Stossel: 2020 Candidates’ Worst and Best Ideas

[GURPS]

 

[Hijinx]

Warren wants to forgive $50,000 dollars in student debt.
Wouldn't it be easier to make colleges lower their tuition by $50,000 dollars.

 

[This_person]

Warren wants to forgive $50,000 dollars in student debt.
Wouldn't it be easier to make colleges lower their tuition by $50,000 dollars.

The feds don't have control of the cost of education. They simply supply the money, causing the colleges to raise their tuition.

If they stopped unconstitutionally supplying the money, the rates would go back down.

The answer is to get the federal government out of education. There's no constitutional authority for the federal government to back student loans, or, any other part of the Dept of Education's existence. None.

 

[glhs837]

The feds don't have control of the cost of education. They simply supply the money, causing the colleges to raise their tuition.

If they stopped unconstitutionally supplying the money, the rates would go back down.

The answer is to get the federal government out of education. There's no constitutional authority for the federal government to back student loans, or, any other part of the Dept of Education's existence. None.

This is one example that highlights the need to stop electing politicians. Virtually everyone admits this is the reason that eduacational costs went through the roof, yet nobody seems to be able to do jack about it. Simply becuase getting govt out of a thing reduces govt power over that thing. Since people go into politics to exert power, asking them to reduce that power is like asking the fat kid to step away from the cake. We have to stop letting the fat kids decide how much fuc^&*@ cake they get.

 

[Kyle]

Since people go into politics to exert power, asking them to reduce that power is like asking the fat kid to step away from the cake. We have to stop letting the fat kids decide how much fuc^&*@ cake they get.

Best description yet.

 

[Gilligan]

This is one example that highlights the need to stop electing politicians. Virtually everyone admits this is the reason that eduacational costs went through the roof, yet nobody seems to be able to do jack about it. Simply becuase getting govt out of a thing reduces govt power over that thing. Since people go into politics to exert power, asking them to reduce that power is like asking the fat kid to step away from the cake. We have to stop letting the fat kids decide how much fuc^&*@ cake they get.

Stealing this. Am currently in a "conversation" with a certain Larry feller over exactly this topic. ;-)

 

[Gilligan]

The feds don't have control of the cost of education. They simply supply the money, causing the colleges to raise their tuition.

If they stopped unconstitutionally supplying the money, the rates would go back down.

That horse left the barn long ago though. 40 years ago, I could - and did - work my way through college and emerged with a degree and zero student loan debt. Lots of people did that.
Even if the rate of annual increases magically went to zero percent tomorrow, I seriously doubt what colleges charge would ever recede and "go back down".

 

[This_person]

That horse left the barn long ago though. 40 years ago, I could - and did - work my way through college and emerged with a degree and zero student loan debt. Lots of people did that.
Even if the rate of annual increases magically went to zero percent tomorrow, I seriously doubt what colleges charge would ever recede and "go back down".

My initial reaction is to agree, but, if they stopped having so many students willing to pay the price, they'd probably have to cut costs/charges.

Just read a Grisham book called "The Rooster Bar" that hit on this subject. It was very good. Essentially a guy slowly buys law schools, loan companies, and a few law firms. He hires a few of the students from his diploma mills [paid for by federally-backed loans (grossly overpaid) administrated by his loan companies] so he can put them in ads for the schools showing how easy it was to get a job and how much they made. People flock to the schools, and he rakes in cash from each side of the business. Pretty slick, actually.

 

[Gilligan]

My initial reaction is to agree, but, if they stopped having so many students willing to pay the price, they'd probably have to cut costs/charges.

But that's the thing...they would have to make radical cuts and changes to simply flat-line what they charge; no more 10-12% increases annually.

 

[transporter]

This is one example that highlights the need to stop electing politicians. Virtually everyone admits this is the reason that eduacational costs went through the roof, yet nobody seems to be able to do jack about it. Simply becuase getting govt out of a thing reduces govt power over that thing. Since people go into politics to exert power, asking them to reduce that power is like asking the fat kid to step away from the cake. We have to stop letting the fat kids decide how much fuc^&*@ cake they get.

Actually, no. If you understood how colleges, specifically public schools are funded you would understand that the basis of your position is just flat wrong.

State schools are just that...state funded. WITHOUT state funds, schools have to get their funds from elsewhere.

In the 2000-2001 recessionary period states lost significant amounts of revenue. One of the first things they cut is funding to colleges. Why? Because it is one of the easiest things they can cut. Why? Because college funding isn't a mandatory expense like k-12, police, fire, medicaid or roads.

The next big whammy came in 2008-2010 with the Great Recession.

The "social" aspect of college tuition increases is largely the fault of today's idiot parents who think THEY should fund 100% of the college for their "little angels"....or that their "little angels" MUST go to Georgetown or Harvard. The community college then state school just isn't good enough.

Are the schools greedy sure...they always have been. But like every other issue facing this country, the causes and solution of the problem is NEVER as simplistic as the ignorati crowd believes.

 

[This_person]

Actually, no. If you understood how colleges, specifically public schools are funded you would understand that the basis of your position is just flat wrong.

State schools are just that...state funded. WITHOUT state funds, schools have to get their funds from elsewhere.

In the 2000-2001 recessionary period states lost significant amounts of revenue. One of the first things they cut is funding to colleges. Why? Because it is one of the easiest things they can cut. Why? Because college funding isn't a mandatory expense like k-12, police, fire, medicaid or roads.

The next big whammy came in 2008-2010 with the Great Recession.

The "social" aspect of college tuition increases is largely the fault of today's idiot parents who think THEY should fund 100% of the college for their "little angels"....or that their "little angels" MUST go to Georgetown or Harvard. The community college then state school just isn't good enough.

Are the schools greedy sure...they always have been. But like every other issue facing this country, the causes and solution of the problem is NEVER as simplistic as the ignorati crowd believes.

Wow, that's really interesting. And, here, I thought tuition paid a great deal towards funding colleges.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think my original assessment was right - tuition DOES fund colleges to a great degree.

And, with just about 7 seconds of research, it seems federal funding is there, too:

Federal spending has overtaken state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education.
Federal spending has surpassed state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education, and the primary reason is a surge in Pell Grants in the last decade.

Federal and state funds have different missions. The majority of state funding is used to fund specific public institutions, whereas federal funding is generally awarded through student aid and research grants. State funding goes primarily to public institutions, while federal funding goes to students at public, private and for-profit colleges, and to researchers at public and private universities.

Historically, state funding has been heftier than federal funding. In the 25 years leading up to 2012, states spent 65 percent more on higher education than the federal government.

Yet that trend has rapidly changed in the past decade.

In 2010 federal funding overtook state funding as the main source of public support for universities and colleges throughout the country, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Study: U.S. higher education receives more from federal than state governments

Federal spending has overtaken state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education.

www.insidehighered.com

Almost as if your entire post is, what do that call that now? Oh, yeah, laughably inaccurate!!

 

[glhs837]

Actually, no. If you understood how colleges, specifically public schools are funded you would understand that the basis of your position is just flat wrong.

State schools are just that...state funded. WITHOUT state funds, schools have to get their funds from elsewhere.

In the 2000-2001 recessionary period states lost significant amounts of revenue. One of the first things they cut is funding to colleges. Why? Because it is one of the easiest things they can cut. Why? Because college funding isn't a mandatory expense like k-12, police, fire, medicaid or roads.

The next big whammy came in 2008-2010 with the Great Recession.

The "social" aspect of college tuition increases is largely the fault of today's idiot parents who think THEY should fund 100% of the college for their "little angels"....or that their "little angels" MUST go to Georgetown or Harvard. The community college then state school just isn't good enough.

Are the schools greedy sure...they always have been. But like every other issue facing this country, the causes and solution of the problem is NEVER as simplistic as the ignorati crowd believes.

So your position is that the secondary education system has not expanded to absorb as much govt backed student loan money as possible? This article addresses both aspects. Yours does have merit, but to say my point has none tells me you dont bother to look at any side other than one. But, here's the thing. The costs have risen even in years before the two incidents you claim. Feast or famine, the secondary education system is feasting on govt backed loans and shilling out worthless degrees in fields with little to no chance of the student ever being employed well enough to pay it off.

 

[BOP]

Actually, no. If you understood how colleges, specifically public schools are funded you would understand that the basis of your position is just flat wrong.

State schools are just that...state funded. WITHOUT state funds, schools have to get their funds from elsewhere.

In the 2000-2001 recessionary period states lost significant amounts of revenue. One of the first things they cut is funding to colleges. Why? Because it is one of the easiest things they can cut. Why? Because college funding isn't a mandatory expense like k-12, police, fire, medicaid or roads.

The next big whammy came in 2008-2010 with the Great Recession.

The "social" aspect of college tuition increases is largely the fault of today's idiot parents who think THEY should fund 100% of the college for their "little angels"....or that their "little angels" MUST go to Georgetown or Harvard. The community college then state school just isn't good enough.

Are the schools greedy sure...they always have been. But like every other issue facing this country, the causes and solution of the problem is NEVER as simplistic as the ignorati crowd believes.

Тебе никогда не надоест быть неправым?

 

[SamSpade]

Wow, that's really interesting. And, here, I thought tuition paid a great deal towards funding colleges.

I worked for Harvard for a year and a half. I do know they get enough money from donations
(Harvard got over a BILLION last year) that they don't need the tuition money at all. They could
easily let at least all of the undergrads in for nothing. Frankly, since they are so hard to get into,
I don't know why they don't.

But this is still true for most of the very elite schools in the country. Donations are high enough -
in the hundreds of millions - they really could educate most of the undergrads for free.

 

[littlelady]

I worked for Harvard for a year and a half. I do know they get enough money from donations
(Harvard got over a BILLION last year) that they don't need the tuition money at all. They could
easily let at least all of the undergrads in for nothing. Frankly, since they are so hard to get into,
I don't know why they don't.

But this is still true for most of the very elite schools in the country. Donations are high enough -
in the hundreds of millions - they really could educate most of the undergrads for free.

Wow. Our country is becoming a screwed up mess. People should be careful what they ask for. Hard working Americans/patriots aren’t going to give up, easily. Just sayin’.

 

[WingsOfGold]

Do professors REALLY need to take so many trips overseas at school/STUDENT expense just to piss money away because they can? Take the free excursions away and tuition would go down.

 

[SamSpade]

Do professors REALLY need to take so many trips overseas at school/STUDENT expense just to piss money away because they can? Take the free excursions away and tuition would go down.

When I worked for my professors at Maryland, one completely clear thing came across - most of the professors would prefer never to bother teaching undergrad courses and would MUCH prefer to just do their research. If they wanted to teach at all, it was grad classes, but partly because it did help further their research.

I'd be in the lab or with some of their stuff and they'd look at their watch, groan and say "be back in an hour" with all the excitement as though they had to go feed the meter. There were of course, exceptions - some professors loved teaching. But in my opinion, most would love to spend all their time on their work and never teach at all.

One thing you WILL notice however, with the expensive elite schools that turn out many of our country's best and brightest - big, pageantry level sports programs are largely non-existent. IF they're spending tons of dollars on campus to build a new building, it's for a new set of research areas, computer buildings, classrooms or laboratories or libraries - it's not for yet another sports complex or to replace the stadium which is already one of the largest in the state. It's nice to play sports at schools - but this is not grade school - the purpose of college is education. You don't pay the big bucks to play football or basketball.

 

[littlelady]

Do professors REALLY need to take so many trips overseas at school/STUDENT expense just to piss money away because they can? Take the free excursions away and tuition would go down.

I have to go to sleep because babysitting today. But, wanted to say...if hub and I paid to put our two children through college, why do these leapfrog (my word for socialist/fascist/communist) creeps think we are going to pay for others to go to college? The Dems have crossed the line on so many topics. Do they, really, think patriots will sit back, and take it? I don’t like to use the word idiots, but it seems “fittin”.

 

[WingsOfGold]

When I worked for my professors at Maryland, one completely clear thing came across - most of the professors would prefer never to bother teaching undergrad courses and would MUCH prefer to just do their research. If they wanted to teach at all, it was grad classes, but partly because it did help further their research.

I'd be in the lab or with some of their stuff and they'd look at their watch, groan and say "be back in an hour" with all the excitement as though they had to go feed the meter. There were of course, exceptions - some professors loved teaching. But in my opinion, most would love to spend all their time on their work and never teach at all.

One thing you WILL notice however, with the expensive elite schools that turn out many of our country's best and brightest - big, pageantry level sports programs are largely non-existent. IF they're spending tons of dollars on campus to build a new building, it's for a new set of research areas, computer buildings, classrooms or laboratories or libraries - it's not for yet another sports complex or to replace the stadium which is already one of the largest in the state. It's nice to play sports at schools - but this is not grade school - the purpose of college is education. You don't pay the big bucks to play football or basketball.

Before moving here my wife was an accountant for Salisbury U. She would come home mad as a hornet because although it was illegal to claim they refused to not claim (and get reimbursed) their alcohol and exorbitant food bill on overseas trips to Europe and Australia and the like. It was much like the abuse that went on under the inept obama by the GSA. Many brought their entire families on these trips, they claimed they paid their own way but doctored receipts said differently. Sad part is they got away with it, everybody has a boss that will rubber stamp approval at universities.

 

[littlelady]

Before moving here my wife was an accountant for Salisbury U. She would come home mad as a hornet because although it was illegal to claim they refused to not claim (and get reimbursed) their alcohol and exorbitant food bill on overseas trips to Europe and Australia and the like. It was much like the abuse that went on under the inept obama by the GSA. Many brought their entire families on these trips, they claimed they paid their own way but doctored receipts said differently. Sad part is they got away with it, everybody has a boss that will rubber stamp approval at universities.

I didn’t need to know that, but thanks. And, thanks for your posts. You help me locate my sense of humor. I hope your Friday is great.