Seriously?

[cowboy]

As conservative as I am, I will be the first to admit that this country is better off with more college educated people than with less. Further, the cost of a college education isn't that onerous. My in-laws have seven kids with degrees, including two surgeons (one who attended Johns Hopkins,) and they didn't give any of their kids a dime for college.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5396929

Ever wonder why the cost of tuition has increased far more than inflation over the past 30 years? Or why it continues to increase? Given that innovation tends to make goods and services cheaper, this doesn't make sense, and whenever costs increase as much as tuition has, there's usually a reason: it's being subsidized by the government. That's what's happened with tuition, too.

As explained in the below post, the federal government guarantees student loans. This incentivizes lenders to lend who otherwise would not. Lenders don't worry about whether lending to students is a good investment, and they don't charge an interest rate that accurately reflects the speculative nature of the investment, which might otherwise drive kids away.

This practice allows tuition to increase, because much more money is available. If colleges actually had to depend for their existence on kids and families being able to pay out of pocket, costs could NEVER have risen as they have. But if kids can just borrow the money they need, then no worry. Just charge more, and tell them to borrow it.

You could not get a better example of a program that is well-intentioned, but based on economic ignorance, and therefore harmful. What we wanted was college for everyone. What we've gotten is a permanent class of indentured servants. Colleges make a ton of money, and pass the cost directly on to the student, who leaves college with a diluted degree (often influencing him to spend even more time in school and incur even more debt), and thousands of dollars of student debt, which gives him no real option other than to work for wages. This limits his mobility and creativity, so it works as a drain on entrepreneurship as well.

The worst part is that we would have had college education for everyone anyway (or at least anyone who really wanted it). Schools could run on half their budgets and educate our kids/lawyers/dentists/businessmen as well as they do now, except that they'd actually be competing on price, and therefore doing it much more efficiently.

[FMCoug]

As conservative as I am, I will be the first to admit that this country is better off with more college educated people than with less. Further, the cost of a college education isn't that onerous. My in-laws have seven kids with degrees, including two surgeons (one who attended Johns Hopkins,) and they didn't give any of their kids a dime for college.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5396929

I had this argument on CougarBoard a few years ago. They were hard core anti student loan and Pell grant. Give me a break.

[cowboy]

I had this argument on CougarBoard a few years ago. They were hard core anti student loan and Pell grant. Give me a break.

I haven't looked at any data, but I suspect that costs are higher because utilization is higher. Education isn't health care- high utilization rates are a good thing.

[DU Ute]

I think there is something to the basic theory here, I do believe easier access to financial aid has helped contribute to rising costs. Of course, this poster has taken something that might have a kernel of truth to it and blown it completely out of proportion. This is not the kind of thing I expect from cougarboard.

[cowboy]

I think there is something to the basic theory here, I do believe easier access to financial aid has helped contribute to rising costs. Of course, this poster has taken something that might have a kernel of truth to it and blown it completely out of proportion. This is not the kind of thing I expect from cougarboard.

I agree that there is truth to it. Subsidization increases utilization, which ultimately raises costs. What drives me nuts is the premise that offering the opportunity for a college education to everybody can be anything but good.

[Indy Coug]

The question that I'm interested in is whether or not it is worth spending an extra $50K, $100K, $250K or more to get an undergraduate degree from a top-flight school and/or graduate degree as opposed to getting a degree from a smaller/lesser school? Are we nearing the tipping point where the main driver for a degree is price rather than quality/prestige? I have to believe the ROI just isn't worth it in many cases.

[frank ryan]

I had this argument on CougarBoard a few years ago. They were hard core anti student loan and Pell grant. Give me a break.

Student loans and pell grants are welfare. We must oppose. Don't take from one man and give to another

[pellegrino]

Student loans and pell grants are welfare. We must oppose. Don't take from one man and give to another

You've taken on the mantra of your new party nicely. Are you sure you can Still vote for Bennett?

Seriously though, I've felt for a long time that if you want to find the stupidest people in the world go to just about any college campus and you'll find them in droves. I don't have a problem with equal access to a college education, but there is an increasingly large segment of the population that is not prepared for the academic rigor of college and they don't see the importance of it. They approach it with a consumer mentality where they think that if they do everything on the syllabus, they should get an A regardless of the quality of work they turn in. About 1/4 to 1/3 of my students really have no business being there, and they think that just coming to class entitles them to a decent grade. IMO this is the biggest problem with Higher Ed.

[frank ryan]

You've taken on the mantra of your new party nicely. Are you sure you can Still vote for Bennett?

Seriously though, I've felt for a long time that if you want to find the stupidest people in the world go to just about any college campus and you'll find them in droves. I don't have a problem with equal access to a college education, but there is an increasingly large segment of the population that is not prepared for the academic rigor of college and they don't see the importance of it. They approach it with a consumer mentality where they think that if they do everything on the syllabus, they should get an A regardless of the quality of work they turn in. About 1/4 to 1/3 of my students really have no business being there, and they think that just coming to class entitles them to a decent grade. IMO this is the biggest problem with Higher Ed.

I am troubled by bennett flirting with socialism. Tim Bridgewater all the way!

[creekster]

About 1/4 to 1/3 of my students really have no business being there, and they think that just coming to class entitles them to a decent grade. IMO this is the biggest problem with Higher Ed.

Is this problem a result of incorrrect expectations of higher ed. or is it a result of the attitude obtained from earlier experiences. IOW, the everybody plays and gets a trophy mentality?

[pellegrino]

Is this problem a result of incorrrect expectations of higher ed. or is it a result of the attitude obtained from earlier experiences. IOW, the everybody plays and gets a trophy mentality?

I think it's definitely the lack of preparation. I have had to dumb down my courses and the expectations over the past five years and even bright students who get good grades in my class think I'm too hard and complain about grades that I give. I look at what I had to do as an undergrad just over a decade ago and what my professors did for me and compare that to what I now ask my students to do and I'm amazed at the drop in requirements but the increase in expectations (from the students).

As an undergrad there were many courses where I was required to read and understand thirty to forty pages for each class and we met three times a week. My students complain if I ask them to read more than forty pages in a week. I have to think twice before I give a grade lower than a C on a paper because I'll get complaints that they got bad grades because I wasn't effective at teaching them. Students will sit there in class and text the entire time and then badger me to no end when I give them a grade that they don't like. Add to that the fact that student evaluations play a significant role in getting tenure. When it comes down to it I feel like I'm hamstrung as to what I can teach these kids.

[FMCoug]

The question that I'm interested in is whether or not it is worth spending an extra $50K, $100K, $250K or more to get an undergraduate degree from a top-flight school and/or graduate degree as opposed to getting a degree from a smaller/lesser school? Are we nearing the tipping point where the main driver for a degree is price rather than quality/prestige? I have to believe the ROI just isn't worth it in many cases.

That's a great point. But isn't this why subsidized loans are capped? The government will subsidize the interest for what usuall amounts to a public / state school education. You're on your own beyond that.

The other data that I would find very interesting is a long-term study of Pell Grant recipients earnings over a lifetime. The theory is that we give you money for school now and over the long term you produce more, pay more taxes, add more to the economy, etc. It would be interesting to see hard data on the reality of that.

[creekster]

I think it's definitely the lack of preparation. I have had to dumb down my courses and the expectations over the past five years and even bright students who get good grades in my class think I'm too hard and complain about grades that I give. I look at what I had to do as an undergrad just over a decade ago and what my professors did for me and compare that to what I now ask my students to do and I'm amazed at the drop in requirements but the increase in expectations (from the students).

As an undergrad there were many courses where I was required to read and understand thirty to forty pages for each class and we met three times a week. My students complain if I ask them to read more than forty pages in a week. I have to think twice before I give a grade lower than a C on a paper because I'll get complaints that they got bad grades because I wasn't effective at teaching them. Students will sit there in class and text the entire time and then badger me to no end when I give them a grade that they don't like. Add to that the fact that student evaluations play a significant role in getting tenure. When it comes down to it I feel like I'm hamstrung as to what I can teach these kids.

This is interesting. I have noticed over the last 15 years or so in my kids' district that they are expected to do much more homework, which is supposedly a manifestation of the desire to improve their education and better prepare them for college. To me, however, it seems like the homework is mostly busy work of limited value and detracts from the kids actually learning. Moreover, the schools have become much less insistent on the kids doing things properly. Spelling (no laughing; I have a typing problem, not a spelling one), grammar, format, good analysis, etc., all fall away from the path as the silly assignments take precedence. IN math, in order to be more 'practical', they have entire sections devoted to estimating. problems where you estimate results, or estimate probabilities. What is that all about? Math should be a subject where things have one answer. I don't want an engineer trained to tell me about how much load a building element can take. I want himn to know exactly how much.

I realize this makes me sound like a grumpy old fart, and maybe thats all this is, a lament for the good old days which, to be sure, really weren't that good. But it bothers me a lot.

Do you see a gap between your well prepared and your unprepared students? IOW, is there an increasing prepared/unprepared gap?

[beefytee]

Yes, this is turning into a "back in my day" thread.

I seem to remember a BYU teacher in my department who got fired because of bad evaluations. The thing is he tried to be as accommodating to the students as possible. He changed assignments for them when they voted for it and really bend over backwards for them but it got in the way of instruction. His wishy-washiness was too much for the students and they gave him a failing grade.

So pellegrino (my advice) just focus on being the best teacher possible with great curriculum and lesson plans and the evaluations with take of themselves, even with the bellyachers. They'll know they got their moneys worth.

And Creekster, estimation can be very important in certain circumstances and I'm glad they are teaching it. Sometime accurate data is tough to come by and guesses are need.

In fact at my last job there was a joke that our product slogan should have been -- When it absolutely, positively, precisely has to be....close enough. I was involved with estimation/valuation software.

[UtahDan]

As conservative as I am, I will be the first to admit that this country is better off with more college educated people than with less. Further, the cost of a college education isn't that onerous. My in-laws have seven kids with degrees, including two surgeons (one who attended Johns Hopkins,) and they didn't give any of their kids a dime for college.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5396929

Do you know anyone who doesn't? I'm assuming you must. Is this what ultraconservatives think? I hadn't heard that.