Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes twice you've said "1500s-2000s." The first time I chalked it up to a typo. The second time makes me question your ability to discuss this topic coherently.
I can discuss the topic perfectly fine. The issue is people like yourself want to redefine college education to meet your personal needs. There are avenues to learn job skills and there are colleges for the purpose of furthering research and innovation. Just because the tuition rates have lagged for a period of time doesn't mean that they have to always be low. Traditionally, a year's tuition was about 1 year of median income (historically, teacher's income was used for this measurement, but now we have computers to calculate it more accurately). So let's not pretend like college tuition is higher than it traditionally has been. Just because you have a narrow view compared to history doesn't mean that it changes the facts.
He always does that, as if college costs in the 1500s have any relevance at all to today.
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. The point is that college tuition costs during a small extreme is not an accurate way to determine how high tuition rates are. That's like saying interest rates of 2% are ridiculously high because a few years ago we had interest rates at 0%.
I can discuss the topic perfectly fine. The issue is people like yourself want to redefine college education to meet your personal needs. There are avenues to learn job skills and there are colleges for the purpose of furthering research and innovation. Just because the tuition rates have lagged for a period of time doesn't mean that they have to always be low. Traditionally, a year's tuition was about 1 year of median income (historically, teacher's income was used for this measurement, but now we have computers to calculate it more accurately). So let's not pretend like college tuition is higher than it traditionally has been. Just because you have a narrow view compared to history doesn't mean that it changes the facts.
When I started college at a state school in 1981, tuition was about $1000/year. At the same school now, its about $12,000, far from a "traditional amount", this is at a major state university.
Many adults are hiding out in the educational system because it's an easier way to have housing, internet, etc. than is, you know, actually working. Agreed?
You're right.
Many get successive "loans" by registering for a perfunctory couple of courses. Oh, and they get "refunds," too. And ambiguous living expenses.
For far too many, student "loans" are, indeed, another form of welfare.
When I started college at a state school in 1981, tuition was about $1000/year. At the same school now, its about $12,000, far from a "traditional amount", this is at a major state university.
That's my point. You started college when tuition was artificially low. That's like saying that in 2009, interest rates were at 0%, so 2% is high. Let's not ignore the fact that $1000/yr is extremely low compared to what tuition traditionally was before the 1930s (inflation adjusted) and more so for the longer period before that.
Nope. These have to be paid back. However, they should be limited to what they can be use for. i.e.......
Give loans for things such as:
Nursing
Engineering
Math & Hard Science
Accounting
Agriculture & Food Production
Environmental Science
Apprenticeship programs in any of the licensed trades.
Do not give loans for such things as:
Hair Weaving
Political Science (no such thing)
Putting fondant on cakes
Law degrees
Economics (pseudo science)
Cup cakeology
"Ethinic" studies
Video game playing or design
Communications
TV Presenter
Economics is definitely not pseudo science. In fact, economics along with math, science, and English, should be a requirement for students in high school.
That's my point. You started college when tuition was artificially low. That's like saying that in 2009, interest rates were at 0%, so 2% is high. Let's not ignore the fact that $1000/yr is extremely low compared to what tuition traditionally was before the 1930s (inflation adjusted) and more so for the longer period before that.
To compare, you would have to know the amount given to the schools by the state to figure out the actual cost of each student. The subsidies to the schools should be considered entitlements to the students and faculty. The hard part to figure out is whether the investmanet made in a students education is in fact a benefit to the state.
To compare, you would have to know the amount given to the schools by the state to figure out the actual cost of each student. The subsidies to the schools should be considered entitlements to the students and faculty. The hard part to figure out is whether the investmanet made in a students education is in fact a benefit to the state.
It's not that simple. Majority of the money at good universities don't come from the state or tuition. They come from research and patents. Also, not all students cost the same amount. For example, a PhD student is much more expensive than an undergraduate student.
For the record, I am for removing state aid to universities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And ambiguous living expenses. 
