151–160 of 298 posts
With constantly rising real estate prices, this is hardly surprising. Rent is crazy. Time to switch to free high education system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it may cost more than just dollars and cents. I worry that the adage of "you get what you pay for" may start to apply.
I don't know if there are many countries with fully subsidized college but there are at least a few who don't seem to see any worse outcomes than the US's existing partial subsidization by loans and grants.
Why have MOOCs provided no real competition?
Tie student loans to educational institutions where the study takes place. If the student fails to repay, a %age of the student loan debt should be paid for, by the edu institution where he/she graduated from. Would be great if it is 50%. Even if university doubles the price, demand/supply economics will ensure universities cannot bump fees up at will. Without holding the educational institutions and the students as…
I've never thought of it that way. I don't know if there wouldn't be some second or third order issues from something like this, but at first glance this seems like a good idea. Why shouldn't the school take on some of the risk?
Or are they in any way incentivized to take on financially less-well-off students? I'm pretty sure they'd always find some way to outsource any costs/risks like that straight back to the students.
Also: It's not that much of an open market, schools work very much on prestige, certain fields are de-facto monopolized by certain schools, it isn't an "open market" where some startup can just start a school and hope to have a meaningful impact in any short time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.
Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it…
Even if one didn't require that many employers require exactly that from you in the form of a diploma or some other authority vouching for your claimed expertise and skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> STEM students were charges several thousand dollars a year more than humanities students. That actually seems more equitable to me than what happens at some other schools, where everyone pays the same credit-hour rate no matter what course they take. Teaching STEM courses, intuitively, seems like it should cost more. The pool of professors and TAs is smaller, a lot of courses call for lab equipment and the maintain…
The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit hour. Also, some STEM-type departments get grants (public and private) at a rate that's much greater than liberal arts departments, and grant recipients have to tithe back a large portion to their parent institution in a way that defrays facilities costs, etc.…
That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis.
> If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE.
I don't know if you need to treat each department as a P&L center. There are bound to be departments that are important but perennially loss-making and knowledge shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. But there does need to be more fairness in the money charged to students. The alternative is that humanities students (with lower earning potential) are subsidizing STEM students (higher earning potential). I know which one I prefer from a fairness point-of-view (speaking as a former STEM student).
This one is easy. People are buying things that they can't afford. Throwing it into a loan and then partying their way through school. Since that worked out so well, then they do that with their car, house, furniture, cell phones, and car rims. You aren't entitled to 100,000 dollar education. You aren't entitled to go down to Mexico every spring break. you aren't entitled to eat pizza and hit the bar every weekend. Y…
Our federal government is $20 trillion dollars in debt. We are trillions more on debt from every level from local to federal. Most of the states are on the verge of bankruptcy, if not bankrupt already (like Illinois). Countless millions who depend on pensions and other promised benefits from states and municipalities are about to be in for a rude surprise. Despite this crushing debt, we continue to spend trillions of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just spent $80bil on the military. Free college is estimated at $65-75bil, so we just take that money, and move it over here and blammo. Free public university for everyone. (:
With that amount of money, can't you just end poverty directly? Why do so many people treat college like a terminal, intrinsic good?
Some view better education as a potential solution because poverty is often directly correlated with the level of education.
I will forever wonder why Americans don’t go to Europe to study higher education. I heard its much cheaper, if not free, there.