Two Laptop Bag*
The moose likes Jobs Discussion and the fly likes Cost of College Education Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Careers » Jobs Discussion
Bookmark "Cost of College Education" Watch "Cost of College Education" New topic
Author

Cost of College Education

shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
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%***
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mark Herschberg ]
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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

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!, get real. 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. What do you have say?, over to you Mr HerschBerg
Mark Ju
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 20, 2003
Posts: 117
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.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
The US wants to spend its dollars on a prescription drug plan for the wealthiest sector of society. The US has a sizable collection of subsidized voters. They have lots of free time to read their AARP publications and vote for the representative that delivers the most bacon.
I agree with you shay, US priorities are not what they should be.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
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

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!


SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
College enrollment rose from 25.5 to 25.7 % thats a fantastic increase isn't it.

It's also a narrow measure. That was college enrollment at ages between 14-24. Very few students are enrolled between ages 14 and 17. Cull those people out and you will arrive at an enrollment figure very close to 50%!
Add in all the returners and people doing retraining and the figures swell more. This basically doesn't exist in most universities elsewhere. Even in the UK (land of the Open University and Birkbeck College) I looked at enrolling in night classes at Brunell University (a good engineering school not 5 minutes walk from where I live). Only to discover that that HAVE no adult education, and virtually no night classes. Absolutely unthinkable for any comparable school in the US!
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
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.

Chris, I came out of the working-poor class. No snowboarding or sushi. I paid tuition on the time plan out of current earnings. A pair of new jeans were my chief luxury.
That said, my self-financed education was one of the things I am proudest of, and I wouldn't give it up for any amount of beer and sushi. When you are paying for it yourself, you own it. No bulshit. When I went to class I listened (and sometime argued). I read the books (and more). I was passionate. My education has repaid me 1000-fold!
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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!

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.
Mark Ju
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 20, 2003
Posts: 117
Alfred,
That's awesome to hear. I truly applaud your effort and know a lot of people that did similarly. It is very inspiring and I think universities should do more to help self-financed students.
I have to say that I also did not come from a rich family, but I racked up quite a debt in college eating. But getting back to the original point: I do not believe the prohibitive factor in the higher education system is cost. There may not be equal access or there may not be enough recruitment of under privileged minorities, etc., but cost alone does not prohibit people from attending college.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
The web is full of these articles -
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."
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
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!

This is funny. :-) So you actually thought I would post a .2% increase as evidence? (No one bothered to click through to confirm this?) Looks like I made a typo in that posting (which I just fixed). The final number is 35.7%, or an increase of about 40% over that period. That looks pretty good to me.
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.

1) No I did not.
2) I didn't want to siderack my career by spending time in the military.
3) I think the GI Bill requires military service before getting funding. ROTC, on the other hand, funds your tuition (and gives you an allowance) and then you serve after graduation, as a number of my friends have done.
Well, I've never claimed my parents can afford the tuition. You actually have no idea what I can and cannot afford. I may have used a combination of scholarships, work-study, federal loans, private loans, and other means to pay for college. It's also unclear to me why you assume that because someone has not used a program he cannot have knowledge about it.
Following on Alfred's comments, we also have more foreign students enrolling in our universities than any other country.
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.

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
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
I don't see these as alarming when considered in context


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.

$20,402 in debt? have you looked at the difference in earning potential over a lifetime for those with a BS and those without?!?! It's huge. It more then covers the $20k (including interest). $20k may sound like a big number, but the fact remains that the value is net positive.


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.

This is such a typical example of how the media misuses statistics. So bankruptcies for people under the age of 25 grew to a record high. That's bad--but there's no evidence that college is to blame. Bankruptcies are increased all across the board. Don't take my word for it, check any site you can find, like this one.



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."

Once again the media is trying to scare people using big numbers. Consider that California Dentists in 1995 earned an average of $134,590 per year (I had trouble finding more general data, but I think this gives us a reference point). At that level, $90,000 doesn't seem that insurmountable.

--Mark
Greg Neef
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 82
It isn't tough to do the math. You can calculate your likely income without the degree you are comprehending and what your debt will be when you are done. And then make an informed decision. Those calculations initially kept me from going to law school and ulitmately I got into IT. I again had that choice to make regarding graduate school and decided my billing rate was not going to go up even if I dropped $20K on an MIS degree so I still don't have one (and as far as I can tell it would not be much help in finding a job now if I did). Certainly a BA or BS degree is well established as paying for itself many times over, over time. The Masters degrees and Doctorates can be very market timing specific in value. I remember when the market for Masters in Geology and Aerospace engineering went from white hot to stone cold. Currently an MBA may be an equally cold prospect. However, last time I checked Dentist and Doctors were still doing pretty well. Point is, if it isn't going to be cost effective, don't do it. My wife has a docterate and got it for the science not the earning potential. She ain't making a fortune but likes her work and has job security (woo hoo!). Perhaps that is even more important than the cost breakdown.
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Greg Neef ]

SCJP 1.4
Mark Ju
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 20, 2003
Posts: 117
Greg,
Well said. You captured my sentiments exactly (though I do think the poor and under privileged still get shafted).
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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

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?; that should be available to you if you are a citizen regardless. I do not have the statistics but i have spoken to a number of my friends who took advantage of those programs, they took advantage of them because they could not afford college otherwise. Given a choice they would rather not join the military. What if you are a conscientious objector (which i am not by the way) does that make you any less eligible for Government assistance?
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.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?. 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.
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. Also
People do stop attending when the cost becomes too prohibitive. 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.
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
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?

Because the military shouldn't be responsibile for education, it should only be responsibile for defense. It should be a pre or post condition because without it, the military is simply giving away free education. That is outside the scope of the military's objective.
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.

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.

I know people who have had alternatives but took advantage of it anyway. I have one friend who is currently in ROTC buy paying out of pocket. You assume too much.

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?

Because I know my skills, I know what the military offers, I know my desiresdcareer path, I know how others have progeessed along the same path, and I know how my options effect my prospects. I have choosen the optimial path given the information available to me.
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.

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.
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.

Thatis strictly a matter of opinion, not an obective fact.

Originally posted by shay Aluko:

Also
People do stop attending when the cost becomes too prohibitive..

They most certainly do. When it is prohibitve, by definition, they cannot do it. If you cannot afford college, you cannot attend it, plain and simple.

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.

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
Jonathan Hendry
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 32
Mark Herschberg writes: " have you looked at the difference in earning potential over a lifetime for those with a BS and those without?!?! It's huge."
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.)
All those people who've lost manufacturing jobs and textile jobs had a definite advantage in that they didn't go $40,000 in (bankruptcy-immune) debt to learn their now-vanished field.
Billy Tsai
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 1297
I spent tens of thousand of dollars in university book, education and various costs to ended up having no job
hahahahahahahah that is so funny
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Yo Billy!
Sorry - lost connection for a while. How's it going , mate?
regards
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
One "problem" in the U.K. is that with further education you can be considered over-qualified for many jobs , especially entry-level jobs.
I don't know whether this has a bearing on the Cost of Education.
To get an education pay more, therefore less people.
Would the fact that many are considered over-qualified mean that perhaps colleges need to raise their standards or costs to make it less accessible ? The Higher National Diploma is an intermediate level between Secondary School and the Degree level. But I know more people with a Degree than an HND.
regards
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
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.)

I believe your conclusion is not supported by facts in evidence. It has been huge, we both agree. You claim the jobs going overseas will change this. I argue, and as evidence cite any significantly large geographic region over a sufficently large period,* that this does not change. What does change is that some particular field or industry suffers.
People here tend to be very sensative to the IT field. I've been saying for years that if your only skill is typing out code, you're in trouble. If you dropped $50k to get that "skill" then you wasted your money; college was not a good decision. On the other hand, people who can perform tasks which cannot be outsourced are doing fine.
Consider nursing. Evidence indicates that it is well worth the investment. How about doctors? The same holds true. What about the medical profession as a whole? It may not be true. Certain pockets can be outsourced, e.g. certain lab work, x-ray techs (I forget the correct term here). So what we see in hte medical field is the some jobs are still with the educational cost and some jobs do not.
Some software jobs will be outsourced (code monkeys), some will not be (e.g. domain modeling). If people choose training in the areas which will have jobs, their educational expense can be recouped.

*Sufficently large means not some city because those have historically been focused in a few industries. You really need to be at the size of a country to get a balanced portfolio. Sufficently long means given enough time. In the 18th and 19th centuries, technology changed slowly, and industries dies a slow painful death over decades, taking equally long to adapt to new technologies. The high tech industry moves much quicker, so we must account for the slower pace then, and choose sufficent time frames.
--Mark
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Yo Billy!
Sorry - lost connection for a while. How's it going , mate?

Please keep this thread on topic; feel free to start a new one.
--Mark
Billy Tsai
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 1297
I have given up on this country I have already got the airplane ticket I am leaving next week anyway the universities in this country are not that famous in the international stage.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Sorry Mark.
We'll continue in this thread if you like.
Hi, Billy
regards
Jonathan Hendry
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 32
Mark Herschberg writes: "Consider nursing. Evidence indicates that it is well worth the investment. How about doctors? The same holds true. What about the medical profession as a whole? It may not be true. Certain pockets can be outsourced, e.g. certain lab work, x-ray techs (I forget the correct term here). So what we see in hte medical field is the some jobs are still with the educational cost and some jobs do not."
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.
"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
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
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.

That's true of any field. If you could predict it with perfect accuracy, you could make money playing the market. We don't know which particular fields will do well. We only know that BS degrees have historically been worth the investment and, given how they have held up through other paradigm shifts, the best theories as to their value seem to suggest they will continue to do so.
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.

I do see an inherent obstacle--communication. To me, that's the biggest problem in software (think we would've lost the Mars Polar lander if the US and British teams had been working in the same office?) and it's not going to be easily solved in the near future. You're welcome to disagree with me, many people do. And if you believe that, then certainly don't waste your time with an education if you're in the US, because you won't get a job. To each his own.

--Mark
[ September 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mark Herschberg ]
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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

Your statement has no basis in fact. Which US society are you speaking for?, 50% of it?, 70% of it,100% of it?. The fact that I am a member of the same U.S society and i believe education should be a right and not a priviledge makes your statement patently false.I am a U.S citizen, i don't know if you are, neither do I care and that is my position. Also based on your statement, you seem to imply that I am not a U.S citizen just because its not a John or Steve, i think you assume too much and need to examine your blanket statements and assumptions more carefully.
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

What are you talking about?, what is a country, what binds together a country?.A country has shared values and beliefs and education, healthcare housing should be among those values. Citizens pay taxes and in return they expect services, education being among them.I don't expect anyone pays taxes without expecting services in return. I don't care to read Roche or Plato, they are human beings just like me entitled to their own opinions, so you mentioning of them is just pretentious in my opinion and does not make your arguments any more or less effective.
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

So please educate us, if effects are not justification what is?. What is the point of incurring such debt just to get an education.I am not taking this personally even though i feel your arguments and statements are offensive. By the way the 90,000 in debt is triggering a wave of bankruptcies by young people who should never have to. 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; if that is not enough justification to change education funding policy. I don't know what is.
Mark Herschberg
Sheriff

Joined: Dec 04, 2000
Posts: 6037
Originally posted by shay Aluko:

Your statement has no basis in fact. Which US society are you speaking for?

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 can believe something which society itself does not hold true.

Originally posted by shay Aluko:

Also based on your statement, you seem to imply that I am not a U.S citizen

You're reading into my statements. I assumed nothing about you.

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.

None of the studies provided evidence that the high college debt triggered bankruptcies. We have only seen studies and have seen a correlation between rising debt and bankruptcies. Given other facts, like high credit card debt based on personal consumer spending (which does not included educational spending), it is not conclusive that college education is to blame.
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

I concur that law students tend to disproportionately change fields during school moving towards corporate, and studies seem to indicate that this is because of the cost of tuition. Some would argue that a free market dictates recoures go where they are needed, and society is better off. Others might say while more public work would be good, the net benefit to society is still positive. Still others might point out that most law schools have a loan forgiveness program, so that students who go into public service don't need to pay off most of their debt, thereby balancing out the cost associated with each field.
--Mark
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
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

I am sorry, the "facts" you state above do not in my opinion support your conclusion.Perhaps a little education is in order,according to Webster's Dictionary (this is used by everybody anyway)
A society is:
" a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession"
Notice above that there is even no mention of laws in the definition of a society. Perhaps the most important thing you should note is that if you say that a society deems something to be desirable or undesirable, it must apply to every member of that society. If you can find just one person who does not subscribe to that belief, then you cannot make a blanket statement that the Society has that common belief. There is no exclusion ,there is no rule of the majority here, it is an all or nothing issue.
Back to your statement, i think you need to re-examine your usage of the word society. More to come.
Jon McDonald
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2001
Posts: 167
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


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
herkulis nugent
Greenhorn

Joined: Nov 22, 2000
Posts: 23
My experience. I came from Vietnam 20 years ago. I got my education here in the USA virtually for free with need-based and merit based scholarships and grants. I worked in restaurant and delivered newspapers between school years, and sometime during school years. My brother did the same thing. He went on to get his PhD and teaching position at MIT. Alot of folks I know went to inexpensive community colleges and got credit transfered to 4-yr universities to get bachelor degrees. Many made it out with succesful career after college. Some even went to grad schools. I have relatives in France. They said they wish to live in the USA just to take advantage of the educational system. Believe it or not, US higher education is one of the main exports in which buyers are foreign students. Those foreign students wouldn't have spent lots of $ to come here for an inferior education. But that is not my point. My personal view is that the community college system here is the envy of the world with affordable access and quality education for the price. Not many countries provide such system for the mass. Only a few exceptional individuals could gain admission to extremely competitive schools in those places. I think it's up to each person to make it with the opportunities offered in the US, in education or any other area.
A capitalist state is different from socialist state where higher education can be cheaper and sometime gratis. Higher cost of learning is the byproduct of a capitalist economy. The US is known for many leading qualities many of which are direct or indirect results of a capitalist system . If the US government starts subsidizing all educational institutions, do you think those vigors will remain the same?
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
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.

Newsweek's international edition did several lead stories on this subject this week, Shay. There were some interesting tables. Canada led in higher education investment at 2.5% of GDP, the US just behind at 2.4%. No other country at more than 1.1% of GDP, and France and Italy well less than 1%. On per-pupil expenditure the US was at $20,000, Canada at $15,000, and nobody else above $10K if memory serves. Italy spends $6000 per student and France spends $7000 (which possibly factors in the massive spending on the elit state academies).
Shameful. The country (and the poor student) are getting what is paid for. Something worth less than half what a US diploma is worth. Or less than a third.
Shay, you are probably studying in the US. It sounds like you are indulging in the traditional student pastime of bitching about the cost. If this is such a critical issue may I suggest you decamp for Paris and matriculate at the Sorbonne? Free tuition, and a monthly government stipend when you reach the age of 24! 200 (about = to $) euros a month. Few jobs, but with that princely sum who needs a job?
France is a country with it's national priorities right!
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
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


Jon, you can find *some* college in Europe as well. Unfortunately there is no funding, so show 3 hours early at the lecture hall to get a seat. Hard to get into the courses you need. The typical German student graduates about age 29 or 30.
Some countries do it relatively well, specifically the UK and Ireland.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
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%***

Thanks Mark, that sounds a lot more like the actual figures. And I'll point out that that 14-24 year old makes no statistical sense when the college-age stretches from 17 to 26. So the real figure between those ages is probably over 50%. If one counts 2-year institutions probably at least 60% get some form of college in the US.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
I've just been watching a documentary on funding in Universities in Britain and the expectation is that by the year 2011, top Universities will be expected by the Government to charge up to as much as �50,000 for a 3 year course. Following more closely the US system.
Currently , it's about �18,000 for the very top courses.
On an average course currently expect to pay �1,100 to �3,000 per year.
Fees will be expected to be paid back by the student through a fair system of taxation.
regards
Richard Scothern
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 25, 2001
Posts: 83
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
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404

If you check out courses at the City Business school, �18,000 pounds on average for a very top course. (MSc in Financial Management e.g.).
An MSc at the City University (somwhat technical orientated degrees) are about �3,000 per year.
Nottingham University averages �1,100 per year, I believe.
The schools vary, of course.
I think this fits in with the figures I gave.

�0 (for the poor)

============================================
In the new system , the poor will get taxed after they get their degrees and get a job.
In 2011, expect to pay �50,000 for a top course, �7,000 at a best but not top University and �2,500 at an average University. The shocker is the �50,000, the others are kind of expected if one considers inflation.
regards
[ October 01, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Cost of College Education
 
Similar Threads
How does religion make better programmers?
Bangalore blues
Read this?
i think that education cost is evil
Search Function