I should have taken out more student loans

Originally posted by sh76
Oh, stop being ridiculous. First, you know perfectly well I'm not a Randian so stop painting with such a broad brush.

Second, I was merely pointing out that the federal government can help control the cost of tuition and that tuition rates are not entirely up to the schools. I was not advocating that the government stop giving out Stafford loans.

What an intemperate post.

To some extent, the more student loans and aid is given, the more educational institutions have permission to raise tuition rates without concern for whether anyone can really afford the tuition.

One of the benefits of the free market is that producers must eventually lower prices to what consumers can afford. Loaning almost unlimited money eliminates that necessity. Don't you think that if those ivy halls were empty, they might figure out that prices were too high.

There are lots of reasons why tuition costs have ran out of control and much higher than inflation. Those reasons need to be addressed.

Originally posted by sh76
I've changed my mind. After reading more about this particular program, I no longer have a problem with it.. No1 is right (this time). This program isn't really a big deal.

Still, I have a visceral reaction when I see these screaming headlines about this group and that group and the other group getting a bailout with my tax dollars. I don't think the governm ...[text shortened]... want to give people money solely to stimulate the economy then give us stimulus checks.

Yeah it isn't really that severe, all hyperbola aside, It wish it would have went further.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd say that your post, where you tried to blame the federal government for increases in tuition was "intemperate" to the point of being BS. The most likely result of cuts in the amount of grants and aid would be less students getting to go to school, not decreases in tuition which would lead to less financial burden on students and their families.

On this issue, you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about. I work for a school that administers federal financial aid, as do most of our competitors. For Ivy league schools, great reputation schools like Duke and Stamford and big rich kid schools like U. of Florida and the like, yes, the amount of available federal financial aid is almost meaningless.

For the vast majority of private post secondary schools out there- the ones that worry about competition - the tuition they charge is governed in large part by how much the government will pay. Most such schools know perfectly well that a majority of their students will not pay much (or anything) over and above what the federal government will cover with grants or loans. for these schools (again, which constitute a majority of all schools), the tuition they can and do charge is governed to a large extent by federal Title IV rules. If the federal government cut the amount that they would cover, these schools would all have to drop their tuition.

There are also other more subtle ways in which Title IV regulations can affect tuition, but they're too complex to go into in a vacuum.

Bottom line, federal financial aid rules can and do have enormous influence on what most schools charge, your exceedingly ignorant assertion to the contrary being the "BS."

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If you were in the US earning $2,500/month, you would, by FAR, be a net recipient and not a net contributor. If you doubled that salary and had, for example, a wife and a couple of kids, you'd still be a net recipient. Triple it, and now you're starting to get into the range of a net contributor.

sh76

Thread 138686

Okay, "triple" is an exaggeration. Substitute "double."

Originally posted by sh76
On this issue, you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about. I work for a school that administers federal financial aid, as do most of our competitors. For Ivy league schools, great reputation schools like Duke and Stamford and big rich kid schools like U. of Florida and the like, yes, the amount of available federal financial aid is almost meaningle ...[text shortened]... at most schools charge, your exceedingly ignorant assertion to the contrary being the "BS."

I graduated HS in 1961, and had I gone to college then, I would have worked my way through as most poor kids did in those days.

Later in life I finished two years at a community college in the mid 80s, and worked my way through paying as I went.

Federal Aid is important to almost every school, except the few that will not take it like Hillsdale College in Michigan. The Ivy's have massive endowments they could use to defray tuition costs. What all of them have is insulation against the market.

When flat screen TVs came to market, a 50" plasma was priced in excess of $10k. You can buy them now for $500. Markets force lower prices to meet consumer demand and ability to pay. Almost unlimited loans and grants, eliminate the need to heed the market, and so like medical costs, tuitions grow faster than inflation sometimes exponentially.

Originally posted by sh76
On this issue, you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about. I work for a school that administers federal financial aid, as do most of our competitors. For Ivy league schools, great reputation schools like Duke and Stamford and big rich kid schools like U. of Florida and the like, yes, the amount of available federal financial aid is almost meaningle at most schools charge, your exceedingly ignorant assertion to the contrary being the "BS."

😴😴

I'm never much impressed with anecdotal claims. Try correlating tuition increases with changes in federal student aid programs. You'll be disappointed.

EDIT: Here's the conclusions of a 1988 CBO study:

Between 1970 and 1986, average tuition and required fees for full-time-equivalent undergraduate students increased substantially in real terms--that is, when adjusted for inflation. Average undergraduate tuition fell slightly in real terms during the 1970s but increased substantially in the 1980s. If the distribution of student enrollments had not shifted during this period--especially if the increase in the proportion of students attending two-year institutions had not occurred--average tuition would have risen more rapidly between 1970 and 1986 than it actually did.

The growth pattern of average student aid for full-time-equivalent students was quite different from that of tuition. Between 1970 and 1980 when average tuition declined in real terms, real student aid--from all federal, state, and institutional sources--increased. Between 1980 and 1986 when tuition rose more quickly than inflation, real student aid declined. As a result, in the 1970s the average real net price paid by students and their families declined by a greater percentage than real tuition

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4958&type=0


It seems the dog wags the tail; tuition increases and then there are calls to increase student aid to catch up.

Originally posted by normbenign
I graduated HS in 1961, and had I gone to college then, I would have worked my way through as most poor kids did in those days.

Later in life I finished two years at a community college in the mid 80s, and worked my way through paying as I went.

Federal Aid is important to almost every school, except the few that will not take it like Hillsdale Coll arket, and so like medical costs, tuitions grow faster than inflation sometimes exponentially.

The market fails as far as education; a well educated population yields externalities that the transaction between the parties can't take account of. Without government intervention we'd have less than optimal levels of education.

EDIT: Here try to learn something that wasn't covered in Anthem or Atlas Shrugged: http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-market-failure-tuition-fees.html

There are laughs, to the OP, to be had; regarding taking out too many student loans.

As a joint PPort holder, with British citizenship amongst Thai, I took advantage of a banking system which was yearning for money.

In the early 80's, grants were freely given from the UK Govnt to study. As I recall it was about 800 pounds a term, with free tuition.

I got my grant, took it to National Westminster Bank, and opened an account.

When cleared, I withdrew 600 pounds and went to Barclay's, Halifax, TSB, and so on, and they all simultaneously offered me a 1,000 pound overdraft facility.

I drew from many accounts, but only overdrew from my original sponsor [Nat West] by 790 pounds.

1 term later I got my 800 pound cheque, and paid it into Nat West, and then drew 20 pounds.

I got a letter from the bank Manager, offering me congratulations for being in credit for approximately 26 seconds. 😀

The rest were written off of course, as I am also a Thai National. 😉

The bank manager's humour did appeal to me.

FMF.....I leeched, a poor system..... so sorry 😏.

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
There are laughs, to the OP, to be had; regarding taking out too many student loans.

As a joint PPort holder, with British citizenship amongst Thai, I took advantage of a banking system which was yearning for money.

In the early 80's, grants were freely given from the UK Govnt to study. As I recall it was about 800 pounds a term, with free tuition.

...[text shortened]... nager's humour did appeal to me.

FMF.....I leeched, a poor system..... so sorry 😏.

-m.

"Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm."

From the profile of someone calling themself "mikelom"

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

I'm never much impressed with anecdotal claims. Try correlating tuition increases with changes in federal student aid programs. You'll be disappointed.

EDIT: Here's the conclusions of a 1988 CBO study:

Between 1970 and 1986, average tuition and required fees for full-time-equivalent undergraduate students increased subst ...[text shortened]... ags the tail; tuition increases and then there are calls to increase student aid to catch up.

Be impressed by it or not. I really don't care. Everything I said is obvious to anyone with any connection to the industry.

But by all means, pretend that you know something about an area of which you plainly know nothing based on some irrelevant 25 year old study.

Whatever.

😀

Originally posted by sh76
Be impressed by it or not. I really don't care. Everything I said is obvious to anyone with any connection to the industry.

But by all means, pretend that you know something about an area of which you plainly know nothing based on some irrelevant 25 year old study.

Whatever.

😀

You're sounding like norm; if there's evidence that refutes your claims, you ignore it and rely on your preconceptions.

The study is hardly "irrelevant"; in fact, it's directly on point. Sure it's a bit dated, but surely the dynamics haven't changed. But if you think they have, you should at least present some evidence (more recent studies as an example) or even a coherent argument; the "I'm an expert, so I must be right/Everybody agrees with me" type of argument you are making is unimpressive in the extreme.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're sounding like norm; if there's evidence that refutes your claims, you ignore it and rely on your preconceptions.

The study is hardly "irrelevant"; in fact, it's directly on point. Sure it's a bit dated, but surely the dynamics haven't changed. But if you think they have, you should at least present some evidence (more recent studies rybody agrees with me" type of argument you are making is unimpressive in the extreme.

The study is irrelevant because it was done in the days prior to internet education, which forever changed the dynamics of college education in the United States. I'm not just talking about net-based schools. Top level schools like Duke and Maryland and even Harvard now offer substantial course offerings online, making education accessible to many people who don't live within commuting distance of a good school or don't have the time to commute. This new consumer of education is typically an adult with a job, a family and expenses and has less disposable income than the parents of college kids. This consumer wants federal aid to the maximum extent possible and often needs it and would not go to school without it. Schools, knowing that this demographic is a core constituency, have to tailor their tuition to conform to this reality. I don't know of any study confirming this; nor do I know of any study confirming that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Google the "90/10" rule and seminars dealing with compliance thereof. Long story short, many schools may not accept federal financial said for more than 90% of their cash flow. 90%. Ninety Percent! Chew on that figure for a moment. And still, many schools have difficulty complying; hence the large number of instructional seminars dealing with compliance.

If a company takes in almost ninety perfect of its revenues from a single source, are you seriously going to argue that the amount that source will pay has no impact on what the company can charge?

Is that coherent enough for you?

Originally posted by sh76
The study is irrelevant because it was done in the days prior to internet education, which forever changed the dynamics of college education in the United States. I'm not just talking about net-based schools. Top level schools like Duke and Maryland and even Harvard now offer substantial course offerings online, making education accessible to many people who do will pay has no impact on what the company can charge?

Is that coherent enough for you?

What percentage of college students don't attend classes and do their coursework solely on the internet? I imagine a tiny number.

Tuition has increased about double the rate of inflation for about 60 years. Neither what you think of as important demographic changes nor increased levels of student aid have affected that. Recently tuition increases have been greatest in large public institutions rather than smaller, private ones (which are the ones presumably more affected by the things you are claiming); a refutation of your argument.

I looked these things up and could get citations, but I'll play like you do and not bother with them. You'd only ignore real evidence anyway. The Sun does rise every day, but if someone said that's because Apollo gets in his fiery chariot and rides it across the heavens, skepticism is warranted.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What percentage of college students don't attend classes and do their coursework solely on the internet? I imagine a tiny number.

Tuition has increased about double the rate of inflation for about 60 years. Neither what you think of as important demographic changes nor increased levels of student aid have affected that. Recently tuitio ...[text shortened]... e Apollo gets in his fiery chariot and rides it across the heavens, skepticism is warranted.

That's not a refuation of my argument at all. State schools have a vastly different set of incentives than private schools. State schools are subsidized by taxpayers and as states have tightened their budgets, these subsidies have gone down. As you no doubt remember, CUNY schools used to be free. As taxpayers demand that state schools rein in their budgets, tuition naturally rises.

I never said that small private schools have dramatically increased tuition. The feds have not dramatically increased the available money, so these schools could not have dramatically raised tuition (which is part of my point). But there's no doubt at all that federal money keeps their tuition higher than the market would otherwise dictate.

You want authority, read the Harkin hearings.

http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=19454102-5056-9502-5d44-e2aa8233ba5a

Harkin spent days of Senate time to belabor the point that private schools overly aggressive in getting the federal student aid buck. The Devrys of the world (Harkin's main whipping boy) would obviously have to drop tuition of federal student aid were cut back. Without federal student aid, half these schools probably wouldn't exist and the other half would be charging much less money.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What percentage of college students don't attend classes and do their coursework solely on the internet? I imagine a tiny number.

Of course you'd imagine that. Your imagination is all you have on this thread.

http://tinyurl.com/3otnurn

As of 2008, more than 1 in 4 students were online students (chart on page 5)

By 2014, they're projecting that all most half of college learning will be online.

Nearly 12 million post-secondary students in the United States take some or all of their classes online right now. But this number will skyrocket to more than 22 million in the next five years, according to data released recently by research firm Ambient Insight.

According to Ambient Insight Chief Research Officer Sam S. Adkins, already some 1.25 million students in higher education programs take all of their classes online, while another 10.65 take some of their classes online. The two groups are still outnumbered by students who take all of their courses in physical classrooms, which Ambient Insight reckoned at 15.14 million as of 2009.

But this situation will change drastically by 2014, at which time, Adkins forecast, only 5.14 million students will take all of their courses in a physical classroom, while 3.55 million will take all of their classes online, and 18.65 million will take some of their classes online.

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/28/most-college-students-to-take-classes-online-by-2014.aspx