• 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

Meh. Seems like nitpicking to me. My parents told me that they are paying for four years of college, no more, same as NY. The service academies require service for their education, so not unreasonable for NY to do the same. They need a return on their investment.

In light of NY State, how does NC excuse themselves of doing the same/similar in light of the state constitution

Article 9

Sec. 9. Benefits of public institutions of higher education.
The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.
Click to expand...

I don't think charging market rate is "as far as practicable" compared to NY State.

NC had a chance to do the right thing, and copy Georgia's Hope Scholarship when it legalized the lottery. They blew it, and our teachers are still underpaid.
 
I'm mostly concerned about #1 for the reasons stated. If the Trump administration pulls the rug from underneath low income prospective college students, state programs like this will be holding the bag.

#3 should be easier to do under this program although extending it to 5 or 6 years makes plenty of sense. Students are still going to work (but hopefully fewer hours) but they'll need time and flexibility to switch majors. Graduating in four years is a luxury for kids from higher-income backgrounds.

#4 really doesn't bother me. I've known Sara since we were grad students and I greatly respect her work. I don't see the problem, especially since it's NY. Maybe if it was Montana or Idaho, but there's plenty of work across multiple sectors in NY. As I said before, the problem is if it forces students to attend grad school in NY.
 
Does this administration meet in a fucking skull on an island? Seriously, wtf?
 
PhDeac said:
Taxpayers. What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

My first point of confusion is why it is referred to as "free college" when they should call it "college paid for by someone else" - but that is not nearly as catchy. My second point of confusion is why people think this is so great. I don't know which tax bucket this money is coming from but NY already has the highest total tax burden in the country. I can only assume that this program will, if anything, make that burden go up over time. Why are people so happy to give the government a bigger share of their money so the government can inefficiently handle it and give it away to other people. I just don't get it.

One of the big drivers of the hyper-inflation of the cost of college attendance is demand. That demand, and the resulting competition for those kids, has created an arms race in facilities and programs which ramp up costs. Add that to the jump in non-educational jobs on college campuses which, again, increase costs. In addition to obvious college-aged population increases, a major driver of demand has been the easy availability of college loans and the societal expectation that a college degree is a requirement for everyone.

It seems like there are enough grants, scholarships, loans, etc. out there already that if a determined and capable kid wants to go to college her or she can. Why create more artificial demand?

I don't know how you reverse the trend but a better use of someone's time would be to figure out how to slow or stop the hyper-inflation of the cost of attending college.
 
So presumably you think the answer to lowering demand is removing programs that help access to education for those who otherwise can't afford it...
 
TownieDeac said:
So presumably you think the answer to lowering demand is removing programs that help access to education for those who otherwise can't afford it...
Click to expand...

I think the point is that somebody who is smart and/or hardworking who will benefit from a college education, and who comes from a family with minimal means, already has plenty of ways to go to college for next to nothing. It isn't helping those kids much; what it does is give a reason for kids who have generally wasted their prior 13 years of public sponsored education to extend their ride another 4 years and come out with generally the same life prospects, and as a consequence continue to water down the value of a college degree for everyone.

What would be a better alternative for NY would be to take this money and really ramp up the first 13 years of education to produce some kick-ass, college and/or life ready students. Value substance over a piece of paper for once. The world doesn't need more people wondering why their SUNY-Potsdam diplomas aren't good for anything other than toilet paper in the 7-11 where they work.
 
TownieDeac said:
So presumably you think the answer to lowering demand is removing programs that help access to education for those who otherwise can't afford it...
Click to expand...

No, despite what you might infer from my post I am not an uncaring asshole. I am not sure what the answer is - I just don't think giving more money to the government is part of that answer.

I think two things are true. Not everyone needs to or should go to a 4-year college (and I understand the NY program covers 2-year community college as well, which is good). But, students who would benefit from a 4-year education, who would work at it and for it, who would make use of it, etc. - should be able to obtain one without taking out the equivalent of a mortgage in loans. That can be achieved through a combination of lowering the cost of school and providing grants and aid. [How you identify kids that meet that criteria - or whatever critieria you use - I don't know]

In my experience, the current situation in most of the country is that "poor" kids don't have a problem going to college, if they qualify - there are plenty of grants and aid available. "Rich" kids don't have a problem because they can afford it. The kids in the middle are the ones struggling and taking out huge loans. They have been raised as middle-class kids expected to go to college but because the cost of college has risen so fast beyond inflation, their parents didn't or couldn't save enough money to send them.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think the point is that somebody who is smart and/or hardworking who will benefit from a college education, and who comes from a family with minimal means, already has plenty of ways to go to college for next to nothing. It isn't helping those kids much
Click to expand...

hard disagree
 
Personal experience? Had talented, hard-working friends who couldn't afford to go to college and didn't qualify for merit or need-based scholarships. Most ended up going to community college and paying for it with full-time work, hoping to transfer later and get a scholarship of some kind. If that's still in the definition of "ways to go to college for next to nothing," fine.

I also think with the median household income nationwide at $56k or thereabouts, there are plenty that are above the needs scholarship/financial aid qualifications but below affording to pay for even most state schools.
 
scooter, are you confused when people don't call kindergarten "kindergarten paid for by someone else?"

I don't understand why people who are generally fine with 13 years of taxpayer funded education flip their shit about boosting that to 17 for the poorest Americans.
 
TownieDeac said:
Personal experience? Had talented, hard-working friends who couldn't afford to go to college and didn't qualify for merit or need-based scholarships. Most ended up going to community college and paying for it with full-time work, hoping to transfer later and get a scholarship of some kind. If that's still in the definition of "ways to go to college for next to nothing," fine.

I also think with the median household income nationwide at $56k or thereabouts, there are plenty that are above the needs scholarship/financial aid qualifications but below affording to pay for even most state schools.
Click to expand...

Apparently not talented and/or hardworking enough.
One of our systemic problems is an overabundance of people with virtually worthless college degrees who can't find jobs. I fail to see how creating even more college degrees with lower values helps anyone. The poor kid smart enough to go to Princeton is already getting a free ride somewhere if he wants to take it. We're talking about the kids who over the prior 13 years have already established that they shouldn't get the free or significantly-paid-for ride to SUNY-Buffalo State. Einstein, they are not. This just pushes them off to the next level for no real reason.
 
PhDeac said:
scooter, are you confused when people don't call kindergarten "kindergarten paid for by someone else?"

I don't understand why people who are generally fine with 13 years of taxpayer funded education flip their shit about boosting that to 17 for the poorest Americans.
Click to expand...

Because if the prior 13 had worked, they wouldn't need help with the next 4. So the system is doubling down on its own poor performance.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Apparently not talented and/or hardworking enough.
Click to expand...

a fine enough point to agree to disagree on

far less talented and hard working folks go to college all the time because their parents can afford to

but that's likely where we part in philosophy
 
PhDeac said:
scooter, are you confused when people don't call kindergarten "kindergarten paid for by someone else?"

I don't understand why people who are generally fine with 13 years of taxpayer funded education flip their shit about boosting that to 17 for the poorest Americans.
Click to expand...

Do people call Kindergarten "Free Kindergarten"?


And this program just screams of treating the symptom and not the cause. More and more money would need to get thrown at this program without addressing the issue of over-inflating cost of college.
 
TownieDeac said:
Personal experience? Had talented, hard-working friends who couldn't afford to go to college and didn't qualify for merit or need-based scholarships. Most ended up going to community college and paying for it with full-time work, hoping to transfer later and get a scholarship of some kind. If that's still in the definition of "ways to go to college for next to nothing," fine.

I also think with the median household income nationwide at $56k or thereabouts, there are plenty that are above the needs scholarship/financial aid qualifications but below affording to pay for even most state schools.
Click to expand...

In my experience, if he didn't qualify for need-based help then he wasn't really low income... I know one guy who gamed the system by quitting his job and starting his own company. He deferred any income from the company for a few years, thereby having only the household income of his wife, who made probably less than $50k. His kids got $100s of thousands of dollars in scholarships (they were well qualified academically but no geniuses).
 
PhDeac said:
scooter, are you confused when people don't call kindergarten "kindergarten paid for by someone else?"

I don't understand why people who are generally fine with 13 years of taxpayer funded education flip their shit about boosting that to 17 for the poorest Americans.
Click to expand...

Others have addressed but this is a dumb question. Everyone knows tax money pays for elementary education. All kids can and, I believe, are actually required to go to elementary school. Not everyone goes to college, nor should they.
 
scooter84 said:
Others have addressed but this is a dumb question. Everyone knows tax money pays for elementary education. All kids can and, I believe, are actually required to go to elementary school. Not everyone goes to college, nor should they.
Click to expand...

Why should you have gone to college?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top