Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The price is too high!

Long dead are the days where a plucky youth could work all summer at a minimum-wage job and save enough money for the next 9 months of college tuition.

Today, food insecurity and homelessness among college students is on the rise, and has moved into the middle class: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...pread-among-college-students-study-finds

How we can expect to remain competitive in the global marketplace with these kinds of artificial barriers to success is beyond me.

My brother and SIL got their PhDs without debt. SIL was a stellar student, full scholarships and stipend through med school. Brother got grants for undergrad, and lived in a 70's Toyota van rather than pay for dorms or an apartment, took summer internships that provided housing or lived in the van and just used the gym/shower facility. <3

In my state, college tuition is the same as daycare. I noticed because I was paying cash for my classes and for daycare. Daycare was more than my tuition/books/fees!

Tuition for the nearest state university here is 30 weeks full time at $7.25/hr (minimum wage). However, many entry level retail jobs pay $9/hr, and a semester coupled be paid for in 25 weeks. If someone attends spring and fall semester, there are 21 full weeks they can work in the year. Those plus weekend job, and live at home, or unconventional housing.... I would argue it can still be done. No partying, no dating, no eating out, no cellphone, no pets, no fancy clothes, etc.

When I was taking college classes a couple years ago, in a rural low income area, I was absolutely astounded that the people who complained of financial hardship attending school were so loose with their money. Eating out, road trips, multiple pets, commuting, fancy new everything, smart phones. I came to the conclusion that financial aid for tuition helps people make stupid financial decisions and bomb their college classes.

Maybe I'm just uber-frugal, but there's often a disconnect between perception and behavior and articles like this can be myopic. Perhaps the research should have also noted if those struggling students were paying for smart phones, data plans, had purchased a laptop, tablet, or new phone in the past 2 years? Those things are luxuries and I have little sympathy who spends $200 a month on a cell phone and data plan and then complains they can't eat for 4 days in a month because they ran out of money.

The cost of attending any UC school is $17,500 before living expenses. UMASS is about the same. UVM is about $19,000. Assuming a full-time job at $10 per hour and deductions for payroll and other taxes, it would take roughly one year of full-time work to cover just those costs. And you haven't got a penny to live on yet. As in...food. And this is assuming that 100% of your after-tax income goes to savings (unlikely).

So, what are students supposed to do? They can't go to college in Arkansas because they're out of state, and out of state tuition costs are generally pretty high.

IMO, living in an old van qualifies as "homeless." I suspect the law agrees with me. If your brother chose to do that, fine. But a major point of the article Dude linked to was that college costs force many students to be homeless, which I suspect was the case with your brother. So you've actually added evidence to the point, rather than refuted it. And living in a van in a place like New England is out of the question. Because...frostbite, hypothermia, death. Living in a van in Arizona or much of California is out of the question because...heat stroke, death.

And why should people have to live in a vehicle to get a college education, anyway? Why should they have to live without a phone (BTW, which plans cost $200 a month? Metro PCS has smartphones for free to $150, plus a 100% LTE/unlimited talk plan for $40 or $50 a month)? How will you get through college without a computer? Answer: you won't. It was already essentially impossible when I was doing a PhD in the mid-90s. And you need a reasonably new computer to run the software and other things you need for your classes.

Being frugal as a student is important. Being homeless and hungry (which affects a third of all students, including your brother) is way beyond that.


I think it's important to have a bit of sympathy for people who are doing their best in a system that works against their interests. Respectfully, your post came across as being kind of smug.

I agree with Dude that the current approach to education, where K-12 schools are starved, where state universities have seen their state funding plummet, and where all the liabilities and costs are passed on to students is doing very serious damage to this nation.


(Most PhD students get scholarships. If you're paying for a Ph.D., that's not a good sign.)

All good points, Val. To which I would add - if you're cutting out the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, it's pretty hard to get to the top. Because food and shelter are necessary for survival. Even if you're scraping by through couch surfing and ramen noodles, that's going to have a negative impact on everything else you do.

It's hard to call "eating out" an unnecessary expense when you're homeless, because where are you supposed to go to dine in?

In my experience (friends with college age children and mine and my husband�s college experience): Yes. College is more expensive. But also: specifically to those who are financing it with loans or grants, they are using that money differently than students used to. Personally, in my lifetime (I am 39) college has not been something the average person can just pay for without some kind of assistance. I do not personally have negative feelings because of that. After 15 years, like a mortgage, I paid off my student loan last year. I lived in the dorm. I had a meal plan. I worked part-time for things like gas, clothes, (alcohol) etc while double majoring , participating in activities, and staying on the Dean�s list.

I know many kids now who are using their loans to get apartments. As Sanne said, they have pets, new cars, new technology, etc. These kids live in town even (major metro area) and move out into apartments. And do not work.

Certainly, these people are in for a rude awakening when the bill comes due and may experience discomfort at that point.

I am not trying to be all �down on millennials.� I am a parent and my DS is a unique, beautiful person and not some faceless part of a group. However, please take this study with a grain of salt and for the �non-random� sample it is.

Why should someone live without a phone? Because it's an unnecessary luxury! There are more people in the world who don't have access to a toilet than there are people with cell phones!

You can absolutely get through college/university without a computer. I've seen people do it. There's an immigrant population in my area and those students are using the computer labs rather than buying computers.

Homeless by empowered choice is different. My brother could have paid for housing, but he chose not to. His fiancé had just bought a house near her school (Mayo) and he had 2 years left at his school. I remember him saying that he was not going to pay for 2 places to live on a matter of principal. He was choosing to live within his means. No cell phone and no laptop.

I have attended college/university while living below the poverty line. My tuition was paid completely by grants. I owned a house, which cost less than renting, although it was still 63% of my income. I had no phone, no cell phone, no computer. Heck, my entire house only had 4 lightbulbs in it!

(I've also attending college while living in the upper class.)

But what I see is middle class kids with unrealistic expectations about how money works, no concept of sacrificing wants for needs, and a refusal to live within their means.

It is possible for a high school graduate to work full time at $9/hour (walmart starting wage), live at home or be strictly frugal, save half their money, and in 4 years they have saved enough for 4 years of state college. They'll likely be eligible for additional grants starting as a non-traditional student which would leave more money available for housing costs.

It's possible for a child to start working as soon as it's legal (age 12 here, if working in a parent's business), invest all of the earnings. If that's done at the legal max hours during a school year (not extra hours in summmer) at minimum wage ($7.25/hour) from age 12 - 16, that ends up being $38,425. Enough to pay for 4 years in-state tuition at current tuition/fees.

The cost can also be made easier by accelerating children in elementary and middle school so they may take college classes while still in high school - with the school district paying the bill. It's possible for a high school student to graduate high school and get their Associates degree at the same time, thereby cutting the cost of undergrad tuition in half.

There are also institutions which offer tuition discounts for full time employees, and people have been known to use this to their advantage to get a degree tuition-free. https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/08/26/that-time-i-went-to-grad-school-for-free/

My son is planning to use a combination of strategies. He will start working in family business next year, but he won't receive his paycheck. It will go straight into an investment account. He plans to take AP classes and college classes in high school, although he is unlikely to earn his Associates degree. After high school, he is planning to go to the nearest 2 year state college to finish his Associates degree at the lowest tuition prices in the state and while living at home. After that he intends to transfer to the state university of his choice, which happens to be in the same city where his grandparents live. He has already negotiated living with them in exchange for lawnmowing, snowblowing, etc. My son just turned 11 and has already figured out how to get his undergrad degree without any student debt or housing cost.

I would be curious what those students say is "not enough" money for food. My family can eat well on less than 1/4 of that the USDA says is a "thrifty" food plan for my family size and children's ages, but I'm usually more lazy than frugal and spend closer to 1/2 of what the USDA says is "thrifty". https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CostofFoodFeb2018.pdf

Perhaps we've raised a generation of young adults who suffer from entitlement, lack of creativity, and lack of resourcefulness?

Sanne, I don’t know what assumptions you’re making for investment rates of return in high school, but assuming a risk averse profile designed to preserve capital and offset inflation, you’re proposing that a child work 20 hours per week starting at age 12 (almost 3 hours per day, on average).

I don’t intend any disrespect with this comment, but if a child is in a traditional school for ~7 hours per day, is working 3 hours per day, has 1-2 hours of homework, needs an hour a day of exercise to remain healthy (potentially overlaps with school/transit), needs to perform basic self care, and likely has chores at home (meal preparation and cleaning), that’s at least 13 hours a day taken up with necessary activities. At that age, children need 9-10 hours of sleep. Already, we’re at 22-23 hours of the day assigned.

With a maximum of 1-2 hours left, when is the child expected to develop friendships, build extra-curricular skills, interact with family, develop outside interests, or just relax? In particular, given that low income students are likely unable to participate in activities not offered outside the public school umbrella due to affordability, and that they will face barriers to access of programs due to a higher likelihood of parental low income, lack of access to efficient transit, absent parents due to more likely reliance on part-time shift work, I find it difficult to believe that these students will have much recourse to extra curriculars.

I also have difficulty understanding how living at home and not dating due to affordability during university years, and spending most free time working, is at all supportive of developing the EQ component of adult training. Forestalling social development and relationships because there is no time for it seems a very expensive trade-off in terms of long-term adult development, even after considering the cost of carrying some debt. I also question whether most students have the requisite executive function skills at the ages you’ve laid out to even implement this plan. You are scaffolding development of these skills with your son; I would posit that the majority of low income parents will not (either due to time or ability constraints).

There is also the question of mental health, and whether the habits you suggest inculcating (and the extent to which they are practiced) are consistent with good mental health and life satisfaction in the long run, and could prove more professionally and personally costly than a middle-way approach that trades off some debt for early years leisure.

I will also suggest that your embedded assumptions presume a more intellectually capable student than is reasonable for general application. The average university bound student is not PG, and will require more time on task to master the material in high school and post-secondary studies, and potentially not be able to save money on acceleration.

I will also point out that, in your brother’s case, it sounds like he had access to a home paid for by his fiancé. So he was actually consuming far more than you’re portraying; the cost was just shifted onto her. The assumption of housing stability—and for free—is out of the question for a lot of students.

Truisms:
1) Not all kids should go to college.
2) There are non-college paths to careers, financial stability.
3) College loans are generally not a good deal.
4) A country can remain competitive in the global marketplace without all of its citizens being college-educated.
5) The US economy, culture, society allow for upward mobility, however for most people this takes considerable effort and sacrifice.

There are many old threads on these topics.

The above statements do not attempt to indicate which kids should go to college, how much effort/sacrifice is ideal for cultivating grit, perseverance, resilience, etc.

The decades of tomes on How College Affects Students are worth a look.

Most worthwhile things are difficult to achieve; Removing the difficulty and the winnowing process may also remove the value of the achievement.

I do agree that the price of college tuition has skyrocketed, and is too high.
I do agree that some of the building/construction on college campuses does not attract those who wish to invest themselves in learning... these include luxuries such as aquatic centers which resemble waterparks, with waterslides.
Based on my observation and experience, I also agree that there is a segment of the college student population which believes that "the college experience" must include beer, parties, unwed sex, Spring break in warm or tropical locations, fashions worthy of magazine covers to post on social media, etc. These kids may look with sneering condescension on those who make and keep a budget, turn down invitations to meet up for pizza and beer so that their food budget lasts all month, wear the same jeans all through college, and pick up every extra shift at work.

The article itself, in my opinion, is divisive and paints the college experience with a broad brush, whereas in reality there are many trends. Some may say that the study could be vastly improved by tracking actual student spending, and student budgetary practices (whether they make and keep a budget)... as this may help to separate the various trends and address each in a thoughtful manner.

While sanne reported knowing of a person who made it through college in part by living in a van, this person did not seem to see himself as a downtrodden victim for his sacrifices but rather as a victor, for accepting and working through the sacrifices and accomplishing the goal. This calls to mind the closing line of the article, "... these people have clearly exhibited a resilience that almost any employer would benefit from."

I see this as well. You are not alone in your observations.

I see this as well. There may be an increasing number of young people who disdain the striving, effort, work ethic, struggle, and sacrifice... yet expect the rewards of "the American Dream."

Technology glitch lost my response to acquinas. I will try again more succinctly.

1) I didn't not calculate any interest or return on investment in my numbers.
2) Schedule nesting is a necessary time management technique. Social interaction happens in the workplace and at school and friendships may be developed there, for example
3) Perhaps the concept of a happy childhood is why young adults struggle so much when they transition to independence?
4) I mentioned advanced students because it's relevant to this audience/forum, but similar programs exist for at-risk students also. In my state, at-risk students can attend 2 year technical college in place of the last 2 years of high school so they may graduate high school with marketable skills.
5) My brother was attending a university in a different state than where his fiancé owned a house.

Indigo's interpretation is correct, he was not seeing himself as a victim of circumstance, and he was capable of paying for traditional housing but chose not to. He has gone on to adopt a debt-free lifestyle.

I’m also going to suggest that not all—or even many—low income university-bound students take the attitude of being entitled to luxuries. Some, certainly, but that’s likely more prevalent among upper middle class students.

One important thing to remember is that most of the real learning in university happens outside the class. Informal discussions with study groups, office hours with professors, campus clubs and teams—these are the places where the seeds of learning germinate. Fly-in-fly-out students, or those whose schedules are over-full, will have difficulty participating, even if the events are free. And, for students interested in blending studies with entrepreneurship, they have to make themselves available when financiers, mentors, supply chain partners, customers etc are free. That’s hard to work around a rigid work schedule that occupies most non-class/study hours. For students undertaking research in lab, in the field, working with classified data, doing clinical work with human subjects or with specialized instructors, those are further constraints on activity.

These hypothetical students I describe aren’t lazy, indulged, or entitled. But the framework of frugality proposed would be untenable for someone who wanted to achieve these objectives. Achievement requires time on task and determination. There are different models for student success. But the reality remains that, for most students, it’s an impossibility to graduate undergrad debt free while self-supporting and providing your own necessities.

Certainly, and these are important contributions to personal and societal well-being.

However, it’s cold comfort for an impoverished, intelligent student who wants to pursue a career that requires university level training to point to other career paths that do not align with his/her abilities or interests as viable alternatives, simply because they don’t require the table stakes of university tuition. That shouldn’t happen. Given what we know about gifted underachievement and outsized high school drop-out rates among the gifted, this is a reality for many students that shouldn’t be.

The frustrating thing about debates like this is that one group has to to stick to facts, while another one can make up anything to score points. This is something important for my kids to understand as they develop and are exposed to the world.

The anti-vaccine movement is a case in point. Scientists can (and did) spend millions of dollars proving that vaccines don’t cause autism, but it doesn’t matter, because others can make up any argument that scares people (they have toxins in them, too many “antigens”, etc.). None of it is true, but listening to a knowledgeable person explain it takes time, and people who want to perpetuate the lie can spin scary stories quickly.

So it is with this thread: a study performed twice shows the terrible burden our society is placing on students. One person says that “college is affordable” and provides anecdotes and one set of numbers indicating that it isn’t. It is pointed out, using actual numbers and phenomena (eg Maslow’s pyramid, the effects of severe stress) that apply to tens of thousands of students, that college isn’t affordable. The reply ignores both those numbers and the ones she provided, and uses more anecdotes (unlike the calculations, we have to take her at her word). The author doesn’t reply to the calculations or other points brought up, IMO because there’s no refuting them. Again, this is a tactic used by people with an interest in continuing something that isn’t in society’s best interest but that suits them for whatever reason. I teach my kids that it’s used when the facts aren’t on your side.

Truisms:
1) All facts are not represented by a given study.
2) Anecdotal evidence and lived experiences... also present facts.
3) Empirical evidence (research studies) and anecdotal evidence (lived experiences) can both add value to a discussion.

Regarding posts on this topic:
1) One need not post rebuttals: Constructive contributions to the conversation can take many forms. One can choose to expend their energy according to their own wishes, time constraints, etc.
2) Some may say that posting about vaccines-and-autism may be off-topic on a thread about college affordability.

Regarding the article:
While your phraseology may indicate seeing students as passive victims ("the terrible burden our society is placing on students")... others may see students as having internal locus of control,
- by choosing whether or not to become students,
- by deferring rewards to another day ("Marshmallow test" applied to college-age rewards such as fashion, travel, lifestyle),
- etc.

The OP's article cites Temple University and Wisconsin HOPE Lab... some may find it interesting to read about these entities, from their websites and other sources. I believe I read somewhere that Wisconsin has a college tuition freeze. The HOPE Lab website states that they "...explore counseling and other approaches to help families contend with those costs, and experiment with approaches to lowering the costs while ensuring that students earn degrees of value." Sanne's contributions to this thread seem to align with those HOPE Lab goals!

Agreed. However:
1) Wants are different than needs.
2) Wants are different than rights.
3) For many families it has taken generations of coordinated effort and sacrifice to become upwardly mobile.
4) "Gifted underachievement and outsized high school drop-out rates among the gifted" are not necessarily solved at the college level... but rather earlier in one's educational career.

Middle Cass Families Increasingly Look to Community Colleges
Kyle Spencer
New York Times
April 5, 2018
Interestingly, this NYT article includes a quote from a professor at Temple (Temple is cited as a source of the research in the OP's article )...

Val, there are unconventional ways to get things accomplished. Depends on what one is willing to sacrifice. Including perhaps moving to a state with lower in-state tuition. People move across the globe and immigrate for educational opportunities, yet the general USA population would rather complain than to do what is necessary to afford what they want. I never said it is easy or comfortable. Only that it can be done. I am not claiming that everyone can afford college, nor am I providing financial advice for a specific path. Every region will have different costs of living, which is why I'm not claiming that all can do it and trying to not clog the thread with numbers which may be completely irrelevant to others. Which is why I've chosen to not provide the type of evidence you wish to see. I'm encouraging creativity and ideas for solving the problem of college expense in unconventional ways and relating people that I have personal connection to who have solved this problem.

State tuition and fees for my son's choice university is currently $8,900. The state college he plans to complete his Associates degree tuition is currently $2,375, not including fees which are not listed on the website. Minimum wage here is $7.25.

People move across the globe and immigrate for educational opportunity. Perhaps in the list of unconventional ways to afford college, we should include establish residency in a state that has institutions you can afford? It's a small sacrifice compared to what many give up for their education!

Again, you’re using personal anecdotes and ignoring the bigger picture, which is a sign of not caring and/or not thinking things through. And the data youve provided supports the case for what the OP wrote: you can’t pay for college fees on a summer job’s earnings, and college is so expensive as to force many students to live in their cars or on other people’s couches or go without food.

So let’s look at your numbers. Assuming only 10% of a paycheck goes to taxes because of low earnings, a minimum wage job where you live pays $6.53 an hour. Let’s say the fees are $8900, and your hypothetical student gets by on only $500 for books and another $100 for pens and paper and whatnot. That’s $9500. It would take more than 8 months of work full time to cover these costs. And the student has not eaten yet.

As for establishing residency in another state, the states I’ve looked at require that you live there for 6 months to 3 years before they’ll call you in-state. During that time, you’ll have to be paying rent and buying food. You can’t live in your van because you need a physical address for establishing residency. How much of that $6.53 per hour will you be able to save for college? Answer: none of it or very nearly so.

Please don’t depict difficult things as being easy. This approach is one of the things that’s created this mess.

Indigo, I’m going to ask two personal questions, and I want to preface them by saying that, in no way is it intended as an insult or derogation. I ask simply for my own edification to understand assumptions behind our perspectives. If you prefer not to answer, I’ll respect that, but please at least think these over privately.

Are you working? Have you personally experienced poverty (the kind that means you’re afraid the power will be shut off, you regularly forego meals to ensure your children eat, you’re afraid to take a day off work sick because you won’t have enough money to cover housing costs, etc.) And, in some circumstances, imagine being a child (or adult) who is afraid of coming home, because it means being subjected to a beating, sexual abuse, exposure to alcoholism/drugs in a family member, or psychological
torment.

I ask this because my perspective on “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps” and wants vs needs changed dramatically when I experienced hardship like what I describe above; thankfully only briefly. Many of the implicit institutions we value (family, friends, not worrying about being raped while walking home from a late night shift after bus service finishes, access to fresh food, physical and mental health) in our lives are a gift, and their absence can destroy an individual or family unit.

A large proporation of the poor aren’t poor simply because they are lazy or frivolous money managers. It isn’t because they refuse work. It’s because the family circumstances into which we’re born are a lottery—a tremendously influential one—that influences not just starting conditions, but the trajectory of our development.

Once upon a time, elementary and secondary education were considered a want, not a need or right. We now recognize differently. In Canada, where I live, separated or divorced parents are legally responsible for financial support for a first post-secondary certification for their children, subject to their financial means. Although there is a recognized right to access a post-secondary education enshrined in family law, it is mostly useless for low SES students. The weight of recognition of that right is almost wholly contingent on parental financial means. Talk about a way to enshrine inter-generational poverty. (Thankfully, tuition is more affordable here, and student debt is dischargeable.)

Do students in these conditions surmount their poverty and achieve university success? Yes, a small minority do, but it is at tremendous personal cost—likely far more than most of us on this forum have faced to get where we are. As I get older, I am growing to appreciate Rawlsian philosophy (the view that seeks to maximize the welfare of the least well off.) I have great difficulty, knowing that much of my current “success” arose from a lucky break in lineage, in asking someone genuinely hard working but poor to accept a life path I wouldn’t want for myself or my child, especially of there is a ready and long-term (not to mention societally beneficial) solution at hand.

Val.


It's possible to pay for college with a summer job [barely].

$7.25 (Notes on why not your $6.53 below) x 40 hours x 21 weeks of summer = $6,090. In-state tuition in my county is $2,375. When I attended 2 years ago, I didn't bother buying textbooks, just a math access code for about $100.

Average rent in that town is $308/month for one bedroom. Get one close enough to everything that you can walk or bike instead of driving. Shack up with a roommate or significant other and share that rent for $150/month. That's $1,800/year for housing plus maybe some utilities, depending on the lease.

12 months housing plus 2 semesters of school and we're at $4,175. Which leaves $1,915 for food, utilities, misc expenses. That's tight, but who says impossible?

If the student doesn't have assets or is a non-traditional student so parent income doesn't count on financial aid, then grants are likely to pay for all of the tuition anyway. If not, the tuition is a deduction on taxable income, even for those who do not itemize. And furthermore, single adults with income under $10K don't have to file a tax return, except if they need to get their withholding back.

The other in-state university, 2 counties over, with $8,900 tuition/fees, is in an area with higher wages and more student housing, so higher income ($9 is expected there) without a higher cost of living can be expected. It's not quite enough to cover tuition. But there are other ways to fill the gap. Like, IDK, working two jobs in the summer? Scholarships? Grants? Study on your own and test out of classes with the CLEP exams? Working on the weekends? Work study? Wait 4 years to be a nontraditional student? Move to a lower cost in-state institution? All of the above?

The big picture is there are OPTIONS. I personally know of people who have solved the problem unconventionally. That means unconventional solutions *do exist*. There are solutions. I never claimed they are easy. But they exist for those who are willing.

So far the arguments that this is not a problem center around personal anecdata as evidence that it's possible to graduate from college without mountains of debt. Nobody is arguing against possibility. But it's also possible:

- To drive cross-country on three hours' sleep
- Try cigarettes several times without becoming addicted
- Land a 1080 fakie-grab cleanly your first time on a snowboard

However, whether something is possible, and whether something is likely to produce positive results in most cases, are completely different questions.

The responses are also quite myopic, since they're focused primarily on individual outcomes, and completely ignore the big picture - if a country is squandering intellectual capital by constantly raising the bar for success, it can expect to find itself a global trailer in innovation, economy, and military capability in very short order.

But we'll have really great plumbing.

Also, all of the anecdata includes information on how those success stories relied primarily on support from other folks, which is why this quote from the article should surprise nobody:

Yes!! Exactly!!

Even with some incorrect assumptions, you still weren't able to make the numbers work, because $1915 for an entire year's worth of food, utilities, and ancillaries isn't going to cut it. It might barely cover utilities if they're being shared by two people.

Faulty assumptions:

- That minimum-wage workers get to retain 100% of their earnings. You're thinking strictly about federal income tax, but SSI and Medicare taxes are non-optional and non-refundable. State income tax rules vary.

- That the average apartment rental is near enough to any college to walk or bike. They are in high demand, because college students.

Thanks Dude.

As I mentioned, when debating without having to pay attention to reality, it’s easy to keep going. Points a, b, and c get refuted. Ergo, create points d, e, and f: make summer almost 5 months long. Assume a full-time job is waiting on day 1 of summer break. Assume federal payroll and state taxes do not exist. Assume the existence of family help, grants, and no other expenses. Assume you can get through 4 years of college without buying textbooks. Well. The Pirate Bay might make that last one work, but lawsuits have a way of eating at savings (and job prospects).

Most importantly: assume that other people are irresponsible and that all the homelessness and food insecurity are due to $200 a month phone plans and expensive vacations.

And while we're at it, let's address the notion that a cell phone is an optional expense, which is sooooo 20th century.

The primary modes of communication from faculty to students outside of a classroom today (nevermind college, I'm already seeing this in middle school):

- Email
- Mass text message
- Web portals

And let's not forget that the internet has now replaced the library as the primary research tool. Books are terribly inefficient by comparison.

In order to access these things in a timely manner, a wireless connection and at least one of the following devices is required: smart phone, tablet, laptop. And of those, the only one that can access them almost anywhere is the smart phone.

I’m taking a physics class right now and can confirm that the primary method of communication is via a web portal (with email notifications).

I’ve talked to other students, and the approach to learning uses:

* Youtube videos

* Written information from all over the web

* Extra textbooks available for download or purchased online and assorted random books purchased online or downloaded

You need an internet connection for this class, and restricting yourself to school computers during library hours would make getting a decent grade very difficult. Especially if you had to work during library hours and especially because intern other students are using the computers.


The first two are the most important for most students. For me and a few others, all three are equally important.

Some may disagree with an assertion that use of personal anecdotes is a sign of not caring and/or not thinking things through. Some may see the sharing of personal anecdotes as a generosity of spirit, and in keeping with the goals of the HOPE Lab [color:#999999]mentioned upthread[/color], as HOPE Lab contributed to the research on which the OP's article is based.

Some of us may have been brought up with a similar view - loving one's neighbor as one's self (a faith-based view), and may have begun being our brother's keeper at an early age.

For many, the American Dream consists in the potential for upward mobility, and for most people this takes considerable effort and sacrifice. For many families it has taken generations of coordinated effort and sacrifice to become upwardly mobile. Knowing that one's life path differs from others, one can still be cognizant of their work ethic and sacrifice improving their life, and that of future generations.

What, specifically, is the ready solution at hand?

Agreed.

Rather than viewing a thread as a debate, possibly viewing it as a discussion of an article, and especially with the HOPE Lab goal in mind, "...explore counseling and other approaches to help families contend with those costs, and experiment with approaches to lowering the costs while ensuring that students earn degrees of value."

This exaggerates what was actually said, essentially making a strawman argument to discredit the person you attribute this to.

This is all lovely—thank you for your reply and personal insights—but I’m struggling to reconcile your first and second statements. It seems inconsistent from a public policy lens to, on the one hand, advocate support for the underprivileged while, on the other hand, deny them the single most effective tool to surmount poverty. (I may be unaware of the specifics of tuition aid in the US. If it is universal, please disregard.)

This is a major impediment to our economic competitiveness. Within my own large extended family (spread out among different states and regions of the U.S.), we have observed spiraling costs on the one hand and decreased opportunities to obtain/maintain earnings while matriculating. This has gotten increasingly worse over the three decades since I earned my undergraduate degree.

I was one of those students who held decent jobs in high school and college and was able to complete my degree fairly comfortably with scholarships and grants as well as a reasonable amount of loans (about $10,000). I was in good company. That is no longer so commonplace unless you are both smart enough and poor enough to receive full-ride scholarships. If you are average intelligence but poor or middle-class, you will need lots of time to study and end up with tons of debt. If you are upper-middle-class but your parents are unwilling to make the financial sacrifice to "contribute" their full expected contribution, you may not be able to borrow enough on your own to attend college.

I live in a major metropolitan area and the hypothetical numbers provided by sanne feel alien to our local reality. I also actually have relatives in Wisconsin who had struggled with escalating college costs between 10 to 20 years ago, when the situation wasn't nearly as difficult. Of course, they lived in the suburbs of a major city and did not investigate moving to rural areas in Wisconsin to attend college.

Having dealt tangentially with affordable housing issues in a professional capacity, the crisis I perceive are beyond just college students. Young adults who move directly into the work force from high school are struggling as well. If they are unlucky enough to lack family who are willing to help support them, they often cannot afford housing or lose housing through eviction. Public transportation is a nice concept but not always available unless you live in an urban area.

I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I think this affordability/escalating costs crisis is impacting even secondary education (high school & perhaps middle school to a lesser extent). My younger kids are in 9th and I am astounded at the amount of money I have to spend for their public school education on all the extras that are often not really optional. Of course, there are provisions to help homeless kids and sometimes even free lunch kids, but not always.

My kids actually need their cellphones for school. They don't need (or have) $1000 iphones or $100 monthly plans. There are lots of affordable prepaid options. Not having a cellphone would have been inconvenient in middle school but detrimental in high school. Many teachers directly communicate via text with the students although some still use email. In the classroom, it is not unusual for the teacher to tell the students to pull information on their phones.

Back to the topic at hand . . . jobs are not as accessible/compatible with the simultaneous pursuit of higher education these days. According to some placement professionals I consulted a couple of years ago, college students are having a harder time finding jobs (outside their work study jobs) and it is even harder for high school students. Of course, if you have connections . . . Also to graduate in four years, students sometimes need to take summer classes or their fall/spring schedules otherwise interfere.

It is a crisis if a large segment of the population cannot surmount the obstacles currently in place, notwithstanding that a few well-placed individuals are able overcome the odds through hard work and creative sacrifice.

Public policy differs from faith-based assistance. One example may be the opportunity for all members of a specific faith to attend that faith's universities free of charge. Some may reject this opportunity, however it is an opportunity from which many have benefited.

Rather than exaggerating, I understated sanne's assumptions:

I agree, however please recall that sanne originally declined to provide numbers specifically for that reason: "Every region will have different costs of living, which is why I'm not claiming that all can do it and trying to not clog the thread with numbers which may be completely irrelevant to others. Which is why I've chosen to not provide the type of evidence you wish to see."

Agreed. Taking a close look at your local public school budget can be very eye-opening: seeing what your tax dollars are funding, supporting, investing in, and paying for.

Agreed. Especially for students seeking work which may provide some semblance of experience in their chosen field. The economy is contracting, as jobs move overseas and/or become automated. In this old post, the College Board Trends in Education report reveals [i]10-18 years to pay back student loans, whole career to last 40 years[/i] (2013).

Agreed. Depending upon how credits are priced per semester, there can be financial incentive to take more credits per semester, and due to when classes are offered it may behoove a student to take summer classes.

Some may see personal anecdotes as reflecting a way to describe reality, but they would be wrong.

For example, "My personal experience in Kansas has shown me that the world is flat, and people who disagree are clearly not looking carefully enough."

Some may disagree, as
1) sanne spoke of their own observation and experience, not of all persons,
2) an example was provided of an individual who was homeless by empowered choice for frugality... NOT through irresponsibility.

I'm glad you believe in the American Dream, because we're basically talking about how it is dying, and no amount of empty platitudes will reverse that.

Anecdotal evidence reflects a person's lived experiences... concrete reality.

Some may say that this not a good analogy, as sanne was careful to post "there are unconventional ways to get things accomplished. Depends on what one is willing to sacrifice... I'm not claiming that all can do it... I'm encouraging creativity and ideas for solving the problem of college expense... people that I have personal connection to who have solved this problem."

I agree.

Brainstorming on ways to revive it, reinvent it, morph it...?

Name one faith-based university where all members may attend free of charge.

My employer has deemed my access to a smart phone so critical to business operations that they have provided both the hardware and the data plan at no cost to me. Ditto a laptop.

There may be a difference between "the opportunity for all..." and "where all may attend"... as there is selectivity among applicants. When you removed the word opportunity, the meaning changed.

I have several thoughts about this topic, many of which have already been raised. To the extent that there are sides, I certainly see where there is some validity--especially experientially--on all sides. I also work in a setting with many learners who would be first generation college students, were they to attend post-secondary. Some stray thoughts:

1. Contrary to expected or common educator practice, I have been known to actively discourage academically capable students from attending college--until they have a clear purpose and motivation for doing so, principally because of the cost, and likely debilitating debt burden. Go only if you know why.

2. I strongly encourage those for whom it is likely to be a financial hardship (or impossible) in particular to take advantage of programs such as those ithat exist in several states, to attend the first two years in a community college, and then transfer into a state college or university. In some states, transferring with a high enough GPA and/or an AA degree can get you the last two years, in a four year college, at community college tuition.

3. Unfortunately, by and large, the demand for programs such as those I've described often either exceeds supply, or, on the opposite end, they are insufficiently publicized to the population that would most benefit from them.

4. And then there are all those other communities, without these programs.

Oh, and on another note, one of our attempts as a secondary setting to level the playing field consists of no-cost netbooks for every student, which they take with them at graduation, and ample practical instruction in the use of technology in education and employment. Though one could hypothetically use only school and public library computers to complete college coursework, it would be quite challenging for anyone without substantial time to spend on campus, which seems likely to be incompatible with working many hours while attending school. Actually, we've found that an additional challenge for our students is lack of access to reliable, inexpensive internet. Though libraries do help a little with this one, that only applies during daytime hours.

And on another, moderately related topic, there is also the question of unsustainable business models among post-secondary institutions, both public and private, and their interaction with tuition schedules and student fees.

I have read the exact same arguments swirling around the cost of education in another group recently and the differing positions expressed in this thread were raised almost exactly the same way there. What I read is the argument of the individual case(or personal responsibility)/each student's ability to pull themselves "up by the bootstraps" vs. what we want to do as a society to make higher education accessible for the good of society/our economy. In this way I see people talking past each other.

My father grew up on a farm without indoor plumbing. He weeded and chopped cotton every spring, summer and fall every year of his youth so that his family could live. He worked his way through college entirely without help from anyone. His degree allowed him enough upward mobility to raise me and my siblings in a decent house with no food insecurity but ongoing financial struggle. I never had to work as a kid and instead worked very hard in school and excelled academically and in several extracurriculars. I was able to attend our state flagship on full merit scholarship and go to law school on a full merit scholarship (and neither of these schools offers these scholarships any longer.)

Our family has experienced both pulling up by the bootstraps and the incremental socioeconomic advancement provided by higher education. It is admirable to see a student who can sacrifice so much to get an education but I don't think we as a society want a parking lot full of kids living in their cars so that they can access higher education.

What kinds of education do we need in our economy for us to be successful as a nation/state? What investment are we willing to make to ensure that our education needs are met in a way that will benefit everyone the most efficiently? Will that be direct investment of public money, incentives, tax breaks/benefits? All laws/taxes/spending are simply an expression of what kind of society we want to live in and what we value.

Looking ahead, we need a vibrant and thriving workforce to support the government entitlement demands of the large aging population in the US. Do we have enough high wage earners in the education pipeline to do this? Are they all going to be so burdened by debt that they defer the big purchases that drive the economy and generate revenue for governments and support local economies? In a certain sense, investing in education now will likely pay us back as a society exponentially through higher wages, more jobs and more spending by the lower debt graduates later.

If college education is largely about signaling, as Bryan Caplan (the interviewee below and author of the recent book, "The Case Against Education") suggests, sending more people to college does not achieve much social good, and subsidies for higher education should be reduced.

School Is Expensive. Is It Worth It?
By James Taranto
Wall Street Journal
April 14, 2018

Individuals need the kind of education which resonates with their sense of purpose, calling, and motivation to succeed despite obstacles requiring sacrifice. This ought not to be decided, determined, or dictated by the "nation/state."

That would depend upon who you mean as:
- "we" (individuals and their families? government? Or...?)
- "our" (US citizens who have funded the system? foreign nationals arriving on our shores for higher education which many US citizens are unable to fund for their own children? Or...? )
- "everyone" (US citizens? government? Or...?)

Please be aware that ALL public money to be collected in the next several decades has already been spent. This is why we have a burgeoning National Debt.

Do we value a society of freedom for our children? Or one in which they are assigned, as slaves, to jobs, housing, etc by a government to which they owe all of their earnings, based on the government spending (some may say overspending) and increased National Debt incurred in the past decade?

Do I detect a double-standard, in you calling out "the government entitlement demands of the large aging population"? In a society based in large part on reciprocity, in which US citizens pool a portion of their money (through taxes, Social Security FICA, insurance programs, charities, etc) to ease the burden of greatest need... ought not the persons who've paid into the system for decades be able to have some portion of their investment returned to them when they are in need and no longer working - possibly forced into early retirement by a shrinking US economy, corporate consolidations, decisions to hire younger workers, etc?

Enough "high wage earners" or potential future wage earners? Citizens who've not yet worked and contributed to the system... but believe they are entitled to having the system further invest in them?

To the degree that many jobs are being replaced by technology, and more of the available jobs in the future are projected to be in a service economy, not requiring college degrees, one may be wise to carefully consider the types of post-secondary education one wishes to engage in... including one's debt as compared with potential job prospects and earnings. The US Gov't Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) is a free resource, accessible to all. The College Board AP also offers a bit of information for career planning.

As mentioned on a similar thread about 4 years ago,
1) distributing the cost of college among all tax-paying citizens may unduly burden those not attending college... which some may consider socially unjust,
2) there may be an ironic balance in that getting more "free" stuff often comes with a tradeoff of being less "free" as an increasing number of life-decisions may be made for a person by an outside entity.

Well, it seems pretty obvious that a college education is largely about education.

My older son is planning to major in computer science. A 4-year degree costs as much as $290K. If college were largely about education, we would have him take MOOCs (he has already taken intro CS and machine learning MOOCs) and use the money to help him (for example) by a house some day. Because the credential matters as much as the knowledge, we are not going to do that.

So we're in agreement - the price is too high.

The price of a 4-year degree is too high, so let's look at alternatives, such as MissionU covered in this article:

One Year of ‘College’ With No Degree, But No Debt And a Job at the End
By Douglas Belkin
Wall Street Journal
April 9, 2018

Sure, alternatives are one option, and particularly in IT, where a degree program is of questionable value at best (the industry tends to move far too fast for colleges to keep up - I don't have one specifically because I began such a program after having already accrued job experience, and found it to be a complete waste of time and money).

But for other specialties, simply throwing up your hands and saying "let's look at alternatives" is a policy of failure, because degree programs and their graduates still have an important role to play in society as a whole.

There is an important premise that isn't being clearly indicated in any post I've read though this entire thread. I think everyone agrees that the price of a 4 year (or more) degree is pushing higher quickly, that doesn't seem to be in great debate.

The premise I'm referring to is the difference between:

1. The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising.
2. The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising and it's society's and or government's job (read tax payer) to remedy that.

Without that distinction I find it difficult to make any comment of value.

Well, your premises can be restated:

1) The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I recognize this as a societal problem, but I'm willing to passively accept the obvious and growing condition, and the long-term consequences thereof.

2) The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I accept my responsibilities as a member of society and believe problems should be solved, and I am willing to engage in activities relevant to making that happen.

For an analogy, do you identify a malignant tumor and try to treat it, even though you know it will hurt, or do you quietly ignore it and wait for it to kill you?

I feel like Bostonian has clearly endorsed the first position, and I have endorsed the second.

Thank you Dude for your reply and clarity. Perhaps #2 should be separated out into another premise. The problem with #2 is rarely whether you or I as individuals are willing to identify and accept as reality a societal problem, it's not even whether we're as free will individuals to contribute to a possible solution. The problem arises when I feel that my ideal of a societal problem is important enough to force you against your will to contribute to the solution as well.

So in answer to you last question, my answer is of course when I identify a malignant tumor on myself I try and treat it. What I don't presume though is that if I have a malignant tumor that I should be able to make you contribute to the funding to treat it, that's not my place or jurisdiction to tell you what to do with what you own. What I can do is ask if you're willing to contribute of your own free will as a compassionate and caring human being provided I have no other means to afford the treatment myself and other less expensive options are off the table. Then I let you decide if that is what you have see as a priority with your resources.

If you're participating in the medical insurance market at all, then as a fellow rate-payer, you are requiring me to help finance your treatment, without asking. That's how insurance works.

And as illustrated in this analogy, that's a lot smarter than adopting an every-man-for-himself philosophy. Civilization is built on such cooperation and mutual support.

Excellent points, Bostonian.

Interesting program... possibly it may help larger numbers of people see that the Ivies are not the only worthwhile credential ("Where you go is not who you'll be") but develop a deeper, broader sense of "fit" both for academics and careers.

Excellent points, and clarification, Old Dad.

I believe we have crystallized the issue.

This may depend upon...
Which degree programs?
How many of their graduates?
What important roles?
Which society as a whole?

As mentioned upthread, the American society is based largely upon reciprocity.
- Some examples of participation by choice: charities, go-fund-me and other online contribution systems, health insurance -vs- self-pay.
- Meanwhile taxation is compulsory: National Debt incurred by what we spend now is foisted on the next generations, who have no say in the matter.

On the contrary, your participation in any insurance program is optional, I force you to do nothing.

What is "smart" for your may not be "smart" for me. I shouldn't have the option to make you fund what is smart for me, especially when I have other options.

On a side note, the U.S. military has a whole bunch of openings for employment with the side benefit of paying for your college tuition and teaching valuable leadership and discipline qualities. As a tax payer I'm already funding that option. If one isn't willing to invest in themselves, I fail to see where it's my responsibility to invest in them in their place.

At 18 you're an adult, you become your responsibility at that age, responsible for your actions and responsible for your own well being. You stop being the responsibility of society. At this point, anything you receive from society is a gift and should be of free will.

The challenge is, however, that higher education isn't solely a private good whose value is captured solely by its recipient (the student). It's a public good that confers externalities on society through higher average SES. A more educated populace is one characterized by:

- Less crime (and its attendant public costs- insurance, incarceration, rehabilitation, victim restitution, property damage/loss, fatality and injury costs, etc.),
- Lower health insurance costs (because poverty is correlated with food insecurity and less nutrient-dense diets),
- Less unemployment (and its attendant social insurance costs),
- A lower incidence of mental health (which raises labour force participation and income earning),
- Higher tax remittances (through, on average, higher incomes)

It is all well and good to extol the virtues of private charity, but such an argument neglects the reality that education of the individual carries a social ROI that you are not accounting for. At the very least, from a purely agnostic financial perspective, it is economically rational for the state to fund public post-secondary education up to the value of the public externality enjoyed from a more educated populace.

Please note that my discussion is purely one of financial metrics, and doesn't even go into the improved service outcomes on a quality-adjusted basis that arise from a better-educated professional workforce. (e.g. better access to medical care; higher quality K-12 teachers; improved public policy formulation; safer infrastructure; more targeted and effective legislation and recourse to legal institutions; etc.)

Some may see the premises to more closely resemble:

1) The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I recognize this as a societal problem, and I'm willing to be responsible, creative, and aware of current and future consequences as I make the sacrifices necessary to determine my calling and the education I need to attain it and fulfill my purpose.

2)The cost of a 4 year degree is too high and rising, I recognize this as a societal problem, but I want entitlement today and have my children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren pay for it in the future.

For an analogy, do you identify a malignant tumor and try to transplant it into your progeny so you may live unfettered?

Yes, some of us may recall this from prior forum discussions and therefore may not have made the astute observation which Old Dad made upthread, here.

And yet the literature on public economics is clear that the long-term efficient outcome for any given individual, ex ante, is a pooling equilibrium in health insurance. An individual such as yourself may be a "low risk" insuree currently, but your long-term risk profile will differ from your evaluation of your risk today.

This is the challenge of many investments; people are unable to accurately assess their individual risk profile and do not take a Bayesian approach to pricing their risk as new information arrives over time.

A parallel argument exists for upside risks, such as investments in human capital. If we're rational, we ascribe population averages to individuals. However, after that point, we don't properly account for differences in information as those individuals approach the frontier of post-secondary credentialing.


This assumes that all individuals are eligible for military recruitment. Because of the correlation between low SES and poor health outcomes, over-reliance on military education as a funnel for access to post-secondary training may be inappropriate for the poor, and may disproportionately penalize the most physically or mentally vulnerable.



And yet society is responsible for the effects of so-called adults' behaviour if it is costly to society, either through crime, unemployment, untreated mental illness, physical disability, or behaviours which perpetuate inter-generational poverty and abuse.

Education is a known lever which prevents those downside expenditures. Reliable quantitative techniques exist to calculate the break-even point where the trade-off between extra educational spending offsets the cost of additional social program spending due to its absence.

This is a fallacious argument. There exists a spectrum of expenditure options which can, on a publicly revenue-neutral basis, provide some financial offset for the costs of post-secondary education for those who need it most.

Sadly, political pressure to avoid even evaluating such options fosters continued, unnecessary poverty for a segment of the population that--under well-designed programs-- would cost the public NOTHING on net to remediate.

You don't have to participate in society, either. You could go live on an island somewhere and pay no taxes. If you choose to live somewhere else, you're accepting the responsibilities that go along with the benefits of said society.


What?

Back to the medical analogy, just by participating and financing other people's treatments, you're pushing down the cost of treatment while advancing knowledge of how to do so. All this will benefit you further down the line, because regardless of whether you or your loved ones ever get a malignant tumor, the odds that none of you ever get an expensive and difficult condition are, assuming you live a normal life span, nearly zero.

You do have a choice, of course, but it's basically like putting all your money on 13 on the roulette wheel. Most people would calculate those odds and determine that it's not a smart bet.


I can endorse the leadership and discipline qualities, which is why I appear to grasp social responsibility at a level far beyond you. As for paying for college, you shouldn't believe everything you read on a recruiting poster.

And finally, don't pretend you're performing any kind of charity by funding the military. You're benefiting far beyond your contributions, and most of the individuals involved are grossly underpaid. There's a reason why "thank you for your service" has become a thing.

You're welcome, btw.


You stop being the responsibility of society and start being responsible FOR society. That's what being an adult in a society means. You're basically arguing that you should be able to accept the gifts of living in a society, with none of the responsibilities.

Aquinas, please remember that correlation does not imply causation.
- What is your source?
- Do you have studies which go beyond correlation to prove causation?

Families of recent legal immigrants from South American countries have spoken of leaving a society in which education was touted as the answer when the economy softened... leading to cities full of PhDs working as baristas... in which crime prospered, especially hold-for-ransom kidnappings and if the family could not pay, the kidnapped daughters were taken across the border and sold as sex slaves.

While one might hope that education would lead to ethics, accountability, etc, possibly it is not the academic courses themselves but the accompanying process of developing internal locus of control which research shows to be a highly valued outcome of post-secondary education.

Some think that weasel language is obnoxious, and that some should say what they mean without hiding behind semantics.

You're making the faulty assumption that the only way to tackle the problem is to subsidize it. That's very unimaginative.

Please elaborate, providing links and resources.

My apologies, subsidy is what I understood as your view upthread, and in prior discussion threads. Would you please clarify your position?

"Relevant activities" can mean many things. I chose that language specifically to avoid boxing myself in to any single solution, because complex social problems require a complex package of solutions.

Agreed, however, the rules of our society in the U.S. do not include paying for an adult's education. Find me where that is a right in our Constitution or it's amendments and we have a different discussion.


Regardless, as an adult I have no right to make you pay for my treatment. As an adult, you have no right to the services or property of others.


Currently two of my eldest son's best friends had both had their college all but paid for by the U.S. military, one of the including a graduate degree, so I can be assured it's not just a fake worm on a recruiting poster.

As for societal responsibility, you make mass assumptions which don't become you, I fulfill my societal responsibility quite generously of my own free will, I don't need the government to use force for me to do so....and that's where my objection is, not to fulfill societal and moral obligations but to be forced by threat in order to do so.


At no point did I indicate that my taxes toward toward the military are charity. I receive a valuable service in exchange for them. My point which you failed to understand is, this is a viable option for financing college.

You're welcome as well btw. Combat Engineer here.


Once again, you assume FAR too much. The presumption, as I far too often see, is that societal duties and responsibilities can ONLY be fulfilled though the government. Real adults don't need the government to hold their hand and force them to do so, they do so of their own free will.

Now I'd suggest that you cease with the personal character attacks and making mass assumptions about belief systems and values as it becomes neither of us.

For clarification, in the context of this discussion, what does it mean to you?

This argument is a red herring and a straw man. At no point did anyone make the argument that any one individual should have a guaranteed right to a publicly-financed secondary education.


I'll expect you to be a man of your principles, then, and cancel your insurance.


The "how" here matters. For enlisted folks after their terms, the GI Bill is financed largely by other enlisted folks paying in their $1200 in the first year of their enlistment (when that makes up a huge proportion of their salaries), and also by the fact that they're accepting far below market value for their labors during the course of their enlistments.

For officers, the costs of their education is offset by the contractual obligation to serve for a specified period of time, also at a rate far below market value.

Either way, the beneficiaries are largely paying their own way.

Anyway, this is a red herring argument, because we were talking about the growing inaccessibility of a secondary education on a societal scale. Unless the military plans a massive expansion, they cannot play a role in alleviating that.


By that I assume you mean you also pay your taxes, and interpret that as a social responsibility, and not something you're under threat to do.


Wait, so you assumed that I'm a liberal (I'm not), that I believe social duties are solely the responsibility of the government (I don't even know any liberals who believe this), and somehow I'm the one making inaccurate assumptions?

I'm not sure what system of beliefs I've attacked, except the notion that people should enjoy the benefits of society without accepting the responsibilities that go along with them. I don't recognize that as a system of beliefs, but rather as a pathology.

Obviously anything that fosters discussion and promotes awareness would be a relevant activity - anything from this thread to writing your Congressman, organizing protests, participating in brainstorming sessions, etc.

One thing that stands out to me in this is that, as we've discussed elsewhere in this forum, far too many institutions are carrying bloated debt rolls because of expenditures on things that have nothing to do with the mission of education, with the most extreme example being the lazy river. It seems like, rather than continuing to escalate tuition and expenses, that could be resolved in bankruptcy court. Sure, investors might take a haircut, but that's investing, win some/lose some, and the smart investor should have known better than to buy a bond to finance that.

Another solution that seems obvious is NCAA sports, where there's an arms race in spending, yet outside of the top ten institutions, colleges are bleeding red in this area. Cut those programs (or perhaps spin them off into a private entity), and you've got a lot of money back in the pot that actually educates people.

Next, there's clearly a severe bloat in most administrative positions, and there's an opportunity for streamlining.

Granted, if I were running this, I'd put some of those savings back into teachers, because the excessive use of adjunct professors has come at a significant cost to quality.

Once I was done with those measures, I'd balance the books and see where I'm at, and formulate next steps.

Thank you for sharing these thoughts.

Possibly I see some likemindedness, between you and Bostonian?
Between you and Old Dad?

Somewhat of a no-frills or back-to-basics approach?
Valuing cost-benefits justification?

And let's not forget the unintended consequences of increasing availability to federal student loans, and their impact on rising college tuition:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf

Better mousetrap --> smarter mouse

That's what I understood to be aquinas' expressed view, here, as a Canadian inquiring whether there is universal aid for college tuition in the US.

Dude, would you please kindly refrain from calling the member whose moniker is "Old Dad", Old Man? I find a half-dozen of such references. I understand this may be a repeated typo... in which case, would you mind editing your posts?

Indeed. Just because increased access to funding meant that students could be charged more, doesn't mean they should be. That's fine for a private institution to be as nakedly capitalistic as they like, but for public institutions, they have a higher responsibility, and that was a significant moral failing on their parts.

As I previously stated, insurance is an optional service, taxation is not optional.


No argument on any of your points, none of those points counter anything I've stated. As I said previously, my only point in relation to the military and college funding is, it's a viable option for those seeking college funding....this making it more accessible. YES! The beneficiaries are largely paying their own way! They're adults, personal responsibility for one's own well being SHOULD be paid for largely on one's own! I do believe we're getting somewhere!


Actually what I meant was that I contribute of my free will generously to improvement of societal issues outside of taxes that I pay. I view that as what adults do.



You'll noticed I had removed that reference prior to you posting as I realized that was an unfair assumption, it was only my perspective based on what you've posted. You have my apology for that assumption that I've corrected.


It would appear that what you mean is accepting the responsibilities that YOU deem appropriate to go along with them. I've agreed that people should accept the responsibilities that go along with them, as each person should do of their own free will rather than at the threat of punishment. In short, I don't get to decide what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide and you don't get to decide that for me with what I own and services I provide.

Of course taxes are optional. You can go live somewhere that you won't be taxed. A deserted island in the middle of the Pacific would do.

Not much of a choice, right? Same goes for insurance - you either have it and receive services that can save or improve your life at a price that won't send you immediately into bankruptcy (medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US), or not.

We can keep getting absurd and say that oxygen is optional, if you like.


It's not an option that can absorb the vast and growing number of people who are otherwise being pushed out of secondary education due to costs, because the military is not going to grow to absorb those folks. It's not an option for people with disabilities. Due to the hostile work environment, I'd strongly advise any woman to think twice.

Not sure why you're patting yourself on the back about people paying their own way, because at no point in this discussion have I suggested otherwise. The problem isn't people paying, it's that the current price is distorted and completely untethered to fundamentals.


Actually, what you're presenting is the opposite, because you're suggesting that you should have full access to all of the benefits of society, but have the right to choose which responsibilities you accept, and which you can shirk. The social contract doesn't work that way. We don't get to pick and choose which rights and services you get to enjoy, and you don't get to choose which responsibilities you accept. It's a package deal. All, or nothing. A civilized society, or a deserted island.

The process of deciding "what you deem as a social responsibility with what you own and the services you provide" is called "representative Democracy."

Dude, would you point us to the post(s) and phraseology in which you find Old Dad to be suggesting this?

No, I've suggested there is a range that exists in which it is fiscally neutral to provide public funding for some students' post-secondary education. Universal aid for college tuition is quite a departure from that.

I believe you have said both...

It's funny. You seem to be suggesting that you know my perspective better than I do. Why is that?

The first is a question. The second is a statement of fact. The two are not incompatible.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm pointing to the source... to facts... to statements which you have made, upthread in this discussion.
Please feel free to explain your meaning, if you believe you may have been misunderstood.

In the meanwhile, to further clarify understanding of your position, may I ask: are you saying that you are NOT in favor of free tuition at US public universities?

I am in favour of quantitatively evaluating the externality (the value created outside the transaction) associated with post-secondary education within a needs-based framework.

At a minimum, I am advocating for redirecting the expected savings from reduced government program spending rendered obsolete by additional post-secondary education to defraying tuition costs where needs-based testing thresholds are met. What share of total tuition costs of impoverished students that would account for is unknown- it could, theoretically, account for the full value of the tuition shortfall for attendance at public universities among this group of students.

Here are two accessible papers that provide an overview of the basics of the public economics debate around subsidized higher education. The works cited contain some good background reading on the public policy and evaluation frameworks used to evaluate the financial and non-financial benefits to needs-based partially or fully subsidized post-secondary education.

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.3.288

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=student

This is a good evaluation on the efficacy of various forms of financial aid, and of the barriers (short- and long-term) to accessing a post-secondary education.

http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/i/a/document/6963_LongFinAid.pdf

Note, particularly, the quote below from the last document (pp.37). This is the reason why I'm hesitant to approach post-secondary access solely through the lens of affordability at point of tuition payment. The issue of affordability and access is better addressed--and more comprehensively so--by tackling the larger challenge of creating a social ecosystem, from birth, that allows children from impoverished families to prosper. Pricing of post-secondary tuition remains a challenge to address, but one which is then secondary.


This approach requires us to consider the needs of the child within a struggling family system as paramount. Ideologically, this means being able to step away from a purist view that requires all adults to be self-sufficient, and to accept responsibility (as taxpayers) for supporting the development of children where their families cannot sustain that burden, in part or in whole.

Rawls had it right when he sought to address the welfare of the worst-off in society. Much of life is a lottery. Ex ante, behind the veil of ignorance, any one of us could have been subject to starting conditions which could have substantially hindered our development. Why accept that for our fellow humans, most especially for children, if we wouldn't want it for ourselves or our own families?