Here's the problem: in this scenario, income determines your level of education.TheWesDude said:
UK Tuition Fee Protests
- Thread starter Threepwood
- Start date
Loans aren't free.Shoveler said:
Sander said:
Student loans aren't free, however, they are also not dependant on how much money you have in the bank or how much your parents have. Millions do this a year in the U.S., people around here act like it's some complete failure. It's not. This doesn't even take into account financial aid from all types of agencies.
If you go to school and rack up 100k in debt, not so huge when you can pull a 200-250k a year job.
It's just different philosophies on education. I can understand yours, I just don't happen to agree with it.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
not to mention that all those elite colleges offer tuition free slots to "perfect" candidates, there are both federal and private grants, plus there are jobs that will give you a paid internship...
no those loans are not free, but they offer very reasonable monthly payments with very low interest rates. they are very comprable if not lower than house rates.
plus i think part of the reason that UK is having such a money crunch and having to raise all these fees and taxes is because of all your "welfare" programs you use, including your welfare.
shit man, you guys are a stones throw away from a communist state where the state pays for everything and you pay the state like 90% of your income just in taxes.
socialisim run amok is what you are headed to.
no those loans are not free, but they offer very reasonable monthly payments with very low interest rates. they are very comprable if not lower than house rates.
plus i think part of the reason that UK is having such a money crunch and having to raise all these fees and taxes is because of all your "welfare" programs you use, including your welfare.
shit man, you guys are a stones throw away from a communist state where the state pays for everything and you pay the state like 90% of your income just in taxes.
socialisim run amok is what you are headed to.
That sounds good, but the problem is that someone who has a financially insecure background isn't going to feel so good about taking out a 100K loan.Shoveler said:
So if there are lots of ways to get there cheaply/for free, why not just lower tuition fees instead of dealing with all these convoluted grants?TheWesDude said:
Well, good to see you have a realistic view of welfare states in Europe. Except, y'know, the opposite. "It's almost communism. Socilaism run amok!" Really? Hah.TheWesDude said:
Also, that money crunch the whole world is facing was caused by the mess of a credit crunch the USA faces. Y'know, the one caused by defaulting loans and a credit industry gone insane? The one having absolutely nothing to do with welfare?
Sander said:
The insecurity is addressed with the first payment of the loan being delayed till well after you graduate. Yes it's a lot of responsibility, but at this point if you are choosing this kind of high end education, you probably wouldn't be flunking out of school, or realizing early on this isn't for you and not racking up that kind of debt.
Taxed more for cheaper education, or pay as you go. I prefer the pay as you go method. But, I can see how both sides have their advantages.
EDIT:
Sander said:
I know this wasn't directed at me, but just wanted to put in my 2 cents.
If tuition rates were lowered for all student then taxes would HAVE to be raised, and for most people (voters) that's a no go right off the bat.
The free grants are geared to help people attain higher education that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.
While at the same time ensuring people that do have the means & ability to pay still do through loans, and by means & ability I mean landing a job after graduation and paying off your loan.
Very few people get a free education due solely to government grants. But many people get a cheaper education due to a combo of government grants and student loans. Financial grant from the gov that would cover 20% of you education, the other 80% you'll cover with a student loan and start paying after graduation.
The grants/scholarships are based often on grades and income. If you have high income you probably won't qualify for any, as it should be. But if you have very good grades (no matter your income) you may qualify for some school/community scholarships which help greatly with expenses like books etc.
Sander said:
It's bad all over, the banks here were approving people for home loans for example that they would never have been able to pay. Joe Shmoe makes 30k a year, and has his eye on a 250k house.....banks actually approved this loan....and Joe was dumb enough to say okay.....bad business all the way around.
His house payment would have been about 2300 a month, nevermind he's making 2500 a month BEFORE taxes, and still has to pay other living expenses, he makes enough to cover the mortgage! So he's approved, just shady, and no one went to jail for this, neither Joe for being dumb, or the bankers for screwing people so badly, knowing how it would go down.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Sander said:
it actually wasnt
it was caused by housing loans made to sub-prime people. which the government said they would back but couldnt when those programs went bankrupt because the rules kept getting looser and looser thanks to congress and various presidents. it has been going on for a while. started happening during bush sr, then clinton made a large push to allow those loans to inner city people/businesses to try to recover them from being such a shit hole and then bush jr pushed it over the edge. and when fannie mae and freddie mac couldnt back those loans anymore, the bubble collapsed.
Well, the problem with the loan system is that it's simply another threshold, and I'd want to have the education system be as open as possible.Shoveler said:
But it's more a question of political preference than a question of right and wrong, I think.
Well the goal of all these grants and scholarships is to make college affordable for everyone, correct? It just seems like a complicated way of doing that.Shoveler said:
Yep. And this wouldn't be that bad in and of itself, but the credit industry blew it up by finding people who would buy those bad loans off their hands. Worse yet, they found people who they could sell insurance to that these loans wouldn't go bad. So that gave them an incentive to give loans to every sucker they could find. And eventually that led to the creation of financial packages that were basically replicas of replicas of replicas of replicas of the loans most likely to default. It's kind of hilarious how badly that spun out of control.Shoveler said:
I know what happened. That has nothing to do with welfare. It has everything to do with credit evaluation companies being incompetent.TheWesDude said:
Sander said:
This sounds about right.
Sander said:
It can be complicated, however, the alternative would be raising taxes specifically to cover this. Most Americans (Dems & Repubs) are against raising taxes for most things, not all, just most. I usually equate it to someone asking me to swallow a gallon of hydrochloric acid. At the words "tax hike" we're just ingrained to switch off, for good or bad.
Probably partially due to how much waste there is with our tax money currently, perfect example Obama issues a federal employee pay freeze...just this week 2.5 billion in federal raises approved to go out....in spite of the pay freeze. I mean what the hell does it take to wake up. Jebus.
Threepwood
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I'm so glad Sander is a better wordsmith than I.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
you guys are really just not getting it.
one last time.
with state mandated tuition costs, that removes the ability of colleges and universities to pay top wages for top professors and facilities.
there wont be any "elite" schools because they wont be able to pay for the full equipment for computer labs, biology labs, chemistry labs, physics labs, and all the other stuff colleges and universities do.
they wont be able to pay competitive wages to hold onto the top tier professors.
the colleges and universities will only be able to hold onto mediocre professors and some equipment but not everything.
so you will end up with a mediocre or less education. and when you have children thats what they will be limited to as well. there wont be an option to send them to an "elite" school in your own country if they qualify and you can afford it. your only option will be to send them to a foreign country.
the goal of any parent is to provide for their children better than they had. and thats not what you want.
if you rule out the possibility of "elite" higher education places, then you rule out the possibility of exceptional people in your country getting exceptional educations and instead being stuck with mediocre.
if thats what you want for your country, more power to you i guess, it just means you wont have an intellectual elite.
one last time.
with state mandated tuition costs, that removes the ability of colleges and universities to pay top wages for top professors and facilities.
there wont be any "elite" schools because they wont be able to pay for the full equipment for computer labs, biology labs, chemistry labs, physics labs, and all the other stuff colleges and universities do.
they wont be able to pay competitive wages to hold onto the top tier professors.
the colleges and universities will only be able to hold onto mediocre professors and some equipment but not everything.
so you will end up with a mediocre or less education. and when you have children thats what they will be limited to as well. there wont be an option to send them to an "elite" school in your own country if they qualify and you can afford it. your only option will be to send them to a foreign country.
the goal of any parent is to provide for their children better than they had. and thats not what you want.
if you rule out the possibility of "elite" higher education places, then you rule out the possibility of exceptional people in your country getting exceptional educations and instead being stuck with mediocre.
if thats what you want for your country, more power to you i guess, it just means you wont have an intellectual elite.
From Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/us_economy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025)
Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010. The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.
Oops!
Lack of tuition costs doesn't remove the ability to fund faculty and facilities, the funds simply come from other sources.
Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010. The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.
Oops!
Lack of tuition costs doesn't remove the ability to fund faculty and facilities, the funds simply come from other sources.
Shoveler said:
I see you conveniently discarded the example where Joe Shmoe, student, takes a 100k student loan he won't be able to pay after he graduate..... And I'm not talking out of my ass, it's happening right now everywhere in your country.
Some are even desperate enough to kill themselve at this point.
Actually, this is not true on several levels. First of all, top-level researchers are not the same as top-level educators. Second of all, in terms of education-level (not research-level) European universities are absolutely at the top - without private funding and trying to attract the top researchers.TheWesDude said:
Lastly, your entire premise is that without high tuition, universities can't pay. Which is nonsense, as publicly funded universities can pay plenty of money as long as the government is dedicated to providing them with that money.
Arr0nax said:
Most people don't rack up anywhere near this much debt, it was an off the cuff example. Would he not use his education ever? Not likely. I'm not talking about repaying loans instantly within the first year of graduating, I'm talking long haul (The average is the first payment is due 6 months after graduation). It is worth it.
Arr0nax said:
The highest number I could find for the U.S. was about 7% (most were about 5-6%) defaulting on their loans. Many of which could have been averted if they had talked to their lender early enough (I didn't spend a ton of time researching, number could vary I'm sure). I could completely believe this number is rising, as the economy is still unstable/stagnant.
EDIT: I was almost inclined to believe you weren't talking out of your ass, or maybe you just like to sling mud?
Whoops, seems the UK also has it's share of loan defaulters, even with the low/cheap tuition....341k loan defaulters currently in the UK that are being tracked. I couldn't find a hard percentage, but that number speaks for itself.
Arr0nax said:
Unless you can provide some data saying we are having an epidemic of suicides due to school bills ALONE, then I would point you toward the latest available suicide rates for Britain (don't know where your from so, since Britain was the topic) and the U.S.
There is not much separating the two, seemingly, British young people are killing themselves for other reasons besides school bills? (And that makes it better somehow?)
My contention would be those students committing suicide allegedly due to their school bills are far more likely to do so anyway. Regardless of what they owe for school. Anyone that can look at a bill in the mail/online and decide to kill themselves was unstable to begin with.
Are there young people in the U.S. committing suicide, yes, due to school bills ALONE, and not some other issue like possible mental problems or relationship problems, I would say that is VERY rare. Sorry but you'd have to provide some data regarding this before trying to use it as some pivotal fact in your argument. The fact is it is just not as much of a problem as you believe it to be.
The way you present it I should go out and buy a kevlar jacket and helmet due to all the stray bullets exiting college students heads around here. There are 5 universities within 20 minutes of me after all.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
dead guy,
that was a nice article about doomsday scenarios
you do know thats what that saloon article was right? it was a collection of ways/methods that the US will collapse by 2025.
that was a nice article about doomsday scenarios
you do know thats what that saloon article was right? it was a collection of ways/methods that the US will collapse by 2025.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
dead guy,
that was a nice article about doomsday scenarios
you do know thats what that saloon article was right? it was a collection of ways/methods that the US will collapse by 2025.
that was a nice article about doomsday scenarios
you do know thats what that saloon article was right? it was a collection of ways/methods that the US will collapse by 2025.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I don't think that funding is the problem so much as the quality of education.
TheWesDude said:
So what? The numbers I quoted are from 2010. Tuition is buying you 52nd place in maths and science education. Right now. Congrats.
I would personally much prefer a system where everyone could get an education matching their abilities, independent of how wealthy their parents happen to be, than a system where the best of the best might get a slightly better education than in the other system, but gifted people born in low income families might not be able to afford higher education at all. That is if I'd accept your theory about how much of an impact salaries have on the quality of a professor's ability to teach. I imagine it would be much more efficient to educate everyone close to the maximum of their abilities instead of a select few.