• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A college degree is a lousy investment

Just admit that you're functionally illiterate and get on with it.
 
Just admit that you're functionally illiterate and get on with it.

Just proves that a college degree is a lousy investment, right?

Also I really hope this hacker doesn't post my dick pics to prove that they've got access to my account
 
Huh? College isn't getting cheaper because the government keeps supply artificially high. Of course tuition would go down if they unlimited free money tap was turned off.

Just like how housing prices tumbled after cheap mortgages dried up.

Tuition goes up because demand for education is high and cost of education is used as a proxy for prestige ("you get what you pay for"). We may look at $60K a year as ridiculous, but it's one way that Wake claims to be peers with Duke, Stanford, and the Ivies.

If the spigot dried up, you'd see supply of higher education go down as for-profits close and colleges admit fewer students. But demand would stay high as long as employers want to hire people with college degrees.

Now I do think drying up the spigot would slow the rate of tuition increase, but tuition would definitely stay high.
 
Last edited:
Tuition goes up because demand for education is high and cost of education is used as a proxy for prestige[\b] ("you get what you pay for"). We may look at $60K a year as ridiculous, but it's one way that Wake claims to be peers with Duke, Stanford, and the Ivies.

If the spigot dried up, you'd see supply of higher education go down as for-profits close and colleges admit fewer students. But demand would stay high as long as employers want to hire people with college degrees.

Now I do think drying up the spigot would slow the rate of tuition increase, but tuition would definitely stay high.


You're going to have to back that up with some kind of evidence that colleges are raising tuition to increase their prestige.

And why would colleges admit fewer students if demand didn't change? That's a completely contradictory sentence.
 
You're going to have to back that up with some kind of evidence that colleges are raising tuition to increase their prestige.

And why would colleges admit fewer students if demand didn't change? That's a completely contradictory sentence.

Higher education is similar to a lot of products in which the assumption is more expensive = better. Cars, food, wines, Tylenol vs. generic aspirin, whatever.

Just google college costs and prestige. You'll find plenty of links talking about that assumption as well as how tuition increases go to fund academic and non-academic prestige products like top tier professors, academic buildings, dining halls, rec centers, etc in order to be more competitive for the top students.

As for your second point, I said "If the spigot dried up..." If there was less federal loan money, institutions would be more selective and adjust by admitting fewer students rather than offering more grants and scholarships to make up the difference.

Demand may remain high, but keep in mind that higher education is unique. Universities aren't judged by how many people buy the product like cars, food, wine, etc. Universities are judged by how many people want to buy the product and aren't allowed to do so (low acceptance rates). If the demand for higher education increases, universities are not obligated to take more students if it's not financial beneficial to do so. Eventually that demand would filter down to community colleges which have low tuition anyway.
 
Last edited:
Higher education is similar to a lot of products in which the assumption is more expensive = better. Cars, food, wines, Tylenol vs. generic aspirin, whatever.

Just google college costs and prestige. You'll find plenty of links talking about that assumption as well as how tuition increases go to fund academic and non-academic prestige products like top tier professors, academic buildings, dining halls, rec centers, etc in order to be more competitive for the top students.

As for your second point, I said "If the spigot dried up..." If there was less federal loan money, institutions would be more selective and adjust by admitting fewer students rather than offering more grants and scholarships to make up the difference.

Demand may remain high, but keep in mind that higher education is unique. Universities aren't judged by how many people buy the product like cars, food, wine, etc. Universities are judged by how many people want to buy the product and aren't allowed to do so (low acceptance rates). If the demand for higher education increases, universities are not obligated to take more students if it's not financial beneficial to do so. Eventually that demand would filter down to community colleges which have low tuition anyway.

Increasing costs due to spending money on "prestigious" products is very different than your initial claim that colleges are incentivized to artificially increase tuition as a direct way to appear more attractive.

If you were choosing between 2 equal schools where one cost 55k and the other cost 60k, then no one is choosing the 60k one just because it cost more. And it the federal government chose to limit loans to 55k, then everyone will chose the first school, forcing the second to reduce their price.

And I still don't know why you continue to claim that demand would remain high if the government removed the ability for people to pay for school. Basic economic theory says the opposite.
 
Increasing costs due to spending money on "prestigious" products is very different than your initial claim that colleges are incentivized to artificially increase tuition as a direct way to appear more attractive.

If you were choosing between 2 equal schools where one cost 55k and the other cost 60k, then no one is choosing the 60k one just because it cost more. And it the federal government chose to limit loans to 55k, then everyone will chose the first school, forcing the second to reduce their price.

And I still don't know why you continue to claim that demand would remain high if the government removed the ability for people to pay for school. Basic economic theory says the opposite.

Demand for higher education would remain high as long as there is demand in the workforce for people with higher education credentials.

What determines if two schools are "equal"? Your comparison doesn't address the variety of factors people use to rate schools, particularly with respect to their own needs. I'm not sure why the assumption that price is related to quality is so strange to you. It applies for a range of goods and services.
 
Last edited:
Demand for higher education would remain high as long as there is demand in the workforce for people with higher education credentials.

What determines if two schools are "equal"? Your comparison doesn't address the variety of factors people use to rate schools, particularly with respect to their own needs. I'm not sure why the assumption that price is related to quality is so strange to you. It applies for a range of goods and services.

I think you need to review your Econ basics. Demand doesn't exist for a product if you can't afford it. Without government loans, most people would not be able to afford college, and therefore demand would go down.

And equal means the same. So with two equal schools, no one rational is going to pick the more expensive one. These aren't hard concepts to grasp.
 
Increasing costs due to spending money on "prestigious" products is very different than your initial claim that colleges are incentivized to artificially increase tuition as a direct way to appear more attractive.

If you were choosing between 2 equal schools where one cost 55k and the other cost 60k, then no one is choosing the 60k one just because it cost more. And it the federal government chose to limit loans to 55k, then everyone will chose the first school, forcing the second to reduce their price.

And I still don't know why you continue to claim that demand would remain high if the government removed the ability for people to pay for school. Basic economic theory says the opposite.

In the late '80s or so Wake openly admitted that it was increasing tuition because the schools it perceived as peer institutions were charging much more. Not because of increased costs or the need to provide services or facilities - just because our peer institutions were charging more. Those increases continued sharply for years until we were on par with those schools.
 
In the late '80s or so Wake openly admitted that it was increasing tuition because the schools it perceived as peer institutions were charging much more. Not because of increased costs or the need to provide services or facilities - just because our peer institutions were charging more. Those increases continued sharply for years until we were on par with those schools.

More proof that all the Deac8_ are morons.
 
I think you need to review your Econ basics. Demand doesn't exist for a product if you can't afford it. Without government loans, most people would not be able to afford college, and therefore demand would go down.

And equal means the same. So with two equal schools, no one rational is going to pick the more expensive one. These aren't hard concepts to grasp.

No two schools are the same.

There are plenty of goods and services with high demand that people can't afford. That's why people can't afford them.
 
People that went to wake in the 80s are dumb
 
No two schools are the same.

There are plenty of goods and services with high demand that people can't afford. That's why people can't afford them.

I can't continue to have a conversation with someone who lacks a high school level knowledge of supply and demand.
 
I have a professional understanding of how higher education economics work. It's not like pricing soap.
 
Back
Top