Government and Higher Education

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t go to college… Just they should not go at 18 with someone else paying for it. I think everyone should continue their education if so desired. They should just pay for it. And if the cost needs to be shared, let’s do it through the private sector. Not via taxpayers.

Bismark, there are TONS of big companies that offer education incentive programs. Many even offer these services to part time employers. Like Fed Ex.

22

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t go to college… Just they should not go at 18 with someone else paying for it. I think everyone should continue their education if so desired. They should just pay for it. And if the cost needs to be shared, let’s do it through the private sector. Not via taxpayers.

Bismark, there are TONS of big companies that offer education incentive programs. Many even offer these services to part time employers. Like Fed Ex.
[/quote]

Grants are marginal. The vast majority of “subsidized” education consists of loans, which the borrower must repay. The government isn’t paying for students’ education. It’s merely fronting the funds to the universities.

And they pay the funds for full time enrollment? Are they are capable of hiring every potential student that doesn’t possess the wherewithal to pay the costs up front?

Have you seen the interest rates that the private sector attaches to student loans? It’s nothing short of usury. The result is less net wealth for the indebted, which leads to less consumption, which leads to contracted GDP. Education is the engine of a dynamic economy, which is the foundation of American power. Ergo, it’s in te national interest for the state to take a deep interest in the education of its citizens. Don’t like it? Send your kids to privates schools for an arm and a leg.

25

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t go to college… Just they should not go at 18 with someone else paying for it. I think everyone should continue their education if so desired. They should just pay for it. And if the cost needs to be shared, let’s do it through the private sector. Not via taxpayers.

Bismark, there are TONS of big companies that offer education incentive programs. Many even offer these services to part time employers. Like Fed Ex.
[/quote]

Grants are marginal. The vast majority of “subsidized” education consists of loans, which the borrower must repay. The government isn’t paying for students’ education. It’s merely fronting the funds to the universities.

And they pay the funds for full time enrollment? Are they are capable of hiring every potential student that doesn’t possess the wherewithal to pay the costs up front?

Have you seen the interest rates that the private sector attaches to student loans? It’s nothing short of usury. The result is less net wealth for the indebted, which leads to less consumption, which leads to contracted GDP. Education is the engine of a dynamic economy, which is the foundation of American power. Ergo, it’s in te national interest for the state to take a deep interest in the education of its citizens. Don’t like it? Send your kids to privates schools for an arm and a leg. [/quote]

Are you comfortable with the current level of student loan debt?

Do you know why the rates are higher with private loans? Uh, default rate have anything to do with it? These kids are making decisions they cannot financially afford!

If these Fed loans could be included in a Chapter 7, do u think this would influence rates?? Hmmmmm?

26

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What would president Push do?
[/quote]

End all government education loans and grants.[/quote]

Discuss Push’s position. What would the costs and / or benefits of such a course of action be?

I believe that such a policy would severely degrade the American and international economy and lead to a long term decline in America’s relative power. American universities are bar none the best in the world and our among the nation’s greatest national assets. The American economy is heavily oriented to the service sector, which requires employees to possess a degree of human capital that is only attainable through the training provided by universities and colleges. Frantically reducing Americans access to such institutions would certainly lead to a prolonged and severe recession, and most likely an outright depression. Curtailing government sponsored research and development - the catalyst for the vast and cutting edge scientific achievements of the American people - would sharply reduce domestic prosperity and national security. [/quote]

Before answer I would first want to know how much government loans and grants inflate the cost of education?

I don’t think it would necessarily degrade the U.S. or global economy as long as a market correction occurs resulting in lower education costs. That coupled with increased efforts to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. primarily through reductions in regulation and definitely a reduction the corporate tax rate would, imo, strengthen the economy.

I personally think higher education needs a complete overhaul. The 4 year undergraduate system is both flawed and inefficient. No to mention higher education is quite wasteful.

27

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

They do not need to save every penny they’ll need for an entire 4 year program. Student can work through school. I worked 40+ hours through my freshman and sophomore years. It isn’t that big a deal.

More people can and probably should go to community college first anyway.

28

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The state isn’t coercing citizens to work in one field or another. It simply incentivized students (often by paying for their education and offering a guaranteed job upon graduation) to study fields that are critical to the national interest in exchange for public service. The government already does this.

I have been nothing but a champion of free-market capitalism and American power in this forum, so I don’t appreciate the half-baked insinuation that I hold communist sympathies. I’m no less of an American for my views on this issue, especially given my field of study and peripheral relationship with the policy-making community. [/quote]

Incentivizing students to work in a particular field for the “national interest,” is not championing the free market. I know we do it now. We do a lot of idiotic shit right now, which is the precisely why the cost of college has continued to grow. The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.

Freedom > Equality

29

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

They do not need to save every penny they’ll need for an entire 4 year program. Student can work through school. I worked 40+ hours through my freshman and sophomore years. It isn’t that big a deal.

More people can and probably should go to community college first anyway. [/quote]

As did I, and 80 hour+ summers. Still not possible for a student going to an affordable state school in an inexpensive city to pay out of pocket.

30

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

They do not need to save every penny they’ll need for an entire 4 year program. Student can work through school. I worked 40+ hours through my freshman and sophomore years. It isn’t that big a deal.

More people can and probably should go to community college first anyway. [/quote]

As did I, and 80 hour+ summers. Still not possible for a student going to an affordable state school in an inexpensive city to pay out of pocket. [/quote]
Non-sense.

31

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

They do not need to save every penny they’ll need for an entire 4 year program. Student can work through school. I worked 40+ hours through my freshman and sophomore years. It isn’t that big a deal.

More people can and probably should go to community college first anyway. [/quote]

As did I, and 80 hour+ summers. Still not possible for a student going to an affordable state school in an inexpensive city to pay out of pocket. [/quote]
Non-sense.[/quote]

I thought you were an accountant? You think $20,000 + of expenses a year for 4 years is realistic for a full time student to swing, while excelling academically?

33

If you are struggling, why would you pay for 4 years at s university? Your first two years should be at a community college. They are not entitled to a higher education.

And if they can only afford one class a semester, so be it. Maybe it will take 6-8 years for a degree.

And why don’t they join the service if money if an issue??

See, they have the ABILITY to go to school and finance it, it’s just they want it on their terms.

34

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So…

Young people without the access/means would be forced into working force as they save up for their education. And thus filling a void in the labor pool that we currently have (18 year olds with no exp).

Maybe they will be more judicious in what they study when they are actually paying for it.

I say encourage more employee based tuition-reimbursement programs. [/quote]

Yes, because it’s entirely viable for someone with a high school education to save 50,000 dollars before they begin their studies.

How many jobs that require only a high school education offer tuition reimbursement? [/quote]

They do not need to save every penny they’ll need for an entire 4 year program. Student can work through school. I worked 40+ hours through my freshman and sophomore years. It isn’t that big a deal.

More people can and probably should go to community college first anyway. [/quote]

As did I, and 80 hour+ summers. Still not possible for a student going to an affordable state school in an inexpensive city to pay out of pocket. [/quote]
Non-sense.[/quote]

I thought you were an accountant?
[/quote]

That’s cute.

You’re missing the point. As Push said, tuition costs would go down if higher education wasn’t subsidized by the government.

There are also a number of other options. Go to community college for 2 years that’ll save you tens of thousands of dollars alone. Utilize employer programs (for example the company I work for reimburses up to $5K a year). Enter the work force for a few years and save for college. Take out a personal loan. Etc…

$20K + expenses and academic excellence is realistic anyway. It would not be easy (depends on where you go and live really) and most shouldn’t try it, but higher education isn’t for everyone anyway.

35

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
If you are struggling, why would you pay for 4 years at s university? Your first two years should be at a community college. They are not entitled to a higher education.

And if they can only afford one class a semester, so be it. Maybe it will take 6-8 years for a degree.

And why don’t they join the service if money if an issue??

See, they have the ABILITY to go to school and finance it, it’s just they want it on their terms. [/quote]

Exactly. What are we teaching college aged adults, and I use the term loosely, about life when we subsidize their continued education? 18 credits a semester, which was the max where I went to undergrad, is a joke.

36

I agree with usmcc (and others) on this. I’ll also throw out that some people aren’t meant for 4 year higher education, and there is nothing wrong with that. As a society we have made college a requirement to be seen as a successful young adult when there are other viable options.

As mentioned, community college is an option, but trade school and work experience can be as well. Not everybody is an engineer/lawyer/doctor. You can make great money as a plumber, electrician, welder, rig operator etc. I have met a ton of people that aren’t critical thinkers, but they work hard and make good money for their work.

37

AGreed with above statements. Just giving them a “Free” (Taxpayer paid) education teaches them nothing on things that actually matter. Like how to have a work ethic or morals or learn something about themselves. I went to 1 year of private schooling didn’t go back because I had no idea what I wanted so I started working went through 8 jobs in one year trying to find a job I could buy a house with. Finally ended up at a manufacturing plant, worked my ass off to get to the office position I have now, without a degree.

There are companies that pay for education that only require a high school diploma I work for one. I think many manufacturing companies do this because they want to promote from the inside and keep their talent.

Why would we as taxpayers the ones that will foot the bill for all these college age “adults” who literally know nothing on how the world works, yes some may have some real life experience but nothing near what you’ll learn your 1st couple years of living on your own and earning/paying your own way, want to agree to this?

38

[quote]Bismark wrote:
You think $20,000 + of expenses a year for 4 years is realistic [/quote]

No, not at all.

I went to college for more than 6, have a bunch of degrees and graduated with less than 30k in loans.

My parents didn’t pay for a single class either… So no, 20k a year for 4 years isn’t realistic.

39

The U.S. Department of Education is forecast to generate $127 billion in profit over the next decade from lending to college students and their families, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

What a scam, the government fleecing young people in the name of education.

40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
You think $20,000 + of expenses a year for 4 years is realistic [/quote]

No, not at all.

I went to college for more than 6, have a bunch of degrees and graduated with less than 30k in loans.

My parents didn’t pay for a single class either… So no, 20k a year for 4 years isn’t realistic. [/quote]

I paid over 26,000 in rent alone over the course of my undergraduate. Tuition and fees equated to over a years rent each semester.