Tucker Carlson Finds an Acorn!

College is expensive because there is practically unlimited financing with no regard to ability to repay available in combination with nearly unlimited demand for college education. This is what is causing tuition inflation. The schools have no incentive to reign in costs because they know students will simply take on more debt to attend with no regard to the consequences.

The problem is that in a free and private market, no lender would make student loans without conducting proper due diligence and underwriting. This would significantly reduce costs because the borrower (aka students) would not be able to pay unlimited amounts towards tuition and thus schools would need to significantly reduce tuition to attract students.

A good student who wants to major in engineering at GA Tech, MIT, etc would easily get loans to attend. On the other hand, few lenders would make loans to average students seeking to study Lesbian theory.

In addition, much like in the mortgage market, forcing schools and lenders to hold some portion of their loans would force more careful underwriting. In addition, it would force schools to ensure that their students are able to graduate and get good jobs after graduation lest the school be on the hook for the loan default. Of course, there would probably need to be a provision that schools aren't responsible after say two or three years post graduation.

The big issue with all of this is that leftist would start crying that reductions in student loans would hurt minorities, the poor, etc. However, like most policy issues, they cannot connect dots and see how unlimited student loans is why college is so expensive in the first place.

They've made college unaffordable by trying to make it affordable through subsidizing it with loans given to anyone for any major for any amount of money.

a reply to: neo96

Education needs to get back to the basics, and start teaching useful skills.

I agree with that; however, the problem with teaching basic skills is both the pervue of K-12 education and primarily the result of teaching things that are not part of those basics. The problem is not extracurricular, at least not in as large part.

Colleges simply cannot teach what should have been learned during the previous 13 years. Every class builds on classes before it; this is the whole reason why there are prerequisites. One cannot understand digital communications unless one is versed in statistical analysis. One cannot understand control theory without a good background in differential equations.

Along the same thinking, if one uses that Optimal Control class to teach ethics, the students will not learn optimal control. No amount of restricting extracurricular activities will change those facts. In truth, restricting extracurricular activities will lead to enough boredom to drive most students away. Learning works better when it is fun to learn... that is a lesson public K-12 education needs to learn.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TheRedneck

I actually oppose removing most of the 'luxuries' that college comes with. They actually have a purpose, if properly controlled.

Feel free.

However, Education needs to get back to the basics, and start teaching useful skills.

Back to the basics is the responsibility of elementary, middle, and high school. By in large, the public school system has failed in this regard. I live in an area with quality public schools and these schools spend more time tossing around buzzwords like equity, LBGTQ, and all kinds of other liberal clap trap, it is starting to become a joke.

We have people in my school system that are trying to spend $50 million on god damn swimming pool while at the same time complaining about "achievement gaps" between blacks and whites. I'm like screw a pool, let's spend that money on tutors and stuff that is going to make a difference! If you want to learn to swim, take your ass to the YMCA.

College is supposed to be for students who already know the basics. Something like 50% of college students need remedial courses their freshman which ought to tell you something.... too many kids are going to college that don't need to be there.

originally posted by: Edumakated
College is expensive because there is practically unlimited financing with no regard to ability to repay available in combination with nearly unlimited demand for college education. This is what is causing tuition inflation. The schools have no incentive to reign in costs because they know students will simply take on more debt to attend with no regard to the consequences.

The problem is that in a free and private market, no lender would make student loans without conducting proper due diligence and underwriting. This would significantly reduce costs because the borrower (aka students) would not be able to pay unlimited amounts towards tuition and thus schools would need to significantly reduce tuition to attract students.

A good student who wants to major in engineering at GA Tech, MIT, etc would easily get loans to attend. On the other hand, few lenders would make loans to average students seeking to study Lesbian theory.

In addition, much like in the mortgage market, forcing schools and lenders to hold some portion of their loans would force more careful underwriting. In addition, it would force schools to ensure that their students are able to graduate and get good jobs after graduation lest the school be on the hook for the loan default. Of course, there would probably need to be a provision that schools aren't responsible after say two or three years post graduation.

The big issue with all of this is that leftist would start crying that reductions in student loans would hurt minorities, the poor, etc. However, like most policy issues, they cannot connect dots and see how unlimited student loans is why college is so expensive in the first place.

They've made college unaffordable by trying to make it affordable through subsidizing it with loans given to anyone for any major for any amount of money.

I forgot to add, if you want to understand how the above is true, just look at studies of college costs... most of the operational cost increases at colleges and universities are ADMINISTRATORS.

From a Forbes article on the subject:

During the 1980-1981 school year, public and private institutions spent $20.7 billion in total on instruction, and $13 billion on academic support, student services and institutional support combined, according to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics. By the 2014-2015 school year, total instructional costs had climbed to $148 billion, while the same grouping of administrative expenses had risen to $122.3 billion.

Put another way, administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%.

Bureaucrat s and Buildings: Why College is So Expensive

The problem with this idea is that no school is going to enroll a student who is high risk to pay back the loan, like a kid from a poor background.

originally posted by: Tempter
The problem with this idea is that no school is going to enroll a student who is high risk to pay back the loan, like a kid from a poor background.

Scholarships...

Or tuition comes down enough so that a kid can work and attend school.

There are plenty of ways to afford college, you just have to want to make the sacrifice to do so.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good Idea.

Taking Student Loans out for Non Viable Majors is crazy to me. People can shell out more for the schooling than the degree is worth in some cases.

Loans should be similar to Scholarships in that there should only be a limited amount of Loans available for certain majors. Why do 5,000 loans on Forestry Majors if the demand is only for 1,000 jobs as an example.

On a side note we should end the highway robbery of Teachers writing their own books for their classes that seemingly need a new book every year.

originally posted by: carewemust
Can the Federal Government legally force a college/university to repay a student loan? If so, is it the right thing to do in a capitalist society?

Most of the worst offenders are public institutions already receiving quite a bit of taxpayer money not related to those same student loans.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is a far easier solution.

Make loans dis-chargeable in bankruptcy again. That is what caused the price hikes, and just as quickly it will cause the prices to drop.

It's not difficult, it's all supply and demand, and if kids cant get loans for 10's of thousands the university's have to lower their prices or decrease their enrollment.

a reply to: Edumakated

The problem is that in a free and private market, no lender would make student loans without conducting proper due diligence and underwriting. This would significantly reduce costs because the borrower (aka students) would not be able to pay unlimited amounts towards tuition and thus schools would need to significantly reduce tuition to attract students.

A good student who wants to major in engineering at GA Tech, MIT, etc would easily get loans to attend. On the other hand, few lenders would make loans to average students seeking to study Lesbian theory.

In addition, much like in the mortgage market, forcing schools and lenders to hold some portion of their loans would force more careful underwriting. In addition, it would force schools to ensure that their students are able to graduate and get good jobs after graduation lest the school be on the hook for the loan default. Of course, there would probably need to be a provision that schools aren't responsible after say two or three years post graduation.

That's right where I am at. Well said, and reposted for emphasis.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Tempter

The problem with this idea is that no school is going to enroll a student who is high risk to pay back the loan, like a kid from a poor background.

There are of course scholarships and work-study programs, as well as internships. I finished my BSEE loan-free thanks to a combination of those.

I also fail to see where poverty has any bearing on intelligence. There are quite a few extremely intelligent individuals who are also dirt poor, and many wealthy people are, sorry to be so blunt, dumber than a box of rocks.

A school needs students to survive. Students provide the expertise to follow grants, and pay tuition. A school will therefore do whatever they can to attract students who can pay. As it is now, a warm body can pay; students loans can be taken out in massive amounts for a degree in Synchronized Desert Swimming, so any school that sees a chance to attract paying students who want to major in Synchronized Desert Swimming as long as there are enough of them. No one has ever made a living with a career in Synchronized Desert Swimming, much less been able to repay a student loan by doing it.

That does not affect the schools as it stands now. The student loans are underwritten by the government, so if the student cannot or does not pay, the government takes over. That's the problem: there is no incentive for the schools to turn out students who are actually proficient at something that will allow them to repay their loans. All Tucker's idea does is to make the schools burden some responsibility for the loans they hand out like candy. Schools will still make loans, of course, because they need the students to keep the doors open; they simply won't make as many.

The casualties will be the liberal arts programs that make no financial sense. Want to study about African Culture in America? Feel free! But don't expect to make a living with it when you graduate, and therefore don't expect taxpayers to pay for it. Pay your own way and show everyone else how wrong they were if you disagree.

TheRedneck

a reply to: pavil

On a side note we should end the highway robbery of Teachers writing their own books for their classes that seemingly need a new book every year.

Eh, under certain conditions, a professor writing the textbook has some appeal. If that professor is working on cutting-edge technology, it is quite possible that no other similar textbooks exist; the students are therefore getting the latest information on the subject. Add to that that the allure of writing a textbook is increased by knowing that a small number will be sold at least due to the requirements of their classes. This is incentive to continue cutting-edge research.

Now, can it be taken too far? Absolutely! I would be concerned about not allowing such a practice to exist, however. The professor-written books I have here are some of the best in their respective fields I have seen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: proximo

There is a far easier solution.

Make loans dis-chargeable in bankruptcy again. That is what caused the price hikes, and just as quickly it will cause the prices to drop.

While I believe that would be a good thing to do, it would not have the same effect as Tucker's idea. The schools have little direct involvement in a student's decisions that might lead to a bankruptcy, and some bankruptcies happen despite no bad decisions being made. On the other hand, schools do have a direct impact on how well-prepared a student is to succeed in life academically. That's why I like the idea of them being accountable for the service they provide (or fail to provide).

TheRedneck