11–20 of 372 posts
This is... strange. The issue of a price would seem to me to be an issue of supply and demand. Yet, this article talks about a weirdly tangential topic. This article seems to put forward the idea that the administration of colleges has become bloated and this has led to higher fees. But that's simply not the causal chain. No one in any administration is thinking "better put that tuition up, and accept the loss in can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet education costs were exponentially lower until about 1-2 decades ago where they exploded. Despite demand being ridiculously high even in the past.
Reduced state funding is a significant component of rapidly rising higher ed costs in the US. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-hig...
This is... strange. The issue of a price would seem to me to be an issue of supply and demand. Yet, this article talks about a weirdly tangential topic. This article seems to put forward the idea that the administration of colleges has become bloated and this has led to higher fees. But that's simply not the causal chain. No one in any administration is thinking "better put that tuition up, and accept the loss in can…
So why bring it up?
This is... strange. The issue of a price would seem to me to be an issue of supply and demand. Yet, this article talks about a weirdly tangential topic. This article seems to put forward the idea that the administration of colleges has become bloated and this has led to higher fees. But that's simply not the causal chain. No one in any administration is thinking "better put that tuition up, and accept the loss in can…
The last 40 years has seen interest rates steadily fall, allowing students to pay the cost of education further in the future. This in turn allowed students to bid more for education that they otherwise would have paid less for.
If interest rates and inflation reverse their long term course, then there is no reason to believe that students will be able to afford their previous rates.
Imo it is the bloated general education requirements, squeezing as much money from students as possible. It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s. I believe if these classes were optional, they would not survive in the curriculum. University should not be in the business of propping up classes that no one wants, or professors who don’t have classes to teach.
> It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s Only if you assume that the purpose of a bachelor's is to provide job training in one specific profession. Not so much if you believe in the value of a well-rounded education, for people who are likely to change careers multiple times, maybe also be civic leaders, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the debate between these two visions has been going on for centuri…
Imo it is the bloated general education requirements, squeezing as much money from students as possible. It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s. I believe if these classes were optional, they would not survive in the curriculum. University should not be in the business of propping up classes that no one wants, or professors who don’t have classes to teach.
> It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s Only if you assume that the purpose of a bachelor's is to provide job training in one specific profession. Not so much if you believe in the value of a well-rounded education, for people who are likely to change careers multiple times, maybe also be civic leaders, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the debate between these two visions has been going on for centuri…
Imo it is the bloated general education requirements, squeezing as much money from students as possible. It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s. I believe if these classes were optional, they would not survive in the curriculum. University should not be in the business of propping up classes that no one wants, or professors who don’t have classes to teach.
> It should only take 2 years to earn a bachelor’s Only if you assume that the purpose of a bachelor's is to provide job training in one specific profession. Not so much if you believe in the value of a well-rounded education, for people who are likely to change careers multiple times, maybe also be civic leaders, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the debate between these two visions has been going on for centuri…
Do you think university graduates in France, for example, are less “well-rounded” than those in the US?
Given that this is quillette one would think they would be hesitant to question the wise and steady hand of the free market. Surely the rationally-acting rational actors at all of these institutions are acting rationally in accordance with rationality? After all, we live in a time when any "entrepreneur" can affix his name to a suburban sprawl wasteland strip mall storefront, open a University, and get accredited by…
They’re kinda the worst of both worlds: massively subsidized by the state and federal governments, with very little government oversight.