It was a shameful day when Obama raised the interest rates on student loans several years ago!!
6
This is a way to take one problem, kids borrowing to pay for an education that can not pay back to them a sufficient income to justify that borrowing, and turn it into two problems - take someone else's money (via taxes) and have them pay for that same insufficient education. It will not change the basic fact that some kids and/or some college educations are not worth the dollars paid for them. But creating a program to do this will add on the cost of that program in addition to the cost of the loan so that we will end up spending an even greater number of dollars on the same inadequate education. And the NYT thinks this is brilliant policy by the Demos. Guess I know what kind of education you guys at the NYT got. Try reading the WSJ sometimes and educate yourself about how an economy works.
7
I like the Rubio plan best (not) ... get yourself a Sugar Day to help you pay off the loans.
4
Tackling the high cost of college has emerged as a central issue in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Leaders on the left have for months pressed former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to advocate "debt free" college, as Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, her challengers, have done. Although she has stopped short of that proposal, she has a comprehensive agenda that encompasses just about everything on the party's wish list.
At the heart of the plan, dubbed the New College Compact, is an incentive program that would provide money to states that guarantee "no-loan" tuition at 4-year public universities and community colleges. States that enroll a high number of low- and middle-income students would receive more money, as would those that work with schools to reduce living expenses. Because Pell grants, a form of federal aid for students from families making less than $60,000, are not included in the no-debt calculation, Clinton anticipates lower income students could use that money to cover books, as well as room and board.
Meanwhile, the Republican/Tea Party presidential contenders don't have any substantive plans at all - typical of the Do Nothing, Know-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Republican/Tea Party where dumbing down everything is their guiding precept.
At the heart of the plan, dubbed the New College Compact, is an incentive program that would provide money to states that guarantee "no-loan" tuition at 4-year public universities and community colleges. States that enroll a high number of low- and middle-income students would receive more money, as would those that work with schools to reduce living expenses. Because Pell grants, a form of federal aid for students from families making less than $60,000, are not included in the no-debt calculation, Clinton anticipates lower income students could use that money to cover books, as well as room and board.
Meanwhile, the Republican/Tea Party presidential contenders don't have any substantive plans at all - typical of the Do Nothing, Know-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Republican/Tea Party where dumbing down everything is their guiding precept.
6
With all due respect, I don't think either party is taking it seriously. We've been throwing money at higher education (grants, government-backed loans, stipends and more) for over half a century. Boosting demand while supply remains constrained won't lower costs. Only boosting supply can accomplish that. We'd be better off taking some of that roughly $350 - $750 billion and using it to build more colleges, hire more professors and boost the supply of available college seats. Then, gradually reduce the demand-side benefits. You would, over time, wind up with fewer dollars chasing a bigger supply of available higher education. That's a ticket to lower costs. Massively increasing the benefits handed to students sounds noble, but is doubling down on an approach that's led to skyrocketing tuition.
2
1.All student loan payments should be tax deductible. Period.
What they pay is deducted from any tax owing.
2. Students need to be protected by the same creditors rights all other borrowers enjoy.
3. All loans, if paid for 10 years are done. Period. This allows a generation to get on with their life. There should be no tax liability with forgiveness.
4. All students should only have to take the required classes for their major. No art classes for business majors unless they choose and want to pay for it.
5. There should be a maximum that a student can borrow. Period. The rest will have to be made up with a job or savings. This would make the universities have to work within their means without depending upon tuition increases because the students will borrow the rest.
What they pay is deducted from any tax owing.
2. Students need to be protected by the same creditors rights all other borrowers enjoy.
3. All loans, if paid for 10 years are done. Period. This allows a generation to get on with their life. There should be no tax liability with forgiveness.
4. All students should only have to take the required classes for their major. No art classes for business majors unless they choose and want to pay for it.
5. There should be a maximum that a student can borrow. Period. The rest will have to be made up with a job or savings. This would make the universities have to work within their means without depending upon tuition increases because the students will borrow the rest.
3
Here's a way to make college completely affordable: Don't borrow more money than you can pay back.
Its a first, and foremost, lesson in personal finance that most people throughout the world learn without benefit of even so much as a grade school education.
Our children need to get a clue.
Its a first, and foremost, lesson in personal finance that most people throughout the world learn without benefit of even so much as a grade school education.
Our children need to get a clue.
4
OK - the handouts have gone too far.
I am just getting my 2nd child through college. When the kids were infants, I began putting money aside. I started with $50 per month per child. I was by no means well off, and it was a sacrifice to save that. After 17-18 years the magic of compounding interest made in possible to send the kids to state schools for four years (One in three and a half) with no loans.
Now, your asking me to support, with my taxes, the education of the children of those who chose to go out to restaurants a few more nights a month, instead of saving for education.
Seriously?
I am just getting my 2nd child through college. When the kids were infants, I began putting money aside. I started with $50 per month per child. I was by no means well off, and it was a sacrifice to save that. After 17-18 years the magic of compounding interest made in possible to send the kids to state schools for four years (One in three and a half) with no loans.
Now, your asking me to support, with my taxes, the education of the children of those who chose to go out to restaurants a few more nights a month, instead of saving for education.
Seriously?
10
Simple first step - reduce or remove the interest students are charged on school debt. The fact that the federal government is earning billions of $$ financing our new productive class is absurd, particularly given today's high cost of a college education (and uncertain employment). The financial institutions were bailed out with low and zero interest loans - which served the public interest. So why gouge students?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/federal-student-loa...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/federal-student-loa...
10
For the life of me I cannot understand why college is so expensive. In the 1980s I put myself through college at a highly rated state school for an undergraduate computer science degree working at night, with the help of Pell grants and a GSL. I ended up owing a paltry few thousand, and I was able to pay it off comfortably in a few years.
8
It's a simple matter of supply and demand. There is a relatively limited and inflexible supply of slots for students at colleges. Colleges can grow some -- but the highest quality educational institutions have not grown much in the last 50 years.
With more money--government funded and foreign wealth--chasing a relatively fixed supply of slots, the price will rise. Supply and demand.
The schools capture this additional income, give themselves raises and enter into the facilities battle--creating ever more fantastic buildings and amenities--in order to get the best students.
No one wants to hear that we cannot buy ourselves out of the upward spiral of educational costs, but there is just one Harvard University -- and there are only 50 top 50 colleges. They can only grow so much and so fast. As more students and more money chase these spots, the price will increase.
Hillary wants to believe that by throwing more money at this, students will somehow be able to catch up with how fast colleges can raise the price. It will never happen.
With more money--government funded and foreign wealth--chasing a relatively fixed supply of slots, the price will rise. Supply and demand.
The schools capture this additional income, give themselves raises and enter into the facilities battle--creating ever more fantastic buildings and amenities--in order to get the best students.
No one wants to hear that we cannot buy ourselves out of the upward spiral of educational costs, but there is just one Harvard University -- and there are only 50 top 50 colleges. They can only grow so much and so fast. As more students and more money chase these spots, the price will increase.
Hillary wants to believe that by throwing more money at this, students will somehow be able to catch up with how fast colleges can raise the price. It will never happen.
7
Jeb Bush already objects to Hillary Clinton's plan. But of course he and other Republicans have no plan themselves except vague promises to raise "economic growth," which is starting to sound a lot like that same-old supply-side song and dance, as if that gives any relief to millions of students carrying the balls and chains of trillions of debt. I guess when Jeb Bush promises to help people "rise up" he's not talking about college students, he's talking about titans of industry and robber barons of Wall Street, he means helping the wealthy rise even higher by protecting their low tax rates and generous tax deductions. It really boggles the mind because while losing some tax breaks would have no significant impact on the well-being of the wealthy, using those tax breaks to help students with college would be a huge boost up for ordinary working-class Americans.
It all comes from Republicans like Jeb Bush pledging allegiance to the rich to never, ever to raise taxes, and never, ever cut tax breaks, no matter what, instead of pledging allegiance to ordinary, hard-working Americans like Democrats do.
It all comes from Republicans like Jeb Bush pledging allegiance to the rich to never, ever to raise taxes, and never, ever cut tax breaks, no matter what, instead of pledging allegiance to ordinary, hard-working Americans like Democrats do.
4
I thought readers might be interested to have a Canadian perspective; in many ways, our two countries have similar issues, but seem to address them quite differently.
As in the US, many Canadian students face student loans. However, tuition at both at public and private universities in Canada is much lower principally because all chartered universities receive grants from the government. I recall that some time ago, on a US newscast, several American students attending McGill University in Montreal were interviewed. Their comments were telling; even as out of country students, they all confirmed that 4 years of university in Canada cost the same as 1 year in a comparable US institution.
In addition to lower tuition fees due to government grants, Canada has a program called "registered educational savings plan." It is akin to a tax sheltered retirement account, but it targets university costs. Also, the government provides some matching funds.
I hope this proves useful to Times readers.
As in the US, many Canadian students face student loans. However, tuition at both at public and private universities in Canada is much lower principally because all chartered universities receive grants from the government. I recall that some time ago, on a US newscast, several American students attending McGill University in Montreal were interviewed. Their comments were telling; even as out of country students, they all confirmed that 4 years of university in Canada cost the same as 1 year in a comparable US institution.
In addition to lower tuition fees due to government grants, Canada has a program called "registered educational savings plan." It is akin to a tax sheltered retirement account, but it targets university costs. Also, the government provides some matching funds.
I hope this proves useful to Times readers.
12
Free Early College to high schoolers via Obama-Kentucky JuCo subsidies diminishes university cost by students starting as juniors with associates degrees not freshmen with HSDs.
2
No new solutions are needed. There are plenty of ways for high school graduates to get a college degree without impoverishing themselves. But they might have to give up on the idea of living on campus and attending school full-time. Here are some ideas:
1. Work and save the money necessary to pay for tuition.
2. Join the military and take advantage of military benefits.
3. Attend a 2-year college first. Then work and save money
1. Work and save the money necessary to pay for tuition.
2. Join the military and take advantage of military benefits.
3. Attend a 2-year college first. Then work and save money
3
And how many years will they have to work a minimum wage job to attend college with yearly costs that exceed a full time yearly minimum wage salary?????. 4 ? If their parents will support them for the 4 yrs to work, plus 4 more years of college with no where to live but home and feed and clothe their now 26 yr old impoverished student. I say, lowering the costs is a better plan. Or maybe be lucky enough to be born into a family with means. Oh right, children don't get to choose.
7
At $130K per kid at a state school? What non-college degree requiring job is going to allow that kind of saving. I did the GI bill thing 20 years ago, and it was not enough to cover my expenses at a state school back then. An a lot of kids are not eligible for military service due to medical reasons.
5
Make it affordable? How about ending student loans and grants? It is so expensive because nobody is paying up front. So teachers can make hundreds of thousands per year for teaching next to nothing. So they can hire more administrators and build the buildings to house them. So they can offer more than 100 majors which mean 100 department and sundry assistants. So they can offer dorms with more amenities than some luxury apartments. etc. and etc.
They aren't affordable because they are too expensive.
They aren't affordable because they are too expensive.
6
The one challenge confronting Hillary's plan is basic supply/demand dynamics as they affect price. Unfortunately, as you allow more money to enter the system the cost of those services will rise. Witness what happen with the housing market and 2008. As more money was allowed to flow to borrowers, with the last 10 years (1998 - 2008) being the loosest standards in history, we had prices increase rapidly. The same has been happening with education since the late 1960's when the federal government initiated grants/loans for education.
Until the supply/demand = price dynamic is addressed, this will only exacerbate the problem; causing an increase in tuition, causing an increase in the amount needed to be borrowed, causing the government to provide more funding, and ultimately making it unsustainable.
The cause is noble and should be part/parcel of what we can offer but the more fundamental challenge needs to be addressed rather than putting money in play without the right solutions.
Until the supply/demand = price dynamic is addressed, this will only exacerbate the problem; causing an increase in tuition, causing an increase in the amount needed to be borrowed, causing the government to provide more funding, and ultimately making it unsustainable.
The cause is noble and should be part/parcel of what we can offer but the more fundamental challenge needs to be addressed rather than putting money in play without the right solutions.
4
Nothing in the Democratic proposals says anything about affordability. They just shift the cost of overpriced degrees into to the taxpayers. This additional spending would be a boon to educators and administrators primarily. You might agree that the federal government should pay for everyone to go to college but that isn't the same things as the federal government making college more affordable. This is just another wealth transfer by tax system. We can at least be honest about that.
8
The absurd idea that those who are going to benefit from an education should pay nothing, while those who are not getting the education should pay for it, is 'Democrat Think' at it's finest. Many college students have difficulty in focusing on the task at hand when paying for it themselves, if someone else was footing the bill the issue would no doubt be exacerbated.
Many of us now pay 50%+ in taxes (federal,state,local,sales,gas,meals,ACA,etc), to add another on top of this already crushing burden is just plain dumb, in addition to being unfair.
Many of us now pay 50%+ in taxes (federal,state,local,sales,gas,meals,ACA,etc), to add another on top of this already crushing burden is just plain dumb, in addition to being unfair.
8
What I haven't heard mention with regard to cutting student tuition is the amount of saving the sate would garner in terms of welfare costs and prision attrition.
2
Unfortunately, in the world of unintended consequences, the student loan program has only served to enrich the administration class at the expense of students. By making loans easy to get, the market forces that would normally restrain the inflation of college tuition gets distorted and weakened. As study after study has shown, the increase in tuition goes mostly toward hiring and enriching administrators, not improving the actual education received. One possible solution is to develop a metric that compares dollars spent for tuition with average resulting income ten years out, by college, and by major. For instance, if you want to spend $150,000 at College X for a degree in gender studies, take into consideration that others who have done the same ten years ago are now making $26,000 a year, giving you a score of (26,000 / 150,000) or .17. If you really want to see change, then tie the maximum loan amount to that.
5
In 1956 all state universities and colleges were tuition free, nothing else just tuition, there was a small registration fee, if you could not afford it, it was waived.
Certainly we can produce something close to that, most European nations have higher education open and free to all citizens., there also have health care for all, and in spite of mealy mouthed politicians falsely claiming we have the best health care system, facts belie that, at approximately half the cost and in reality better outcomes in serious illness, those are the facts.
Certainly we can produce something close to that, most European nations have higher education open and free to all citizens., there also have health care for all, and in spite of mealy mouthed politicians falsely claiming we have the best health care system, facts belie that, at approximately half the cost and in reality better outcomes in serious illness, those are the facts.
2
I think we can all agree that low interest rates for college loans are a good place to start, but why should taxpayers be on the hook for any of this? And why is there no criticism or at least an honest discussion about the profits that are being realized by many of these universities across the country on the backs of the working middle class family? Progressives and Democrats are so quick to demagogue corporations, insurance companies and medical professionals for gouging America, but are conspicuously silent when it comes to criticizing their major contributors from the higher education field. Many large universities in this country have multi-million, if not multi-BILLION dollar endowments that are invested in interest-bearing accounts. (Harvard has a $36 billion endowment). Why is none of this money being used to help make college tuition more affordable? Tenured professors (also liberal friends of the Democrats) are making huge six-figure salaries to teach philosophy, basket weaving, or some other curriculum that provides zero benefit to a graduate looking for job. There is a reason why college is not affordable, greed and special interests. Time for Hillary and the Democrats to stop the double standard and start being intellectually honest.
2
I make about $50,000.00 a year as an English Professor: a far cry from a six figure salary
3
None of this changes the cost of college, only who pays for it. Another give away to a favored group of voters.
7
I spent time as a teacher and counselor in low income communities, and also had a whole career in criminal corrections.
First admit that two years of junior college anymore is really remedial high school. For a whole lot of social reasons, K-12 schools anymore (despite being among the very most costly per pupil in the world, do not teach the typical American student a whole lot that can be measured.
So, adding in free public junior college education means we really have a K-14 education system. Texas funds a four-year college program that gives students some kind of a bachelor's degree after 2 yrs Jr college and 2 yrs university level study, but in reality it is only the old associate of arts degree dressed up.
If a Texas student really wants a world-class job after graduation they will have to take at least 4 years or more true university courses.
The biggest reason tuition costs have soared is because college professors think they all deserve to be paid like the football coach. (1) It is very easy to measure the competence of a coach, not so for experts in arcane branches of knowledge. (2) Coaches frequently get fired. Is that what profs really want?
As a teacher I went back to college to pick up credentials so I could get paid more. A prof unloaded on me once because I was making more salary than she was. Hey, I taught a full 7-hr day every day, 160 pupils. She had three small classes one hour each three times a week, and I knew her subject area better than she did.
First admit that two years of junior college anymore is really remedial high school. For a whole lot of social reasons, K-12 schools anymore (despite being among the very most costly per pupil in the world, do not teach the typical American student a whole lot that can be measured.
So, adding in free public junior college education means we really have a K-14 education system. Texas funds a four-year college program that gives students some kind of a bachelor's degree after 2 yrs Jr college and 2 yrs university level study, but in reality it is only the old associate of arts degree dressed up.
If a Texas student really wants a world-class job after graduation they will have to take at least 4 years or more true university courses.
The biggest reason tuition costs have soared is because college professors think they all deserve to be paid like the football coach. (1) It is very easy to measure the competence of a coach, not so for experts in arcane branches of knowledge. (2) Coaches frequently get fired. Is that what profs really want?
As a teacher I went back to college to pick up credentials so I could get paid more. A prof unloaded on me once because I was making more salary than she was. Hey, I taught a full 7-hr day every day, 160 pupils. She had three small classes one hour each three times a week, and I knew her subject area better than she did.
4
Making loans for college easier to get will simply cause a bump in tuition and other college costs. That's how we got to the present state of lackluster educational standards. College admission should be affordable but it should be based on merit and achievement, not a simple desire to attend Spring Break.
Last year there were over 320,000 graduates with Business Administration degrees. How many are working in their chosen field?
Last year there were over 320,000 graduates with Business Administration degrees. How many are working in their chosen field?
2
When I was an undergraduate (1966-70) the City University system in NY was tuition-free. OK, it was a stripped-down "go in, go to class, go home" education (most of us who were conventional college age lived at home), but my last year at Hunter cost something like $45/semester student fee, plus a few hundred for books (another area where costs have skyrocketed), subway tokens, and lunch. It was easy enough to earn that amount with a summer job. Academically, it was excellent, even if lacking in "college experience" and amenities. Having spent my working life in the public sector (public librarian) I'm grateful that I didn't have to spend it paying off a fortune in debt.
Listening to federal-level politicians going on about education makes me want to cry. Most education funding in this country is at the state level. State legislatures should be doing something about this issue. Fund public higher education so that students can afford it, even if they go into fields that will never bring in the big bucks.
Listening to federal-level politicians going on about education makes me want to cry. Most education funding in this country is at the state level. State legislatures should be doing something about this issue. Fund public higher education so that students can afford it, even if they go into fields that will never bring in the big bucks.
3
A president Clinton will need congressional Democrat super-majorities, if not a filibuster proof senate majority, for this to happen.
And while we are in fantasy-land, why stop with free college? Don't we need free housing, cars, food, pink unicorns, etc?
And while we are in fantasy-land, why stop with free college? Don't we need free housing, cars, food, pink unicorns, etc?
6
Paying for college degrees with federal money is not a solution to the devastating problem of the high and growing cost of going to college. We need to show students how to attend colleges that cost less than average. We need to stop giving federal aid to students who attend colleges with outrageous costs and poor graduation rates.
3
Talking about it before an election and doing something about it are radically divergent concepts. Paying for it is the Achilles Heel right? What makes you think the central government CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? I put 2 sons through college and we all are saddled by the cost of it and will be so for many more years. Yep, learning in higher institutions is broken. Way too expensive for what you get. But Uncle Sam is the last entity to be able to fix a monetization problem. You will recall that change will be driven by disruptive, passionate, sustained efforts by individuals. Thats us. Not them.
4
Thanks to the Times for highlighting this Democratic initiative. Education is too important to the future of our society to allow financing to constrain accessibility to a quality, quality underscored, education. I have benefitted from the views shared by the various commenters. I appreciate this opportunity to share my thoughts.
Our national objective should be to provide accessibility without wealth and income constraints to pre-k through 16 education. An equally important objective should be to increase the growth rate of our economy so as to provide living wage jobs for our college and grad school graduates.
There are plenty of global challenges that should be the mother of invention and innovation to create new jobs.
E.g., The global challenge of shifting economies away from fossil fuels so that we can remove the catastrophic consequences of global warming is a big one.
To have enough diplomats with technical training in food, water, community, languages and religions to take up the quest for worldwide peace where we left off after WWII is a super challenge.
We are still having problems in the distribution of work and income both here and worldwide that should employ a lot of our best and brightest.
Infrastructure for transportation and the generation and distribution of electricity are essential for the population increases already built in.
It is absolutely irrational for so much of the World's intelligence & enterprise to be dedicated to killing.
Our national objective should be to provide accessibility without wealth and income constraints to pre-k through 16 education. An equally important objective should be to increase the growth rate of our economy so as to provide living wage jobs for our college and grad school graduates.
There are plenty of global challenges that should be the mother of invention and innovation to create new jobs.
E.g., The global challenge of shifting economies away from fossil fuels so that we can remove the catastrophic consequences of global warming is a big one.
To have enough diplomats with technical training in food, water, community, languages and religions to take up the quest for worldwide peace where we left off after WWII is a super challenge.
We are still having problems in the distribution of work and income both here and worldwide that should employ a lot of our best and brightest.
Infrastructure for transportation and the generation and distribution of electricity are essential for the population increases already built in.
It is absolutely irrational for so much of the World's intelligence & enterprise to be dedicated to killing.
3
"Democrats Offer Ways to Make College Affordable"
Like health care? Promising to lower premiums by $2500/year? If the Dems make college this affordable, can we expect tuition to double?
Like health care? Promising to lower premiums by $2500/year? If the Dems make college this affordable, can we expect tuition to double?
3
First, not everyone should go to college. Actually <50% of HS grads are really ready for college, either because they lack maturity or because they don't really like learning in the first place. We need technical and trade schools that are low cost.
Second, paying out of tax dollars only urges the schools to raise their prices. Sorry, but that is a fact in private AND public schools.
Last, tenure, outrageous salaries promised for life, new buildings, degrees that are not marketable, and the real elephant in the room - interest rates - are the continued drivers for high cost degrees.
Second, paying out of tax dollars only urges the schools to raise their prices. Sorry, but that is a fact in private AND public schools.
Last, tenure, outrageous salaries promised for life, new buildings, degrees that are not marketable, and the real elephant in the room - interest rates - are the continued drivers for high cost degrees.
5
National Service with either the Armed Forces, or Meaningful Civilian Apprenticeship Programs participating in the infrastructure re-building of this country might qualify honorably discharged citizens for a GI Bill Type Stipend for higher education that avoids amassment of great debt . A minimum Federal Wage would be offered with the civilian program. The problem of the meaningless degree from the "for profit higher education industry" would have to be addressed. It is not however Governmeent but thel individual who must be held responsible for the debt amassed in their pursuit of happiness.
2
As another responder noted, college is about education not job skills.
There is no such thing as a "worthless" degree. Every program, whatever the major, should be teaching students problem solving skills. An adept student should be able to apply those skills in many industries. The biggest problem is we have our students THINK of college as job training. "What one job do you want when you are done?" is not an appropriate game plan. The more flexible the problem solver the more options he/she will find. I think every student should take a course during high school that teaches them reality - what an employer is owed, how you get a job, how you keep a job, how you advance in an organization, etc.
The Obama plan to make 2 years of community college free is an excellent way to move forward. As our world has gotten more complex it makes sense that we need a more highly educated population. The technology needed to do any job alone would justify that.
There is no such thing as a "worthless" degree. Every program, whatever the major, should be teaching students problem solving skills. An adept student should be able to apply those skills in many industries. The biggest problem is we have our students THINK of college as job training. "What one job do you want when you are done?" is not an appropriate game plan. The more flexible the problem solver the more options he/she will find. I think every student should take a course during high school that teaches them reality - what an employer is owed, how you get a job, how you keep a job, how you advance in an organization, etc.
The Obama plan to make 2 years of community college free is an excellent way to move forward. As our world has gotten more complex it makes sense that we need a more highly educated population. The technology needed to do any job alone would justify that.
4
The problem? Too many administrators. What do they all do?
6
I have been paying off my student loans for three years and haven't been able to hit the principal on any of them. That's $1,000 a month in payments to interest. Why? Because the interest rates on my loans are between 6% and 8.25%. And here's the kicker - while I'm firmly middle class by New York standards, I make "too much" by the federal government's standards and therefore can't take advantage of the tax provision that allows taxpayers to deduct their interest payments from their income. Something needs to be done about the interest rates. I saved up for two years and lived at home before law school, have a good job, and yet I'm still drowning in student debt.
4
After reading this article, I am not shocked that Congress has not found a solution to limit college debt for students. I do though find it surprising that the Republican candidates haven't shared any plans to fix the problem. In my opinion, having a good solution to limit college debt would definitely make a candidate stand out. Although Clinton and Malley have good views on ways to approach the situation, them leaving out crucial details is a sign they may not have the solution all the way figured out. All in all, I found this article very concerning because I will be going to college in a few years and there isn't a plan set in place to limit college debt.
3
that's right, more of the same gov't intervention that produced the original problem. Let's do MORE of the same, and then more again, and more again---until the whole house of cards collapses. How remedial...
4
This is an important initiative for our future. Accessibility to a quality education from pre-k to grade 16 should not be hampered by money. Our educated children are extremely important to the whole society and the economic and financial security of all. After reading through many of the comments, it becomes even more important that we must continue to work on how we can increase the growth rate of our economy to provide the jobs, careers, and good life.
There are plenty of challenges that can inspire more investment in innovation, invention to take on our large community problems that the government should explore. Making the global shift away from fossil fuels will require lots of talent, providing better education and healthcare, and adapting capitalism to do better at the distribution of work and income are no small challenge. It would also be a goal of our new educated elite to tackle all of the cultural, religious, and social problems that are causing people to kill each other. I would think that America's new grads will take up where we left off after WWII, and go for settling disputes without violence. Clearly, we can insert ourselves into solving problems rather than making conditions worse. Food
There are plenty of challenges that can inspire more investment in innovation, invention to take on our large community problems that the government should explore. Making the global shift away from fossil fuels will require lots of talent, providing better education and healthcare, and adapting capitalism to do better at the distribution of work and income are no small challenge. It would also be a goal of our new educated elite to tackle all of the cultural, religious, and social problems that are causing people to kill each other. I would think that America's new grads will take up where we left off after WWII, and go for settling disputes without violence. Clearly, we can insert ourselves into solving problems rather than making conditions worse. Food
1
As some other people have commented, our politicians should be focused on keeping jobs for products and services consumed in America, made in America so that college graduates can have decent-paying jobs. Instead, we continue to outsource jobs and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
As a parent of a sophomore in college, I know first-hand how costly college is. The cost of higher education is 10 times what it was when I went to college. I have yet to hear a proposal that would actually lower the cost of college, instead of just changing who would pick up the tab. I had to scrimp to save for my child’s education. Children are a blessing, but if you bring them into the world, you are responsible for their food, clothing, shelter, and education. It is simply not fair to burden fellow citizens with yet another cost.
As for student loans, yes the interest rates are too high. That should not equate to loan forgiveness however.
As a parent of a sophomore in college, I know first-hand how costly college is. The cost of higher education is 10 times what it was when I went to college. I have yet to hear a proposal that would actually lower the cost of college, instead of just changing who would pick up the tab. I had to scrimp to save for my child’s education. Children are a blessing, but if you bring them into the world, you are responsible for their food, clothing, shelter, and education. It is simply not fair to burden fellow citizens with yet another cost.
As for student loans, yes the interest rates are too high. That should not equate to loan forgiveness however.
3
This is a very easy "policy" to come up with, and classic Democrat: we take more money from you and we use it to buy goods and services for others. Naturally anything "free" will be means-adjusted so that it is actually a tax and an income-redistribution scheme favoring some and costing others. The middle class will once again be on the bubble and wind up paying more and getting less and being told it is for their own good. Democrat billionaires love to explain to people how much of the peoples' money should be taken from them to fund others.
6
All the Democrat's solutions - Bernie's, Hillary's, whoever - involve taking more from somebody to give to somebody else. It's so much easier to solve problems when somebody else actually has to pay for the solution. But, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, "You eventually run out of other people's money". And none of it will work, anyway. More subsidies will just result in continued increases in costs because academia has this shell game down pat.
5
Hillary Clinton thinks that all ,"higher education should be available to everyone who wants it, not just those who can afford to pay for it..." Who does she want to pay for it? Her latest campaign Ad talks about how it should be affordable and available, but not how to make it that way. I want a Ferrari, but should I just be denied because I can't pay for it? Yes. Higher education becomes devalued if everyone can get it. http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/hillary-clinton-turns-to-student-debt/
2
How about a program of forgiving student loans in exchange for public service through accredited programs? For example, if we forgave $1,000 of loans for every two weeks of service, we'd be getting good labor at bargain rates; the graduates would have a strong incentive to help strengthen communities (while building networks that could help them in the future), and loan burdens would be decreased. This option would also have the benefit of flexibility: graduates with higher-paying jobs could opt to pay their loans instead of serving, while those graduates who really need help would have a way to lower their debt.
4
The interest rate pays for the origination and servicing of the loans, as well as services provided to students and colleges. Cutting into this may adversely affect the resources available to financial aid offices within colleges and college counselors within high schools, The interest also generates the cash flow needed to be able to continue to have money in the pool for other students to able to take out federal student loans. The law of unintended consequences may dictate that by lowering the interest rate from, say, 6.8% down to 2.8%, millions of students and universities may have less services available, and at worst, the money simply not be there at all to borrow. In order to make these types of cuts to the interest rate, the budget would need to be offset by cuts in other areas, and that money could then flow into the federal student loan pool to offset the lowering of the interest rate.
College was affordable until the federal government got involved in backing the loans. The simple solution is to get the government out of the tuition game and colleges — terrified of losing tens of billions of dollars — will suddenly "find" a magical way to lower tuition to each student by thousands of dollars. Amazing how the marketplace works that way. Try it! It will be fun to watch.
4
First of all: forgive all existing student loan debt now. Not only is it the fair thing to do to fix past mistakes but it would also be a real economic stimulus because debtors could spend this money otherwise. Let's catch up with countries in Europe when it comes to low tuition and college education for everybody!
3
A simple plan. Our government should charge students the same interest rate it charges the bank.
Free tuition at two-year Community Colleges is long overdue. Government subsidies in their present misguided form have contributed to the out of control costs of Higher Education, Health Care, Housing.
Free tuition at two-year Community Colleges is long overdue. Government subsidies in their present misguided form have contributed to the out of control costs of Higher Education, Health Care, Housing.
3
There is no such thing as free tuition. What you mean is have someone not attending that school, pay fot it.
The NYT needs better fact checkers. I am NOT, I repeat, NOT, a Perry fan, but he introduced years ago in Texas the "$10,000 degree plan." That beats Hilary's plan. The highly paid (liberal) university professors and all the unneeded university administrators were not happy about it, but Perry pushed it through. Again, not a Perry fan, but this was a good deed in Texas.
3
This is the classic "create the sickness and sell the cure." The federal government has been the cause of rising college costs. The government has since the 1960s dumped truckloads of money on colleges and students, the result of which has been higher tuition: Schools pocket the subsidies and pass on the costs. A July report from the New York Federal Reserve found that every additional dollar in aid and subsidized loans led colleges to raise tuition as much as 65 cents.
I am disappointed this column did not look at all the negative unintended consequences of this plan: It increases the cost of college. It is unfair to those who worked their way through school and did not take out loans. It is unfair to those who go to trade school or do not go to college. It is unfair to families who do not have kids in college but have to pay for this. It encourages students to attend college longer, and get degrees that do not lead to a good job. The cost of this program will increase exponentially, as do all programs like this - if you subsidize something you get more of it. It increases our national debt when we need to start reducing it. And so many more negative consequences.
I am disappointed this column did not look at all the negative unintended consequences of this plan: It increases the cost of college. It is unfair to those who worked their way through school and did not take out loans. It is unfair to those who go to trade school or do not go to college. It is unfair to families who do not have kids in college but have to pay for this. It encourages students to attend college longer, and get degrees that do not lead to a good job. The cost of this program will increase exponentially, as do all programs like this - if you subsidize something you get more of it. It increases our national debt when we need to start reducing it. And so many more negative consequences.
6
Nice, but piecemeal. The real answer for public education is to restore tax rates to sustainable levels. (Private schools are a different kettle of fish.) Helping individual students afford their loans is a band-aid; repairing the financing of education is a cure.
1
Clinton's plan is by far too complicated, and, if ever implemented, would wind up in state courts. The cost to administer and enforce would be ludicrous in proportion to the state aid provided.
Bernie's plan, which was the first to begin with, is much more straightforward. And, it comes with a huge bonus. The tax on hedge fund transactions would provide much higher revenue income than being spent on the education initiative, meaning there would be money leftover to balance the budget.
Bernie's plan, which was the first to begin with, is much more straightforward. And, it comes with a huge bonus. The tax on hedge fund transactions would provide much higher revenue income than being spent on the education initiative, meaning there would be money leftover to balance the budget.
1
Todays economy makes college a joke!!!!!!!!! Those who are now succeeding are people with "thinking skills". Imagine all the jobs that could be created by offering apprenticeships for our young people. Fifty years ago, it was a "status symbol" to attend college; and the Ivy League List was created to give even more status. Little did the public know then what it can now know at a click of the internet. We are an educated society and not because of our schooling; if anything, it's despite it. Holding close to three Masters, been in education wince 1964,my evolving "wisdom" as of today in 2015 is that what our country needs is to stop letting others dictate what we need. Take a hard look at our economy, a hard look at the influence over Government that the 600 American billionaires hold, and maybe then we could elect people that will implement needed changes, and without using "scare tactics" to intimidate people.
4
A grand idea . Very smart to seize on this as it is a national crisis, all the better to distance democrats from the Republicans.
2
Unfortunately Clinton's (and the Democrat's) solution is to throw more money at a problem instead of addressing the real causes of the explosion in costs for college - cheap (and plentiful) loans as well as the increased regulatory burdens placed on universities from the Departments of Education and Justice. Low interest rates encourage schools and students to take on more burden than they can afford. In addition colleges have had to hire more and more administrators, including police, to meet all of the regulatory requirements places on them, causing a significant increase.
What she and the Dems really do is penalize those who like myself did the responsible thing and paid my loans without government assistance or interference. Instead they reward recklessness on the part of the education system and students and ultimately all taxpayers will pay. Who I really feel sorry for is those in the 25 to 45 age group - they will be paying for the unsustainable promises made by both parties.
What she and the Dems really do is penalize those who like myself did the responsible thing and paid my loans without government assistance or interference. Instead they reward recklessness on the part of the education system and students and ultimately all taxpayers will pay. Who I really feel sorry for is those in the 25 to 45 age group - they will be paying for the unsustainable promises made by both parties.
4
Something has to be done about the outrageous student debt. When I was a student, community college was free and the Cal. State Uni. (CSU) and Univ. of Ca (UC) were reasonably priced. I remember living at home for the 1st two years of community college and then transferring to a UC. Once in my career, I continued working and did grad school at a CSU in the evenings. During undergrad and grad school I worked. I never had to take out a loan because my parents were able to help with fees and I lived at home, I contributed to my fees by working during the year and summer. My friends who were completely on their own had grants that covered most of their fees and took out a small student loan in comparison to today's loans. Sometimes it took them an extra year to finish because they would work longer hours. The point is that we all had the opportunity to graduate without being an indentured servant. However, today it would be impossible to do the same. We must fund our public universities; community college should be free; students should be willing to work and live at home if possible, and parents should allow that opportunity.
5
It is well past time for the citizenry to toss the concept of political representation into the trash bag of history and see government for what it has become; a means to legally loot the various departments for their own gain as the result of a veiled popularity contest determining who holds the bag. What government should be is a simple mechanism used to help society function in an orderly and most reasonable manner.
The "college affordability crisis" is a real problem for those who are in or have graduated as well as those who wish attend. Ultimately it is a problem for our citizenry which won't be solved by the business owners who simply import foreign labor at reduced wages. In effect with no country to call home, they are sucking our nation dry.
My concern with voters who identify with either major party is that they have no idea they are being cut adrift by the very people who purport to represent them. Politicians in general, regardless their affiliation, have little or no concern for anyone beyond themselves while we the public who don't recognize this and vote to change it suffer.
The "college affordability crisis" is a real problem for those who are in or have graduated as well as those who wish attend. Ultimately it is a problem for our citizenry which won't be solved by the business owners who simply import foreign labor at reduced wages. In effect with no country to call home, they are sucking our nation dry.
My concern with voters who identify with either major party is that they have no idea they are being cut adrift by the very people who purport to represent them. Politicians in general, regardless their affiliation, have little or no concern for anyone beyond themselves while we the public who don't recognize this and vote to change it suffer.
3
College has gotten more expensive mostly because colleges have taken advantage of growing demand and funding for their services.
They have zero incentive to rein in costs because they have no skin in the game.
So here's a proposal - make the colleges responsible supplying and servicing the loans which can be dispersed in bankruptcy or if the student fails to graduate.
Guaranteed they will think twice about the amount of debt they are willing to foist on student. They will also become more selective - bringing in students who are minimally qualified and are likely to succeed.
Having a federal loan system open to anyone with a pulse does nobody good if they pile on debt they can never pay back. It's all fine to say we need to give everyone a chance, but not if it means they leave without a degree and a mountain of debt.
They have zero incentive to rein in costs because they have no skin in the game.
So here's a proposal - make the colleges responsible supplying and servicing the loans which can be dispersed in bankruptcy or if the student fails to graduate.
Guaranteed they will think twice about the amount of debt they are willing to foist on student. They will also become more selective - bringing in students who are minimally qualified and are likely to succeed.
Having a federal loan system open to anyone with a pulse does nobody good if they pile on debt they can never pay back. It's all fine to say we need to give everyone a chance, but not if it means they leave without a degree and a mountain of debt.
2
College isn't affordable because schools have no incentive to contain costs when the customer (students) can take on nearly unlimited debt to pay tuition regardless of their academic performance and job prospects.
If you want to make college affordable, it isn't by providing more financing, but actually curtailing the ability to get financing.
In a real market, students would obtain loans based on the quality of the school they are seeking to attend, majors, academic performance, and job prospects.
If it weren't for student loans, third tier schools could not charge similar tuition rates as Ivy League and peer schools.
If you want to make college affordable, it isn't by providing more financing, but actually curtailing the ability to get financing.
In a real market, students would obtain loans based on the quality of the school they are seeking to attend, majors, academic performance, and job prospects.
If it weren't for student loans, third tier schools could not charge similar tuition rates as Ivy League and peer schools.
5
Why are college tuitions as high as they are? Because they can get it. Why can they get it? Because, as I've said for years, money for college is too easy to get. It's that simple.
12
LEAPFROGGING TUITION With over 10,000 free college level courses online, the nature of higher education is going to change radically going forward. Advanced students of any age will be able to test the limits of their understanding by completing coursework as auditors. One field in which it is standard practice to move students forward as rapidly as they can is classical music, where children can begin lessons at 2 or 3 years of age and then, if they demonstrate sufficient talent, move ahead at their own pace. For example, the Russian pianist, Yevgeny Kissin, attended the Moscow School for Musically Gifted Children. He made his recording debut at age 12 years, playing both Chopin piano concertos with an encore of 6 of the composer's Mazurkas. Kids with prodigious talents in other fields will be able to have similar experiences by learning college level material as soon as they are ready. Some community colleges are awarding credits for courses taken online where the results are verified. Traditionally, undergraduate students can examine out of courses where they believe they have mastery of the material, thereby moving ahead. When I was at Penn State, I examined out of 6 foreign language courses. Another guy on the dorm floor majoring in physics examined out of 36 credits. College admissions policies may need to change to accept younger applicants who can examine out of their Carnegie credits for high school diplomas. Private universities wil need to compete too.
5
I've taught at universities in the U.S. and abroad for 25 years, came from a lower-middle-class family and earned an honors BA, two Ivy League Masters and a PhD, so I'd suggest to parents the same two-pronged plan I used to afford college: low-wage W-O-R-K as an undergraduate and academic scholarships (not loans) throughout graduate school, resulting from the academic equivalent of W-O-R-K. In addition to helping your snowflakes get through college debt-free, this is a plan that will help them successfully navigate life after college.
7
Now that I have (almost) finished putting seven children through college, I'm glad that Hillary wants to make sure I keep paying for everyone else's college tuition. It will be enlightening to see what her definition of "wealthy families" will be. No doubt the ease with which student loans have facilitated skyrocketing college costs has to be curtailed. Maybe we should start by reinforcing the notion that college isn't for everyone--and shouldn't be. But a characteristic Hillary-esque Socialist approach isn't the answer by a long shot.
4
Addressing rising tuition at public schools is a must, but the government must also address the huge gap between "demonstrated need" and "actual need" in calculating financial aids given at all schools. What FAFSA and CSS figure a household can pay would send most families to the poorhouse. When a school says it meets "100% of demonstrated need" means it will give you what it thinks you could afford to pay if you take out huge amounts of loans. That isn't right. The government can pay for closing the gap by raising the top tax rates on top earners to the levels that they were between 1946 to 1981, which it where they should be for economic growth for everyone.
1
Great idea! The federal gov't should pay for tuition to college, using all that spare cash sitting in the Treasury. Always great to have a plan to pay for something with someone else's money.
Grants to states? Bad and wasteful idea; it will only lead to more expensive education. Allowing borrowers to refi their loans at lower rates if available? Good idea, and a shame this isn't already in effect.
And its refreshing to see the NYT to reinforce its elitist tendencies. Yes, college is great for many, but is wrong for many as well, and there are a wide range of diverse paths to a satisfying, successful life that don't require a college education.
Grants to states? Bad and wasteful idea; it will only lead to more expensive education. Allowing borrowers to refi their loans at lower rates if available? Good idea, and a shame this isn't already in effect.
And its refreshing to see the NYT to reinforce its elitist tendencies. Yes, college is great for many, but is wrong for many as well, and there are a wide range of diverse paths to a satisfying, successful life that don't require a college education.
5
Nice, but eheu! too late for me. Even with SUNY tuition I'll be tens of Ks in the hole at the end, as will my kid. There's not much help for us barely-middle-class folks, either from the school, the state, or the fed. Lots of opportunity to take out loans, though.
Not holding out any hope for a retroactive solution.
Not holding out any hope for a retroactive solution.
7
Schools where I come from, Canada, charge a small fraction of the tuition that US schools do. In US dollars, in province tuition at McGill in Montreal is $1,745 a year. For out of province Canadians it's $5,350. For foreigners, it's $11,947 which is not at all subsidized.
By comparison, Penn State (a similar caliber school in lower cost area) in-state tuition is $17,502 and out-of-state/international is $30,452
What's the difference? Well, there are far fewer administrators per student, the school doesn't field expensive athletics programs, the dorms are basic, and they pay their non-faculty employees less.
The usual story to explain US public school charging more is that states have withdrawn some funding. But Penn State charges three times more than McGill for the same unsubsidized foreign student. Increasing federal contributions won't change that.
By comparison, Penn State (a similar caliber school in lower cost area) in-state tuition is $17,502 and out-of-state/international is $30,452
What's the difference? Well, there are far fewer administrators per student, the school doesn't field expensive athletics programs, the dorms are basic, and they pay their non-faculty employees less.
The usual story to explain US public school charging more is that states have withdrawn some funding. But Penn State charges three times more than McGill for the same unsubsidized foreign student. Increasing federal contributions won't change that.
4
Penn State is a top tier state university. Never heard of McGill.
1
What makes college non affordable ?
Speakers like Ms. Clinton who charged UCLA, a State University, $ 300 000 .- to deliver a single lecture.
The school asked for a reduced rate for public universities, but Mrs. Clinton’s representatives said that $300,000 was the “special university rate.”
Now the same Ms. Clinton delivers a plan to make college more affordable?
Really ?
Speakers like Ms. Clinton who charged UCLA, a State University, $ 300 000 .- to deliver a single lecture.
The school asked for a reduced rate for public universities, but Mrs. Clinton’s representatives said that $300,000 was the “special university rate.”
Now the same Ms. Clinton delivers a plan to make college more affordable?
Really ?
16
That's also an excellent point to raise with UCLA and CA state officials, as well as with the many other institutions with similarly misguided values.
1
Clinton, Sanders and the NYT are dishonest. You are all collectivists, whichever brand of that you prefer. Their plans do not "reduce costs" for anyone. Your views are so repulsive to Americans that you dare not speak their name.
The costs are SHIFTED, not reduced. The vendors do not reduce tuition or any other expenses. Payment for those exorbitant, growing and indefensible prices are shifted from those who reap the purported benefits - which studies prove are illusory for most college graduates - to other people.
The people whose money is taken earned it through their labors. And as the Democrats demagogue, most of those are middle-class people who desperately need their own earnings, whether to provide for their families, pay their bills or, god forbid, make their lives more enjoyable.
Pick a study, only between 30 and 34% of Americans have college degrees. Shifting the burden to the 66-70% who don't is unconscionable . Studies also show - as does observation - that people who do not pay for what they get value it less, yet want ever more. Because it "costs" them nothing.
By shifting the burden of paying for college from one group to another, the incentive to earn more is reduced, as studies in collectivist countries show, from Cuba to the former Soviet Union, to China.
And increased government coercion is required. Saddling one group of Americans with the burden of paying for others' consumption is unethical, counterproductive and anti-American. Despicable.
The costs are SHIFTED, not reduced. The vendors do not reduce tuition or any other expenses. Payment for those exorbitant, growing and indefensible prices are shifted from those who reap the purported benefits - which studies prove are illusory for most college graduates - to other people.
The people whose money is taken earned it through their labors. And as the Democrats demagogue, most of those are middle-class people who desperately need their own earnings, whether to provide for their families, pay their bills or, god forbid, make their lives more enjoyable.
Pick a study, only between 30 and 34% of Americans have college degrees. Shifting the burden to the 66-70% who don't is unconscionable . Studies also show - as does observation - that people who do not pay for what they get value it less, yet want ever more. Because it "costs" them nothing.
By shifting the burden of paying for college from one group to another, the incentive to earn more is reduced, as studies in collectivist countries show, from Cuba to the former Soviet Union, to China.
And increased government coercion is required. Saddling one group of Americans with the burden of paying for others' consumption is unethical, counterproductive and anti-American. Despicable.
8
Oh my Lord. My mind just exploded after reading that diatribe. So using your so called "logic", students that don't pay for tuition through crippling debt just don't "value their education", and want more of it. Just imagine the horror: more educated people in America!! But then again, that's the last thing Republicans want.
Another option for students to have tuition 'skin in the game' as @JT NC suggested might be to tie it with a variety of national service alternatives. The Military and Teach for America are current examples, but the service opportunities are as varied as the student body--supporting veterans, elder hospice, infrastructure repair, environmental restoration--are a few that come to mind.
2
As happy as I am to see candidates discussing ways to help students pay for college, I'm disappointed that there's not more of the discussion of quelling costs. In Europe, where college is free, they don't have most of the amenities students now expect from their university campus, such as rec centers, concerts and events, career advising centers, etc. Having recently graduated from a college that offered many of these, some strike me as beneficial, though much of it seems like fluff that raises tuition and fees and is meant to attract unwitting college seniors who have no idea what it means to be $50,000 in debt.
7
Only those that qualify get a 'free' education in Europe. Qualify means high grades in academic courses (although the UK only seems to care about liberal arts as their STEM courses pre-college are an abomination).
So, if the US would behave as Europe, we'd see far lower admission rates, many colleges and universities would need to close, and affirmative action would disappear as it wouldn't be relevant.
So, if the US would behave as Europe, we'd see far lower admission rates, many colleges and universities would need to close, and affirmative action would disappear as it wouldn't be relevant.
The students that should be helped are the ones that excel in high school and prep school, and yet they cannot afford to go to the best schools. They are the ones that will aspire to professional careers, become leaders, and make a difference. Give these students a massive financial break and help them out.
College is not for everyone.
College is not for everyone.
4
A college education will be more affordable when the price drops, not when more money is made available.
5
It is not surprising that Hillary's plan is short on specifics. As with many of her other proposals, she wants wiggle room to allow her to test which way the wind is blowing before she commits herself.
That is the difference between a politician and a leader.
A bold proposal would be to recognize the pivotal importance of affordable higher education for the country's future; there's no point in educating people for good jobs which end up being of no value because those who have them are crippled with debt so they cannot invest in housing, for example.
The question is whether , if say, she took a position like Bernie Sanders, she'd be willing to stand by it in the face of the inevitable GOP onslaught with accusations of "tax and spend" and "government overreach" and "fiscal irresponsibility" etc. She'd probably have to prove she was "friendly to business", while claiming that bold policy which would really solve the problem, would not be politically possible.
It would take a leader, in short, who is willing to change the terms of the debate, rather than contort themselves in grotesque and ultimately self-defeating ways to defend oneself.
Is Hillary that leader?
That is the difference between a politician and a leader.
A bold proposal would be to recognize the pivotal importance of affordable higher education for the country's future; there's no point in educating people for good jobs which end up being of no value because those who have them are crippled with debt so they cannot invest in housing, for example.
The question is whether , if say, she took a position like Bernie Sanders, she'd be willing to stand by it in the face of the inevitable GOP onslaught with accusations of "tax and spend" and "government overreach" and "fiscal irresponsibility" etc. She'd probably have to prove she was "friendly to business", while claiming that bold policy which would really solve the problem, would not be politically possible.
It would take a leader, in short, who is willing to change the terms of the debate, rather than contort themselves in grotesque and ultimately self-defeating ways to defend oneself.
Is Hillary that leader?
1
Meanwhile Scott Walker aims mainly to humiliate and subjugate the unions of the teachers who actually do the work of education; he works assiduously to defund UW and turn it into a trade school.
Our future is very much at stake. Mr. Walker may have puppet strings but he's incredibly earnest about doing what his masters say he will.
Our future is very much at stake. Mr. Walker may have puppet strings but he's incredibly earnest about doing what his masters say he will.
1
Actually, I'm not sure where you are getting your facts on Walker. While I'm not sure I'd vote for him under any circumstance given his frequent flips, he has not humiliated or subjugated the teacher union. He refused to be extorted by the teacher's union mandate that the state buy health insurance from the union's insurance company - over 2x what the state would pay on the open market. This is why collective bargaining is nothing more than extortion and must not be allowed in the public service jobs.
Consider for a minute what the impact of lowering the interest rate on federal student loans would be. The interest rate pays for the origination and servicing of the loans, as well as services provided to students and colleges. Cutting into this may adversely affect the resources available to financial aid offices within colleges and college counselors within high schools, These areas are to helping students to understand and work through the whole process, which in turn mitigates risk of default, helps with financial planning, etc. The interest also generates the cash flow needed to be able to continue to have money in the pool for other students to able to take out federal student loans. The law of unintended consequences may dictate that by lowering the interest rate from, say, 6.8% down to 2.8%, millions of students and universities may have less services available, and at worst, the money simply not be there at all to borrow. In order to make these types of cuts to the interest rate, the budget would need to be offset by cuts in other areas, and that money could then flow into the federal student loan pool to offset the lowering of the interest rate.
1
Goodness - Clinton' plan is just shifting the costs from the people who borrow the money to moms and dads and other tax payers.
If anything, the plan will exacerbate the problem, with even more federal funding going to bloating college tuitions.
Here's a solution - any college or university that accepts public monies may only do so on the condition that it can raise tuition at the same rate - and no higher - than the consumer price index (ie, the inflation rate).
If anything, the plan will exacerbate the problem, with even more federal funding going to bloating college tuitions.
Here's a solution - any college or university that accepts public monies may only do so on the condition that it can raise tuition at the same rate - and no higher - than the consumer price index (ie, the inflation rate).
5
Any discussion of financing college education should also ruthlessly question the educational model we are financing. It would be wasteful to subsidize an expensive, medieval-style system of education that largely fails its mission when we could encourage more resources to flow into exploring the collaborative, life-integrated, creative (and actually fun) processes of learning that are relevant to the society of today and the future.
1
Colleges are big businesses now and should be regulated so students don't have debt when they graduate.
2
Sometimes this all begins to feel like one huge "Big Store confidence
game." It includes the usual cast of "managers," "ropers" used to bring in the gullible (yet necessarily greedy) "marks," falsely aggrieved "inside men" to sell the con, and an army of supporting "shills" to convince the "marks" of the utter reliability of the "swindle." In the end, the con was always going to end with the game's "touch" followed by a good "the trimming" of the mark of his own money.
Even if it was all perfectly legal these past seven years, making money off of these people was never right. It just wasn't.
game." It includes the usual cast of "managers," "ropers" used to bring in the gullible (yet necessarily greedy) "marks," falsely aggrieved "inside men" to sell the con, and an army of supporting "shills" to convince the "marks" of the utter reliability of the "swindle." In the end, the con was always going to end with the game's "touch" followed by a good "the trimming" of the mark of his own money.
Even if it was all perfectly legal these past seven years, making money off of these people was never right. It just wasn't.
2
Public colleges and universities, from two-year "junior" colleges to top universities need to do a few things to make education more affordable. First, remove all extra fees except the health fee and certain lab fees to cover the cost of materials used by students in that lab. No more extra fees to support the child care center, or student recreation centers, or intercollegiate sports facilities or fraternities.
Second, place administrator salaries more on par with that of tenure track faculty members.
Third, either eliminate all intercollegiate competitive sports. Inter-mural and pick-up games and a space to play would be allowed as part of the university. However, by eliminating intercollegiate competitive sports you could eliminate the outrageously expensive coaches.
UCSC does very well without intercollegiate sports or on campus fraternities. It is one of the top universities in terms of student ability and the education provided.
Fourth, eliminate the fancy dorms and food service. A dorm that provides rooms with 2-4 beds per room, small closet, dresser, bed, desk and chair is adequate.
Students who want to can purchase food at separate cafeterias. As long as the standard food service is safe and follows nutritional guidelines it is sufficient.
Fifth,eliminate all the special scholarships. Without intercollegiate sports there is no need for athletic awards and no need for someone to administer them. If education is free only special items need money.
Second, place administrator salaries more on par with that of tenure track faculty members.
Third, either eliminate all intercollegiate competitive sports. Inter-mural and pick-up games and a space to play would be allowed as part of the university. However, by eliminating intercollegiate competitive sports you could eliminate the outrageously expensive coaches.
UCSC does very well without intercollegiate sports or on campus fraternities. It is one of the top universities in terms of student ability and the education provided.
Fourth, eliminate the fancy dorms and food service. A dorm that provides rooms with 2-4 beds per room, small closet, dresser, bed, desk and chair is adequate.
Students who want to can purchase food at separate cafeterias. As long as the standard food service is safe and follows nutritional guidelines it is sufficient.
Fifth,eliminate all the special scholarships. Without intercollegiate sports there is no need for athletic awards and no need for someone to administer them. If education is free only special items need money.
6
Yes--something absolutely must be done about competitive college sports (football) and the superstar coaching salaries! It's disgusting.
1
In many European countries, only the most talented who qualify for university may attend, and when they do, in many cases the tuition is picked up by the taxpayer. In the US, we now have a plethora of colleges that barely qualify as providing advanced education, and we have students who use college as simply a justification for goofing around for 4 more years while living off student loans while they hang out at Starbucks and contemplate their next iPhone purchase. Make college more affordable - absolutely. Mandate interest rate limits on private student loans - yes. Forgive student loans for those who go into certain understaffed professions - sure. However, I cannot get on board with giving everyone in this country who wants to go to any school, particularly the for profit ones that dupe students into believing their degree will actually be worth something, a free ride.
6
Bernie's plan, if you read it carefully, states the student has to have the "ability" to attend the college. i.e., there is going to be some sort of qualifying marker.
1
Sorry Rasberry, but 'ability' is no assurance of anything. Bernie is a nut and free college is wrong. Wrong for the student, wrong for the college, and wrong for the country. And to have an 'ability' to attend college under the progressive definition means affirmative action. A racist policy that does not ever work. And is wrong to the core.
1
Rubio is on the right path of linking loans to borrower's incomes. This is a progressive solution, and could be relatively easy to implement. The problem is setting the benchmarks for achievement. If a student fails to complete a degree, how will their debt be measured.
Clinton and Sanders have boring, actually anti-progressive, tax and spend ideas. Rubio is onto something that is progressive and innovative.
What could be possible if our politicians actually could work together to govern?
Clinton and Sanders have boring, actually anti-progressive, tax and spend ideas. Rubio is onto something that is progressive and innovative.
What could be possible if our politicians actually could work together to govern?
5
Yes it would be ice if our politicians worked together but the voters must wqnt that. Maybe the next Congress
Income-based repayment plan already exists! There are half a dozen repayment plans options. Adding yet another repayment plan is just wasting everyone's time.
1
Let's see. what the average income of an embryo or a zygote. By his standards, their entitled to his solution.
2
And you really believe this? There is no such thing as a free or reduced lunch. Another ploy to tax and spend.
6
All in how you perceive things. Sounds good to me in general terms. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
When I started college in 1962 a full four years of tuition was $3000.Today a full four years tuition at the same college is $168,120. This is straight tuition. No room and board. When I graduated I walked into a well paying job with full health insurance on the first try. Today's graduates send out hundreds of resumes and are lucky to land a job as an "intern" ............... at zero pay.
Things change.
Things change.
11
no need for a "government handout" instead, simply walk to school with your lunch money in hand and pay cash! Eliminate loans, and yes, the market will then [truely] decide. Loans are just subsidizing profits. You should not need to take out a loan to go to the hospital, nor school.
6
I'd be more supportive if we got away from the "everyone can/should go to college" mentality. Not can/should go to college. In fact some people should go into the trades. We as a nation should do a lot more to funnel students into these well paying and high demand jobs right out of high school instead of college or bust mentality.
7
I would hope that there is more to college than simply getting a job when you graduate. Teaching one to analyze and think should be a couple. But your point is well noted.
The trouble with the Democrats' proposals is that they would help future students - and would do nothing for those who are currently burdened by crushing debts. At the very least, Congress needs to revise bankruptcy laws to allow those in the direst financial straits to be able to discharge student loans along with other debts. It is utterly unconscionable that Donald Trump can clear the decks of his debts through bankruptcy four times while borrowers who have hit a rough patch of un- or underemployment are stuck with federal debts (and the accompanying IRS and legal troubles) for life for educational loans taken out in their teens and early 20s.
6
As you point out it would be nice to address the past
As well as the future. But one step at a time.
As well as the future. But one step at a time.
1
Yea, Bernie Sanders for proposing a transaction tax to pay for college education. It takes common sense and courage to want to tax the investor class and we owe it to our children. A couple of cents per trade and investment transaction would go along way to pay down our nation debt too.
9
I applaud Sanders' original and provocative thinking on transferring obscene and non-productive finance sector profits to public education via taxation.
There are many details that need attention. The traditional conservatives, who used to be plentiful, would be analyzing the spending side to ensure that colleges and students use the money wisely. This is important.
The new conservatives, of which there are plenty in these comments, just complain and complain. Notice those who have no solutions except to criticize government intervention. They are called Republicans.
There are many details that need attention. The traditional conservatives, who used to be plentiful, would be analyzing the spending side to ensure that colleges and students use the money wisely. This is important.
The new conservatives, of which there are plenty in these comments, just complain and complain. Notice those who have no solutions except to criticize government intervention. They are called Republicans.
3
We are shifting from funding colleges with direct state funds (to which the state can hold the college accountable for cost increases) to funding with federal loans and grants (under which the colleges are not held accountable). Is it any wonder that costs keep going up?
2
Every time I drive by a college campus, a swanky new building is going up. Universities and colleges seem awash in donor money for new buildings. They need to be induced to allocate a percentage of their large donor money to reducing tuition. I feel taxpayers are already paying enough.
4
Donors donate their own money for specific projects you cannot tell them what to do since they can just walk away.
That "small" tax on financial transactions Sanders is proposing was exposed as a big tax a few days ago in the NYT.
Student loan debt loads and college affordability are related, but they are two separate problems that need separate solutions. Debt needs to be refinanceable and subject to bankruptcy discharge. There are lots of ways to target affordability, and the comment section already has many good ideas posted.
Student loan debt loads and college affordability are related, but they are two separate problems that need separate solutions. Debt needs to be refinanceable and subject to bankruptcy discharge. There are lots of ways to target affordability, and the comment section already has many good ideas posted.
1
As long as the Democrats don't have to pay for it, they will keep playing politics and keep dividing the country and class, gender, and race lines. How will this new expense get paid? Why should responsible middle class people continue to save since the government will take care of everything? Is 18 trillion in debt not enough? Aren't we taxed enough already? Why not a consumption tax - the more you consume, the more you pay - sounds fair to me and a lot of others. Easy to propose these policies as long as someone else foots the bill. Problems start when we run out of other people's money...
5
A consumptive tax is very unfair to lower wage workers who will pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes, just buying the necessities.
Any product or service made available FREE to the public inevitably turns into a dump. Just look at our public restrooms- ever go into one and feel clean and safe?
4
Nothing is free, free education means someone is still paying for it like middle class.
1
1. get a job
2. go to night school
3. college is not all its cracked up to be
..this is not a job for the government to 'fix'
i.e. throw more taxpayer money at.
Electricians & Plumbers make more money than most college graduates - plus they are really ,really NEEDED, whereas most college graduates end up looking for teaching jobs.
2. go to night school
3. college is not all its cracked up to be
..this is not a job for the government to 'fix'
i.e. throw more taxpayer money at.
Electricians & Plumbers make more money than most college graduates - plus they are really ,really NEEDED, whereas most college graduates end up looking for teaching jobs.
3
Because we don't need teachers?? I don't understand your point. If plumbers are paid more than teachers that is a societal problem reflecting what we as a society value. I suppose no teachers means no college and the problem is solved. But then no one will be able to afford the plumbers. We are all in this together
College graduates actually go into fields ranging from medicine, law, physics, computer science, business management, chemical engineering, civil engineering to math-related fields, nursing, psychology/social work, accounting, biology/biotech, research and development, electrical engineering, oil & gas (incl. geology and geophysics) and, yes, teaching. And that's just a small sampling. You'd be willing to replace them with, what, more electricians and plumbers? Really? Not to denigrate electricians and plumbers - we need their services - but I'd argue that most of the other fields are "really, really needed" a lot more. If throwing tax dollars to have more judges, doctors or nurses is what it takes, better that than to waste it on the Joint Strike Fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship (which is neither littoral nor combat-ready) or on more "smart bombs" to use in the Middle East.
I may have missed this in law school, but I don't recall where our Constitution addresses the topic of the federal government playing a role in alleviating the cost of higher education. On a more practical note, when liberals talk about making college "more affordable", that is code for having someone else {i.e. the taxpayer} foot the bill.
4
You might have missed more than that in law school.
And yes, the taxpayers, hopefully mostly the affluent taxpayer, will be footing the bill. Just typing that brought a smile to my face.
And yes, the taxpayers, hopefully mostly the affluent taxpayer, will be footing the bill. Just typing that brought a smile to my face.
Law schools are subsidized by tax dollars too - even the private ones. Tax dollars (and tax breaks) go into infrastructure building and sustainment as well. So, yes, your education (as my law school education as well) was indeed subsidized by the taxpayers. Others footed the bill for law school, and now you want to cut educational funding?
Cue the Right-Wing accusations that the Democrats are offering more "candy" and "freebies" to buy votes from lower-income families. Yet, Republican leaders seem so ready to give breaks and even handouts to those, including corporations, that need them least. I'll be voting Democratic in the Presidential election -- as usual. I want political leadership that serves the greater public good and recognizes the Social Compact inherent in our Democracy, not mean-spirited leadership that mistakes corporations for people, low incomes for laziness, or plutocrats for "job creators."
4
Um, it's the Democrats who are looking for corporate handouts in the case of resurrecting the New Deal-era Export Import Bank...
So how will you reconcile the fact that a Democrat Clinton and her Wall Street policy are directly opposed to your goals?
1
Until people see that the point of college is to get an education and not to have 4 yrs and sometimes 6+ of fun with drinking, having ridiculous college provided amenities like climbing walls, 50 kinds of sushi, private college dorm suites, etc., no real progress will happen to drive down costs for students and their parents. But there are many ways to skinning the cat: Have students take their first 2 years of core courses at a community college or online while they live at home and have a part time job. Easy to get through without any debt for anyone. Then, don't pick a school to finish at based on how much mulch is around the bushes on college grounds and don't take on debt you cannot afford. Unfortunately, colleges have pushed this high debt on their students. Don't fall for it! Be realistic and understand the "Rule of 72" in finance - knowing how many years your debt will DOUBLE if you don't pay it off.
3
as a 50 something parent who owes in the high 5-figures for loans for our 3 kids, i can tell you that this is putting a huge drain on the economy. oh, how i would love to buy a new stove or refrigerator, both of which are about 23 years old and in need of replacement. but no...my money goes to the "too big to fail" banks who charge me 7.9% interest just so that my kids ...maybe... have a shot at the middle class.
my own governor (scott walker) fought student loan reforms in our state. looks like he doesn't want me contributing to the WI economy and instead wants me to send my hard earned money to the big banks.
my own governor (scott walker) fought student loan reforms in our state. looks like he doesn't want me contributing to the WI economy and instead wants me to send my hard earned money to the big banks.
5
I remember reading about two government-funded programs that actually turned a profit. I remember them because I was involved in both. The first was the meteorological satellite program, which began in the early 1960s. We spent billions to establish the array of satellites that allow us to give early warning of severe storms. A few days warning of a severe storm translates into billions of dollars of savings.
The second money-making program was the WWII Gi Bill. When millions of GIs returned from the wars, many went to school with tuition payed by Uncle Sam. The cost of this program was tremendous. And yet, within ten years, the US had made a profit. The increase in education level of the GIs resulted in better and higher paying jobs, and therefore more tax return to the government. I believe there is no better investment than education. My plan would be to forgive all of the outstanding student loans, or at least work out zero-interest long-term payback plan.
The second money-making program was the WWII Gi Bill. When millions of GIs returned from the wars, many went to school with tuition payed by Uncle Sam. The cost of this program was tremendous. And yet, within ten years, the US had made a profit. The increase in education level of the GIs resulted in better and higher paying jobs, and therefore more tax return to the government. I believe there is no better investment than education. My plan would be to forgive all of the outstanding student loans, or at least work out zero-interest long-term payback plan.
5
It is incorrect to blame all or most of the increases in college tuition on the cutbacks by the states. Rather, they were escalating at warp speed long before the Great Recession provided the opportunity for states to reduce drastically. Further, tuition at private schools has gone up even more than public institutions.
If we think of huge college debts as a genteel form of indentured servitude, the necessity for major change becomes clear. In the middle ages and beyond, people were forced to serve others to repay debts. Many Europeans came to America in the earliest days of settlement in a similar manner: ship passage would take seven years or more to pay off. What is the difference between that and what is happening to young people these days? Get the essential ticket to higher incomes, a degree, but pay for the salaries of those who can impart it for many years. The young are being forced to pay for the comfortable lives of their elders.
George Washington University is DC is a grand exemplar, on the negative scale, of a private institution that raised tuition to build its reputation. At one point, it was the most expensive college in America. The students joked that there were so many added fees that soon there would be pay toilets in the student union building. The former president said recently that he didn't invent the world, he just came along and did what he had to do. His actions, repeated with variations coast to coast, are a major reason tuition is out of bounds
If we think of huge college debts as a genteel form of indentured servitude, the necessity for major change becomes clear. In the middle ages and beyond, people were forced to serve others to repay debts. Many Europeans came to America in the earliest days of settlement in a similar manner: ship passage would take seven years or more to pay off. What is the difference between that and what is happening to young people these days? Get the essential ticket to higher incomes, a degree, but pay for the salaries of those who can impart it for many years. The young are being forced to pay for the comfortable lives of their elders.
George Washington University is DC is a grand exemplar, on the negative scale, of a private institution that raised tuition to build its reputation. At one point, it was the most expensive college in America. The students joked that there were so many added fees that soon there would be pay toilets in the student union building. The former president said recently that he didn't invent the world, he just came along and did what he had to do. His actions, repeated with variations coast to coast, are a major reason tuition is out of bounds
1
The Dems ideas always sounds great to those it looks to benefit. This becomes something like magical thinking for the recipients, "OMG, free education!" Well, someone has to pay. The tax happy Dems shout once again, "Let's ride our favorite beast of burden one more time." As the cost of education becomes increasingly the responsibility of the government, tuition will continue to rise. Once again the middle class shoulders the load.
4
The Editors note that colleges have an affordability crisis.
That would not be the case if their product turned a profit.
No federal money should be just tossed down a black hole, like for example profitless wars.
Neither should money be spent on a college degrees unless they can demonstrate a record of their graduates engaged in profitable work with which students are able to pay off their loan over say 10 to 20 years.
Giving away money on profitless ventures is what is bankrupting America.
Students should sign a contract to repay loans so they will apply themselves seriously to their studies in order to be an attractive employee or a successful business owner. If they fail to begin timely repayment, then they go into the military or similar public service until they do.
Our democracy is a Social Contract in which both parties have obligations or else the deal fails.
Politicians plans to drop off bundles of money to generals, teachers or the needy without turning a profit leads to the decline and fall of nations filling the pages of history.
Neither the Editorial Board nor politicians deal with the cold hard reality that if you can't win or break even, you're out of the game.
That would not be the case if their product turned a profit.
No federal money should be just tossed down a black hole, like for example profitless wars.
Neither should money be spent on a college degrees unless they can demonstrate a record of their graduates engaged in profitable work with which students are able to pay off their loan over say 10 to 20 years.
Giving away money on profitless ventures is what is bankrupting America.
Students should sign a contract to repay loans so they will apply themselves seriously to their studies in order to be an attractive employee or a successful business owner. If they fail to begin timely repayment, then they go into the military or similar public service until they do.
Our democracy is a Social Contract in which both parties have obligations or else the deal fails.
Politicians plans to drop off bundles of money to generals, teachers or the needy without turning a profit leads to the decline and fall of nations filling the pages of history.
Neither the Editorial Board nor politicians deal with the cold hard reality that if you can't win or break even, you're out of the game.
2
Why is the Democrats' only answer always more federal money? Federal money is the PROBLEM, not the solution. It's not a coincidence that the cost of higher education has outstripped the rate of inflation by more than double for the last 30+ years, while government funding of it has increased that entire period.
And just look at the massive waste in higher education. Colleges don't cut costs because they have no incentive to do so. Instead, to a one, they tear down serviceable buildings to build new, more expensive ones. They refuse to embrace innovations in their calendar, leaving these gold-plated facilities mostly empty for 4 months out of every year. They pay tenured professors 6-figure salaries to teach 2-3 classes a semester, with a semester sabbatical every 4 years. And at the bigger schools, those same professors defer most of the actual hard work of grading to graduate assistants.
I'm a huge proponent of the liberal arts education. It has educated enlightened Americans for generations. But the quality of that education has not improved with nicer classrooms, studio apartment dorms, golf-plated cafeterias, sterling silver athletic facilities. And it is miles behind every other industry in spending efficiently.
Real, needed reform of higher education can only come when the federal government stops subsidizing waste. What Hillary is offering is the opposite, and no one should be fooled.
And just look at the massive waste in higher education. Colleges don't cut costs because they have no incentive to do so. Instead, to a one, they tear down serviceable buildings to build new, more expensive ones. They refuse to embrace innovations in their calendar, leaving these gold-plated facilities mostly empty for 4 months out of every year. They pay tenured professors 6-figure salaries to teach 2-3 classes a semester, with a semester sabbatical every 4 years. And at the bigger schools, those same professors defer most of the actual hard work of grading to graduate assistants.
I'm a huge proponent of the liberal arts education. It has educated enlightened Americans for generations. But the quality of that education has not improved with nicer classrooms, studio apartment dorms, golf-plated cafeterias, sterling silver athletic facilities. And it is miles behind every other industry in spending efficiently.
Real, needed reform of higher education can only come when the federal government stops subsidizing waste. What Hillary is offering is the opposite, and no one should be fooled.
3
These "plans" are campaign platitudes & nothing more. Just so happens the Democrat candidates threw a few up against the wall first.
3
Assisting students with college debt makes sense only if is connected to student performance.
Students graduating with honors or generating an overall all average of 3.5-4.0 should be far more generously treated than those who just scraped by with a 2.0-2.5 grade point averages.
There should also be a cap on the amount that a student can borrow. Not a few students extend college stays on borrowed money that they have little capacity to repay.
Additionally, students studying hard sciences should be favored over those wandering aimlessly the in liberal arts.
The country already has too many aimless liberal arts graduates that leave college possessing fundamentally no important skills, thus making it doubly difficult to repay their loans.
Students graduating with honors or generating an overall all average of 3.5-4.0 should be far more generously treated than those who just scraped by with a 2.0-2.5 grade point averages.
There should also be a cap on the amount that a student can borrow. Not a few students extend college stays on borrowed money that they have little capacity to repay.
Additionally, students studying hard sciences should be favored over those wandering aimlessly the in liberal arts.
The country already has too many aimless liberal arts graduates that leave college possessing fundamentally no important skills, thus making it doubly difficult to repay their loans.
1
Yes, yes, yes and no. Students in liberal arts often find their aims by studying a wide array of subjects seriously for the first time . They become more thoughtful and able to accept complexities (no easy answers), thereby ready for life and politics.
What is missing in proposals regarding tuition costs is the responsibility of the alleged employers for preparing their alleged future employees. At some point -- perhaps after two years of solid grounding in liberal arts -- the student should be able to see the possibilities and enter into a partnership with an industry to go further. Industries should have a battery of tests for potential workers to try their skills with and something equivalent to the old Strong Interst Test to find matches. Don't leave this step to the colleges and universities! Students need to see where they can get in before they seek to get out!
What is missing in proposals regarding tuition costs is the responsibility of the alleged employers for preparing their alleged future employees. At some point -- perhaps after two years of solid grounding in liberal arts -- the student should be able to see the possibilities and enter into a partnership with an industry to go further. Industries should have a battery of tests for potential workers to try their skills with and something equivalent to the old Strong Interst Test to find matches. Don't leave this step to the colleges and universities! Students need to see where they can get in before they seek to get out!
A very good op-ed. However, like in Obamacare I see no plan to reduce the cost of education by candidates. Public colleges should pay their presidents smaller salaries, (up to $150 per year, not $500 to $1M), cut in half the admin and facilities, increase the amount of work (study) done remotely via the Internet, and find a way to balance teachers pay. Right now there are two extremes: lots of part time adjoint positions that pays a dismal 3000 per course over one semester (you can't live on this money and pay off your own student loan; what a joke!) and, at the opposite spectrum old tenured professors in their 70s who work 4-8 hours per week and who go from conference to conference and from retreat to retreat, nationally and internationally on the college's dime. Also, no fees for public commence addresses; whoever comes (say Hillary Clinton or her daughter) comes not for 250k or 50k or 500k, but as a means of public service.
Also, make college requirement not compulsory for hiring in liberal arts related jobs; or maybe just a 2 year community college needed (instead of a useless BA and MA, 6 yrs! like today.) With the wealth of information available for free on the internet someone can learn everything about PR, marketing, Television and Film Production in less than a year, just with a laptop, studying at home.
For many type of degrees a six month curriculum over the internet, done from home, could give the students all the information they need for certian jobs.
Also, make college requirement not compulsory for hiring in liberal arts related jobs; or maybe just a 2 year community college needed (instead of a useless BA and MA, 6 yrs! like today.) With the wealth of information available for free on the internet someone can learn everything about PR, marketing, Television and Film Production in less than a year, just with a laptop, studying at home.
For many type of degrees a six month curriculum over the internet, done from home, could give the students all the information they need for certian jobs.
3
Maybe this is why the Republicans are not interested in making college education affordable in the U.S.
1. Education is correlated with political party preference:
Post-graduate degree: 57% lean Democrat; 35% lean Republican
College degree or some post graduate ed.: 49% lean Democrat; 42% lean Republican
Less than college degree: 47% lean Democrat; 39% lean Republican
(See Pew Research, 4/15/15 at http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/)
2. Relationship between occupational field and political party preference:
Leans strongly Democrat (strongest ranked at top):
Social and Environment
Film and Stage
Editorial
Libraries
Mental Health
Academia
Art Management
Writing
Performing Arts
Research
Leans strongly Republican:
Fossil Fuels
Farming & Forestry
Surgical Practice
Insurance
Construction
Dentistry
Home Management
Transportation
Entrepreneurial
Sales
Military
(See: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)
1. Education is correlated with political party preference:
Post-graduate degree: 57% lean Democrat; 35% lean Republican
College degree or some post graduate ed.: 49% lean Democrat; 42% lean Republican
Less than college degree: 47% lean Democrat; 39% lean Republican
(See Pew Research, 4/15/15 at http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/)
2. Relationship between occupational field and political party preference:
Leans strongly Democrat (strongest ranked at top):
Social and Environment
Film and Stage
Editorial
Libraries
Mental Health
Academia
Art Management
Writing
Performing Arts
Research
Leans strongly Republican:
Fossil Fuels
Farming & Forestry
Surgical Practice
Insurance
Construction
Dentistry
Home Management
Transportation
Entrepreneurial
Sales
Military
(See: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)
1
Recent studies have shown that in the last 25 years college tuition rates have increased in almost direct proportion to reductions in state support for higher education. In other words we used to subsidize college tuition. Now we increasingly pass that cost on directly to students and their parents.
Those state cuts were in turn required to meet goals for tax reductions, mostly for the very wealthy. Some tax cuts got spread across the board, as in New York under Governor Pataki. But while middle class tax payers got about a $700 reduction in their state income tax, tuition at SUNY went up $750, all in the same year.
While these proposals are certainly better than the status quo, none really go far enough. At some point as a nation we have to choose between the old formula of guns or butter.
We cannot have a first rate higher education system to propel us into the 21st century and continue to squander billions of dollars on wars that do nothing to defend the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan alone have put us in a 3 trillion dollar hole. Add to that the Bush tax cuts and it's no wonder that the debt crisis has reached an unprecedented level.
The only way forward is bold leadership and vision and a willingness to tell the truth about why the middle class is getting squeezed by the wealthy. This debt crisis is at it's core a national crisis of identity and purpose.
Those state cuts were in turn required to meet goals for tax reductions, mostly for the very wealthy. Some tax cuts got spread across the board, as in New York under Governor Pataki. But while middle class tax payers got about a $700 reduction in their state income tax, tuition at SUNY went up $750, all in the same year.
While these proposals are certainly better than the status quo, none really go far enough. At some point as a nation we have to choose between the old formula of guns or butter.
We cannot have a first rate higher education system to propel us into the 21st century and continue to squander billions of dollars on wars that do nothing to defend the nation. Iraq and Afghanistan alone have put us in a 3 trillion dollar hole. Add to that the Bush tax cuts and it's no wonder that the debt crisis has reached an unprecedented level.
The only way forward is bold leadership and vision and a willingness to tell the truth about why the middle class is getting squeezed by the wealthy. This debt crisis is at it's core a national crisis of identity and purpose.
3
Placing taxpayers at risk for the current higher educational system does not put in place the incentives for lowering costs and achieving higher graduation rates and successful careers for students. Instead of having taxpayers bear the financial burden, I suggest that every college and University guarantee every student loan for each of their students. If the students defaulted on their loan then the University would bear the cost. Universities would therefore have an "existential" focus on their students success: success in selecting a major likely to provide an income capable of paying back the loan and success in graduating and getting a job. Placing the financial burden on taxpayers does nothing to motivate Universities to help their student's succeed. The financial burden should be placed on Universities to develop strategies to help their student's succeed in life.
2
How about making state universities stop wasting money on ridiculous amenities supposedly to attract students/customers? Private schools can do whatever they want, but state schools should not be cranking up tuition to build facilities that give students a higher standard of living than they will have for years after graduation. How many states have the highest paid employee being the basketball and/or football coach? It has been proven that many of these programs do not turn a profit, so there is no excuse for paying that much to support them. Loaning students more money is not the answer, and grants will not make the schools more responsible in providing education efficiently.
3
Having no student debt on graduation is nice. Having a job after graduation is better.
Reduce the H-1B visas so that our STEM students and our country have a future.
Reduce the H-1B visas so that our STEM students and our country have a future.
2
Governors and legislators,usually Republicans,raised tuition as a tax hike to give tax breaks to the "job creators." Most of that trillion dollar student debt are tax cuts for the wealthy. That and the "need" for an education due to themanufacturing collapse are the reason for this "debt crisis."
2
This is a pure payoff to higher education teachers and the vast bureaucracy that the last ten years have put in place. Of course, the $35 billion annual will be paid by the 'wealthy'. So, let me count the ways the various programs Mx. Hillary has announced in the past few months. They add up to $138 billion on an annual basis. That accounts for about 80% of the wealthy's income. Soon she will reach the 90% that Bernie talks about. Truly the electorate is stupid, or is it that they cannot do the math
2
Years ago, I worked my way through college without a lot of trouble. I wound up with a small debt but had a good job and was able to pay off the debt in short order. Out of curiosity, I recently took a look at the current costs of attending my university and was somewhat shocked. I could never pull it off in this day and age. Like everybody else, I would no doubt end up with a huge debt. The system is broken. If we reach the point where only rich kids can attend college, the conservatives will have turned the country into a banana republic.
4
What about the $1.2 Trillion in student loan debt already on the books? This is the yoke around the necks of at least two generations of Americans, many now in their forties and still unable to get out from under this onerous financial burden.
As for the proposals from the Democratic candidates, none of these have the slightest chance of surviving the conservative gauntlet of the Republican controlled Congress.
A Clinton or Sanders or other Democratic Presidency is certain to face another round of staunch GOP resistance across the board, and certainly to include any such programs however workable the proposed source of dollars to cover the hundreds of billions in federal funding required.
For that reason what has been offered up so far is essentially just so much pre-election hot air.
As for the proposals from the Democratic candidates, none of these have the slightest chance of surviving the conservative gauntlet of the Republican controlled Congress.
A Clinton or Sanders or other Democratic Presidency is certain to face another round of staunch GOP resistance across the board, and certainly to include any such programs however workable the proposed source of dollars to cover the hundreds of billions in federal funding required.
For that reason what has been offered up so far is essentially just so much pre-election hot air.
2
No mention of the permissive government backed lending environment that produced these sky rocketing costs. It's also amazing that people still believe in these ridiculous, self-righteous institutions in the first place.
1
"It's also amazing that people still believe in these ridiculous, self-righteous institutions in the first place"
Which ones? Congress? the federal Courts? the too-big-to-fail bailed out banks? the untouchable Sallie Mae?
Which ones? Congress? the federal Courts? the too-big-to-fail bailed out banks? the untouchable Sallie Mae?
1
I haven't seen anything in the article that brings the cost of college down or the value of a college education up. I've only seen plans to increase the subsidies on an overvalued product. The issue with education in the country is a cultural one, not a financial one, in my opinion. Borrowing more than you can afford for a useless, watered down degree is a personal decision.
4
The way to make college more affordable is to eliminate all student loans and all federal aid, except perhaps Pell Grants to low income students. The more money colleges get the more they raise tuition and fees. Let's reverse this trend by cutting colleges off from the federal teat and make them survive on their own.
2
It is great to see another Buckeye who understands the basic economics behind college costs. :)
In other words, force students to qualify for private bank loans for an education and force all public colleges to become private colleges? How about publicly paying for college and/or vocational education, as we do for K-12 schooling, instead?
Oh, I know, the GOP wants to even cut off K-12 funding (see Kansas, state of), let alone subsidize college. But doesn't anyone realize that when we subsidize education, we usually get our money back multiple fold because of increased earnings and increased productivity of better educated citizens? Not to mention, we'd get a more competitive economy and better informed voters with better analytical skills, which is priceless.
Oh, I know, the GOP wants to even cut off K-12 funding (see Kansas, state of), let alone subsidize college. But doesn't anyone realize that when we subsidize education, we usually get our money back multiple fold because of increased earnings and increased productivity of better educated citizens? Not to mention, we'd get a more competitive economy and better informed voters with better analytical skills, which is priceless.
This is a consumer problem about the incredible college costs today, with no accountability of proving the value of incurring those costs. 45 years ago I went to any ivy league college and my tuition was $2,000 and room and board were roughly $1,200. Today the cost is tuition of $55,000 and room and board of $16,000. So aggregate costs have increased 2,219%, which I am pretty sure outpaces inflation. Meanwhile, job prospects have shrunk, professor and administrator salaries have increased to where 6 and 7 figure salaries along with incredible lifetime benefits are the norm. Colleges generally do not pay taxes, not just on tuition, but no real estate taxes or earning on endowments or donations. So they use tons of government services for which they do not pay a penny. Some colleges have endowments of many billions of dollars, which they do not use to reduce tuition. (The average is about $400 million, with Harvard having roughly $35 billion). It just grows for a rainy day, or they build new monuments to themselves, often replacing a perfectly functional facility with some incredibly glitzy one. This tax free ride is already on the backs of federal, state and local taxpayers. So before we create another taxpayer driven bonanza for colleges, maybe the time has come to assess how colleges are taxed to motivate them to not simply build war chests and keep student costs at a level that reflects the value of a college education.
1
Another government entitlement that we have no way to pay for. Must be nice to simply campaign and promise things that we have no way to fund. I hope people wake up to this at some point. Not to complicate the argument, but college costs are substantially higher today because of government programs that have allowed colleges to raise prices because of easy availability of cash (debt) from students. Most of the extra expenses have gone to hiring more college administration staff and not for teachers. Sending more people who are not prepared for college and getting the country more in debt will not fix our problems, but it may buy a few votes from young people, the very people we are bankrupting today by our policies.
4
I am willing to pay for it by (a) getting rid of ALL agricultural subsidies and/or (b) removing the corporate overseas tax loophole (wherein corporations do not pay any tax on overseas earning until they bring the money into the U.S., which gives them incentive to "park" billions in overseas accounts until Congress gives them another "one time" tax holiday, allowing them to bring the money home with little to no tax obligations). If our policies are bankrupting young people, and they are, it is not by reducing the student loan debt that policies are bankrupting the young.
1
I wonder, does the NY Times editorial board read its own newspaper? Just this past April, the NY Times reported, "In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education."
Now comes Hillary Clinton, who wants to solve the problem of astonishing college tuition by---friends, you cannot make this stuff up---hugely increasing public subsidies for higher education.
And the editorial board faults---the Republicans. Really? Really??
Now comes Hillary Clinton, who wants to solve the problem of astonishing college tuition by---friends, you cannot make this stuff up---hugely increasing public subsidies for higher education.
And the editorial board faults---the Republicans. Really? Really??
5
College tuition, in the end, is determined by market forces. If no one could pay the current exorbitant tuitions, then the price would come down. Tuition is so high because loans are available to students to cover the cost.
It's worth considering why these loans are available. Really, who would loan money to a college student who has no income and has never held a job? The only reason these loans are available is that they are guaranteed by the government and cannot be voided by bankruptcy.
Eliminate all government guaranteed loans and colleges will face the options of lowering the price of tuition or having empty classrooms
It's worth considering why these loans are available. Really, who would loan money to a college student who has no income and has never held a job? The only reason these loans are available is that they are guaranteed by the government and cannot be voided by bankruptcy.
Eliminate all government guaranteed loans and colleges will face the options of lowering the price of tuition or having empty classrooms
7
If I want to buy something, but I can't afford it, then I have to wait for the
provider of the item I want to lower the price.
provider of the item I want to lower the price.
2
Sanders' plan to finance his free college proposal via a financial transactions tax is totally unfeasible: Serious research into the subject has found that such a tax would likely be a drag on the economy, reducing GDP by making capital more expensive. In the end, that means Sanders has put forth a plan that'd reduce net tax revenue, an absurd policy position. The Times should be careful about endorsing this kind of misleading populism.
3
so, now we the tax payers have to support or pay for the free wheeling party life style of college.
How about this.. maintain a C average, and commit to 1 year of national service, then maybe i will consider this.
This is just another entitlement program, looks good, sounds good, and does not make any sense.
For example, how are we paying for the drugs of seniors who have a retirement income greater than $200,000/yr.
There has to be some expectations for these entitlements.
How about this.. maintain a C average, and commit to 1 year of national service, then maybe i will consider this.
This is just another entitlement program, looks good, sounds good, and does not make any sense.
For example, how are we paying for the drugs of seniors who have a retirement income greater than $200,000/yr.
There has to be some expectations for these entitlements.
3
Start with reducing the interest rate students pay. Bank of America can get money from the Fed at 0% while students pay 4-6% at a minimum. Why does that make sense?
Second, bring back trade schools at the High School level. Have you tried to hire a qualified plumber, carpenter, electrician, engine repair, or painter at a reasonable cost recently? College is good but lets train people for all types of jobs.
Second, bring back trade schools at the High School level. Have you tried to hire a qualified plumber, carpenter, electrician, engine repair, or painter at a reasonable cost recently? College is good but lets train people for all types of jobs.
36
because lots of loans default? How do banks cover their risk? Economics 101
There is a large vested interest in keeping people stupid and ignorant. Why introduce real standards and criteria for exclusion when the current end product is so acceptable to the masters of our destinies? We need expertise? Import it!
1
This is not a good example of the superior thinking and motives of the Democratic Party, as the article was apparently intended. The proposals are not good ideas at all; they not only perpetuate a very flawed system, they want the public to pay more than ever for it. I don't blame the Republicans for sitting this one out. Nobody seems to want to look too closely at the fundamental problems. As always, you can start by following the money.
1
It's like I said about Hillary's idea. Get government out of the loan business NOW! The main reason that college is so expensive is because government guarantees the loans. Without the guarantee, no bank in their right mind would loan an 18 year old with zero assets the $80,000+ that they would need. The result of these guaranteed loans? Schools could charge anything they wanted because they would get the money thanks to taxpayers!
End these guaranteed loans and then people will not be able to get the loans. You will have a couple years where many people cannot get into these universities because of the insane costs, but the market will take care of that need quickly. Then, and only then, will prices come down to realistic levels.
End these guaranteed loans and then people will not be able to get the loans. You will have a couple years where many people cannot get into these universities because of the insane costs, but the market will take care of that need quickly. Then, and only then, will prices come down to realistic levels.
4
The student loan programs effectiveness has been seriously impacted by the unprecedented rise in tuitions which sucked up these loans - making government aid to higher education essentially a pass through to the schools with the students left with the bill.
Now the schools make all sorts of arguments why these tuition hikes were fair and reasonable, but in an era of little or no inflation, the end of the baby boomer demographic and with our major institutions embarking on unprecedented gigantic building programs one has a right to be skeptical.
So what we are left with is billions of dollars of government money ending up in the hands of schools with students on the hook to pay back sums they can never afford. In many cases the degree isn't worth the amount of the loans if viewed from the perspective of potential earning power.
This affects all of us as this is taxpayer money and the unpaid loans hang as a drag on the economy - who can buy a house and start a family when you start out with a lifetime of debt? The outstanding debt exceeds credit card debt.
Most of these problems arose from poor government oversight of the schools. Guidelines for tuition increases and educational standards as a condition for using student loans would have helped. The last thing we need is making the problem a campaign football and getting laws with more unintended consequences.
Now the schools make all sorts of arguments why these tuition hikes were fair and reasonable, but in an era of little or no inflation, the end of the baby boomer demographic and with our major institutions embarking on unprecedented gigantic building programs one has a right to be skeptical.
So what we are left with is billions of dollars of government money ending up in the hands of schools with students on the hook to pay back sums they can never afford. In many cases the degree isn't worth the amount of the loans if viewed from the perspective of potential earning power.
This affects all of us as this is taxpayer money and the unpaid loans hang as a drag on the economy - who can buy a house and start a family when you start out with a lifetime of debt? The outstanding debt exceeds credit card debt.
Most of these problems arose from poor government oversight of the schools. Guidelines for tuition increases and educational standards as a condition for using student loans would have helped. The last thing we need is making the problem a campaign football and getting laws with more unintended consequences.
1
I earned my BA in 1983 from the University of Washington. Having started at a community college in Seattle, given the way the state supported education, covering roughly 80 percent of the cost, I had what amounts to three years of "free" education. We need to restore state support. Higher education is a public good and should not be financed privately, especially by debt that further enriches they already wealthy. America is a wealthy nation. We need to reject the arguments that we cannot afford this.
As part of the requirements to graduate with a degree in civil engineering I spent essentially three semesters learning about things that had absolutely nothing to do with engineering whatsoever. If you ever drive over a bridge that I design I'm sure you'll be comforted in knowing I spent almost 40% of my time in college learning about things like the impact of the global banana trade in the early 1800s or how NYC subway graffiti led to the start of hip-hop culture. Why I couldn't just save that portion of my tuition (which comes out to a cool $80,000 for those keeping track at home) and not taken those classes is something I will never understand.
20
Nothing better than a one dimensional person. Apparently for you it was a waste of money.
Because as someone stated earlier, the idea of going to college was to epand one's thinking skills. The idea was taken from Aristotle or Socrates who said"The unexamined Life is not worth living". Getting technical training was done as an apprentice on the job. It's very disturbing to see how little knowledge young people seem to have not of World history, but of their own country and how it worked in the last 50 years. I don't say this as a criticism of you personally, but angry that our schools have created such un-informed young people.
This can be solved by taking engineering education out of colleges and setting up trade schools for those who are interested in learning a skill like engineering rather than being educated.
A big problem with cost is, colleges that try to make themselves into country clubs, with plush dorms and apartments, weight rooms, etc, and bloated administrations. High cost is the symptom. We should address the cause not the symptom.
1
"Democrats Offer Ways to Make College Affordable", ie., get someone else to pay the bill. As a vote buying tactic I'd say this has some appeal to 18 to 25 year old voters. As a social policy I'd suggest that this will insure that another large group of people will consume governmental benefits without having any personal investment in the outcome, thus insuring that great numbers of the entitled recipients will fail to complete these educational programs, very much like the home buyers during the housing bubble who purchased homes they could not afford with no money down, so they had nothing to loose. Remind me what staggering sum that ultimately cost.
1
The right seems to love Capitalism but fails to recognize the potential returns on Human Capital. Surely the returns on these sorts of programs are hard to calculate on your typical MBA measures of ROI and NPV but in order to stay competitive in the global marketplace against countries that are investing in educating their populace I can't see how the US can afford to NOT do something about how expensive college has become.
The flip side of this is that colleges, particularly large Federally funded research institutes (yeah, I'm looking at you Ivies, MIT, Stanford etc) make no efforts to curb costs because the money faucet is never ending. There are huge amounts of waste in the administrations of these schools from wasteful purchasing to useless employees and duplicated functions in things like HR, IT etc across schools and departments that could be curbed and that money could be put to better use and lower tuitions, so all that needs to be looked at too. I'm sure those issues exist at public universities too.
The flip side of this is that colleges, particularly large Federally funded research institutes (yeah, I'm looking at you Ivies, MIT, Stanford etc) make no efforts to curb costs because the money faucet is never ending. There are huge amounts of waste in the administrations of these schools from wasteful purchasing to useless employees and duplicated functions in things like HR, IT etc across schools and departments that could be curbed and that money could be put to better use and lower tuitions, so all that needs to be looked at too. I'm sure those issues exist at public universities too.
I have worked in Career Services at one of the top tech colleges in the world, in a nationally ranked 30,000 student university, and small liberal arts college. The reason students don't get jobs at graduation is because colleges do not REQUIRE students to prepare. Career planning is optional.
Why not require that students complete tasks such as resume writing, behavioral mock interviews, networking, job search strategies, articulating the value of liberal arts skills to employers, etc.? It could be accomplished easily and cheaply (through registration, online, etc.) and would force students to focus their efforts on connecting college to career.
But administrators, faculty, Boards, and public policy officials refuse to do this. Makes no sense. I've worked on it for a long time, made some progress, but just don't get why something so easy, cheap and effective is resisted so adamantly. I've even co-created a MOOC on career planning, but nobody will adopt it, and in fact have been somewhat punished for trying to push it forward (no good deed goes unpunished).
Colleges are wonderful places that change students' lives, but sometimes they are slow learners.
Why not require that students complete tasks such as resume writing, behavioral mock interviews, networking, job search strategies, articulating the value of liberal arts skills to employers, etc.? It could be accomplished easily and cheaply (through registration, online, etc.) and would force students to focus their efforts on connecting college to career.
But administrators, faculty, Boards, and public policy officials refuse to do this. Makes no sense. I've worked on it for a long time, made some progress, but just don't get why something so easy, cheap and effective is resisted so adamantly. I've even co-created a MOOC on career planning, but nobody will adopt it, and in fact have been somewhat punished for trying to push it forward (no good deed goes unpunished).
Colleges are wonderful places that change students' lives, but sometimes they are slow learners.
Too many recent college graduates can't find jobs that pay a sufficiently high wage to pay back their college loans. The reasons are at least twofold: there is an oversupply of newly minted college graduates relative to demand and many graduates have degrees that are not marketable. This stems primarily from the observation that going to college costs too little! I know that is counterintuitive to some readers but consider that the price of college also includes the opportunity cost of the next best alternative use of the student's time. Given high unemployment rates for young people because the recovery since 2009 has been so extraordinarily weak, the opportunity cost of their forgone wages is essentially zero. In other words, why not go to college if you have nothing better to do? In addition, because interest rates on college loans don't discriminate between those who are studying math, science, and engineering and those who are studying soft majors such as sociology, art history, and child development, the price of college loans for those who will be least able to pay them back is too low. So contrary to HRC's proposal, we need fewer young people going to college for free and those inclined to pursue majors for which there is limited market demand should pay higher interest rates on their college loans so they realize the risk they are taking with their economic futures.
1
This isn't an "affordability" problem. it's clearly a cost problem. Compared to the CPI index college raises tuition by about 7.5 % per year!!! Comparatively to autos, clothing and homes, since 1980, college costs have outpaced inflation by over 200%.
Every college in this country is guilty of taking advantage of cheap government money. In turn, it's the students or whoever pays their tuition that gets the short end of the stick.
Democrats could care less about making college"affordable". They only care about their lining the pockets of their academic voters. Then one hand washes the other.
Every college in this country is guilty of taking advantage of cheap government money. In turn, it's the students or whoever pays their tuition that gets the short end of the stick.
Democrats could care less about making college"affordable". They only care about their lining the pockets of their academic voters. Then one hand washes the other.
1
The Federal Government creates another entitlement, takes over management of colleges and universities, and costs will go down.
Heard that one before.
Another $35 billion a year strapped on to the backs of taxpayers just to get the votes of the young whippersnappers (guess that is what Granma Clinton is calling them these days). Buy a vote and get a college degree.
We already have student loans that students don't have to pay back or can pay as little as possible (take a low paying job and you only have to repay 10% of your disposable income and you can default legally after 20 years).
Get the government out of the college loan business. Government is ruining colleges with money.
Heard that one before.
Another $35 billion a year strapped on to the backs of taxpayers just to get the votes of the young whippersnappers (guess that is what Granma Clinton is calling them these days). Buy a vote and get a college degree.
We already have student loans that students don't have to pay back or can pay as little as possible (take a low paying job and you only have to repay 10% of your disposable income and you can default legally after 20 years).
Get the government out of the college loan business. Government is ruining colleges with money.
1
Most of the commenters who make fun of any proposal miss the point that a college education is not just for the student--- an educated populace, and young people feeling they can get married, buy homes and have children-- is essential to a forward moving economy and society. That said, I agree "free college" and bogus "programs" are just aimed at buying votes. Let's try a few realistic tactics, versus some grand strategy:
a) no more federal loans for the for-profit private sector of higher education and vocational education. They can sink or swim.
b) cap college loans at 2% and give a 12-month vacation to young people after graduation to begin paying.
c) build up vocational education at the HS level and at the community college level so people pursue what is right for them.
d) stop importing jobs like tech writers and nurses so that US graduates of practical programs like these get those jobs.
e) as a society agree to stop knocking 19th century poetry or art history-- we are DONE as a culture if we think the only valuable people are STEMS.
a) no more federal loans for the for-profit private sector of higher education and vocational education. They can sink or swim.
b) cap college loans at 2% and give a 12-month vacation to young people after graduation to begin paying.
c) build up vocational education at the HS level and at the community college level so people pursue what is right for them.
d) stop importing jobs like tech writers and nurses so that US graduates of practical programs like these get those jobs.
e) as a society agree to stop knocking 19th century poetry or art history-- we are DONE as a culture if we think the only valuable people are STEMS.
5
Oh, it's more than nurses and tech writers - there are up wards from about 90,000 per year flooding in on H1b visas (and their sponsored spouses to be given work permits, too!) while new American STEM grads are out of work or not able to find work in their fields. The so-called Skilled Worker visas need to be significantly cut back, our young need a chance!
Why not make the colleges responsible or a guarantor of the loans? If the student they educated is unable to pay back the loan from their earnings then the college did not render the service the student was paying for. This would push colleges to focus on preparing students for the modern workplace.
1
I've read some very good comments. The recurring theme in this thread seems to be student interest rates. I'm hearing rates around 8% mostly.
Now think about how the floor for this rate is set: the ubiquitous Perkins Loan. The first debt most qualified students ever take.
Q: What is the interest rate on the student's Perkins Loan?
A: 5% fixed. In theory, the purpose is to protect students.
Tack on 3% and you find your answer why students are charged to much on interest. There was a rare moment in the early 2000's when lenders went below the bench mark but that's no longer possible. Lenders changed the rules mid-2000's so you could no longer fix and consolidate student loans at the historically low rates. Loans are all pretty much pre-fixed for students now.
Yet, you're talking to a population that has no real option but to take the loan. It's not like home buying where you can hopefully weather a storm. You're accepted and enrolled. You have to pay. That's your interest rate. Take it or leave it.
Why not set an example and set the Perkins to 0%? You might find that students' perception of a reasonable interest rate will adjust accordingly. I imagine lending practices will follow.
Now think about how the floor for this rate is set: the ubiquitous Perkins Loan. The first debt most qualified students ever take.
Q: What is the interest rate on the student's Perkins Loan?
A: 5% fixed. In theory, the purpose is to protect students.
Tack on 3% and you find your answer why students are charged to much on interest. There was a rare moment in the early 2000's when lenders went below the bench mark but that's no longer possible. Lenders changed the rules mid-2000's so you could no longer fix and consolidate student loans at the historically low rates. Loans are all pretty much pre-fixed for students now.
Yet, you're talking to a population that has no real option but to take the loan. It's not like home buying where you can hopefully weather a storm. You're accepted and enrolled. You have to pay. That's your interest rate. Take it or leave it.
Why not set an example and set the Perkins to 0%? You might find that students' perception of a reasonable interest rate will adjust accordingly. I imagine lending practices will follow.
1
The fundamental problem in higher education today is not affordability. It's ACCOUNTABLITY - or, rather the lack of it.
The real questions for each candidate is:
1. How are you going to ensure that students get an education, not just a degree?
2. How are you going to keep colleges from doing what David Riesman observed them already doing in 1980; that is, catering to the
“...wants of students [which are] are quite different from the “needs” of students..."
3. In specific cases, what are you going to do when department chairs at colleges like Washington University in St. Louis ask math professors like me to make critical engineering requirements into "cookbook" courses? and when a Dean of Academic Integrity writes - in response to an email telling them that the students that do poorly are the ones who cheat on their homework - that their main concern in "retention". (The documented details are on my blog inside-higher-ed )
We can no longer afford graduating students that are far less educated that 30-50 years ago - as documented in the book "Academically Adrift", which every concerned citizen should read.
If Thomas Jefferson was right about the dire consequences for a democratic society without an education citizenry, then we are in dire straits in America.
(Jefferson's quote and some disturbing facts from "Academically Adrift" are on my blog.)
The real questions for each candidate is:
1. How are you going to ensure that students get an education, not just a degree?
2. How are you going to keep colleges from doing what David Riesman observed them already doing in 1980; that is, catering to the
“...wants of students [which are] are quite different from the “needs” of students..."
3. In specific cases, what are you going to do when department chairs at colleges like Washington University in St. Louis ask math professors like me to make critical engineering requirements into "cookbook" courses? and when a Dean of Academic Integrity writes - in response to an email telling them that the students that do poorly are the ones who cheat on their homework - that their main concern in "retention". (The documented details are on my blog inside-higher-ed )
We can no longer afford graduating students that are far less educated that 30-50 years ago - as documented in the book "Academically Adrift", which every concerned citizen should read.
If Thomas Jefferson was right about the dire consequences for a democratic society without an education citizenry, then we are in dire straits in America.
(Jefferson's quote and some disturbing facts from "Academically Adrift" are on my blog.)
3
I live in New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the union. Yet, for the last 15 years we have offered our best high school graduates (2.5 GPA or better) a tuition free university education at any New Mexico state college or university. My daughter was able to obtain 2 Bachelor degrees at the University of New Mexico without incurring any debt. ZERO.
One of her high school classmates is now a doctor having just graduated the UNM School Of Medicine, again, with little debt. Every state's financial resources are unique of course but if we can do it, all of the US can do it. You just have to want to.
http://www.hed.state.nm.us/students/lotteryscholarship.aspx
One of her high school classmates is now a doctor having just graduated the UNM School Of Medicine, again, with little debt. Every state's financial resources are unique of course but if we can do it, all of the US can do it. You just have to want to.
http://www.hed.state.nm.us/students/lotteryscholarship.aspx
1
One has to wonder why the subject of making college more accessible escaped the Times' Editorial Board until Senator Clinton had something to say about it. Senator Sanders was out in front with this position months ago, but the Times didn't feel it was an issue then. This editorial continues the bias, citing Ms. Clinton first and noting that Mr. Sanders also has a plan. Why not start with Sanders' leadership on this issue and then note that Clinton also thinks it's an issue that needs to be addressed?
2
The Times is once again telling us who to vote for, just as it did in 2008 and 2012.
1
I am tired of being a chump. My husband and I saved from the moment our children were born to enable us to pay for their tuition. Our children are not sports stars, minorities, nor novelties (you know the ones---- started a non-profit at 12, swam to the US on a tire, etc.) We drove old cars, took infrequent vacations and have a nice, but not extraordinary house. We pay our mortgage, we paid our student loans, we pay our car loans. And now hey! You can just have it for free!
3
Don't be silly. Use the Senator Marco Rubio method for dealing with debt. First find yourself a billionaire who will take an interest. He/she can fund a spot for you at a university so you will have a good job, hire your wife to do something at the family foundation and help out with other financial assistance as needed. When you have a little fame, write a book. It's easy when someone pays a ghost to do the boring stuff. Someone will pay for production and distribution costs and, if it doesn't sell, buy up copies for free distribution so everyone will know your inspiring story.
If that fails, you can always borrow $20,000 from your family and start your own business. What? They spent their money on trying to put you through college? Or they frittered it away feeding and clothing you and your siblings? Too bad. You obviously don't deserve the American Dream.
If that fails, you can always borrow $20,000 from your family and start your own business. What? They spent their money on trying to put you through college? Or they frittered it away feeding and clothing you and your siblings? Too bad. You obviously don't deserve the American Dream.
2
First, interest free loans for college costs. Second, find out why college costs have risen so outrageously and fix the problems. Might happen without partisanship- so it won't happen soon.
1
What about our kids that have recently graduated with all this debt. Shouldn't we consider lowering the interest rate on their loans first? Let them use their paychecks to buy more goods and services thus improving our economy. I read in the NTY recently that the Millennial's are the largest age group currently in the work force. This could have a real economic impact. The US government doesn't need to make money off of the backs of our children.
2
What about the 20%+ college graduate unemployment problem? Why is this administration shipping off more good, middle class jobs via the TPP?
1
Democrats aren't doing anything to make college affordable. What they're doing is shifting the budgetary choices of state governments to the federal level. States (generally Democratic-leaning) have been forced to cut support for colleges and universities because of the crowding out effect of other budget items, namely pernsions and entitlements.
1
Could the government please lower my mortgage payments to zero? I don't know that I can afford my home because so many jobs are being offshored. I deserve to own a home - it should be a right as a citizen that we all have our own home. I would also like to have a car please with a no-interest loan. I am not asking for a handout - a loan. Of course college should be free for all and if you flunk out there should be a free technical school or an apprentice job with a local plumber who gets tax credits to take on the people who cannot pass the schools. All great socialist ideas to transform our country.
1
College can't expand capacity quickly. If you make more money available to students it just bids up the price of college. Classic supply and demand response to government interference. HIllary's plan only makes it worse.
The laws of economics are the only ones you can't repeal.
The laws of economics are the only ones you can't repeal.
1
I graduated from high school in the early 1960s but had to work a year before entering college. The wages I saved from a low-end job in the mailroom of an insurance company sufficed to pay my way through college, with only a small amount of direct aid from my parents. In those days, the public university in Texas I attended charged only a nominal tuition, due to the fact that the permanent university fund earned royalties from the oil extracted from public lands belonging to the state. The decision by the legislature to use public money in that way reflected a belief that higher education was an investment in the future of the state. Oil revenues have declined as the supply of oil on public lands has fallen, but the legislature has not made up the difference, so tuition at public universities in Texas has risen along with that in other states.
The vision that created the GI Bill of Rights and made public higher education affordable for so many families in this country has been lost, along with a willingness to maintain and improve our infrastructure. Affordable higher education played a critical role in the creation of this country's middle class, but an obsession with lower taxes and the power of markets has blinded us to the important role that government plays in the promotion of national well-being. It is time to recall that one purpose of the federal government, under the Constitution, is to promote the general welfare.
The vision that created the GI Bill of Rights and made public higher education affordable for so many families in this country has been lost, along with a willingness to maintain and improve our infrastructure. Affordable higher education played a critical role in the creation of this country's middle class, but an obsession with lower taxes and the power of markets has blinded us to the important role that government plays in the promotion of national well-being. It is time to recall that one purpose of the federal government, under the Constitution, is to promote the general welfare.
36
The government does promote the general welfare...of the 1%. The rest of us in the 99% bracket are left behind to scratch and claw for scraps.
The Federal Government, nor the Constitution, sent no one to college 'to promote the general welfare.' I defy you to show where any of the Founding Fathers attended universities from the largess of the public treasury. That lofty, but generalized, goal meant it's the government's role to secure the conditions and enable The People to what they sought to do (i.e. go to school should they desire) -- and pay for it themselves (spend, earn, borrow & repay). Also, free tuition in the GI bill was a shock absorber /pressure valve designed to blunt the devastating economic affect that a glut of millions of unemployed men would have otherwise been when dumped into the labor pool after returning from the war.
Why not more discussion of why colleges have gotten so expensive? Why the ratio of administrators to teaching personal has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. Why state college dorms and cafeterias which were once pretty spartan have become lavish. Because of easy to get student loans colleges don't compete on price. Instead they compete on amenities. If we want to fix this issue we need to deal with reining in the excessive cost of colleges before we talk of increasing government aid to them.
40
It's no secret. Over the past couple of decades the ratio of administrators to teaching faculty has just about doubled. Much of this increase has been fueled by government mandates of one kind or another. Diversity, anyone?
2
"Free"?
Are professors willing to teach for free?
Are builders willing to build and repair for free?
Are administrators willing to manage for free?
Food vendors, maintenance, etc... all providing services for "free?
Oh wait...
Are professors willing to teach for free?
Are builders willing to build and repair for free?
Are administrators willing to manage for free?
Food vendors, maintenance, etc... all providing services for "free?
Oh wait...
4
I graduated college in 1960 with zero debt. Professors, et al, were compensated. The money was made available through graduated income tax. So it's possible.
So the typical debt for a student receiving a degree is roughly $25,000? For the advantages that degree gives the student over their lifetime, that seems like a pretty good deal. You can't even buy a decent car for that amount. One thing is for certain: if the taxpayers pay for college, the universities won't have any hesitation in raising tuition. Where's their accountability in this scheme.
22
Remember that roughly $25,000 is only the principle. Played out with accumulated interest over the period of the loan and convergent with a trending downward decline in household income, it is actually not a very good deal at all.
I disagree - compared to the interest on a credit card or automobile loan, it is actually quite affordable. If students are graduating from college and don't understand how to prioritize paying off essential debt, like student loans, they haven't learned much. spending the first 5 years of their career, retiring their student loan, isn't a lot to ask from a person.
I hate that out-of-touch argument that $25,000 in debt "isn't that big a deal" and is "manageable debt" since you can finance a car for that much. Missing the point that you still must BUY A RELIABLE CAR to get to your job! So now we're up to roughly $50,000 "typical" debt for recent grads ... and we haven't even talked about housing/food. It's the reason so many are still living with their parents. Also most college kids have jobs in addition to their studies. Cost of college has risen far too much. You can debate the reasons why (state budget cuts, rising costs of must-have technologies and cyber-security, etc.) but you can't deny it is increasingly UNaffordable, especially for the middle class kids who don't get grants/scholarships, without student loans. It doesn't mean it's not "worth it" but it is a burden on them and society. They can't afford to take lowpaying jobs like teaching or they are indebt FOREVER. Meanwhile Wall Street keeps getting the extracted wealth and the carried interest tax breaks. It's just wrong.
The honest, straightforward approach would be to increase support foe public schools. Then tuition could be less
But, I also believe people should plan ahead, save money for future needs and that parents should support their children. Old fashioned ideas.
And too, debts must be repaid. Apparently this is a surprise to some.
But, I also believe people should plan ahead, save money for future needs and that parents should support their children. Old fashioned ideas.
And too, debts must be repaid. Apparently this is a surprise to some.
1
For Democrats the solution is always more tax and never less spending. This editorial notes the Walker budget cuts to the University of Wisconsin system as being $250 million leading to increases in student tuition, which Democrats want to fix by increasing taxes.
Looking at the budget for the flagship Madision campus the Walker cuts amount to 3% of it's overall budget. I'm sure the administrators of this vaunted university could spend a few minutes with professors from their business school to find 3% in savings but it is so much easier to take more from students and taxpayers than to improve their use of the money they already have.
Looking at the budget for the flagship Madision campus the Walker cuts amount to 3% of it's overall budget. I'm sure the administrators of this vaunted university could spend a few minutes with professors from their business school to find 3% in savings but it is so much easier to take more from students and taxpayers than to improve their use of the money they already have.
4
First let us separate public from private. Public colleges receive some of their funding from state budgets and those costs can be influenced in public debate. The elimination or at least the scaling back of intercollegiate sports would be a good place to start reducing the cost of public education. The costs of these programs are passed along to the students in the category of "fees" that oftentimes costs more than tuition.
1
I would guess that most universities reward the Presidents and their staffs, on the basis of how much money they bring in, not on the quality or afforadbility of the education they provide! Maybe it is time to change the metrics? It is all about the money, the more they raise, the more money they make, even if none of the money goes to help the students.
It seems to be all about the buildings with somebody's name over the door, versus providing an affordable education. The administrators hire big names to associate with the school, names who wouldn't know a student if they tripped over one, names who do NOT want to teach lowly students, but want to enhance their own status vis "research" so they can go on to a bigger university to earn more money!
A quality, affordable, education like one used to get at state schools has been lost to bloated salaries for administrators (aka fund raisers) and people to do "research" to enhance their own reputation, but who will have nothing to do with students or their education.
Maybe we need a metric to look at the actual cost vs the quality of the education provided, one that would measure the bloated overhead (non teaching costs) versus the direct cost of teaching students, and that would include a metric about the students success in finding employment in their field. The ratio of the total cost of a persons' college education vs the 1st years salary after graduating might be a scary metric for many schools.
It seems to be all about the buildings with somebody's name over the door, versus providing an affordable education. The administrators hire big names to associate with the school, names who wouldn't know a student if they tripped over one, names who do NOT want to teach lowly students, but want to enhance their own status vis "research" so they can go on to a bigger university to earn more money!
A quality, affordable, education like one used to get at state schools has been lost to bloated salaries for administrators (aka fund raisers) and people to do "research" to enhance their own reputation, but who will have nothing to do with students or their education.
Maybe we need a metric to look at the actual cost vs the quality of the education provided, one that would measure the bloated overhead (non teaching costs) versus the direct cost of teaching students, and that would include a metric about the students success in finding employment in their field. The ratio of the total cost of a persons' college education vs the 1st years salary after graduating might be a scary metric for many schools.
2
Affordability is a relative term defined by the individual. There are many steps a public college can do to reduce or better manage the cost of attendance for all students. For example, colleges could:
1. Normalize all associate degrees to 60 credits and all baccalaureate degrees to 120 credits except in cases that accreditation standards require additional credits. the benefit of this policy is that it prevents the student from enrolling in unnecessary courses.
2. Colleges could better manage enrollment in pre-professional programs especially for nursing, business, and engineering. For the most part students are placed in pre-professional programs because they lack the grade point average to be directly admitted into the major. All too often students accumulate many questionable credits in their efforts to earn the GPA. Colleges should cap the number of courses a student can take in pre-professional programs and designate the specific courses the student must enroll and required GPA.
3. Students should be given the option to opt in or out of co-curricular fees. Examples include student fees for intercollegiate athletics, recreation and intramurals, and student government. As an alternative students can purchase the service or program on a use basis.
4. Books. State legislators in conjunction with Congress can pass a bill requiring all book publishers to unbundle books and cap the cost of books at $150. Congress should regulate the cost of books to the consumer.
1. Normalize all associate degrees to 60 credits and all baccalaureate degrees to 120 credits except in cases that accreditation standards require additional credits. the benefit of this policy is that it prevents the student from enrolling in unnecessary courses.
2. Colleges could better manage enrollment in pre-professional programs especially for nursing, business, and engineering. For the most part students are placed in pre-professional programs because they lack the grade point average to be directly admitted into the major. All too often students accumulate many questionable credits in their efforts to earn the GPA. Colleges should cap the number of courses a student can take in pre-professional programs and designate the specific courses the student must enroll and required GPA.
3. Students should be given the option to opt in or out of co-curricular fees. Examples include student fees for intercollegiate athletics, recreation and intramurals, and student government. As an alternative students can purchase the service or program on a use basis.
4. Books. State legislators in conjunction with Congress can pass a bill requiring all book publishers to unbundle books and cap the cost of books at $150. Congress should regulate the cost of books to the consumer.
15
In other words, nationalize higher education.
tell private businesses what they can charge for their products.
Why not carry that to everything.
cars cannot cost more than $20,000/
Houses cannot cost more than 3% more than the cost to build them.
Food cannot be sold for more than 2% of it's production costs.
health care must be a zero profit endeavor.
tell private businesses what they can charge for their products.
Why not carry that to everything.
cars cannot cost more than $20,000/
Houses cannot cost more than 3% more than the cost to build them.
Food cannot be sold for more than 2% of it's production costs.
health care must be a zero profit endeavor.
Just as with everything else, the "solution" is federal dollars to accommodate the increased cost instead of making an effort to identify and remediate the cause of the increased costs. Inflation has been hovering around 0percent for nearly a decade. There is no reasonable explanation for the cost of college to be increasing other than bad management and overspending.
2
I started saving when my son was born using projections that would have put him through 4 years at Princeton. It ended up only paying for barely two years at another school. College education costs are as out of control as healthcare.
The rich should not be the only ones educated without a crushing level of debt afterword.
We should, like most countries, be able to send our kids to school without jeopardizing our self funded retirement savings.
But we also need to set limits. Aid should be based on merit and courses of study which will be useful to society, in demand and enable the student to support themselves upon successful completion of their course of study.
The rich should not be the only ones educated without a crushing level of debt afterword.
We should, like most countries, be able to send our kids to school without jeopardizing our self funded retirement savings.
But we also need to set limits. Aid should be based on merit and courses of study which will be useful to society, in demand and enable the student to support themselves upon successful completion of their course of study.
2
An average loan balance of about $25k does not seem like a crisis. Especially since most loans are to be paid off over 10 years and even more. Cars are also required for much employment, and those loans are often for a similar amount, and need to be paid in 5 years. Are we going to next give out cars ?
If college (or a car) is so important for "many middle class jobs", it seems like an intelligent "investment", rather than an unreasonable burden on people's lives, which is how student loans are increasingly described since the Occupy protests.
We have to stop designating anything, anywhere that causes difficulty to *anyone* as a crisis that needs "something done about it". Increasing federal funding for college has not reduced the debt burdens of graduates, quite the opposite. Why would these new initiatives have any different result ?
If college (or a car) is so important for "many middle class jobs", it seems like an intelligent "investment", rather than an unreasonable burden on people's lives, which is how student loans are increasingly described since the Occupy protests.
We have to stop designating anything, anywhere that causes difficulty to *anyone* as a crisis that needs "something done about it". Increasing federal funding for college has not reduced the debt burdens of graduates, quite the opposite. Why would these new initiatives have any different result ?
1
It used to be everybody needs a high school education. Now it's everybody needs a college education. I just don't believe that. It's obviously needed for scientific and engineering and various other endeavors, but my plumber charges $50 an hour and I'm not sure he is able to keep all of that but still that is a pretty good hourly rate. The same goes for the auto mechanic where I take my car for routine maintenance. And can you really major in Women's Studies and African-American Studies and get a degree? What in the world do you use it for? Self esteem?
1
There are two ways to make a product more "affordable" to its consumer. You can reduce its cost or you can force someone else to pay for it. The Democrats have zero ideas to reduce the spiralling costs of college, but are happy to deploy their constant solution of transferring costs in the form of higher taxes on others. Same old.
3
We would not even be addressing this important issue but for Hillary Clinton's bold leadership in the area of higher education.
Sorry, Bernie and many others have covered this way before Hillary came up with her proposal the other day.
Didn't democrats vote to take over student loans to help pay for Obamacare ? And why should I as a taxpayer be forced to cover even more of other people's bills ? I worked through college and did not think other taxpayers owed me.
The headline should be that democrats now think that they were wrong to takeover the student loan program and raise interest rates to help fund the ACA but they won't. They will blame Bush or Reagan and ignore the fact that they are responsible for the last attempt to help students by pumping money into the ACA.
The headline should be that democrats now think that they were wrong to takeover the student loan program and raise interest rates to help fund the ACA but they won't. They will blame Bush or Reagan and ignore the fact that they are responsible for the last attempt to help students by pumping money into the ACA.
4
States used to cover 80% of the cost of higher education while families covered 20%. That has now reversed, which is the primary cause of the high rates of tuition. We should be asking ourselves what's happened to that 60% that states used to spend? As a middle class person I don't feel like I'm paying 60% less in taxes and it is evident that money isn't being spent on infrastructure instead, so where did it go?
3
unreasonably generous pensions for State and Federal workers, coupled with bad investment performance that then requires large infusions of taxpayer money to make the plans whole.
I would substitute 401k for pensions across the board except military - it would still take decades to infuse enough cash to deliver the promises already made, even if pensions were ended today.
I would substitute 401k for pensions across the board except military - it would still take decades to infuse enough cash to deliver the promises already made, even if pensions were ended today.
Prisons, sadly. Perhaps if we spent more money on education, we could spend less on prisons.
I already am paying more for someone's health insurance than for my own, thanks to the ACA tax on my income.
Under this proposal, my debt to pay someone else's education bills will be more than it cost to pay off my own debt many years ago.
It is time for the candidates to stop playing Robin Hood and start taking responsibility for the expenses incurred.
Under this proposal, my debt to pay someone else's education bills will be more than it cost to pay off my own debt many years ago.
It is time for the candidates to stop playing Robin Hood and start taking responsibility for the expenses incurred.
6
Since you don't want to pay for anything for anyone else, may I suggest you support ceasing funding for K-12 education? After all, those youths need to pay their own bills. And by the way, you paid off your own debt many years ago... You do realize that the cost of tuition has skyrocketed way above inflation? What students pay now is no doubt much more than you ever had to pay for tuition for the same value.
1
The problem isn't that college is too expensive, it's that we have abandoned public education and private apprenticeships as means for workers to acquire skills while being paid a living wage. As a result, college is the only alternative, which in turn drives up the price for everybody.
Apprenticeships have worked for literally thousands of years, back when you couldn't just search Craigslist for a qualified blacksmith or fletcher. As we industrialized, people became unskilled cogs. The Information Age, by contrast, is a service and skills-based economy. Apprenticeships fit the mould since before Hammurabi codified his laws, and are just as appropriate today.
Apprenticeships have worked for literally thousands of years, back when you couldn't just search Craigslist for a qualified blacksmith or fletcher. As we industrialized, people became unskilled cogs. The Information Age, by contrast, is a service and skills-based economy. Apprenticeships fit the mould since before Hammurabi codified his laws, and are just as appropriate today.
20
Having the government - aka taxpayers and bond holders - foot the bill sounds attractive, especially during an election season, but there's another "plan" that makes college more affordable than either Mrs. Clinton's or Mr. Sanders's. This new plan (a lot like the old plan before people started relying on the government for everything) entails parents, potential parents, students and grandparents saving over the course of a child's life.
The plan may mean mommy has to forego that $400 tattoo and pass those $100 Lululemon yoga pants every year. It may mean dad can't get those season tickets. Mommy and daddy are going to have to go without their Starbucks every morning. Jr. doesn't get that new iPhone 6, 7, 8 and all the other i's and he may have get a summer job. The family is going to have to go without 18 years of the newest plasma screen TV, and eating more dinners at the Applebee's than at home. Rather than those new $140 Beats By Dre headphones for a birthday gift grandma can contribute to the college fund too.
If they follow this plan they may find that saving for college, especially state schools, is a lot easier than they thought.
And if mom and dad are incapable of making even these most basic sacrifices, or if they are so destitute that they can't save a few thousand dollars a year, perhaps either sending the kid to college or having kids in the first place isn't the smartest thing to do.
The plan may mean mommy has to forego that $400 tattoo and pass those $100 Lululemon yoga pants every year. It may mean dad can't get those season tickets. Mommy and daddy are going to have to go without their Starbucks every morning. Jr. doesn't get that new iPhone 6, 7, 8 and all the other i's and he may have get a summer job. The family is going to have to go without 18 years of the newest plasma screen TV, and eating more dinners at the Applebee's than at home. Rather than those new $140 Beats By Dre headphones for a birthday gift grandma can contribute to the college fund too.
If they follow this plan they may find that saving for college, especially state schools, is a lot easier than they thought.
And if mom and dad are incapable of making even these most basic sacrifices, or if they are so destitute that they can't save a few thousand dollars a year, perhaps either sending the kid to college or having kids in the first place isn't the smartest thing to do.
There is another plan as well for those families for whom saving 100 grand per child isn't a reasonable possibility. That plan is purchasing an education that makes sense using career oriented online schools that don't rely on the cost ineffective university model.
Well, you clearly did not attend college in the past 10 years. And by the way, my parents did save money for my college education when I was younger. Despite regularly paying into it, just as their financial advisers advised them too, it was a pittance to what most colleges cost by the time I graduated 18 years later. And by the way, what about the individuals that don't have responsible parents or parents that are working in poverty? Do people need to have their whole life marked by the sins and faults of their parents?
1
This would make the US into a country well placed to compete globally in a 21st century world, making all of us including those who don't chose college richer in the long run.
16
Perhaps you can explain one of the great contradictions of the modern left thought process in America:
Why is it that everyone one in the USA needs a college degree in the 21st century to be gainfully employed, BUT if we did not have 12 million uneducated illegals here, our society would fail?
Why is it that everyone one in the USA needs a college degree in the 21st century to be gainfully employed, BUT if we did not have 12 million uneducated illegals here, our society would fail?
So, what level of taxation are you willing to pay so that you can have free college?
Nearly every state has educational savings plans for parents, grand parents, or future students to contribute to that are tax free, if used for higher education. How many people use these 529 plans or other savings instruments to pay for the college education of their children? With all of the money spent on the latest tech toys, designer clothes, and vacations, college saving isn't a priority until you have to pay for it. Then again, tuition increases are the only way colleges can raise funds for things other than actually educating students. NYT should break down every dollar that the universities and colleges take in to show where it really gets spent. Growing administration expense along with growing salary and benefit costs, far outpace inflation, but universities just keep raising tuition to cover their largess.
Nothing is free. Somebody pays from somewhere. Tuition rose at colleges where the student loan and grant money flowed in. Why? Because there's every incentive for colleges to rake in more money from the student loan and Pell grant programs. If Bernie and Hillary would like to have everybody go to at least community college for "free," that's wonderful, but they need to realize how much that will cost. But, running up debt isn't an issue for Dems and socialists. After all, we owe it to ourselves so $20T in debt by the time Obama leaves office is meaningless, isn't it? Mind you, I'm not blaming Obama for the debt (only his administration's share of it). Previous presidents and political parties are all responsible. It's just a matter of time before this country is run into the ground, and that time frame gets closer all the time.
5
It is weird... Somehow all of Europe has either free or affordable higher education, yet they don't have huge debt loads and also have some of the best quality of life indexes in the world. Funny how that works out, yet people want to diss on 'Socialist'. And by the way, education is a major deterrent for especially young males who instead would go to prison potentially. If we funded free or affordable higher education, it would cost a pittance of what it does to incarcerate these individuals.
What Democrats are offering is just another transfer of wealth. Plain and simple. They are offering to spend money they don't have to buy votes.
5
I went to university in the '60s on a Tuition Exchange scholarship. It was a way for a sizeable group of post-Sputnik universities to get top faculty without increasing costs. With tuirion the way it is now, you might expecvt a waiting list of non-mercenary top teachers trying to get back into academia.
With Hillary Clinton, we're at risk of another economic melt-down. Here are passages about Hillary's like-thinking husband from "Reckless Endangerment":
Clinton launched the National Partners in Homeownership [to raise] the numbers of homeowners across America.
Clinton’s homeownership plan differed from its predecessors. The strategy was not a reaction to an economic calamity, as was the case during the Great Depression. Back then, the government created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which acquired and refinanced one million delinquent mortgages between 1933 and 1936. On the contrary, the homeownership strategy of 1994 came about as the economy was rebounding from the recession of 1990 and ’91 and about to enter a long period of enviable growth.
The partnership would achieve its goals by “making homeownership more affordable, expanding creative financing, simplifying the home buying process, reducing transaction costs, changing conventional methods of design and building less expensive houses, among other means.”
(Cont'd)
Clinton launched the National Partners in Homeownership [to raise] the numbers of homeowners across America.
Clinton’s homeownership plan differed from its predecessors. The strategy was not a reaction to an economic calamity, as was the case during the Great Depression. Back then, the government created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which acquired and refinanced one million delinquent mortgages between 1933 and 1936. On the contrary, the homeownership strategy of 1994 came about as the economy was rebounding from the recession of 1990 and ’91 and about to enter a long period of enviable growth.
The partnership would achieve its goals by “making homeownership more affordable, expanding creative financing, simplifying the home buying process, reducing transaction costs, changing conventional methods of design and building less expensive houses, among other means.”
(Cont'd)
One wonders why the federal government doesn't make colleges' use of federal student loans (which they all use via their students) contingent on them being subject to limitations to their annual increases in tuitions and fees.
Colleges have not shown any desire to control costs in the last 40 years. They have sacrificed their students on the alter of greed. But why wouldn't they?
There has been an enormous pool of student loan money sloshing around waiting to be vacuumed up by colleges. The money is easily available to any student with a pulse, with no underwriting, and no cost or risk to the college. The colleges get the money upfront and 100% of the risk of default is visited upon the student (who 99/100 cannot get bankruptcy protection).
Colleges have not shown any desire to control costs in the last 40 years. They have sacrificed their students on the alter of greed. But why wouldn't they?
There has been an enormous pool of student loan money sloshing around waiting to be vacuumed up by colleges. The money is easily available to any student with a pulse, with no underwriting, and no cost or risk to the college. The colleges get the money upfront and 100% of the risk of default is visited upon the student (who 99/100 cannot get bankruptcy protection).
2
ALL education should be equal, free, and required.
1
as a libertairan, i support both Hillary's and Obama's plan in so far as they are based on the elimination of loopholes in thed gtax system (not on taxing the wealthy at a higher rate). as a professor i support their idea of lowering the cost of tuition which has risen directly as a result of the government providing various types of financal support for students. one day (probably not in my lifetime) people will realize that the benefit of all tax exemptions is to the wealthy rather than to the poor. government intervention is NEVER the solution to a greedy group such as businesses and universities. maybe then, they might try a flat tax with NO exemptions of any kind.
SOme professors at UCONN are retiring at nearly 300K per year pensions. Perhaps that is a cause for runaway costs of education.
1
Not sure what you mean by "tax emeptions." If you do not allow for cost-of-goods-sold, which is the majority of tax deductions, then you would severely cripple the economy. It would make more sense to be a window washer with little overhead than a deep sea oil drilling company with all of those overhead costs. You can kiss the commercial real estate market goodbye.
the real issue has to do with controlling COSTS. This article does not provide a solution.
5
The antipathy expressed here about subsidizing higher education is just astounding. The fact is that we can pay at the front end by making appropriate investments in education from Pre-K through college level, or we can pay at the back end through subsidizing the for-profit corrections industry and the criminal justice system. Which costs more? Yet, there is always money for prisons. The best crime prevention program is education and opportunity. But then, I suspect that most of the commenters, particuarly those who suggest that the Democrats' education proposals are just more "liberal" pandering, probably think that Teaching isn't "real" work anyhow; after all, it's not like, say, managing a hedge fund or something really important.
2
The Democrats have made a mess of education. The liberal union run schools in the inner city are a disaster. Yes the Democrats are pandering as they always do and sticking the taxpayer with the bill which is their solution to everything. Until the inner city schools are fixed and provide a solid education, nothing will help the poverty in the this country. The Democrats have no solutions.
Why is it astounding? It seems plain as day that the reason why education costs have increased as they have has been due to the government's backing of student loans, i.e. Wouldn't subsidizing education here enable universities to continue to hike unadjusted tuitions?
Yeah, let's increase subsidies to colleges, because that's clearly kept tuition from rising well beyond inflation. Not. The NYT editorial board should read the articles they publish: "far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education." -- Opinion, Paul F. Campos, April 4, 2015. There is no "free" college, unless Hillary et al. have plans to enslave professors.
3
The right answer is to let the college system crash and burn. Once the silly students realize that the federal government is a predatory lender of student loans they will wise up. A predatory lender is one who lends you money that they know you cannot pay back, and as this article points out, most students cannot pay it back, so the NY Times knows the federal government is being predatory in its lending policies.
3
"Once the silly students realize that the federal government is a predatory lender of student loans they will wise up." I hope you understand what constitutes the majority of people taking out out these loans, naive 18 year olds like we all once were. They have their own families putting pressure on them, ambitions to take hold of, and need for more understanding in the world. There is nothing that is going to hold them back (including high tuition costs) from going to college as the alternative literally is flipping burgers or working at the mall. In your free market approach, people that had the luck to be born to upper-middle class (even they can't afford tuition as it is now) parents or below are stuck with non-dischargable, compounding interest loads of debt, while children with the luck to be to born extremely rich parents come out scot free. As the vast majority most people are not born to rich parents, really take a deep breath and think about what the world would be like if we had less people going to college.
Remove money from the problem. College degrees for "free" the same way elementary, middle, and high school educations are given to our young. If you want more than a BA/BS you're on your own, but for a 4-year degree it should cost the student nothing.
Until this happens, tell universities to stop sitting on their mountains of money they have in reserve and start using it to help today's young people pay for an education. Greed is not good.
Until this happens, tell universities to stop sitting on their mountains of money they have in reserve and start using it to help today's young people pay for an education. Greed is not good.
1
First of all the republican candidates do have plans. A quick look at their Web sites proves this. I'm surprised the editorial board did not do their research. Second of all adding $350 (Hillary) or $750 (Bernie) billion in debt to an already $18 trillion federal tab is in no way going to help college students. This isn't an investment with any kind of return because the jobs are not there to be had. College kids are still struggling to find employment. These proposals are going to cripple that generation. They already have no hope for social security or Medicare in their future. They may less student debt but hey they will be paying much higher taxes and will get no retirement support. The federal government needs to go back to its purpose of existing to protect us. Let the state governments solve their tuition problems. They are much better equipped and know their unique situations better.
1
"The country has a college affordability crisis. But candidates from only one party are taking it seriously."
But they are not taking it seriously. And they are not making it more affordable, they are simply shifting the cost from the people using it to the taxpayers. Economics 101 - nothing is free. Government has had a big hand in making college more expensive, these proposals will make it even more expensive. And it discriminates against people who do not go to college or go to a different kind of school.
Our national debt is almost $19 trillion, we can't just keep finding new ways to waste more money. The federal government is not Santa Claus.
But they are not taking it seriously. And they are not making it more affordable, they are simply shifting the cost from the people using it to the taxpayers. Economics 101 - nothing is free. Government has had a big hand in making college more expensive, these proposals will make it even more expensive. And it discriminates against people who do not go to college or go to a different kind of school.
Our national debt is almost $19 trillion, we can't just keep finding new ways to waste more money. The federal government is not Santa Claus.
2
I got a full ride to college because I worked really hard in high school. I then worked really hard in collegr and went to medical school for 4 years to become a doctor. My parents generously helped with part of my tuition, but the cost of medical school is so high (~50K/yr even for public schools) that only the extremely wealthy can get through without a huge amount of debt. During the course of my residency, the amount I owe will double, even though I'm making IBR payments every month and working 80 hrs/week. all the while some CEO of Sallie Mae is making millions, working <40 hrs/wk with a lesser degree because of this completely ridiculous Pyramid scheme we've created out of tuition payments in higher learning. I don't think it's fair. I don't think that only kids with trust funds should get to be doctors. I'm so glad someone is finally talking about fixing the system.
2
The way you got through undergrad is the solution to your problem. We need doctors, so scholarships for medical school make sense. But the proposals Bernie and Hillary are making would do nothing to help you, and they would just drive up the cost of college even more.
As for forgiving student loans , I always think of the other student. I am sure many students went to very expensive colleges. Their parents had a wonderful time bragging about "joey going to whatever private college", joey enjoyed the amenities and then graduates with a lot of debt. Now, joey is asking that his loans be forgiven.
What about the other student (Jane) who knew she couldn't afford going to a place like that and didn't want to incur mountains of debt. So she goes to cheaper schoolsl, work hard to minimize her loans.
Now if you forgive "joey's" student loans, isn't Jane kind of paying for joey's good time. What about her? Her reward for being prudent is zero and she missed out on the good school.
I do think what is needed most is education about these loans. These kids sign for loans and don't understand the pay back schedule. When a kid signs for 10k a year in loans, it should be explained in writing how much this will cost per month to pay back. Then the student needs to think about if i take out 40k in 4 years== what is my monthly payment. What is the monthly income in my field? Is this a feasible amount to pay back with the money i'm likely to earn?
These are the questions that need to be asked and answered before a student enrolls in a college.
I would like to see state universities use their money for less administration. There was a recently article in the Times citing administration bloat as the largest contributor to rising tuition.
What about the other student (Jane) who knew she couldn't afford going to a place like that and didn't want to incur mountains of debt. So she goes to cheaper schoolsl, work hard to minimize her loans.
Now if you forgive "joey's" student loans, isn't Jane kind of paying for joey's good time. What about her? Her reward for being prudent is zero and she missed out on the good school.
I do think what is needed most is education about these loans. These kids sign for loans and don't understand the pay back schedule. When a kid signs for 10k a year in loans, it should be explained in writing how much this will cost per month to pay back. Then the student needs to think about if i take out 40k in 4 years== what is my monthly payment. What is the monthly income in my field? Is this a feasible amount to pay back with the money i'm likely to earn?
These are the questions that need to be asked and answered before a student enrolls in a college.
I would like to see state universities use their money for less administration. There was a recently article in the Times citing administration bloat as the largest contributor to rising tuition.
2
All of this is basically useless. The entire process of financial aid for students is a waste of resources, and those who work in it will often acknowledge it.
Students do not need loans, period. College is for learning, not playing accountant all the time-what I was expected to do as a poor student at the University of California during the late 1980's.
I tried to be responsible, the limited toilet of grant money Reagan created made it so many like myself were pushed into the irresponsibility of big borrowing, and mine was nothing compared to most people now days. Allow people to first get education (I was pummeled just to get a Bachelor's degree). It is crazy. Why don't young people want to do work that helps society? They cannot afford to unless they are wealthy. Figure it out.
Raise income bracket taxes. Right now. Shut up Hillary. We do not need the deck juggled again, we need taxes to go up on those who can afford it so half the country doesn't end up in the gutter, where Reagan pushed us 35 years ago.
Yes, I speak from personal experience.
Students do not need loans, period. College is for learning, not playing accountant all the time-what I was expected to do as a poor student at the University of California during the late 1980's.
I tried to be responsible, the limited toilet of grant money Reagan created made it so many like myself were pushed into the irresponsibility of big borrowing, and mine was nothing compared to most people now days. Allow people to first get education (I was pummeled just to get a Bachelor's degree). It is crazy. Why don't young people want to do work that helps society? They cannot afford to unless they are wealthy. Figure it out.
Raise income bracket taxes. Right now. Shut up Hillary. We do not need the deck juggled again, we need taxes to go up on those who can afford it so half the country doesn't end up in the gutter, where Reagan pushed us 35 years ago.
Yes, I speak from personal experience.
3
While I am all for supporting the America's youth, cost-control must be part of the solution. Otherwise as more money is available, the cost will simply rise even high. How much of the federal money is now going to the for-profit colleges who care nothing about whether the students learn anything or whether they can get a job after graduation. Even the blue-chip colleges and universities spend too much money on things that have nothing to with education. A college is a place to study, not a country club. The college administrators are paid too much and forgot that their job is to provide education, not to raise money to pay for their salary. The higher education system cannot be run like crony capitalism, all profit and zero risk to the top brass.
2
The panacea of public education today costs state and local taxpayers $80 billion each year. This is the money that taxpayers hand over to public universities to fund their annual losses each year, i.e, the costs that tuition does not cover.
So getting more students into the system and making it debt free has a much higher cost that advertised by the policy makers.
On the for-profits, 90-10 and gainful employment, if they ever added in these huge subsidies and actually compared for-profits honestly to the public universities it would show a much different result than what policy makers are promoting.
Currently the for-profits probably serve 7- 8% of all students. It would be nice if they eventually looked at all the poor preforming public and private colleges that serve over 90% of all students. But why try to fix the problem, voters prefer to hear it will be free for all (but don't realize it just raises their state and local tax burden) and we will get the evil for-profits.
Such is politics today......
So getting more students into the system and making it debt free has a much higher cost that advertised by the policy makers.
On the for-profits, 90-10 and gainful employment, if they ever added in these huge subsidies and actually compared for-profits honestly to the public universities it would show a much different result than what policy makers are promoting.
Currently the for-profits probably serve 7- 8% of all students. It would be nice if they eventually looked at all the poor preforming public and private colleges that serve over 90% of all students. But why try to fix the problem, voters prefer to hear it will be free for all (but don't realize it just raises their state and local tax burden) and we will get the evil for-profits.
Such is politics today......
1
The country has a college affordability crisis. But candidates from only one party are taking it seriously.
---------------------------------
This country has always had college affordability crisis for poorer folks. The crippling amounts of debt you are speaking of are true only of private institutions, and the purpose of pubic universities is to provide affordable education.
Obama and Michelle had huge loan debts because they did not go to a public school but choose to enroll in the most expensive program at Ivy league schools. Normally, the expectation is that, once you graduate, you will get a job paying decent wages commensurate with your degree, and then you will be able to pay your debts off. To have such a scenario materialize, people need to choose majors that are marketable.
A degree in art history is not going to get you a job when you graduate. So, college education is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end.
Let us be realistic about what is feasible. Demagoging the issue is not the way to earn your votes, Bernie and Hillary. Who knows more about loan debts problems than Obamas? If he chose not to do anything about it, then it is not for lack of will but for a realization that there is no such thing as free lunch and free education. Someone is going to pay for it.
---------------------------------
This country has always had college affordability crisis for poorer folks. The crippling amounts of debt you are speaking of are true only of private institutions, and the purpose of pubic universities is to provide affordable education.
Obama and Michelle had huge loan debts because they did not go to a public school but choose to enroll in the most expensive program at Ivy league schools. Normally, the expectation is that, once you graduate, you will get a job paying decent wages commensurate with your degree, and then you will be able to pay your debts off. To have such a scenario materialize, people need to choose majors that are marketable.
A degree in art history is not going to get you a job when you graduate. So, college education is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end.
Let us be realistic about what is feasible. Demagoging the issue is not the way to earn your votes, Bernie and Hillary. Who knows more about loan debts problems than Obamas? If he chose not to do anything about it, then it is not for lack of will but for a realization that there is no such thing as free lunch and free education. Someone is going to pay for it.
2
If the government is helping pay for college tuition, it must have the the right to negotiate the prices down.
2
People still do not get the fact that, if College is free or subsidized, then the Colleges and Universities have no incentive to reduce the cost of an Education.
3
As a matter of principle, I do not want to pay for other people's kids to go to college. My experience was that the students who got anything out of college were the ones who had to do something to earn it; for the rest it was just a way to extend adolescence four more years.
Even if I were willing on principle, there are a few questions:
The evidence is that college is more expensive because colleges have adopted the "boardroom" model of governance, pushing salaries up to crony executives while cutting professors to part-time/non-tenured status. Wouldn't public funding make this worse?
How is this a "crisis?" This debt does not sneak up on students; it is incurred one semester at a time. Where do we get this "students graduate only to find they are crushed by debt" talking point?
Many colleges are hubs of outré social theory, socialist dogma, gender theory, anti-capitalism, rape hoaxes. Why should a citizen support private institutions he/she doesn't agree with?
The value of a college degree is supposed to be $10-11,000 a year in additional salary. At that rate, can't a student pay off his debt in just two years of saving? Seems like those numbers don't add up.
Even if I were willing on principle, there are a few questions:
The evidence is that college is more expensive because colleges have adopted the "boardroom" model of governance, pushing salaries up to crony executives while cutting professors to part-time/non-tenured status. Wouldn't public funding make this worse?
How is this a "crisis?" This debt does not sneak up on students; it is incurred one semester at a time. Where do we get this "students graduate only to find they are crushed by debt" talking point?
Many colleges are hubs of outré social theory, socialist dogma, gender theory, anti-capitalism, rape hoaxes. Why should a citizen support private institutions he/she doesn't agree with?
The value of a college degree is supposed to be $10-11,000 a year in additional salary. At that rate, can't a student pay off his debt in just two years of saving? Seems like those numbers don't add up.
3
Just because a problem is big and nationwide does not mean the federal government should intermeddle in it. The Constitution makes the national government one of limited, specified powers. (The word "education" does not appear in the Constitution.) The Tenth Amendment reserves all others to the states or the people. Big problem? Let each state grapple with it as best it determines.
1
After a week of Trump, such a relief to see a candidate talking real world problems, with possible real world solutions. We cannot remain a vital democracy with campaigns that bounce between middle school name calling and reality TV problems. The numbers that FOX generated for the last debate is a bad omen for our democracy.
1
Im very excited about Senator Sanders proposal to make college tuition "free" at public institutions. How exactly does that work?
3
Sanders' plan makes the middle class pay for it. Just like all the other "free" stuff. It is not a good plan if you understand economics.
3
Oh...so its not really free? how disppointing.
1
This editorial ignores the root of the problem, which is costs. Tuition has escalated out of control during the past three decades due to the availability of student loans, as well as irresponsible and ignorant state legislatures that signed off on exorbitant salaries and benefits for increasing numbers of administrators and tenured (not part-time) faculty at state institutions. Throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem won't solve it. What is needed is to rein in all of the costs associated with higher-ed.
3
There are a myriad of reasons why colleges cost so much these days--lavish spending on facilities, bloated administrations, athletic programs, etc.. Still, the largest cost for most colleges is academic salaries. This would be fine if Professors spent most of their time teaching, but they spend their time doing research. If they teach two courses a semester that's a lot: about 12 hours a week of work. Student tuition subsidizes this research, often to the detriment of education. Professors who are promoted on the basis of this research, often regard teaching as an unwelcome burden. Undergraduate students get virtually no benefit from academic research.
In short, the federal government could substantially reduce college costs, by refusing to allow student tuition to be used for research. Let the research be funded elsewhere (often also by the government). Only allow colleges to charge that portion of a professor's salary which is involved in teaching to a student's tuition. For a professor earning $100k per year, teaching two courses a semester, for 26 weeks a year at 12 hours per week (1/3 FTE for 1/2 a year) only 1/6 of his salary could be charged to the student, or $17k. This would force colleges to focus on teaching. The government could simply withhold federal dollars to institutions which refuse to comply with this formula. Having full time teachers rather than researchers teach college would reduce tuition and raise the quality of education at the same time.
In short, the federal government could substantially reduce college costs, by refusing to allow student tuition to be used for research. Let the research be funded elsewhere (often also by the government). Only allow colleges to charge that portion of a professor's salary which is involved in teaching to a student's tuition. For a professor earning $100k per year, teaching two courses a semester, for 26 weeks a year at 12 hours per week (1/3 FTE for 1/2 a year) only 1/6 of his salary could be charged to the student, or $17k. This would force colleges to focus on teaching. The government could simply withhold federal dollars to institutions which refuse to comply with this formula. Having full time teachers rather than researchers teach college would reduce tuition and raise the quality of education at the same time.
2
"The country has a college affordability crisis. But candidates from only one party are taking it seriously." The country has several crisis brewing and only one party is talking about them, period. From the republican debate we heard that they will all (but one) support the eventual republican nominee, we heard the one say he believes that crude and offense language toward women is better than "being politically correct" or polite and courteous, and we heard that God speaks to these people about his plans for America.
The sooner the current republican party is put on the ash heap of history the sooner we can get back to recreating the America we have all dreamed about.
When I dropped out of college some 40+ years ago my dad gave me the money he had set aside for my college, I remember it came to about $400.00. $400.00 doesn't even buy text books these days.
America, land of opportunity.......
The sooner the current republican party is put on the ash heap of history the sooner we can get back to recreating the America we have all dreamed about.
When I dropped out of college some 40+ years ago my dad gave me the money he had set aside for my college, I remember it came to about $400.00. $400.00 doesn't even buy text books these days.
America, land of opportunity.......
1
At UNCA "Administration" costs have slowly became 45-50% of the budget while tuition has gone up, professors salaries have been stagnant and more adjunct teachers are being hired (mostly full of specific knowledge but little experience as educators). So what are these "administration" costs? I do a little digging and get funneled to dead ends that don't justify the expenditures that have been cut for improving faculty quality and, or, the increases in tuition. UNCA is still an "affordable" public university but I wonder what this trend, started when republican austerity hawks over the past 5 years took hold of the legislature, will look like after I graduate and come back to visit in 10 years. I understand, at least on a philosophical level, the anti "redistribution" rehtoric of republicans. In actuality, it is being materializedd in this case as making education (of all things) for middle/lower income citizenry more expensive and out or reach.
"Fresh thinking?" When you expect little or nothing in this department, Republicans usually deliver. In GOP Land, tax breaks - or in this case, tuition mitigation proposals - should be reserved for the wealthy, who are inherently more deserving of them.
The primary trouble with what may be called the Affordable College Act is the assumption that all colleges are the same. Call it elitist, snobbish, even racist, but a degree from Plain Wrap University is not going to be the door opener that one from Stanford will be.
"Free" college sounds wonderful, but beware those "registration fees." And college seems to have failed to teach the Editorial Board that a concept is not necessarily vindicated simply on the basis of no one else having come up (yet) with an alternative.
What we really need is a clear accounting of out-of-control college costs (the price of books alone has gone up more than 1000% over the last two decades).
You know what? If student loans can be forgiven, those of us who got through college without one should get to have our mortgages forgiven. It's only fair (and probably cheaper).
"Free" college sounds wonderful, but beware those "registration fees." And college seems to have failed to teach the Editorial Board that a concept is not necessarily vindicated simply on the basis of no one else having come up (yet) with an alternative.
What we really need is a clear accounting of out-of-control college costs (the price of books alone has gone up more than 1000% over the last two decades).
You know what? If student loans can be forgiven, those of us who got through college without one should get to have our mortgages forgiven. It's only fair (and probably cheaper).
1
As a teacher the new Common Core is supposed to prepare students for College and Beyond. Well, while our President has made a statement that everyone must go to college, that is a fallacy. Not every student is meant for college. If you want to provide free tuition for college I don't have a problem with it. But it should be for students who are college ready. If you are academically prepared for college courses then you should be able to afford college without a huge debt, funding provided by the states and federal government via taxes. But please lets not make this an open enrollment policy for everyone who is either told or thinks they must go.
More guidance in high schools about what a student should be looking to do based upon their high school studies and other factors needs to be done so a student getting ready to leave high school has his/her eyes wide open about what they should be doing. 40 years ago when I was getting ready to graduate high school a guidance counselor wouldn't hesitate to tell a student that a trade school, or civil service or even the Army was their better option rather than go to college and not finish because they weren't college material.
Today schools tell every student that is what they should be shooting for and that is plain wrong. We need carpenters, mechanics, roofers truck drivers too. As long as we provide alternatives to a middle class life college shouldn't be the ONLY thing that a student HAS to do.
More guidance in high schools about what a student should be looking to do based upon their high school studies and other factors needs to be done so a student getting ready to leave high school has his/her eyes wide open about what they should be doing. 40 years ago when I was getting ready to graduate high school a guidance counselor wouldn't hesitate to tell a student that a trade school, or civil service or even the Army was their better option rather than go to college and not finish because they weren't college material.
Today schools tell every student that is what they should be shooting for and that is plain wrong. We need carpenters, mechanics, roofers truck drivers too. As long as we provide alternatives to a middle class life college shouldn't be the ONLY thing that a student HAS to do.
1
Grand gestures on the costs of colleges, and student debt, are fine, perhaps even expected in the political season we are in. But incremental steps can be taken and should be considered. First, have GAO study the actual facts about student (and parent) college debt. Next, proceed with Senator Warren's proposals to allow students to refinance loans at lower costs, and lower the rate for student loans to the Federal Reserve discount rate. But I would go further than Senator Warren -- do away with the subsidized/unsubsidized Stafford loan dichotomy, and lower the rates on Parent PLUS loans, often used by parents to fund their children's college costs. Am I holding my breath for these to occur -- no, but one can always hope.
1
Here we go again - the Democratic party demonstrating their penchant for tax and spend. The idea of making education affordable or even free is an admirable one. However, to fund the $750 billion cost, increasing taxes would have to pay for it. Another example of the danger of putting the liberal cabal in charge, that would continue us along the path of financial ruin for us, our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay for these "freebies" in the future.
This type of thinking that the Government has to provide for everyone regardless of the impact on tax and spend, will only saddle us with ever increasing debt, which will negatively impact the economy as it has already done under the Emporship of Obama.
Perhaps by eliminating 25% of all government workers through attrition, and using the money saved prudently, would help fund some select programs. However, we know that will never happen as the goal of the Government is to spend more, and produce less, i.e. VA, IRS, etc.
This type of thinking that the Government has to provide for everyone regardless of the impact on tax and spend, will only saddle us with ever increasing debt, which will negatively impact the economy as it has already done under the Emporship of Obama.
Perhaps by eliminating 25% of all government workers through attrition, and using the money saved prudently, would help fund some select programs. However, we know that will never happen as the goal of the Government is to spend more, and produce less, i.e. VA, IRS, etc.
2
One good solution deserves another.
The meteoric increases in cost of higher education date from 1993 which coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally) was when President Clinton and the democratic congress made a major expansion in the student loan program.
Now the Democrats are going to find a solution to the problem that they created. With their inability (or unwillingness) to see the negative effects of their proposals that naturally go along with the positive effects, my guess is that they will only make a bad situation worse.
As I told my wife and daughter who was just beginning college in 1993 when the loan programs were expanded and they thought this was such a great thing. All it would mean is that the schools would raise tuition to suck up all the loan dollars available and all the student would get is more debt.
The meteoric increases in cost of higher education date from 1993 which coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally) was when President Clinton and the democratic congress made a major expansion in the student loan program.
Now the Democrats are going to find a solution to the problem that they created. With their inability (or unwillingness) to see the negative effects of their proposals that naturally go along with the positive effects, my guess is that they will only make a bad situation worse.
As I told my wife and daughter who was just beginning college in 1993 when the loan programs were expanded and they thought this was such a great thing. All it would mean is that the schools would raise tuition to suck up all the loan dollars available and all the student would get is more debt.
4
My son went to law school and cannot find a job in law. His loans have been in forbearance for two years as he pays what he can afford. He will owe much more than he started out owing. We cannot afford to pay it off for him. A few years back, President Obama wanted to keep the interest rates low so that people could continue to make progress on their student loans. Republicans rebuffed those efforts. My daughter, who teaches in the inner city and has for 15 years, had been told that she was eligible for loan forgiveness for her teaching efforts in that environment. She has applied every year and been denied. She called recently to see about consolidating her loans, and the person on the other end of the phone asked, "Why haven't you applied for loan forgiveness?" She told her that she had applied for the past ten years (you have to teach for five years before becoming eligible). My daughter told her that she had applied for ten consecutive years. "There is no evidence in your file that you have applied," the person said. "Let's take an application over the phone." Who is running this show? How can anyone make any progress with this? Our kids are, essentially, buried in this debt. What can be done?
The government has since the 1960s dumped truckloads of money on colleges and students, the result of which has been higher tuition: Schools pocket the subsidies and pass on the costs. A July report from the New York Federal Reserve found that every additional dollar in aid and subsidized loans led colleges to raise tuition as much as 65 cents. This is economics 101, which gender studies and A-A history majors can't just wish away.
3
We presently give interest free loans to the Wall Street banks every day at the Fed window, why not students.
1
My granddaughter, a teenager and resident of Scotland, can go to a very good college in Scotland FREE. I think she will have to pass a test.
As a Fiscally RESPONSIBLE Independent voter who is single, middle-aged and without children who has to look up to see the middle-class, why should I or any taxpayers like me in better financial circumstance flip the bill for the progeny of other's education beyond K-12?
Why not set up a student loan system at a fixed interest rate of, say, 4% throughout the life of the loan and set up some sort of tithing repayment system commensurate to monthly income?
We all took Economics in high school and had to take it to get an Associates Degree. This is basic dollars and [common] sense.
Why not set up a student loan system at a fixed interest rate of, say, 4% throughout the life of the loan and set up some sort of tithing repayment system commensurate to monthly income?
We all took Economics in high school and had to take it to get an Associates Degree. This is basic dollars and [common] sense.
4
If you did actually take economics then you will be familiar with the concept of a positive externality.
This is what an educated populace is.
This is what an educated populace is.
Accept the Pigovian tax for the [potential] long-term benefit.
The real problem with college is a corrupt higher education industry that charges a lot for a third rate product. What the Clinton and Sanders plans would do is subsidize that industry and thus ensure its continued existence. The entire scheme of "higher education" ought to be reconsidered, starting with the idea of the four-year undergraduate degree. Won't happen though. I've begun to believe that democracies, or at least our democracy, are not capable of such fundamental reforms. Fundamental reform would break too many rice bowls.
5
"Another Republican candidate, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, has caused great harm to the University of Wisconsin system by cutting $250 million from its budget, which is forcing administrators to raise tuition for some students.:
To put this in perspective, this is just over $694 per student for each of those two years. If borne soley by the students, which it won't be as tuition is frozen, it would represent an increase of about 7.7% at UW-Milwaukee and UW-Madison, and a greater percentage increase at the non-doctoral campus where the tuition is lower. Instead, this will come at the expense of higher student/faculty ratios and on the backs of part-time instructors who are paid a pitiful wage when compared with their credentials.
To put this in perspective, this is just over $694 per student for each of those two years. If borne soley by the students, which it won't be as tuition is frozen, it would represent an increase of about 7.7% at UW-Milwaukee and UW-Madison, and a greater percentage increase at the non-doctoral campus where the tuition is lower. Instead, this will come at the expense of higher student/faculty ratios and on the backs of part-time instructors who are paid a pitiful wage when compared with their credentials.
The more money Government has made available for college, the faster the tuition rates have risen. That may be a generalization but its accurate. There are simply a lot of people who have no direction and who look at college as 4 years of subsidized party with a little book work on the side. That $100k degree in 15th century Icelandic poetry might qualify you to start at McDonalds and make swing shift leader in a few months but not much else.
The democrats are doing what they do best, promising to give people money from the public till under the guise that it is "free". Responsibly making college affordable for people should also involve ensuring that people who are using the public dime are motivated, responsible, and directed to a goal, be it medicine, education, engineering and other "hard" sciences. Leave the victim studies majors ( womyns studies, LGBT studies, black studies etc.), poetry majors and underwater basket weaving majors to fund their own worthless degrees.
The democrats are doing what they do best, promising to give people money from the public till under the guise that it is "free". Responsibly making college affordable for people should also involve ensuring that people who are using the public dime are motivated, responsible, and directed to a goal, be it medicine, education, engineering and other "hard" sciences. Leave the victim studies majors ( womyns studies, LGBT studies, black studies etc.), poetry majors and underwater basket weaving majors to fund their own worthless degrees.
4
As a retired college professor, I firmly believe after over 40 years that college is not for everyone. Before we start throwing money at the student debt problem, we need to carefully rethink our higher education model that no longer works in the post-industrial 21st century. Most European nations like Germany provide such alternatives leading to good, high-skilled jobs rather than simply encouraging everyone into thinking that college leads to a job rather than debt. That era is long past. There are many jobs in the high-tech sector that just require specialized training where a BA is not required. Retooling community colleges would be one way to provide those specialized skills that businesses are looking for, but not finding, in our current college grads. By channeling more high school students into such careers, we would then be able to lower the costs of college for the smaller number of students who still wish to pursue that path and the post-graduate education in law, medicine, and other fields that are required for more traditional rewarding career.
4
Why is it so hard for liberals to comprehend the law of supply and demand and prices? The more the government gets involved in subsidizing anything, the more expensive that item becomes. Let's say the government decided to provide every American with a car because most people fundamentally need one. What do we think would happen to the price of cars? I'll give you a hint, they would go up. If you want to reduce the cost of a college education remove all government subsidies from the process.
3
Walker is classic. He dropped out of college, never learned the one thing that a liberal arts and sciences education is designed to teach -- to think, to acquire knowledge and use it in a systematic way to solve problems and communicate. As a result he is in most ways as a public man a cross between a savage and an ignorant fool. He mouths platitudes, has no knowledge that remotely qualifies him to be president and is a creature of his prejudices and learned responses from a narrow, ill informed, inward looking perspective. For all his usual partisan protestations about government and determination tor reduce it, eliminate it, as he has in Wisconsin with particular harmful effect on one of the nation's great public institutions of higher learning, he is in fact a man who has never functioned outside the public sector. He has run for office something like 20 times and unless he holds a public office would not and could not earn more than a middling living as the kind of middling man he is. So how would he or the party whose nomination for president he seeks ever understand the value, importance and necessity of higher education and therefore of assuring that all have access to it and that all can obtain it without a lifetime of servitude to the debts they now incur to obtain it.
The answer is that neither Walker or his party have any answers to higher education except to cheer on and boost the football team.
The answer is that neither Walker or his party have any answers to higher education except to cheer on and boost the football team.
1
And yet, Notafan, he has won three elections to his current office. I wonder if you have considered that the people of Wisconsin might be, say, at least as discerning as you?
The one thing that got Mexico out of the middle ages, was the UNAM, the national university.
It is free. This made it possible for any son or daughter of a farmer, a day worker, a house painter (all very poor people), to go to the city and get an education. It made it possible for a small town teacher, with 6 kids, to send all of them to college, with four becoming engineers, and one a heart surgeon. I know, this, they are my cousins, and my parents too.
Let people reach for an education, without making them slaves to the system. Keep private colleges too, make those available for those who can pay; maybe even they can help fund the national university.
It works, can we do this is our great country?
It is free. This made it possible for any son or daughter of a farmer, a day worker, a house painter (all very poor people), to go to the city and get an education. It made it possible for a small town teacher, with 6 kids, to send all of them to college, with four becoming engineers, and one a heart surgeon. I know, this, they are my cousins, and my parents too.
Let people reach for an education, without making them slaves to the system. Keep private colleges too, make those available for those who can pay; maybe even they can help fund the national university.
It works, can we do this is our great country?
5
If college is free in Mexico, why would all of those Mexicans be fleeing their country and coming to the U.S.? But then again in Mexico, if you don't work you don't get free medical care and you don't eat.
1
Thanks for getting the word out Shark. We need to get the word to the people who are here illegally and those planning to come that this program is available and things are better in Mexico.
1
Once again, it appears that us liberals have it all wrong.
Affordable college? Everyone knows that the crisis in education is because our youth:
(a) don't work hard enough;
(b) have parents who don't work hard enough; and
(c) are too lazy to ask their rich uncles to float a loan to pay for tuition, and maybe even throw in enough to allow us to become "entrepreneurs."
Don't have a rich uncle? Somehow, that's probably also because our young, non-privileged students are lazy and don't work hard enough. What's the connection? I have no idea. But, I'm sure the 17 candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president will fill us in sooner or later.
Affordable college? Everyone knows that the crisis in education is because our youth:
(a) don't work hard enough;
(b) have parents who don't work hard enough; and
(c) are too lazy to ask their rich uncles to float a loan to pay for tuition, and maybe even throw in enough to allow us to become "entrepreneurs."
Don't have a rich uncle? Somehow, that's probably also because our young, non-privileged students are lazy and don't work hard enough. What's the connection? I have no idea. But, I'm sure the 17 candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president will fill us in sooner or later.
3
Instead of another federal giveaway with lots of regulations (strings attached to the money), we need to put college and university funding on a sensible basis. Instead of lending money to anyone who wants it, including those who want a two- or four-year vacation, the government should loan money to these schools as they demand it, which, in turn, would lend it to students whom they believe, on the basis of their already existing application processes, likely to repay it for college repayment to the government. Schools would be on the hook for their mistakes, and states would be guarantors of the loans of public colleges and universities. Private, especially, for-profit schools, would also be on the hook for their mistakes and require private-equity guarantors of their loans. Schools would have an incentive to improve the quality of the education which they provide, and their graduates would be more likely to get jobs and repay their loans. Other pluses: schools would have no incentive to swell enrollments with "vacationing students" or students with educational backgrounds too weak for success; indeed, they would accept greater risk by loaning to such poorly motivated or prepared students. And for-profit schools, usually living off the federal dole and providing a poor education, would be driven out of business. After an initial funding and occasional tweaks, the government would spend little to help control of student loans and to achieve improvements in academic quality.
7
Why should for-proft businesses be discriminated against? If the college system entered the free market the colleges that provide the best value to the student will survive. We don't need you, nor anyone else deciding that they are the experts who can determine what is of value to total strangers that you have never met.
I discriminate against no one and no institution. But for-profits have been operating by relying on government loans to students whom they poorly educate and render unlikely to get jobs and to repay their loans. lf for-profits have to assume ordinary business risks, they will either become more responsible--not likely--or go out of business. You want for-profit schools to live on government life-support because they cannot otherwise stay in business. I am a capitalist; you are a socialist.
Unfortunately, higher education has become less about education and more about the "experience". Universities, unshackled from any sense of cost restraint due to the demand for education and a never ending stream of federally guaranteed student loan money, feel no pressure to keep costs down. Instead, they have engaged in an "arms-race" with other institutions to create and market the college "experience". This experience includes items such as the building of luxury dorm rooms, state of the art recreational facilities, and other fluff that serves little to no educational purpose and whose cost is returned to the American family in terms of high tuition and room and board. The other consequence of a never ending stream of capital is the proliferation of administrators to the point where one job is now handled by three people.
Higher education lost its way many years ago, spoiled by loan market that kept demand high regardless of tuition.
Finally, it drives me nuts when someone uses the term "free tuition". It is not free. It is a matter of how tuition is financed, either privately or publicly.
Higher education lost its way many years ago, spoiled by loan market that kept demand high regardless of tuition.
Finally, it drives me nuts when someone uses the term "free tuition". It is not free. It is a matter of how tuition is financed, either privately or publicly.
16
Hilary is blatantly buying votes by doubling down on the federal subsidy system that has lead to record increases in tuition. Of course, the usual crowd of ignorance here at the NY Times believes this as a "breakthrough," when it merely a brazen effort to pander to voters.
Here is an idea, why not cut out the middle step and just pledge to give people money to vote for Hilary?
Here is an idea, why not cut out the middle step and just pledge to give people money to vote for Hilary?
15
And the GOP candidates pander to their funders by demanding war.
Hmm, last declaration of war was in 1940 and for a Democrat. Still looking for the Republican who was president during a war? try McKinley. If Republicans cannot get what their funders want for over a century, they are pretty bad at crony capitalism. But we knew that, didn't we?
We need to increase entrance requirements, and entrance preparation. The latter used to be the province of now impacted Community Colleges, but these now are just post-secondary drop-out factories. Real thinking needs to be done before handing billions to colleges where 70% or more never graduate.
8
Anytime you subsidize anything - the price will go up. If this subsidy/loans become available in really limited amounts - colleges will be forced to drop prices or go out of business.
The solution lies in thinking of financial and regulatory ways to force prices down - colleges will never reduce prices because that is the right thing to do.
The solution lies in thinking of financial and regulatory ways to force prices down - colleges will never reduce prices because that is the right thing to do.
6
Yes the availability of loans and grants is what is making college unaffordable. First off, the government should force all universities to provide online courses. They should make it mandatory that a college come up with a plan to educate students as much as possible online if they still want to be eligible for student loans.
Hillary is desperate. She is trying to assemble the same voting coalition that voted for Obama, but the main reason they voted for Obama is because he is black and she can't reproduce that.
This is old-fashioned vote buying at its worst. "Vote for me because I am going to take money from people who earned it and give it to you."
That may be fine for the four or five years one is in college, but serious students will realize that they will pay for it in higher taxes when they start work. Taxpayers will realize that they will be supporting more party going English and psychology majors than engineers and nurses. That will not play well.
She is not even addressing the problem. Every legal resident in America has the opportunity for higher education regardless of ability to pay. They do not have the right to attend any particular school, have any particular major, and get paid a salary to justify the cost of their choices.
If there is a reform that is needed, it is in the guidance office, where students are informed of the costs and job prospects for various majors, starting in middle school. We may end up getting more engineers and nurses and fewer English and psychology majors.
This is old-fashioned vote buying at its worst. "Vote for me because I am going to take money from people who earned it and give it to you."
That may be fine for the four or five years one is in college, but serious students will realize that they will pay for it in higher taxes when they start work. Taxpayers will realize that they will be supporting more party going English and psychology majors than engineers and nurses. That will not play well.
She is not even addressing the problem. Every legal resident in America has the opportunity for higher education regardless of ability to pay. They do not have the right to attend any particular school, have any particular major, and get paid a salary to justify the cost of their choices.
If there is a reform that is needed, it is in the guidance office, where students are informed of the costs and job prospects for various majors, starting in middle school. We may end up getting more engineers and nurses and fewer English and psychology majors.
18
Little tough on English and Psychology majors, aren't you "Son"? Speaking of sons, what about the sons (and daughters) of business owners who have no desire or aptitude to be nurses or engineers? I imagine they will take business courses at a private university (although a good Liberal Arts education might best prepare them for business succession).
New federal support for higher education is irrefutably linked to future economic output. In fact, it will help reduce the federal deficit.
According to the US Census Bureau, over an adult's working life, those with a bachelor's degree, will earn almost $1 million more; and holders of master's degree, can expect to earn almost $1.5 million more.
The president should use the State of the Union Address to ask Congress to appropriate $50 billion to build endowments at state higher education institutions. If enacted, new federal dollars could flow to more than seventy percent of the nation's public colleges and universities. All with the stipulation that the funds are restricted to endowments and the subsequent drawdown from the endowments are only for direct financial aid to students.
With an average grant of $100 million, a four percent annualized drawdown from an endowment would support about 2,300 students at each institution. This could help about 1.1 million students across the United States. Each of these students could receive about $1,700 or roughly twenty percent of their tuition, based on statistics provided by the College Board in 2013, that the average tuition at a public four-year colleges is $8,655.
The $50 billion of taxpayers' money will generate more than $1 trillion of economic impact from the future earnings of each graduating class to help reduce the growing federal deficit.
According to the US Census Bureau, over an adult's working life, those with a bachelor's degree, will earn almost $1 million more; and holders of master's degree, can expect to earn almost $1.5 million more.
The president should use the State of the Union Address to ask Congress to appropriate $50 billion to build endowments at state higher education institutions. If enacted, new federal dollars could flow to more than seventy percent of the nation's public colleges and universities. All with the stipulation that the funds are restricted to endowments and the subsequent drawdown from the endowments are only for direct financial aid to students.
With an average grant of $100 million, a four percent annualized drawdown from an endowment would support about 2,300 students at each institution. This could help about 1.1 million students across the United States. Each of these students could receive about $1,700 or roughly twenty percent of their tuition, based on statistics provided by the College Board in 2013, that the average tuition at a public four-year colleges is $8,655.
The $50 billion of taxpayers' money will generate more than $1 trillion of economic impact from the future earnings of each graduating class to help reduce the growing federal deficit.
3
If a person with a master's degree earns $1,500,000 over, let's say, 50 working years, that's a salary bump of $30,000 per year. The average debt cited in this article is $25,000 or so. That means it would pay for itself in one year. Why is this a public crisis?
1
The usual grand schemes of the left. How about you get Obamacare working like you promised before you launch another boondoggle? remember, I can keep my doctor and my policy and still save $2500 a year in premiums. Now scurry off and get to work fixing it.
1
Everybody doesn't need a 4 year degree. In fact much of that mmoney would be wasted because there would be no jobs for most of the 4 year college graduates. I was on a CA taskForce several years ago that looked at education, vocational in particular, and was surprised to find out that only about 30% of the jobs in CA require a bachelors degree. I've seen more recent studies that confirm this number. About 60% require some additional education, Community College or technical school. I rarely hear the politicians talking about vocational education and the skills that are provided, but our economy would grind to a halt without these educations and skills, or we can continue to import those skills from around the world.
I'm always interested in the lifetime income difference attributed to various levels of higher education. A few people may reach those income levels, but many won't because there just isn't a demand for their skills/knowledge. How many Doctorates in Medevil History do we need? How many Masters in Etomology does our economy need? How many engineers, architects, and designers would be unemployed if they couldn't find people with the skills needed to bring their ideas and plans to fruition? I know that the engineer who designed my automobile isn't going to fly out to CA to repair my air conditioner. He's assuming that CA was smart enought to educate the necessary people with the skills needed to make this repair.
I'm always interested in the lifetime income difference attributed to various levels of higher education. A few people may reach those income levels, but many won't because there just isn't a demand for their skills/knowledge. How many Doctorates in Medevil History do we need? How many Masters in Etomology does our economy need? How many engineers, architects, and designers would be unemployed if they couldn't find people with the skills needed to bring their ideas and plans to fruition? I know that the engineer who designed my automobile isn't going to fly out to CA to repair my air conditioner. He's assuming that CA was smart enought to educate the necessary people with the skills needed to make this repair.
1
The Democrats' plan is basically to hand out a huge freebie by taxing the productive white man. That is not a very good plan at all. In fact, I would be embarrassed to even mention either the Clinton or Sanders plan in public.
You should be writing about bringing down the cost of higher education, not handing out freebies.
You should be writing about bringing down the cost of higher education, not handing out freebies.
7
I'll have to re-read the democrat policy. Missed the race-based, white man tax you mention. Thought the comments and debate were quite healthy until I found yours.
A freebie is where we white men would expect nothing in return.
An investment is where we would expect a growing economy that returns much more than we invest. I am confident education will do exactly that.
An investment is where we would expect a growing economy that returns much more than we invest. I am confident education will do exactly that.
I guess you are saying that only white men are productive?
Perhaps the Times should re read the article it wrote on Clinton's proposal. The article clearly stated that money would still have to be borrowed. To claim that Clinton has come up with a no debt solution is, at best, extremely poor journalism and an uninformed editorial board or, more likely, false information created in order to promote a political agenda. Articles such as this continue to degrade trustworthiness and relevance of the Times. Perhaps some truth instead of partisanship might be a good journalistic standard to pursue?
9
College education is now an extension of the K-12 education system and therefore should be free, as should trade schools. If citizens have a problem with providing free stuff to people( as we do to corporations that pay no taxes), have young people do 1 year of mandatory service to the country before or after education.
4
I went to college almost fifty years ago. It was less expensive then and there were excellent state universities that one could afford to attend if one worked during the summer. There were also plentiful summer jobs, and not only in fast food. This was at the beginning of America's decline which has been ongoing for the middle class ever since. We should restore this. Extend free tuition to any qualified student who maintains a B average, a real B average based on the curve, in an amount above what they can reasonably make in a summer job. In addition no student loan should ever bear a higher interest rate than the rate given to big banks by the federal reserve--these days essentially zero.
7
You know, you just are not getting it! You decry the decline of the summer jobs and the cost of college, all brought on by the encroaching welfare state. So your solution? Extend the welfare state.
You may speak of the welfare state all you want and I will likely not agree with you, nor will I likely agree with what is probably a simplistic economic analysis on your part of what has happened to our nation. HOWEVER-the right to an education is not and should not be considered a part of the welfare state. In this day and age a college education is as necessary as an acceptable high school education was less than a hundred years ago, and as necessary as a grammar school education was before the civil war.
Hillary Clinton releases plan to make college more affordable? The same Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, collected millions of dollars in speaking fees from colleges? That Hillary Clinton?
14
At least the Democrats are discussing the problem and offering proposals.
Republicans are anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-education because uneducated voters can be more easily manipulated by candidates who promote an agenda of selfishness (the business model). Worst example: Donald Trump.
Republicans are anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-education because uneducated voters can be more easily manipulated by candidates who promote an agenda of selfishness (the business model). Worst example: Donald Trump.
7
You need to update your talking points. Studies show that Republicans have a 5-point IQ advantage over Democrats. Surprisingly, Tea Party members are better educated and have better knowledge of general science than the average American. R's also give more to charity.
1
What about those anti-vaxxers? They are NY Times reading, arugula eating, latte sipping, Whole Food shoppers. They are one of you and very anti-science. What about the anti-GMO crowd, they refuse to accept scientific fact, and they are one of you. What about the organic food adherents. although all scientific evidence points to no value. Seems like you have a whole raft of anti-science people over there on the left.
1
Free college for all. Nice generous statement made by the democrats running for the office of president. Of course they're saying that. It's free for everyone. After all yesterday NYT's article complained that the free housing a lady was getting didn't have air conditioning. Now that's a necessity. Now the bill comes in. Who pays for it. We do as we're paying for everyone else's health care and soon to be their education. Let's see I paid for my education & health care. My children's education and health care and lucky me these big spenders will allow me to pay for everyone else's now. A republican has too much sense to make that statement. He knows he's bankrupting the middle class with these acts. It seems to be the democrats objective to make us all poor and eliminate the middle class. Obama is doing very well at that.
3
Democrats force the "Rich" to pay for college for everyone because greedy college graduates with Student Loans refuse to pay their loans back and the Federal Government does nothing about it. What a joke. same old same old from the Dems. I think the "Rich" should not hire anyone for whom they were forced to pay for their college costs. They will know who you are. If you don't, just ask.
1
College is not the only job training available and, for many young people, it isn't the best route. Are they also looking at the affordability of technical schools and trade schools?
3
Hillary Clinton's proposal is a boondoggle that would keep many students locked into borrowing and carrying debt at a young age. Plus, who knows if the states would agree? The supposedly public University of Virginia is now an exclusive institution charging more tuition than many private colleges. Try reasoning with the shysters running that place! Bernie Sanders proposal to make public colleges tuition free is the way to go. Wasn't this the idea behind public colleges in the first place?
Decades ago I paid almost nothing to study at CCNY and got a degree at the University of California for less than $2000 tuition. College could be this accessible again but financial institutions must be driven or legislated out of the student loan business - the student loan business as it exists has the goal of enriching the colleges and the lending institutions. The welfare of the students receives ZERO concern in this equation.
Thomas Jefferson would take one look at the prohibitive cost of attending U.Va. now and, as Woody Allen said, "never stop throwing up."
Decades ago I paid almost nothing to study at CCNY and got a degree at the University of California for less than $2000 tuition. College could be this accessible again but financial institutions must be driven or legislated out of the student loan business - the student loan business as it exists has the goal of enriching the colleges and the lending institutions. The welfare of the students receives ZERO concern in this equation.
Thomas Jefferson would take one look at the prohibitive cost of attending U.Va. now and, as Woody Allen said, "never stop throwing up."
6
Another entitlement? More vote buying? I can only imagine the unintended consequences that would attend this idea. Since I workday way through college and finished with no debt, this sounds like an awful idea to me. The student loan program resulted in a huge mess because kids major in subjects which have no associated jobs, are not wise enough to turn away "free" money, and universities hiked fees and costs because the students would pay it. After all, the loans were free and thus the disaster we now see. This idea which does nothing but transfer the mess to the taxpayer is nothing but an attempt to buy more votes with taxpayer money. Can you image the sociology, philosophy and psychology majors we would be buying? Can you imaging the overhead costs and inefficiencies in universities that will result ? The government has already created one huge mess with these loans and you want to make it worse?
6
The high interest rates that are being charged by lenders for student loans are outrageous.
It is not just the students at the undergraduate level, but those who are pursuing a graduate degree or a professional degrees accumulate huge amounts of loans. They are mostly doing that to have a better chance of being employed in to days work environment.
They are saddled with loans at 7-9% interest rates. Their loan interest rates should be drastically reduced. The interest rates should be in line with the home mortgage interest rates.
If students are the future of our nation they deserve better support.
It is not just the students at the undergraduate level, but those who are pursuing a graduate degree or a professional degrees accumulate huge amounts of loans. They are mostly doing that to have a better chance of being employed in to days work environment.
They are saddled with loans at 7-9% interest rates. Their loan interest rates should be drastically reduced. The interest rates should be in line with the home mortgage interest rates.
If students are the future of our nation they deserve better support.
4
There is a big difference between a loan secured by an asset such as a home and an unsecured loan. Hence the difference in rates.
1
Interest rates are high because so many people default on them, and there is no collateral as there is with a home mortgage.
Besides, the interest isn't the problem, the principal (high tuition) is the problem.
Besides, the interest isn't the problem, the principal (high tuition) is the problem.
1
There is a difference between affordable and free.
4
This is such a difficult issue to figure out. I am all for a good way to reduce upcoming student debt, but what about the current ex-students in debt. Will there be any relief for us?
2
Whatever happened to the idea of on-line courses as a way to deliver education at a lower price?
There are dozens of ways to do this and many schools are working on the issue.
Yet, it wasn't mentioned in the editorial.
Are there sufficient incentives to get this done?
There are dozens of ways to do this and many schools are working on the issue.
Yet, it wasn't mentioned in the editorial.
Are there sufficient incentives to get this done?
2
Less than one half of college graduates are in jobs that are college level and make wages fairly comparable to H.S. graduates. The fact that many college graduates do well skews the broader statistics which disguise reality. The problem in part is lack of education(after all examine Trump's popularity), the problem is the marketplace inevitably drives down wages. But we party, party, hope and pray to the sky to make things right. When things get bad enough ,we will quit listening to those politicians who simply tell us what we want to hear or provide us tidbits of gravy.
Education is a public good, and iit s only since Pres. Nixon and has it become a private good. Every individual should be able to get all the education that he or she can absorb at public expense. We all gain when the child next door absorbs education. I went from first grade through PhD at public expense, and last segment was under the G.I. Bill following World War II. One estimate that I saw reported that the public got seven dollars in return for every dollar that was spent on the G.I. Bill. Education pays!
4
Please read the excellent analysis on this issue by Michael W. McNabb, University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974, University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member at http://ptable.blogspot.com
Pull back of state funding is not whats fueling the exponential costs of tuition and subsequent crushing debt burden on students and families. Its exponential growth and balooning cost of unnecessary University administration and corruption. The University of Minnesota has long emerged as the poster child for this national embarassment.
Pull back of state funding is not whats fueling the exponential costs of tuition and subsequent crushing debt burden on students and families. Its exponential growth and balooning cost of unnecessary University administration and corruption. The University of Minnesota has long emerged as the poster child for this national embarassment.
3
Here is a thought, why don't we try to bring down the cost of a university instead of trying to figure out how more money can just be thrown at the university systems.
We can start by deciding what the college/university is supposed to do. If we want students to be taught, then that is what the professors do, teach. They do not spend all their time doing research on obscure rodent poetry from 14th century France.
If the NFL/NBA wants to have a development leagues, then they can pay for all the stadiums that these "student athletes" practice and play within. The NFL/NBA can pay the $5 million salary for the head coach and all his assistants and workers instead of the students and taxpayers.
If big pharma wants researchers to develop new drugs then they can pay for labs, researchers and materials.
Why is the teaching of students the least important thing that universities do?
The education cartel screams that more money is needed, but the actual teaching part is the lowest priority. Change that and the cost will come down.
We can start by deciding what the college/university is supposed to do. If we want students to be taught, then that is what the professors do, teach. They do not spend all their time doing research on obscure rodent poetry from 14th century France.
If the NFL/NBA wants to have a development leagues, then they can pay for all the stadiums that these "student athletes" practice and play within. The NFL/NBA can pay the $5 million salary for the head coach and all his assistants and workers instead of the students and taxpayers.
If big pharma wants researchers to develop new drugs then they can pay for labs, researchers and materials.
Why is the teaching of students the least important thing that universities do?
The education cartel screams that more money is needed, but the actual teaching part is the lowest priority. Change that and the cost will come down.
2
How about the college students work their way through college to pay for the tuition, rather than take loan which they may not be able to pay back?
Or better yet, President Obama should issue one of his famous "executive orders" limiting all colleges to a tuition of $5,000 per year. The reason college tuition has become so very unaffordable (at $30,000 plus per year) is, the government loaning money to the students, and the colleges are taking advantage of it.
Or better yet, President Obama should issue one of his famous "executive orders" limiting all colleges to a tuition of $5,000 per year. The reason college tuition has become so very unaffordable (at $30,000 plus per year) is, the government loaning money to the students, and the colleges are taking advantage of it.
1
Every time a service has received the backing of insurers, costs have tended to go up, even if they're hidden from the consumer.
For all the emphasis on the consumer, it's important that whatever reform occurs not be done to the benefit of colleges themselves, many of which have been complicit in gouging students with artificially high tuitions and fees. Private vocational colleges have gotten the worst bad press, but even traditional schools have enacted policies that are anti-student, ranging from fees to locking students into single schools by disallowing credit transfers.
For all the emphasis on the consumer, it's important that whatever reform occurs not be done to the benefit of colleges themselves, many of which have been complicit in gouging students with artificially high tuitions and fees. Private vocational colleges have gotten the worst bad press, but even traditional schools have enacted policies that are anti-student, ranging from fees to locking students into single schools by disallowing credit transfers.
2
So someone takes out a loan for $25,600, but instead of a used car winds up with a college degree.
Sounds like money well spent.
Sounds like money well spent.
College has become unaffordable. Back in 1971/1972 I spent time dodging bullets and motor shells in Vietnam, but came home to the GI Bill. The GI Bill enabled me to go to college (on a shoe string budget) and I was able to get an Electrical Engineering degree. This money I was "given" from the GI Bill has been paid back to our government many, many times in taxes. So I support Bernie Sanders plan, however he can pay for it. But the nation as a whole must also figure out a way to keep jobs here in america rather than having some super smart MBA bean counter send them overseas so the corporation can earn more money to inflate the CEO's bonus.
59
Very well said. It should be made illegal to send jobs overseas. No loopholes, no shenanigans, no tomfoolery. Keep 100% of the jobs in the USA so the citizens can find jobs to support and grow a family. And pay for affordable college tuition.
Before we throw yet more tax dollars or tax breaks at colleges, we need to look at the college financing issue and its relationship to the college affordability issue in a more nuanced way.
What are the benefits and burdens of funding college education to the broad taxpaying public, and what are the benefits and burdens to the students who attend them?
The experience we call “college” is really a diverse range of experiences, ranging from pricey, leafy four-year liberal arts schools where one student can study nothing but classical literature, filmmaking and drumming while another studies microbiology, to two year commuter institutions where some students may study nursing, some accounting, and some appliance repair, and less then half of any of them finish with a marketable skill.
What would happen if instead of propping up this costly sector with yet more public money, we pulled all tax dollars out, redirecting the savings toward debt relief for the current victims of this situation, and studied how far down prices would be driven in a pure market? My guess is they would be driven very far down indeed.
At the very least, we need to ask ourselves why gift tax relief, which affects only the wealthiest half percent of taxpayers at the most, is given to people who pay family members’ college tuition while some of our poorest citizens struggle to repay student loans for a product (yes, it is a product) that did not necessarily do much for them.
What are the benefits and burdens of funding college education to the broad taxpaying public, and what are the benefits and burdens to the students who attend them?
The experience we call “college” is really a diverse range of experiences, ranging from pricey, leafy four-year liberal arts schools where one student can study nothing but classical literature, filmmaking and drumming while another studies microbiology, to two year commuter institutions where some students may study nursing, some accounting, and some appliance repair, and less then half of any of them finish with a marketable skill.
What would happen if instead of propping up this costly sector with yet more public money, we pulled all tax dollars out, redirecting the savings toward debt relief for the current victims of this situation, and studied how far down prices would be driven in a pure market? My guess is they would be driven very far down indeed.
At the very least, we need to ask ourselves why gift tax relief, which affects only the wealthiest half percent of taxpayers at the most, is given to people who pay family members’ college tuition while some of our poorest citizens struggle to repay student loans for a product (yes, it is a product) that did not necessarily do much for them.
I commented further down on the NZ system. Thinking more broadly, like all issues involving Government and policymakers which I read about on NYT, it seems the United States has too much of both - an over-populated Government, tiers of sign-off and too many policymakers.
Some Americans must never actually understand the layers and hurdles which, in many cases, unfortunately seem to delay (defeat) progressive decisions being made rather than promote conclusion.
Some Americans must never actually understand the layers and hurdles which, in many cases, unfortunately seem to delay (defeat) progressive decisions being made rather than promote conclusion.
1
As a retired college professor, I firmly believe after over 40 years that college is not for everyone. We need to rethink our higher education model that no longer works in the post-industrial 21st century. Most European nations like Germany provide such alternatives leading to good, high-skilled jobs rather than simply encouraging everyone into thinking that college leads to a job. That era is long past. There are many jobs in the high-tech sector that just require specialized training where a BA is not required. Retooling community colleges would be one way to provide those specialized skills that business are looking for, but not fining in our current college grads. By channeling more high school students into such careers, we would then be able to lower the costs of college for the smaller number of students who still wish to pursue that path and the post-graduate education in law, medicine, and other fields that are required for a rewarding career.
3
Have we arrived in the no-deposit-no-return society? Over the last thirty years or so, under the tutelage of several conservative presidents, we have cut taxes (on the wealthy and corporations) and increased government spending (while in theory we were supposed to be reducing it). When you keep doing this for long enough you get in a jam. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our safety net (SS and Medicare) is on the chopping block, we have decreased spending on government-sponsored research and development, and our public education system is on life-support. America has the highest percentage of low-wage jobs of any developed country. (I think it's around 25% now). Public education comes with a free mill stone that students have to carry around their neck for years after graduating. In an economy that runs on consumer spending, how can minimum wage workers and heavily indebted students buy the houses, Range Rovers, and flat-panel TVs we need to make this Rube Goldberg economic machine work?
1
but we have the most expensive and bloated military and "security" departments that tax payer money can buy. Doesn't that make you feel good and safe? HA.
1
I graduated in 1969 with no student debt from the University of Texas at Austin. I went into the Army and to Vietnam.
In the ensuing 45 years I saw my generation heap public largess on themselves in terms of Medicare, Social Security, Defined Benefit pensions and inflated home values. We bailed out the banks at public expense several times to protect our savings and investments.
In return we saddled our children with national debt and the debt for their education. We have been monstrously selfish in taking care of ourselves.
We could do simple things like view education as part of social security and allow the payroll tax to rise without limit. We could eliminate Romney's tax credit and 15 percent tax rate.
We could force universities to stop building empires and separate out the cost of education from the fantasies of university presidents, football teams and alumni. We could make the cost of education relate only to the teaching part. The "research" part should be funded separately and students at the undergraduate level should not pay for it.
Oh how selfish and unreflective and greedy my generation has been.
And yes I was a tenured university professor when schools went to the business model, abandoned the education model and made students pay for that vanity.
In the ensuing 45 years I saw my generation heap public largess on themselves in terms of Medicare, Social Security, Defined Benefit pensions and inflated home values. We bailed out the banks at public expense several times to protect our savings and investments.
In return we saddled our children with national debt and the debt for their education. We have been monstrously selfish in taking care of ourselves.
We could do simple things like view education as part of social security and allow the payroll tax to rise without limit. We could eliminate Romney's tax credit and 15 percent tax rate.
We could force universities to stop building empires and separate out the cost of education from the fantasies of university presidents, football teams and alumni. We could make the cost of education relate only to the teaching part. The "research" part should be funded separately and students at the undergraduate level should not pay for it.
Oh how selfish and unreflective and greedy my generation has been.
And yes I was a tenured university professor when schools went to the business model, abandoned the education model and made students pay for that vanity.
101
I guess republicans don't want to heap anymore national debt on "the children" because they have heaped so much person debt on them these last few decades.
And let us be honest, republicans are primarily responsible for the dire straits we find ourselves in today.
And let us be honest, republicans are primarily responsible for the dire straits we find ourselves in today.
1
Let's also eliminate tenure, which guarantees a teacher a job for life, while their work is passed on to young and poorer adjuncts.
1
The problem here is that, as in health care, the proposals provide a way of coping with costs without addressing the costs themselves. Many state universities are now Public in Name Only, charging tuition equivalent to private colleges, and the latter are even worse. Are proposals like Clinton's really going to improve this situation, or just create another bubble?
1
Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy for those who have had the loans for a minimum of 5 years. No other conditions to declare bankruptcy like those that exist now and keep almost all student loan debt nondischargeable.
Every other kind of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy (except child support). I know people who made stupid risky business decisions and rid themselves of hundreds of thousands in debt. I know a dentist who ran up a lot of debt, sold his home in DC and moved to Florida where he put all his assets into purchasing a $3 million home, declared bankruptcy in Florida and kept the house (i.e. all his money) because bankruptcy in Florida includes an exemption for your home!!! Donald Trump said during the debates he'd declared bankruptcy 4 times as 'a smart business move.' The wealthy and slick business types game bankruptcy exemptions to dump their debt and hold onto a huge amount of personal assets.
While this is going on those with student loans they now realize they can never pay which will keep them from ever marrying, having children, buying a home, having decent credit - they're being unfairly punished when people like Trump and the dentist are gaming the bankruptcy laws to their financial advantage by legally keeping assets after bankruptcy.
Everyone who really needs a fresh start should be able to get one.
Congress is punishing students with the current bankruptcy laws while the wealthy and the slick skate on their debts.
Shame!
Every other kind of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy (except child support). I know people who made stupid risky business decisions and rid themselves of hundreds of thousands in debt. I know a dentist who ran up a lot of debt, sold his home in DC and moved to Florida where he put all his assets into purchasing a $3 million home, declared bankruptcy in Florida and kept the house (i.e. all his money) because bankruptcy in Florida includes an exemption for your home!!! Donald Trump said during the debates he'd declared bankruptcy 4 times as 'a smart business move.' The wealthy and slick business types game bankruptcy exemptions to dump their debt and hold onto a huge amount of personal assets.
While this is going on those with student loans they now realize they can never pay which will keep them from ever marrying, having children, buying a home, having decent credit - they're being unfairly punished when people like Trump and the dentist are gaming the bankruptcy laws to their financial advantage by legally keeping assets after bankruptcy.
Everyone who really needs a fresh start should be able to get one.
Congress is punishing students with the current bankruptcy laws while the wealthy and the slick skate on their debts.
Shame!
2
The US solution to every social problem is to hand it over to "social entrpreneurs" rather than tax to fund a system directly.
1
Public college tuition should be free to all just as public K-12 education is now. Maybe two generations ago, a high school diploma was a ticket to middle class, that just is no longer the case.
And the Student Loan Industry is a scam being perpetrated by banks and universities with the federal government playing enabler. The banks lend at interest rates at obscene multiples of the prime rate even though there is a 100% iron-clad government payment guarantee. The existence of these loans give universities a much larger demand for their educational services enabling them to raise their rates to meet market demand. And the government becomes a tax-supported collection agent. The loans cannot be written off in bankruptcy so the kids and/or parents are stuck for life. The indebted graduates become serfs to the government-corporate cartel.
If college education is the ticket to middle class income, then make it free, and more young people will earn more money. The cost of their education would be paid back in higher income tax revenues. More income does mean more income taxes, but more net after tax income with the degree will equal more net after tax income than without the degree. There will also be more purchasing power, which should mean more employment generally.
Free tuition is a rising tide that would lift all boats.
And the Student Loan Industry is a scam being perpetrated by banks and universities with the federal government playing enabler. The banks lend at interest rates at obscene multiples of the prime rate even though there is a 100% iron-clad government payment guarantee. The existence of these loans give universities a much larger demand for their educational services enabling them to raise their rates to meet market demand. And the government becomes a tax-supported collection agent. The loans cannot be written off in bankruptcy so the kids and/or parents are stuck for life. The indebted graduates become serfs to the government-corporate cartel.
If college education is the ticket to middle class income, then make it free, and more young people will earn more money. The cost of their education would be paid back in higher income tax revenues. More income does mean more income taxes, but more net after tax income with the degree will equal more net after tax income than without the degree. There will also be more purchasing power, which should mean more employment generally.
Free tuition is a rising tide that would lift all boats.
1
When you throw lots of money into a market, prices go up. So when government makes college education easier to buy for more people, then the price of college will go up. It's the basic law of supply and demand, which both Liberals and Conservatives consistently keep trying - and failing - to repeal.
Politicians always create many plans to get something for nothing.
Thieves also plan to get something for nothing.
Politicians always create many plans to get something for nothing.
Thieves also plan to get something for nothing.
4
Whenever I read a Comment that includes the words "both Liberals and Conservatives" I assume that the writer is a Conservative. Super-wealthy Americans (or so-aspired) also seek something for nothing. They are the bigger takers. Like "No new taxes!" or better yet, "No taxes!"
1
Taxation is not theft. We must rid ourselves of that godforsaken notion once and for all.
1
Has there been any domestic proposal that Clinton has promised that doesn't include new taxes or changes to the tax code (which is the same as new taxes)? Here comes Mrs Santa Claus again--with a big smile on her face--with her bags of toys that others will pay for. STOP!!
4
College cost have gone up because of many factors, additional administration, technology needs, state funding cuts, inflation, deferred maintenance and amenities. As much as we would like the good old days, or so we think, you cannot turn back the clock on most of these. In fact, good old days parents who are now visiting and comparing colleges for their kids are judging them on based on technology, appearances and amenities.
There is limited cutting that can be done by a college without decreasing the appeal. In fact sports cannot be cut without raising an uproar - look at football at the University of Alabama Birmingham.
Probably a more fruitful approach is to try to maximize the learning for students attending college. This could include making sure students are college ready and having programs that teach study skills. I think that many students are lacking in these.
There is limited cutting that can be done by a college without decreasing the appeal. In fact sports cannot be cut without raising an uproar - look at football at the University of Alabama Birmingham.
Probably a more fruitful approach is to try to maximize the learning for students attending college. This could include making sure students are college ready and having programs that teach study skills. I think that many students are lacking in these.
We don't need to re-invent the wheel. Find out how other countries finance college education for their young people effectively. Look at the countries whose students perform well on international tests (perhaps indicating such countries value education and learning); look at countries that use policies and planning to meet the educational needs of youth and society; do a meta-analysis of research studies to find out what works in the stable funding of higher education, producing a quality education system, and competent teachers and learners.
Encourage high performing young people to go into needed fields (teaching, family medicine, rural medicine, etc.) by offering college scholarships (college tuition subsidized in return for students' commitment to 4 years service in under-served areas). I was on such a scholarship program in the early 1960s for public school teachers.
Encourage young people to work a couple of years, save $$, get life experiences before going to college. Trust me, adult learners are generally better students and know what they are in college for.
Give every child a good start by having quality preschool education, especially poor children. Rev up community colleges as places to prepare struggling youth for college and to train youth in fields that don't require college but need literacy & work skills. Have an apprenticeship system like Germany.
All educational administrators need to teach too
Don't vote Republican; they don't like ed. or children
Encourage high performing young people to go into needed fields (teaching, family medicine, rural medicine, etc.) by offering college scholarships (college tuition subsidized in return for students' commitment to 4 years service in under-served areas). I was on such a scholarship program in the early 1960s for public school teachers.
Encourage young people to work a couple of years, save $$, get life experiences before going to college. Trust me, adult learners are generally better students and know what they are in college for.
Give every child a good start by having quality preschool education, especially poor children. Rev up community colleges as places to prepare struggling youth for college and to train youth in fields that don't require college but need literacy & work skills. Have an apprenticeship system like Germany.
All educational administrators need to teach too
Don't vote Republican; they don't like ed. or children
4
What I would like to see outline from Hillary is the whole enchilada. What are the entitlements every American must have? How will these entitlements be financed? What are the tax rates she proposes and at what income levels will they be in effect? What specific deductions will she do away with? What will she do with the capital gains tax? What does she propose for large and small business taxes?
Right now all I see is another proposal that buys votes with the word free.
Right now all I see is another proposal that buys votes with the word free.
6
The bricks and mortar overhead that requires colleges to maintain environments that attract students, pay salaries, pensions and health care for staff is a reason that tuition is a "mortgage" for students and parents. The 19th - 20th Century requirement for a campus with buildings to deliver high cost higher education is outmoded.
1
It would be interesting to see Congressional Budget Office dynamic scoring on these proposals, because free tuition probably pays for itself over a graduate's lifetime in terms of increased payment of income taxes back to the federal treasury; and that's not counting the general economic benefit of having that graduate buying a car, or a house, or investing in a business, instead of spending 10, 20, or 30 years paying back a student loan. Maybe the CBO will finally teach Republicans the truth of what Democrats have always said, that "freedom" and "wealth" for most Americans comes not from the growth of big business, but rather from being relieved of the unreasonable cost of essential building blocks to success such as college, so that they can thrive (or "rise," as Jeb Bush puts it). As Democrats have always said, and perhaps the CBO can prove, investment in people pays off handsomely, even if measured only in terms of money.
1
These are laudable and necessary proposals addressing a major problem. However, thoughtful reform of education's economic model must accompany their implementation. Like healthcare, education shares the dubious record of long term cost inflation well above the rest of the economy. In effect, while the rest of the economy becomes increasingly productive year after year (generating better products and services at lower cost), education generates the same output at increasingly higher cost. Taxpayer support is a necessary component of public education but if not properly targeted can have the unintended consequence of entrenching interests at odds with improving the effectiveness of eduction.
2
Higher education at state universities were once free. After decades of underfunding and shifting the responsibility to students, we are back to sqaure 1 debating about affordable or free education. The most important thing is it should be sustainable economically with visible social gains. Such a policy requires us to rethink higher education. 4 year college is not for everyone and by continuing to link it to economic mobility, we are devaluing the degree which is the main reason for underemployment and loan burden. What we need is a solid primary education till grade 10 followed by 2 to 4 years of skills that are based on a student's interest. Keep it free upto this point. Anything beyond this should be completely left to the state.
15
Plenty of blame to go around here. Education has faced cuts because state budgets are under stress. Budgets are under stress because Republicans have diverted so much money to prisons, through parole elimination and absurdly long minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, mostly drug offenses. But Democrats have done the same through costly mandates for a raft of social programs. And voters have demonstrated over and over that they'd rather have tuition increases than tax increases. Banks, with the complicity of colleges, have made it too easy for students to take on too much debt, relying on the Draconian enforcement provisions imposed by the feds. Finally, one shouldn't underestimate the corrosive influence of US News and World Report and its annual rankings, which has transformed higher education from a public service to a blood sport. While teaching is left to low-paid adjuncts, the rolls of tenured faculty are padded with legions of highly paid administrators with generous budgets, whose main job is to juice the rankings. At commencements, deans and department heads now regularly recite The Ranking as if it were part of the school's name. It's more than out-of-control, it's run off the rails.
3
"That is why every presidential candidate needs to explain what he or she will do to make higher education attainable for more Americans without them having to take on crippling amounts of debt." This quote is liberal code for another big dollar giveaway by democrats to people they hope will vote democrat in the future. I'm all about laws telling colleges what they can charge for tuition, and ending the practice of colleges doubling as day spas, but I draw the line at using my tax money to pay for others college tuition unless I am going to be cut in on some of their earnings in the future. And spare me the "can't you see an educated workforce benefits all of us" argument, there are plenty of entitlements out there, there doesn't need to be any more.
2
Making college affordable is matter of priorities. Rather than spending billions on the military, billions on tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate America, etc that money could be invested the future of our country by educating our young people like other countries do.
4
Want to be a well-paid university administrator? Get your job through nepotism. Make yourself look good in the eyes of the board by cutting costs, employing more adjuncts and raising tuition whenever you can. Be as ruthless and greedy as any corporate CEO, many of whom sit on your board. Allocate resources only to your favorites and their projects. Establish a culture of political correctness that stifles critical thinking. Pay a celebrity athletic director millions of dollars each year, in recognition that sports, not education, is your most important revenue stream. Any questions? You there in the back row, please stop waving your hand.
5
Georgia's free education (HOPE Scholarship and Grant) funded by our lottery is in trouble. Yet funding has been cut, unable to sustain itself. Students that could afford it were left to pay for their books and many could not even afford that. Our governor cut funding, leaving many technical schools without the needed enrollment. As an instructor, I witnessed the waste and saw many students receiving the funding that should not have been there. (not maintaining an average will suspend or terminate them) While education should be a priority, I would like to see emphasis placed on high school drop-outs- the prevention or help in our literacy in America. Those that drop out end up with free funding anyway, a means to obtain their GED, all based on a bad decision that needs to be reviewed. America needs a change in attitude towards the importance of education. We need to establish a message to our high school students and low income families that education is first and foremost. That issue needs review as well and should not be forgotten.
1
As usual, you have it the wrong way around. If you want to stop the insane rise in college costs, you need to get government out of the funding business. The federal government gives out grants and loans like they are candy. The college administrators see this and say "well, if someone else with a bottomless pit is paying for this, we might as well keep raising the costs, hire more staff, cause professors to teach less, build new buildings and pay ourselves more."
Cut the cord and watch colleges struggle to compete with each other. Cut the cord and get students, many of whom shouldn't be going to college in the first place, think twice about whether the cost is worthwhile.
Cut the cord and watch colleges struggle to compete with each other. Cut the cord and get students, many of whom shouldn't be going to college in the first place, think twice about whether the cost is worthwhile.
52
Absolutely correct. Colleges/Universities need to reduce administrative expenses and maintenance costs. The country does not need another entitlement scheme. However, A $1 tax on newspapers and magazines could help alleviate student debt.
2
Thank you for this comment. It seems many people do not understand economics.
1
This is precisely correct. The ready availability of seemingly limitless financing for college has created a flood of liquidity in the system that has precipitated runaway inflation.
What about "The indebted" generation? What about the millennials that can't buy houses to pay the universities that miseducated them, misguided them, conspired with the bankers and Representatives who sold them out with "loans" that can't be removed by bankruptcy? What about the future of America where they have been shortchanged, abused, like indentured servants to the banks. They should rise up and join together and demand their lives and personal freedom back. We should rise p and demand that for them. he greed in this nation has ruined our lives to make a few gross of billionaires who use their billions to make our lives more and more tragic and absurd. God blessed America with bankers who give 1% interest and charge 27% interest. God blessed America with Churches who join the non-Representing representatives in condemning knowledge, science, and truth, in the name of God. God has blessed America with a REPUBLIC and not an ACTUAL DEMOCRACY. But, my country "right or wrong" and it hasn't been right for a long time: See 'weapons of mass destruction', "nothing wrong with the climate", "Buddy, do you want a house you can't pay for and keep?", Congress opposes everything -- except tax cuts for the rich - Why is that?
4
I don't understand why college is so expensive today. The states are ripping the students for everything they can get while paying the staff wages they can't live on. When I went to college there were no building fees and parking was free. The same college today charges an extra $30 per hour for using the buildings, and parking has gone up to $700 a year! Yet when I looked into an adjunct teaching job, the college paid $50 a month more than it did when I had the same job in 1998. So I looked into an office job. The jobs all required knowledge of several computer programs and they paid (you won't believe it but it's true) $7.35 an hour. If colleges are taking students for everything they can get, why can't they pay staff and adjunct faculty a living wage?
9
Well, here are a few things that add to college costs. Perhaps not the main reasons for way too high tuition and fees but at least a part. Certainly the drop in state support has much to do with the increase in costs to the student.
A NC university recently bragged that a new dorm will contain many amenities to entice students. They include a 40 inch smart TV in every room. A salt water pool. A game room. An internet cafe. A workout room.
We have all read about how universities have added lobster and steak nights to their menus. Fancy gyms with climbing walls and other necessities.
All very nice features but please tell me exactly what they have to do with an education.
A NC university recently bragged that a new dorm will contain many amenities to entice students. They include a 40 inch smart TV in every room. A salt water pool. A game room. An internet cafe. A workout room.
We have all read about how universities have added lobster and steak nights to their menus. Fancy gyms with climbing walls and other necessities.
All very nice features but please tell me exactly what they have to do with an education.
A simple but telling observation: imagine the headline reading, instead, REPUBLICANS offer an innovative plan to make college more affordable. It's quite unthinkable. Why? Because they rarely if ever present anything positive or constructive. Virtually all they do is complain and tear down. It's always, always whining negativity.
Too simplistic or obvious? It's sadly too true. And tiring and exhausting to hear. The Limbaughs of the right, if told Obama has found a cure for cancer, would find ways to oppose whatever means to implement its use and whine about it even if it was free.
The point is, it's too bad that, as in this piece, it can be dead certain that no matter what is proposed, the Republican "conservatives" will be against it...but offer nothing in it's place.
Don't they ever get tired of opposing EVERYTHING? Apparently not.
Too simplistic or obvious? It's sadly too true. And tiring and exhausting to hear. The Limbaughs of the right, if told Obama has found a cure for cancer, would find ways to oppose whatever means to implement its use and whine about it even if it was free.
The point is, it's too bad that, as in this piece, it can be dead certain that no matter what is proposed, the Republican "conservatives" will be against it...but offer nothing in it's place.
Don't they ever get tired of opposing EVERYTHING? Apparently not.
8
Go to a community college and live at home for the first two years !! That will help with a huge cost reduction to your college expense .
7
Another huge boondoogle for the benefit of corporations and bloated school administration at the expense of the taxpayer. It sounds like the next version of the ACA with the federal government and states awarding contracts to corporations that will bring in vast quantities of so-called "skilled workers" using H1b, L1 and B1 visas in order to administrate these programs.
When huge numbers of US college grads are left looking for work we need to make sure that 'business as usual' does NOT occur in Washington.
The notion of assistance is nice but ANY job created to support this MUST require American employment, nothing less.
When huge numbers of US college grads are left looking for work we need to make sure that 'business as usual' does NOT occur in Washington.
The notion of assistance is nice but ANY job created to support this MUST require American employment, nothing less.
2
What's the point of a college degree if there is not job for you when you get it?
5
Professors average 167000 per year in salary...perhaps that's part of the problem.
3
They sure don't make that kind of money in Oklahoma.
3
Strange. I just retired as a full professor after 25 year and I wasn't even close to that number.
Google says professors earn an average of $69,000. Obviously, this varies by position and by institution.
Great idea with NO way to pay for it. I personally, as someone who pays a lot of taxes, do not want to fund my neighbors' kids' college educations. College is not affordable just like healthcare. Has Obamacare made it more affordable by shifting costs to taxpayers (who are paying for the subsidies)? No! Will shifting costs to taxpayers for education make it more affordable? Absolutely not! Why do kids need climbing walls, gourmet dining, dorms that look like a a high priced hotel, gyms that rival NFL teams? They do not. They need a place to learn, pure and simple. Let's fund that and NOTHING else.
4
The suggestion that a college education can be prodded 'for free' is ridiculous. Nothing is free. Someone will have to pay for it and that someone is the already-overtaxed American taxpayer.
Also, when you give someone something that they don't have to pay for or sacrifice for, the value in their eyes is lower. It's easier to blow off class - why not, it's not costing the student anything.
How tragically sad (and frightening) America has become when people come to expect things of value to be given to them for free.
Also, when you give someone something that they don't have to pay for or sacrifice for, the value in their eyes is lower. It's easier to blow off class - why not, it's not costing the student anything.
How tragically sad (and frightening) America has become when people come to expect things of value to be given to them for free.
5
I'm going to assume you haven't heard of the continent 'Europe' and they're university system.
Over a span of 45 years I have been on the faculty at 2 medical schools and both private and public undergraduate universities. The "college affordability crises" is real but pretending there are simple solutions to complex challenges is a dangerous conceit beginning with the numbers game.
Colleges now deal with huge numbers of individuals far less prepared than say 50 years ago, yet a college degree is becoming the ticket to opportunities. So to many the discussion is entirely about economics and jobs.
At some point having a law or marine biology degree has less market value. Does that mean an education is worthless? Many college faculty (and teachers) are paid pittance by the very academic institutions that market education as a path to good jobs. Students enrollments an important metric for sustaining, managing academic programs yet finding quality, prepared students is often one of the greatest programmatic challenges. So...
The better discussion is: What constitutes a good education? Who benefits by maintaining a well educated population? Who pays? Is there a critical threshold of educated individuals, say 10 or 80% where there is no value in educating more?) How much ignorance can any society tolerate and still function?
There are abuses in all systems and there are many reasons to eliminate abuses but there are some things that are apparent.
Excellent health care and public education are costly, but essential in a vibrant, diverse society.
Colleges now deal with huge numbers of individuals far less prepared than say 50 years ago, yet a college degree is becoming the ticket to opportunities. So to many the discussion is entirely about economics and jobs.
At some point having a law or marine biology degree has less market value. Does that mean an education is worthless? Many college faculty (and teachers) are paid pittance by the very academic institutions that market education as a path to good jobs. Students enrollments an important metric for sustaining, managing academic programs yet finding quality, prepared students is often one of the greatest programmatic challenges. So...
The better discussion is: What constitutes a good education? Who benefits by maintaining a well educated population? Who pays? Is there a critical threshold of educated individuals, say 10 or 80% where there is no value in educating more?) How much ignorance can any society tolerate and still function?
There are abuses in all systems and there are many reasons to eliminate abuses but there are some things that are apparent.
Excellent health care and public education are costly, but essential in a vibrant, diverse society.
6
Why must college be a prerequisite for so many jobs nowadays? Most of the skills needed to function in entry level jobs can be taught in grades 7-12 assuming that students have been taught the basics in the preceding grades. A college education, even a graduate degree, doesn't ensure anything as far as a work ethic, an ability to get along with others, or the ability to function in a work situation. I've seen and worked with many college graduates who had less common sense than someone who worked as an electrician or plumber. Working with one's hands is not something to be ashamed of. However, if we are going to require that all potential employees have at least an associates degree we should be using public funding for it. Students should not be graduating into adult life with debts so deep that they can't afford to take public service jobs if they want them, marry, start a family, or own a home sometime down the road.
In this reader's opinion our country needs to take a very serious look at how we educate our children, what we spend the money on versus what is important (sports versus classrooms), and how we can close the gap between upper class schools and the rest.
In this reader's opinion our country needs to take a very serious look at how we educate our children, what we spend the money on versus what is important (sports versus classrooms), and how we can close the gap between upper class schools and the rest.
3
Your educational and job status?
Hillary Clinton’s late-to-the-table plan to eliminate “some income tax reductions for the wealthy” certainly will be dead on arrival. Bernie Sanders’ plan to impose a transaction tax on Wall Street may be more workable.
But neither addresses the fact that if more money is available to colleges, colleges will raise tuition and fees to get even more money. That’s the major reason why costs are so high now and there have to be reasonable controls on college administrations to prevent this.
But then again, I am shocked, I tell you, shocked, that you actually mention a Bernie Sanders proposal in the Times!
But neither addresses the fact that if more money is available to colleges, colleges will raise tuition and fees to get even more money. That’s the major reason why costs are so high now and there have to be reasonable controls on college administrations to prevent this.
But then again, I am shocked, I tell you, shocked, that you actually mention a Bernie Sanders proposal in the Times!
14
As I pointed out in another comment, deductions are already reduced for families with incomes over $250k. The only way to get more money is to redefine families with incomes in the $100-250K range as "wealthy". I'll bet you didn't know you were so rich!
4
Like Obamacare, if you give away government money for a service, but put no cost controls on it and do not negotiate prices AT ALL -- you will end up paying stratospheric costs, because colleges (and hospitals and doctors and insurance companies and banks) will see that they can gouge YOU and UNCLE SAM to their own benefit.
The huge run-up in college costs occurred PRECISELY when the government decided to loan unlimited money to every student -- regardless of talent or aptitude -- and so the colleges simply raised the rates to the maximum.
The huge run-up in college costs occurred PRECISELY when the government decided to loan unlimited money to every student -- regardless of talent or aptitude -- and so the colleges simply raised the rates to the maximum.
Hillary and Bernie's plans are just more income redistribution.Who will pay for these federal grants?Answer,taxpayers.I'm appalled by some comments here stating students need to declare bankruptcy.That's just another ridiculous idea.How about students and their parents doing what most rational people do?Don't sign for loans you can't pay back.Go to a 2 year community college and stay home until your junior year.You'll save money.Then go to a 4 year school for the last 2 years.I'm very tired of the entitlement mentality where people think it's ok to run up a $200k college bill and then expect forgiveness for the debt.If you use their logic,then forgive my mortgage,taxes,auto loans,credit card bills,etc.
11
Bud, you have a point. But your solution paints a very incomplete picture. College is not equal. Jr college/then university study is not equal to the 4-year experience of a top level university. Un-PC as this sounds, the pool of students at a Jr college is rarely equal in academic preparedness and problem-solving rigor to that group which prepares hard, then studies in university lower division. Do you really want that experience and exposure available only to the very rich (both foreign and domestic)?
Greater depth of problem-solving is needed to get to better solutions. Truly the best of our best thinkers who are not born rich need a better solution than debt piled upon debt or relegation to the lowest entry level of the college experience in order to become even somewhat attractive to the highest level employers.
Greater depth of problem-solving is needed to get to better solutions. Truly the best of our best thinkers who are not born rich need a better solution than debt piled upon debt or relegation to the lowest entry level of the college experience in order to become even somewhat attractive to the highest level employers.
The US now has 18.3 Trillion dollars in debt and the NYT comes out supporting yet another Federal government give-away program, wow just amazing...! Wait until these same "college students" have to pay this back, but it's all Greek to me?
7
In Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn described the prisoners' fundamental mind set as "you die today, I die tomorrow". Substitute "pay" for "die" and you have the reality college tuition. Unfortunately our politicians are busy cultivating a "you pay today, and maybe I'll never have to pay" mindset. After all, the "rich" can afford just "chip in" a little more can't they? They seemed to be an unlimited source of funding in Bernie's and Hillary's world.
Bernie Sanders is the current front runner, attracting tens of thousands to every campaign event. His message on education is very clear. No child who has the ability and the desire to learn should be denied tuition free college education at a public university.
Bernie's campaign events are available to all on the internet, many with live coverage. I watched and listened live to the LA event last night. Bernie spoke for over an hour describing his vision for a better America and how to take back our democracy from the billionaires vision of oligarchy and purchased government.
A better educated population is Bernie's goal, and the votes of that educated population would put like minded public servants in offices of state, local, and federal government. We don't need uneducated people putting servants of the wealthy in government offices.
Bernie's campaign events are available to all on the internet, many with live coverage. I watched and listened live to the LA event last night. Bernie spoke for over an hour describing his vision for a better America and how to take back our democracy from the billionaires vision of oligarchy and purchased government.
A better educated population is Bernie's goal, and the votes of that educated population would put like minded public servants in offices of state, local, and federal government. We don't need uneducated people putting servants of the wealthy in government offices.
9
Any proposal (including Obama's anmd Sanders') that guarantees free tuition even for those who can afford to pay for it makes no sense.
Man, you have drunk the whole pitcher of the Red Brigade, "eat the rich" Kool-Aid, haven't you.
What we really don't need are people getting education with no practical value from colleges that teach the social dogma that their government paymasters want. Nor do we need a flood of easy tuition money which will, guess what, raise the price.
You do understand there relation between price and demand don't you? There's nothing that gooses demand like a wash of subsidies.
What we really don't need are people getting education with no practical value from colleges that teach the social dogma that their government paymasters want. Nor do we need a flood of easy tuition money which will, guess what, raise the price.
You do understand there relation between price and demand don't you? There's nothing that gooses demand like a wash of subsidies.
Education builds human infrastructure and should be free, not just affordable. I don't say this out of altruism but out of pure selfishness. I want to live in a society were people are good at what they do.
My only quibble with the state of post-high school eduction in the US is that there really is only the college alternative. I would love to see the vocational education sector expanded as well. Right now it seems to be in the control of private companies who are the worst at signing up students for loans.
My only quibble with the state of post-high school eduction in the US is that there really is only the college alternative. I would love to see the vocational education sector expanded as well. Right now it seems to be in the control of private companies who are the worst at signing up students for loans.
81
Why not just teach people everything they need to know in high school. Yes, that would involve actual work and studying for teenagers, but think of the money they'd save.
3
Vocational education is ESSENTIAL. We need people to fix the things we make instead of throwing them out.
All too often, things like "shop" and "home-ec" are tossed out as "frills," as is music and art education in primary and secondary schools. These things are important! (Except to politicians, who can always find someone to pimp out their oaths of office and to sell out the country to stay in office.)
In Germany vocational education is considered important, as is keeping factory jobs going during a recession. Germany also offers FREE university education to those who score on a qualifying examination--and they offer it to foreign students who pass the same examination!
Isn't it sad that the United States has lost to Germany some 70 years later, based on German virtues and American vices!
All too often, things like "shop" and "home-ec" are tossed out as "frills," as is music and art education in primary and secondary schools. These things are important! (Except to politicians, who can always find someone to pimp out their oaths of office and to sell out the country to stay in office.)
In Germany vocational education is considered important, as is keeping factory jobs going during a recession. Germany also offers FREE university education to those who score on a qualifying examination--and they offer it to foreign students who pass the same examination!
Isn't it sad that the United States has lost to Germany some 70 years later, based on German virtues and American vices!
So, college should be free?
tell me, will the professors be performing their jobs for free?
Will the administrators be peforming their jobs for free?
What about the support staff?
And utilities? Do the colleges get them for free?
Perhaps you do not realize this, but NOTHING is free.
All of those people are going to want to be paid for the work that they do.
So, the debate is not about 'free' college. it is about who is going to pay for it.
And you want the taxpayers to pay for someone to go to college.
tell me, will the professors be performing their jobs for free?
Will the administrators be peforming their jobs for free?
What about the support staff?
And utilities? Do the colleges get them for free?
Perhaps you do not realize this, but NOTHING is free.
All of those people are going to want to be paid for the work that they do.
So, the debate is not about 'free' college. it is about who is going to pay for it.
And you want the taxpayers to pay for someone to go to college.
Buying votes? This article is inherently wrong. Scott Walker has frozen the tuition at state schools for the next two years. He did it by forcing them to cut their budgets. And now he is trying to eliminate tenure, an arcane system of guaranteed employment. Neither Clinton, nor Sanders wants to find ways to fix the system. Colleges are guaranteed payment by the government, up front, despite the outcome. And our four year graduation rates are pathetic. The institution should be paid in full after the student graduates, not before. And since it is federally backed, they have no incentive to save costs. Both Hillary and Bernies plans are to, just pay them what they want.
6
Tenure is not a guarantee of employment. It is only a guarantee that you cannot be fired on a whim. Probably better check your facts first.
It's even worse than that. What demands on the curriculum, speech regulation, admission quotas, and social promotion do you think a Clinton or Sanders administration would impose?
If the Clinton-Sanders cabal have their way, one has to wonder how far we are from a free degree plus a job being an entitlement and businesses being coerced to hire these government trained wonders.
I can see professors in the "social sciences" giving passing grades to those they are babysitting, but how does an engineering prof do that? Or one teaching chemistry or molecular biology to a future MD?
If the Clinton-Sanders cabal have their way, one has to wonder how far we are from a free degree plus a job being an entitlement and businesses being coerced to hire these government trained wonders.
I can see professors in the "social sciences" giving passing grades to those they are babysitting, but how does an engineering prof do that? Or one teaching chemistry or molecular biology to a future MD?
Here's a thought -- states go back to funding state colleges and universities at the level they used to as a percentage of the state budget. States have been lowering their share and shifting costs to tuition -- and therefore student loans -- for too long.
18
The Times neglected to mention that Congress passed, and the President signed into law, enormous changes to the student loan system. Not only were private banks kicked out of the student loan business, but income-sensitive repayment plans were vastly expanded. Under these plans, a borrower's payments are limited to a small fraction of his disposable income, no matter how large the debt. If any student loan debt remains after several years (about 20, if I recall correctly) the government wipes the debt clean.
With a program this generous it's hard to argue that students are excessively burdened by student loan debt. The vast expansion of these income-sensitive repayment plans is revolutionary and will stand alongside Obamacare as one of the president's biggest accomplishments. Indeed, the Times itself once published an op ed noting the huge significance of this legislation. It's odd that the editorial board has not taken notice and is instead beating the same tired old drum of saying the government needs to do even more.
With a program this generous it's hard to argue that students are excessively burdened by student loan debt. The vast expansion of these income-sensitive repayment plans is revolutionary and will stand alongside Obamacare as one of the president's biggest accomplishments. Indeed, the Times itself once published an op ed noting the huge significance of this legislation. It's odd that the editorial board has not taken notice and is instead beating the same tired old drum of saying the government needs to do even more.
9
It was a stupid law, and passed with little critique.
If I was a student today, I'd rate up the most money I could borrow -- then ensure I was "poor on paper" and repaid only a tiny fraction -- then wiped my $200K debt clean when I was only 42!!!! Good times!
This will cause massive, massive costs and fraud.
If I was a student today, I'd rate up the most money I could borrow -- then ensure I was "poor on paper" and repaid only a tiny fraction -- then wiped my $200K debt clean when I was only 42!!!! Good times!
This will cause massive, massive costs and fraud.
Making college more affordable for whom? As parents, we are trying to save for our retirement, something that we will accelerate when our parental student loans are fully paid off, but it hasn't been easy. When our older daughters were in school, we elected to pay as we went, contributing more than my take-home pay as the second wage earner each month to education. For the education of the youngest, our loans have at some points had payments of more than $1000 per month, more than many Americans' mortgage or rent. And there is no income-based repayment plan, refinancing to a lower interest rate than the 8.5% (way above current market) rate we are paying, because, as parents, we apparently don't deserve the same consideration that students get. Offloading the student burden onto parents is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is made worse by the fact that it prevents earlier retirement savings that could make the most of the power of compound interest/investment returns.
The current education bubble is simply unsustainable. Tuition is just the tip of the iceberg, with many schools charging the lion's share of costs for items like room and board, fees to cover entertainment and lavish construction projects, union contracts and benefits that would be unheard of for those with the same skills elsewhere, etc., because the financial aid system is just a license to print money in the guise of "helping" students and parents.
The current education bubble is simply unsustainable. Tuition is just the tip of the iceberg, with many schools charging the lion's share of costs for items like room and board, fees to cover entertainment and lavish construction projects, union contracts and benefits that would be unheard of for those with the same skills elsewhere, etc., because the financial aid system is just a license to print money in the guise of "helping" students and parents.
16
How dare the democrats offer a substantive plan. The GOP has a better plan that will be announced later. This socialist democratic ploy is fooling no one. There is also a great plan to deal with Iran and not the one Obama negotiated. Trust Jeb and his shadow advisor Dick Cheney.
65
So you really think this plan would be pushed through with a GOP majority in the House and Senate? The people that make money off these interest on these loans are helping fund Clinton's campaign so she can manipulate the youth vote. Trust me, this is nothing more than a ploy to turn out some college burners to the voting booth. Sanders will get the youth vote and hopefully the nomination. Then the democrats will lose.
College debt is bad. This is obvious. But this seems like a a bad solution. I'm not a conservative. But this is getting kind of ridiculous. Let's throw another big government entitlement at the problem!
I think college costs have inflated because too many kids want to go to college, and colleges have to spend more on faculty, and the "amenities" to draw kids in.
If the government wants to meddle it should do a better job making sure kids understand the real value of that education they are buying. It should also hitch funding to student graduation, and post-graduation employment rates.
But the main thing is people need to stop thinking of college as "the best four years of your life". As a high-end lifestyle experience everyone deserves on credit. Stop it. That's over. Move on. Think about it as the first major financial decision you are going to make, like buying a home. Don't buy a house you can't afford. Don't overpay for a degree. There are ways to mitigate college debt. You can work, stay in state, commute from home, or join the navy, and so on.
I think college costs have inflated because too many kids want to go to college, and colleges have to spend more on faculty, and the "amenities" to draw kids in.
If the government wants to meddle it should do a better job making sure kids understand the real value of that education they are buying. It should also hitch funding to student graduation, and post-graduation employment rates.
But the main thing is people need to stop thinking of college as "the best four years of your life". As a high-end lifestyle experience everyone deserves on credit. Stop it. That's over. Move on. Think about it as the first major financial decision you are going to make, like buying a home. Don't buy a house you can't afford. Don't overpay for a degree. There are ways to mitigate college debt. You can work, stay in state, commute from home, or join the navy, and so on.
49
Some good points, but when you say college costs have inflated because too many kids want to go to college, etc. you are not mentioning situations like Wisconsin where Gov. Walker cut $250 million from the State Universities and overall for the last 15 years, States have cut their support of college education by 25%. Also, the interest rates allowed to be charged on student loans are a huge money maker for the US Government, who should be looking towards at least just breaking even vs making surplus dollars off the backs of students. Congress has refused to lower the existing interest rate structure. Reversing some of the above past actions would appear to be a reasonable way to help reduce the debt burden.
Blaming faculty salaries for high tuition is simplistic. Car mechanics and tradesmen earn more per hour than many faculty members. The rapid expansion of administrations in many (if not most) institutions, with their highly paid administrative positions, needs intense scrutiny.
As a nation, we could also demand that not everything be profitable.
"A big unanswered question is how state governments would react."
My prediction: states that refused "Obamacare" funds that would improve the well-being of their citizens would refuse ANY "government funds" to help the well being of college students.
My prediction: states that refused "Obamacare" funds that would improve the well-being of their citizens would refuse ANY "government funds" to help the well being of college students.
31
The four year degree can be completed in three years by eliminating the non relevant courses. Most European countries have 3 year degrees and free (or almost free) education.
11
Only for those that pass the nationwide test. No eXception, no diversity, no holistic admissions.
2
I'm completely in favor of the free part, as a more educated populace can only benefit the country, but bear in mind that our elementary and high school students are already years behind European (and Asian) students by the time they graduate from high school. The freshman year of college has to be remedial for most American students.
Free university is starting to dissappear now in France and Germany.
Student loans have devalued college degrees.
Free college will devalue it more.
We simply have too many college educated people for the jobs available. Add in the number of jobs being lost to technology and the value drops further.
Free college will devalue it more.
We simply have too many college educated people for the jobs available. Add in the number of jobs being lost to technology and the value drops further.
9
Not to mention those that will go on the 8-19 year "plan" once college is "free" compliments of those of us who actually pay taxes. NOT a good idea.
Degrees have been devalued, yes, but by greedy administrators and low standards.
1
It was Democrats that plunged millions of college kids into never ending debt with the 100% Direct Lending Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
If I was anyone that wants a loan, has a loan or is planning for a loan, anything that Hillary just suggested will benefit 2 groups, the colleges and the loan people.
If Hillary wants to help college tuition debtors, just jump on board the Fed Rate interest loan percentage. Business and countries borrow at the Fed rate. But we saddle graduates with debt 2-3 times that rate.
If I was anyone that wants a loan, has a loan or is planning for a loan, anything that Hillary just suggested will benefit 2 groups, the colleges and the loan people.
If Hillary wants to help college tuition debtors, just jump on board the Fed Rate interest loan percentage. Business and countries borrow at the Fed rate. But we saddle graduates with debt 2-3 times that rate.
13
Interesting how HRC has suddenly become a compassionate candidate. Would that have been the case if Bernie Sanders had not decided to run for President. Senator Sanders is addressing real American concerns. Hillary Clinton continues to address the concerns of the elite.
31
Universities need to get out of the real estate investment business and into education. The money from students and their families generally goes straight into the real estate fantasy world. Only after this is ended, will costs for students go down.
6
"Real"University educations are needed and necessary due to our competitive world, our need for economic progress and certainly our need for smart citizens. Driving kids and parents into debt is bad for our National (worthiness) and the dynamics that keeps America free. We need much more education and we must rid ourselves of the over-paid (Tenured Professors) and redefine the path and reasons to grant tenure. The classroom is a terrific place and we as a society need to reward the process without killing research. Anyone granted a PHD needs to have published good science and (two out of every five) freshly minted PHD's should have, -- either a U.S. Patent/or minimally applied to the USPTO. Professors need to underscore their salaries through writing, guest lecturing or invention but not overblown salaries. We grant far too many PHD degrees and educate far too few Undergrads. In doing so, the number of PHD scientist would catch up and in ten years there would be better qualified, educated (graduate school candidates). We should throw money at the USPTO and they should run summer camps for smart kids to teach patent-think, invention think. Every high School needs a course that teaches "Invention" and "invention-think". Lastly, we need to be an education-centric nation and everyone must better understand that education and freedom are two ends of the same cloth. Student debt is thoughtless and harmful to the Nation.
2
I would like to know which Phd's you are talking bout ???? My daughter with a science Phd is not making much at all !! I do not think Phd are making a killing after being in school for many years ! But MD can make a killing ,does not seem to bother anyone ,and to mention the cheap labor of Postdocs !!Education is not valued ,what is valued is University buildings that look like castles and have dorms and dinning halls of 5-6 star hotels! College is for learning and leaving on a shoestring budget ! I definitely made sure that my own children followed this and are guess what they are now frugal and employed !
2
Every high School needs a course that teaches "Invention" and "invention-think".
We used to have these, it was called shop class.
We used to have these, it was called shop class.
2
"dorms and dinning halls of 5-6 star hotels! " Please tell me where I can find pics of these college accommodations.
How about providing a reimbursement plan for course hours completed with grade-C or better in the required degree curriculum. In other words, help the student pay for his degree, not his college expenses.
4
The much praised College Degree is one more example of business owners transferring their costs to the public while keeping profits private. A college degree is about gaining education, not getting a job. It used to be that you got an education in the form of a Diploma or a Liberal Arts Degree and then a company hired you and trained you on their dime.
Today Colleges and Universities are high cost trade schools with the Liberal Arts courses tagged onto the certificate program, and some certificates, like law and medicine require another trade school to get your certificate.
We are asking teenagers in a rapidly changing economy to make a decision as to what is going to be the best ROI path four years in the future when the best CEO's cannot predict where their business will be in 90 days. Pick the wrong path at 18 and be saddled with debt and no job prospects at 22. And there aren't any jobs in that field anymore.
Campaign promises are one thing, reality is that the whole system is a sham with the highest priced institutions getting the highest praise.
Today Colleges and Universities are high cost trade schools with the Liberal Arts courses tagged onto the certificate program, and some certificates, like law and medicine require another trade school to get your certificate.
We are asking teenagers in a rapidly changing economy to make a decision as to what is going to be the best ROI path four years in the future when the best CEO's cannot predict where their business will be in 90 days. Pick the wrong path at 18 and be saddled with debt and no job prospects at 22. And there aren't any jobs in that field anymore.
Campaign promises are one thing, reality is that the whole system is a sham with the highest priced institutions getting the highest praise.
145
Thank you for the clear picture. We all get so accustomed to status quo that we forget about reality sometimes. The reality is that we can change things for the better even in the face of those that would keep the status quo.
The reason that this college loan issue is attractive to the NY Times editorial writers and Democratic Party politicians is that it represents additional revenue for a key Democratic Party constituency; college professors and administrators. The reason that college loan debt is high is do in large part to the obscenely high salaries of college professors and administrators. Any loan program that would allow relief for a law school education would be a joke. Why? American society does not need any more lawyers, or for that matter "communication majors." Hillary Clinton's attempt to promote a government handout for the college professors is pure politics and nothing else.
11
Faculty and most administrators are not overpaid. We need to go back to government giving money to universities instead of to potential students. Universities focus on education when spending money. Potential students focus on how cool the student union looks during the campus tour when spending money.
"Star" professors may make a killing but most are solidly in the middle class. My father was a professor at a prestigious college for over 30 years, and we always had hand-me-down furniture and went camping for summer vacations. I think you need to look elsewhere for the problem.
I think educating the population can only benefit the country as a whole. In that regard it is important to make the process affordable to all. Its another issue if the colleges are ripping off the students as many of the comments seem to imply.
6
Hillary's proposal is this: "Here, young persons, is free money for school, paid by your parents and other taxpayers. Now, when you are old, you will pay it back in spades, along with the other massive entitlements we've accumulated, which is now over $200 TRILLIONS dollars. By the way, keep voting Democrat! Remember, we're the party of free stuff. Don't worry about paying for it."
Mark Levin's latest book, "Plunder and Deceit", addresses this and other issues affecting our kids. Both parties are destroying our kid's future. And this latest Dem freebie proposal is just another part of the problem with lousy temporary politicians.
Mark Levin's latest book, "Plunder and Deceit", addresses this and other issues affecting our kids. Both parties are destroying our kid's future. And this latest Dem freebie proposal is just another part of the problem with lousy temporary politicians.
17
Mark Levin is a non thinking, screeching, castrated choir boy for the extreme right psychopaths. You can add yourself to the list of intellectual eunuchs.
Your analysis, in my view, is far too facile. If one were to accept your argument, then the conclusion would be simply to select which form of long term indebtedness is best, one which starts in one's early 20s with college loan debt or much later under your assumptions.
Mrs. Clinton and others are not wrong to try to address this problem. What we need first, however, is a clear eyed examination of how we got in this mess and why tuition has been going through the roof since the late 1980s. If we, as a society, are going to make the decision that colleges and universities are something we are going to support with more money, then we have to audit them and their practices.
Mrs. Clinton and others are not wrong to try to address this problem. What we need first, however, is a clear eyed examination of how we got in this mess and why tuition has been going through the roof since the late 1980s. If we, as a society, are going to make the decision that colleges and universities are something we are going to support with more money, then we have to audit them and their practices.
Perhaps no other American institution is so firmly under the control of Liberals--and Liberalism. Polls tell us that a higher percentage of college professors voted for Barak Obama than did Blacks in general--a stunningly one-sided result.
And like everything else that Liberals control--whether it's schools, government agencies, certain cities and states or even countries, the economics are challenging. For as it should be evident in places like Detroit, Chicago, or Stockton California--Liberals can outspend any revenue source--and our Colleges and Universities are no exception.
Holding the promise of a better future over the heads of American families, institutions of higher learning have increased fees and tuition at a rate multiple times the rate of inflation over the past 30 years--to the point where, in many cases, the value of a college degree no longer justifies the cost at which it is acquired.
How did this happen, exactly? Really, it's a combination of Liberal hubris (higher education is worth it because we say so) and institutions gorging themselves on government money--to increase the number of administrators, to pay professors obscene amounts--and to expand the college experience to the level that might make Club med envious. When "student centers are more grand than the Waldorf Astoria--that's our first clue.
Making college more affordable is simple--get the public money out of the system--and rip the financial reins out of Liberal hands.
And like everything else that Liberals control--whether it's schools, government agencies, certain cities and states or even countries, the economics are challenging. For as it should be evident in places like Detroit, Chicago, or Stockton California--Liberals can outspend any revenue source--and our Colleges and Universities are no exception.
Holding the promise of a better future over the heads of American families, institutions of higher learning have increased fees and tuition at a rate multiple times the rate of inflation over the past 30 years--to the point where, in many cases, the value of a college degree no longer justifies the cost at which it is acquired.
How did this happen, exactly? Really, it's a combination of Liberal hubris (higher education is worth it because we say so) and institutions gorging themselves on government money--to increase the number of administrators, to pay professors obscene amounts--and to expand the college experience to the level that might make Club med envious. When "student centers are more grand than the Waldorf Astoria--that's our first clue.
Making college more affordable is simple--get the public money out of the system--and rip the financial reins out of Liberal hands.
13
I am delighted by the proposals to make college or at least community college free for the future students. However, my thoughts are with my nieces and nephews, who have graduated from college with mountains of debt. Will there be anything to help them?
7
My thoughts are with us, we spent 10 years paying off very, very high student loan debt. So our kids wouldn't have to do that we saved for their college education. I'm thinking we were chumps to bother. We should have let them rack up lots of debt and then worked to get them out of it.
I don't know if free tuition is the answer to the student debt crisis. I do know that because of some very poor policy decision made by past administrations, student's from poor and middle class families are forced into debt to attain a future. Current practice makes these loans more costly than a mortgage, and they cannot be voided through bankruptcy. In another time they would be seen as indentured servitude.
I don't know why Congress and state legislators changed the rules to make college and student loans both more expensive, but it is killing the next generation. If our next President can offer a solution like those proposed by the Democratic candidates, that is good. It is good for the students, their families, and the future of our Nation. But why wait? Let's hear from the Congress, this term, now, and get the problem fixed. Why not?
I don't know why Congress and state legislators changed the rules to make college and student loans both more expensive, but it is killing the next generation. If our next President can offer a solution like those proposed by the Democratic candidates, that is good. It is good for the students, their families, and the future of our Nation. But why wait? Let's hear from the Congress, this term, now, and get the problem fixed. Why not?
8
I like both proposals from these two candidates as college affordability is a big problem in the US. I would like to see some proposals from Republicans on this looming crisis. Anyone?
3
Do we really think more money is the key to higher education ? The education system in the United States is responsible for the great income inequalities that are currently being discussed. The rich go to private schools which offer connections and pedigree for better jobs. See today's geniuses where did Zuckerberg, Gates, etc. attend school ? The disparity has been created by the runaway college costs. Private universities are the main culprit. So by all means let's get free public, and community college education. After all they serve the non-elite, and under represented in Washington. After 8 years of the Democratic leadership, has the divide between rich and poor gotten better or worse ? Answer that question honestly and this papers joy for party over person rings extremely hollow.
6
When you have one (black) President who is a Democrat against a Congress that is Republican and refuses to work with him, how can you blame Obama for 8 years of leadership widening the gap between rich and poor? The gap has widened because of deregulation of various industries enriching the pockets of a multitude of corporations and financial institutions and the systemic lowering of taxes (on the rich especially) at all levels of government, not to mention the waging of useless and endless wars. Lots of blame to spread around. Do you think we'd be in better shape if we'd had another 8 years of W?!?
I was a high school teacher. There is a cultural, societal dumbing down of the populace at work where intelligence is denigrated by society as a whole. You cannot send these kids off to school and expect teachers to fix the broken closed minds you give them. And you don't deserve an A for seat time!
Start by valuing learning and thinking and discussing at home (turn off the television, get off the blue screens) and then as a society, we can discuss the best way to educate and pay for it.
I was a high school teacher. There is a cultural, societal dumbing down of the populace at work where intelligence is denigrated by society as a whole. You cannot send these kids off to school and expect teachers to fix the broken closed minds you give them. And you don't deserve an A for seat time!
Start by valuing learning and thinking and discussing at home (turn off the television, get off the blue screens) and then as a society, we can discuss the best way to educate and pay for it.
So, Ms. Clinton calls for massive payments to colleges in her bid to become President. Ridiculous proposal. She really will say anything to be President, won't she?
Excess and easy government financing of a rainbow of college degrees has fed the State Univeristy amenity driven offerings for years and has in part created the problem of the disproportionate increase of the cost of higher education. If the easy government money wasn't avail be, these Universities would figure a ways to trim the considerable fat. At some point someone will understand that not all college costs are created equal......engineers and business trained undergraduate students, for example, tend to get jobs on graduation; on the other hand, the studio art graduate or pure liberal arts graduates have a harder time finding employment and often just end up in overpriced graduate school as a result.
No, these universities need to cut the frills and cut the costs and deliver a product that the market values and is affordable instead of just increasing the highly educated corspe of Uber drivers who can't repay their student loans.
Excess and easy government financing of a rainbow of college degrees has fed the State Univeristy amenity driven offerings for years and has in part created the problem of the disproportionate increase of the cost of higher education. If the easy government money wasn't avail be, these Universities would figure a ways to trim the considerable fat. At some point someone will understand that not all college costs are created equal......engineers and business trained undergraduate students, for example, tend to get jobs on graduation; on the other hand, the studio art graduate or pure liberal arts graduates have a harder time finding employment and often just end up in overpriced graduate school as a result.
No, these universities need to cut the frills and cut the costs and deliver a product that the market values and is affordable instead of just increasing the highly educated corspe of Uber drivers who can't repay their student loans.
10
This became an issue due to the Great Recession, although it was brewing for quite a while as a result of the rise of the global market, where it was no longer necessary for a companies to maintain a constituency in the form of employees with descent paying jobs. As well, as higher education took on a form more like being an industry than an educational insitution, costs were bound to rise.
I'm not opposed to helping people with huge amounts of loans refinance at a lower rate. That would be the least we could do, but before we start to offer free education, we should decide how that is going to be dished out. The democratization of education was a money making opportunity for institutions, and we can not say that it actually turned out well educated people, like those even who understood the meaning of capitalization at the beginning of a sentence and a period at the end, for example. The problems with our entire educational system and the society for which children and young adults are to be prepared, needs to be revisited. There is a total mismatch.
Frankly, I don't think we can talk about refining our educational system, unless we talk about refining our economic system, both of which are in disarray, and to try and fix any of it with a single proposal of educational aid is really pandering to the audience, whether they be students or parents. I am not opposed to free education, but for who and for what?
I'm not opposed to helping people with huge amounts of loans refinance at a lower rate. That would be the least we could do, but before we start to offer free education, we should decide how that is going to be dished out. The democratization of education was a money making opportunity for institutions, and we can not say that it actually turned out well educated people, like those even who understood the meaning of capitalization at the beginning of a sentence and a period at the end, for example. The problems with our entire educational system and the society for which children and young adults are to be prepared, needs to be revisited. There is a total mismatch.
Frankly, I don't think we can talk about refining our educational system, unless we talk about refining our economic system, both of which are in disarray, and to try and fix any of it with a single proposal of educational aid is really pandering to the audience, whether they be students or parents. I am not opposed to free education, but for who and for what?
17
Well, there you go again, NY Times. With your function as a 527 for Democrats.
Please note that the two Democrats (or Dem/Socialists) you are supporting today exemplify the typical Democrat tactic designed to get votes: Promise something to a constituency (a big one in this case...college students, former students with loans, future students, and their parents)...and say you will soak someone else to get the money to fulfill your promise.
Your first sentence...a college education is a basic requirement for many middle class jobs: So? There are thousands of other jobs which do not require a college degree, as many erudite posters have already pointed out here. Trade schools, technical schools, schools directed to learning a job/trade with computer knowledge. College is partially geared to higher paying jobs but it is also geared to gaining a broad liberal arts education with reasoning, debating, planning, thinking, understanding history.
How many of the graduating high schools students of today are ready for college?
How, pray tell, has Scott Walker's budget cut of $250 million "caused great harm" to the Univ of Wisconsin? I read at the time that it represented about 1 1/2% of the university budget. How about pruning off excess...perhaps (and I don't work there, but I do know about the prolifertaion of administrators in the medical field) those administrators are eating up too much of the budget, and for what end? What a nasty targeted remark aimed at Walker you threw.
Please note that the two Democrats (or Dem/Socialists) you are supporting today exemplify the typical Democrat tactic designed to get votes: Promise something to a constituency (a big one in this case...college students, former students with loans, future students, and their parents)...and say you will soak someone else to get the money to fulfill your promise.
Your first sentence...a college education is a basic requirement for many middle class jobs: So? There are thousands of other jobs which do not require a college degree, as many erudite posters have already pointed out here. Trade schools, technical schools, schools directed to learning a job/trade with computer knowledge. College is partially geared to higher paying jobs but it is also geared to gaining a broad liberal arts education with reasoning, debating, planning, thinking, understanding history.
How many of the graduating high schools students of today are ready for college?
How, pray tell, has Scott Walker's budget cut of $250 million "caused great harm" to the Univ of Wisconsin? I read at the time that it represented about 1 1/2% of the university budget. How about pruning off excess...perhaps (and I don't work there, but I do know about the prolifertaion of administrators in the medical field) those administrators are eating up too much of the budget, and for what end? What a nasty targeted remark aimed at Walker you threw.
10
I did some grade school math on KS's "I read that ..." statement and calculated that if $250 million is 1.5 percent of the UW budget then the total budget would be about more than $16.6 billion. That's about $10 billion more than the actual UW budget of $6.1 billion. That's a pretty big error and it didn't even take my college education to spot. Perhaps KS's service here is to show us that most of us aren't even leveraging what we learned in elementary school.
And when it comes to pruning excess, perhaps a discussion of how much is spent on football versus how much is spent on mathematics would be in order.
And when it comes to pruning excess, perhaps a discussion of how much is spent on football versus how much is spent on mathematics would be in order.
1
I think rewriting the mission statement to remove the pursuit of truth and insert meeting the states job needs about sums it up
1
People who go to college make more money. People who make more money pay more taxes. More taxes means more money for education. More money for education means more people can go to college. See how that works?
1
The driving factor behind exploding tuition costs is the sickening 'business' side of college, which is nearly as predatory as pre-crash subprime lenders were. Take an 18 year old kid with hopes and dreams, and no real concept of money, and offer them the world for only x thousands of dollars per year. If they or their parents don't have x thousands of dollars, well don't worry, the government will step in and offer them a loan at 7.9% interest. They'll be able to pay it back when they come out into the job market and take one of the many quality, high-paying jobs available. And if they don't, well they won't be able to discharge that debt in bankruptcy, but everything will work itself out I'm sure.
This is the perfect scam. Provide something with no guaranteed return on investment at an inflated price with the government taking on all liability. Make yourself out to be a hero for turning the youth of today into the happy adults of tomorrow. Something something 'make the world a better place.' I'm all for higher education and think it's very necessary in the 21st century, but this system is corrupt. If Hillary or Bernie or anyone else want to make college free that's great, but address the rot and greed in the college system or it will be in vein.
This is the perfect scam. Provide something with no guaranteed return on investment at an inflated price with the government taking on all liability. Make yourself out to be a hero for turning the youth of today into the happy adults of tomorrow. Something something 'make the world a better place.' I'm all for higher education and think it's very necessary in the 21st century, but this system is corrupt. If Hillary or Bernie or anyone else want to make college free that's great, but address the rot and greed in the college system or it will be in vein.
100
*In VAIN. I always mess those up ... you would think they would've taught me that at college.
1
Just like profits are made on health care at the expense of the sick, so to are profits made on students at the expense of them and all of society. Great comment from you - thanks!
The 18-year old kid is only eligible to take out a modest amount of loans ($5500, $6500, $7500, and $7500) over the 4 years. Anything above that needs to be cosigned by their parents or other cosigner, who should have an understanding of money, and be able to evaluate the pros/cons of taking out such a loan. The problem is that too many don't do that analysis, blindly sign on the dotted line, then complain about it when it doesn't pan out.
"Every single day, this country invests in big banks by lending them money at near-zero rates," Senator Elizabeth Warren said in 2013. "We should make the same kind of investment lending money to students, who are trying to get an education."
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But student loan debt also is a giant drag on the economy.
The Fed could subsidize students instead of vulture capital banks , but it chooses large corporate banks over people, even though it's the banks that drove the American and global economies off of a cliff.
The student loan industry is often populated by shysters, crooks and parasites.
Maybe it's just time to have 'single-payer'/single-administrator student loans run by the federal government and remove the ungodly 3rd-party profits generated from 4 - 8% interest rates and arbitrary fees imposed by commercial loan administrators.
Like America's 17% of GDP healthcare system that has been made unaffordable by American corporate greed, America's student loans are also an international disgrace.
While lowering tuition is key, it's also time to remove the corporate parasite from student loan interest rates and loan administration.
Subsidize students, not banksters...and remove the for-profit sharks from the student loan business.
People over greed ... not Greed Over People.
The Fed justifies loaning money essentially for free to major banks so they can maintain liquidity during emergencies. But student loan debt also is a giant drag on the economy.
The Fed could subsidize students instead of vulture capital banks , but it chooses large corporate banks over people, even though it's the banks that drove the American and global economies off of a cliff.
The student loan industry is often populated by shysters, crooks and parasites.
Maybe it's just time to have 'single-payer'/single-administrator student loans run by the federal government and remove the ungodly 3rd-party profits generated from 4 - 8% interest rates and arbitrary fees imposed by commercial loan administrators.
Like America's 17% of GDP healthcare system that has been made unaffordable by American corporate greed, America's student loans are also an international disgrace.
While lowering tuition is key, it's also time to remove the corporate parasite from student loan interest rates and loan administration.
Subsidize students, not banksters...and remove the for-profit sharks from the student loan business.
People over greed ... not Greed Over People.
66
When my kids were in college, we were able to take their loans (and our Parent Plus loans) and consolidate them at 3.2% (a 1% savings over the prime--back in early 2000s). Why isn't that a possibility today? As an incentive to the graduates and their parents to finish your degree?
Today, the banks borrow at 0% or near 0% from the government then loan it back to kids and their parents at what I would call exorbitant rates--4.29% and 6.84%!
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/interest-rates
Another giveaway to the rapacious banking industry. Thanks government.
Add on the skyrocketing tuition costs universities are charging…because they can…just borrow some more from above government, kids, mom and dad... and there's your bubble. Hasn't burst yet. But it's going to happen.
Today, the banks borrow at 0% or near 0% from the government then loan it back to kids and their parents at what I would call exorbitant rates--4.29% and 6.84%!
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/interest-rates
Another giveaway to the rapacious banking industry. Thanks government.
Add on the skyrocketing tuition costs universities are charging…because they can…just borrow some more from above government, kids, mom and dad... and there's your bubble. Hasn't burst yet. But it's going to happen.
Your (and Warren's) view of how money is created and the interplay between the Federal Reserve and federally chartered banks is so utterly, brain-numbingly ignorant, I don't even know how to respond.
Hilllary will pay for this by taxing the rich...At this pace there won't be any more rich to tax since they are apparently going to make everything free. Perhaps Laureate University could offer some scholarships - Bill took in $16 million from them as honorary chancellor.
The real problems colleges have little incentive to lower costs since loans are available and they soak the rich to provide discounts to those who make less. Another cynical election year promise.
The real problems colleges have little incentive to lower costs since loans are available and they soak the rich to provide discounts to those who make less. Another cynical election year promise.
10
Agreed! Seems like the Democrats and Hillary could use some schooling themselves on basic economics, which seems to have escaped them as they continue with these hair-brained policy ideas to soak taxpayers even further to support their cocktail party friends across academia. Let's end welfare for so called "higher learning" institutions!
As the Bible says, the rich will always be with us. No worries about that.
The student loan market should be regulated. Too many sharks out there.
Why do student loans carry interest rates double that of car loans? Is this investing in the future?
The student loan market should be regulated. Too many sharks out there.
Why do student loans carry interest rates double that of car loans? Is this investing in the future?
If we don't do something about the cost of college, we will be left with an unprepared and under-educated electorate. This is why we have seen no Republican solutions offered for this problem. An informed and sophisticated public is less likely to succumb to their strong support of fear, hate and anger. The GOP's agenda does not include lifting people out of poverty or ignorance. That's Republican Politics 101.
7
Unfortunately the facts do not support your assertions an the GOP won more college educated voters in the last election. So that leaves only deliberate distortion or ignorance from this oft repeated progressive mantra.
1
Nyalman, If what you say is true then where are the Republican ideas for making higher education more affordable. According to you this is a win win for them and yet they stand mute on the subject.
"But candidates from only one party are taking it seriously." But how can we take the NYT seriously? It is a election cycle and the Professional Political Class will offer anything to get your vote. A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway. I would imagine soon will be a Iphone in every house. Where has the Democratic Party been for the last 7 years on this? If they really wanted to do something of the $1.2 Trillion debt make the banks that America bailed out lower the interest rate on student loans. You can refinance a house why not a student loan?
2
So Republicans ARE taking the problem of the high cost of college seriously? Where? Show us.
And what, pray tell, are the colleges doing to make college more affordable? Seems to me that colleges have exploded with all the student loan money and don't know how to scale back.
Let the candidates also discuss what we are going to do with all these college graduates after they earn their degree. We have too many college educated folks who cannot find a job already.
Let the candidates also discuss what we are going to do with all these college graduates after they earn their degree. We have too many college educated folks who cannot find a job already.
4
Just about ten years ago to the month I set out to the gleaming land of Oz known as "college," after studying hard through my high school career. College was like a mythical place that smart, cool people went to and had the most amazing time of their life, after which they entered the workforce as cream of the crop, well-paid and able to do anything they chose. The reality was somewhat different. I'm not complaining, I had some great times at college and made great friends, but the major I chose (Political Science), and a B.A. degree itself have not been nearly as marketable as my private university presented them to be. Honestly I don't think I "learned" anything more in college than I could have by simply reading a select few good books, or a variety of media sources. This despite thousands of dollars in tuition, fees, and outrageously marked up textbooks.
Coming from a middle class family and going four years without a full time job or regular earnings was taxing. I regularly found that I had too much 'month at the end of my money' and found myself living the life of a pauper. I don't have too much in outstanding student loans thanks to scholarships and help from my family, but the fact that I'm spending my 20s repaying the debt I do have instead of saving for the future is aggravating. I'm glad this issue is finally getting some attention, but I hope people realize that the dream I initially had of 'college' is no longer reality.
Coming from a middle class family and going four years without a full time job or regular earnings was taxing. I regularly found that I had too much 'month at the end of my money' and found myself living the life of a pauper. I don't have too much in outstanding student loans thanks to scholarships and help from my family, but the fact that I'm spending my 20s repaying the debt I do have instead of saving for the future is aggravating. I'm glad this issue is finally getting some attention, but I hope people realize that the dream I initially had of 'college' is no longer reality.
5
I would argue that the fault lies with those who want everything given to them; by college age, you should be *seeking* an education. If you didn't feel like you were learning anything ,perhaps you should have talked to professors or advisors about ways to move beyond just a few books. Not to say there's nothing wrong with our educational system, up to and including college, but as those who work in tech departments like to say when called upon to fix a problem caused by the one who reported it, oftentimes it's a "problem between the seat and keyboard."
Some progress already is being made because the market, i.e. prospective students, is demanding it. I often hear radio ads from some schools (even law schools!) that are offering to refund part of a student's tuition if he or she can't find a job within 9 months of graduation. Many schools have programs that offer college credit hours based on work experience. Schools must now list "gainful employment" stats for college majors. As a result, enrollment in certain community college majors is low in the less employable majors, and at least one major for-profit college is in bankruptcy proceedings.
Regarding student loans, interest rates should be lowered. Capitalized interest should be capped to avoid a near doubling of the original loan amount.
Regarding student loans, interest rates should be lowered. Capitalized interest should be capped to avoid a near doubling of the original loan amount.
The only crisis here is the that of stupidity of those going to college and their parents! It is a microcosm of the problems associated with debt burden of mortgages, credit cards and our propensity to spend more then we have! Perspective students need to obtain a degree that will allow them to make a living at a reasonable cost. There are colleges and universities out there that still offer those chances!
Just as Medicare negotiates a fee for medical services leaving the health care provider to write off a large part of their bloated and unjustifiable bill, student loan recipients should have an avenue to pool their mass and exercise leverage against universities' bloated and unjustifiable tuition.
Any attempt to solve this that doesn't in some way handicap universities' ability to charge ever-escalating prices for increasingly less-useful degrees will accomplish very little. The market for higher education has been too hot for too long, and it sorely needs correction.
Any attempt to solve this that doesn't in some way handicap universities' ability to charge ever-escalating prices for increasingly less-useful degrees will accomplish very little. The market for higher education has been too hot for too long, and it sorely needs correction.
2
This well-intentioned idea fails to address the facts as they are: colleges have no incentive to reign in costs and families are not price sensitive when it comes to making college selection. College is seen rightly by many as the key to a better life and colleges are in fierce competition to attract the best (or the most) students. Colleges see themselves forced to spend in an academic arms race with their competitors and families reward the high spending colleges with their enrollment.
These is no objective yardstick for measuring colleges and colleges don't want one. It is in the public interest to develop an independent yardstick and to put funds behind it to reward those schools that meet it.
These is no objective yardstick for measuring colleges and colleges don't want one. It is in the public interest to develop an independent yardstick and to put funds behind it to reward those schools that meet it.
3
A good start would be for all of these colleges and universities to go back to basics. Get rid of sports in higher ed and focus on EDUCATION. I'm tired of reading about new sports facilities at colleges, plush accommodations for students, bakeries, concierge service, etc. and all of the other non-education spending. Community colleges should also increase their focus on vocational spending for all the folks out there who need skills to get decent jobs, but don't need a college degree.
7
The Times says, "The country has a college affordability crisis. But candidates from only one party are taking it seriously."
The people should say, "The country has not only a college affordability crisis but also an income disparity crisis and only candidates that take this seriously should be taken seriously."
The people should say, "The country has not only a college affordability crisis but also an income disparity crisis and only candidates that take this seriously should be taken seriously."
2
We have to compare tuition subsidies with our past when grads had little debt. And with other countries now where college is low cost or free. Do their conservative parties try to slash tuition budgets like our rw Gop? Or do they accept the basic principal of subsidized higher ed?
Our college debt now keeps many grads in a lower economic class than in our past. A degree gets them much more than min wage, but is it a means to the middle class?
Eliz Warren says college debt is over a $trillion, and inhibits grads from buying homes and cars. Many live with parents. But so what, as long as wealth taxes are kept low and the colleges can profit from rising tuition---that’s the main value now.
See NYT Nelson Schwartz’s fascinating article --- “A New Look at Apprenticeships as a Path to the Middle Class”---July 13---re the Apprentice School at Newport News ship building.
“The financial equation: The typical 4 year college debt is about $31,000 with starting wages about $45,000 a year, Apprentice School students emerge debt free and can make nearly $10,000 more in their first job.”
Several 2016 candidates are talking up apprenticeships---quotes Clinton, Rubio and Scott Walker.
“We know this works,” said labor Secy Perez....big companies have long trained youth in Germany...they have 40 apprentices per 1,000 workers, vs about 3 per 1,000 here....It’s not hard to figure out why the Germans have a youth unemployment rate half what it is here.”
A topic for our debates.
Our college debt now keeps many grads in a lower economic class than in our past. A degree gets them much more than min wage, but is it a means to the middle class?
Eliz Warren says college debt is over a $trillion, and inhibits grads from buying homes and cars. Many live with parents. But so what, as long as wealth taxes are kept low and the colleges can profit from rising tuition---that’s the main value now.
See NYT Nelson Schwartz’s fascinating article --- “A New Look at Apprenticeships as a Path to the Middle Class”---July 13---re the Apprentice School at Newport News ship building.
“The financial equation: The typical 4 year college debt is about $31,000 with starting wages about $45,000 a year, Apprentice School students emerge debt free and can make nearly $10,000 more in their first job.”
Several 2016 candidates are talking up apprenticeships---quotes Clinton, Rubio and Scott Walker.
“We know this works,” said labor Secy Perez....big companies have long trained youth in Germany...they have 40 apprentices per 1,000 workers, vs about 3 per 1,000 here....It’s not hard to figure out why the Germans have a youth unemployment rate half what it is here.”
A topic for our debates.
2
The whining right-wingers are out in force, saying we can't afford to make college educations affordable for our citizens. They also say we can't fix our decaying roads and bridges, have universal healthcare and pay living wages. If other countries can do that, why can't "the greatest country in the world" do it? Since the Reagan days, we have reduced taxes, except for the social security and medicare taxes. Those were raised, ostensibly to build up a surplus to pay for the retiring baby boomers. The problem is, income taxes, capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends were reduced, especially benefiting the wealthy. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and all the money borrowed from social security needs to be repaid to pay the baby boomers retiring. We don't have that nice surplus from the trust fund to borrow from. So now, taxes should be raised to pay back the money in addition to paying for all the other programs, notably defense, which the Republicans all want to raise. Their answer is to cut social security benefits. And they want flat taxes and no taxes on capital gains and dividends, so the very wealthy whose income is almost entirely from capital gains and dividends will pay no Federal taxes. So we have no money to do or fix anything in the Republican world, except to get involved in another disastrous war in the Middle East.
4
Democratic proposals to make college affordable involve taxing most of us so that ambitious young people can get a low-cost education. I like my neighbors' kids, but not that much. On the other hand, if they want to pay the cost of my ambitions, then we could talk.
3
This is what happens with half measures.
The US student loan system is a mix of entitlement and private transaction -- ie, you are entitled to make a private transaction. The government greases the skids, the banks take the profit, the student is left holding the bill.
Why not make student loans a private transaction like any other loan? because many, if not the majority, would not be able to obtain credit except with usurious rates.
But we wanted to open college to all, so years ago our half-measure government, in its wisdom, came upon the idea of the government subsidizing, guaranteeing, and backstopping the student loan market.
It will always be a win for the banks; our system is written so they cannot lose. The students get an easy up-front deal, and then the banks take over and get their profit.
Sometimes Washington seems to serve as a front for the private, profit-taking sector, as well as its subsidizer. If this sounds similar to the ACA, it should. Just as our student loan system is a big handout to the banks, the ACA was a big handout to the insurance industry.
The citizen is left wondering who their government actually serves.
The US student loan system is a mix of entitlement and private transaction -- ie, you are entitled to make a private transaction. The government greases the skids, the banks take the profit, the student is left holding the bill.
Why not make student loans a private transaction like any other loan? because many, if not the majority, would not be able to obtain credit except with usurious rates.
But we wanted to open college to all, so years ago our half-measure government, in its wisdom, came upon the idea of the government subsidizing, guaranteeing, and backstopping the student loan market.
It will always be a win for the banks; our system is written so they cannot lose. The students get an easy up-front deal, and then the banks take over and get their profit.
Sometimes Washington seems to serve as a front for the private, profit-taking sector, as well as its subsidizer. If this sounds similar to the ACA, it should. Just as our student loan system is a big handout to the banks, the ACA was a big handout to the insurance industry.
The citizen is left wondering who their government actually serves.
>
It will take more than a Dem POTUS for these ideals to become anything but a pipe dream. They will remain a pipe dream as long as there are 41 GOP Senators and a GOP House.
It will take more than a Dem POTUS for these ideals to become anything but a pipe dream. They will remain a pipe dream as long as there are 41 GOP Senators and a GOP House.
4
I see its promise time again. Trying to think how much my Senator did when she was my Senator to cut in state college cost? Now we are to believe that the same person who said 15 dollars an hour is too much to make the minimum wage is going to tax her deep pocket donors to pay for our children's education? No mention of what deductions she was going to cap on the wealthy. We have a congress that has a rabid aversion to raising any taxes. A congress that refuses to fund Amtrak in the same week when people die because safety devices that are available are not installed because of lack of funding. Really hard to tell what is worse Trump with no polices or others with false promises? Guess its Smoke and Mirror time once again. Maybe as on her position on the trade deal we will have to wait until she is president to find out how she will do it.
2
Though not all its citizens would agree (university education until fairly recently was largely free), the UK has developed an excellent approach to handling student tuition loans. The ceiling for tuition is currently about $13,500 per year for their 3-year undergraduate degree programs. The government provides loans at low rates (currently 2.1%). After the student has graduated and begun work, the debt is deducted directly from the student's paycheck, once the student starts to earn about $30,000 or more. Young people who choose low-paid lines of work will not have to repay at all. Students who go into higher-paid work pay off their loans quickly. The new conservative government is doing away with loans for board and lodging and living expenses but as regards tuition this is a very practical and fair scheme. I have no idea why the United States always finds itself reinventing the wheel in so many aspects of public policy.
6
I described the New Zealand system below also and forgot to add that repayments are deducted from your pay also - before it hits your bank account. You don't worry about making payments, nor do you have a choice if you're working through the tax system.
1
I've taught college and adult programs all over the world. I've also run large sponsored research programs across public and private institutions from the Ivy League to the streets of India I've also been responsible for getting funding for these endeavors. And I have seen first hand the amazingly successful apprentice programs run in Europe and Asia and have taught in corporate programs run by companies in growing nations that desperately need educated workers. And I've participated in the job retraining programs periodically rolled out by the U.S. government when regions like Detroit collapsed
It's a great thought to have free college but I can't imagine how the programs described here could be financed. The overheads and non teaching weight on the system in the US Is massive and not focused on students.
Tenured faculty being paid $150,000 per year or sometimes double that to teach a course or two. Or not at all. Buildings that cost hundreds of millions to build and millions to run every year. Research on topics that have little bearing on a career. And so on. This is especially bad in government funded enterprises, although many community colleges are very effective
Simply borrowing more long term capital in the global debt markets to pay short term inflated annual running costs will make little sense and will not help students...whose loans are some of the few the government says can't be relieved in bankruptcy
It's a great thought to have free college but I can't imagine how the programs described here could be financed. The overheads and non teaching weight on the system in the US Is massive and not focused on students.
Tenured faculty being paid $150,000 per year or sometimes double that to teach a course or two. Or not at all. Buildings that cost hundreds of millions to build and millions to run every year. Research on topics that have little bearing on a career. And so on. This is especially bad in government funded enterprises, although many community colleges are very effective
Simply borrowing more long term capital in the global debt markets to pay short term inflated annual running costs will make little sense and will not help students...whose loans are some of the few the government says can't be relieved in bankruptcy
4
As I have noted elsewhere, this is a state issue and a state created problem, not a federal problem. State financial support of instruction at public universities has plummeted since the 1970's when state budgets paid 70% of the tuition to less than 8% today. Put the blame where it belongs. The reason some of us were able to graduate college back in the 1970's without debt was a full time job at or just above minimum wage. That is not possible anymore. Further, I wish the NYTimes and media outlets would stop repeating the half truth about student debt. The average student debt number is the average of students that have debt NOT the average of all graduates. The student debt data actually shows that over 60% of college graduates have $10,000 of debt or less, 30% graduate with no debt at all.
5
What about those of us that are already buried in educational debt and are struggling to make ends meet to pay back our loans? My fiancee and I together pay almost $1000 in loan payments per month. We grew up believing a college education was the key to securing our futures. No one warned us that future would involve crushing debt.
Samir: When you and your fiancee signed up to accept debt to pay for the "key to securing your futures", how did you dream you would pay back the debt? In getting your college education, what was your goal? What was the long-term plan?
Your future will only be "secured" by your own effort - your own skill at using your mind to produce values someone is willing to pay you to produce.
During my college education, I studied a specific topic that had great promise for my future. I also learned skills that I knew I could fall back on - which I eventually did. I am now extremely successful in my "contingency" career.
Your future will only be "secured" by your own effort - your own skill at using your mind to produce values someone is willing to pay you to produce.
During my college education, I studied a specific topic that had great promise for my future. I also learned skills that I knew I could fall back on - which I eventually did. I am now extremely successful in my "contingency" career.
3
"No one warned us that future would involve crushing debt."
A high school level understanding of math should have been sufficient so hard to sympathize with your complaint after you borrowed the money and now have college degrees. Personal responsibility anyone?
A high school level understanding of math should have been sufficient so hard to sympathize with your complaint after you borrowed the money and now have college degrees. Personal responsibility anyone?
1
How is Hillary Clinton considered the front runner when I read yesterday that since declaring her candidacy the largest crowd she has drawn has been less than 5,000 people while Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds of upwards of almost 30,000 people?
5
"Ms. Clinton would raise the money by capping unspecified deductions wealthy families can take on their income taxes." Specifying the deductions would be better, but it really doesn't matter. If we're ever going to treat our wealth inequality crisis with deserved seriousness, eliminating virtually all deductions wealthy families can claim on their income taxes is a must, as is no longer allowing them to claim so much of what they earn as non-income (i.e., carried interest, etc.). The rub, as ever, is how much a family has to earn to be considered "wealthy." Truly wealthy families earn relatively little income (wink, wink). Much of the rest of it has long been considered something else; that is what somehow has to change.
1
I was blessed 2 grandparents who were highly achievedacademics at Washington State University in Pullman. Grandaddy (T.H. Kennedy, PhD, Dean of Arts and Sciences who died on Sabatical in Africa when I was nine) left his 5 grandchildren the gift of college with a caveat. It will be paid for but you must go directly after high school graduation, maintain a 3.2 GPA, not take any semesters off and finish in 4 years. 2 of his 5 grandchildren achieved it. I wonder if today, when the debts are so much higher; if my brother and 2 cousins would have powered through. What a gift it was. I have tried to do the same, but it is much harder. My grandmother was the first female Professor and lived to be 88. Sometimes I think she'd wished we'd gone backpacking.
The cost of education, like healthcare, has exploded. And education, unlike healthcare, cannot even be said to have improved significantly. The cost of education needs to be cut, not just shifted onto taxpayers from students like the Democrats' proposals would do.
It is important to understand who is at fault here. The same people in the universities who lecture the private sector on inequality and the stagnation of real wages, are a large part of why real wages have not grown much. The vast growth of administrative staff, of Underdeans for Diversity and the like, is the result of policies they supported that put social causes ahead of educational efficacy and efficiency. Workers' real wages now buy far more food, computers, and other purely private-sector goods than they did in 1980. But they buy far less education and healthcare than they did, because these sectors are protected by government funding and regulation from having to be efficient or competitive. It is time to open them up to real competition by breaking down accreditation cartels, and to limit the flow of government funds into inefficient institutions.
It is important to understand who is at fault here. The same people in the universities who lecture the private sector on inequality and the stagnation of real wages, are a large part of why real wages have not grown much. The vast growth of administrative staff, of Underdeans for Diversity and the like, is the result of policies they supported that put social causes ahead of educational efficacy and efficiency. Workers' real wages now buy far more food, computers, and other purely private-sector goods than they did in 1980. But they buy far less education and healthcare than they did, because these sectors are protected by government funding and regulation from having to be efficient or competitive. It is time to open them up to real competition by breaking down accreditation cartels, and to limit the flow of government funds into inefficient institutions.
2
Thankfully Hillary Clinton has again proposed real reforms to higher education that increase transparency, provide clear incentives for all who might profit from higher education to behave responsibly, and improve America as a whole. Finally a serious understanding that degrees need to be affordable and represent genuine competence. It is our only way forward. Students need quality preparation at an affordable cost. She's framed the conversation in a way that makes it possible for everyone to come together and get this important work for our country completed now. Let us hope these proposals are acted on before November of 2016, as it is but one of several important proposals she's made that require immediate action.
1
"A college education is a basic requirement for many middle-class jobs, but it is increasingly harder to afford. "
largely thanks to GOVERNMENT intervention in the GUARANTEE of loans so schools can charge anything they like and students pay, go somewhere else or go into hock.
The solution is to stop student loans beyond a few thousand bucks and schools will see the handwriting on the wall.
They have grown fat on taxpayer largesse, college presidents need to get their salaries in line with the students who graduate.
Follow the money and it will lead you to the problem--greed on all levels.
I wen to a dentist a few year back and he had so much technology and staff I was amazed and you should have seen the sticker shock. On top of all that, he wasn't cetrain about a procedure and recommended another guy to second his opinion and he had technology up the kazoo and there was another sticker shock I wasn't prepared for. In the end it cost me a grand and all I got was an on screen look at a tooth that they wanted to replace with an implant--I still have my original and it works just fine thank you very much.
The point being that there may be just too much stuff the profs love but isn't entirely necessary for students to get the fundamentals .But all that stuff costs a lot of money and how best to get it is by making the user pay for it, just like we do now if you want a software manual--it is on the users dime-print is if you can afford it.
largely thanks to GOVERNMENT intervention in the GUARANTEE of loans so schools can charge anything they like and students pay, go somewhere else or go into hock.
The solution is to stop student loans beyond a few thousand bucks and schools will see the handwriting on the wall.
They have grown fat on taxpayer largesse, college presidents need to get their salaries in line with the students who graduate.
Follow the money and it will lead you to the problem--greed on all levels.
I wen to a dentist a few year back and he had so much technology and staff I was amazed and you should have seen the sticker shock. On top of all that, he wasn't cetrain about a procedure and recommended another guy to second his opinion and he had technology up the kazoo and there was another sticker shock I wasn't prepared for. In the end it cost me a grand and all I got was an on screen look at a tooth that they wanted to replace with an implant--I still have my original and it works just fine thank you very much.
The point being that there may be just too much stuff the profs love but isn't entirely necessary for students to get the fundamentals .But all that stuff costs a lot of money and how best to get it is by making the user pay for it, just like we do now if you want a software manual--it is on the users dime-print is if you can afford it.
It is actually easy. Just raise taxes.
1
In other words, without her having to say a thing, we now know Mrs. Clinton's opinion of a financial transaction tax. Big surprise.
1
In New Zealand the cost of our three to four year bachelor degrees seem somewhat similar - my student loan was about $26,000 NZD, when our dollar was worth about .85 US.
Our student loans (fees) are interest free - the Government pays and we are charged no interest UNTIL we leave New Zealand for more than 180 consecutive days (6 months).
If you have been out of New Zealand for more than 180 days (ie you move to London to work) you begin to be charged interest on any loan balance.
Interest-free loans ensure, from a cost perspective, access to education is there for all. The interest-free (if you're in NZ) element ensures New Zealanders are inclined to spend one, two, three... however many years working in New Zealand before heading off overseas. Personally, I finished Uni, worked in NZ for 4 years then moved to London and now the Middle East. I did this because 4 years being able to pay off the principal without incurring interest is valuable, and it also ensures our educated people don't immediately move offshore for better wages.
There's a different perspective for you...
Our student loans (fees) are interest free - the Government pays and we are charged no interest UNTIL we leave New Zealand for more than 180 consecutive days (6 months).
If you have been out of New Zealand for more than 180 days (ie you move to London to work) you begin to be charged interest on any loan balance.
Interest-free loans ensure, from a cost perspective, access to education is there for all. The interest-free (if you're in NZ) element ensures New Zealanders are inclined to spend one, two, three... however many years working in New Zealand before heading off overseas. Personally, I finished Uni, worked in NZ for 4 years then moved to London and now the Middle East. I did this because 4 years being able to pay off the principal without incurring interest is valuable, and it also ensures our educated people don't immediately move offshore for better wages.
There's a different perspective for you...
15
...often, with that inclination to remain in NZ and work to pay off the loan before interest is added, is that people don't actually leave - because they begin to climb career ladders, build relationships and find themselves not seeing any benefit in giving up the careers that started to build in NZ. We say it slows 'the brain drain' - those taking their highly-valued skills offshore!
I'd be interested in discovering whether the plans offered by Sanders and Clinton might work retroactively for recent graduates.
1
Another piece of the puzzle that Bernie Sanders has put forward that is missing from this is that he wants to allow those with student loan debt to refinance for lower interest rates, something that is currently impossible.
Student loans were designed in such a way that no matter what the former student does, they have to pay the full amount with full interest. There are some programs that help with that, like Americorps, but the basic problem of 25% of your income going to student loan payments until you are middle aged means that lots of young people are too poor to buy homes, get married, or have children.
Student loans were designed in such a way that no matter what the former student does, they have to pay the full amount with full interest. There are some programs that help with that, like Americorps, but the basic problem of 25% of your income going to student loan payments until you are middle aged means that lots of young people are too poor to buy homes, get married, or have children.
21
This is two different but related problems.
1) Those who need help to afford college without being driven into debt.
2) Those already driven into debt paying for college.
There is a social cost to driving our young people into debt from the moment they arrive on the scene.
We are all better off if we stop doing that.
We are all better off if we correct what we have already done wrong, doing that.
The underlying reasons this benefits all of us, as a society, are the same, but it is two distinct problems. It may require two distinct answers, depending on how exactly we solve it.
"Stop doing that" is important, but not the same as "We've been doing that wrong for years and there are many victims."
1) Those who need help to afford college without being driven into debt.
2) Those already driven into debt paying for college.
There is a social cost to driving our young people into debt from the moment they arrive on the scene.
We are all better off if we stop doing that.
We are all better off if we correct what we have already done wrong, doing that.
The underlying reasons this benefits all of us, as a society, are the same, but it is two distinct problems. It may require two distinct answers, depending on how exactly we solve it.
"Stop doing that" is important, but not the same as "We've been doing that wrong for years and there are many victims."
12
Someday very soon, you will not be referring to Hiliary Clinton as the "front runner" in the Democratic primary. Bermie Sanders is piling them by the 10's of thousands into public venues. Just so you know, Bernie Sanders has a much more sensible plan, not muddled up with private/pubic gobbly gook, so someone can make a profit off of some kid's back. The kids are our country's future. While Germany makes IPHONE parts and ships them to China to be assembled, what do we make? Germany has an educated public, because education is a priority there. Ditto Norway, Scotland and Sweden. Meanwhile, the people that are here that are educated, are shunted to the back of the line, while corporations hire cheaper immigrants they import. We not only have an ignorance problem, we have a moral one. The higher education itself has become a profit motive entity, essentially, privatizing and streamlining the education right out of existence.
133
You are clearly stating that the U.S. does NOT have "an educated public", and that Americans are more ignorant and less moral than Europeans. Do you have disdain for the 97% Democrat/"Progressive" professors whose earnings place them among the 1% on the backs of the students, i.e., the underclass?
You also express your disdain for a distinction between public and private.
Will you state, outright, that you think German, Norway, Scotland and Sweden are generally superior to the U.S. both intellectually and morally?
And that you advocate socialist, or some other collectivist form of economy? And, using the same measure you apply to the U.S., what are the products we all use that come from Norway, Scotland and Sweden?
Can you admit that you wish the U.S. were less like the U.S. and more like Europe? And, in effect, you really don't like the U.S.
You also express your disdain for a distinction between public and private.
Will you state, outright, that you think German, Norway, Scotland and Sweden are generally superior to the U.S. both intellectually and morally?
And that you advocate socialist, or some other collectivist form of economy? And, using the same measure you apply to the U.S., what are the products we all use that come from Norway, Scotland and Sweden?
Can you admit that you wish the U.S. were less like the U.S. and more like Europe? And, in effect, you really don't like the U.S.
Well, the best way not to take on crippling amounts of debt is by not signing on the dotted line if you can't afford to.
These kids are subsidizing a whole slew of university employees. Instead of trying to find more creative ways for the public to subsidize universities, why not determine why these universities cost that much in the first place?
These kids are subsidizing a whole slew of university employees. Instead of trying to find more creative ways for the public to subsidize universities, why not determine why these universities cost that much in the first place?
6
So are you saying that young people who cannot afford to go to college without taking out a loan should just refuse to go until colleges are managed differently, while the children of the wealthy continue to attend?
36
Agreed, that should be part of the plan. Administrators cost too much; there are too many of them. Having said that, having a well-educated population is a benefit for all Americans. We should help make education possible for all who are capable. That includes trade schools, community colleges, universities and grad schools.
4
Once again I have to write that many comments reflect no understanding of the proposal which, YES, does include having states and universities address aspects of what is a multifaceted situation. This is NOT all about subsidizing universities and students. Read it carefully please.
1
Make student loans easy to write off with bankruptcy. One click and you're in the clear. That should shake things up.
We are creating a class of indentured servants. Instead of working years to repay the cost of their voyage to America, graduates are working years to repay their gamble on the American dream. And the American dream is increasingly looking like a bad bet.
Education debt has become a market commodity. But the market places no value on intangibles like family, philosophy, childhood play, or the transcendent power of literature and art. The market just likes gathering debts that can't be written off.
Education is a public good. We need to protect that. It goes way beyond job training. Curious minds that seek knowledge should be able to find it--without becoming debt slaves.
We are creating a class of indentured servants. Instead of working years to repay the cost of their voyage to America, graduates are working years to repay their gamble on the American dream. And the American dream is increasingly looking like a bad bet.
Education debt has become a market commodity. But the market places no value on intangibles like family, philosophy, childhood play, or the transcendent power of literature and art. The market just likes gathering debts that can't be written off.
Education is a public good. We need to protect that. It goes way beyond job training. Curious minds that seek knowledge should be able to find it--without becoming debt slaves.
201
That would not solve the problem. It would actually make it worse, since it would drive up the costs of loans.
Yes, we need to help people get out from under, but driving them into bankruptcy is no favor to them or to those who are trying to follow them into college.
Yes, we need to help people get out from under, but driving them into bankruptcy is no favor to them or to those who are trying to follow them into college.
4
Sure, it would "shake things up." It would *massively* increase the cost of borrowing for education, because once those debts become more risky, fewer investors would be interested in holding those debts, and the banks would be forced to raise rates to attract investors.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, just that saying "it's simple, do X," rings false to me.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, just that saying "it's simple, do X," rings false to me.
Absolutely this should be done. It is a disgrace that a casino can go bankrupt and discharge its debt but a struggling worker cannot!
Document state by state where the 25% cuts to higher education went. Less tax revenue or increased expenditures somewhere else, such as prisons and pensions for state employees?
4
Our school district just got a millage increase. It also imposed a 3% across the board cut in teacher salaries, and privatized the custodial services so as to cut their pay by half. It is still short of the required cash operating reserve.
Meanwhile, the Republican political machine in Michigan insists on the truth of its campaign ads this last cycle, that there were no cuts.
No cuts? Where did the money go?
They say it was Federal cuts. The Feds gave the state less, because the recession "ended" and so they "had to" pass along the cuts. But it isn't their cuts. They didn't cut. It just got cut.
The lies are smothering. And that is just high school. At the college level, it is even more diffuse and hidden in lies and evasions.
Yes, let us have a real accounting. Independent. Tell us the truth.
BTW, our governor is a CPA. He knows exactly. He just leads the lies. Those who do know are the problem. It isn't unknown, it is lies. That is why it requires an independent investigation. It is telling the rest of us what the powers in charge have been doing to us and the lies they've been telling us. Put like that, I don't expect it any time soon.
Meanwhile, the Republican political machine in Michigan insists on the truth of its campaign ads this last cycle, that there were no cuts.
No cuts? Where did the money go?
They say it was Federal cuts. The Feds gave the state less, because the recession "ended" and so they "had to" pass along the cuts. But it isn't their cuts. They didn't cut. It just got cut.
The lies are smothering. And that is just high school. At the college level, it is even more diffuse and hidden in lies and evasions.
Yes, let us have a real accounting. Independent. Tell us the truth.
BTW, our governor is a CPA. He knows exactly. He just leads the lies. Those who do know are the problem. It isn't unknown, it is lies. That is why it requires an independent investigation. It is telling the rest of us what the powers in charge have been doing to us and the lies they've been telling us. Put like that, I don't expect it any time soon.
6
Here's a multi-faceted idea that references the pervasive economic blight that is part of our disenfranchised African-American community: Offer a free college education to all who can earn entrance into a public university. This might address the never-spoken, but always-present reparations that community is due, having been instrumental, on the backs of their ancestors, as slaves and serfs, in the building of the economic powerhouse that is our country .
4
The Federal government lends our tax money to the criminal banksters at zero interest. They lend money to homeowners at about 4% for home mortgages and they lend to students at 10%. This is a crime.
In addition, the Federal government collects much more than it needs for social security and 'borrows' the surplus as the 'trust fund.' The Feds pay the retirees about 1% for this money, which (as noted above) they lend out at rates varying from zero for banksters to 10% or 11% for student loans. (My daughter's loan from Sallie Mae for tuition is at 10.5%)
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed that all these rates be equalized, probably at around 4%. That would be fair to seniors and students, who are being ripped off, and to banksters who are being subsidized.
To see other practical steps, Go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie (Warren is not running), and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
In addition, the Federal government collects much more than it needs for social security and 'borrows' the surplus as the 'trust fund.' The Feds pay the retirees about 1% for this money, which (as noted above) they lend out at rates varying from zero for banksters to 10% or 11% for student loans. (My daughter's loan from Sallie Mae for tuition is at 10.5%)
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed that all these rates be equalized, probably at around 4%. That would be fair to seniors and students, who are being ripped off, and to banksters who are being subsidized.
To see other practical steps, Go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie (Warren is not running), and invite me to speak to your group. Thank you.
57
It is worse than that. Loans are given in tranches with varying interest rates.
Those who can get by taking on limited loans get interest rates between 2-3%. Those who need more loans pay the higher rates on the rest of the money, 10% without the grace period after the end of school.
Those who have the least are required to pay the most. They carry that burden sooner, as well as heavier.
Those who can get by taking on limited loans get interest rates between 2-3%. Those who need more loans pay the higher rates on the rest of the money, 10% without the grace period after the end of school.
Those who have the least are required to pay the most. They carry that burden sooner, as well as heavier.
4
The immense financial pressure from colleges and universities is encouraging the population to create a freely available online educational system. Future job-seekers will mark their futures with customized, internet-based, marketable degrees. The higher educational system, which currently denies access to more and more individuals, will create its own demise.
An on line degree is better than nothing, but it is not the same.
This suggests we divide our population into those who can get a real college education, and those who get a lesser one.
More stratification, more built in advantages for those with parents who have money, that is the last thing we need.
This suggests we divide our population into those who can get a real college education, and those who get a lesser one.
More stratification, more built in advantages for those with parents who have money, that is the last thing we need.
2
Republican elites don't want grants for college students. That would "cheapen" the value of the education they can afford to pay for their kids.
And, of course, raise their taxes a bit.
I'm not being sardonic.
You gotta like Bernie Sanders' approach. Fund it with a transaction tax on the casino known as Wall Street. After all, that's how a lot of states fund parts of education already, from lotteries -- which, of course, as Adam Smith pointed out long ago are not only stupid gambles, but take money disproportionately from those who can least afford it.
Of course the transaction tax will be opposed by that great Democrat, Senator Knesset Schumer.
BTW, back in 2003, in the run up to the Iraq War, Schumer was repeating Paul Wolfowitz's prediction that tyhe Iraq War would onl;y cost $15 billion.
And, of course, raise their taxes a bit.
I'm not being sardonic.
You gotta like Bernie Sanders' approach. Fund it with a transaction tax on the casino known as Wall Street. After all, that's how a lot of states fund parts of education already, from lotteries -- which, of course, as Adam Smith pointed out long ago are not only stupid gambles, but take money disproportionately from those who can least afford it.
Of course the transaction tax will be opposed by that great Democrat, Senator Knesset Schumer.
BTW, back in 2003, in the run up to the Iraq War, Schumer was repeating Paul Wolfowitz's prediction that tyhe Iraq War would onl;y cost $15 billion.
6
"The problem with higher education is not inadequate ways to pay the high costs, but rather the high costs themselves."
I couldn't agree more. My three years at Harvard Law School cost me $6,750 in tuition, total. My guess is that gets a current HLS student to about Halloween of his or her first year.
I'll venture at least a partial explanation. When I was in law school, at least one very prominent professor lived in a rather shabby house right next to a fire station, with sirens blaring 20-30 times a day (and night). Faculty salaries today are so high that I suspect the professor could simply buy the fire station and tear it down if he doesn't like the noise.
I couldn't agree more. My three years at Harvard Law School cost me $6,750 in tuition, total. My guess is that gets a current HLS student to about Halloween of his or her first year.
I'll venture at least a partial explanation. When I was in law school, at least one very prominent professor lived in a rather shabby house right next to a fire station, with sirens blaring 20-30 times a day (and night). Faculty salaries today are so high that I suspect the professor could simply buy the fire station and tear it down if he doesn't like the noise.
4
Maybe that's the case at Harvard..but many colleges and universities employ professors like Walmart hires..part time and slave wages…not hope of tenure.
4
Mine cost $45,000 in the 70's. I'm told it is over $90,000 today.
Comparing professionals of analogous accomplishment and ability, faculty salaries are miniscule.
2
I think what we chose to spend on or cut says just about everything one needs to know about the values and priorités of that person or organization.
Scott Walker has driven his state into the ground by pursuing a rigid, pro-business agenda paid for on the backs of the working men and women and by cuts to important institutions thst support the middle class.
It astounds me that Walker, a man of modest means, would so turn on his own roots to destroy state universities.
As for Rubio, he has gall to play the "poor card" whe his political patron Brsmante has been all too willing to subsidize his student debt.
I applaud Democratic proposals to invest in higher education and give young people a financial leg up. The devil is in the details: to be effective, policies must hold schools and students accountable.
The proposals put forth by the major parties--financial help for education from Democrats and "nothing" from the GOP-- couldn't make the political distinctions between parties more clear for voters in 2016..
Scott Walker has driven his state into the ground by pursuing a rigid, pro-business agenda paid for on the backs of the working men and women and by cuts to important institutions thst support the middle class.
It astounds me that Walker, a man of modest means, would so turn on his own roots to destroy state universities.
As for Rubio, he has gall to play the "poor card" whe his political patron Brsmante has been all too willing to subsidize his student debt.
I applaud Democratic proposals to invest in higher education and give young people a financial leg up. The devil is in the details: to be effective, policies must hold schools and students accountable.
The proposals put forth by the major parties--financial help for education from Democrats and "nothing" from the GOP-- couldn't make the political distinctions between parties more clear for voters in 2016..
9
"It astounds me that Walker, a man of modest means, would so turn on his own roots"
He saw where the money was, he saw how to get it, and he wanted it. Have-nots are useful tools. He is a useful tool.
He saw where the money was, he saw how to get it, and he wanted it. Have-nots are useful tools. He is a useful tool.
1
@Mark: I fully agree. I call Walker the ultimate GOP "Malleable" candidate (which is why the Kochs love him so), perhaps only second to the malleable Rubio who also talks outside both sides of his mouth, about student debt in particular.
1
It is well established that academically poorly performing students from wealthy backgrounds are more likely to finish college than high performing students from poor families. What this means is that the current system of paying for higher education reinforces existing inequalities rather than breaking them down.
This is not an accident. It is the product of decades of higher education policies intended to transfer the costs of a college education from the state to students and their parents. The motivation for all this is straightforward: it helps keep the rabble in line. Education is a dangerous thing. Giving it free to poor people encourages them to think critically and to imagine that they are full citizens of the society entitled to other things like a living wage and a voice in the political decisions that affect their lives. The system needs compliant workers willing to labor for low wages as much as it needs highly skilled professionals. If you make higher education easily accessible to everyone it runs the risk of raising expectations that the existing social system -- American-dominated global capitalism -- can not meet, and therefore of stirring up social discontent. By making community college the only affordable form of higher education for millions and effectively blocking students from pursuing further education, people are convinced that their failures are their own rather than the system's.
This is not an accident. It is the product of decades of higher education policies intended to transfer the costs of a college education from the state to students and their parents. The motivation for all this is straightforward: it helps keep the rabble in line. Education is a dangerous thing. Giving it free to poor people encourages them to think critically and to imagine that they are full citizens of the society entitled to other things like a living wage and a voice in the political decisions that affect their lives. The system needs compliant workers willing to labor for low wages as much as it needs highly skilled professionals. If you make higher education easily accessible to everyone it runs the risk of raising expectations that the existing social system -- American-dominated global capitalism -- can not meet, and therefore of stirring up social discontent. By making community college the only affordable form of higher education for millions and effectively blocking students from pursuing further education, people are convinced that their failures are their own rather than the system's.
179
Clearly you believe in collectivism, i.e., redistribution of wealth. Surely education is not the only good or service for to which this principle should be applied. For what other goods and services should we do this?
Do you acknowledge publicly that you believe in a collectivist/statist system?
Do you acknowledge publicly that you believe in a collectivist/statist system?
I can't leave my kids a business, or a trust fund , or the family farm (or apartment block as the case may be). Its a darn shame that its nearly impossible to give them an undergraduate education on a professional's income . My guess is that the GOP divides into those who don't value education and those who think any reasonably motivated parent can pay for it. The reality of 50 year old parents laid off, or strapped with their own student debt or paying to raise that adorable second family does not enter into GOP thinking at all, so there is no one in the "real life " group.
5
Another “affordable” plan. First, “affordable” housing programs tanked the entire economy, costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions, if not trillions. Then, the “affordable” care act hiked taxes by $800 B and tacked $1.3 trillion onto the debt, while raising premiums, copays, and deductibles for millions, kicking millions off of plans they liked, but weren't allowed to keep. Now, the left proposes “affordable” college.
Given that leftist “affordable” programs always cost the taxpayer an unholy fortune, it’s clear that the candidates are not really speaking English. It sounds like English, but it’s really Leftspeak, with very different definitions for seemingly common words.
“Affordable (adj.): a good or service provided to Democratic voters at the expense of Republican voters.”
The left is all about handouts. It’s motto, “ask not what you can do for your country; demand other people’s money.”
As it happens, we have a wonderful college affordability program; it’s called ROTC. No adult should ever get anything for free. If you want something, pay for it. If you want help, the people deserve something back. If you’re unwilling to defend the country, go look for a handout somewhere else.
Given that leftist “affordable” programs always cost the taxpayer an unholy fortune, it’s clear that the candidates are not really speaking English. It sounds like English, but it’s really Leftspeak, with very different definitions for seemingly common words.
“Affordable (adj.): a good or service provided to Democratic voters at the expense of Republican voters.”
The left is all about handouts. It’s motto, “ask not what you can do for your country; demand other people’s money.”
As it happens, we have a wonderful college affordability program; it’s called ROTC. No adult should ever get anything for free. If you want something, pay for it. If you want help, the people deserve something back. If you’re unwilling to defend the country, go look for a handout somewhere else.
18
Of course, the only ones 'entitled' are the bankers who are getting their money at almost zero interest. And - only one - of your inaccurate statements - the housing bubble was not caused by making homes affordable. Homes were expensive - ergo the bubble. It was caused by greedy bankers creating 'instruments' to resell mortgages on overpriced (expensive) homes on made-up markets around the world.
I happen to agree that service for kids coming out of high-school is a very good idea (not necessarily in the military - but some kind of service for a few years so kids understand the value of living in this country). But the service should be universal - not just for poor kids. The chikdren of rich parents see what life is really like as well.
I happen to agree that service for kids coming out of high-school is a very good idea (not necessarily in the military - but some kind of service for a few years so kids understand the value of living in this country). But the service should be universal - not just for poor kids. The chikdren of rich parents see what life is really like as well.
I like Bernie's idea best. It places college firmly in the continuum of our national commitment to public education. Like pre-K through 12, it removes the largest burden, tuition, from the backs of individual families and shares it broadly among us all, who benefit in all ways from living as an educated citizenry.
Hillary's plan continues to impose tuition on the individual. This is an extension of the famous Clinton "skin in the game" doctrine that asserts people don't value what they don't have to stretch to afford. The same meaningless canard has been imposed on healthcare and all it really results in is medical debt, defaults, or deferred care.
Hillary's plan continues to impose tuition on the individual. This is an extension of the famous Clinton "skin in the game" doctrine that asserts people don't value what they don't have to stretch to afford. The same meaningless canard has been imposed on healthcare and all it really results in is medical debt, defaults, or deferred care.
14
This seem to me more like a rather lame plan to attract young voters than a serious suggestion to fix an obviously serious problem. First of all, is there any serious study done to see if making Community College free would attract more students and educate more people or raise graduation rates (which is 20% currently as per NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/how-to-improve-graduation-rates... because my experience is very different and I don't think making it free would work. I went to BMCC (Borough of Manhattan Community College) and paid double the amount of tuition that in-State students paid because I was an international student. But since I had paid that money, I worked hard to make sure that I pass every class with a good grade, while I had classmates who had financial aid in addition to lower in-state tuition and most of them would drop classes left and right because it did not cost them anything, so they gave up on it easily. I did not because I was worried about the money that I had paid and did not want to lose it.
We need better solutions to fix this problem but unfortunately Democrats think that raising taxes is solution to everything much like their Republican opponents who think lowering taxes would fix everything, both are wrong however. No wonder Trump is so popular!
We need better solutions to fix this problem but unfortunately Democrats think that raising taxes is solution to everything much like their Republican opponents who think lowering taxes would fix everything, both are wrong however. No wonder Trump is so popular!
4
Seventy percent of students leave college with student debt. Although the average debt is $25,000, the median student debt is $13,000. So half of the 70% of students who have student debt, or 35%, have debt of $13,000 or less. Add that to the 30% who have no debt, and that means 65% of students have $13,000 or less in student loans. The other 35% have debt greater than $13,000, but the average of $25,000 is influenced greatly by the law, MBA and medical school graduates who have six figure debts.
Obama was paid $75,000 per semester to teach a single class as an adjunct lecturer while pulling down a full time salary as a "community organizer" and his wife was pulling down a full time salary working part-time for a charity hospital. Elizabeth Warren was paid $175,000 per semester to teach a single class while also pulling down even larger consulting fees. Mrs. Clinton was paid $250,000 plus luxury travel costs including a private jet and the Presidential suite to give a one hour talk to a college fund donor group.
The reason for high student debt is grossly inflated college costs which are four times what they were when Warren, Clinton and Obama attended college.
State spending on state colleges is 40% higher on a real per capita basis than it was in 1970. The authors cherry pick the timing when they compare 2000 to 2015. It is the college spending that is causing the problem, not inadequate government spending.
Obama was paid $75,000 per semester to teach a single class as an adjunct lecturer while pulling down a full time salary as a "community organizer" and his wife was pulling down a full time salary working part-time for a charity hospital. Elizabeth Warren was paid $175,000 per semester to teach a single class while also pulling down even larger consulting fees. Mrs. Clinton was paid $250,000 plus luxury travel costs including a private jet and the Presidential suite to give a one hour talk to a college fund donor group.
The reason for high student debt is grossly inflated college costs which are four times what they were when Warren, Clinton and Obama attended college.
State spending on state colleges is 40% higher on a real per capita basis than it was in 1970. The authors cherry pick the timing when they compare 2000 to 2015. It is the college spending that is causing the problem, not inadequate government spending.
7
I repeat: Comparing professionals of analogous accomplishment and ability, faculty salaries are miniscule. I add: What greatly inflates college costs, for example, are 1) bloated college administrations staffed with deanlets and deanlings who don't have enough to do (but sometimes still have to be there because of ever-increasing government regulations that require an officer for this and an officer for that), 2) varsity sports, which both mainly lose tons of money and guarantee admission to a disproportionate number of inferior students, 3) the costs of having ever fancier dorms, athletic facilities, student centers, and student services, resulting from the competition to attract students.
2
The way to make college affordable is not to make loans cheaper and more available but to cut tuitions by slashing the absurd costs of runaway college administrations, "student life" amenities, competitive teams in dozens of sports, and highly paid tenured faculty who teach 1 1/2 courses. Yes, various European nations offer free of near-free college -' but what you get there are teachers and classrooms...period...no sports, no fancy dorms, no elaborate student centers, no gourmet meals served in charming dining halls, and no phalanx of non-teaching administrators doing god knows what,
25
Those are not the main problems.
The main financial problem is that the State contribution to college education has been gutted.
Sports are a way to raise money from donors. Faculty is often endowed by wealthy donors with an agenda, and the faculty member spends his time serving that agenda. Student life is a competition for rich students.
The solution is to fund college the way it was funded when I went to college and law school, in the 70's. That worked.
It was changed. It was changed by those who wanted to cut taxes and keep the money. It was not changed to improve college, it was changed despite the damage to serve political ends, greed of those who bought government for the last decades.
The main financial problem is that the State contribution to college education has been gutted.
Sports are a way to raise money from donors. Faculty is often endowed by wealthy donors with an agenda, and the faculty member spends his time serving that agenda. Student life is a competition for rich students.
The solution is to fund college the way it was funded when I went to college and law school, in the 70's. That worked.
It was changed. It was changed by those who wanted to cut taxes and keep the money. It was not changed to improve college, it was changed despite the damage to serve political ends, greed of those who bought government for the last decades.
Amen John. Currently we have several kids in college and these campuses, like many areas of modern American life, are overly "upgraded". We are borrowing money for coffee bars, climbing walls and a full 4 days of entertainment prior to the start of school during orientation week! While some of the changes in schools have been truly needed (I remember really inadequate/dangerous problems in mental health at college the late 70s), we seem to have lost our way in terms of the true mission of higher ed.
1
Why haven't you covered Sanders' proposal until Clinton came out with hers? Clinton is, unsurprisingly, late to the game.
44
Maybe...because Clinton is an "advertiser" with NYT? Haven't you, yet, had her big smiling face come up in your browser while getting to this story?
Odd that this has become a "crisis" in the USA. That we've become outclassed by so many other countries is embarrassing, to say the least. We should be providing the best educational opportunities, in the world, to our citizens. The present reality seems to be the "entitled" 1% have sway over the admissions policies of our best universities (and colleges). This is the antithesis of what should be in play. Less qualified "inside track" applicants should no longer be given ANY preferential consideration. If we truly want our "best and brightest" moving our society forward, the old oligarchy must be pushed aside.
5
I am a retired college professor who has been on the faculty of a large, public college in New York, a large public university in California, and who had tenure at a public university in Ohio. As stated in this article, it is true that there is a "college affordability crisis", but there is also a more insidious problem with college today. Specifically, a number of institutions of higher learning, including some respected public colleges and universities, are producing graduates with degrees that are essentially worthless. A friend's son recently graduated from a major public university with a degree in communications and a student debt of over $40,,000, caused in part by the fact that he had to pay out-of-state tuition. Even though he had a "respectable" B average, he has no job prospects. Another young man I know graduated two years ago from a prestigious state university with a major in general studies and a minor in communications - he is now attempting to sell used cars. As states have reduced funding for many of their institutions of higher education, these colleges have attempted to make up for the lost revenue in a number of ways: increasing tuition and fees and then helping students get loans; attempting to enroll students from out-of-state; offering majors that are not particularly challenging, and so forth. Add to this, Obama's desire to significantly increase college enrollment and you have created a system that is expensive and can produce worthless degrees.
129
College is not just job training.
It is not just how to think rigorously about complex things and express that clearly.
It is not just personal growth and socialization.
It is all of those things. None can be neglected.
It is not just how to think rigorously about complex things and express that clearly.
It is not just personal growth and socialization.
It is all of those things. None can be neglected.
1
Too many high school "graduates" can't do real college work. The "college for all" mantra and the ready availability of money, pull unprepared kids into college, saddle them with debt, so they can take the fluff courses you describe. If the Feds were more lavish with money, it would make this problem much worse, not better.
3
You are 100 percent correct. The problem is greatly exacerbated by many of the "for profit" colleges. I recently saw a documentary exposing the fact that some for profit colleges are preying on veterans by inducing them to enroll, helping them get loans and then handing them worthless degrees. One veteran who had a for-profit-college bachelor's degree in psychology attempted to enroll in a public university's masters program, but he was denied admission because they wouldn't accept his bachelor's degree. Sadly, all he is left with is a worthless degree and a large student debt. To its credit, the Obama administration is attempting to better regulated the for profit colleges - let's hope they succeed.
2
You cite the amount, "adjusted for inflation," that states have reduced aid to colleges, but you do not mention the rate at which colleges have increased tuition in the last thirty years, an omission that is good for the Times' argument for increasing aid but otherwise revelatory. This increase in tuition was brought to students by the student loan program. Increasing again the amount of government money going directly to colleges will similarly increase the colleges' demand for more tuition. Why not add an assistant dean for toothbrush hygiene or some other element of administrative bloat if the money is just flowing in? Why should gardeners, cab drivers, and construction workers have to pay for this?
In any case, the universities are due for creative destruction. They are simply too expensive to justify as they are at present
On the other hand, it's hard not to admire the democrats' ability to pay off this set of political supporters with public money.
In any case, the universities are due for creative destruction. They are simply too expensive to justify as they are at present
On the other hand, it's hard not to admire the democrats' ability to pay off this set of political supporters with public money.
7
If young Americans, 'buried by student loans' are waiting around for a presidential candidate to save them, then they really didn't learn anything in school.
11
Young Americans who've been abused by politicians have learned that they will get nowhere unless they do something about those politicians. They can't get out from under alone, me-and-only-me.
1
Best comment ever.
1
Are you kidding? Kids have learned the new realities just fine. They are a panderworthy group. The kids aren't responsible for taking fluff courses in college, over borrowing, failing to get a job that isn't in Portland where they want to live. No, it's the Republicans and "corporatists" who turned them into dependents of the Democrats.
This issue is close akin to the health care issue. Conservatives believe you must earn access to higher education just as they believe you must earn access to health care. Those in the center or on the left generally believe health care and education should be as accessible as possible. In order for it to be accessible it must be affordable for the poor as well as the rich. Now I'm not saying every high school graduate with a C average should get to go to Harvard, but they sure as heck should get to go to a state college or junior college if they want to. It should not cost them a dime as long as they are passing. If someone fails out then you can say they didn't earn it.
13
I am newly divorced with a 13 year old son and I'm already worrying about how I'm going to pay for his college education without saddling him or myself with crippling debt. My parents could afford to send me to a small, private liberal arts school, so I was lucky enough to come out of college with no debt, but then I went to graduate school on my own dime and I'm still not finished paying those loans off almost 20 years later.
It saddens me to think that I can't afford to provide my son with a college education, even at a state school, without leaving us paying off loans for years to come. He's a smart kid and I'd like him to be able to choose to go to whatever school he wishes - private or not -but short of something approaching a full ride, that's not going to happen.
Increasingly, like many other things, graduating from college without a choking chain of debt around your neck is becoming a privilege only the wealthy can afford.
It saddens me to think that I can't afford to provide my son with a college education, even at a state school, without leaving us paying off loans for years to come. He's a smart kid and I'd like him to be able to choose to go to whatever school he wishes - private or not -but short of something approaching a full ride, that's not going to happen.
Increasingly, like many other things, graduating from college without a choking chain of debt around your neck is becoming a privilege only the wealthy can afford.
11
There are many excellent fields where your son could go without college -- skilled trades that offer paid apprenticeships.
Or he could join the military.
Your problem is tunnel vision. There is no need for the majority of kids to go to college.
Or he could join the military.
Your problem is tunnel vision. There is no need for the majority of kids to go to college.
This proposal just shovels more money at an old system that is increasingly broken. The solution isn't to throw more money at the college-industrial complex. The solution is to change the system by forcing colleges to cut costs. Offer to pay half a student's tuition at $6000, but decrease the subsidy $1 for every $2 tuition is above that. Offer to deduct a students tuition out of his future earnings (pay the college up front, conditionally), but take back half if a student doesn't graduate. Don't just throw more tax money at colleges and universities! They will absorb it like a sponge and demand even more.
28
Does it really matter to The Times what a Republican may or may not suggest regarding college debt? The last Republican the Times supported was Dwight Eisenhower. It is a reasonable assumption that regardless of whom the Democratic or Republican nominee will be, the Times will endorse the Democrat. This editorial is just a warm up for their endorsement of a Democrat as usual. Whatever the merits of a Republican proposal, it will be brushed aside.
14
In the last election for New Jersey Governor, the Times attempted to be "objective" and did not make any endorsement. That attempt to be open minded about Republicans turned out to be a glaring error, with Christie essentially stealing much- needed money for a Hudson River tunnel and using it to avoid raising gas taxes to burnish his record for his Presidential campaign while punishing New Jersey commuters, shaking down Democratic mayors to support his campaign or be punished, eg by " traffic problems in Fort Lee"
As for Republican proposals to make college more affordable, I'm sure the NY Times will analyze one if the Republicans care to propose something other than claiming, "we'll cut costs" with no actual plan.
In fact, not only have Republicams not presented a plan, but they have blocked votes on repeated attempts by Democrats to help struggling young people deal with college debt.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/236918-republicans-block-wa...
As for Republican proposals to make college more affordable, I'm sure the NY Times will analyze one if the Republicans care to propose something other than claiming, "we'll cut costs" with no actual plan.
In fact, not only have Republicams not presented a plan, but they have blocked votes on repeated attempts by Democrats to help struggling young people deal with college debt.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/236918-republicans-block-wa...
I highly doubt there will be a Republican proposal, save for Marco Rubio's insulting option.
Considering that Republicans have never offered any assistance to the working people or the poor, why should anyone support them? Republcians are all about taking away programs and giving all the assistance they can to the corporate crooks and the Wall street mafia. Republicans are a reverse of the Robin Hood story.
1
I serve on the governing board of a community college in rural Arizona. Despite severe cuts in state support, we recently created some special discounts and scholarships that make our college even more affordable. High school juniors and seniors can take seven tuition-free credits per semester. Students who have just completed high school get 12 tuition-free credits that summer. The final 12 credits of a two-year, 64-credit degree are also tuition-free. Summer session credits for all students are half-price. And all developmental courses are half-price. Our current cost per credit hour is $68. That means a student could get a two-year degree or the first half of a bachelor’s degree for less than $1,000 in tuition. Now, that’s a great value!
11
"Lets throw money at the problem" is not a solution. I realize the NYT Editorial board shan't debase themselves by actually following political candidates not of the Democratic Party, but there are ideas out there that don't involve shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars into a broken system.
15
So what plans are the Republicans offering?
If the federal government would step out of education -- with all its federal un-funded mandates like Title IX false rape accusation tribunals -- the cost may lower.
All this will do will be to put government MORE into education.
And at a average cost to the tax player of $1,500 per year -- each American will pay that each year to send students to college with ease to study the feminist doctrine of men being evil and women being good.
All this will do will be to put government MORE into education.
And at a average cost to the tax player of $1,500 per year -- each American will pay that each year to send students to college with ease to study the feminist doctrine of men being evil and women being good.
2
Colleges these day are essentially resorts with education as a side business. The private university near me has a stadium, skating rink, bakery, cafeteria with a delivery service, multiple gyms open past midnight, and housing ranging from townhouses to dormitories. They also have their own police force. But they're not the only ones expanding. Even the local community college has a brand new football field in addition to the arena it built for concerts. How is all of this related to education? We need to figure out a way to get colleges to focus solely on education, not discuss ways to continue subsidizing overly aggressive college expansion plans.
50
Why all the amenities? Colleges are competing with each other to get the students' grant and loan money. They are mining the government and using the kids as the diggers.
No.
None of these ambitious plans should go forward until the fundamental question is answered first: why does college cost so much? In the space of about two generations, college went from something that almost any middle economic group family could afford to something that involves mountains of debt and years of worry and few can pay.
What went wrong? Why is the actual burden of teaching undergraduates shifted more and more to low paid, part time adjunct professors while the costs rise faster the Jack's beanstalk?
Mrs. Clinton's concept is unfortunately another example of the way Democrats typically deal with problems: spend a massive amount of money on top of prior commitments without addressing the rot at the core of the system. Spending more and more without first finding out what is going on and what needs to be changed is wasteful and can contribute a whole new batch of problems.
The existence of student loans in the first place is one factor behind the rise of tuition. Those loans allowed colleges to engage in a arms race of amenity creation and building construction, all in an effort to maintain high ratings with US News and to satisfy college presidents and their incurable edifice complex.
Student loans that last for years are a travesty, a crime by older generations on the young, a watered down form of indentured servitude. First, find why tuition has gone so high, then find a way for more to go without having 90lb. weights strapped on their backs.
None of these ambitious plans should go forward until the fundamental question is answered first: why does college cost so much? In the space of about two generations, college went from something that almost any middle economic group family could afford to something that involves mountains of debt and years of worry and few can pay.
What went wrong? Why is the actual burden of teaching undergraduates shifted more and more to low paid, part time adjunct professors while the costs rise faster the Jack's beanstalk?
Mrs. Clinton's concept is unfortunately another example of the way Democrats typically deal with problems: spend a massive amount of money on top of prior commitments without addressing the rot at the core of the system. Spending more and more without first finding out what is going on and what needs to be changed is wasteful and can contribute a whole new batch of problems.
The existence of student loans in the first place is one factor behind the rise of tuition. Those loans allowed colleges to engage in a arms race of amenity creation and building construction, all in an effort to maintain high ratings with US News and to satisfy college presidents and their incurable edifice complex.
Student loans that last for years are a travesty, a crime by older generations on the young, a watered down form of indentured servitude. First, find why tuition has gone so high, then find a way for more to go without having 90lb. weights strapped on their backs.
59
No. Cost who?
Before, government carried much more of the load for public universities.
That was shifted onto the students.
Before, government carried much more of the load for public universities.
That was shifted onto the students.
1
It is my belief that this is not correct, Mr. Thomason. It is certainly true that in the aftermath of the Great Recession that states one after another cut the amount they were supplying to state colleges and universities, but the rapid increase in tuition pre-dated the recession. Something else went wrong, off the track.
These days, everyone answers almost any problem with "We can't afford it!". This, again, is a cop out. Once we could afford it. Why can't we afford it now?
Universities, like governments, operate with fixed items in the budget that are not changed or challenged. They start they year with 140 million dollars, or half a billion, budgeted and then say, "Okay, what can we add?" One factor has been to consistently lower the teaching loans of professors, shifting the burden of paying for their research time onto the students. Lowing teaching hours represents a kind of backdoor salary increase for professors.
Can we "afford" any more to allow professors one full year off for every seven years of teaching?
The economics of our society are increasingly slipping out of balance. Why? Without a good answer, spending more billions will ultimately not resolve anything. Besides, if the federal govt. steps in, that would help to remove the burden from the states to play a more significant role in funding, thus Republican states could cut taxes and then continue to blame every tax increase in the nation on the Democrats.
These days, everyone answers almost any problem with "We can't afford it!". This, again, is a cop out. Once we could afford it. Why can't we afford it now?
Universities, like governments, operate with fixed items in the budget that are not changed or challenged. They start they year with 140 million dollars, or half a billion, budgeted and then say, "Okay, what can we add?" One factor has been to consistently lower the teaching loans of professors, shifting the burden of paying for their research time onto the students. Lowing teaching hours represents a kind of backdoor salary increase for professors.
Can we "afford" any more to allow professors one full year off for every seven years of teaching?
The economics of our society are increasingly slipping out of balance. Why? Without a good answer, spending more billions will ultimately not resolve anything. Besides, if the federal govt. steps in, that would help to remove the burden from the states to play a more significant role in funding, thus Republican states could cut taxes and then continue to blame every tax increase in the nation on the Democrats.
1
"None of these ambitious plans should go forward until the fundamental question is answered first: why does college cost so much?"
But there's a simple answer to that question: the public college system does not actually cost more than it used to, it's just that students and their parents pay a much larger share of it today. In the 1960s, state governments covered about 80% of public college expenses; this went down to 50% in the 1990s, and has since been dropping, to only about about 25% today. Colleges have had no choice but to raise tuition and fees only to keep their funding level. We can only go back to the good old days by raising state/government funding back to what it used to be.
But there's a simple answer to that question: the public college system does not actually cost more than it used to, it's just that students and their parents pay a much larger share of it today. In the 1960s, state governments covered about 80% of public college expenses; this went down to 50% in the 1990s, and has since been dropping, to only about about 25% today. Colleges have had no choice but to raise tuition and fees only to keep their funding level. We can only go back to the good old days by raising state/government funding back to what it used to be.
Five years ago I went back to school, hoping to start a second career. Racked up $60k in debt in a two-year program, and so far have earned a total of $25k in the following three years in that profession--not nearly enough to pay off my loans.
The problem begins with a lack of high-paying, high-skills jobs that don't require a college degree. Not everyone is ready for, or qualified for, a four-year college. But higher education has become such an expectation that a lot of schools simply open their doors to students who have no chance of earning a meaningful degree, and instead end up with $100k of debt with nothing worthwhile to show for it.
We need to make it easier to go to school for those who want to go, cheaper to afford, and make sure the degree is worthwhile. Math, science, trades or liberal arts, it makes no difference, but the degree has to mean something, and open a door to a promising future, not chain them to a mountain of debt.
The problem begins with a lack of high-paying, high-skills jobs that don't require a college degree. Not everyone is ready for, or qualified for, a four-year college. But higher education has become such an expectation that a lot of schools simply open their doors to students who have no chance of earning a meaningful degree, and instead end up with $100k of debt with nothing worthwhile to show for it.
We need to make it easier to go to school for those who want to go, cheaper to afford, and make sure the degree is worthwhile. Math, science, trades or liberal arts, it makes no difference, but the degree has to mean something, and open a door to a promising future, not chain them to a mountain of debt.
7
I would take this editorial more seriously if the writers of it attempted to look at the true root cause of this problem, which is that college costs have gone up at multiples of the average inflation rate for the past several decades. There are lots of reasons I read as to why this has happened, including no incentive for colleges to control costs (because students can borrow from the government for their tuition so have not been that concerned with the sticker price - what happens whenever you are spending 'other peoples money'); lavish new building programs (on dorms, cafeterias, sports facilities, etc...); and increasing overheads (including multiple more VP type jobs that pay well into six figures).
There is also the basic truth that many high paying, high skilled jobs in this new economy do not require a 4 year college degree, but specialized education that you can get in community colleges, trade schools, etc....
But, instead of a serious discussion on any of these issues we get the typical progressive call for another government program costing hundreds of billions of dollars, that will be magically paid for by taxing "the rich".
There is also the basic truth that many high paying, high skilled jobs in this new economy do not require a 4 year college degree, but specialized education that you can get in community colleges, trade schools, etc....
But, instead of a serious discussion on any of these issues we get the typical progressive call for another government program costing hundreds of billions of dollars, that will be magically paid for by taxing "the rich".
5
You make some interesting points. Too bad you then ruin it by taking pot shots at "progressives". People's hearing is vastly improved when they're not being insulted.
Just think: Germany, and some countries in the Middle East, make higher education accessible without tuition. How do they do it? Why can't we imitate them? Germany's "freedom to learn" was not originally imported into the US, but maybe it's time we, the richest country on earth, should make sure that this freedom stands protected.
8
Student loans are another way to transfer wealth from the middle class upward. The government loans money to banks at a very low interest rates and insures the student loans, and students spend years paying back the loans, while applying their skills to the benefit of their employers.
10
Link governmental student loan assistance to some type of two year national service.
5
One of the reasons that College is so unaffordable is that the government makes student loans freely available and allows students to borrow huge amounts of money. The colleges respond by increasing tuition.
Both Clinton and Sanders would increase the government involvement even more, hiking taxes to pay for students tuition. Clinton's hikes are of course "unspecified", and Sanders's financial transaction tax has already been shown to be a disaster for the financial industry.
Glad to see the Democrats are taking this issue so "seriously", while pandering for votes. Why not just throw out free loaves of bread at each party rally?
Both Clinton and Sanders would increase the government involvement even more, hiking taxes to pay for students tuition. Clinton's hikes are of course "unspecified", and Sanders's financial transaction tax has already been shown to be a disaster for the financial industry.
Glad to see the Democrats are taking this issue so "seriously", while pandering for votes. Why not just throw out free loaves of bread at each party rally?
8
"The colleges respond by increasing tuition."
No, the States responded by cutting their support. Their idea was, if the Feds would help the students, then make the students pay.
The Feds created Land Grant Colleges in the 1800's to make college affordable. It was for a long time. The change was deliberate, and Republican driven.
No, the States responded by cutting their support. Their idea was, if the Feds would help the students, then make the students pay.
The Feds created Land Grant Colleges in the 1800's to make college affordable. It was for a long time. The change was deliberate, and Republican driven.
Assuming the editorial is correct, those who borrow to complete college have an average debt at graduation that is roughly three quarters the purchase price of an average new car, about $33,500. Undoubtedly there are many with larger debts, and some with much larger debts, just as many cars cost more than the average and some cost far more.
Superficially, graduates with debt are likely to have to forego buying a new car for some years to pay off their debt, arguably a reasonable exchange for the education the degree should represent, and not too much to ask - assuming. as most people do, that the education will translate into employment at a suitably high salary. That is not always the case, however. Reports of college graduates living at home with parents and working entry level jobs at fast food restaurants suggest that an oversupply of college graduates is driving the average compensation down.
Not everyone has the necessary intelligence, inclination, temperament, and drive to justify post secondary education. Those who do should be encouraged, and any barriers that stand in their way removed to the extent possible, but it is clear that universal college education is an unrealistic goal that would be meaningless if actually attained. Education to the common core standard would be entirely adequate for many more jobs than require university level education, and a great many critical jobs require knowledge that no college or university teaches.
Superficially, graduates with debt are likely to have to forego buying a new car for some years to pay off their debt, arguably a reasonable exchange for the education the degree should represent, and not too much to ask - assuming. as most people do, that the education will translate into employment at a suitably high salary. That is not always the case, however. Reports of college graduates living at home with parents and working entry level jobs at fast food restaurants suggest that an oversupply of college graduates is driving the average compensation down.
Not everyone has the necessary intelligence, inclination, temperament, and drive to justify post secondary education. Those who do should be encouraged, and any barriers that stand in their way removed to the extent possible, but it is clear that universal college education is an unrealistic goal that would be meaningless if actually attained. Education to the common core standard would be entirely adequate for many more jobs than require university level education, and a great many critical jobs require knowledge that no college or university teaches.
1
I had the benefit of the GI Bill in the late 1940s in being able to attend Wayne Univ. in Detroit. And then being able to attend UC Berkeley in the early 1950s as a resident of California. Without the free tuition, I doubt that I would have made use of these educational possibilities that I am sure was also an advantage to the country.
8
"Another Republican candidate, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, has caused great harm to the University of Wisconsin system by cutting $250 million from its budget," but of course the Times would frame it as no benefit to the state.
5
It was not a benefit to the state.
He also cut taxes on his narrow band of political supporters. They were the only ones who benefited from that.
"The State," as in the people who live there, lost out again.
He also cut taxes on his narrow band of political supporters. They were the only ones who benefited from that.
"The State," as in the people who live there, lost out again.
1
That would be because it isn't of benefit to the state.
1
Higher education is an investment that pays VERY well for society. The individual graduate gains more or less depending on the chosen major, etc. while the society gains in a broader sense, regardless. States would do well to fund their colleges very generously in order to keep tuition to nominal rates AND to promote scholarly research, etc.
For example, Silicon valley exists because there were several top schools in the area. Before the 1980's, the U. of Wisconsin had a strong world wide lead in biotech sciences. The reason that Madison is not today, the center of world biotech advancement is that the state underfunded its university for the past 40 years. Now that state is being run by people who so underappreciate what they have left that they propose to strangle what remains. The onus of bad behavior is on the state legislators!
If state colleges had very modest tuition prices, it would exert downward pressure on private college prices, too. Private colleges would have to compete with the best state institutions.
For example, Silicon valley exists because there were several top schools in the area. Before the 1980's, the U. of Wisconsin had a strong world wide lead in biotech sciences. The reason that Madison is not today, the center of world biotech advancement is that the state underfunded its university for the past 40 years. Now that state is being run by people who so underappreciate what they have left that they propose to strangle what remains. The onus of bad behavior is on the state legislators!
If state colleges had very modest tuition prices, it would exert downward pressure on private college prices, too. Private colleges would have to compete with the best state institutions.
6
Our whole economic future depends on that educated population.
As a society, we depend on that. We need it.
We won't pay for it, not even as much as our parents paid for it.
As a society, we depend on that. We need it.
We won't pay for it, not even as much as our parents paid for it.
It would seem wiser to focus on middle class jobs as a priority rather than free University tuition for everyone. As it stands now, so many young people graduate from college and are stuck living at home with their parents as there just aren't many opportunities unless they decide to pursue a graduate degree in a field which is in high demand by employers.
Why not encourage students to channel their energies into certain fields by offering free tuition in majors which provide public-private partnerships & internships for college credits? This way the students who decide to major in basketweaving, womans or ethnic studies, hair design, couturier studies or the Classics would only be allowed free tuition if they have a plan as to how they will develop the major into a real job after graduation. Also, mandate that the free tuition is discontinued if the student's GPA falls below 2.0 to discourage slackers from signing up to postpone their eventual fate of working 8-5 in the real world after graduation. Also, since college is just a chance to party for many 18 year olds right out of high school and away from home for the first time, why not require that the students have a work study program. This would provide them with opportunities to develop responsibility & work skills instead of being given free college w/o any expectations thus encouraging partying & experimental risk taking behavior & no expectations nor preparation for real life.
Why not encourage students to channel their energies into certain fields by offering free tuition in majors which provide public-private partnerships & internships for college credits? This way the students who decide to major in basketweaving, womans or ethnic studies, hair design, couturier studies or the Classics would only be allowed free tuition if they have a plan as to how they will develop the major into a real job after graduation. Also, mandate that the free tuition is discontinued if the student's GPA falls below 2.0 to discourage slackers from signing up to postpone their eventual fate of working 8-5 in the real world after graduation. Also, since college is just a chance to party for many 18 year olds right out of high school and away from home for the first time, why not require that the students have a work study program. This would provide them with opportunities to develop responsibility & work skills instead of being given free college w/o any expectations thus encouraging partying & experimental risk taking behavior & no expectations nor preparation for real life.
43
Another commenter spoke of a student who graduates with a "respectable" B average. Grade inflation, however, has made a B less respectable than it once was. Along with requiring that students maintain a 2.0 average, the universities should be held to account for their students' outcomes--are the A and B students really learning at an A and B level. This, however, would be a very sticky fight.
1
The Federal Reserve recently released a report that a main driver (not the only driver, but a main driver) of increasing college costs is the abundance of state and federal aid. It increases demand on a finite supply.
Why not stem the tide and have less aid? As colleges need to fill seats, they will lower the tuition to achieve that.
Why not stem the tide and have less aid? As colleges need to fill seats, they will lower the tuition to achieve that.
8
These "plans" are just the same as the "Affordable Care Act"... they won't actually decrease costs - which only will make it more burdensome for the middle class. Dreamers, dreamers.
6
And yet another government handout will just add to the huge debt that the future generations will already have to pay through very high taxation. Please explain how that is being responsible and sensitive to the young people of America.
56
We are told tax cuts will trickle down to benefit everybody. They assure us this will not burden the future, because tax cuts will pay for themselves with growth of the tax base. That does not happen, but we keep trying more and more.
Education for our workforce DOES trickle down. It is essential to our economy. It does spur growth, and so will pay for itself. Tax cut type people won't do it. Their excuse is it will burden the future.
They just want tax cuts, and any excuse will do.
Education for our workforce DOES trickle down. It is essential to our economy. It does spur growth, and so will pay for itself. Tax cut type people won't do it. Their excuse is it will burden the future.
They just want tax cuts, and any excuse will do.
6
Let me see--tax burden on the rich or student loan debt burden on the poor--not a hard decision.
4
Len, this generation of adults is leaving a mess for our children, and high taxation isn't the primary problem.
You live in Duchess County, where we lost something like 20,000 or more high tech jobs in the last two decades. So you know what the impact on the economy has been, leaving openings in unskilled jobs or a very few highly skilled jobs, driving down opportunity not just in high tech, but in all the services that supported the industry as well. We have driven down income, driven down property values, which drives up tax rates.
Fixing the job market is the best place to start, and leaving our children a legacy of good jobs and low debt is more useful to them than nattering on about taxes. They will then buy houses, hire plumbers and remodel rooms, buy furniture, go to restaurants, buy cars, and increase community income which will lower the tax rates.
Crippling the next generation with personal debt just so they can enter the job market is even worse than crippling them with national debt and taxes. We owe it to our children to fix. this. now.
You live in Duchess County, where we lost something like 20,000 or more high tech jobs in the last two decades. So you know what the impact on the economy has been, leaving openings in unskilled jobs or a very few highly skilled jobs, driving down opportunity not just in high tech, but in all the services that supported the industry as well. We have driven down income, driven down property values, which drives up tax rates.
Fixing the job market is the best place to start, and leaving our children a legacy of good jobs and low debt is more useful to them than nattering on about taxes. They will then buy houses, hire plumbers and remodel rooms, buy furniture, go to restaurants, buy cars, and increase community income which will lower the tax rates.
Crippling the next generation with personal debt just so they can enter the job market is even worse than crippling them with national debt and taxes. We owe it to our children to fix. this. now.
1
With two graduate degrees I have racked up some student loans and I have no problem with my responsibility to pay them back. Where I do have a problem is congress turning a blind eye and a deaf ear allowing interest rates on student loans in the ball park of 7-9%, that is absurd and shameful. It is especially shameful when we consider that financial institutions during the bailouts were given rates between 0-1%.
194
I suppose my first question would be a familiar one by Republicans to Democrats who propose to pay for something by "capping unspecified deductions wealthy families can take on their income taxes". The question, of course, is how Mrs. Clinton defines "wealthy families", because, frankly, we don't trust her or any other Democrat to define that, and we have the votes to stop her from imposing on America any definition we reject. So, what's the definition?
You see, if she's referring to Warren Buffett, then that's probably not a real hard sell -- even to Warren Buffett. But if it's an independent small businessperson who makes, say $300,000, then she can't have it because she can't assemble the votes. And that's just an example -- different people have different definitions of "wealthy".
Bernie's financial transactions tax is DOA: Republicans are not going to approve new taxes, period. It's FAR harder to enact a new tax than it is to raise an existing one, and it's funny how existing ones have a way of almost never being reduced but regularly rising. Taxes are necessary, but eternally rising taxes are not.
We need to step out of the box on post-secondary education (and decidedly on primary and secondary education, as well). There needs to be an effective retail version of college education that can be made affordable for millions without incurring vast debt or requiring vast subsidies -- MOOCs offer a possibility, and we should be focusing on expanding them dramatically.
You see, if she's referring to Warren Buffett, then that's probably not a real hard sell -- even to Warren Buffett. But if it's an independent small businessperson who makes, say $300,000, then she can't have it because she can't assemble the votes. And that's just an example -- different people have different definitions of "wealthy".
Bernie's financial transactions tax is DOA: Republicans are not going to approve new taxes, period. It's FAR harder to enact a new tax than it is to raise an existing one, and it's funny how existing ones have a way of almost never being reduced but regularly rising. Taxes are necessary, but eternally rising taxes are not.
We need to step out of the box on post-secondary education (and decidedly on primary and secondary education, as well). There needs to be an effective retail version of college education that can be made affordable for millions without incurring vast debt or requiring vast subsidies -- MOOCs offer a possibility, and we should be focusing on expanding them dramatically.
3
"The country has a college affordability crisis. But only candidates from one party are taking it seriously"
Kudos to Clinton for at least hinting at putting some focus on the supply/university side.. But 750Bn from a "small transaction tax"? Unspecified deductions? This is hardly serious. Or as Krugman would say (of the other side, of course) -- a magic asterisk has been pencilled in.
Keep in mind of course this comes on top of the other double/triple counted revenues -- what was it ? Oh yeah, uncapping SS, extrac cap gains and a single payer system ...
Kudos to Clinton for at least hinting at putting some focus on the supply/university side.. But 750Bn from a "small transaction tax"? Unspecified deductions? This is hardly serious. Or as Krugman would say (of the other side, of course) -- a magic asterisk has been pencilled in.
Keep in mind of course this comes on top of the other double/triple counted revenues -- what was it ? Oh yeah, uncapping SS, extrac cap gains and a single payer system ...
3
It's covenient that your paper consistently takes the side of the Democrats.
I am not surprised, but it's an interesting observation. Your editorial board consistently does this, and it's just amazing to me.
More to the point, very rarely does your editorial board ever allow anything (except perhaps the token comments of Ross Douthat) to be published that conflicts with the decidedly liberal-slant of the New York Times.
There's no substance in what these candidates are talking about, and Bernie Sanders's position would totally destroy the American economy...because he's a democratic socialist.
I am not surprised, but it's an interesting observation. Your editorial board consistently does this, and it's just amazing to me.
More to the point, very rarely does your editorial board ever allow anything (except perhaps the token comments of Ross Douthat) to be published that conflicts with the decidedly liberal-slant of the New York Times.
There's no substance in what these candidates are talking about, and Bernie Sanders's position would totally destroy the American economy...because he's a democratic socialist.
7
It takes the side of the population, as against a rich donor elite. If that defines out Republicans, then that is a problem for Republicans to face.
Don't be so naive Mark, you sound like someone who drank the proverbial kool-aide.
The New York Times takes the side of a particular portion of the population (which probably doesn't even account for a majority of Americans).
And both you and the Times Editorial Board sound like Socialists or Communists. Not every businessman or wealth individual constitutes a part of the feared "rich donor elite" there are plent of rich donor elites on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
I am simply pointing out the fact that, if the New York Times, styles itself as a national newspapers that puts out there "All the news that's fit to print" then it should not limit itself consistently on all the issues (economic, social, religious, cultural, racial), to a dogmatic unflinching commitment to liberalism...that doesn't even try to present objectively the news that matters to most people. That's my problem, that's all I am saying.
On Planned Parenthood, the Times automatically takes the side of Planned Parenthood without out even raising the possibility that the accusations might have some substance? Why? Because the opposing view doesn't fit into the mindset or the politics of the editorial board. And in my mind, for what's its worth, there's something wrong with that.
In the same way, that if you look at FOX News or CNN or MSNBC you will get a particular poliitcal slant, I am not saying that's right either.
The New York Times takes the side of a particular portion of the population (which probably doesn't even account for a majority of Americans).
And both you and the Times Editorial Board sound like Socialists or Communists. Not every businessman or wealth individual constitutes a part of the feared "rich donor elite" there are plent of rich donor elites on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
I am simply pointing out the fact that, if the New York Times, styles itself as a national newspapers that puts out there "All the news that's fit to print" then it should not limit itself consistently on all the issues (economic, social, religious, cultural, racial), to a dogmatic unflinching commitment to liberalism...that doesn't even try to present objectively the news that matters to most people. That's my problem, that's all I am saying.
On Planned Parenthood, the Times automatically takes the side of Planned Parenthood without out even raising the possibility that the accusations might have some substance? Why? Because the opposing view doesn't fit into the mindset or the politics of the editorial board. And in my mind, for what's its worth, there's something wrong with that.
In the same way, that if you look at FOX News or CNN or MSNBC you will get a particular poliitcal slant, I am not saying that's right either.
1
Excited about these proposals and hope that graduate schools get similar attention. The interest rates on my federal student loans from law school are 6.8%, 7.9%, and 8.5%. This is why Millennials aren't buying houses. Please, let's get some attention on graduate school as well as college.
3
Give student loans bankruptcy protection. Bankruptcy has serious consequences and is not undertaken lightly, but even so is a welcome relief for students whose debts are so great a burden that they are literally life-ruining.
2
I echo ExPeter - give the states a billion dollars and tuition goes up a billion dollars. As a middle class parent with no hope of any aid from the FAFSA process I say NO! Why do you think health care and education are so expensive now?
4
It's plain and simple what needs to be done immediately, lower interest rates on student loans from the ludicrous 7-8% to something that allows borrowers a shot at impacting their principle. Why are students paying rates like this while financial institutions who were bailed out continue to pay at rates in the ballpark of 1%? shame on congress for this.
374
You know the answer.
Because banks pay large amounts of money to politicians to pass policies to their benefit.
I noticed that my private loans had been purchased by BNY Mellon who then get a stream of interest income. It's simple transfer of wealth from lower income students (who need loans) to wealthy banks.
Because banks pay large amounts of money to politicians to pass policies to their benefit.
I noticed that my private loans had been purchased by BNY Mellon who then get a stream of interest income. It's simple transfer of wealth from lower income students (who need loans) to wealthy banks.
1
Loan default rates are at 13.7% within 3 years of starting repayment. Since interest rates should reflect risk of default, interest rates are too low, not too high.
Source: http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/pub//CDR_2014_NR.pdf
Source: http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/pub//CDR_2014_NR.pdf
3
Ah. And what percentage would that be? And how did you arrive at it?
Vote for me! I'll give you free stuff paid for by that guy over there!
9
Finally, Democrats are putting higher education front and center!! Although the proposals do not yet include many details, and may not reflect the complexity of the nuanced world of higher education, this is a noble and overdue conversation that we as a society have to have. As students and their families demand and expect more elaborate facilities, better food in the cafeteria, so goes the tuition. As students come to class with very serious academic deficiencies, and student support centers explode, so goes the tuition. As the government and other constituencies (rightly) demand more accountability, administration expands to prove accountability at all levels, so goes the tuition. In the middle of all this, institutions of all types are forced to rely on adjunct faculty--less expensive, with little or no commitment to the institution, certainly not to the extent that most full-time faculty make. Tuition is not always related, in fact, to the quality of the education, but to the administration that defines and justifies it.
Nonetheless, I think that we are the cusp of a necessary and complicated conversation of how make a college degree affordable--good for all of us and necessary for the future of the US.
Nonetheless, I think that we are the cusp of a necessary and complicated conversation of how make a college degree affordable--good for all of us and necessary for the future of the US.
46
T"hey are paying more in large part because state governments reduced higher education spending by 25 percent per student between 2000 and 2014 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association."
And because legions of university administrators at public universities are making a killing in ridiculously high salaries, salaries that are funded by student loan debt. The chancellors and presidents of most public universities make more than the President of the United States. And the top-heavy administrative class consumes a huge share of the tuition that students pay. Most public universities are also using underpaid adjuncts to teach (more than 75% of undergraduate classes at the University of Colorado Boulder are taught by adjuncts who have no retirement benefits and no job security) and so cut costs where it really hurts, and inflate their own salaries where it is not deserved. That needs to change if higher education is going to fulfill its mission. If state legislatures are going to cut funding for education, they need to mandate that administrators, who are state employees, not be allowed to make six figure salaries well in excess of $250-$500K per year. That is just obscene.
And because legions of university administrators at public universities are making a killing in ridiculously high salaries, salaries that are funded by student loan debt. The chancellors and presidents of most public universities make more than the President of the United States. And the top-heavy administrative class consumes a huge share of the tuition that students pay. Most public universities are also using underpaid adjuncts to teach (more than 75% of undergraduate classes at the University of Colorado Boulder are taught by adjuncts who have no retirement benefits and no job security) and so cut costs where it really hurts, and inflate their own salaries where it is not deserved. That needs to change if higher education is going to fulfill its mission. If state legislatures are going to cut funding for education, they need to mandate that administrators, who are state employees, not be allowed to make six figure salaries well in excess of $250-$500K per year. That is just obscene.
6
The problem with this article is its title...Democrats or Hillary?
NYT at it again...
NYT at it again...
3
The Democrats haven't offered a way to make college more affordable, they have offered up a way to get others to pay for their unaffordable college education.
Both public and private university tuition costs have increased at well over the rate of inflation and an increasing percentage classes are taught by adjuncts and non-tenured professors. So it would seem that the costs may just relate from low teaching loads for tenured staff, a more than slight increase in the number of admin staff, pensions and other post employment retirement benefits (i.e. Health care for life).
So why doesn't the Times address the cost of delivery, (other than the obvious explanation that people in these types of professions tend to be Democrats), rather than propose to keep the delivery mechanism in place and shift the cost to others?
Both public and private university tuition costs have increased at well over the rate of inflation and an increasing percentage classes are taught by adjuncts and non-tenured professors. So it would seem that the costs may just relate from low teaching loads for tenured staff, a more than slight increase in the number of admin staff, pensions and other post employment retirement benefits (i.e. Health care for life).
So why doesn't the Times address the cost of delivery, (other than the obvious explanation that people in these types of professions tend to be Democrats), rather than propose to keep the delivery mechanism in place and shift the cost to others?
4
Tail wags dog. The more the school costs get subsidized, the more the schools will charge to build dorms that look like extended stay hotels and rock climbing walls and "state of the art" lecture halls. None of it improves the quality of the education. I had 3 kids in college at the same time a couple years ago. The facilities at the 3 state universities were over-the-top. Just nuts. We took the scholarships and grants gratefully, but you can't tell me most of that money went to educating my children. The salaries of the CEOs at the schools was enormous, too. I gotta stop – bloods starting to boil....
8
I'm glad to see that Democrats (only, as usual) are talking about ways to make public colleges and loans more affordable. Of course college loans should be refinanceable at lower interest rates as are mortgages! And shame on Republicans in states like Wisconsin and my state of North Carolina for undermining their own great state university systems.
However, having said that, I do NOT agree that public universities should be free nor do I agree that no student should ever have to take out a loan to pay tuition. I think that all students and their families should have some skin in the game, and should not be afraid to incur loans that are affordable and proportional to the benefits of a university education. Everyone has to participate here, the federal government and its taxpayers, the state governments and their taxpayers, the universities themselves which need to moderate cost increases, and the students themselves. If they are paying something they will take it more seriously.
However, having said that, I do NOT agree that public universities should be free nor do I agree that no student should ever have to take out a loan to pay tuition. I think that all students and their families should have some skin in the game, and should not be afraid to incur loans that are affordable and proportional to the benefits of a university education. Everyone has to participate here, the federal government and its taxpayers, the state governments and their taxpayers, the universities themselves which need to moderate cost increases, and the students themselves. If they are paying something they will take it more seriously.
84
So, where is the money coming from?
Taxpayers.
Not the people who are actually going to school.
Taxpayers.
Not the people who are actually going to school.
In the Democrat's twisted logic, they are going to increase college costs by throwing government money at it. Where does that money come from? They don't know/don't tell. But one thing is certain - college costs go up because they are "evil" capitalists who charge what the (heavily-subsidized) market will pay.
I know economics science is wasted on the typical Democrat, but the bottom line is, you can fix this if only you had the stomach to tell your liberal Harvard professors exactly how much they will make per student, just as you do doctors for Medicare and Medicaid - and the rest of the country will be entertained by the collective howl.
I know economics science is wasted on the typical Democrat, but the bottom line is, you can fix this if only you had the stomach to tell your liberal Harvard professors exactly how much they will make per student, just as you do doctors for Medicare and Medicaid - and the rest of the country will be entertained by the collective howl.
The ONLY recipients of government funded higher education should be those who are selected to enter the service academies. I shouldn't have to fund anyone's college education when my own job makes me ineligible to attend at any price.
1
Thank Bernie for a daring plan
Makes Hillary's an also-ran,
Rubio's scheme
Is a non-starter dream,
And Walker's actions hit the fan!
Makes Hillary's an also-ran,
Rubio's scheme
Is a non-starter dream,
And Walker's actions hit the fan!
1
The current Republican party stands for smaller and smaller govt. You're asking them for a program to help put our kids through college? When they'd like to privatize K-12? Ha! The Republican party would like to dumb down the population so their corporate interests can do as they wish. An educated populace is NOT what they are after.
6
"Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat, has gone even further and said that he would make tuition free for all undergraduate students at public institutions. Regrettably, none of the Republican candidates have come up with anything comparable."
You obviously don't see the irony in promising dancing rainbows and unicorns and then lambasting those that don't believe in unicorns and dancing rainbows.
You obviously don't see the irony in promising dancing rainbows and unicorns and then lambasting those that don't believe in unicorns and dancing rainbows.
3
We are unable to recognize the fact that a 4 year college education, and beyond are no longer as valuable to the country as they were in the past. Many well-educated young people are finding that they do not need more education for the job market and that their skills, if they have acquired any, are no longer required. More education and job training for future prospects are coming up short. Putting even more educated people into the job market makes no sense. The labor pool had been greatly expanded when women went of to college, then went into the workforce with debt and competed directly with men for available jobs and careers. To make college more affordable would require cutting courses and majors with little or no market value, then gauging majors to industry demand. Even now, there are many more applicants for engineering and computer science positions, law schools are still grinding out lawyers with few prospects in a bloated market, and now come too many MBA's. For-profit education has been a disaster, and we are still hung-up with the same number of seat time hours and calendars that we have had for 300 years to get a degree. Education could not keep up with the changes in market demand and the Education Industry just went after more money. No surprise there. Finally, not everyone who wants a degree are prepared for the rigors of college-level academic work. A college education is not for everybody and some very smart people know that.
University of Wisconsin endowment is $2,300,000,000.
Gov. Walker is right.
Why should taxpayers subsidize Big College?
Gov. Walker is right.
Why should taxpayers subsidize Big College?
4
Here are some ideas for dealing with the crisis in financing higher education:
1. Residential undergraduate education should last for three years (this is the case in Great Britain). Introductory survey courses (econ 101, effective writing and research, and pre-calculus review, etc.) should be taken locally Perhaps existing high school buildings could be used during evenings.
2. Colleges should adopt a trimester system so that enormous investments in physical plant do not sit idle for three or more months per year. Admittedly this will require expanded air conditioning in many institutions.
3. The goal that all high school students should attend college is unrealistic. Instead, the German apprentice system should be copied. This will do more for increasing social mobility in this country than churning out financially worthless degrees in sociology from third rate schools.
4. Financial aid should take the form of vouchers, and be usable at both public and private accredited institutions (including religious and for profit ones).
5. Student financial aid should be linked to post graduation community service in the Armed Forces, Peace Corps, or public school teaching.
6. Maximum possible use should be made of such technologies as instruction on DVDs and over the Internet (MOOCs). Students would sit properly monitored exams and get "real" degrees.
1. Residential undergraduate education should last for three years (this is the case in Great Britain). Introductory survey courses (econ 101, effective writing and research, and pre-calculus review, etc.) should be taken locally Perhaps existing high school buildings could be used during evenings.
2. Colleges should adopt a trimester system so that enormous investments in physical plant do not sit idle for three or more months per year. Admittedly this will require expanded air conditioning in many institutions.
3. The goal that all high school students should attend college is unrealistic. Instead, the German apprentice system should be copied. This will do more for increasing social mobility in this country than churning out financially worthless degrees in sociology from third rate schools.
4. Financial aid should take the form of vouchers, and be usable at both public and private accredited institutions (including religious and for profit ones).
5. Student financial aid should be linked to post graduation community service in the Armed Forces, Peace Corps, or public school teaching.
6. Maximum possible use should be made of such technologies as instruction on DVDs and over the Internet (MOOCs). Students would sit properly monitored exams and get "real" degrees.
2
Schools have no skin in the game, a 70 year old can go to school and get a loan that they probably will never repay but why should the school care it is income for them! If schools had to guarantee part of the loan to the government they would think twice before giving out loans.
1
Research shows that, contrary to popular belief, the main contributor to increased costs in higher education is actually capital expenses (read: fancy dorms, gyms, and welcome centers) and not administrative bloat. While the increasing reliance on temporary faculty and growth of the administrative class are no doubt important factors that should be addressed, any presidential candidate seeking to reduce pressure on parents and students would be well advised to figure out how to stop this incessant amenities arms race among institutions, and make sure resources are concentrated on delivering quality educational instruction. You know, the reason colleges exist.
Sadly, it does not address the costs of education itself. yet again, it shifts who is paying. Entitlements continue to grow unsustainably; a path that those in Greece and Venezuela know all too well.
3
How about requiring Universities to eliminate tenure and make professors work a decent amount of hours, eliminate paid medical and require contributions, limit the universities from growing their brick and mortar and require them to expand online for lower tuition costs (set a percent). The state universities and community colleges should lead the way, lowering costs and challenging the private institutions part ny creating competition.
2
A 'business' model for higher education that is completely ignorant of what constitutes higher education.
1
Hey New York Times, I have a plan for college students regarding tuition. If that's all I tell you along with I am a Republican, you have shown you will say I have no plan. If I say the same thing but say I am a Democrat, you will, first, say I have plan, even though the details still need to be worked out and second, again restate that the Republicans have no plan.
There. I just gave the most accurate synopsis of your valueless editorial.
There. I just gave the most accurate synopsis of your valueless editorial.
2
Looks at some colleges today. Waterparks (LSU), 100,000 seat stadiums (Big 10), you name it. So exactly what Tuition do we mean.
SUNY schools for the most part avoid that level of nonsense, and are a great value, but tuition is less than half the bill. Room and board cost upwards of 2/3 of the cost each year. If we're just talking tuition, even free tuition, its just a small part of the price of admission.
Colleges need to re-think what they are and how they provide an education. Students are only in class maybe 15-20 hours a week and really aren't challenged any longer and come out unprepared for the real world, which has changed quite a bit in the last 40-50 years.
I'll agree, the dorm food is way better, but I'm not so sure the overall value has improved over the years.
SUNY schools for the most part avoid that level of nonsense, and are a great value, but tuition is less than half the bill. Room and board cost upwards of 2/3 of the cost each year. If we're just talking tuition, even free tuition, its just a small part of the price of admission.
Colleges need to re-think what they are and how they provide an education. Students are only in class maybe 15-20 hours a week and really aren't challenged any longer and come out unprepared for the real world, which has changed quite a bit in the last 40-50 years.
I'll agree, the dorm food is way better, but I'm not so sure the overall value has improved over the years.
Education like war seems to bring out the worst in us, I wonder why? Everyone on the liberal side of the spectrum acts like a college education is mandatory and on the conservative side like its some weird kind of affectation only those on the coasts should persue.
The question not asked by either side is why is all this post secondary education even necessary? Certainly not for the jobs most graduates will perform. Maybe we could dig a bit deeper to see that really college is an expensive filtering mechanism for the few and decreasing opportunities to join the middle class. A lottery could do that much more effectively and without the student debt!
The question not asked by either side is why is all this post secondary education even necessary? Certainly not for the jobs most graduates will perform. Maybe we could dig a bit deeper to see that really college is an expensive filtering mechanism for the few and decreasing opportunities to join the middle class. A lottery could do that much more effectively and without the student debt!
Why only public colleges and universities? Why not something more akin to the G.I. bill benefits that helped millions of post-World War II veterans earn a degree at ANY college, whether public, private or even denominational?
The other distressing element here is that most legislatures have drastically cut funding for their state universities, making the lawmakers the principal enablers of higher tuition and fees and, consequently, more student borrowing. Any proposal for federal aid to state colleges should be contingent on demonstrable effort by those states to support institutions that were, after all, founded by them.
The other distressing element here is that most legislatures have drastically cut funding for their state universities, making the lawmakers the principal enablers of higher tuition and fees and, consequently, more student borrowing. Any proposal for federal aid to state colleges should be contingent on demonstrable effort by those states to support institutions that were, after all, founded by them.
3
Here's a thought - let's not have the government continue to inflate the education bubble by throwing more federal money (i.e. grants) at it!!!
Went to a few colleges recently in NY to scope out for the kids and don't think they need 24x7 coffee bar and rock climbing. Read how college hire consultants who say "raise tuition!" - and low and behold applications go up because people equate $$$ to quality! Also need to look at sustainability of college employment / benefits costs / president salary's / sports system costs/ etc. Look at the cause, not the symptom and don't paper over with our tax dollars!
Thanks but no to Hillary's more "means tested" grant money and love Bernie's "offer states $2 of federal money for every dollar they spend on reducing or eliminating tuition" by raising tax on financial transactions.
I can dream...
Went to a few colleges recently in NY to scope out for the kids and don't think they need 24x7 coffee bar and rock climbing. Read how college hire consultants who say "raise tuition!" - and low and behold applications go up because people equate $$$ to quality! Also need to look at sustainability of college employment / benefits costs / president salary's / sports system costs/ etc. Look at the cause, not the symptom and don't paper over with our tax dollars!
Thanks but no to Hillary's more "means tested" grant money and love Bernie's "offer states $2 of federal money for every dollar they spend on reducing or eliminating tuition" by raising tax on financial transactions.
I can dream...
2
With the population aging, we should look on affordable or free public school as a selfish investment each of us can make to ensure we have taxpayers putting money in while retirees draw it out.
All of you college students and recent graduates facing your loan bills, especially those of you with the economics, law, business and related degrees - why not think up some approaches and send them to all the candidates? This article says "But young Americans buried by student loans want fresh thinking on the crisis" - you are in an ideal position to provide some input on the planning any candidate should be doing.
All of you college students and recent graduates facing your loan bills, especially those of you with the economics, law, business and related degrees - why not think up some approaches and send them to all the candidates? This article says "But young Americans buried by student loans want fresh thinking on the crisis" - you are in an ideal position to provide some input on the planning any candidate should be doing.
It's not surprising that the Times, Mrs. Clinton, and Democrats beholden to public employee and teachers unions think that throwing more money at the problem is innovative. Most institutions of higher learning - both public and private - are money pits and will fill their coffers each year with the maximum amount of revenue they are able to squeeze from their customers (students) who simply are facilitators in the money laundering scheme from the government (federal and state) to the schools. Truly innovative solutions would include greater utilization of web and video conferencing, virtual classrooms, and allocation of extra dollars to those institutions that performed above and beyond their peers measured against both fiscal and academic benchmarks. You may be correct that Republicans have missed an opportunity here, but the left is back to its same old playbook of offering free money to one group at the expense and taxation - or as liberals like to eupvhamise - investment - of the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers.
2
Well, here is an idea the GOP can really get behind opposing. Guaranteeing a fair shot at higher education is almost as bad as providing a fair shot at healthcare. For all the conservatives' stated values and boot-strap anecdotes, in the end they are opposed to anything and everything our representative government might do to promote the common good. They'll complain about costs, even though the long-term benefits are incalculable; that is, unless their cronies can get in on the action, as in the case of privatized prisons.
4
I support all of these proposals, but we the student-loan-paying public don't even need to go that far. There are two simple changes that would be fair to both taxpayers and students. I pay 18% of my income in loans, which is burdensome but the lowest possible amount I can secure. How about capping it at 10%?
Second, government student loan interest rates are 5.7% right now, far higher than the government is paying for that money. That's wrong. The government should not be making money off students.
Second, government student loan interest rates are 5.7% right now, far higher than the government is paying for that money. That's wrong. The government should not be making money off students.
6
With a default rate of 13.7%, the government is losing vast amount of money on student loans. The interest rate should be higher.
"The plan would cost $350 billion over 10 years".
We spend $800+ billion a year on defense, VA, homeland security, NSA, CIA.
$2.3 billion a year on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare, interest.
Shows where our priorities lie. It's not with our youth.
College was inexpensive for us millennials because of government funding.
Expect the GOP to fight it tooth and nail. They would rather have higher college costs and higher interest costs. After all, college students do not vote for the GOP.
We spend $800+ billion a year on defense, VA, homeland security, NSA, CIA.
$2.3 billion a year on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare, interest.
Shows where our priorities lie. It's not with our youth.
College was inexpensive for us millennials because of government funding.
Expect the GOP to fight it tooth and nail. They would rather have higher college costs and higher interest costs. After all, college students do not vote for the GOP.
7
What an incredible plan! And we can pay for it all with unicorn giggles and fairy dust! Is there nothing the Federal Government can't do? Golly!
5
All the Deomcrats are proposing is making it somewhat easier for individuals to finance the high cost of college, but they offer nothing about curbing or even rolling back the annual increases in tuition. Anyone serious about the cost of college has identified the proliferation of non-teaching administrators as a driver of higher costs. And why the proliferation? In part to deal with the regulatory requirements imposed on colleges by the federal government. And what party is a leading proponent of federal intrusion into college life? That's right, the Democratic Party.
Pretty ingenious, no? Advocate for policies that raise the cost of education and then trumpet your proposals for cost-shifting to help finance a college education. Some folks see through this ploy but as this editorial shows, there are always those who champion the cost-shifters instead of the cost-cutters.
Pretty ingenious, no? Advocate for policies that raise the cost of education and then trumpet your proposals for cost-shifting to help finance a college education. Some folks see through this ploy but as this editorial shows, there are always those who champion the cost-shifters instead of the cost-cutters.
3
The Liberals live in a land of make believe!
We do not currently have a balanced budget & haven't had a balanced budget in ??? how many years but yet the Liberals want to spend more money.
They want to give away free college to win votes but have no plan to pay for it !!!
Brilliant.
The 2016 election has to focus on how to we have a sustainable economy & budget.
If we run the debt up further we will turn in Greece!
We do not currently have a balanced budget & haven't had a balanced budget in ??? how many years but yet the Liberals want to spend more money.
They want to give away free college to win votes but have no plan to pay for it !!!
Brilliant.
The 2016 election has to focus on how to we have a sustainable economy & budget.
If we run the debt up further we will turn in Greece!
6
Incoming and current college students: (1) Attend a college you can afford. Pay attention to price tag over prestige, and (2) work as you take classes (beer pong is fun but won't pay the bills).
Worked for me.
Worked for me.
1
And Republicans aren't going to do anything about it. They thrive in a dumbed-down culture. They succeed by feeding on the ignorant and the indifferent. They stoke the fires of resentment and discontent, the very enemies of critical thinking and a liberating thirst for knowledge. By ensuring that a collge education is a goal beyond reasonable reach, let alone post-graduate studies, Republicans drown, in their mythical bathtub, every avenue toward a disappearing mirage of middle class living. If anyone thinks that Jeb! has abandoned his lust to privatize education, or that Paul Ryan has given up on "voucherizing" education, then they haven't been paying attention. This philosophy of theirs, to make higher education unaffordable, coupled with their never-ending attacks on private and public sector unions, is closer to becoming a permanent way of life for the 99%. The 1% will have the means to educate their own while "starving the beast." It's both a cynical and sinister ploy. Ignore it at your peril. Love it? Vote Republican.
3
Or perhaps, they have the wisdom to realize that ample financial aid without strings attached is what caused the entire problem in the first place, (a repeat of what happened in sub-prime mortgages).
The Federal Reserve recently released a study confirming this point of view.
The Federal Reserve recently released a study confirming this point of view.
This whole approach is wrong and certainly not bold or worthy of a Republican counter offer. What does basically just offering to pay for people to attend college or fantasizing about being able to cajole lenders into lowering their borrowing rates have to do with new thinking? Neither of these ideas addresses the issue of tuitions rising as fast as they are and people having to borrow more than they can afford to pay them. I mean college and school in general is either 'public' and therefor free or private and therefore not free. So if people can't pony up a few thousand dollars a year to attend a community college, the real problem seems to be that community colleges are losing money in todays economy unless they charge tuition to attend. And by needing to do so they no longer exist as community colleges.
3
The more taxpayer and borrowed money Democrats throw at higher ed, the more colleges will innovate to scoop it up and the more expensive it will get. Tuition, books, dorms, apartments, meals, laundry, transportation costs will all go up. Once the nameless, faceless "Uncle Sam" foots the bill, the sky will be the limit.
If you can't understand this in an education context, think cars instead. If the Feds gave money to young folks to buy a car, would they buy a cheap one or a tricked out one? Would they bargain with the dealer or just pay the asking price? Would the dealer cut a good deal for the business or tack on as many surcharges as possible?
This country has a failed K-12 system. Trying to remediate it in college is lunacy. Having the taxpayer provide the funds for a gigantic game of national make believe is an idea worthy of the Greeks.
If you can't understand this in an education context, think cars instead. If the Feds gave money to young folks to buy a car, would they buy a cheap one or a tricked out one? Would they bargain with the dealer or just pay the asking price? Would the dealer cut a good deal for the business or tack on as many surcharges as possible?
This country has a failed K-12 system. Trying to remediate it in college is lunacy. Having the taxpayer provide the funds for a gigantic game of national make believe is an idea worthy of the Greeks.
2
Leave it to Hillary, an Obama clone, scheming to spend more of our taxpayer money on sending everyone to college using the old democrat tax and spend method. A better idea would be to get the economy back on track by getting rid of Obama's oppressive liberal tax structure that has been strangling the economy all along, so students can get jobs, work and go to college like it used to be. Far too many of the entitlement crowd looking for the free stuff because of the irresponsible Obama administration's shenanigans, and Hillary would do the same thing with no regard to the rising debt. America cannot afford another Obama clone.
2
Students incur debt
To help pay college prexies
Bloated salaries.
To help pay college prexies
Bloated salaries.
3
What's amazing to me is that people run to the government and ask them to fix problems that the gov't creates. The ease of obtaining student loans has caused the price of tuition to skyrocket. Its simple economics.
The belief that you need a 4 year college education to live a lucrative life is ridiculous. There are plenty of trades and occupations that one can pursue with no need of a 4 year degree. Just tune out the noise and pay attention to the world around you.
The belief that you need a 4 year college education to live a lucrative life is ridiculous. There are plenty of trades and occupations that one can pursue with no need of a 4 year degree. Just tune out the noise and pay attention to the world around you.
4
We already have affordable college, the community college system and their transfer partnerships with state colleges and universities. My daughter had 102 four year public colleges to choose from in the western states, taking into account discounted tuition in the WUE (western Undergraduate Exchange) network. We need training and education for students on how to take advantage of what opportunities already exist, and how to identify and avoid the "snake oil" for-profit schools whose loans are crippling lives. Can't we refresh what is already in place to meet current need, instead of take on another untested, crippling entitlement program, at a much lower cost?
College costs have gone up because of less state funding but they have also gone up because of bloated top heavy overpaid bureaucracies and layers of administrators. Here in Connecticut, UCONN had a campus police chief who made 259K and his Deputy made 198K. When real trouble broke out on the campus the police called in the state police. The UCONN Police Chief made more than the Police Commissioner in NYC. Small example but this is pervasive in most state universities, it sure is at UCONN.
10
The easiest and best way to solve most of the problems dealing with education is to bring the education system out of the past and into the future! We educate like we did 100 years ago! Computers must aid our education system in ways never done yet. We must have the government buy several Watson computers from IBM and turn those computers into a classroom for everyone! These Watson computers will be set up so that the best teachers will teach us anything and everything we need to know in order to get a diploma or a degree or learn any trade or profession. At any time in our lives we will be able to get a near free education about anything at anytime anywhere! we can set up testing stations in phone booth like areas in libraries and schools and elsewhere. We can have advertisers help with the cost. With the Watson computer we will be able to cut the cost of education big time! No more thousands of teachers and their salaries and pensions, support staff and building support! WE can instead take that money and turn schools into a 24 hour 365 days a year safe zone where kids can play and learn! It'll give parents a MUCH NEEDED break! Let's do things different and you'll see a better world for all!
"Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has highlighted his own struggle with student debt and has supported linking loan repayments to borrowers’ incomes."
If you owe to the Federal government, this is already an option.
Not a new idea.
If you owe to the Federal government, this is already an option.
Not a new idea.
1
Despite the amusement in watching Clinton attempt to steal Sanders thunder on this very issue, a quality education is one big reason America is a world leader and the increasing burdens of financing an education threaten this more than any Chinese all-robot factory ever will.
When I read "conservatives will be especially hostile to any tax increases to help reduce tuition costs" these people do not understand the power of an education in shaping the country's future. Perhaps they are content to hire those foreign workers who have had the benefit of a good education instead, at which rate, we should make it easier for our foreign educated workers to become citizens!
Sander's idea of taxing Wall Street is a wise idea and it is time for the one-percent to help subsidize the country rather than their life style.
When I read "conservatives will be especially hostile to any tax increases to help reduce tuition costs" these people do not understand the power of an education in shaping the country's future. Perhaps they are content to hire those foreign workers who have had the benefit of a good education instead, at which rate, we should make it easier for our foreign educated workers to become citizens!
Sander's idea of taxing Wall Street is a wise idea and it is time for the one-percent to help subsidize the country rather than their life style.
10
Possibly one way of curbing the costs of tuition would be to control the salaries some of the academic staff earn at our largest Universities.
Click on https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/ and input wages between 300K and 1m. Look through the list and you'll be surprised at how many deans, provosts and heads of department earn well over 500K.
With that type of payroll no wonder the tuition fees are increased each year - which is what is happening in the University of California.
Intending to introduce additional grants (paid for by taxpayers or "a small tax on financial transactions - again taxpayers) is just allowing these outrageous compensation packages to continue. The staff keep on getting raises and the ordinary person keeps on paying.
Click on https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/ and input wages between 300K and 1m. Look through the list and you'll be surprised at how many deans, provosts and heads of department earn well over 500K.
With that type of payroll no wonder the tuition fees are increased each year - which is what is happening in the University of California.
Intending to introduce additional grants (paid for by taxpayers or "a small tax on financial transactions - again taxpayers) is just allowing these outrageous compensation packages to continue. The staff keep on getting raises and the ordinary person keeps on paying.
2
As a mom with three kids in college right now, I can tell you it's a huge crisis. State universities have become prohibitively expensive. Rutgers is $25K/year tuition, room & board. That's not possible to pay for out of pocket for nearly all families. And of course, most families have more than one child. My own kids are fortunate in that they have been top students with top stats, & have been able to go to top elite universities at a cost less than Rutgers with generous grants/scholarship. Even so, they still have to borrow in non-dischargeable loans. One of the financial aid offices actually told me, "It gives her more skin in the game." But only middle class skin, I guess, since kids from wealthy families don't have to have skin in the game. And my kids are fortunate. Most kids are not 'elite' scorers & no college will help them with grants etc.
But while it's true that young people are burdened with debt just as they are starting out,*parents* are also burdened with debt. Stafford is topped at $6 or $7K/year. Pell grants are paltry. Since the economic crisis, most privates have gone away from 'need blind' & reversed their commitment to no-loans.
All the parents I know borrow to help their kids: It's either that, or no college. In our current economy, that's not an option. So: Parent Plus (8%), home equity, retirement monies, private loans. I have amassed huge debt.
What will happen to our generation when we retire? It is a gigantic crisis waiting to happen.
But while it's true that young people are burdened with debt just as they are starting out,*parents* are also burdened with debt. Stafford is topped at $6 or $7K/year. Pell grants are paltry. Since the economic crisis, most privates have gone away from 'need blind' & reversed their commitment to no-loans.
All the parents I know borrow to help their kids: It's either that, or no college. In our current economy, that's not an option. So: Parent Plus (8%), home equity, retirement monies, private loans. I have amassed huge debt.
What will happen to our generation when we retire? It is a gigantic crisis waiting to happen.
6
The tenor of this editorial is very positive. However, there are some factual errors and substantial omissions.
The total student debt delinquency rate is substantially higher than eleven percent. The Department of Education's own watered-down "orange book cohort" default rate alone approaches fifteen percent. Overall, between delinquency, forbearance, deferment, and outright default, TWO THIRDS of all student debt is currently not being repaid as originally contracted.
Also, the editorial concentrates on students in school now or who have recently graduated. Nearly two thirds of all student debt is held by people over the age of thirty. In fact, one of the fastest growing demographics of student debt are people in their sixties and older whose Social Security is being garnished for defaulted student loans that are twenty, thirty, even forty years old.
Both parties, especially the Republicans, are reluctant to deal with the Department of Education's decades-long mismanagement of student loan servicing and collection. This is due in no small part to the billions of dollars in profit the government is now making on student debt and to the virtual revolving door between ED generally and FSA (Federal Student Aid) in particular. Decades of unregulated and undisciplined behavior on the part of ED's contractors, notably Private Collection Agencies, add fuel to the fire.
There are now forty million people with student loan debt. That is one in eight Americans.
The total student debt delinquency rate is substantially higher than eleven percent. The Department of Education's own watered-down "orange book cohort" default rate alone approaches fifteen percent. Overall, between delinquency, forbearance, deferment, and outright default, TWO THIRDS of all student debt is currently not being repaid as originally contracted.
Also, the editorial concentrates on students in school now or who have recently graduated. Nearly two thirds of all student debt is held by people over the age of thirty. In fact, one of the fastest growing demographics of student debt are people in their sixties and older whose Social Security is being garnished for defaulted student loans that are twenty, thirty, even forty years old.
Both parties, especially the Republicans, are reluctant to deal with the Department of Education's decades-long mismanagement of student loan servicing and collection. This is due in no small part to the billions of dollars in profit the government is now making on student debt and to the virtual revolving door between ED generally and FSA (Federal Student Aid) in particular. Decades of unregulated and undisciplined behavior on the part of ED's contractors, notably Private Collection Agencies, add fuel to the fire.
There are now forty million people with student loan debt. That is one in eight Americans.
6
"TWO THIRDS of all student debt is currently not being repaid as originally contracted."
This post should have gotten hundreds of recommendations. The fact it didn't suggests people hate to face reality.
This post should have gotten hundreds of recommendations. The fact it didn't suggests people hate to face reality.
1
I applaud Hillary Clinton for addressing the crisis posed by the over $1 trillion in student loan debt. Both my sons each have student loans of over $100,000 which they are paying back. Their interest rates are 6.8 and 7.27 percent, respectively while big banks enjoy 0 percent interest from the Federal Reserve and where my credit union is offering 1.99 percent Home Equity loans and 3.82 percent 30 year mortgages. It is also critical to get states to start reinvesting in public higher education. I'm a retired professor from the State University of New York (at Stony Brook) and as long as I was on the faculty beginning in 1990, well before the 2008 recession, every governor from Mario Cuomo to George Pataki and now Andrew Cuomo has cut the state's contribution in their budget leading to massive tuition increases and student debt. States should pay their fair share in order to receive any federal assistance by having their increases in funding matched if that money lowers tuition. Students also need more pathways to debt forgiveness. For example, the VA doctor shortage could easily be solved by promising debt forgiveness to new doctors, like my older son, if they agreed to serve there for at least four years. The student debt problem is comparable to the housing crisis of a few years ago urgently needs to be addressed before the bubble bursts. Mrs. Clinton is to be congratulated in addressing it.
6
What ? A candidate is proposing a real solution to a real problem ? Did the earth just move ? Was that a seismic shift I just felt ???
But wait, the haters will find a way to pillory Hillary for this... no doubt... no doubt at all...
But wait, the haters will find a way to pillory Hillary for this... no doubt... no doubt at all...
5
Just another liberal pipe dream.
8
If a "small" tax imposed on the financial transactions that occur on Wall St would pay for state tuition , what would a "slightly larger" tax help pay for?
2
A small tax on financial transaction that happen on Wall Street ... would simply move those transactions off Wall Street.
1
Higher ed is a private good...it enhances the quality of life or the standard of living of the recipient. Why should taxpayers subsidize the consumer or investment choices of individuals?
What's the benefit to the general public of greater taxpayer financed spending on higher ed?
What's the benefit to the general public of greater taxpayer financed spending on higher ed?
2
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about elementary and secondary education? Where I live, higher education and vocational training are viewed as benefitting society and 'Germany, Inc.' as a whole, not just the individual student.
3
Once again, Democrats provide the leadership of new ideas to help the American people. "Regrettably, none of the Republican candidates have come up with anything comparable." But not surprisingly.
To pay for the ideas of Democrats, of course conservatives will say "with what money?" will you do this. "Taxation" has reached such heights of dirty-word status, along with "voting rights" and "women's equality," that taxation literally won't occur to them in this era of the new normal of tax breaks to the rich.
It is time for Bernie's revolution.
To pay for the ideas of Democrats, of course conservatives will say "with what money?" will you do this. "Taxation" has reached such heights of dirty-word status, along with "voting rights" and "women's equality," that taxation literally won't occur to them in this era of the new normal of tax breaks to the rich.
It is time for Bernie's revolution.
9
Murray's definition of Democrat leadership is coming up with ideas that other people can pay for. Your Weekend at Bernie's 3 fantasy will NEVER happen.
2
There is no 'free' tuition. When will the voters realize that Democratic giveaways come at a cost?
7
The classic socialist fairy tale, reiterating it doesn't make it true
6
"May we buy your vote?"
The dawn of "representation without taxation" has arrived in America.
The University of Chicago has conclusively proven that big money spent on elections does NOT influence outcomes. So sad for the Democrats but good for advertising firms and television stations.
But Hillary is undaunted in determining whether lots of little pay-offs might elect her corrupt little life into more years in the White House so she can steal the china and crystal she and Bill left behind in 2000.
The dawn of "representation without taxation" has arrived in America.
The University of Chicago has conclusively proven that big money spent on elections does NOT influence outcomes. So sad for the Democrats but good for advertising firms and television stations.
But Hillary is undaunted in determining whether lots of little pay-offs might elect her corrupt little life into more years in the White House so she can steal the china and crystal she and Bill left behind in 2000.
6
Excerpts from historical tuition figures for the University of California:
1960: The California Master Plan, largely developed by Clark Kerr, supports keeping the UC system tuition-free for California residents but maintains that fees should be charged to cover costs coming from areas such as laboratories, health and athletics.
1968: Registration fee for all students is $300 per year. Nonresident tuition is $1,200 per year. Tuition is still free for all California residents.
1970: In a symbolic move away from free tuition for residents, students must now pay an additional “educational fee.” The fee is $150 per year for undergraduate students and $180 per year for graduate students.
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/
What happened is that American higher education, along with everything else in the USA, became a profit center. Every-man-for-himself economics sold as trickle-down snake oil undermined and finally displaced altogether the feeling and ethos of unity and shared investment that knit the nation together during the recovery from the Great Depression and waging WWII.
1960: The California Master Plan, largely developed by Clark Kerr, supports keeping the UC system tuition-free for California residents but maintains that fees should be charged to cover costs coming from areas such as laboratories, health and athletics.
1968: Registration fee for all students is $300 per year. Nonresident tuition is $1,200 per year. Tuition is still free for all California residents.
1970: In a symbolic move away from free tuition for residents, students must now pay an additional “educational fee.” The fee is $150 per year for undergraduate students and $180 per year for graduate students.
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/
What happened is that American higher education, along with everything else in the USA, became a profit center. Every-man-for-himself economics sold as trickle-down snake oil undermined and finally displaced altogether the feeling and ethos of unity and shared investment that knit the nation together during the recovery from the Great Depression and waging WWII.
202
Room board and tuition at Ivy League schools in the mid-1960's was about $2,500 a year. But then, the kids weren't pampered like guests at a resort and they got the grades they earned, not the grades they paid for.
5
It is far from a profit center. On average it is a massive money losing system whose deficits are never accounted for properly. If people in the system were asked to justify some of the costs, like monument-like buildings and $150,000 semester revenues for nearly empty marginal courses, it would be clear how far from financially sound the system is
1
And the "symbolic" move away from free tuition happened on who's watch? Governor Ronald Reagan... of course.
As my father used to say, the only good thing about Reagan becoming president is that it got him out of California.
As my father used to say, the only good thing about Reagan becoming president is that it got him out of California.
6
The important question to ask is: who is benefitting with the system this way?
112
Colleges have become big businesses that initiate the students to specific political ideologies, and social mores. I earned a BA in 1975, and an MBA in the 1990's. The initiation/indoctrination was more evident on the 1990's than in the 1970's. A college degree will not replace initiative, and hard work.
2
Liberals. Always. Who is running the system ?
1
Banks, mostly. I'd argue that Republicans are benefiting as well, because the GOP, by its actions and policy proposals, is obvious in its fear of an electorate that can think critically -- as critical thought quickly demolishes the bulk of Republican policy arguments over the last forty years or so.
2
A college education is an investment in the future. Given the existing life time earnings differential between a high school and a college graduate, the Federal Government would turn a considerable profit just from the additional tax revenue collected if they provided a free college opportunity for everyone. Every businessman knows that you have to be willing to invest money if you want to make money, which makes it all the more surprising that pro business Republicans don't get it.
108
If that was always true (or at least more often than not) than default rates would be lower and income based repayment plans would result in students paying off their loans.
People often exclaim that in certain countries higher education is free, or very low cost. What they fail to relay, is that education is rationed and it's not necessarily free, nor low cost for fields that are unlikely to produce an adequate return for the government's expenditure. At very early stages, children take tests that determine whether they are likely be the beneficiary of "free" higher education.
People often exclaim that in certain countries higher education is free, or very low cost. What they fail to relay, is that education is rationed and it's not necessarily free, nor low cost for fields that are unlikely to produce an adequate return for the government's expenditure. At very early stages, children take tests that determine whether they are likely be the beneficiary of "free" higher education.
2
If the graduates had the initiative to go find a job, yes, your scenario would be true, but since they expect 6 digit salaries, it isn't likely to happen.
1
Some majors pay off very well; others are of little to no value. The students who help out the IRS down the road are also the ones who don't need loan relief, while the students who would benefit the most are poor investments.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/12/colleg...
And two slideshows:
http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees-that-will-earn-your-money-back/s...
http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees-with-the-worst-return-on-investm...
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/12/colleg...
And two slideshows:
http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees-that-will-earn-your-money-back/s...
http://www.salary.com/8-college-degrees-with-the-worst-return-on-investm...
2
The unfortunate unintended consequence of this will be to increase college costs as states cut their subsidies and privates reap more profits.
25
Why would states cut their subsidies if one of the criteria for federal dollars would be efforts by the states to decrease the cost of tuition, one of the more common methods used being state subsidies? Your idea makes no sense. If states behaved this way they would never live up to the standards set by the federal government which must be met in order to still receive federal money for things like roads and public education. While the above named systems may not be perfect the states generally do not risk losing the federal dollars. Also, public university tuition would have to increase by about four fold in order to cost the same as most private universities.
4
It appears that those state subsidies have already been cut- that's why we have the crisis- In one case, even by a presidential candidate applauded by the right and the Koch Brothers. Red state governments and ideologues love privatized eduction, remember?
2
Fifty years ago states didn't spend huge amounts of money on Medicaid and social services. They had a few cops with old revolvers, and some firemen and garbage collectors, and that was it. They could spend money on public colleges, where the salaries were low and the workforce was small.
2
I love the proposal of Bernie Sanders, even as a product of a private university, I think public universities should be tuition free.
208
"Free"? being free is realizing that NOTHING is ever free. It will be paid for by raising taxes and issuing more debt which just cripples the next generation.
When someone offers you something for free, it starts as a cobweb and ends as a chain.
When someone offers you something for free, it starts as a cobweb and ends as a chain.
4
There are two problems with Bernie's proposal:
(1) the financial transactions tax will encounter massive evasion, as players conduct their business in financial centers such as London.
(2) Why should private colleges that meet reasonable qualification standards be excluded?
(1) the financial transactions tax will encounter massive evasion, as players conduct their business in financial centers such as London.
(2) Why should private colleges that meet reasonable qualification standards be excluded?
1
The real issue isn't public universities but private universities.
The horror stories of students graduating with $200,000 in debt is because they made a choice to go a $50-$60,000 private school.
That is no different then buying a house/mortgage you can't afford.
The real unmentioned issue by the NYT, which is in bed with the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular is why did she do this ploy.
She desperately wants the youth vote that doesn't trust her disingenuousness.
She hopes that pandering to them will mean their vote.
The fact that you wholeheartedly endorse it and her uncritically defames a once great newspaper.
The horror stories of students graduating with $200,000 in debt is because they made a choice to go a $50-$60,000 private school.
That is no different then buying a house/mortgage you can't afford.
The real unmentioned issue by the NYT, which is in bed with the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular is why did she do this ploy.
She desperately wants the youth vote that doesn't trust her disingenuousness.
She hopes that pandering to them will mean their vote.
The fact that you wholeheartedly endorse it and her uncritically defames a once great newspaper.
7
The problem with higher education is not inadequate ways to pay the high costs, but rather the high costs themselves.
When I went to college in the 70s, we sat in drafty old classrooms with top professors. The dorms were glorified barracks that reminded one of the life of a GI in WW2. There were about half a dozen administrators, and a few clerks, and the rest of the staff was professors and janitors.
This sort.of thing didn't cost very much, and we managed to learn quite a bit in classes of 5 to 20 people sitting in a room with a full professor. There were a few large lecture courses, but most of the learning was one-on-one. Nobody was paid much, but living was cheap. Books, pizza, and beer satisfied professor and student alike.
When I went to college in the 70s, we sat in drafty old classrooms with top professors. The dorms were glorified barracks that reminded one of the life of a GI in WW2. There were about half a dozen administrators, and a few clerks, and the rest of the staff was professors and janitors.
This sort.of thing didn't cost very much, and we managed to learn quite a bit in classes of 5 to 20 people sitting in a room with a full professor. There were a few large lecture courses, but most of the learning was one-on-one. Nobody was paid much, but living was cheap. Books, pizza, and beer satisfied professor and student alike.
254
It was cheap because there were no civil rights, equal rights or ADA -- and all that accreditation demanded was three hours in the classroom for three credits on the transcript, a disinterested governing board, and a library with a few books in it.
2
I'm curious as to where you attended college. I, too, went to college in the 1970's at a public community college and then a public university here in California. They were not the bare bones of your experience, but were still affordable. I put myself through school, and it was possible if one was willing to work hard. Today, it is impossible for lower/middle class kids to work their way through school. Housing, tuition, books, lab fees, everything costs much more than any entry level job could provide. Bernie and Hillary are on the right track. The best way to improve our economy, next to Obama's infrastructure proposal, is to rebuild the middle class. Education is the factor that ensures a sustainable future for individuals as well as the entire population of our nation.
8
Jonathan, I'm with you. Tuition at the University of Washington from 1973-1977 was $377/quarter for 15 credits. Yeah, Big Lecture classes. I was working during the day, took a lot of my classes at night, if they didn't fit in between 8:30 and 11:30.
Lived in a hovel, literally. The basement of some house that didn't even have a bathroom. I had to go out of my one room to get there.
But I got an accounting degree and became a CPA.
Learning hasn't changed in 42 years; why has the cost increased by many Thousand Fold?
Lived in a hovel, literally. The basement of some house that didn't even have a bathroom. I had to go out of my one room to get there.
But I got an accounting degree and became a CPA.
Learning hasn't changed in 42 years; why has the cost increased by many Thousand Fold?
7