> Worse than just "backed by the federal government," the loans are basically protected by the government.
It is really strange that government does not constrain tuitions of the colleges participating in the loan program. Currently, Universities have no incentives to control costs in any way.
Pharmacy benefits managers provide no value and collect absurd fees. Perhaps companies should be required to justify their continued existence if subject of consumer complaints.
Literally all they have to do is limit the maximum loan size. Max $50k per year. Anything beyond that is not subsidized or requires proof of academic performance or ability to repay.
Then parents with money and pull in academic orgs will make sure that tuition will float just far enough above that limit that their children won't suffer from too much competition by the less fortunate.
But then on the other hand I'm not really convinced that this would actually be worse than the model of betting (or worse: bidding, it's a market with limited supply of high-status slots) seemingly unbounded amounts of future income on flying really high. And if they do fly high, just not quite high enough, it's effectively indentured service. No limits gambling is never a good idea, even if the game is not entirely devoid of an element of skill.
> Then parents with money and pull in academic orgs will make sure that tuition will float just far enough above that limit that their children won't suffer from too much competition by the less fortunate
Universities do that already. "Need-based" financial aid ensures that the parental contribution is near the hardship threshold for low-income parents - tipping the scale toward those with greater ability to pay. And external scholarships are simply deducted from "financial need" and largely pocketed by the university (which usually prohibits the funds from being used to reduce the parental contribution.)
Isn't it wonderful to be in a business that requires customers to turn over their financial records and charges based on "ability to pay?"
there's a very nice video I saw posted a while back where a graphic designer talks about how he'll charge different amounts for a logo for different customers - a small mom and pop shop will pay much less than a large multinational.
You'd probably need to do that. I pay $6k/sem for my university tuition, but it seems that what doesn't go towards tuition gets sucked up by slumlords or university room and board, so pressing down tuition prices alone doesn't seem like a feasible option. Limiting the overall liquidity, I think, would dramatically improve things.
It's either that or enrollment drops off a cliff because the college proposition is so off the rails. That appears to be the current trend, I believe.
1. Over what time frame? Med school takes 4 years and Residency takes 4+. JDs+bar take a few years and earnings take some time to ramp up. PhDs take half a decade (Even if we don't need more faculty, we do have a shortage of PhD supply in industry for fields like CS, Chem E, Biotech-ad, etc. and the median salary for those graduates is quite high with unemployment basically as low as you can go.)
2. Even without graduate education requirements, other fields have loooong ramp-up times but eventually end up doing well.
3. There are also jobs that are extremely valuable to society despite the expense of education (nursing comes to mind, as does teaching).
4. We would end up with stupid boom-bust cycles in labor supply and demand, even worse than what we have now. Reducing labor supply by making loans unavailable increases labor prices eventually, which eventually results in loans becoming available, which saturates supply, and then repeat the cycle every couple decades. Constant idiotic predicable crises. Welcome to myopic financial capitalism, where trust fund kids who never needed to pass their delay differential equations unit have all the power.
So to make this work you need some form of central planning of supply and demand -- by DECADES at a time. Who knew we'd need so many Python programmers in 1980 or even 2000? Which, if that predictive function works, why the FUCK are we using markets anyway?! Cut out the middle man if central planning works. (It doesn't.)
How about we just lose the cold war brain-rot and stop trying to use markets -- a legal fiction and policy tool!!! -- where they make no fucking sense. Markets are an incoherent solution to allocation problems where price signals are EXTREMELY delayed (education) or EXTREMELY coercive (health). Just fund it with tax dollars instead.
The market religion zombie from the red scare era needs to die. The amount of absolute brain rot in the American public caused by the inability to understand that markets are just fucking tools that depend on government coercion anyways is sending our entire society into a death spiral.
It's somehow unsurprising that the one true American religion of the 21st century -- deference to The Troops -- is the place where we're completely okay with socialism in higher education (the military academies).
Universities have long tried to argue that education isn't 'vocational' that their entire focus should be on producing a well rounded individual.
That dog don't hunt when that 'well rounded education' costs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and will burden the students for the rest of their lives. Once the student is on the hook for that debt, it becomes a strict return on investment calculation.
Want to study philosophy? By all means! It's among the most important subjects humanity can study, but you probably shouldn't be seeking a degree in it if you don't wish to teach it, and you damned sure shouldn't be condemned to serfdom because of it.
I have a philosophy degree (and a good career in a different field). It’s a good thing I didn’t wish to teach it, otherwise modern academia being what it is, that would be a life of serfdom!
Yeah if we did that I think we’d need to build some systems for these things. We need artists and writers and what not and precluding anyone who can’t afford it would probably suck for society. We’d need some good scholarship type programs to help out there. Honestly we could probably use those now, I don’t know how realistic a lot of these things are under our current system.
We have far, far too many liberal arts graduates. There is a huge labor shortage that we need those people to fill in fields like restaurants, plumbing, nursing, construction, farming, etc.
There's no labor shortage. There's only a wage shortage. Restaurants are a particularly egregious example, as someone with firsthand experience. Restaurants treat their employees like shit, work them to the bone, and then pay them as little as humanly possible. I got out and never looked back, because it turns out people are willing to shower you in cash if you can string together 3 lines of Python.
Healthcare as a whole baffles me. They pay well enough, sometimes, but they also just treat their employees like absolute crap. Would it really break the bank to hire 25% more staff instead of having your entire workforce getting paid overtime week after week?
+1 to no labor shortage in the construction industry. Good luck getting trained as a tradesman outside the unions. Joining a union is a practical impossibility if you're a white male. You'll be subsidizing your non-union employers with your own savings as an apprentice well into your journeyman career. You'll be sitting idle unpaid in between jobs, when it's raining or snowing, when your car doesn't start... Even when employed, you'll have no benefits, no health insurance, no paid vacation. You'll be competing for the scarce work with people who're in this country without a work permit. Guess what the going wage is for your services.
> Healthcare as a whole baffles me. They pay well enough, sometimes, but they also just treat their employees like absolute crap. Would it really break the bank to hire 25% more staff instead of having your entire workforce getting paid overtime week after week?
Them stocks gotta to up, mang.
Take a look at the Fortune 500, and look at how many healthcare companies are publicly traded and in the top 100.
I think your point is valid and worth looking into - there are also many non profit hospitals in the same situation. That being said, I'm sure it's part of the equation, but I'm not 100% convinced everything can be blamed on Wall St with this one.
Sorry, my comment was more snark than content. If tuition was limited to student income the universities would be incentivized to cut departments that don't produce high-income graduates.
Good, the world doesn't need that many liberal arts graduates. Quality over quantity should be the focus in fields where there aren't that many employment opportunities and potential for successful entrepreneurship.
Besides, nothing prevents one from pursuing a career in most liberal arts without a degree, assuming you don't want to be a researcher. You can always be a nurse or an engineer with arts related side-job, but doing it the other way around is hard.
> the world doesn't need that many liberal arts graduates
If I were to make a list of the problems with the world, having too many people with liberal arts degrees would not be anywhere near that list.
Too few, yes. Too many business school graduates, yeah. Too many law school graduates, probably. Too many STEM field graduates, maybe. Too many graduates who look at people as a resource to be extracted, or an abstraction to be ignored. But damnit, we need more people who care about the quality of human experience.
I think the proper way to characterize the situation is as follows.
The university were founded largely for the sake of teaching the liberal arts, that is, the free arts (as opposed to the servile arts). I am using the traditional meaning of "liberal arts", and not the tragedy we have now. The university was supposed to educate the man, to mature him intellectually, to free him to be able to pursue the truth and to do so effectively which meant also the ability to draw from and participate in the tradition.
The feverish mission to push everyone through college is a fool's errand. It is not for everyone. The result is that universities had to change to make this possible, thus failing their founding mission. But at the same time, they aren't good at vocational training. So for most people, it's a waste of time and money.
We would be much better off with a system of vocational schools and apprenticeships. This would unburden universities and free them to pursue their original mission, and it would enable vocational schools/apprenticeships to provide excellent training for workers.
Primary education is, frankly, in an awful state as well, as it, too, is supposed to educate the man, and it is here where the vocational stuff is still not necessary to learn even for those who will eventually enter the vocations.
We're seeing some interesting developments in both primary education (with the spread of classical education) and the founding of small colleges that aim to avoid the failure of the university. Some try to combine intellectual formation with an apprenticeship program to try to reconcile the desire to form the man with the need to find a job. Apprenticeship is also used to cover at least part of the costs of the education.
Ballooning costs are a symptom of corruption and bloat. The mission is lost, so it's a numbers game now. There's no reason a university education should cost anywhere near what it costs today, especially given the mediocrity of the education. I don't really see much will to change the status quo among those in power, so we'll probably see a combination of hamfisted maneuvers like debt cancellation to maintain the status quo, but ultimately, probably a collapse of the system.
Universities have Zero incentives to change things. They get the benefit of all the enrollment of the students that wouldn't otherwise enroll, also.
What I have never understood is why career counselors aren't advising students against the downside of getting into so much debt so early in life. Going to your dream school is nice but not if you have to pay for it the rest of your life. My counselor was all about applying to the best schools with little talk about costs.
Why aren't student's suing the counselors for malpractice?
It is really strange that government does not constrain tuitions of the colleges participating in the loan program. Currently, Universities have no incentives to control costs in any way.