I should have taken out more student loans

Originally posted by sh76
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.


[quote]Nearly 12 million post-secondary students in the United States take some or ...[text shortened]... ustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/28/most-college-students-to-take-classes-online-by-2014.aspx

From your own quote:

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.

ME: What percentage of college students don't attend classes and do their coursework solely on the internet?

That works out to about 4.5% who take all their classes online. That's "tiny" by most reasonable definitions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
From your own quote:

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.

ME: What p ...[text shortened]... about 4.5% who take all their classes online. That's "tiny" by most reasonable definitions.

But the term "solely" is arbitrary and meaningless. If a student takes 20 courses online and 20 in a classroom, he relies on the internet university system for his education. That he also takes classes in a classroom does not eliminate the impact of the online college industry on his education.

Originally posted by sh76
But the term "solely" is arbitrary and meaningless. If a student takes 20 courses online and 20 in a classroom, he relies on the internet university system for his education. That he also takes classes in a classroom does not eliminate the impact of the online college industry on his education.

You're moving the goalposts; earlier you claimed that this type of person is fuelling the enhanced sensitivity of tutition rates to student aid levels (in an attempt to refute the 1988 study):

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.


Now you've changed your tune. Obviously someone who does commute even in part lives within commuting distance or has time to commute.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're moving the goalposts; earlier you claimed that this type of person is fuelling the enhanced sensitivity of tutition rates to student aid levels (in an attempt to refute the 1988 study):

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.


...[text shortened]... omeone who does commute even in part lives within commuting distance or has time to commute.

Not necessarily. Maybe the person can come to a school for a limited period of time or only part of the year. Online schooling allows that person to complete an education even when living outside of commuting range.

Originally posted by sh76
Not necessarily. Maybe the person can come to a school for a limited period of time or only part of the year. Online schooling allows that person to complete an education even when living outside of commuting range.

You're grasping at straws. It's possible that the availability of student aid has encouraged fly by night frauds but the evidence is lacking that it has raised tuitions in general over what they would have been. If student aid was cut some of those for profit "institutions of higher learning" might go under but since when does lack of competition decrease prices? The surviving institutions would be in a position to raise, not lower, tuition.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're grasping at straws. It's possible that the availability of student aid has encouraged fly by night frauds but the evidence is lacking that it has raised tuitions in general over what they would have been. If student aid was cut some of those for profit "institutions of higher learning" might go under but since when does lack of competition decrease prices? The surviving institutions would be in a position to raise, not lower, tuition.

Elite institutions create a phony shortage (shortages increase prices) in the same way a shyster car salesman does by inferring that another customer is on the way back to buy this car.

People go to all kinds of trouble to have a high HS GPA, and great test scores, and then when accepted will do almost anything to raise tuition money. The last thing they do is compare the relative value to cost, which is what most of us do in most of our purchases. Who having been accepted by Harvard, would make the comparison of tuition and room and board at Harvard, and compare it to staying home and attending Wayne State in Detroit.

Harvard may be good, but is it a good value? That is, is it proportionately better in relationship to the costs? Most would agree that a Cadillac is better than a Chevy, but we make value judgments based on what we can afford.

Would we make these value judgments if we were guaranteed funding, and perhaps not having to repay the loan?

Originally posted by normbenign
Elite institutions create a phony shortage (shortages increase prices) in the same way a shyster car salesman does by inferring that another customer is on the way back to buy this car.

People go to all kinds of trouble to have a high HS GPA, and great test scores, and then when accepted will do almost anything to raise tuition money. The last thing t ...[text shortened]... e these value judgments if we were guaranteed funding, and perhaps not having to repay the loan?

You're right; nobody went to Harvard before there was federal student aid.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're right; nobody went to Harvard before there was federal student aid.

I know those words, and if I had intended to say that I could very easily have done so. But I did not.

The elite institutions lead the way with tuition increases, and others follow depending on the stature of the institution. The CC I went to in the mid 80s has since doubled its tuition.

All seem to raise prices without concern for inflation or the ability of the student to pay. Well guess what, that happens when a third party pays, and the repayment is slow or perhaps never.

There was a time when people went to Harvard, and paid their tuition by working low paying jobs in Cambridge like waiting tables, or caddying during the summer.

Originally posted by normbenign
I know those words, and if I had intended to say that I could very easily have done so. But I did not.

The elite institutions lead the way with tuition increases, and others follow depending on the stature of the institution. The CC I went to in the mid 80s has since doubled its tuition.

All seem to raise prices without concern for inflation or th ...[text shortened]... tion by working low paying jobs in Cambridge like waiting tables, or caddying during the summer.

Actually public institutions have been raising tuition at a higher rate than private ones for a while now.http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/28/pf/college/college_tuition/index.htm

And tuition has been increasing at about double the rate of inflation for more than 60 years.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're grasping at straws. It's possible that the availability of student aid has encouraged fly by night frauds but the evidence is lacking that it has raised tuitions in general over what they would have been. If student aid was cut some of those for profit "institutions of higher learning" might go under but since when does lack of competition decrease prices? The surviving institutions would be in a position to raise, not lower, tuition.

Again, you're missing the point. The tuition rates are set in private "low end" schools not only by market forces but by what the federal government will pay. If the federal government will pay, say $300/credit, then that's what these schools will charge. It can't charge $400/credit because 80% of their students (or more) will only pay what the federal government will pay. If the federal government would pay $200/credit, they'd cut their price to something like $200/credit or face a huge cut in enrollment in students who can't afford to lay out money.

Moreover, administering federal student student aid costs schools a fortune. We have four full time employees each making a nice salary plus an external processing company and we're a relatively small school. Without the expenses related to administering Title IV, we'd be able to cut tuition by 15%. Call it anecdotal if you like, but it's a very real fact about the industry.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually public institutions have been raising tuition at a higher rate than private ones for a while now.http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/28/pf/college/college_tuition/index.htm

And tuition has been increasing at about double the rate of inflation for more than 60 years.

And what do you suppose are the factors contributing to rising tuitions?

Originally posted by normbenign
And what do you suppose are the factors contributing to rising tuitions?

Let me guess: THE EVIL GOVERNMENT.