Kentucky to cut college programs

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
This is as it should be regardless of fiscal situation. If someone wants a degree in underwater basket weaving, then 100% of the cost should be on the shoulders of the student, because the program adds not one cent of benefit to the tax payers subsidizing it.

But who is the one who determines the benefit to the tax payers? Do we look at the incomes and repayment rates of those who take that degree? Do we just let legislators arbitrarily decide the value of programs?

a reply to: Aazadan
Typical Democrat reaction to the direct result of their policies. Do you have even a clue as to what caused this budget crisis? Democrats hiring their buddies to "manage" the pension systems---then refusing to change course even when the "management" led directly to giant shortfalls in the pension system.
They have already cut pension benefits to the bone so now the money to pay pensions must come from somewhere.

Bevin clearly understands that if the rating agencies drop our credit rating further it will be much harder to continue to offer the constitutionally mandated services to citizens. Asking colleges to tighten their belts further is the commonsense approach even if it isn't politically correct.

Bevin also understands that it is these same professors who are crying the blues about cutting programs are the very ones who might not be getting their pensions in full if the budgetary crisis created by decades of Democrat rule isn't resolved.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't disagree with job training not being tied to college. Its not the ultimate measure, as collegiate academia should be as much about personal enlightenment.

Im in the Mike Rowe camp, and think we have devalued vocational training too much, and that may be blurring the line in colleges and what is expected. We also may have over reached with parents and the requirements that are put on us. Why on Earth is my child required to present my income tax information before they can apply for funding? Why is my adult child still being tied to me? At what point are they actually emancipated from my responsibility?

Its a big messed up situation.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im in the Mike Rowe camp, and think we have devalued vocational training too much, and that may be blurring the line in colleges and what is expected. We also may have over reached with parents and the requirements that are put on us. Why on Earth is my child required to present my income tax information before they can apply for funding? Why is my adult child still being tied to me? At what point are they actually emancipated from my responsibility?

Its a big messed up situation.

I think this is something we messed up. Children aren't free of their parents until 26, but parents don't have to financially support their children after 18. So a lot of people end up in the situation where they can't get financial aid, but they don't have the means to educate themselves.

I think it was supposed to defer college until kids had worked for a couple years, but it didn't work out that way... it just created more debt.

Mike Rowe's problem is that he pushes the wrong types of jobs. He tells a bunch of kids who don't know any better, to go out and settle for jobs where they're going to be firmly planted at the 65th income percentile, right in lower middle class, with no upward mobility.

It's setting them up for failure.

originally posted by: Aazadan
But who is the one who determines the benefit to the tax payers? Do we look at the incomes and repayment rates of those who take that degree? Do we just let legislators arbitrarily decide the value of programs?

Average tax base of graduates with said degree would seem to be a good starting point. I don't believe liberal arts should be in any way subsidized in college. There's no return on investment there...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Average tax base of graduates with said degree would seem to be a good starting point. I don't believe liberal arts should be in any way subsidized in college. There's no return on investment there...

So do we subsidize in demand programs to a greater extent? In my current program I'm among the bottom of my class academically, yet I make more in my part time job working in the field than my professors make teaching me. My taxes alone this year, while working just 20 hours/week will fully pay this years tuition for half my class.

Should I as a result, be given more money than my friend who is studying history?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Average tax base of graduates with said degree would seem to be a good starting point. I don't believe liberal arts should be in any way subsidized in college. There's no return on investment there...

So do we subsidize in demand programs to a greater extent? In my current program I'm among the bottom of my class academically, yet I make more in my part time job working in the field than my professors make teaching me. My taxes alone this year, while working just 20 hours/week will fully pay this years tuition for half my class.

Should I as a result, be given more money than my friend who is studying history?

Personally, I'd rather see college be unsubsidized entirely by the tax payers, as I have found in my life that the harder you personal work for something and the more skin you personally have in the game, the more you value it. But from a pragmatic viewpoint of returns on investment, yes, those degrees in fields that ultimately see a higher tax bracket should receive more public funding than those degrees which don't result in the highest earnings. Look at it this way, if you have a rookie card for this year's #1 draft pick and a rookie card for the last player taken in the draft, which one can you expect to get the most money for from a card collector? The #1 will fetch a handsome price because he has the highest potential to become a great player, making the ceiling for that card significantly higher than the average player's ceiling... meanwhile, the odds state that the last player taken in the draft is unlikely to even reach average status and, unless you pay pennies for that card, you'll never see a positive return on your investment.

I'm all for acquiring knowledge for the sake of acquiring knowledge, but if it doesn't make the populous at large any money, it isn't worthy of tax dollar subsidization and should be acquired solely on the dime of the student.

a reply to: iufan35

So amusing... So cute...

Actually... Not so much.

a reply to: lightedhype

Of course, you are.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So would you agree with my idea? We remove all federal student loans, and make colleges finance their students. This way they compete over terms and costs, while also having an incentive to ensure students wind up in careers where they're able to pay back the debt.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not a bad idea, at that...

It would certainly help do away with degrees that are of little to no use after college. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but, as odd as it may sound, college may not be the place for it. That does sound odd.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well, they wanted to take America back to the 18th century ...

originally posted by: seagull
It would certainly help do away with degrees that are of little to no use after college. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but, as odd as it may sound, college may not be the place for it. That does sound odd.

Welcome to why I feel that college and job training should be decoupled from each other.

Additionally, beyond the funding aspects I think we should do a better job of tiering all college courses. Set classes up in each program, so that completing the first year gets you a relevant industry certification, your second year leaves you with an Associates Degree, and your fourth year leaves you with the Bachelors.

This way you can pursue an area of study and gain the qualifications as you go, rather than needing to declare a goal at the beginning and only get something out of it after 100% completion. I think this would help a lot of people who start, decide college is no longer for them, but then wind up stuck between paying more for a degree or cutting their losses and dropping out.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

From the perspective of public investment, it makes most sense to put your aces in their places.

Im not even that bearish on some of the funding. But it should be a risk assessment. If you are in a degree field with low placement/low wage scale, you won't get funding beyond that which you provide for yourself.

a reply to: Aazadan

I've always thought that that should be the case. I'm a fan of apprenticeships, too.

There is no shame what so ever in learning a trade. Consider the money that plumbers and what have you make. That's a better than decent living, especially if you're good at it, and word gets around...

One doesn't need to go to college to learn to earn. A short two year trade school, or something of the sort, and bingo. No debt, your earnings are yours.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Aazadan

I've always thought that that should be the case. I'm a fan of apprenticeships, too.

There is no shame what so ever in learning a trade. Consider the money that plumbers and what have you make. That's a better than decent living, especially if you're good at it, and word gets around...

One doesn't need to go to college to learn to earn. A short two year trade school, or something of the sort, and bingo. No debt, your earnings are yours.

True, but I also see a lot of trade schools as telling people to just set their sights low. I just went over this with another poster in a similar thread. We should push people to do better than be mediocre. I'm not a fan of 4 year college educations, I think they should be a minimum of 8, and I think high school does a disservice by stopping at 12th grade.

That said, it's a balancing act because not everyone wants to sit in a classroom, so ultimately you need to make all of this additional education optional and privately funded.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So would you agree with my idea? We remove all federal student loans, and make colleges finance their students. This way they compete over terms and costs, while also having an incentive to ensure students wind up in careers where they're able to pay back the debt.

Absolutely! The federal subsidization of student loans is what allowed education costs to skyrocket beyond reasonable levels and has resulted in far too many people stuck with loans they have no prayer of repaying. I've always found it ridiculous that this country doesn't consider someone old enough to enjoy a beer until they're 21, but makes it easy as pie for an 18 year old to either die for the country or lock themselves into a life of serious debt. It's a broken system.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, it does get phrased that way--that if you don't have that college degree, you're somehow a failure--and it shouldn't. I served, to all intents and purposes, an apprenticeship while working in Alaska in the commercial fishing industry. I worked shipping and receiving, then started getting bounced around various depts, then started working with the chief VP in charge of international sales, as his Alaska go-fer, I travelled to the various plants and ships in Alaska during the various seasons, helping make sure quality was maintained, and proper product was available for shipping. Otherwise, my job, essentially, was to be seen and not heard, but to sit in on the meeting and take copious notes--and more importantly, to have answers when he was asked--and they'd better be the right answers! Never got to go over seas with him, as I saw early on what the job would do to me, and got a sideways transfer back to supervising my old dept.

I learned a lot in that two year stint. ...and not a moment of college was required. I listened and learned, and he tested me a lot, though at the time, I mostly thought we were talking. To this day, he remains a very close friend.

As you can see, I'm a huge proponent of apprenticeships.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Aazadan

Kentucky needs to legalize recreational use marijuana to generate revenue for the state.

The end.[/quote
]
Illegal marijuana is already Kentucky's number 2 cash crop
Legalization would kill the underground economy.

edit on 15-9-2017 by F4guy because: cut half off

a reply to: F4guy

Marijuana isn't the answer to everything. It shouldn't be illegal, but I don't see what it has to do with the structure of college.