Next Level BS 47: The Real Reason College is Expensive: Wall Street BS

I dont know if illegals impact our educational system or not, but this is interesting: www.wnd.com...

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: theNLBS

Some points:

1. the comment from one of the posters in here that governments try to keep us at school to somewhat gauge the influx on the labour market made me laugh. If it only were true, we would have free education everywhere.

You don't know what you are talking about, you're Dutch. The system I described DOES work in America because of the false cultural beliefs that most Americans have. The way the "Owners of Capital" do things here, obviously doesn't work as effectively in many other countries.

Also, I'm not going to cite the academic sources of my argument, but in summary economists advised the government on such policies practices starting in the 1970's, we are only now seeing the long term strategy play out. You'd have to be a shill poster to try and claim that what I said doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Snarl

Yeah I've got a friend who transferred from a university to the tech school we attend, he was doing some aeronautical engineering course and was told it would only take 4 years, but in reality he spent 6 years there and would've had to spend 2 more to get his BACHELOR'S....I'm glad I'm going to a tech school fresh out of high school lol, next June ill have my AP certification, with the potential to make upwards of 50k a year with no college degree, and that's just the entry level average wage

When I finished law school, my total debt was 168k at an average interest rate of 7.5%. I paid over 10k just in interest alone last year and will be paying these loans for at least another 15 years. Ugh. That said, I make better money doing what I do than I ever was going to before the schooling, so it is what it is.

originally posted by: jaffo
When I finished law school, my total debt was 168k at an average interest rate of 7.5%. I paid over 10k just in interest alone last year and will be paying these loans for at least another 15 years. Ugh. That said, I make better money doing what I do than I ever was going to before the schooling, so it is what it is.

You got a job though. Try taking that 168k in loans only to find out your new job is working at pizza hut as a delivery driver (because you were told you were over qualified for mcdonalds). That's what's happening to most college grads right now.

originally posted by: lovebeck
It's a racket and the schools are in on it...I'm sure they receive very nice kickbacks, either personally to the profs who assign these ridic books or the schools themselves, every time they assign the "new" edition.

I've noticed that they even will test on things that are only in the newest edition, making it difficult to pass a test if you buy the less expensive former edition.

Total BS indeed.

The book situation is a big factor in why I'm at my current school. All books are either published for free as ebooks or are optional as a reference material (and the instructor has a couple copies to loan out).

In my previous school we were told to buy a certain digital book for tests, but no one bought it. On the last day of the semester the teacher told us the school was upset we hadn't bought the book so we were getting an online test worth 20% of our grade (pass or fail for most in the class), and it could only be accessed by each of us going out and buying that digital book... on the last day of the semester. The book was $200 and time limited, it expired in less than 3 days from the time of purchase. You should have seen the face on the book store worker when 30 of us came in to each spend $200 out of pocket for a book we couldn't even use in half a week... because the teacher wanted to make her book buying numbers look good.

originally posted by: boohoo

You don't know what you are talking about, you're Dutch.

So were the founders of New York.. so, what? Nationality has nothing to do with ignorance. I may be ignorant, but not because I'm Dutch ..

The system I described DOES work in America because of the false cultural beliefs that most Americans have. The way the "Owners of Capital" do things here, obviously doesn't work as effectively in many other countries.

Or, more plausible: you're simply wrong in your assumptions and the way "owners of capital" do things is not as carefully planned nor executed as you seem to think.

Also, I'm not going to cite the academic sources of my argument,

Of course not. What follly would that be: to quote the academic sources of your argument... heaven forbid that I could research it myself instead of relying on your authority...

but in summary economists advised the government on such policies practices starting in the 1970's, we are only now seeing the long term strategy play out. You'd have to be a shill poster to try and claim that what I said doesn't make sense.

What you wrote does not make sense to me, I'll repeat my argument: if you were right we would see free education everywhere. We don't. Instead, in at least parts of the world, the costs of higher education are rising and rising and reportedly their quality is not always up to par. So, how does this help to gauge the influx of people in the workforce then?

BTW: namecalling is offensive and I won't let you get away with it twice.

originally posted by: 8fl0z
a reply to: Snarl

Yeah I've got a friend who transferred from a university to the tech school we attend, he was doing some aeronautical engineering course and was told it would only take 4 years, but in reality he spent 6 years there and would've had to spend 2 more to get his BACHELOR'S....I'm glad I'm going to a tech school fresh out of high school lol, next June ill have my AP certification, with the potential to make upwards of 50k a year with no college degree, and that's just the entry level average wage

Yes, you can make a very decent living without a formal academic education. But even then, as you point out, you often need some type of certification and/or accreditation. And most certification bodies are in that game for the money: they force you to re-certify (which costs money) and/or make you member of their association (which gives you all kinds of additional benefits you mostly don't want nor need, but not joining voids your certificate). But that's the way the capitalistic society works, I can't help it.

In my vision, education should be freely available for all. If Governments don't sponsor it, than we all should. If you want to learn how this can be done, simply Google "MOOC". And check out Coursera. Take a peek at Xerte. Stuff like that.

Now, the only thing still missing to replace the formal system is formal accrediation - but if employers start recognising the value of MOOCs, Coursera etc that in itself is a type of accreditation and far more valuable than any formal title. In the meantime, I'm actually working on an idea to offer both high quality Open Source education, but with a better structure and including formal accreditation. If I achieve any results I will, of course, post it in here too, just to keep y'all informed.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jaffo
When I finished law school, my total debt was 168k at an average interest rate of 7.5%. I paid over 10k just in interest alone last year and will be paying these loans for at least another 15 years. Ugh. That said, I make better money doing what I do than I ever was going to before the schooling, so it is what it is.

You got a job though. Try taking that 168k in loans only to find out your new job is working at pizza hut as a delivery driver (because you were told you were over qualified for mcdonalds). That's what's happening to most college grads right now.

I didn't get a job, I MADE a job. When no one was hiring, I opened my own shop. I bust my hump every day of the week building and maintaining my business. If you got your degree in History or English Literature and have no real marketable skills, it is going to be harder for you to get work. One of the problems is that too many people go to college. If you do not know why you are there. . . you should not be there and you are wasting your time and money.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

The system I described DOES work in America because of the false cultural beliefs that most Americans have. The way the "Owners of Capital" do things here, obviously doesn't work as effectively in many other countries.

Or, more plausible: you're simply wrong in your assumptions and the way "owners of capital" do things is not as carefully planned nor executed as you seem to think.

Also, I'm not going to cite the academic sources of my argument,

Of course not. What follly would that be: to quote the academic sources of your argument... heaven forbid that I could research it myself instead of relying on your authority...

but in summary economists advised the government on such policies practices starting in the 1970's, we are only now seeing the long term strategy play out. You'd have to be a shill poster to try and claim that what I said doesn't make sense.

What you wrote does not make sense to me, I'll repeat my argument: if you were right we would see free education everywhere. We don't. Instead, in at least parts of the world, the costs of higher education are rising and rising and reportedly their quality is not always up to par. So, how does this help to gauge the influx of people in the workforce then?

I didn't cite the sources because you won't have access to them, nor will most others posting here. Are you a university student or work for a think tank with an access subscription? I will say the answer is no, but I do have access and cannot just copy and paste the material. This limited free public access also include proprietary white papers, put out by corporations for the think-tanks to use in research.

Since you can't read between the lines, I'll spell it out for you, I'm giving you a peek behind the curtain, based on materials that you will never have access to because the research was paid for and owned by corporations.

Just to give you a sample, here is a free-access translated article from CEDEFOP. Being Dutch, perhaps you may be able to read some of the cited sources, due to having access to a better education system than Americans and potentially speak multiple languages:

a return to training (particularly training leading to a qualification) represents an arrangement that both enables qualification levels to be raised and temporarily removes job seekers from the labour market.

Although the above quote is not the focus of the article, a couple of the cited sources do focus on it. I'm not here to give you an econ lesson or to hand hold you through the process finding academic sources, especially if you don't have access to read them in the first place. Believe what you like, governments figured out, A LONG TIME AGO, how to deal with reducing the number of active "job seekers" on the market at the same time. The difference now, is that they have added ways to drive down wages as well, while keeping people out of the job market.

Here is another free-access article from IZA, outlining the concept, where they are called “education-extenders”:

Youth Unemployment in Europe: What to Do about It?

Also, here is an article from the UK, not surprisingly, outlining a proposed policy, with outcome goals that are similar to what I described earlier:

Miliband to unveil policies on youth training, contributory welfare and housing benefit

I'll ask you again, what do you think would happen to wages in the United States, IF, 14-year old kids could skip High School and go straight to the full-time labor market? Then add in releasing all non-violent Prisoners from jail, taking away pensions from currently retired people and eliminating welfare. Are wages going to go up or down, across the board, in that situation?

Also, the reason people keep paying the higher price of education in the USA is because a degree or certificate, of SOME KIND (2-year, 4-year, Graduate, etc,) issued from an accredited institution, is the MINIMUM requirement for most payroll-type jobs with higher lifetime earning averages. They are basically spending $100,000 to have a CHANCE at earning $1,000,000+ lifetime income, if they don't spend that money, up front, on formal education, the chance of them making less than $500,000 lifetime income, dramatically increases (even if self-employed).

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Now, the only thing still missing to replace the formal system is formal accrediation - but if employers start recognising the value of MOOCs, Coursera etc that in itself is a type of accreditation and far more valuable than any formal title. In the meantime, I'm actually working on an idea to offer both high quality Open Source education, but with a better structure and including formal accreditation. If I achieve any results I will, of course, post it in here too, just to keep y'all informed.

Employers are not going to accept MOOC courses or certificates, in lieu of accredited certifcates or degrees, unless the employer themselves, are directly managing the curriculum/program (ala Microsoft on edX). In a nutshell, MOOC's are never going to become the issuers of recognized licenses or test based certifications (ICC building inspector for example), so MOOC's won't have value to anyone whom is trying to do something, other, than get a basic primer on a new skill. MOOC's are basically the new version of rec-center and adult-education classes.

this video misses the point...the schools are building the structures to accommodate the student flooding the schools because of EASY LOAN MONEY

folks are burying THEMSELVES in debt which is not limited to those who can demonstrate an ability to repay. all parties are engaged in CRAZY bad decisions. if a students family will not co-sign the loans, and schools will not take SOME responsibility to deliver educations that are valuable then the system will continue to fail.

right on! sounds like you gave it a
good hard look and made a good decision
a reply to: 8fl0z

originally posted by: jaffo
I didn't get a job, I MADE a job. When no one was hiring, I opened my own shop. I bust my hump every day of the week building and maintaining my business. If you got your degree in History or English Literature and have no real marketable skills, it is going to be harder for you to get work. One of the problems is that too many people go to college. If you do not know why you are there. . . you should not be there and you are wasting your time and money.

I understand that sentiment, my post college plan is to found my own software company. But at the end of the day someone else providing you a job and you creating your own job are the same thing. They both rely on there being a large enough customer base to support such a thing. That customer base is shrinking by the day. We are using less and less skilled labor on a per capita basis which means there are fewer and fewer job opportunities. I can even point out a pizza shop where every single employee has an engineering degree of one form or another. That is our future. There is not enough demand for the number of college educated jobs we are producing.

originally posted by: barkadogdog
this video misses the point...the schools are building the structures to accommodate the student flooding the schools because of EASY LOAN MONEY

folks are burying THEMSELVES in debt which is not limited to those who can demonstrate an ability to repay. all parties are engaged in CRAZY bad decisions. if a students family will not co-sign the loans, and schools will not take SOME responsibility to deliver educations that are valuable then the system will continue to fail.

That's because that wasn't what the video was addressing. They were pointing out the Wall Street scheme that colleges are using, where they are financing themselves using the tuition of future students as collateral. This creates a situation where tuition needs to go up each year in order to finance more and more projects. 6 administrators to every 1 professor is a completely ridiculous ratio.

It's worth pointing out however that not every school is that bad. The one I attend is low priced, high quality, and low on administration. However they still suffer from the free money syndrome.

originally posted by: boohoo
I didn't cite the sources because you won't have access to them,

Simply assume I have, unless your sources are classified, in which case it would be unwise to discuss them in here anyway.

Are you a university student or work for a think tank with an access subscription? I will say the answer is no

As you probably know academic subscriptions are related to the field of study one is in. If one studes say nuclear physics and has a subscription for the papers in that field, one is not necessarily granted access to papers about say economics. So, it is irrelevant if I am a student or not, part of a thinkthank or not etc.

But - most scientific papers can be retrieved using academic search engines and most such engines can be accessed in a universities library. Which are mostly open to the public or at least students. And it's not very hard to pass as a student, trust me. Also, note that you are allowed to cite parts of a paper (fair use). So, go ahead, mention your source and by all means, quote the relevant parts. I will check if I feel it is necessary, or simply trust you. But not mentioning you source does not give me or anybody else the option to check.

but I do have access and cannot just copy and paste the material. This limited free public access also include proprietary white papers, put out by corporations for the think-tanks to use in research.

Actually, to make money with them. But I'm aware of it.

Since you can't read between the lines, I'll spell it out for you, I'm giving you a peek behind the curtain, based on materials that you will never have access to because the research was paid for and owned by corporations.

Hold it right there.

If I never can have access to the source of what you will "spell out" for me, it's of no value to me. You are an anonymous nobody (like me) and could just lie about anything. You can post rubbish here as much as you please and pass it as coming from 'scientific papers, not for your eyes". I'm not buying, sorry.

Employers are not going to accept MOOC courses or certificates, in lieu of accredited certifcates or degrees, unless the employer themselves, are directly managing the curriculum/program (ala Microsoft on edX). In a nutshell, MOOC's are never going to become the issuers of recognized licenses or test based certifications (ICC building inspector for example), so MOOC's won't have value to anyone whom is trying to do something, other, than get a basic primer on a new skill. MOOC's are basically the new version of rec-center and adult-education classes.

Mostly correct, hence my current work on a system that will ensure that free accreditation will be just as normal as free education in the future. At least for those with Internet access. As said before, you may hear about it sooner or later.

www.nytimes.com...

www.acenet.edu...

This is a famous op ed article that is even more true today and a study that goes to prove education costs increase because of government aid to the poor. The colleges have become greedy and pocket the aid money, use it to build expensive buildings etc that aren't really required, but, look really nice.

I have two kids in college and third that will be in 2 years. Most states have cheap junior colleges that can be used for mandatory classes. If the student transfers there junior year, it effectively cuts the cost in half. There are ways to make it through cheaply. I went to MIZZOU 30 years ago and my four years, tuition, books, room and board cost $30,000 total. Now it is about $25,000 per year for in state tuition. Crazy...

There are a lot of solutions to this that really aren't complicated. Keep building costs under control. Make the colleges use 4% of their endowment funds per year to fund costs, rather than the minimum distribution of 1%. This alone at some of the richer schools would allow tuition to be zero. Get rid of circular state funding rules that encourage colleges to increase costs each year to get more funding.

Demand goes up = Price goes up.