Jump to content

John Oliver On Student Debt


Mr. Hoopah!
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Student loan debt is a huge issue, college tuition inflation is part of that problem. But I've not seen any serious political discussion on how to address it. It's a perfect example of ****** up priorities on Congress. They would rather worry about Burger King's tax rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Student loan debt is a huge issue, college tuition inflation is part of that problem. But I've not seen any serious political discussion on how to address it. It's a perfect example of ****** up priorities on Congress. They would rather worry about Burger King's tax rate.

Elizabeth Warren has made it her personal crusade, but because of partisan politics it will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Student loan debt is a huge issue, college tuition inflation is part of that problem. But I've not seen any serious political discussion on how to address it. It's a perfect example of ****** up priorities on Congress. They would rather worry about Burger King's tax rate.

Its one of the main issues. I can understand ivy league and colleges like that being expensive, but even state schools are climbing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its one of the main issues. I can understand ivy league and colleges like that being expensive, but even state schools are climbing as well.

why is it understandable for Ivy League schools? they are some of the worst for having grad students teach classes

and yes, something needs to be done about the for profit schools and that job reporting he talked about isn't it.

I watched a Senate sub committee hearing where people went undercover into campuses of University of Phoenix, Virginia College, as well as some others where hidden mics and cameras showed the admission people blatantly breaking laws. In some cases, they refused to allow the fake prospective students talk to financial aid until after signing an enrollment contract

are those schools still open? yes! this wasn't a case of the schools making a mistake where they needed some guidance. why pass more regulations that make it difficult for good schools to do their jobs when you aren't shutting down the schools that have been caught red handed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is it understandable for Ivy League schools? they are some of the worst for having grad students teach classes

and yes, something needs to be done about the for profit schools and that job reporting he talked about isn't it.

I watched a Senate sub committee hearing where people went undercover into campuses of University of Phoenix, Virginia College, as well as some others where hidden mics and cameras showed the admission people blatantly breaking laws. In some cases, they refused to allow the fake prospective students talk to financial aid until after signing an enrollment contract

are those schools still open? yes! this wasn't a case of the schools making a mistake where they needed some guidance. why pass more regulations that make it difficult for good schools to do their jobs when you aren't shutting down the schools that have been caught red handed?

I guess, at least if you got to Princeton, Harvard, Or Yale your chances of landing a pretty good job are pretty dang high. Not so much at Southeast Birmingham State Community College for the Blind and Deaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, at least if you got to Princeton, Harvard, Or Yale your chances of landing a pretty good job are pretty dang high. Not so much at Southeast Birmingham State Community College for the Blind and Deaf.

yes, obviously the name carries weight but if you are looking at price compared to quality of education then no

and the truth is that we don't actually know how grads from the Ivy League do in the real world. most of the students going to Ivy League schools are wealthy before they ever set foot on campus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just make the argument like this.

An ivy league school is like a Ferrari. Even if it doesn't work as well, your chances of picking up a check are pretty darn high.

A state school is like a supped up civic... But it still costs half of a Ferrari. Your chances of picking up a girl are much much slimmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, I am not talking about job prospects. I am referring to quality of education

I am also willing to bet that the Ivy League pipeline has as much to do with family name as the school name. I am willing to bet if you compared earnings from graduates who are legacies and graduates who came in with no family attachment, you would find a huge disparity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, I am not talking about job prospects. I am referring to quality of education

I am also willing to bet that the Ivy League pipeline has as much to do with family name as the school name. I am willing to bet if you compared earnings from graduates who are legacies and graduates who came in with no family attachment, you would find a huge disparity

Probably true but it's like that with or without education. People knowing your family=more and better job opportunities. Exchange family with school and the principal still applies. Quality of education ALMOST doesn't matter as it pertains to obtaining lucrative employment. A less intelligent, less knowledgeable grad from Harvard with the same GPA as a grad from University of Tenn-Chattanooga will be hired first basically every time. People go to school to make more money more so than they do to become educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably true but it's like that with or without education. People knowing your family=more and better job opportunities. Exchange family with school and the principal still applies. Quality of education ALMOST doesn't matter as it pertains to obtaining lucrative employment. A less intelligent, less knowledgeable grad from Harvard with the same GPA as a grad from University of Tenn-Chattanooga will be hired first basically every time. People go to school to make more money more so than they do to become educated.

right, but the percentage of legacies at the Ivy League schools are much higher than at state schools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I think we're arguing different points. Lol

nah....I think we are saying the same thing but approaching it from different angles. my original topic was strictly about quality of education

people go to college to be able to get jobs these days, but colleges still maintain this fiction that they are not for job preparation so that they don't have to answer for outcomes like vocational schools do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah....I think we are saying the same thing but approaching it from different angles. my original topic was strictly about quality of education

people go to college to be able to get jobs these days, but colleges still maintain this fiction that they are not for job preparation so that they don't have to answer for outcomes like vocational schools do

I agree with most of what you're saying and would just add that you can do both education and job prep at the same time.

A classic liberal arts degree includes a skill set that is extremely transferable - reading and writing abilities, math and science (yes, those are part of liberal arts), critical thinking, foreign language, and the ability to communicate in a clear manner. Someone with several of those skills can find a job in almost any profession, or at least should be able to.

The places that do this well are the small, selective, and often private liberal arts colleges. Tuition there will run up to a quarter million over four years.

The public colleges/universities have seen their public funding slashed time and again. That leads directly to larger class sizes, emphasis on retaining students, which in turn leads to a customer satisfaction perspective over actual education. In fact, the tight budgets and constant budget slashing creates disincentives for faculty to provide rigorous education to students. I'm not saying that large numbers of faculty submit to the pressure. I'm just saying that the situation creates disincentives that make it harder to achieve the purported goal of educating people.

We've got to stop electing state legislatures who view the universities in their state in "seats for arzes" terms and we need to create specialized faculty tracks that focus primarily on research *or* teaching. The entire system of higher education is stuck in a model from 50 years ago that is horrifically outdated and ineffective in today's world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there's this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php?page=all

No statistic about higher education commands more attention—and anxiety—among members of the public than the rising price of admission. Since 1980, inflation- adjusted tuition at public universities has tripled; at private universities it has more than doubled. Compared to all other goods and services in the American economy, including medical care, only “cigarettes and other tobacco products” have seen prices rise faster than the cost of going to college. And for all that, parents who sign away ever-larger tuition checks can be forgiven for doubting whether universities are spending those additional funds in ways that make their kids’ educations better—to say nothing of three times better.

Between 1975 and 2005, total spending by American higher educational institutions, stated in constant dollars, tripled, to more than $325 billion per year. Over the same period, the faculty-to-student ratio has remained fairly constant, at approximately fifteen or sixteen students per instructor. One thing that has changed, dramatically, is the administrator-per-student ratio. In 1975, colleges employed one administrator for every eighty-four students and one professional staffer—admissions officers, information technology specialists, and the like—for every fifty students. By 2005, the administrator-to-student ratio had dropped to one administrator for every sixty-eight students while the ratio of professional staffers had dropped to one for every twenty-one students.

Apparently, as colleges and universities have had more money to spend, they have not chosen to spend it on expanding their instructional resources—that is, on paying faculty. They have chosen, instead, to enhance their administrative and staff resources. A comprehensive study published by the Delta Cost Project in 2010 reported that between 1998 and 2008, America’s private colleges increased spending on instruction by 22 percent while increasing spending on administration and staff support by 36 percent. Parents who wonder why college tuition is so high and why it increases so much each year may be less than pleased to learn that their sons and daughters will have an opportunity to interact with more administrators and staffers— but not more professors. Well, you can’t have everything.

Salaries for administrators have also increased much faster than salaries for faculty. I know of one university where the president's salary more than doubled during a five-year period. Faculty and staff got no raises whatsoever during that same five-year period. If people would dig up information on the ratio of administration salary to faculty salary, I would bet dollars to donuts that it's skyrocketed over the past 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They raise tuition every year so they can remain "competitive" - build shiny new buildings they don't really need, add more Starbucks and Chick Fil A's, etc . . . all to attract new students every year. It's a business at the end of the day.

Yes. And I staunchly oppose the government apply interest to student loans. The government is repayed through added income tax payed by college graduates and shouldn't be compounding the burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And I staunchly oppose the government apply interest to student loans. The government is repayed through added income tax payed by college graduates and shouldn't be compounding the burden.

I have no idea about those numbers and how it balances out, but the return on subsidized education is much greater than a ******* interest rate. Even beyond increased tax revenue...

Edited by BigBoyCaprice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea about those numbers and how it balances out, but the return on subsidized education is much greater than a ******* interest rate. Even beyond increased tax revenue...

Government has no incentive to keep tuition prices in check, when they're getting a slice of the pie themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...