and earn higher wages on the schools. The obligation of the school is to impart knowledge, not wisdom.

Everyone knows they should read the fine print on any contract. They also know to thoroughly research before making major financial decisions, and this includes the decision to go to school. Responsibility falls back on the individual as it always has.

Perhaps educational priorities need to be changed starting in high school. It should not be possible to graduate without showing an elementary knowledge of how compounded interest can work for and against an individual. Furthermore, at least 1 economics class should be a requirement to earn any degree. Not everyone can apply music history or pottery in daily living, but everyone that has an opinion about how money should be spent is an economist whether they like it or not. However, this requirement would undermine the covert socialist agenda that many schools are pushing, so I don't see this being a likely requirement any time soon.

Higher education isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't be marketed as such. Doing so does have the effect of preying on the lower class who lack basic skills required to make sound financial decisions.

Why does school cost so much anyways? Many lectures are taught without significant change through the years and there is minimal interaction with the students. Most lectures should be recorded and webcast for a fraction of the cost of actually having to hire a professor to repeat the same stuff over and over again. The students should then have access to tutors that are able to answer questions that arise during these prerecorded lectures.

An elementary math book shouldn't cost $150 and change every year. Elementary mathematics doesn't change which means the text doesn't have to change. I have a hunch publishers bribe school administrators to adopt outrageously costly text books. There is a virtually unchallenged assumption that you can't put a price on "quality" education.

Taking out maximum amounts for federal loans is a fantastic idea. Park that interest free money in a rewards checking account, pay off the loan 6 months after you are out of school, and pocket all of the interest you earned on the government subsidized loan.

Brilliant idea for parents wanting to pay for their child's education.

Oooh.... I'm not comfortable with how you put that last portion. I would at least say it is the obligation of the university to expose the student to wisdom.... if not to impart it. That was the original premise of higher education in the first place. Functional knowledge was the preserve of primary and secondary education.

I agree with you.

However, basic economics should be taught before the completion of high school. Students should have to prove a basic understanding of economics in the form of a standardized test to even graduate, because almost every decision from then on out will be an economic one.

Even understanding economics is not a guarantee that someone will have the ability to make wise financial decisions. It seems knowledge is the cornerstone to wisdom, but wisdom is difficult to teach. This idea is a bit like Plato's Meno.

And what has some of it become...pay the money we give you a piece of paper. Especially primary and secondary...we pay the money and ignoramuses come out. Not all...but many. We've lost our sense of standards...

I think a personal finance course would be more useful than an economics course.

Not all federal student loans are subsidized. Whether an applicant receives the subsidized or unsubsidized depends primarily on income level (of the student and the parents, if applicable).

The world is a lot more complicated than it was back then... There are more "things" to learn. Can we teach the "basics" and still the necessities? Maybe we do have to leave out "the classics" of education to fit in the essentials for living in modern society. Maybe if we did that, we'd be able to educate the inner city kids. Call it "essential education"...nothing but "real world" learning...no theory except what's necessary. The Cliff Notes of education. Practical application...nothing else.

The hoax is getting pricier...

College: More expensive than ever [cnn.com]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/...creases.03.gif

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/..._costs2.ju.jpg

Looks like there needs to be a public option and non-profit universities.

Wait a minute...

I'm sure college would be much cheaper if it were only private universities.

Wait a minute...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A relative of mine was promised a full scholarship at a private school, then at the last minute they took it away because the college didnt got the donations they were expecting.

I think the analogy doesn't fit, personally

I think it does. Hawk wants to compare college to healthcare. In education we have a public option (state and community colleges), some of which are very competitive with their private counterparts. So now more people can afford going to college and yet the existance of it hasn't destroyed the ability of private education to exist. Although we cannot say for sure either way, it is quite possible that the public option has kept private university tuition from increasing to even more insane heights.

Also, unlike college, everybody needs healthcare.

Do public universities stick to a budget, and have to balance it every year? They do, which is why students everywhere are feeling the pain with rising tuition this year.

Does federal spending follow that same restriction? :shake:

If no one went to college healthcare probably would be much cheaper. :lol: maybe not better but cheaper.

I think one of the few disciplines that can be entered into without a degree will always be the Software Industry. Its a industry that many companies have the show me what you have done. This can either be college work, or say hey look at this open source project I created that is used by these 100 companies. You may not be able to get a job running the IT servers at the large healthcare company down the street, they will weed you out. But a large computer company (IBM, Oracle, any startup as well) has no problems hiring you. I just watched a presentation on open source databases and the person giving it worked at Sun no degree no formal training. They were hired in the past year, through the open source market.

Even with "the pain," tuition at a state school for a state resident is still often 1/3 or less than some nearby private counterpart.

I think the comparison of college education to healthcare is invalid, and a continuation of the comparison to include 'public options' is similarly invalid. (And for the record, MIT posts all their classes online for free, so if one is looking for value, self education via the private sector is where it would be!)

Most people look at the expenditures on college as an 'investment', similar to the way people looked at buying houses in the early 2000's.

Essentially, Sallie Mae is to college tuition what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is to housing prices. They government sponsored entity 'enables' people to defer the astronomical costs of tuition over 30 years (or more?) enabling colleges to jack up prices without its students really fealing the immediate effects. Most entrants convince themselves that they will make up the costs once they graduate anyway.

Eventually this bubble will pop.

Didn't Obama say the public 'option' would receive 0 taxpayer dollars?

I have no degree or certifications, but have worked in IT since age 16. An internship working for the state in high school gave me enough experience to put me ahead of those with only classroom knowledge. I have even had job offers where the minimum requirements were a CS degree and various certifications.

Our network admin has a mechanical engineering degree, and our server/email admin has only a music degree. Other coworkers have CS degrees, but they are no more valuable than those without.

In IT, like all jobs, the most important thing is who you know. After that it is experience and personality. Hiring in other fields should be done this way, where possible. Applicants should be given tests related to the position they wish to fill, just as if they were taking a college exam.

Wow, this thread is really interesting.

I'm in this boat right now. 24 years old with my own company that's doing great but also going to community college. I'm at the point where I'm asking myself if college is even worth it. Working so much that I have already had to drop 3 classes this year, but the upside is that my work has allowed me to make a huge chunk of money, saved 22k since march of this year. I'll probably have 30-40k saved up by the end of this year, which is crazy for someone of my background/age.

I'm pretty damn sure if I applied that time I spent on school improving my company it would be a better use of my time. On the other hand my family was so happy when I decided to enroll in college that dropping out would probably break their hearts.

It also seems like college right now is flooded with people, I can barely find a parking spot at the school I go to. Seems to be a shelter from the rain for a lot of people at the moment. I'm pretty close to getting my associates so I'll probably finish that up and re-evaluate my situation. With all this stuff going on I pretty much live off of Red Bulls and rarely get good sleep. Sitting at a 3.6 GPA while barely applying myself, but it is a community college so that doesn't say much.

When I enrolled at 22 all I was doing was smoking weed and playing video games all day, so as I said my family was really happy. It really put a positive spin on my life, which is great. Pretty conflicted on what to do, as I said my family is what's keeping me going on the school front.

I've been up since 10 am yesterday (21st), and it's 7 am now, about to pull another +24 hour day with no sleep. To put it into perspective.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, when I do retire, all I am looking forward to is smoking weed and playing video games all day... lol..

Do the healthcare proponents REALLY want to compare it to public universities? Last I knew - public universities do not carry their own weight and are heavily subsidized by the state(s) for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction).

Last I knew healthcare was heavily subsidized for ongoing operations as well as major projects (construction) as well.

Meaning you cannot say "hey look at public universities - they are the pinnacle of government efficiency - cheap tuition and they pay for themselves. Woohoo gov't!". That's rather like touting that the new healthcare system will be great - just look at the USPS for a model!

You're making my case for me. USPS and public colleges are great compared to their private counterparts. They are cheap for the customer (allowing access to some of the public for mail and education that they otherwise could not afford) and provide a competitive service so much that people who can afford the private version sometimes choose the public version because the public version meets their needs. Yet the existance of a public option hasn't removed all private options from existance.

Obama: Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option.


Even by his own words, the comparison to public universities is flawed.

Because it is subsidized with public money, obviously.

Because they aren't looking to maximize how much money they can get from tuition. I forget whether it was this thread or a previous one but there was an article I posted a while ago that showed endowments of some private schools are enormous, so much so that if they wanted to they could charge no tuition for I think it was the next decade. Another article I linked to long ago showed one university (I think it was Harvard) lamenting that it wasn't charging as much tuition as one of its competitors. Not because it needed the money but because they felt it showed they weren't as good because they weren't charging as much.

http://archive.slickdeals.net/sho...stcount=16

The problem being pointed out is they aren't covering the costs of an education with the money they get from tuition.

That's a problem because it enables prospective students/parents/onlookers to look at a side by side comparison of two schools, one which is partially funded by tax payers (who knows who much because it's not listed on the tuition bill) and one that is completely private (if it exists any more) and receives zero public funding, and conclude that the private instutition is simply less efficient, as evidenced by a comparitve education but the private school charges more in tuition.

If a public university had to cover its costs via tuition and other revenue streams, you'd see a more accurate comparison between public and private schools.

Edit:

Also, on the article you linked with college tuition prices rising faster than inflation, I'd argue this supports a previous post where I likened college tuition to the housing market. Just like housing prices outpacing inflation due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so to are college prices.

Healthcare is about affordability and accessibility

And affordability is about knowing the cost. Public options, employee sponsored plans, and numerous other government programs hide this.

Its right there in the budget. Just becuase you're not looking doesn't mean its hidden. You seriously saying any service the government provides hides its cost?

so make the costs transparent, and remove barriers to compete, rather than hoping the government-option does something about it.

Costs of healthcare will never go down so long as no one knows how much anything costs. Medicare has done nothing to slow down healthcare costs, and many insurance companies are a black box where people pay high premiums, fixed co-pays and get services without really knowing the financials of the services themselves at all

I'm saying that the cost is seperated from the service provided. It's hidden at the time of purchase.

If a doctor asks you if you want a test that won't cost you directly any money (and is non-intrusive), but adds to the the total cost of health care in the economy, what incentive do you have to say no if you believe there is even the most remote chance it could come back positive? You'd have next to zero incentive. But, if the doctor had to 'sell you' the test, meaning the cost of it would be paid by you, then you might not get tested for something you know you probably don't have.

Back to talking about college, because a substantial portion of a public schools revenues come from activities totally unrelated to educating students in exchange for money, the actual costs are hidden from the students, parents, and for a large part, society.

Let's face it, everyone knows state schools are 'cheaper' but not everyone knows a school like UMASS accepts $450+ million from the state. This cost is 'hidden', and when you make comparisons between the efficiency of a public school versus a private school, it isn't taken into account very often.

All of the reasons you mentioned are strong evidence that your time is better spent focused on your business. Of course, only if your business is legit.

Of course, there will be those on the education bandwagon that will disagree with my opinion that quitting school can be a great option. I'm 2 classes away from my associates, and have very little motivation to complete it. Of course I will, but I highly doubt it will ever translate into higher pay considering my entrepreneurial nature.

These are seperate questions/issues than Hawk's original comment. As my previous link and other articles indicate, getting money from the state is not why tuition is so high.

Which links in particular?

I agree that transparency of costs aren't why college tuitions are so high... I blame Sally Mae for that.

This just recently came out. The idea of paying 50 grand a year for an undergraduate education boggles my mind as much as those people who spend 30 grand a year so their kids can go to prep high schools. More often then not, Im guess these groups of people overlap quite a bit :lmao:

Colleges with the Highest Total Cost 2009-2010 [campusgrotto.com]

The parts I bolded in my old post that I linked in post #97.

The reason that tuition is outpacing inflation is many faceted. For one there is the small matter of demand. People are convinced that college is the only way to 'make it' in the US today... hence the 'hoax' that originated this thread. Demand has continued to increase, and there has been a simultaneous lowering of standards to meet that demand. So supply has been expanded to keep up with demand, has this lowered costs? In some ways yes... there are low cost alternatives such as community colleges, and commuter schools. But demand for the big schools and/or schools with a good reputation outpaces supply.

Also... kids have a lot of money to spend on college. People are encouraged to go into debt to finance this purchase, and since they are young and have a poor conception of long term financial thinking... they just fork it over. Well... they sign their name, and get a big payday.

So high demand, along with "free" money has lead to a situation where tuition can outpace inflation by several times. So we have customers who don't feel the true cost of this service... while simultaneously having something like limitless resources to consume.

Health care costs also outpace inflation and it's also a situation where (most) customers don't feel the true cost of the service, as they are insulated from the cost by insurance and the co-payment structure. A 'public option' will not cure this situation b/c it will not alter the relationship between consumer and producer. Insurance, be it public or otherwise will still stand between supply and demand, and therefore continue the perversion of the price function.

I agree with those posts, and many are very similar to what I wrote.

That link doesn't really address the perceived differences in value between public and private schools when considering the true costs associated with each though. I thought that was part of what we were discussing?

I was discussing profit motive, costs to the consumer and access due to those things.

Private schools (or at least some of them such as Harvard) have tons of money in endowments yet don't lower their tuition because, as Wu stated, demand says they don't need to. And, being a private business, they go for the most money possible. So their endowment continues to stockpile while the customer is paying out the nose. The public universities don't have such profit motive so the customer does indeed get real value, not just a perceived one.

Are private colleges beholden to a group of shareholders? Are they even for-profit organizations at all?

Maybe they are just trying to build a cushion in the case of lean times, like this one? Public universities probably wish they had that kind of resource.

Its lean times and they're still not using it. Or, should I say, they're using 5% of it. But yes, public universities I'm sure wish they had $35B just waiting to be spent.

So true. The government, according to my FAFSA thinks my parents- my mom an RN and my dad disabled and unable to work- should be able to contribute almost $1000 a month to my education. They don't have that to spare, by a long shot. But you get a worker's compensation settlement- even a very low one- and the government thinks you have tons of money to spare.

I got a student loan to cover this year's expenses. It's about $8k from the government. My dad was telling me to get a Sallie Mae loan, and was rather dumbfounded why I said no- "it's free money that you can easily pay back later" was his argument. I read about SM a lot. I understood their practices. I'm not going to get a penny from them. Their rates are worse than the credit union I'm a member of (since age 8! :P).

I attend one of the cheapest 4-year universities in the state of Florida, which is cheaper than most states already. I'm not really able to afford it, but I understand what the ramifications are for my actions. If you have half a brain about what you are doing, you will survive just fine. Just live within your means.

Even medical school debt can become overwhelming...

The $555,000 Student-Loan Burden [wsj.com]

dont tell anyone that, they want to live in fairly land where doctors are uber rich fat cats sucking the life blood out of patients.

dont forget that she gets no tax breaks for her interest on these loans because she makes more than 75k per yr.

She's also not very bright

Living on a resident's wage is not easy, but it's not impossible. You don't buy a new car, you don't buy a house, you don't take vacations. It's all part of becoming a doctor in today's US based education system.

I know plenty of residents who managed debt, marriage and children. There's got to be more to the story than "the evil corporations are out to get me"

Exactly what I was thinking. That and they spent too much while in school.

you mean you don't drive a ferrari and work two hours in the morning, three days a week and play golf at the club every day? :eek:

if you drink too much of the kool aid that once you graduate from medical school, you're entitled to a new M3 and live in a mansion, yeah, you'll go bankrupt. Even Mike Tyson went bankrupt and he's done better in his life than 99.99% of doctors.

I realize it's a private school, and not part of your gravy train of union run state schools, where huge salaries and benefits, (regardless of competence) are the norm....but perhaps you should confine your self serving comments to subjects that aren't quite so obvious......

:secret: Cal Western [cwsl.edu] and Western State University [wsulaw.edu] are two completely different law schools.


Perhaps you should confine your self-serving comments to subjects that aren't *quite* so obvious.


:cool:

Thanks to a pm, I'm advised that I used the wrong link and alumni list, and that a user I have blocked made one of their usual attacks based on minutia.... I stand corrected.

The first quote in my post was for the correct institution, I've corrected the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali...ool_of_Law

Interesting that when I post the exact same words as you, I'm supposedly guilty of a "usual attack based on minutia."

What does that make your post (which just happened to contain those exact same words)?

:whistlin:

How can a person like Bisutti become a doctor when they can't pay attention to the details of something that will significantly impact her lifestyle? What kind of dope agrees to a 10 point origination fee on a loan?

It always amazes me that commercials and advertisements with the message; "buy our product because you deserve it" is the most popular and effective marketing strategy. She has to be a disgusting consumer to be unable to make her $1,000 payments every month. I have no degree and could easily swing those payments while making zero changes to my current lifestyle. Bisutti needs to get a roommate and sell the Mercedes.

If art classes are required in college, certainly personal finance should be included in the not-optional course list for any degree. That and economics 101.

The only way we can fix this is to make it easier for companies to fire people. If a company could hire three-four people for one-two jobs (entry level) it would make it easier to weed out the scrubs. The way it's set up now where degrees are required for most decent jobs is horrible. They are pretty much saying:

I know you're now close to your mid-twenties, and never worked a day in your life - but we'll take a look at you. In high school you studied hard, did a bunch of extra curriculars, sports, and got into a decent school. You borrowed money, partied, and passed. None of this will help you in our company, but we know you can at least read and write. You've been subjected to "culture". You aren't a total idiot. This other person MIGHT be a total idiot. We're gonna go with you.


We're not teaching our youth how to work, we're teaching them how to be dependent. Follow the system. It's pretty weak.

I love how this sort of articles always talk about people "discovering" there are no jobs with their useless degrees, or, better yet, "discovering" what the interest rates on their student loans are. Surely there was no reason to think about these petty details before going to school. It's all the system's fault!

In some ways there are no jobs w/o the useless degree either, in as much as a degree is required for so many things now. There's many jobs, there's just many more applicants... and a college or university often has a career office where they tell you all the things you can do with your degree.

There is no question that the society in which we live places a great deal of importance on going to college, I would even go so far as to suggest that it is painted as the 'remedy' for many of life's ills. "Education" is bandied about as the key to a better future, all those statistics are paraded out in front of us about how much more a college grad makes over their lifetime. Beyond that, people also see the 4 years in college as a period of discovery, not that this is necessary or appropriate, but that is how it is seen. The 18 year old person, largely educated in the public school system, where all his friends are also going to college, would have to stand up to societal tidal wave to resist it. That's a tall order. But it does happen in rare circumstances

As for the 'discovery' of the cost and the unfortunate reality of student loan payments. I don't think our debt accepting culture teaches people the pitfalls of debt ahead of time. I knew enough to avoid it, but many do not.

So, is it the fault of 'the system'?. I'm not sure I really conceive of it in that manner. It's just the way it's worked out. Society does have certain falsehoods that persist, this is one of them.

Frankly, I can remember when "signing" for loans it was rather automatic and the terms weren't specifically discussed. I'm not using this as a cop out but rather I think it's the parents' job to ensure that their children can grasp the idea of borrowing and responsibility. I firmly believe that if today's kids had more of a stake in their own education (e.g. through finances, which ultimately at this stage in life means loans), they'd spend more time studying and less time wasting money. We'd all like to blame "the system" but frankly without the parents' support, kids would have a tough time getting into college unless they had a pile of cash to fund their endeavors.

I spent 10 years in college and have 5 degrees - the first one put me $30k in the hole on debt which I am still paying for but I can distinctly remember feeling BAD that I was causing such a financial burden on my parents at the time (no doubt they ponied a lot of $$). I really think that helped me focus in that critical 1st year of college - the 1st year is perhaps the most crucial since for most kids this is their first real opportunity to be independent and make *key* decisions for themselves.

Fortunately the other 4 degrees more than paid for themselves since I am in a discipline which favors graduate work (engineering).

I tend to disagree here. Yes, it is the responsibility of parents to produce adults that can function in the real world. However, basic finance should be something taught in high school, and it should be impossible to graduate without proving a minimal understanding of personal finance.

I also disagree with the notion that kids need financial help from their parents to attend college. Between grants, loans, scholarships, and earning a paycheck, nearly anyone can make it in America. Starting with some personal savings helps too. I graduated HS with $6k in the bank from an internship I worked 12hrs a week at.

And your parents had no part in your ability to save that much money? :whistlin:

OK then I am fine with that, but I am tired of people dumping their kids "on the system" then complaining that they lack basic skills or drop out. They are YOUR kids and YOUR responsibility. Take some initiative to teach them the ways of life rather than relying on someone else to do it FOR you.

While I'd like to believe that kids don't need their parents, in reality unless you are attending a state school where tuition is very low, in order to muster tuition you'll need loans, and even for most student loans your credit history comes into play which is why private loans often need cosigners.

Of course they had a big part in my ability to save money. If they didn't provide food, clothing, and shelter, then I would have become a ward of the state. You are not really arguing against any point I have made. I acknowledge that outside financial help, is helpful. My point is that it isn't necessary.

I completely agree. It goes without saying that parents have the primary responsibility to produce successful offspring. However, a problem develops when the parents themselves lack these basic life skills, and fail to pass them on to their children. The safety net for the children then becomes adequate education and holding them accountable for basic knowledge.

I agree again. My claim is not that everyone can pay for the most expensive of schools, only that most anyone can find a way to earn a college degree if they arrange their priorities to achieve that goal.

It's not just the 4-year traditional schools playing the con game anymore...

Where People Pay $30k A Year To Make $10 An Hour [consumerist.com]

In Hard Times, Lured Into Trade School and Debt [nytimes.com]

College is a requirement these days, sort of like a high school degree. Getting a degree might not help you but not getting one will certainly hurt you.

Exactly. You probably could do a great job in a position that requires a 4 year degree right out of high school. That is, if you're hired, which basically means you have to know someone very well. Most people say that once you start working you don't really use a whole lot of what you learned in classes, but good luck using that excuse when looking for a job.

There are plenty of jobs that pay well that don't require a college degree. Would you encourage a not so bright kid to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt just to boast a college degree?

This is a very narrow view. Sure it will hurt someone that wants to be a brain surgeon if they don't get a degree, but there are plenty of people that would actually be hurt if they followed through with college and took on the debt and lost productivity that it entails.

Exactly. I would even argue there are instances where a very bright person would be better off not going to college. Would a degree have helped Bill Gates get further in life?

It may have been Reagan that responded to someone critical of his college achievement that he often wonders just what he could have become if only he had applied himself more in school.

Entrepreneurial endeavors are one of the few areas in which you really don't need a formal education. If you learn all about how to run a business on your own, and you actually obtain accurate information, you have a huge advantage over those who spent years in college and paid for it. However, for the majority of people who aren't going to become entrepreneurs (or not until after getting some work experience), you are at a significant disadvantage with your "learned it on my own from the internet" as opposed to a recognizable accreditation from a college.

Of course college is a waste if you don't try or don't have the ability to do well in it. However, for the average american college is a requirement.

It sure does feel pretty wasteful when you think that your GPA, your entire college career is primarily used solely to obtain your first job. I'd want to keep that on my resume my whole life just because of how much it cost.

The average American IQ is 98. Do you really think college is a requirement?

personally, i think most people in the united states do not need four year degrees.
germany has a pretty good system i think. some kids go to college prep for secondary educations, and some kids go straight to trade school. they decide tracks for kids pretty early (as early as 4th grade), and i think it'd be better if schools waited longer, but it seems to me that a lot of money, time, and anguish is saved with their system.

College is overvalued in most cases
Too many people go to college. Most people who go to college never utilize their degree. A lot of people don't even know what they want to do when they enter college. There are way too many people with college degrees that really don't need them for their profession. The only reason to have a degree, for many people, is because other people have degrees.

In my opinion (if we are going to partially subsidize college):

Only career oriented courses should get subsidized.
1. General Electives courses such as biology or chemistry should have no subsidy at all unless it is necessary for the major. An engineer might need chemistry, but a computer scientist shouldn't need it. Most of these classes are a regurgitation of what we learned in high school. If a student really wants to take one of these courses, they should be allowed to at a higher price. No reason for a tax payer to subsidize someone's curiosity.

2. Taxpayer funded colleges should reduce the # of the mentioned pointless classes. Colleges could increase prices and decrease the # of required classes. If colleges decreased 25% of the courses, and made a 25% increase in price, the student would actually have less student debt. Also students can get a job more quickly and pay off their debts earlier.

Yes.

The problem is that our institutions of higher education are inefficient and outdated. Why does it take exactly 4 years to be proficient in any subject? It doesn't matter if someone studies a branch of engineering, or a branch of art, the requirement for graduating with a bachelors is 4 years of school.

If the point of education is to equip people with necessary skills for a particular field of work, then the requirements for certification in that field should reflect actual occupational needs. This means that some degrees would take longer to complete than others.

One way we can level the economic playing field so that people of all income levels have a chance to become certified in a particular field, is to allow avenues of certification that don't necessarily involve teaching the skills. What I mean by this is that a person should be able to research a subject through whatever avenues they wish, and have credibility in the labor market by taking tests that verify their proficiency. This would reduce the cost of obtaining credentials to the cost of proctoring a test. This system would allow those that need very structured learning to take traditional classes and receive a degree, but also allow those who don't have the means to pay for classes, or prefer to learn independently to receive a degree of equal market value (or close to it).

We do need machinists and carpenters as much as we need accountants.

College isn't for everyone. Trade schools need to be resurrected as viable, respectable alternatives.

Like most large organizations, the point of higher education has become to propagate higher and higher education without regard for the need or benefit of that higher education.

I agree with the right degree, but do you think the right college really matters/

Unless you go to a very high level ivy league school, (yale, harvard) where you build networks and relationships, I'm not so convinced a state school is any different from a standard private school that costs 10x as much.

My wife and I both have master's (mine in business, hers in education) and our loans are about $60 or $70k right now. Only about $10k of that came from our regular educations, and $50k from my 2 year stint at Bentley for an MBA. Not sure if it was worth it yet. I think it did help me get my job here, and I learned a lot, but it's hard ot say where I would if I hadn't gotten that degree?

i think you can build networks and relationships at almost any school. everyone goes somewhere, and a lot of people at mediocre schools go on to be very successful men and women.

however, from the way i see it, private schools that aren't near the top still aren't worth it. if you're getting an education to prove to employers you know what's up, it seems to me that you'd be better off going to a school that everyone's heard of (i.e. a state school) than an obscure, expensive private school.

Is it NYU's responsibility save people from their overpriced tuition?

Placing the Blame as Students Are Buried in Debt [nytimes.com]

Religious studies? OMFG --- talk about a waste of a bachelor's degree.... It could have easily been obtained at a state school for less :shake:

When will we hold these greedy universities accountable for taking advantage of our children?

If a counselor tells you that you should go to college to "study what you're interested in"..... RUN from that counselor because he/she is half-retarded.

College is an investment, like a house, land, stock market or any other investment. You're spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the idea that over a lifetime, you will receive a return on your investment. (why else spend those tens of thousands of dollars, thousands of hours studying, and taking exams and passing courses if you're no better off than you were before?)

If you get a degree in something that does not create value for an employer, you won't be hired. It's that simple. You can whine, bitch, complain, blame George W. Bush, cite racism/sexism/homophobism, etc., but if you do not have skills an employer needs, you do not get a job. It really is that simple.


This is also why law school is such a crappy investment. Law schools are a dime a dozen and frankly, if you can't get into a T-14 school, you probably should not go. Anybody can get into a law school. Period. If you can graduate from any four year college with a degree, and you have a pulse, you can get into some law school somewhere. Kids go there with the idea that "oh, I want a professional degree". :lol: There are so many law schools in America that it's not really "special" or "prestigious" that you got into law school. HOWEVER, if you get into a T-14 school, then by all means, that is something to be proud of. (even then, t-14 grads are having a tough time in some cases as they're being furloughed because of the recession)

I've never heard of America having a nationwide or regional shortage in lawyers like you do with engineers, healthcare providers, certain computer fields, etc.


People can be very dumb about college and law school.

If you substitute an MBA school for law school, your observations still hold.

:vomit:


Well, that's the problem, Ms. Munna. You can foreclose a house and repossess a car. You can't give back an education.

Why exactly are we subsidizing this nonsense?

This problem starts way earlier than college. This problem starts with the public school system. When we are forcing every kids to be in school, we end up holding many of them back. You can have many 8th graders who have the same (or better) standing in academics than most 12th grader. Public schools became a daycare center long ago.

I only finished 6th grade in my former country and I was an average student. We only had school for half a day - they split schools into morning and afternoon sessions. I came here and started 8th grade - which I didn't do much because I couldn't speak English. I did not really start to understand school materials until the middle of 9th grade. By this time, I was taking all the basic courses. So in 10th and 11th grade I was playing catch up and I was able to make up for lost times and took all the courses which enabled me to sign up for all the advanced placement courses by 12th grade. If I did not do this, then I could still graduate but at a significantly lower standard.

The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers.

Well said. If English really was not your first language, I would not have known had you not mentioned it.

So what do you recommend? That you not have been educated?

Not going to happen, it will help with more regulation but people are against that and want less regulation and more freedom and more freedom equals more greed.

information asymmetry doesn't exist. free markets solve all problems!

They can work fast food, construction, landscaping, pick fruit, etc. In other words, they can displace a Mexican, as nature intended.

One additional recommendation would be to test the reading comprehension level of every Senior before graduation. If you don't read, you can't comprehend. Please read the last paragraph where I put in some recommendations:

"The system is dumbed down so that every kid could finish. This was done at the expense of holding all the other kids back. Do I advocate leaving kids behind? No. They should be given every opportunities to catch up, but they shouldn't be holding everyone else back. Since we have a full day of school here, by the end of highschool, many of the graduates should have enough knowledge to skip right to the 3rd and 4th year of most Bachelor programs. Instead, we currently put the average person through 16 yr of schooling to become paper pushers."

I'd like to comment on this that I'm an advocate of public schools, but I also agree they need to be redesigned around the students rather than around "standards". Students who are obviously more advanced should not have to sit there waiting for their grade level to catch up with their ability and be bored if they score well enough. There should be continual assessments of their work to determine what level they're performing at and advancing them faster if they have demonstrated ability in different areas.

So you're recommending we hire a ton more teachers so that everybody can advance on their own level at their own time?

I think you're missing what he's saying. Not necessarily more teachers, more restructuring so that most teaching isn't to bored students who are playing with paper clips because they're bored. There's a fair amount of needless teaching time where far too much time is spent on very simple concepts or tasks.

People are going to pick up different material and different rates.

English: some people read faster than others, some understand faster than others, some are able to understand how to write about it faster than others: some are a combination, some aren't. Each book has its own learning curve based on how much each individual student "gets into it."

History: same thing as English

Math: each concept can be picked up by some people quicker than others. It took me longer to figure out geometry than it took me to figure out calculus.

Science: Same as math. I hated bio but glided through physics.

We already have regular, honors and advanced tracks. How do we add more tracks without adding more teachers?

Bingo. There are some people and groups of people that are lost causes. Cut the cord and move on.

Maybe we can graduate kids on merits rather than age? Maybe we don't force kids to sit in classes which are too easy for them but let them pursue their interests instead? Most highschool require 4 yr of English/math/history. They would graduate an 18 yr old who can barely read but wouldn't let a 16 yr study something else instead of Math/English if he finds it too easy for him and he already knows the materials.

Nothing's stopping some kid from graduating early. Some baseball player just did that so that he can enter the draft a year early.

I have a cousin who was a borderline criminal when he started school - because he was too smart. He spent most of his time in detention because he was too bored in classes and became destructive. His parents had to jump through hoops to get them to allow him to skip 1st grade but he was still frustrated. They didn't know what to do but luckily they found a PRIVATE school that would give him a scholarship. By 9th grade he already secured a scholarship to any college he wants to go to when he graduate.

at least the MSM is starting to talk about this topic...

Are you borrowing too much for college? [cnn.com]

Seven Reasons Not to Send Your Kids to College [dailyfinance.com]

The most interesting points IMO:

Thank you for posting this. While this article addresses the law school experience, I have been following the for-profit college debacle for a while. I actually know someone attending Western School of Law right now. I think it is important that before taking on any kind of significant debt that the debtor READ all of the terms of the contract. Whether its an ARM mortgage or an interest bearing student loan, the terms are important and can affect where you will be in 5, 10 or 20 years.

I think the problem about college experiences like the ones shown here is expectation. Fresh out of school myself, there is definitely an air of entitlement, and the kids expect companies to come and give them $60k+ jobs with a mediocre GPA in a liberal arts program. Certainly this salary is possible for someone with a high GPA in a field like engineering, but not for most.

great thread and great title :thumbup:

I find it difficult to give the op-ed writer much credibility when he ends w/little gems like this:

Do nothing but read. Get the benefits of a college education without paying the $200,000. I'd be happy to support a child that wants to home school a college education.

:rolleyes:

What is wrong with that statement for a large component of our populace? I am in agreement with the general idea of eschewing college - though for certain specialty professions (ie: medicine), which require a great degree of "hands-on" work, I believe college is necessary.

College has become a debt funnel, and far too many never use the degree they earned in their professional lives (which is, itself, evidence of the futility of it in many cases).

The fact that you cannot replicate a legitimate college education by "doing nothing but read[ing]."

You can choose to take the statement literally, or you could assimilate into a legitimate view of it, which is that one's experiences - combined with being well-read - will more that supplant many types of college education.

One can be tested for acuity on any number of topics, so why not let those who wish to pursue a specific career do just that, instead of making only those who have attended college do so?

That depends on the person and the college education being pursued. It would be very difficult for a person to read themselves into a doctor of medicine. However, I am every bit as capable (and more) without a college degree as my peers at work who have a related college education. In fact, I earn 25% more than all of them (and they all have degrees).

Perhaps I am an exception, but the thrust of the message is not that higher education is entirely unnecessary, only that it is unnecessary (and sometimes harmful) to some.

of course the points I picked out had nothing to do with that "little gem" :rolleyes: I find it interesting that you decided to completely ignore the points that I actually quoted and hard to dispute, despite whatever the op-ed's feelings on home schooling are.

I'll say something.

Item 1: Yea, college is getting more expensive, but not to the degree that the stat makes it sound. Financial aid, and not just in the loan department.

Item 2: Related to item 1, assumes you have $200K on you to invest, which most people don't. Also assumes that average = "worst case" somehow. Also somehow assumes living expenses and books won't exist if they don't go to college.

Nope, that requires booze, other forms of narcotics, and other types of debauchery.

And some teachers, too.

eh generally I guess that's true - there's a certain amount to be said for having the insight of learned people to guide you (regardless of how hard you try, there are some things that can't simply be learned from reading a book), and you cannot learn chemistry with a few chemicals in your sink.......

HOWEVER

many courses - and I speak from an engineering background - are almost exclusively taught from a book, and many books are written well enough that you can just read through, learn important concepts, etc etc. Assuming you have a good background (e.g. good science/math education in HS) and enough will and determination, you could probably learn enough through coursebooks and online information to place out of 75%+ of the coursework required to get a BS (the rest being mostly lab work and other capstone courses). The issue is, as I said - having a resource that you can bounce ideas off of and straighten out concepts that may not translate well from text, and that's a teacher.

Then there's the cooperative dynamic that's difficult to quantify - in engineering, college is as much about group work, leadership, etc etc as it is hardcore science & math. In fact, I'd say that employers look more for experience in teams and the general capacity to learn and tackle problems than for specific knowledge.

Learned people are not exclusive to colleges (although they sure are concentrated there). I can get guidance from learned people from a variety of sources, and have even bounced ideas off people in this forum. In fact, I often throw ideas out to the net and have learned people scrutinize them.

I suppose the value of teamwork experience depends on the type of job. A person just now asked if I had gone to school to learn my trade, and I replied that I don't have not even taken a single related class. Reading and experience account for 100% of my ability, which says a lot to employers about my self-motivation to learn and to take on new problems.

Perhaps. But the public can't afford teachers anymore, so its moot.

Says you?

I agree with the idea behind this column but, boy, the piece is riddled with inaccuracies, hyperboles and downright non-sense.

If you want to grab something serious, newly released (i.e., yesterday!) book "Higher Education? [highereducationquestionmark.com]" might be a good read. I say might because I've just finished reading the first chapter and a half. :D But having reading an interview with the authors [theatlantic.com] in The Atlantic, it does seem like an interesting dissection of the problem and a proposed solution.

The trouble I see with most of the suggestions on reforming higher education is that they stray too far from the norm. They are, in other words, too radical. That basically makes them non-starters because for all its real and perceived flaws, the system seems to be working fine to far too many people. American higher ed system remains the model the rest of the world is trying to emulate and our institutions remains the most sought-after by exceptional students from all over the world. So, to argue that a radical change at these institutions is needed, and NOW, seems out-of-proportion. The common refrain from people who favor the status quo is why fix something that ain't broken, in other words. And, they're not entirely wrong.

That's certain - I guess there are forums online (or if you're lucky to know someone in the field) where you can have an open discussion but let's be frank - the majority of the time for most people this just isn't possible. Taking a class and having a professor at your disposal to emails and office hours is far and above anything you could possibly get in someone's free time participating in online forums. Granted, I am speaking about technical resources. If you want to discuss issues with "learned" people in some sort of purely philosophical field then you may have better chances.

You're right, but I think that actually points to a failing at our universities which is quite fundamental.

The job of the university shouldn't be to "hire" the people with the best minds and ideas. It should be to serve as a host to such people and the students who want to learn from them. Or, more generally to host discourse.

That's one thing where I feel that our universities are falling well short of.

Which brings me to a question I've wondered about: ever since you left college, have you ever went to a university event (at any university) that was not sporting or arts/culture related?

Well, actually, says the states.

Why do you think all these governors are crying for more washington money?

Most courses and lectures follow a fairly standard and repeated process. I see no reason why a classroom session cannot be video recorded, and offered as a low-cost medium of learning that can be viewed at the convenience of the student. The advantage is that the most talented lecturer of a particular subject can then reach the largest audience for the least amount of dollars spent. This could then be supplemented with live Q&A sessions with tutors or other teachers. The point would be to lower the number of lecturers needed and thus reduce the cost of education. Increasing the flexibility of when a lecture may be viewed also has the benefit of increasing the number of people able to fit it in their busy schedule, and allows them the opportunity to learn when they are most receptive to learning (avoiding early morning classes for example).

Paying for buildings, and electricity, and janitors, and food courts, and housing, and professors, etc, just to teach the same things over and over again seems like an incredible waste of resources.

Obviously there are some subjects that do not lend themselves to pre-recorded learning, but perhaps 80% of it does. I follow your logic of not drastically changing the way we educate people, but I disagree. Drastic changes will result in drastic benefits (for most fields of study, and certainly for most undergrad courses).

I do not have a college education, but I can see the point you imply. The only university events I have ever participated in involved mass consumption of alcohol, shooting pool, socializing, etc.

Are the figures that are quoted in that article nonsense? Has the costs of college really not outpaced healthcare (amazing that ANYTHING can do that) and the general rate of inflation?

Because its an easier thing to do than raise taxes. Anyway, this topic is about professors, not public school teachers.

Well, take the $200,000 college expense number. Average in-state tuition in public colleges is $7k/year and $11k for out-of-state. Even at private colleges, average tuition is $26k/year. Obviously, there're additional costs but clearly he's taking a high water mark and using it as some kind of average cost of tuition.

It has and, as we've talked about here, that is indeed alarming.

As I said, I agree with the idea behind his article, i.e., the rising college costs are starting to make less and less sense, but the analysis is pretty far off.

Another thing which he barely acknowledges is that college education from a good institution is, even in its current less-than-ideal form, more than a professional training. Harvard education, for all its flaws, is still something young people ought to strive for. It shouldn't be the ONLY goal, but a goal nonetheless for a lot of kids.

You mean something like online courses? Many colleges already offer those, my husband is currently working on his master's degree completely online. He has never set foot in a B&M college building (except for a handful of proctored exams). I agree that it's a very efficient way to keep costs down and reach a large amount of students. Problem is, his online courses are more expensive than on campus college courses at the same college. Contradicts that theory, doesn't it? (Fortunately my husband's employer picks up most of the tab.)
In addition it doesn't seem like the professors appreciate that online students are generally "non-traditional" students. If my husband could sit in a classroom all day with a bunch of twenty somethings, he could have just taken "normal" college courses. Instead he works long and odd hours and has a family he wants to spend time with. The time spent driving back and forth to a campus could be time spent with his kids.
Nevertheless, the majority of his professors set the same deadlines for the online students as the campus students. There are a few professors who understand the dynamics of online students, they're the ones who hand out weekly assignments. If a packet's handed out on Monday and due Sunday at midnight, it levels the playing field.

So, theoretically I agree with you, in practice the academic world has a long way to go before it'll work.
I also have three teenage sons, the oldest is a sophomore in highschool this year. We've talked about his college options, not going isn't an option. While their dad managed to work his way up the ladder in the company he started working for when he was 19, that's not something we want our kids to count on. My oldest son will likely join the military to get a college education, same thing for my middle son, the youngest has a very high IQ and at 13 already has some highschool credits. He should be able to get a scholarship anywhere he wants to go. We've made it very clear to our kids that going deeply into debt to obtain a degree isn't a smart choice.

I disagree. There are plenty of good options out there besides Harvard. It's unrealistic for every kid in america to strive to attend a school that probably takes in a couple thousand kids or less into its inaugural class each year.

What about the UC system, U Michigan, UNC, UVa, or even good ol' U Florida :P There are number of public "ivys" that provide a great education at a good price to a large number of students.

That is exactly what I'm getting at. The colleges subsidize other programs by jacking up the tuition rates for online courses. How can it possibly cost more for me to not occupy a room, consume fewer instructor hours, not use facilities (bathroom, libraries, drinking fountains...), not heat a room, not light a room, etc...

Established schools are a force of nature, and I don't think they have any motivation to change they way they educate. It will take entirely new schools and new ways of thinking for more efficient environments for learning to pop up.

Probably wise teaching. As much as I hate school, it could be a wise investment to go deeply in debt to attend a prestigious school for someone that has a specific career field in mind, and the ability to excel.

College tuition costs have even outpaced healthcare costs over the last decade :shake:

When Will The College Tuition Bubble Burst? [consumerist.com]

The private tuition bubble cannot burst as long as the government irrationally seeks to expand enrollment in college and continues to fuel it with taxpayer $.

Obama's new GI bill [sunshinestatenews.com] will also increase demand for enrollment.

So very true, I actually told my children this about college and my son at 23 has a good job and no debt whatsoever. None. Benefits galore, decent pay and no college degree.

You are probably right, your time would be better spent on improving your company. It sounds like it is doing so well, great job.

My son is 23 and he is doing well with no college whatsoever. I actually didn't want him to go, because of the debt and I didn't think he would be any better off. He is very determined and hard working, as you seem to be as well. He did think about college but decided he didn't want to waste 4 years, he saw it as a pause in his life.

I told him on the day he turned 18, now you can tell me to go fly a kite. Isn't that great? ;) I don't want him spending any time whatsoever doing what I want him to do. He calls me and updates me on what is going on with his life...but that is what it is, his life. I hope I made sense. Go get em (sounds like you already are).