Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums College Escalating American Public University Tuition

I think it's important to note that it's not just because they can, it's also because we let them and continue to swallow the bait, hook, line, and sinker.


This could easily get back into the subject matter of the thread that was previously locked. Simply because something benefits people doesn't mean that government should do it. We can think of MANY things that would be beneficial to many citizens I'm certain, however, financing it's citizen's desires isn't what government and more specifically our federal government was created to do. We're all free to contribute to our heart's content to any cause we please, however, it's not our job to tell others what good cause they MUST contribute to, when, and how much.


While I agree on much of the quote above, one sport in particular usually funds itself and makes enough to fund numerous other college sports teams. American football. If we want to curb the sports that take funding, then we'd have to start with all women's sports and all men's sports except for American football, in some colleges Basketball, and a few other rare exceptions where regional favorites sometimes fund themselves (Wrestling in Iowa, perhaps Hockey in a couple of colleges like Minnesota, etc.)


I'm am holding my breath as it's not the purpose or responsibility of federal government to fund public education, let alone public colleges or tuition. When someone can show me in the Constitution or it's amendments where college education is outlined, then we have a different discussion.


So if it's not the responsibility of the person going to college to pay costs and debt incurred by them going to college, can you tell me just who's responsibility it is and where that's spelled out? If it's anyone's responsibility other than the student, it's then the responsibility of the parents of the student.


Perhaps a better question, why is it that responsibility would be upon anyone else other than the person who signs for the debt? In answer to your question above, everyone DOES have a choice, that's just it, nobody is forcing their hand. Once again, there are many careers available that don't require a college education and in fact will pay you while they train you incurring zero debt and instead making money along the way.

While I can sympathize with the plight of college debt as I have two sons currently in college, I also understand that nobody has forced them there and we've all of our own free will signed on. Decisions have ramifications, consequences, and responsibilities to fulfill. Perhaps that's the first lesson colleges should be teaching as it appears many youth aren't getting the message these days.

I'm taking the extremely cynical view that students who wouldn't have gone to college 30 or 40 years ago are going now because society is telling them to. So the colleges are finding ways to make them happy while they're there and, as aquinas pointed out, majors for them. As I said, I'm deeply and maybe too cynical here.

Part of this is driven by employers, part by society at large, part by school and government policies, etc. But the bottom line is that students are spending less time studying than they used to and are learning less in college.

So I think we agree: "best" has a different definition for each student, and football + entertainment complex may be very high on some lists.

I'm thinking we need to generate some common sized balance sheets for the major universities and look at what kinds of program offerings correlate with increased facility and overhead expenditures.

I think aquinas has a great thought pattern there. There is very little accountability in colleges to justify spending. I know that personal experiences mean little in the big picture but it's been my experience that the vast majority of college employees, especially professors and most administrators, have little concept of time / value of money as funding is often supplied by taxpayers and student's parents (who they don't want to talk to) with no requirement to justify spending.

Old Dad, you missed my point. Look again. I didn't say that students don't have a responsibility to pay for their education.

I said that students shouldn't have to take on mortgage-sized debt to get a BA --- especially because insanely escalating costs are largely due to irresponsible spending habits at the colleges and bad government policy (e.g. minimum wage).


As for football paying for other stuff, that's a semi-myth (meaning it's only true for the top 20% or so of football colleges):


We disagree on the government's duty to fund education. Education benefits the society and the government has a duty to ensure that the society thrives. Regarding the claim that federal, state, and local governments have no duty to fund education, suggest you read up on that.

Actually, "provide for the [...] general welfare" is an enumerated power of Congress in the US Constitution.

Of course, you're conflating "general welfare" with the well being of specific individuals here. It's a well-established fact that a well-educated populace benefits everyone.


Negative. Colleges are bleeding red in athletics departments, and it's mostly due to escalating costs for football. And it's due to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

https://www.thechampaignroom.com/2017/5/22/15659242/out-of-control-spending-ncaa-college-athletics


What an odd statement. We have a cabinet-level position called Secretary of Education. It's an entire federal department, with a $68B budget in 2016.

It is an unquestioned fact of history that universal public education has been a transformative and positive advancement in Western society.

To quote, what you said was:

If the personal responsibility extends only as far as a summer job, or even a part time job year round, then the rest of the responsibility must fall to someone else. Who would that be?


Fair enough! Again, we eliminate then all but the 20% of college sports teams that break even, that will include the mass majority of college sports programs returning everything to a truly amateur status....which I have no problems with.



I never made the assertion that state and local governments have no duty to fund education, I spoke only of federal government for the specific reason that it's not outlined as a duty of the federal government.

Once again, when you can find in our Constitution or it's amendments where public education, more specifically college education, is outlined as a duty of federal government, we have a different discussion. Until that time, you have no justification of your claim otherwise. That which is not outlined falls to the states and the people. If a state wants to take that upon themselves, so be it.

We can find MANY facets of life and desires that would benefit it's citizens, however, the problem is it's and ever expanding list of federal government over reach which the Constitution and it's amendments don't outline.

You realize the department of education wasn't a federal department until 1979 correct?

The powers of Congress are outlined in the enumerated powers following the statement you spoke of regarding "general welfare" The whole purpose of outlining the enumerated powers was exactly to DEFINE what was meant by "general welfare" Among those enumerated powers there is no mention of public education.

For those who don't know what the original purpose of the federal government was intended to be, let me help you with the Declaration of Independence that tells you exactly what it was for:

(Quote)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
(End quote)

The only reason the federal government was put in place was to protect the rights you've were given by your creator, not to supply it's citizens with funding, financing, or material goods.

The cost of a public college should be affordable on a full-time low-wage summer job + 5-8 hours per week during the year. It was that way until the 90s or so. Irresponsible spending at the colleges + poor government policies such as the reduced value of minimum wage have changed that. You should not have to save 100% of 36 weeks of full-time wages just to pay tuition. What this number means is that paying for college without debt (average is creeping up on $40K now) or living in your car is effectively not possible if mom and dad don't have money. Full stop.

Forcing this on people is NOT asking them to be responsible. It's forcing them into debt servitude, which damages the entire society.

So the colleges have to be responsible, too. So does the government (see Dude's excellent points in that regard). Why don't the universities have to be responsible with their spending?

I agree that the sports should go back to the intramural level. At that level, playing on a given college team was about things that benefited the student, not the college and the NCAA.

Old Dad, you seem to be saying that the role of the government has to stay the same as it was in 1776. Why?