• 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!

A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College

Gimmesometruth said:
The amount of time students spend working has been of increasing concern for the
educators that serve them and, in some instances, the students themselves. Recent
data would indicate that 80% of American undergraduates worked while attending
college in 1999-2000 (King, 2003).This represents an 8% increase over the class less
than a decade previously, among whom 72% worked (Cuccaro-Alamin & Choy,
1998)

http://www.indiana.edu/~ipas1/workingstudentbrief.pdf
Click to expand...

This is potentially serious problem. Some surveys have indicated that students today are spending a larger share of their time working than had been the case for the prior generation. Such work is cutting the amount of time they have for study and other activities e.g., participation in student activities, that are positively correlated with retention, progression, and graduation outcomes. In the past, time spent on homework/study exceeded time spent in class. In some cases, that ratio has reversed, even as hours spent in classroom instruction have remained relatively stable.
 
PeteEU said:
Hmm lets see.. a huge portion of the student population would fall by the road, causing college bankruptcies.. leaving higher education only to the wealthy 1%.. yea, that would cut the price for sure...
Click to expand...

no, first those colleges would stop wasting money just because they can get it....
Nearby college has a surplus outlet, and the amount of computer stuff going out the door is incredible.
MOST of those computers are newer than the one I am using now. They replaced all their CRT monitors with flat screens because they could. Most of us waited til our CRT monitors failed, or at least until the flat screen prices went down.
Their purchasing agents will buy hundreds of small items to get a price break, even tho they don't NEED hundreds of the items. Those new, unopened boxes of various items end up in surplus.
At the same time, they store old crap in warehouses because they have so much of it, and don't know what has value and what is scrap metal, ending up with silly prices too high on some stuff, and rediculously low prices on other items. The good stuff moves, the scrap sits there for months and months.
I mean, really, a dozen or more transparency overhead projectors? the old clunkers, from the 60's....
At the same time, high quality video projectors for a few hundred dollars that not so long ago cost many thousands...
I love the place, it is like a candy store to me....
 
I do not believe that tuition would go down if government-subsidized student loans were to disappear. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak. I do believe, however, that tuition has risen as high and as fast as it has in large part because student loans became too easy to get.
 
Perhaps another part of the problem is supply and demand in a global society. When talking about our best universities there is worldwide competition for spots regardless of cost it seems. So a school that charges nearly 60K for tuition room and board still gets to reject 90+% of applicants.

On the other end of the spectrum, what happened to free or very inexpensive state and city universities. NYC once had a great university system that I think was a key reason for the city's greatness.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Creative genius (a level of creativity that runs far above the norm) is not something that can necessarily be taught. It can be cultivated in many ways, including but not limited to education. Few people truly possess creative genius to the extent that they can surmount a college education. Andres Serrano is an exception, not the norm.
Click to expand...

I know a few people like that, some with degrees, some without, and I believe that it is as you say, genius is cultivated and nurtured, not taught.
One thing for sure, the few who rate the label are usually grabbed up by industry while still in High school or their early years in college.
It would be nice if we had a better way of identifying that kind of talent earlier.

BTW, I was identified as smart early on, but smart isn't enough. I was a fast learner, but a lot of it didn't stick in my brain for long. A poor memory is not conducive to holding on to multiple thoughts in order to come up with new ideas. I have been a little innovative, tho. Too bad my boss didn't tell me he was trying to get MORE people while I was showing his boss how we could do the job with less people.:doh
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
Perhaps another part of the problem is supply and demand in a global society. When talking about our best universities there is worldwide competition for spots regardless of cost it seems. So a school that charges nearly 60K for tuition room and board still gets to reject 90+% of applicants.

On the other end of the spectrum, what happened to free or very inexpensive state and city universities. NYC once had a great university system that I think was a key reason for the city's greatness.
Click to expand...
Supply-and-demand is what I mean when I say it ties into the increasing availability of student loans. Not discounting the impact of foreign admissions, but that's a lesser part, I think. When student loans became absurdly easy to obtain, demand increased in lockstep, and hence so did tuition.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
While I agree with what you say, then I must question why go to college? If I can get my foot in the door 4-6 years earlier than someone chasing a degree that won't even help them in the company, as they'd start at the bottom like I am, why bother? Get the head start, and by the time they get out with a degree, tons of student debt and no experience, you have 4-6 years of experience under your belt and are much more employable and "worth more" to the company, don't you think?
Click to expand...
That's the way it used to be. In 1955, one third of the CEOs had not gone to college. But then the aristocracy took over, in revolt against uppity people rising in class. Birth, not worth. College is designed for rich kids living off an allowance; others have to sacrifice their youth and do permanent damage to their personal lives and personalities. Now you have to crawl up the ladder on your hands and knees, licking the boots of those who go up it easily.
 
Cephus said:
There are many fields where college just isn't necessary. I think there should be more technical colleges which specifically teach hands-on skills for people who aren't going into a high-end career. That said though, it should never be an either/or proposition. You shouldn't make a decision between working or going to school, you should *ALWAYS* do both. Maybe if people had to work through college, they wouldn't have as much time to get drunk and party.
Click to expand...
Or to study. Pressed for time and energy, they take shortcuts to learning, cramming for exams and soon forgetting the material they get false credit for learning.
 
donsutherland1 said:
In many cases, firms don't have the luxury of rigorously testing their job applicants. In part, such testing can be cost-prohibitive. In part, testing has been outlawed, because "tests" had been used as an instrument to discriminate against members of minority groups, some of whom were eminently qualified for the actual requirements of the positions in question. Hence, a college degree serves as an instrument that attests to a person's possessing a given level of skills and knowledge, albeit an imperfect one.

On the point of self-teaching, I agree with you. Any reasonably intelligent and highly-motivated person can advance his/her knowledge in the fashion you describe. Unfortunately, an inadequate number of people are motivated to the extent that such an approach is viable to the point where firms would look less to a college degree.
Click to expand...
Instead of paying taxes, corporations should use that money to pay high school graduates to learn what the business needs. This whole set up is an insult to intelligence. This fear of testing being racially biased is just an excuse to bully people to go through the indentured servitude of the college experience. Fat cats want mice and they get bitten eventually by hiring no-talent collegian brown-noses. Only superior minds deserve college level jobs and the high test scorers should be treated the way the superior athletes recruited for college sports are treated. Also, retirees could teach the natural talent pool what they need to learn for the job instead of relying on the swamp of educated idiots. College is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. It is work without pay, which gives no indication of how someone will work for pay. Replace this dysfunctional and obsolete irrelevancy with paid professional training. You'll get the most talented people and motivate them to study. Working without pay is nothing to be proud of and should not be rewarded.
 
PrometheusBound said:
College is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. It is work without pay, which gives no indication of how someone will work for pay. Replace this dysfunctional and obsolete irrelevancy with paid professional training. You'll get the most talented people and motivate them to study. Working without pay is nothing to be proud of and should not be rewarded.
Click to expand...

I have to somewhat argue that. There are certain things that one just cannot no matter how motivated they are, learn on their own. For example, I just took a class called Research Methods in which we learned how to properly do quantitative studies. There was a lot of information in that course that I wouldn't have been able to learn on my own. Other examples are law and medicine, where you need to go to college. Would you like to have a person with no medical degree operating on you?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
There are certain things that one just cannot no matter how motivated they are, learn on their own. For example, I just took a class called Research Methods in which we learned how to properly do quantitative studies. There was a lot of information in that course that I wouldn't have been able to learn on my own.
Click to expand...

You couldn't have just bought the course text and learned it on your own?
 
Arbo said:
You couldn't have just bought the course text and learned it on your own?
Click to expand...

Textbooks only cover so much - some classes incorporate the real life experiences of the instructor and participation activities (like field trips and special events).

Eventhough I've become miffed with the lack of quality for some of my courses - I can't deny that having a classroom environment that centers around discussion and such things is also extremely helpful.

If you learn by the book you'll only know what's in the book - if the professor/college takes it seriously you'll learn much more.
 
Last edited:
YoungConserv said:
Ill let you on a secret a big reason that we have huge loan debt is because we as students are being told to study what we want not what we can get a job in. I started as an anthropology major then realized there where no jobs in that so i switched to Environmental studies and business to take advantage of the shale boom in texas now i will be debt free in 6 years after graduation next year. We have forgotten why we go to college it is to become more marketable not for elective hobbys.
Click to expand...

Clearly, for most people, studying what may get you a decent job is rarely the same thing as studying what you're interested in.

However, if students are to be expected to go to college primarily for the sake of their future employers, then employers should be paying the tuition, not the students, as the employer is the primary beneficiary of state-and-student-subsidized vocational training.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any other context in which the student is expected to train and study primarily for the benefit of others...and yet the student is required to pay most of the costs of such training and study. At least if you're a monk or other kind of ascetic, some larger institution or community provides resources for you. Students (and their families), however, pay through the nose...and then they're supposed to ignore their own interests and cater their studies to what employers want on top of all that?!?

This actually isn't so hard to track: simply tax the hell out of any business which requires its job applicants to have college degrees, and earmark those taxes for supporting public colleges and universities. If they don't want to get hit with that tax, then maybe they might consider no longer listing a completely irrelevant degree requirement for a god damn entry level office position (I was unemployed for about eight months recently, and I regularly encountered such postings).

This could go either way, depending on one's values: we can drop the pretense and let the current system -- which is already overwhelmingly geared in favor of the interests of employers -- be openly identified as job training (in which case employers should pick up the tab)... or we could renew the classical notions of higher education as a real and substantive venue for exploration of the arts and sciences, incorporating it into a larger human drive to expand our knowledge and capabilities.
 
cmakaioz said:
Clearly, for most people, studying what may get you a decent job is rarely the same thing as studying what you're interested in.

However, if students are to be expected to go to college primarily for the sake of their future employers, then employers should be paying the tuition, not the students, as the employer is the primary beneficiary of state-and-student-subsidized vocational training.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any other context in which the student is expected to train and study primarily for the benefit of others...and yet the student is required to pay most of the costs of such training and study. At least if you're a monk or other kind of ascetic, some larger institution or community provides resources for you. Students (and their families), however, pay through the nose...and then they're supposed to ignore their own interests and cater their studies to what employers want on top of all that?!?

This actually isn't so hard to track: simply tax the hell out of any business which requires its job applicants to have college degrees, and earmark those taxes for supporting public colleges and universities. If they don't want to get hit with that tax, then maybe they might consider no longer listing a completely irrelevant degree requirement for a god damn entry level office position (I was unemployed for about eight months recently, and I regularly encountered such postings).

This could go either way, depending on one's values: we can drop the pretense and let the current system -- which is already overwhelmingly geared in favor of the interests of employers -- be openly identified as job training (in which case employers should pick up the tab)... or we could renew the classical notions of higher education as a real and substantive venue for exploration of the arts and sciences, incorporating it into a larger human drive to expand our knowledge and capabilities.
Click to expand...

Hey, look at that...you and I kinda agree on something....
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Textbooks only cover so much - some classes incorporate the real life experiences of the instructor and participation activities (like field trips and special events).

Eventhough I've become miffed with the lack of quality for some of my courses - I can't deny that having a classroom environment that centers around discussion and such things is also extremely helpful.

If you learn by the book you'll only know what's in the book - if the professor/college takes it seriously you'll learn much more.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I believe there's a lot of value in the classroom/campus experience and not all of that value can be captured in distance learning.
 
Here's the thing with college, guys.

Our country, or, more to the point, our economy, operates on debt. What I mean to say by that is, loans are the engines that power what I like to call spending tomorrow's money today. Everything we do, in this country, we do on borrowed money. Pay rolls for the larger corporations are not actual in hand cash, it's with loans. Insurance, debt. So on and so forth. Once upon a time, the housing market provided all we needed, of the sort of debt needed, to power this type of economy. Then, the middle class started shrinking, back in the late 70s and early 80s. Less middles class, equals less home owners. Which, of course, equals fewer mortgages. In the 90s, our government tried implementing changes that would help more people get into houses, but that backfired, as we can all attest to. Turns out, there was a reason lenders had strict policies on qualification requirements for mortgages. Who knew? So now what is fueling our debt driven economy? College debt. We HAVE to keep student loans easily available, because they are now our greatest source of debt, which we need, in order to bundle up, and sell of to other companies in the form of securities. (My student loans have been sold 3 times...3 times, I have had to change who I make payments to.) Since college students tend to be younger, college loans are also more secure...they've got a LOOOOONG time to pay them off. Also, since bankruptcy does not forgive student loan debt, they are immune to the sort of issues that sent our economy into a funk a couple years ago, unlike mortgages. To add to all these great benefits, having a kid in debt means having guaranteed workers. It's take whatever job is out there, or lose your car. And that's good for our economy.




Before getting all uppity, please realize that this post is dripping with what I hope reads as acidic sarcasm.:(
 
cmakaioz said:
Clearly, for most people, studying what may get you a decent job is rarely the same thing as studying what you're interested in.

However, if students are to be expected to go to college primarily for the sake of their future employers, then employers should be paying the tuition, not the students, as the employer is the primary beneficiary of state-and-student-subsidized vocational training.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any other context in which the student is expected to train and study primarily for the benefit of others...and yet the student is required to pay most of the costs of such training and study. At least if you're a monk or other kind of ascetic, some larger institution or community provides resources for you. Students (and their families), however, pay through the nose...and then they're supposed to ignore their own interests and cater their studies to what employers want on top of all that?!?

This actually isn't so hard to track: simply tax the hell out of any business which requires its job applicants to have college degrees, and earmark those taxes for supporting public colleges and universities. If they don't want to get hit with that tax, then maybe they might consider no longer listing a completely irrelevant degree requirement for a god damn entry level office position (I was unemployed for about eight months recently, and I regularly encountered such postings).

This could go either way, depending on one's values: we can drop the pretense and let the current system -- which is already overwhelmingly geared in favor of the interests of employers -- be openly identified as job training (in which case employers should pick up the tab)... or we could renew the classical notions of higher education as a real and substantive venue for exploration of the arts and sciences, incorporating it into a larger human drive to expand our knowledge and capabilities.
Click to expand...

You have a point. But I think putting anything tax-wise on businesses would just encourage them to skirt the issue. Not decide it's not necessary; but put it 'under the table' for a requirement.

Higher-education in general: I think it goes beyond that (or should I say - goes *earlier* than that). I think the issue starts with public schooling which is no longer sufficient for a reasonable job/career beyond highschool. It's set up poorly - 12 years . . . for what? Only to *have* to go onto college? Why? Is 16 / 17 years of of full-time education really necessary just to find employment these days to pay the bills? 12 years in school should be plenty for a job that really requires little 'working-skills and knowledge'

It use to be that a high-school diploma was adequate for a semi-reasonable career or employment path in life. If you wanted to do better - you chose to go to college. The cost of college is a different issue altogether.

In this day and age we have numerous peopel working mundane crap jobs *with* college degrees because their degrees are really just meaningless in the job-market - unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Textbooks only cover so much - some classes incorporate the real life experiences of the instructor and participation activities (like field trips and special events).

Eventhough I've become miffed with the lack of quality for some of my courses - I can't deny that having a classroom environment that centers around discussion and such things is also extremely helpful.

If you learn by the book you'll only know what's in the book - if the professor/college takes it seriously you'll learn much more.
Click to expand...

Not to pick nits, but if the information is not in a book, but comes from some secret stash of info the professor has, where did the professor get that knowledge? Most professors I have ever had went straight from student to teaching, not out in the world where they get practical experience.
 
Arbo said:
Not to pick nits, but if the information is not in a book, but comes from some secret stash of info the professor has, where did the professor get that knowledge? Most professors I have ever had went straight from student to teaching, not out in the world where they get practical experience.
Click to expand...

My professors all have had careers in their field before they became professors, actually.

My Anthropologist lived in Pullap and other countries for years doing cultural research - wrote several books on her findings, raised her familiy in Micronesia, etc. Only later in life did she come back to the US and pursue a career as a professor. She used her first-hand experience to help us better understand the role of anthropology and culture in life.

My Geology Professor was an Oceanographer among other things for research, as well - worked for government, oil companies, other research facilities.

My Information Technology professor worked as a programmer in cobalt and for a variety of technology companies/businesses like Microsoft.

My Math professors have had jobs as statisticians, accountants, etc. My Social Problems instructor was the former mayor of his town and had a unique variety of input into politics, etc - from his first hand experience. My law professor was a lawyer for a while and then a legal counselor. Theater instructor was a director and choreographer . . .so on, so forth.

Most professors have had lengthy careers long before exploring the idea of getting their MD to be able to teach a college level course. Becoming a professor seems to be a choice made only later in life - maybe after their career has fizzled or they're tired of things.

A book can't expose you to the full depth of knowledge and experience that some of these people have had - and that means that some professors bring *a lot* of extras to their course - and others not so much. Who your professor is can really make or break how beneficial the class will be to you.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Textbooks only cover so much - some classes incorporate the real life experiences of the instructor and participation activities (like field trips and special events).

Eventhough I've become miffed with the lack of quality for some of my courses - I can't deny that having a classroom environment that centers around discussion and such things is also extremely helpful.

If you learn by the book you'll only know what's in the book - if the professor/college takes it seriously you'll learn much more.
Click to expand...
It's not true that learning on your own means sticking to one textbook. Learning in the classroom does mean sticking to one professor's prejudices. The 6th Grade grammar of most college graduates proves* that they didn't have the ability to truly learn even such a basic subject.

The Diploma Dumboes would say "prove," as Law School graduate Sen. Trent Lott said, "My choice of words were unfortunate."
 
People have ridiculous amounts of college debt that makes you shake your head...if you go to a school that costs a **** ton on loans then yeah..you're going to have a **** ton of college debt.

I'm more sympathetic with the folks that go through state colleges and try to do things right and still end up with 50k or so...which is not easy to pay off.

Edit: before people start thinking I have any sort motive for that view I had/have no college debt had scholarships and GI Bill so made money attending.
 
Last edited:
My professors all have had careers in their field before they became professors, actually.
Click to expand...
Same here....I got the impression teaching ='d retiring for a lot of my professors.

The only one's that didn't have careers were those that were adjunct professors working on their PHD's or masters etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom