"Education bubble"?

[ja_va]

There is a popular conservative motto which is repeated over and over again recently: "education is the next bubble, people have already said. Financing college is the new real estate, and we know how that works out."It has been repeated so frequently that there seem to be a need to address it

Comments

[underlankers]

So let me get this straight, George Bush's two wars are to blame for the US Education system having had major, deep, in-built flaws in large areas of the country that have in US historical terms extremely deep roots, and for the evolution of a semi-medieval attitude to education and social classes by what now? 2001 began a new millennium, but was not some absolute break with everything that had gone before it.

[ja_va]

Two wars are to blame for budget deficit and near bankruptcy of the Federal government. Now that the government is almost bankrupt its ability to do anything, including in the area of education, is severely limited.

[underlankers]

Oh, OK. So when the next POTUS expanded one of the wars this had less impact than the GWB period of that same war did?

[ja_va]

How is it that he "expanded"? He had to deal with the war he inherited. I suppose he could have just walk away, but you do realize what kind of disaster that would be? However, the war in Iraq is pretty much over and the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. There are fewer troops, I do not see any "expansion".

[meus_ovatio]

. First of all, unlike the house which can be taken into the possession by virtually anyone who hold a pen and sign the mortgage document, getting a degree requires years of hard work and dedication.
Whether or not you get a degree is irrelevant to whether or not you have the debt. In fact, you instantly get the debt the second you sign for it! Amazing!

[ja_va]

First, you do not instantly get the debt. You get the 1/2 of the cost of one year after the beginning of the first semester, which is roughly 1/8 of the total, and then another 1/2 several months later, and so on. After you sign you still have at least couple of months of no debt and can cancel the whole deal.
If you do not get the degree you do not get your money back, it is true, but you also will not owe everything. Depending on where in the process you are you may own more or less. If you can see that the college is not for you, you can stop after the first semester and end up only owning 1/8 of the total, which depending on school can be as low as couple of thousands, but hardly an amount to die over. And I have never heard of people who really wanted to finish but were unable to - usually it is due to laziness or lack of motivation. Hardly much of an excuse.

[gunslnger]

There's so many flaws here it's hard to know where to start.

[mahnmut]

That's, like, deep, man!

[kylinrouge]

We don't know whether he's coming or going, folks!

[yes_justice]

When nothing to say, so difficult to say nothing.

[blondebaroness]

Children of the wealthy and not so wealthy don't borrow if their parents subsidize them. I borrowed and worked. I paid off my loan and paid for two more degrees as I went. No one is forced to borrow. None of this is George Bush's fault. If you're over your head because you borrowed more than you could handle, the responsibility lays squarely with you.

[paft]

And how long ago was this?

[curseangel]

Yeah, um, no. The responsibility doesn't "fall squarely on" the kid who took out a lot in student loans.

The responsibility lies with colleges that knowingly jack up their prices so they can make a pretty penny while their students starve. The responsibility lies with employers who require a BA to file papers in an office. The responsibility lies with a culture that says you have to go to college to make good money. The responsibility lies with a capitalist system that makes education a money-making corporate deal. The responsibility lies with predatory private loan companies. The responsibility lies with our society where in many, many places it is next to impossible to get a job paying more than minimum wage without a college degree. And so on.

When and where did you attend college? I'm very curious. Because it would have been literally impossible for me to attend my previous college and work enough to pay off my student loans year by year -- the tuition cost was much too high, and there were literally no jobs.

[paft]

c: When and where did you attend college? I'm very curious. Because it would have been literally impossible for me to attend my previous college and work enough to pay off my student loans year by year -- the tuition cost was much too high, and there were literally no jobs.

Exactly. This kind of thing really annoys me. Back in the '80s, when my husband and I were in college, it was just possible at some universities to put yourself through school by working part-time. Today, tuition has risen to the point that it's no longer possible, something that older people often ignore when they opine about how irresponsible and lazy young people are for accruing lots of student loan debt.

[root_fu]

I think you're missing the big picture.

Imagine that you own a college.

The more you can exploit students and convince them to sell themselves into debt and pseudo economic slavery, the more money you can make!

Massive debt isn't an accident nor a random occurrence.

Circumstances are intentionally influenced in such a fashion purely for monetary gain.

To students and the 99%, the exorbitantly high cost of non compulsory education is a "problem".

To the 1% who own schools, its money in the bank.

[ja_va]

First, not all colleges privately owned. Many, if not most, owned by the State government.
Second, even private colleges still have to compete with the government owned colleges, with each other, and with foreign colleges, like German one I've mention. So, there are restrictions on what they can charge.

But monetary gain is, certainly, a problem. Which is why the best solution is free education. Second best is British system, where you only pay on your loan when you have income and only a certain percentage of income, regardless of the size of debt. Remainder is cancelled after certain period of time, whether you repaid everything or not. This is what Obama is introducing now.

[root_fu]

None of which suggests exorbitant costs associated with 'higher education' are not profiteering in nature. ( :

I'll have to excavate my bookmarks to find the reference. If I remember right, for profit colleges have an average per student expense of... $3,000 - $4,000. And, an average tuition of $12,000 - $15,000. (I don't remember well, I'm guessing) State run schools have similar cost vs revenue averages.

Unless you can justify the massive differences(near 300% - 400% price mark ups), it may be difficult not to classify it as a blatant exploitation and profiteering program.

I consider privatized education to be vastly superior to socialist implementations. Socialism is a horrible system & vastly inferior to capitalism.

[ja_va]

profit colleges have an average per student expense of... $3,000 - $4,000
I think you are confused here. Does it take into account fixed costs, like buildings, lab equipment etc? Use of land? All in all you can only have 3000 per student if you are teaching in rural Africa.

I consider privatized education to be vastly superior to socialist implementations. Socialism is a horrible system & vastly inferior to capitalism.

"Socialism" is a monkey word that has no defined meaning. Former USSR considered itself "Socialist state", compare that to Sweden or Denmark and you will see how vastly different both systems are. There is no "socialism", there are systems with more government control and less free market, there are systems with less government control and more free market etc.