• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cost of High School Dropouts Draining US Taxpayer

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CNBC:

High school dropouts on average receive $1,500 a year more from government than they pay in taxes because they are more likely to get benefits or to be in prison, according to a U.S. study released on Wednesday.
"Dropping out of high school before receiving a high school diploma places a substantial fiscal burden on the rest of society," wrote Andrew Sum of Northeastern University, an author of a study of Illinois and Chicago residents done on behalf of the Chicago Urban League and some education groups.

News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Not sure I have seen where college has been de-emphasized as a topic. I have seen threads on how it should be paid was discussed. Thought most people agree that if you don't have a higher education degreee, then the person should have a "trade" education (mechanic school for example, tech schools).

As far as people with not even a high school income. It is common sense that most would be in the lower income bracket and try and use many of the social benifits that are available.

It makes common sense that those who have higher education will end up in higher paying jobs. American will allways need mechanics, construction, etc. College is not for everyone. Some of my friends never went to college, but did go to trade school. They make what is considered middle class income.
 
Last edited:
This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

The crux of that argument takes the form of hyperbolizing the study of the arts. Some will claim that it is theater/poetry majors taking 100k loans that does harm to our society. But i disagree. The real problem arises from students (from all fields of study) taking out college loans and not finishing their degrees.

Here
is an interesting article:

Conclusion

Students who start college but do not graduate
incur large personal expenses. They pay thousands
of dollars in tuition, they likely take out loans, they
change their lives, but they fail in one of the most
important goals they have ever set for themselves.
In the meantime, taxpayers pay billions of dollars
in grants and state appropriations to support
these students as they pursue degrees they will
never earn.
In this report, we have documented yet another
cost of the nation’s low college graduation rate. As
a nation, we incur hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost income each year. These losses translate into
millions of dollars in lost income taxes.
President Obama’s call for the United States to
regain the lead as the nation in the world with the
highest concentration of college and university
degrees has a fiscal underpinning that is beyond
question: Low college graduation rates are costly
for students, for their families, and for taxpayers in
each state and the nation as a whole.
 
Can't disagree. "The real problem arises from students (from all fields of study) taking out college loans and not finishing their degrees."
It is a shame that so many of are young adults make such life decisions. There may be good reasons for it, but I think the lack of parental guidance as the kid was growing up may have a lot to do with it. Its the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

With the entitlement attitude today, guess some think the govt. will provide and I don't need to do a thing.
 
Though not all that common, one can drop out of high school and still obtain a college degree.
 
I read the story twice and I did not read anywhere that it noted that those who did not attend college cost society anything. So I must ask.....

What does this have to do with the article?

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.
 
I read the story twice and I did not read anywhere that it noted that those who did not attend college cost society anything. So I must ask.....

What does this have to do with the article?

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Reading it 4 times will not help; you need to "read between the lines".
 
Not sure I have seen where college has been de-emphasized as a topic.

One such piece can be found at: Down with the Four-Year College Degree! | Charles Murray | Cato Unbound

The reality is that in a world where college degree attainment in the U.S. is slipping relative to the United States' OECD peers and select developing countries poses a long-term competitivess threat in a world where knowledge/critical thinking/information literacy/technology literacy demands are growing increasingly demanding. A smaller pool of talent will lead to less growth in today's and tomorrow's rapid growth sophisticated economies. As a society, those foregone opportunities will not only have an impact on underutilization of one's capacities/underemployment, it will also translate in fewer jobs being created for all persons (lower income than would otherwise be attainable means less consumption spending and also less saving). Lower aggregate demand from foregone consumption translates into less need for production, less demand for supplies/capital equiment, less need for labor, etc. Reduced saving and investment leads to fewer startups, a higher cost of capital, and foregone R&D, all of which can damage consumer welfare (reduced competition/reduced choice/reduced economies of scale, learning effects, experience effects) and undermine competitiveness.

If one examines the nation's employment data (Table A-4 shows the unemployment rate based on educational attainment and Table B-1 shows which industries are adding jobs), the clear conclusion is that it is more important for Americans to obtain a college degree than in the past. The numbers speak for themselves.

Note, I'm not talking about 100% college degree attainment. There will always be certain trades where a degree might be unnecessary. But those generally are not high-growth (employment positions and incomes) areas.
 
The article DOES NOT come out against a college degree. It does the exact opposite.

He's advocating alternatives to the four-year college degree. He states, "Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence–treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships..." Alternatives already exist. The economic statistics e.g., employment data, argue strongly against those alternatives. Greater emphasis on assuring that students complete their four-year college education rather than start but never complete it or pursue faddish alternatives would serve students and society best. One cannot ignore the growing importance of knowledge-centered professions and also relative gains being made in higher educational attainment abroad.

The intellectually lazy approach is for U.S. policy makers or pundits to wring their hands, run up the surrender flag, and argue to do away with higher education. The better approach would be to address the issues that are responsible for subpar attainment of college degrees, even if that means rigorous reform of the primary and secondary education system to assure that students are truly prepared for the rigors of higher education.
 
He's advocating alternatives to the four-year college degree. He states, "Getting rid of the BA and replacing it with evidence of competence–treating post-secondary education as apprenticeships..." Alternatives already exist. The economic statistics e.g., employment data, argue strongly against those alternatives. Greater emphasis on assuring that students complete their four-year college education rather than start but never complete it or pursue faddish alternatives would serve students and society best. One cannot ignore the growing importance of knowledge-centered professions and also relative gains being made in higher educational attainment abroad.

The intellectually lazy approach is for U.S. policy makers or pundits to wring their hands, run up the surrender flag, and argue to do away with higher education. The better approach would be to address the issues that are responsible for subpar attainment of college degrees, even if that means rigorous reform of the primary and secondary education system to assure that students are truly prepared for the rigors of higher education.

None of that has anything to do with the original article you posted.
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

They're not talking about college goers - pass or fail. They're talking about teens who drop out of high school and who don't usually go onto college.

I think it's the other way aorund though: I think the dropping out is reflective of their choices and values in life already - not for everyone - but for many. If they drop out it's because their life was already unraveling. The article suggests that they drop out: and then their life falls apart because of that - which is wrong.

Drop out rates are alos highly reflective of the age-disparity. . . Once you're age 18 (and usually this is the age for students to be seniors) the sense of 'individual adult' kicks in and many immediately jump ship and try to be independent because - legally - they can. Legally - their parents can't compell them and, being parents, make little effort to lay down their own parental law.

So - Instead of stitching this together with college statistics. . .this should be stitched together with trying to figure out ways of circumventing the reasons why students drop out and trying to shorten the amount of time you're expected to spend in school is definitely worth looking into.
 
Last edited:
Also, while I do not discount that those who drop out are more likely going to cost taxpayers more than those who graduate from High School (which is what this article is about) one has to take the numbers with at least a skewed view as it's being presented by a group with something to gain.
 
They're not talking about college goers - pass or fail. They're talking about teens who drop out of high school and who don't usually go onto college.

I think it's the other way aorund though: I think the dropping out is reflective of their choices and values in life already - not for everyone - but for many. If they drop out it's because their life was already unraveling. The article suggests that they drop out: and then their life falls apart because of that - which is wrong.

Drop out rates are alos highly reflective of the age-disparity. . . Once you're age 18 (and usually this is the age for students to be seniors) the sense of 'individual adult' kicks in and many immediately jump ship and try to be independent because - legally - they can. Legally - their parents can't compell them and, being parents, make little effort to lay down their own parental law.

So - Instead of stitching this together with college statistics. . .this should be stitched together with trying to figure out ways of circumventing the reasons why students drop out and trying to shorten the amount of time you're expected to spend in school is definitely worth looking into.

Using an OECD comparison, that the U.S. is way behind in college completion rates is simply a matter of fact. Why is it that we do not see constant rates of completion across all OECD nations?

My answer? The U.S.'s addiction to low skilled labor.
 
Also, while I do not discount that those who drop out are more likely going to cost taxpayers more than those who graduate from High School (which is what this article is about) one has to take the numbers with at least a skewed view as it's being presented by a group with something to gain.

So nothing but your suspicious opinion?
 
This just goes to show that Newt is right.
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

I don't think anyone is de-emphasizing a college education. However, what IMO should happen is stop trying to convince kids that a college degree = an instant 6 figure job. By the same token, a GED, HS diploma, or nothing at all isn't a first class ticket to poverty.

It's all about possessing a work ethic, self motivation and finding one's nitch.
 
None of that has anything to do with the original article you posted.

Correct, but it rebuts your claim, "The article DOES NOT come out against a college degree. It does the exact opposite." The article advocates alternatives to a four-year degree. It's a bad policy recommendation.
 
Correct, but it rebuts your claim, "The article DOES NOT come out against a college degree. It does the exact opposite." The article advocates alternatives to a four-year degree. It's a bad policy recommendation.

I do not think you understand the arguement. It actually is a very strong arguement for the off topic arguements here concerning people not finishing their degree's. It's argueing that the system is outdated. He argues that continueing education is great but there is no reason a degree must be four years. I fully agree.
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.
Although I understand your point, I disagree for this reason; we need to improve the quality of our high school education. College is not a place to learn what you should have learned in high school, and that's what it is becoming through the community college system. Our pathetic public education system is such a failure, that community colleges and even universities are having to teach remedial courses, and teach courses that ought to have been taught in high school.

But if the problem is high dropout rates in high school, the college isn't even an option because they are still in high school. Middle and high school are where we need to focus our energy. That's where the problem lies.
 
Using an OECD comparison, that the U.S. is way behind in college completion rates is simply a matter of fact. Why is it that we do not see constant rates of completion across all OECD nations?

My answer? The U.S.'s addiction to low skilled labor.

Yes - very good. But the article doens't discuss college. It discusses high school drop out rates. :shrug:

So: your point is . . . ??

I think the issues with education is that it's been given such a fashoinable negative - most people just don't value it.
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.

Obviously we need to mandate that people attend college then.
 
Where does the money go when a large percent of the students drop out?
 
From CNBC:



News Headlines

This new data further debunks emerging arguments that the U.S. should de-emphasize a college education. It is consistent with the already large body of evidence showing higher lifetime earnings and greater job stability for those who have college degrees.
I don't think you can pull much regarding college out of this article. However, current efforts to cut the number of teachers and/or their benefits certainly don't seem to further the purpose of keeping kids in school. And in light of this article, those objectives don't seem likely to accomplish the goal of reducing government costs either.

But I think most people knew that already. Besides the issue of tenure, which just about everybody agrees is a horrendously stupid idea, the attack on teachers is really just an attempt to destroy a powerful group that helps fund the Democratic party. Tie it together with redistricting and voter ID laws and the corruption of our current government becomes clear.
 
Obviously we need to mandate that people attend college then.

No such mandates should be given. The proper role for policy would be to maximize opportunities and incentives for students to attend and complete college while reducing incentives for alternatives. For example, the formula for financial aid for students who choose to attend a four-year college could be more generous than any assistance for non-college alternatives. Part of the evaluation of secondary school systems could be based not just on the percentage of students who go on to college, but also the percentages who complete their college education in 4 and 6 years benchmarked against peer schools (similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, etc.).

The former would be a federal approach. The latter would be more of a state-based approach. Those are just two examples and they fall far short of the broad range of reforms that could be introduced with the overall goal of increasing college attendance and timely attainment of a college degree.
 
Back
Top Bottom