If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
Meantime, even if true, all it would mean in any case is that colleges that accept students who have loans should face more rigorous regulation (as in fact they already do). Problem solved.
But of course you don't want to solve the problem. You only want the rich to get an education.
NEXT RIGHTWING MEME!
To my knowledge the schools that accept federal loans do not have their tuition regulated by them. The fact is that tuition has been increasing drastically compared to inflation and salary increases. Part of the problem may be due to increased access to federal financing opportunities.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
http://centerforcollegeaffordability...pothesis_2.pdfThe main lesson from this first refinement is that aid targeted to low income students (such as the Pell grant and subsidized Stafford loans) kink the demand curve, while universal (or near universal) aid (such as unsubsidized Stafford loans and the education tax credits) shift the entire demand curve. These programs therefore have very different implications when it comes to their impact on tuition. For policy makers, the key point is that financial aid that is restricted to low income students is much less likely to be captured by colleges, and will therefore be more likely to succeed in making college more affordable and therefore accessible (for low income students). In contrast, universally available programs
are more likely to simply fuel tuition increases and therefore more likely to fail to make college more affordable.
Where did I say I only want the rich to get an education? That is nonsense. What I want to see rather, is college costs restructured rather then throwing more money at the problem.
There is simply no reason for me to pay $700 for a 70 year old "professor" to read off wikipedia and show us movies because it is a "required Gen Ed." This was the case several times in my studies, and unfortunately that is several thousand dollars which I will never get back. If you really want to make college more affordable, get rid of teacher tenure.
Anyways, the second faulty assumption you are making is that this will lead to a more productive, trained workforce.
It should lead to one, but it won't if it just means we get more useless English and Art History majors instead of engineers. But, of course, that is a discussion for another time and place.
Since almost all students get some loan support, it would be suicide for a college to reject that deal.
But indeed, the hypothesis really reduces to the claim that if more kids go to college, tuition goes up. It has nothing to do with loans per se. It wouldn't matter if the college is paid by a rich daddy or by borrowing at exorbitant rates from private banks. What does matter is how that affects the students.
Frankly even if tuition does go up because more kids are getting college education (not necessarily a bad thing if it means better services), as long as the loans have low interest, it's still benefits overall productivity. And so this excursion hasn't made your case at all, but it does make mine: better educated people are more productive and produce economic growth and general prosperity more than unskilled uneducated workers. Every study shows that. So you now need to trot out another discredited hypothesis for me to shoot down.
I love the defense of knownothingism from the right.
Last edited by head of joaquin; 05-08-13 at 09:34 PM.
Yes and no. College tuition increases are a complicated subject. The article uses previous research to show that college tuition does go up as a result of federal aid in certain circumstances, but the relationship is less then 1:1. Fair enough, it might have some of an impact, but its probably less then the savings as a result of lower interest rates. But as a college student myself, I absolutely hated having to pay >$700 for useless tenured old professors teaching required courses that weren't even a part of my major. Several thousand dollars, flushed down the toilet. Cutting the Gen Ed requirements would prove to be extremely beneficial to bringing down college costs, and raising productivity. Surely, you can't tell me that having another year of taking medical based courses wouldn't lead to me having a much higher productivity.
But as far as productivity and job filling goes, you're making the assumption that more student graduates will lead to more jobs being filled. Yes and no. Some professions that we need more of such as engineers, nurses, IT staff, finance staff, etc. do require job degrees. But other jobs short of talent don't, they require skills learned in trade schools. Increasing the number of English and Art history majors isn't going to do anything to fill those positions, or lead to economic prosperity. No, all it does is lead to a growth of the college system and college costs without any corresponding increase in private sector benefit.
The whole point of college being a pathway to success in the past was its rarity. When everyone has a degree, very few people stand out, and the only difference becomes that you have an pay an extra 4 years of opportunity cost and still end up with the same service job that requires no knowledge of art history.
All her policies will do is inflate the student loan bubble even further and drive up tuition prices even more. Students will take out more and bigger loans and colleges will laugh all the way to the bank with the institution of these "progressive" policies. So in reality students end up with a higher principal payment but lower interest rate, and the work force is no better off than it is today. We already have an unemployment and underemployment problem for college-educated students and our youth; this will not solve it.
Also, when you talk about a better educated society being better off, are you taking into account cost? An entire society of academics will starve to death. At some point, working is preferable to further education. Education is supposed to be a means to make individuals more productive and efficient. For example, a programmer who writes an algorithm to do a rote task over and over increases efficiency. An arts major student does not increase efficiency for 99% of jobs, so it is really just a 4 year sunk cost.