[besson3c]

I think I know the answer to this, but I guess I might be surprised...

What do you conservatives think of federal student loans?

[The Godfather]

That they are a government subsidy of ever more expensive "educational institutions" that pollute the minds of young adults with socialist ideals.

That if there were no such loans, US higher education would be optimized to what we can pay and get everything we need to get a job and grow the economy: tech degrees for the middle class and law degrees for the ruling class. The high tech job market would surely be filled by non-voting H1Bs from india, china and colombia. Just like Reagan wanted it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Well considering you can't default on them, the taxpayers will get their money back eventually. I don't think any private institution would have taken the risk of lending to students. And corporate america has shown they're not willing to invest anything in their workers.

[The Godfather]

There's no such thing as an uncollateraled debt you can't default.

[besson3c]

Is it just me, or are federal student loans rarely the target of conservative rhetoric about socialism and government size?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

There's no such thing as an uncollateraled debt you can't default.

Check on it. Not even bankruptcy can get rid of Fed Student loans. I guess death may do it but they get probably get first shot at the estate.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it just me, or are federal student loans rarely the target of conservative rhetoric about socialism and government size?

That's just you.

Federal Student loans are THE REASON why college cost has gone up so much, much more than inflation. It's the same as ANYTHING where government provides free money for: COST GO UP !!! (Same will happen with health care cost under Obama Care, unlike what everyone's being told).

Watch this, starting at 1:10 for the argument in a nutshell.

Neal McCluskey on How Student Loans Drive Up Tuition | Education News

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

There's no such thing as an uncollateraled debt you can't default.

Wrong, see BLAZE_MkIV post.

Federal Student loans (at current law) can NOT be expunged ever.

-t

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

That they are a government subsidy of ever more expensive "educational institutions" that pollute the minds of young adults with socialist ideals.
.

Yup.

They have inflated the cost of college artificially, and they subsidize (or almost require) mediocrity. The idea that everyone "needs" to go to college is insane, and this is just another part of the insanity.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

If you want into business / tech / medical you need college. If you want trade or unskilled (fries anyone) then you don't need college. There are trade schools / apprentice programs instead of college. The root cause of the disproportionate rise in college prices is wage stagnation and the low inflation caused by the foreign trade imbalance. Both of which are caused by overly business friendly / worker unfriendly government.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

If you want into business / tech / medical you need college. If you want trade or unskilled (fries anyone) then you don't need college. There are trade schools / apprentice programs instead of college. The root cause of the disproportionate rise in college prices is wage stagnation and the low inflation caused by the foreign trade imbalance. Both of which are caused by overly business friendly / worker unfriendly government.

Are you really saying that the solution is that the middle class finds a decent wage in a burguer flipper job?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Yes.

Unfortunately the way things are you can't get a decent wage flipping burgers. You should. Take the auto workers as a classic example. Their original wage contracts had mandatory inflation matching and "suddenly" now they're overpaid, unreasonable, dragging down the entire country. Meanwhile health care costs are skyrocketing as lawyers and insurance agencies happily participate in a positive feedback loop. I personally know several teachers who work full time and are on food stamps. "No child left behind" is forcing lowest common denominator class that is sacrificing generations of the best and brightest for the sake of the physically incapable. H1Bs visa rates keep going up even though there's large scale unemployment. The average political campaign spends more money than the GNP of some countries. Comcast and RIAA just put in place an corporate court were you're guilty before proven innocent, and if you can't afford it a lawyer one will not be provided for you. Congress passed a law letting a citizen be arrested and held indefinitely, without charge, without trial. The NSA listens to / reads everything that goes across the internet. You can't grow corn anymore unless its GM because all the non-GM stocks have been cross fertilized and therefore patented. The US wheat subsidies are greater than the annual deficit. NAFTA and the farm subsidies wiped out agriculture in Mexico. Our government sold weapons they don't want us to have to the criminals poised to destabilize the mexican gov. The livestock in the US is infected with antibiotic resistant superbugs. The honey bee is on its way to extinction. The FDA thinks its ok to feed ammonia to children. In a post cold war political climate we continue to give huge sums of money to dictatorships and oligarchies. Our soldiers die defending the poppy fields of Afghanistan. We are still recovering from a recession and the people who knowingly caused it made millions and are still there waiting to do it again.

TL;DR
Student loan subsidies are the least of my concerns.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yup.

They have inflated the cost of college artificially, and they subsidize (or almost require) mediocrity. The idea that everyone "needs" to go to college is insane, and this is just another part of the insanity.

This isn't the idea, I think this is a straw man.

The idea is that everybody who is in a field that conventionally involves a college/university degree should be able to find a way to get into college/university so long as they are willing to do the work and have the drive to succeed in post secondary education and beyond.

This isn't a moral thing, this is economics. Those with higher ed degrees are statistically more likely to contribute more to the economy, to create jobs, to grow the GDP, etc. Therefore, at some point it makes sense to look at getting the aforementioned population through college/university as an investment, not a handout put in place for moral reasons.

I haven't made up my mind as to how this should be best balanced between the public and private sector if at all, but I also don't understand why the big banks would be interested in taking on student loan debt when they can focus on higher interest credit card debt? I'm assuming that we can all agree that putting student loans on credit card-like interest rates would be disastrous?

[ghporter]

In my experience, loans and grants are overused, with fewer opportunities for work-study and related ways to make money to pay for school while still going to school. Loans have not been the cause for increased costs, it's increasing use (and sometimes inappropriate use) of technology, building fabulous new facilities for programs that could easily be managed with basic lecture halls, and introducing cutting edge equipment and tech in places that supposedly teach students introductory subjects. It's not about the outcome (graduates prepared in their fields), it's about schools competing for grant money, which is about prestige, faculty publication rates, and even football programs. A school here in San Antonio, the University of Texas at San Antonio, recently added a football program because it was a means to get more funding for other programs. Yeah, trying to figure that out makes my head hurt too...

I had a total of ONE student loan, for a total of $4,000. It took way too long to pay that puppy off, not because I had cashflow problems, but because the terms for repayment are built around keeping the graduate on the hook for years. I spent a lot more than that on tuition, fees and books out of pocket in my academic adventures, in part because I was also working (my @$$ off) the whole time, and couldn't "just" go to school full time.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Federal Student loans (at current law) can NOT be expunged ever.

And that should be told to all the people Obama has spurred to take huge student loans in recent times by promising he would enact student debt forgiveness.

The student loan bubble, which has greatly inflated college costs, would be the next debt crisis if not for the federal debt crisis that looms. Government disrupts and distorts every market it attempts to actively intervene in.

[turtle777]

Student loans are the prime tool to create a new class of serfs.
Even if you eventually find a decent jobs, you'll be a debt slave for a long time.

Welcome to the land of the free

-t

[Big Mac]

Am I correct in my understanding that the rest of the West has generous public funding of higher education but with the serious tradeoff of limiting it to the most highly competitive students-that if you don't do well in your high school exit exams you're stuck in a trade?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Am I correct in my understanding that the rest of the West has generous public funding of higher education but with the serious tradeoff of limiting it to the most highly competitive students-that if you don't do well in your high school exit exams you're stuck in a trade?

No, that's not correct for a number of Western countries (for Germany, Denmark and France, at least).
In Germany, you need to show that your parents' income is below a certain threshold to qualify. The exact amount you get may vary according to how many dependent children they have, for instance. If you want to study abroad, you may apply for additional funds where the income limits may be higher, so even if you don't qualify for support to study at home, you may qualify for support for your semester abroad. But the aid does not depend on your grades (although you must pass certain exams after three years or so, I think). The amount you have to pay back may be reduced if you are (i) a good student and/or (ii) you graduate on time. The problem is that state support may be lower than social welfare depending on where you live since student aid is a federal program and thus pays the same everywhere, but social welfare takes the actual costs of living into account. Needless to say that most good universities are located in expensive cities.

Although universities are no longer free (you may have to pay up to 500 €/semester in tuition fees; the upper bound is set by each of the 16 states individually and universities may set their tuition fees anywhere from 0 to the maximum amount), they are still pretty cheap.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Student loans are the prime tool to create a new class of serfs.
Even if you eventually find a decent jobs, you'll be a debt slave for a long time.

Welcome to the land of the free

-t

That's a little dramatic, don't you think?

How do you propose that most people pay for their college education?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a little dramatic, don't you think?

He's not entirely incorrect. The system as it stands today, sucks. To get a good job you need an education. To get a good education you need either a scholarship, rich parents, or to take out some loans.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you propose that most people pay for their college education?

That's the right question. Should be an interesting response. I think the answer will settle somewhere around "people think they're entitled to get an education when they're not" and "too many dumb people are wasting their time and money in college".

I also question how much student loans really are affecting tuition rates. I suspect the rate of tuition increase doesn't match the increase in student loan funding available equally.

[andi*pandi]

I had a student loan. I paid it off with interest. No problem. ???

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He's not entirely incorrect. The system as it stands today, sucks. To get a good job you need an education. To get a good education you need either a scholarship, rich parents, or to take out some loans.

And those student loans are usually at manageable interest rates, and do not hurt credit scores or the ability to take out a mortgage or whatever.

I agree that college/university is becoming very expensive particularly for non-state universities, and I'm sure those costs can be controlled better, but I don't see a way to do this without involving some loans since even in a best case scenario 4 years of college/university is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars, and most people don't have this sort of money lying around to pay for school out-of-pocket.

That's the right question. Should be an interesting response. I think the answer will settle somewhere around "people think they're entitled to get an education when they're not" and "too many dumb people are wasting their time and money in college".

I also question how much student loans really are affecting tuition rates. I suspect the rate of tuition increase doesn't match the increase in student loan funding available equally.

Tuition rates are pretty complex, I think.

Different universities rely on different funding sources. For some universities it is research/grant money, for others it is athletics, for others it is tuition. There are state and private universities, and the location of the university affects tuition rates as well. Some depend on a high volume of students being enrolled, others not so much.

I don't buy the notion that all universities raise tuition endlessly because of the availability of student loans. Some universities can do this, others can only do this to a point depending on who they are trying to attract, particularly the ones that rely on volume.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you propose that most people pay for their college education?

That's the wrong question. Paying high prices, enabled by student loans, will not fix the system.
In order to "fix the system" (i.e., force colleges to become more competitive and stop wasting money), loans need to die. Then people will only pay what they can really afford, so colleges need to adjust accordingly.
Why the hell do we not see ANY freaking benefit from internet and technology on the prices of college education ? (Answer: because there was no need for the colleges to pass on the benefits, or even implement them.)

Short-term remedy:

* Community college (much cheaper)
* Study in Europe - England for English only speaking students, Germany for those who are able to acquire a second language

If I had kids, I would make sure they learn German int ime. In Germany, Universities cost max. $1,000 per semester.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Then people will only pay what they can really afford, so colleges need to adjust accordingly.

In the meantime, only the children of well-off parents will be able to afford getting an education. I'm sure that'll be great for everyone involved.

So, does anyone have any fancy graphs about all these loan and rate increases? My google-fu doesn't even know where to start.

Edit: I will say one thing. At this point, I really don't think a college degree is worth anything more than what a high-school diploma was with 50-60 years ago. Only now you get to go thousands of dollars into debt for it.

[andi*pandi]

MIT has put courses up online for free. Free Online Course Materials | MIT OpenCourseWare

however not sure you can get credits etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's the wrong question. Paying high prices, enabled by student loans, will not fix the system.
In order to "fix the system" (i.e., force colleges to become more competitive and stop wasting money), loans need to die. Then people will only pay what they can really afford, so colleges need to adjust accordingly.
Why the hell do we not see ANY freaking benefit from internet and technology on the prices of college education ? (Answer: because there was no need for the colleges to pass on the benefits, or even implement them.)

Because most e-learning systems completely suck. We are still sorting out how to best do e-learning.

Let's say that a student has $5000 saved up for college. Now what? How does a student get through 4 years of college with $5000 and no loans?

If I had kids, I would make sure they learn German int ime. In Germany, Universities cost max. $1,000 per semester.

What is the average teacher salary, in US dollars?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Edit: I will say one thing. At this point, I really don't think a college degree is worth anything more than what a high-school diploma was with 50-60 years ago. Only now you get to go thousands of dollars into debt for it.

I agree, although for some people college is where critical thinking skills are developed, others not so much... And, of course, many employers require a college degree before HR will give you the proper look over.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree, although for some people college is where critical thinking skills are developed,

Is that a euphemism for liberal indoctrination? I think it is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's the wrong question. Paying high prices, enabled by student loans, will not fix the system.
In order to "fix the system" (i.e., force colleges to become more competitive and stop wasting money), loans need to die. Then people will only pay what they can really afford, so colleges need to adjust accordingly.

It's just that a good higher education really is expensive. I heard that a student of engineering at my alma mater (Technical University Munich) costs 28,000 €/year. That's comparable to the tuition fees at many US universities. Obviously, some majors will be more expensive than others, and some fields are able to tap into corporate money (Siemens and BMW have sponsored whole buildings for very good reasons …).

No matter which system you use, good education will be expensive and needs to be paid through taxes, tuition fees or a combination of both. And if you don't want to cripple your first-world economy, you need to ensure that there are sufficiently many well-educated people.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because most e-learning systems completely suck. We are still sorting out how to best do e-learning.

Why do you suppose this is ? Can't be the technology.
It's colleges and universities not being interested in developing and offering cheap, online alternatives.

Btw, it's just not true that they all suck.
There are some really good distance education programs. The problem is that they don't need to compete on price too hard, because the general price level of education is so jacked up.

Take the Open University in the UK, one of the invetnors of distance education. Their programs and trainign materials are excellent, they offer local support and study groups all over Europe.

Originally Posted by Wiki

[The] typical cost for United Kingdom based students of a Bachelor's honours degree at the OU was between £3,780 and £5,130

Post-grad degrees are between £3,000 - £16,000.
(What you can expect to pay | Study Explained | Open University)

There ARE alternatives, one has to be willing to consider it.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's just that a good higher education really is expensive. I heard that a student of engineering at my alma mater (Technical University Munich) costs 28,000 €/year.

I'm calling this claim BS. Absolute BS.

Sure, if you want to live in Schwabing, be part of the Schickeria and own a Z4 while being a student, it'll cost you that much.

The ACTUAL cost of the TU is EUR 585 per semester.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is that a euphemism for liberal indoctrination? I think it is.

You are the quickest witted MacNN member, there is no denying that!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm calling this claim BS. Absolute BS.

That figure has nothing to do with the cost of studying per year for the student, but for the university: so no matter if the student lives in Schwabing and drives a beamer or if he walks from his apartment in Hasenbergl, the costs to the university are all the same.

The reason I know this figure is that at the time, my PhD supervisor was also dean and had frequent dealings with the president. During a meeting of the presidents of the Bavarian universities and colleges (Fachhochschulen) with the Bavarian minister of education while haggling over how to distribute money this figure was mentioned by TUM's president. My PhD supervisor was also present, so I trust the source.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The ACTUAL cost of the TU is EUR 585 per semster.

That's a bizarre argument. 585 € are just 500 € tuition fees + »Verwaltungskosten« (unless the amounts have changed ever since I was there), not the actual costs of an engineering student to the university. The actual costs to the university are much higher.

Come on, it's economy 101: if it costs a five-digit amount per year and student, the costs need to be covered one way or the other. Whether the individual bears the cost or the community doesn't matter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why do you suppose this is ? Can't be the technology.
It's colleges and universities not being interested in developing and offering cheap, online alternatives.

Btw, it's just not true that they all suck.
There are some really good distance education programs. The problem is that they don't need to compete on price too hard, because the general price level of education is so jacked up.

Take the Open University in the UK, one of the invetnors of distance education. Their programs and trainign materials are excellent, they offer local support and study groups all over Europe.



Post-grad degrees are between £3,000 - £16,000.
(What you can expect to pay | Study Explained | Open University)

There ARE alternatives, one has to be willing to consider it.

-t

I think you ought to consider the notion that maybe you are over-simplifying things.

There have been lots of administrators talking about distance/e-learning for years and years, there has been a lot of research and planning put into this. It needs more than a magic wand to deal with the obstacles and burdens that are involved. This article is a little out of date, but it provides a taste of what sort of issues there are:

Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities

How about cheating and test taking? What if a student claims that their computer stopped working during the timed test? What about students that have difficulty with the "show your work" part of math tests which may involve drawing diagrams and various symbols?

Please don't debate these points one by one, I'm simply listing these and providing a link to this article to make you consider that many universities are not equipped to offer e-learning in an effective way, or else they would probably already be doing it and accepting people's money.

Perhaps the whole e-textbook thing will help make inroads in distance/e-learning. I'm not against distance learning at all, although I have heard many reports that with various attempts and pilot programs and stuff that many of the courses do suck, so my point is that it may not be there yet enough to scale across the entire country.

[andi*pandi]

I took a bunch of classes at Harvard and it had an online option. Homework was submitted digitally, lectures were up as videos, notes were provided as a webpage/pdf download, there were online communities where students could discuss projects and work together when allowed. Cheap? No. Each class was about $1500.

Worth it? Yes. (My employer reimbursed me since they were work-related)

[The Final Dakar]

Arguably you're paying for the name there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you ought to consider the notion that maybe you are over-simplifying things.

How so ?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There have been lots of administrators talking about distance/e-learning for years and years, there has been a lot of research and planning put into this. It needs more than a magic wand to deal with the obstacles and burdens that are involved. This article is a little out of date, but it provides a taste of what sort of issues there are.

Irrelevant. It's BEING done in the UK, economically, and at a VERY high quality level.
Don't tell me it can't be done here.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How about cheating and test taking? What if a student claims that their computer stopped working during the timed test? What about students that have difficulty with the "show your work" part of math tests which may involve drawing diagrams and various symbols?

Test Centers (run by independent 3rd party providers) DO already exist in the US, and are used ALL the time to sit for tests for all kinds of certifications (e.g. CPAs...)

(e.g. Prometric Services: Testing and Assessment)

By the way, there is really a very low level way to fix this, and that's what the OU does in Europe.
They offer one test date every 3 months (or so), rent out a big room in schools or public buildings all over the country, send a test administrator with all the materials, and you sit and take your test. Works like a charm.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please don't debate these points one by one, I'm simply listing these and providing a link to this article to make you consider that many universities are not equipped to offer e-learning in an effective way, or else they would probably already be doing it and accepting people's money.

So instead of addressing it one by one, you just want me to single-handidly dismiss it ?

-t

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I took a bunch of classes at Harvard and it had an online option. Homework was submitted digitally, lectures were up as videos, notes were provided as a webpage/pdf download, there were online communities where students could discuss projects and work together when allowed. Cheap? No. Each class was about $1500.

Worth it? Yes. (My employer reimbursed me since they were work-related)

Maybe the costs will lower as time progresses and the schools figure out ways to reduce their administrative overheads enough to accept more students, which would probably be a byproduct of lower costs.

What year did you take this course, just out of curiosity?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a bizarre argument. 585 € are just 500 € tuition fees + »Verwaltungskosten« (unless the amounts have changed ever since I was there), not the actual costs of an engineering student to the university. The actual costs to the university are much higher.

Uhm, yeah, we DID discuss the cost for the students, not the cost to society. Please mind the context.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The actual costs to the university are much higher.

Come on, it's economy 101: if it costs a five-digit amount per year and student, the costs need to be covered one way or the other. Whether the individual bears the cost or the community doesn't matter.

I accept that there is a need for a Cadillac version of University education that will be more expensive.

But generally (if you get the government out of the way), college education for the average Joe can be provided at a much lower cost. See Example Open University.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How so ?



Irrelevant. It's BEING done in the UK, economically, and at a VERY high quality level.
Don't tell me it can't be done here.



Test Centers (run by independent 3rd party providers) DO already exist in the US, and are used ALL the time to sit for tests for all kinds of certifications (e.g. CPAs...)

(e.g. Prometric Services: Testing and Assessment)

By the way, there is really a very low level way to fix this, and that's what the OU does in Europe.
They offer one test date every 3 months (or so), rent out a big room in schools or public buildings all over the country, send a test administrator with all the materials, and you sit and take your test. Works like a charm.



So instead of addressing it one by one, you just want me to single-handidly dismiss it ?

-t

-t

I'll simplify my point to say that yes it can be done, but there are obstacles which need to be addressed before this can scale nationally.

I also agree that this would be a great way to provide lower cost educational opportunities, when/if these courses can be offered to the masses at prices lower than the individual class cost included in a tuition. I think we'll get there, I just don't know exactly where we are now.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'll simplify my point to say that yes it can be done, but there are obstacles which need to be addressed before this can scale nationally.

I also agree that this would be a great way to provide lower cost educational opportunities, when/if these courses can be offered to the masses at prices lower than the individual class cost included in a tuition. I think we'll get there, I just don't know exactly where we are now.

You CAN already enroll in the OU even if you live in the US, but AFAIK, you won't get the full support structure (yet).

Study at the OU - USA

To me, it seems like something that can be EASILY extended if the US really wanted it. It's just a matter of a little public funding to "prime the pump". I'd rather see me tax dollars go towards that, than feeding "fat cat" universities from the US.

Small steps are being taken already: BBC News - Open University to get US funding

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But generally (if you get the government out of the way), college education for the average Joe can be provided at a much lower cost. See Example Open University.

-t

From the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Un...l_assistance):

61,787 students received financial assistance towards their study in 2009–10 and the typical cost for United Kingdom based students of a Bachelor's honours degree at the OU was between £3,780 and £5,130. From September 2012 the Government will be reducing its funding for all students residing in England, English students will for the first time pay higher fees than those living the rest of the United Kingdom. The average cost of one full time year or 120 credits will rise to £5,000, bringing the cost of an average Bachelor's honours degree for an English student to £15,000. (European Union and international students pay more as the University does not receive government funding for them).[12] After government support, the second most important revenue stream to The Open University is academic fees paid by the students, which totalled about £157 million in 2009–2010.[12]

I'm unclear whether the 3780-5130 is per year, or per program, and how many years a program is. I also don't know what the costs are to non-UK students.

I'm not arguing with you, just adding this here for reference.

[turtle777]

I don't know the details, as it is different for every degree and depends on multiple factors.
You can price it out in detail on the OU website.

The point is, the cost is a FRACTION of the US college cost, even if you take out government funding.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, yeah, we DID discuss the cost for the students, not the cost to society. Please mind the context.

You're missing the point: we're talking about the subject of federal student loans. Student loans (federal or not) are necessary in the US to pay for university education, and you claimed that eliminating student loans would help drive down the cost per student to the university. Since most US universities are private, lower cost per student for the university would mean lower tuition fees.

So yes, my argument is absolutely relevant: the university needs to cover its costs per students. Whether it receives the money primarily from the government (e. g. state government) or from the students via tuition fees doesn't matter. I'm saying that the costs per students are comparable between the US and Germany (comparing tuition fees to cost per student) and that sending your kids to Germany would be good for you, but then German taxpayers would have to pay for you children's education.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I accept that there is a need for a Cadillac version of University education that will be more expensive.

Last time I checked, Cadilac's weren't that great. BMWs, on the other hand, are awesome. Quite a few are built in Munich, engineered by alumni of TUM

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But generally (if you get the government out of the way), college education for the average Joe can be provided at a much lower cost.

That's just an empty claim.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

See Example Open University.

There are also state-financed open universities (e. g. Fernuniversität Hagen in Germany), so it's not really an example that privately operated universities are cheaper, just that open universities are cheaper. (Not to mention that there is a host of subjects you cannot study at an open university, but I digress.)

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the costs will lower as time progresses and the schools figure out ways to reduce their administrative overheads enough to accept more students, which would probably be a byproduct of lower costs.

What year did you take this course, just out of curiosity?

I took night classes 2004-2009 and got a certificate degree. I should note that this was Harvard EXTENSION, not quite the same cache, as they take anyone whose money is good. There is no application process.

[OAW]

Has anyone considered the possibility (in fact, the very distinct probability) that tuition rates are increasing much faster than inflation not because of the use of student loans but simply because the colleges can? A college education, like healthcare, is a very inelastic commodity. Colleges and universities know full well that they are the only game in town when it comes to earning a decent salary ... because our economy has been outsourcing good paying jobs that don't require a college education overseas in order to take advantage of cheaper labor sources. So prices continue to rise unabated because the demand for a college education is still there regardless. Consequently, the increasing use of student loans becomes a necessity ... because a college education is often utterly unaffordable otherwise.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Has anyone considered the possibility (in fact, the very distinct probability) that tuition rates are increasing much faster than inflation not because of the use of student loans but simply because the colleges can? A college education, like healthcare, is a very inelastic commodity.

You fail to see the connection.

Why "can" they just increase rates w/o adverse effects ?
Because any price asked is being paid. And that's due to student loans.

Same, btw, is true for health care. The prices go up exactly BECAUSE there is an (almost) unlimited pot of money. Amazing how people don't understand that simple aspect of basic economics.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Same, btw, is true for health care. The prices go up exactly BECAUSE there is an (almost) unlimited pot of money. Amazing how people don't understand that simple aspect of basic economics.

-t

So then why aren't cost controls in the discussion? After all, Canada's health care system is not in the private sector, yet it costs much less to run than the American system.

[Athens]

I think the value of higher education is over stated, because a lot of companies prefer to train people to what they need. Some jobs like being a Doctor obviously require higher education. But a lot of people get degrees in the arts and other areas or in business that do little for jobs. Just having a degree in something does not help.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I think the value of higher education is over stated, because a lot of companies prefer to train people to what they need. Some jobs like being a Doctor obviously require higher education. But a lot of people get degrees in the arts and other areas or in business that do little for jobs. Just having a degree in something does not help.

Only if you are operating under the pretense that a degree = a particular job, which is absolutely not the basis of a liberal arts education and never has been. That it is is a myth perpetuated by unknown origins.