Mark Herschberg, author of The Career Toolkit
https://www.thecareertoolkitbook.com/
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
The cost seems to be sooo prohibitve that between 1967 and 2001 college enrollment among 14-24 year olds rose from 25.5. to 25.7 percent. Among hispanics the percentage attending college increased from 16% in 1980 to 22% in 2000. And the trend is expected to continue as the UC system expects of 36% increase in enrollment by 2010.
Now these numbers are all percentages, and the first two don't take into account population age shifts. Still, if college costs were truly prohibitive, I would think we'd be seeing declining enrollment.
Oh, and have you checked out the GI Bill? It was this bill that allowed for college to become accessible post WWII. It continues to send tens of thousands of students to colleges every year.
--Mark
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Does anybody have thoughts about the prohibitive cost of college education in this country?. I believe this is one of the primary reasons why america will not be able to compete technologically in the future. Other countries are investing heavily in the education fo their citizens and all we are doing is pouring a disproportionate amount of money into the Military-Industrial complex, which only goes to reward the elite few that own shares in Defence companies. I believe for the IT Industry in America to be vibrant, the fundamental issues need to be addressed, more focus on education, lowering of tuition cost (at least in public schools etc). Until and unless those issues are addressed, America will be in big trouble
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
College enrollment rose from 25.5 to 25.7 % thats a fantastic increase isn't it.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Chris G Lee:
I graduate from a public school last year and I could have charged the tuition on an entry level credit card. Many of my friends had grants (financial aid) and scholarships (academic reward). The main cost came from living expenses for out of state/city students (and various snowboarding trips and sushi).
Though the experience of the under-class is probably different, the middle and higher classes should have little problem financing a public university education.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
First, the US invests more in higher education than virtually anywhere else. Don't mistake public investment for total investment. More people go to college in the US (as a percentage of the populace) than any other country I am aware of. With the possible exception of city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore.
Why are people willing to pay for college in the US? Because it's worth the investment. Even at the lower levels of the system one can still get a quality education. Ivy League schools are a luxury, not a necessity, and I see absolutely no reason why a graduate of a public college like myself ought to shell out taxes to finance the children of the elite to go to Brown University (which invented the term 'womyn'). Compare the US public system to the French or Italian systems and there is really no comparison. I know a fellow at the University of Trento who'd think he'd died and gone to heaven if he could attend University of Texas - Arlington!
France has a few quality institutions but they have extremely competitive admissions. The French Polytechniques for engineers and teachers are excellent, as is the school for public servants (the ENA). But the non-selective french universities are reputed to be horrible places to learn. There is probably one decent university in all of Italy, Bocconi in Milan. Private, tuition-charging.
Another factor is what you can do with the sheepskin. In the US one can usually get a start on a career. In France or Italy you need more. Usually influence of some kind. The market knows what those debased diplomas are worth, which is virtually nothing.
I would like to see the cost of the basic bachelor's program at the lower-end state schools in the US lowered to what it was when I went to school (as a proportion of income). But it is still a deal any way you look at it!
That combined debt load has provided some startling numbers. According to Nellie Mae�s 2001 Credit Card Usage Analysis, graduating students have an average of $20,402 in combined education loan and credit card debt.
The trend is alarming, say financial experts, for a number of reasons: loan defaults, debt-to-income ratios that are clouding recent graduates� credit reports and their buying power and, particularly, bankruptcies. According to a study released by the Harvard School of Law, bankruptcies filed by people under the age of 25 grew to a record high of 94,717 in 2000.
A graduate of Binghamton University, Long said she will be paying $1,100 per month on her student loans when she graduates from the UB School of Dental Medicine next month. In her first year of repayment, she added, she will pay approximately $7,500 in interest on her loans. "Despite my efforts to save money and work hard, I am facing a mountain of debt," she told the committee. "Upon graduation from my endeavor to become a dentist, I will owe $90,000."
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
College enrollment rose from 25.5 to 25.7 % thats a fantastic increase isn't it.The statistics you are quoting are ridiculous considering the fact there is a 0.2 % over a period of 34 years!
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Also regarding the G.I bill, I have some questions 1) Did you take advantage of the G.I Bill? 2) Why or why not? 3) Why should it be a pre or post condition that you serve in the armed forces to get an education, shouldn't the fact that you are an american citizen be enough?. I guess you may not have answers to these questions because you are part of the priviledged few whose parents can afford the tuition in MIT. Stanford etc etc.
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Well I am referring to public investment not private investment. I still maintain that the U.S is not prioritizing properly. Do you know what it costs to get a graduate education at a public institution?, I know that in NJ it costs at least $10000 - $15000 a year for in-state students. That is shameful indeed considering the amount of money poured into building aircraft carriers and suchlike. Okay some people self-financed their education, so what? Wouldn't it have been better if they got some Government help and saddled themselves with less debt or had to wait tables etc? education is a public good and should not be subjected to the whims and caprices of market mechanisms.
That combined debt load has provided some startling numbers. According to Nellie Mae?s 2001 Credit Card Usage Analysis, graduating students have an average of $20,402 in combined education loan and credit card debt.
The trend is alarming, say financial experts, for a number of reasons: loan defaults, debt-to-income ratios that are clouding recent graduates? credit reports and their buying power and, particularly, bankruptcies. According to a study released by the Harvard School of Law, bankruptcies filed by people under the age of 25 grew to a record high of 94,717 in 2000.
A graduate of Binghamton University, Long said she will be paying $1,100 per month on her student loans when she graduates from the UB School of Dental Medicine next month. In her first year of repayment, she added, she will pay approximately $7,500 in interest on her loans. "Despite my efforts to save money and work hard, I am facing a mountain of debt," she told the committee. "Upon graduation from my endeavor to become a dentist, I will owe $90,000."
SCJP 1.4
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Not it's not shameful. It's what people want. If it's too expensive, people would stop attending; they haven't. If they don't like the funding allocations, they'd vote officials to change them. (Here I'm not taking about any particular official or funding cycle, but rather that the trend of rising tuition costs has not come onto the political radar screen.) We build aircraft carriers because we think we're better off having those than cheaper schools. Maybe we're right, maybe we're wrong. Given that over the last 20-50 years US prosperity has grown an enormous amount, it looks like we're doing the right thing.
--Mark
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Well you still haven't adressed my question, why should it be a pre or post condition that you join some unit of the armed forces before you get an education?
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I do not know anything about your particular situation but i can definitely deduce that you did not take advantage of the GI Bill because you had other alternatives.
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
What makes you think you are sidetracking your career by going into the military?; what makes you think your career as it is presently wouldn't be much more enriched by joining the military?
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
The point I am trying to make is, people pay horrendous amounts of money and saddle themselves with debt because they have no choice and this should not be the situation in the richest country on the earth.
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Also your statement about voting officials to change voting allocations seems to be without merit simply because of timing. A student trying to get into school would not waste his(her) time trying to change the political process, most students just suck it up and try to survive somehow.
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Also
People do stop attending when the cost becomes too prohibitive..
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Can you imagine getting a dental degree and owing 90,000USD?, its is absolutely ridiculous. This is the only country where that kind of thing happens. I do know a little about the educational system in the UK and it is nowhere near as expensive.
Originally posted by Jonathan Hendry:
It *has been* huge. If good-paying skilled jobs keep going overseas, there will be less of a difference, and it'll be harder to pay off a BS. (It's already hard to pay off a BS for many majors.)
Originally posted by Jonathan Hendry:
Consider nursing...
That's only going to be true as long as there's sufficient revenue to pay for those positions. I'm not sure if that's a good long-term bet.
Originally posted by Jonathan Hendry:
Some software jobs will be outsourced (code monkeys), some will not be (e.g. domain modeling).
I don't think it's quite that clear cut. I think non-codemonkey jobs like domain modeling will be outsourced, even though it may not work very well to do so. People in Bangalore can get MBAs and learn about problem domains too. I don't see any inherent obstacle to those jobs being sent offshore.
Mark Herschberg, author of The Career Toolkit
https://www.thecareertoolkitbook.com/
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
More to your point about whether the government should pay for college. The US society has deemed that college level education is not a right, it is a privaledge. You are welcome to disagree. I see no evidence that the current US approach towards higher education will be an impediment and the data I have cited support this.
--Mark
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
This is not an argument. "The richest country on earth" does not justify paying for college, health care, free housing, free speech or anything else. Those values are intrinisic. Either they should be upheld as required or not, independent of the wealth of a nation. (Read Loche and Plato for a more detailed explaination.)
It turns out in the US everyone has a choice about how the spend their money (save for taxes). No one forces people to pay for college. In fact, i would argue the US, ranging from communicaty colleges to the ivy league offers a broader range of college choices, financially and otherwise, than any other country.
--Mark
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Not only can I imagine it, evidence abound of where it happens. You seem to feel the large numbers used justify a change in policy, rather than judge on net value.
This very well may be the only country where this happens. Again, that is not sufficent justification.
I try not to criticze other people, only arguments, so please don't take this personally, but the arguments you presented are lacking in justification. They have no principaled basis, and instead cite effect as justification for change. Effects alone are never sufficent justification; rather, there is usually a derivation of why that effect is inappropriate as justification to alter the environment, policy, or behavior. Perhaps if you focused on why things are offensive (e.g. why $90,000s in debt in implicitly bad, or why a lack of government subsidies is implicitly short sighted), we might be able to save a few rounds and move into the crux of the discussion.
--Mark
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Your statement has no basis in fact. Which US society are you speaking for?
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Also based on your statement, you seem to imply that I am not a U.S citizen
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
By the way the 90,000 in debt is triggering a wave of bankruptcies by young people who should never have to.
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Young people with law degrees and high debt prefer to work for big law firms so they can pay their debt payments instead of public or pro-bomo work. Society suffers as a result of this
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Fact: College education is not garanteed by the constitution or any law.
Fact: US citizens can alter the laws by voting to express what they feel is right.
Fact: US citizens have not choosen to pass laws (directly or indirectly) proving free education.
Ergo US society does not believe this is a right.
Note that inidivudlas (sic) can believe something which society itself does not hold true.
--Mark
SCJP<br/>
"I study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy in order to give their children a right to study painting poetry and music."<br />--John Adams
Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Well I am referring to public investment not private investment. I still maintain that the U.S is not prioritizing properly. Do you know what it costs to get a graduate education at a public institution?, I know that in NJ it costs at least $10000 - $15000 a year for in-state students. That is shameful indeed considering the amount of money poured into building aircraft carriers and suchlike. Okay some people self-financed their education, so what? Wouldn't it have been better if they got some Government help and saddled themselves with less debt or had to wait tables etc? education is a public good and should not be subjected to the whims and caprices of market mechanisms.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Jon McDonald:
The thing about college education in the U.S. is that there is such a range in prices here that it really isn't fair to lump them all together. For example:
on one end of the spectrum my alma mater just raised tuition this year to over $38,000 a year. On the other end, my cousin is attending a community college whose tuition is only $50 per credit hour. When he takes a full course load (15 hours), that comes to $750 a semester, or $1500 a year. Granted, he doesn't live in a dorm like students at my university do. But because of that he is able to keep the cost down by living at home with his parents.
Also, If you have a highschool diploma you can always find SOME college that will accept you. This range of options certianly provides opportunities for those that didn't excel in highschool, but still want to further their education.
Jon
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
The cost seems to be sooo prohibitve that between 1967 and 2001 college enrollment among 14-24 year olds rose from 25.5. to 35.7 percent. Among hispanics the percentage attending college increased from 16% in 1980 to 22% in 2000. And the trend is expected to continue as the UC system expects of 36% increase in enrollment by 2010.
Now these numbers are all percentages, and the first two don't take into account population age shifts. Still, if college costs were truly prohibitive, I would think we'd be seeing declining enrollment.
Oh, and have you checked out the GI Bill? It was this bill that allowed for college to become accessible post WWII. It continues to send tens of thousands of students to colleges every year.
--Mark
***Note: edited typoe of 25.7% to 35.7%***
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Currently , it's about �18,000 for the very top courses.
In the US you mean? I didn't think it had reached those highs. (yet)
On an average course currently expect to pay �1,100 to �3,000 per year.
No. It's currently �0 (for the poor) to ~�1100 (for the rich) per year. If new legislation is introduced, the �1100 cap will be removed, but afaik, only up to �3K or so.
Still not napping
Richard
�0 (for the poor)
Cob is sand, clay and sometimes straw. This tiny ad is made of cob:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|