Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
That's so raven
134 Followers
Shane William
571 Followers
Rudra Ranjan Singh
487 Followers
unclefireJan 25, 2012
Ironically, when I went to read the article, there was an ad for Student loans on the right side.
markglJan 25, 2012
Tell the government to back off student loans! If the government would stop flooding the college loans the colleges would be forced to lower cost to make it more affordable to go to college.
dirtyfriesJan 25, 2012
You and I rarely agree, but this is one of those times.
Loans are too easy to acquire. It's good that the capability is there (there are times people need loans), but it has created a bottomless well from which to draw.
And unfortunately for kids today, they are told they HAVE to go to school. We don't push the vocations or alternative skills...we push college. And kids are made to feel they have to pay for it somehow.
Kids are put between a rock and a hard place. It's not fair and the loans need to be made more difficult to obtain, as well as more guidance given for alternatives to expensive college tuitions.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Well, they kind-of have to go to college. Because this is not the 1960's where you could work at a factory and make a buttload of money. US is now largely a white color economy. And it's well known that if you finish college you will statistically make far more money.
gigaandroidJan 25, 2012
They don't have to; they can live on a lower income. That college would benefit them doesn't make them entitled to it. Flooding the market with easy loans has not only increased the cost of attending college but has diminished the value of the degrees attained there.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Yes, and they can also be homeless and live in boxes, eating at soup kitchens. </s>
What diminished the value of degrees attained in colleges is the lowering of educational standards in US. Colleges want to make it too easy to get crappy degrees to make more money.
ajh16Jan 26, 2012
Right, which is possible because people have loans to give them funds to waste on crappy degrees that 30 years ago they wouldn't have been able to get. The two are related. colleges realized they had a huge amount of funding subsidized by the government if they could get people in the door, so they made it as easy as possible to get as many people in the door as possible, while charging as much as possible. This made the good schools realize they could charge even more for an actual education and so the costs just soar on up.
penglustJan 25, 2012
BS.
1. With the loss of decent paying middle class manufacturing jobs there is really no alternative to a college education. Therefor we force everybody to fit that mold whether they can cut it or not.
2. A large part of the rise of the US in the world market in the 50's - 70's was the direct influence of the affordability of state University systems. In the 80's I got through with instate tuition of $600 per year. I was able to work part time to pay my tuition and books while living at my parents house.
3. I have meet many very good programmers from small colleges. I have also meet many absolute single threaded morons from big name colleges. I would prefer to have a larger number of graduates so I can choose during job interviews. There will always be a few that should get the message and try something else.
4. A large part of the problems in colleges today is the education of the people trying to enter college. Unfortunately when you start laying off teachers in high school part of what gets cut is the lesser attended higher level classes that are really needed for college prep.
And last but by far the most important:
5. If we do not give those with less means (poor people) a change to attend college how should this country excel. We import so many foreign engineers. These engineers become managers. I work with many Indians. They are good engineers and most are my friends. But I have noticed when we are interviewing, the person doing the first screening is Indian, 95% of the resumes I get are Indian. When I go through the resumes set to side I always find a number that are at least as good.
Right, wrong or indifferent we trend to look for the familiar. In this atmosphere our kids will not be in that "familiar" group.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
I'm a college professors. Most of the students I teach do not belong in college. Statistically, a disturbingly high percentage of college graduates make no significant intellectual progress during their college education, certainly not enough to justify the money they invest in the education.
A white-collar economy doesn't mean everybody needs a four-year college degree. Having so many students flooding into college has essentially destroyed several majors at most schools, because standards have had to be drastically lowered to the point of making it a joke.
jbarker6Jan 25, 2012
^As a recent engineering graduate I'm curious on what your take on unnecessary classes are? Did I really need geology 101 or creative writing to become a mechanical engineer? Scraping some of these IMO unnecessary classes would intern cut curriculum requirements to 95-100ish hrs and perhaps effectively creating a 3 year bachelors degree...
Just a thought from someone who got little to nothing out of my 700 dollar required history class.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I received my undergrad degree in Mechanical Engineering about 30 years ago, my MS about 20 years ago, and have taught a couple of undergrad classes (just for fun) over the years. I've worked for large engineering contractors, now I'm a self employed consultant; so I hope I'm qualified to answer your question.
At this point, I believe a comprehensive undergrad engineering (not engineering technology) degree should be 5 years. There is just too much material to put into 4 years, and most college freshmen don't have adequate math skills for entry level engineering classes. Anyone who hires new undergrads understands that it will take two years of additional training to make them productive in most jobs. Just my opinion.
Regarding "unnecessary" classes, you may find them more valuable than you think at some point in your career. These days I spend more time writing reports and speaking to large groups than doing engineering calculations. Like it or not, the ability to speak and write intelligently on a range of subjects is important in any field. If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to be able to hold your own in a conversation with some VP that has a liberal arts or law degree. You do not want to be a staff engineer with a stagnated salary when you are 50 (I've met too many of those guys).
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
It's hard to make any blanket statements about "unnecessary" classes, because some are better than others. I teach in the humanities, so perhaps I have a vested interest, but I do believe that all college graduates should have a background in the humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and mathematics, no matter what their major or intended career--the university is not a trade school, after all.
One reason why so many of the core courses seem "useless" is that they've been watered down, almost out of necessity, to accommodate the massive influx of new students coming into the universities who aren't cut out for higher ed. The dumbing down has hit humanities departments especially hard, but it the sciences feel it too. (I remember the core science classes I was required to take were a joke, but half the students were struggling.) Perhaps if you had taken history classes that were more intensive, you would have seen their benefits more. After all, the main point of a college education is to help you learn how to think, and studying history teaches you to think in ways that engineering doesn't. Every traditional discipline has its place, if it's taught well and if students are held to high standards.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
That's a good point, pinkfish. I hated taking required history classes in high school and college; they material was completely dry and did not seem useful. Much later, I started reading some well written history and found it fascinating. I now read biographies of historical figures for pleasure (much more interesting than most fiction).
I agree that college graduates should have a reasonable well rounded education. Despite what some people think, college/university is more than just a trade school.
liscombcJan 26, 2012
As an education major, I would like to add something to the questions jbarker asked. He was talking about the fluff classes that nobody uses for their majors.
My take on it is this, as educators we need to be able to apply our course to a wider variety of majors. So you are an engineering student and you are stuck in a class that has nothing to do with engineering, what do you do? The teacher needs to address this, and show his or her students how they can apply this class to their future career. If the teacher can't do this, then it is a wasted class.
I've taken a lot of classes that would appear to be useless, but I learned patience, hard work, writing, and communication skills.
mvaJan 26, 2012
@jbarker6, as a fellow engineer (graduated 8 years ago) and someone that took far more classes then they needed to graduate. I would argue the exact opposite, Engineering as a whole needs to be a more well rounded degree. I think that we are mislead in the initial pursuit. College is not to get a job, but ot develop well rounded and educated people, which happens to prepare you for a job. But the University experience should be about the ability to critically think for one's self and not just the teaching of wrote skills. I interview way to many people that cannot think their way out of a paper bag and truly feel sorry that they have a degree, as it is obvious they gained nothing from it.
I also think there needs to be an alternate path in education. There are the people, that for their whole lives will be happy crunching numbers and doing the day to day work of Engineering. They possess no drive to be more then human black box for solution to complex problems. In effect, this is the new form of factory labor. Instead of pushing a button or moving a piece, you are apply wrote knowledge to form a novel solution. This can be taught in trade or technical schools, while the people that want to advance the knowledge of the field, research, and understand the theory would never be happy in such a routine role. If you want to be a simple number cruncher for the rest of your life, then maybe you are correct, those core classes were probably a waste, however if you want to aspire to a higher goal, those clases will be incredibly valuable.
jhourcleJan 26, 2012
On the 'roundedness' of engineering degrees -- I got a CivE bachelors 15 years ago (but got into computer programming, so never took the EIT / PE tests)
I was specifically required to take humanities and social science classes that *did* *not* relate to my degree.
'Environmental Geography' : (learning about weather) : allowed towards your social science requirements
'City Design and Planning' : (also a geography course) ... not allowed.
'Survey of Western Art' : (into art history class) : allowed towards my humanities requirements
'History of Architecture' : (another art history course) : not allowed.
How dare our students actually learn about what the objections are to different types of civil projects, or how aesthetics of buildings has changed over time ! (I took all of the above classes anyway, and the city design and architecture classes were actually two of my favorite classes, along with a computer graphics class that also didn't count towards my degree)
MadocComadrinJan 26, 2012
"Roundness" should not be done in college at all: it should be done in High School. This is why America is behind in education: our priorities are out of line. We need to teach people how to learn in elementary school, the basics in middle school, and all the general knowledge in High School.
markglJan 25, 2012
You don't kind of have to do anything. Unless there is a specific job like a brain surgeon then yeah I suggest you go to school. I hope you do before you work on my brain! But there are a lot of people going to school that really don't need to go there and spend 80k on a degree they aren't going to use or is useless itself as a degree.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I think most people do need some type of post-secondary education today; high school does not prepare you for any specific career. That does not mean that everyone should get a 4 year degree; there are plenty of other options.
markglJan 25, 2012
Apparently college isn't either for thousands of people. Again unless you know of something specific that truly truly needs for you to go to college then fine that's great, but you can do without it also.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I agree that not everyone needs (or has the capability to earn) a 4 year college degree. However, I can't think of many career paths that don't require some type of specialized post-seconday or vocational training. For example, community colleges are very affordable, focus on specific job skills, and have remedial programs that will allow almost anyone to succeed.
Some people have the means and desire to obtain a undergrad degree without a specific purpose, good for them. Most people today think of college as an investment that has to be justified by future income.
markglJan 25, 2012
Yeah 4 years is what I refer to here. 4 year degrees that cost 25k a year. It's sad and makes me cringe that you could be 100k in debt out of college! Crazy! Unless you're gonna make 100k starting, most likely not going to happen thou.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I wouldn't recommend accumulating a six figure debt for 4 year degree if there are other options. The best case scenario is for parents to pay at least part of the bill, I hate to see anyone start out with that type of debt. There are still plenty of scholarships available (based on merit and/or need), and not every 4 year institution costs $25k per year.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
You don't HAVE to go to college, but it helps. A lot. Just like you don't HAVE to learn how to read and write, but it helps. The two are obviously not equivalent and do not provide the same relative improvements to your later life, but the same principle applies.
duncan202Jan 25, 2012
My wife doesn't have a college degree and makes almost 80k/year as a research admin for a large hospital network. If you can be successful with a degree, you can be successful without one most likely.
Note it is holding her back at this point. But that doesn't mean society owes her a degree. She's working on getting now.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
From my perspective, not having a degree will not hold you back if you can sell yourself and try different employers. However, in some cases people hiring/managing are attached to the concept of a degree even when it's irrelevant to the work being performed. This is where different employers comes in.
Luckily for me, I have a degree and can sell myself.
kwanijmlJan 25, 2012
Why do I have "Roxanne" by the Police going through my head?
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Not having a degree can easily hold you back. You learn certain skills in college - how to think, how to study, how to apply yourself, etc. If you don't have those skills, then in many cases you won't be able to succeed at your job. So even if you sell yourself properly, you will not be very good at your job, and that will in fact hold you back.
The degree itself is usually irrelevant to the position. That's why people often get hired even when the degree they get is in a completely different field. But perseverance and ability to apply yourself required to get that degree are in fact directly applicable to many jobs.
njdoo7Jan 27, 2012
"But perseverance and ability to apply yourself required to get that degree are in fact directly applicable to many jobs."
As someone who is capable of selling yourself (rightfully so that is), you should be able to point to prior life achievements and qualities of yourself that make you better suited for their position/company than others.
If the employer is interested in finding talent, and you can rightfully demonstrate it, your cover letter and resume should be ample for getting an interview to demonstrate further.
These are all skills that can be learned by researching interviewing. The skills for most jobs can be picked up by people who are capable.
I don't see a degree as necessary for everyone. Sometimes you need to get an education, and you could even take several university courses online for structure. Some get trained (some cases highly trained) in the military.
My comment is geared mostly towards people like this. The prevailing notion in society about university today is a "must." This is not true and people strong enough in business should be able to recognize a strong person. A degree means you took some specialized classes and a bunch of other classes unrelated to your specialization.
These people should focus their dedication and effort into -resume, cover letter, interview practices, and marketing themselves- before going to school. Especially if it means taking on debt.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
"If you can be successful with a degree, you can be successful without one most likely."
That's like saying that if you can fly a jet in combat after finishing flight school, you can also fly a jet in combat without going to flight school.
Is it possible? Yes, absolutely. But statistically it is unlikely, and it will be much harder. Unless you are a complete idiot you can probably do just about anything - become president, fly an airplane, become a theoretical physicist, start a multi-billion dollar company, etc. But with an education it will be much easier, and you are likely to go much farther.
"But that doesn't mean society owes her a degree'
Nobody said that the society owes her anything, but it's to the benefit of the society itself to try to make it easier for people to get an education. That's why in many countries higher education is either free or almost free.
njdoo7Jan 27, 2012
The only places to learn to fly are generally flight schools.
However, in many fields and professions, university is not the only place to learn skills necessary.
tehravenJan 27, 2012
"US is now largely a white color economy." So true, so true :P
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
Standard will drop significantly if they lower costs. Who is going to maintain the facility? The janitors, landscapers, cooks, HVAC, people will leave if the university can no longer afford to pay them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gigaandroidJan 25, 2012
Universities will be forced to downsize and no longer fund many of the services that they do. I'm a student at one, and I can scarcely think of a better way to improve the system.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
Agreed. Costs have not outpaced inflation to keep the Maintenance staff employed. I suspect there's a lot of inefficiency involved.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
Will the standard drop, or will programs that should never have been created in the first place be discontinued?
The student debt bubble made funding available to university programs that arguably should have never been invested in to begin with.
If the university cannot provide the service/program at a price that people can/will/want to afford, maybe it shouldn't be there.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
I agree that flooding debt into the student loan market is the primary cause for college tuition hikes.
However, I do not attribute this all to "government" and neither should you.
"Vince Sampson, president, Education Finance Council, said during a panel at the IMN ABS East Conference in Miami Monday that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can’t afford them."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fraud-heart-student-lending-exposed-one-sentence-everyone-should-read
The private sector has willingly "pushed loans" (their words) to people they knew could not afford them.
Why would they do such a thing?
- Non-default status of student loans, creating lifelong indentured servants
- Some government guarantees
This is a situation resulting from not just the government or private sector, but the cooperation between the two that resulted in an environment with moral hazard at the core.
-----
As for the main point of the article, I am not sure if students will rise up and fight the student loan indentured servitude. I tend to lean towards no. Most people subscribe to a paradigm where all wrongdoing is either the fault of:
- private sector (simplified as red)
- public sector (simplified as blue)
They are too busy fighting with each other over which team, red or blue, is at fault or "more" at fault. They are effectively divided and easily conquered.
Before they can do anything like rise up and resist their indentured servitude, they have to stop fighting with each other. Unfortunately, I see this paradigm deeply engrained with people from birth and I don't see it changing soon as it would uproot their entire belief systems.
And after all, it's easier to point fingers and complain than to take responsibility and do something. People like easy.
kwanijmlJan 25, 2012
I say get rid of all the blue, so that people can clearly see what issues are indeed purely from the red, and use societal forces to address them. Whereas now, the red mostly gets blamed for the problems, because most can't see the distortion caused by the blue in the background, and/or they can't see that the red is the blue in disguise.
An all red world would be far from perfect. . . yes, people would still have to take responsibility and do something about problems. . . but it would be much easier for everyone to clearly see the real causes, and thus employ proper solutions to the tough problems. People rightly like it easy. . . that desire is what propels us forward as a species. I see no downside to making things as easy as possible.
elimgarakJan 27, 2012
"The only places to learn to fly are generally flight schools."
Not really. There are textbooks, flight simulators, instruction manuals, etc. And flying a jet in combat is even harder.
elimgarakJan 27, 2012
"As someone who is capable of selling yourself (rightfully so that is), you should be able to point to prior life achievements and qualities of yourself that make you better suited for their position/company than others."
And one of the more important of those life achievements can be getting a degree. Furthermore, this is a tangible and easily applicable achievement that can be verified unlike many others.
"If the employer is interested in finding talent, and you can rightfully demonstrate it, your cover letter and resume should be ample for getting an interview to demonstrate further."
ROFL! Have you ever given an interview? People lie on resumes. And greatly exaggerate. A resume is not there to demonstrate anything - it is to provide a guide to the interviewer about your life experiences which he then needs to ask about to verify various things.
"The skills for most jobs can be picked up by people who are capable."
Yes, of course. But many people are incapable of picking up those skills on their own. Most also lie on resumes and make it appear as if they have those skills. Training a new person from scratch - especially a person that sucks at the job - is expensive for a company. It can turn out to be very expensive. Wasting months on attempting to get somebody in shape for a position is a huge time and money sink. Especially if that person cannot apply himself properly, which is often indicated by a failure to get a degree. It is much easier for an employer to look for the degree, as that provides a much better indication that somebody CAN learn.
"A degree means you took some specialized classes and a bunch of other classes unrelated to your specialization."
Not just that. It also means that you can apply yourself and acquire the skills necessary in those classes to pass them. That you can work hard enough to achieve your goals in those classes. The harder the classes, the harder the college, the more you prove your ability to acquire the knowledge needed for your job, and to perform that job. Many of the skills you need to study and pass the classes are the same that you need in some jobs.
"These people should focus their dedication and effort into -resume, cover letter, interview practices, and marketing themselves- before going to school."
Just because you can bulls**t an interviewer does not mean that you can actually do the job. It takes a few days or weeks for some people to acquire the skills needed to get an interview, and to perform pretty well there - essentially to communicate and bulls**t. It takes years of work to get a degree. Somebody who interviews great without a degree simply proves that he is good at communicating and maybe working hard for a week. Somebody who is OK at an interview but has a difficult to get degree proves that he can apply himself and work hard for years. Which one is more important depends on the position you apply for - a car salesman must be able to bulls**t people. A computer developer needs to be able to learn and work hard.
whiteravenJan 25, 2012
Skip college.
concusionJan 25, 2012
I love how people expect 16 year old / 17 year old kids to have all the answers and to know what to do whether it is taking a loan or not. They can't drink beer, but f**k em if they can't pay their loans.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I don't believe many high school seniors are taking out student loans without their parent's approval. Ideally, the parents would have the means to pay for college and avoid this issue. In reality, many families need these loans and the kids are the one's who are expected to repay the loans after college.
concusionJan 25, 2012
I'm almost done paying back my loans but no one, not my parents, teachers, faculty, no one said "Go the cheap route, you won't have any jobs when you get out"
They said get the degree no matter what, worry about the loans later. Its real easy to say its the students fault, when you went through college 20 years ago or whatever.
I paid my s**t back, but I learned a valuable lesson, that no one, not my parents, not my school, not my college, no one had a clue about offering the proper advice to survive in the real world.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
Everyone's situation is different. Some students go to college without any idea of what they want to do or what their job market looks like. Some parents simply can't afford to pay tuition, or decide that it isn't their responsibility. Some parents did not go to college themselves and don't really understand what all the options are for their kids. Some students (and parents) look at college as a trade school only and don't understand the benefits of a broader education.
ajh16Jan 26, 2012
Student loans are not at all the same as indentured servitude, particularly with the new policies that limit payments to a portion of income and time limit them. The article is complete bulls**t. You don't give all your work to pay the loan, you give a small portion, with more than reasonable interest, which is tax deductible and you get let out of if you go for a certain period of time without being able to pay it off.
Further, it is trivial to pay off student loans if you take a smart approach to your college and work hard. I can see an argument for putting student loans on hold when unemployed, but doesn't the percentage of income provision effectively do this? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I fail to see how it is even remotely close to a comparison to indentured servitude. This is just someone from alternet bitching about their loans and wanting to avoid personal responsibility.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
"LOL! I never realized there were so many lazy, irresponsible, whiny college age losers around..."
Really? Why is this the 'knee jerk' reaction by so many 'right wingers'. Yes, as a general concept, you should pay back any commitments to which you agree'. Dandy. That still doesn't address underlying problems. If tuition continues to outpace inflation to a large degree, many will simply be priced out of an education (especially with stagnant salaries). That will be fantastic for America. Great solution. Let the Asian countries have all those 'higher skilled' jobs.
How refreshing it would be to see these 'typical diggers' not simply rush in calling everyone a 'loser' for falling behind on mortgage payments, student loans, etc. Maybe, just maybe, rapidly increasing defaults and spiraling debt have more reasons than just the 'stupidity of the borrower'.
chassupJan 25, 2012
I never thought of calling my mortgage company a slave master, and therefore unjust. That changes everything, now I can refuse to pay and feel good about breaking a promise... and keep the property. Win, win... for me!
CalTjaderJan 25, 2012
You morons could always, just say NO.
jceezJan 25, 2012
I went to a Jr. College for 2 years to save money, transferred to a university, got financial aid and loans and paid them back within 5 years of graduating (with a pretty average paying job).
It's really not that hard.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
That's admirable. However, with Tuition and Fees outpacing inflation for decades, you don't see a problem? Costs are only going up and it's only going to get harder without strong solutions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/tuition-jumps-8-3-doubling-inflation-as-obama-plans-debt-relief.html
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
Good for you. However, I'm curious when this occurred, as most of the inflating costs of education took place in the past decade.
I attended university for 3.5 years and tuition increased by 50% while I was there (2005-2008).
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Tuition was going up by those amounts when I attended (1988 cough cough).......
njdoo7Jan 26, 2012
Based on this graph of tuition increases:
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/ivy-league-college-education/
It appears you attended a private university?
I attended a public one, and the rate of increase for public universities is consistent with my previous comment, going from roughly $8,000 in year 2000 to $15,000 in 2009.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
I went to a Public University. But the basic point remains. A University education is necessary for many of the occupations needed to drive us forward (Engineering, Chemistry, etc). Yet, costs are pricing many out of these needed degrees. Not a good trend.
njdoo7Jan 26, 2012
I looked for more graphs and this one shows a higher rate of increase in the 80's and 90's than the previous one:
http://thecostofcollege.blogspot.com/2010/04/real-meaning-of-tuition-increases.html
Based on this chart the rates of public were not slower than private when you attended.
However, from year 2000 on you still see a much higher rate of increase than before for public.
ddoornJan 28, 2012
Most white-collar professions just don't pay enough to justify the astronomical loans one needs to make to get the college education necessary for that job. Far too many white collar professions are out-source-able as well.
I encourage young people to look into developing a blue-collar trade or profession instead. Without the tremendous expense of a college education one could attain a much better quality of life becoming an electrician, plumber, auto mechanic or other hands-on trade that can't be outsourced to outer Mongolia.
DF68Jan 26, 2012
Well, the "jobless" creators aren't helping either. In Arizona, tech company employers are helping you limit your "possibilities". They want new hires to have 2-3 years of experience, they're using the old stand-by BS line of "we can't find people with the skills we need", and they're saying they're unaware of "either university or workforce development programs that could help them find employees.". Last time I checked, most colleges and universities have job placement assistance departments.
Now, a 15-month study done by ASU's W.P. Carey School of Business and The AZ Tech Council debunks and calls BS on the tired excuse of "we can't find people with the skills we need". In fact, rather than a shortage people in AZ with "skills they need", the study found there's an abundance of new and existing grads available for hire. In short, the "jobless" creators are lying and they don't want to train new hires. They want something for nothing, "zero down / zero investment" employees.
Lack of Arizona technology workers a myth, study finds
Phoenix Business Journal by Patrick O'Grady, Reporter
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7j8ncfk
Arizona Technology Council
www.aztechcouncil.org
Arizona’s Technology Workforce: Issues, Opportunities and Competitive Pressures: Executive Summary (pdf - 20 pgs.)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/75xp5ux
KapsiotJan 25, 2012
Indentured servitude my ass. You borrow money, you pay it back.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
"Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
Student loans refers to the practice of contracting to work and pay the loans for a fixed period of time, typically seven to twenty years, in exchange for an education prior to the payments.
It's hardly different.
KapsiotJan 25, 2012
A college education isn't a necessity.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
Nor was it a necessity to obtain necessities via indentured servitude.
Student loans are generally taken on because it will help the student obtain necessities in the future.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
Student loans are really an evolved form of indentured servitude. A more "politically correct" form that doesn't come with a negative connotation.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
I should really elaborate as I foresee my comment being misinterpreted.
Someone would likely interpret my comment to imply that since I believe student loans are indentured servitude, that student loans are bad. This confusion is likely rooted in the negative connotation of indentured servitude, as taught in public education. I don't believe indentured servitude is very bad, contrary to what I was taught in school.
Both student loans and their more historic equivalent, indentured servitude, were designed to benefit both parties under voluntary contract. I don't see anything wrong this.
My problem with student loans is the predatory aspect. Specifically, lenders making loans to people they know cannot afford them.
"Vince Sampson, president, Education Finance Council, said during a panel at the IMN ABS East Conference in Miami Monday that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can’t afford them."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/fraud-heart-student-lending-exposed-one-sentence-everyone-should-read
This is wrong, any way you slice it.
Surely there were equivalents to this predatory aspect with indentured servitude in the past, which made people exploiting that system wrong as well.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
This is always the 'simple' solution from many conservatives. As a 'generalized' concept, who could disagree? But, let's think about this concept more broadly. The United States is in trouble partly because of our educational system. We need more people with the right skill sets to compete. Yet, our educational costs are spiraling out of reach for many. Sure, someone could just forgo becoming an Engineer because of money. But, is that really in the best interest of our country?
Many take the loans because it's the only solution offered. I won't vilify them. High student debt for me is endemic of an underlying disease (runaway costs). That's the issue that needs to be addressed. We need to find solutions that make it affordable to attain degrees that our country need to stay competitive and offer better lives. I won't simply say 'you took the loan, now pay it back' without thinking that through more.
ereneeJan 25, 2012
I was forced to take a student loan. even when I qualified for other help. and was not allowed to use work-study program to make up the difference, in fact that part was severely limited and hurt my chances of acquiring more experience at the student newspaper.
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
You weren't forced to do anything. Nobody forced you to go to university.
ereneeJan 25, 2012
actually I was. but do not want to share details with strangers.
specimen7Jan 26, 2012
You don't want to share the details? That is the most bulls**t evasion tactic ever.
If someone physically forced you, or threatened you to take out a student loan, they committed a crime and the contract is void assuming you have real evidence.
Do you realize what you've just accused another people of committing a crime. And you did so to cop-oit of a debate. You are a sleazebag.
penglustJan 25, 2012
And nobody forced you to be an assh**e. But there you are.
roddackJan 25, 2012
Who put the gun to your head and made you take the loan?
ereneeJan 25, 2012
the 'gun' was, no Pell grants without the loan. even tho I was willing to do lots of work-study. that was not acceptable to the powers that be. and this was in the 70s. I'm sure it's worse now.
roddackJan 25, 2012
You were still not forced you had the option of saying no to the student loan but you decided that loss to access to Pell grants wasn't worth it so you freely made the choice to take the loan. You could have walked away you decided not to.
ereneeJan 25, 2012
you have absolutely no clue what happened to me back then. and I am not going to explain it to a stranger.
njdoo7Jan 25, 2012
I'm not sure if forced is the right word, maybe coerced/manipulated/bribed? You haven't shared enough details for me to gauge this, but either way it's moot.
I am familiar with the predatory nature of the system, and it is no surprise to me they wouldn't issue grants unless you were in debt.
Also, this occurred before you were considered responsible or mature enough to consume alcohol that intoxicates you for one night.
It's amazing how the standards of responsibility/maturity change for student loans (a 7-20 year commitment).
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
"I was forced to take a student loan."
That's like saying you were forced to take a car loan because you didn't have enough cash for an outright purchase. Don't be hyperbolic, unless you were coerced into registering for classes you couldn't pay for there was no force.
skinturtleJan 25, 2012
A lot of things will change once the older bunch is gone.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
No one made them take those loans.
novenatorJan 25, 2012
Higher education should be free.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Nice empty platitude. You are not entitled to another person's labor.
novenatorJan 26, 2012
Nice attempt at straw man. Society is entitled to the tools that improve the nation as a whole, and nations with free public schools, roads, health care, retirements, and and fire departments simply function better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beforesputnikJan 26, 2012
It's never free, though. Someone is paying for it. It's coming from your taxes whether you like it or not and that is what makes it wrong. If you don't want something, you shouldn't have to buy it.
DF68Jan 26, 2012
Start shoveling up the sidewalk and asphalt leading up to your home because I don't want my taxes paying for it.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
"free public schools"
Public schools are not free. That's almost the most idiotic statement you've ever made.
youcantbeseriousJan 25, 2012
Alternet is more biased than Fox News lol
vitriolandangstJan 25, 2012
Only if the Valedictorians rise up first - with an inspiring commencement speech.
davidnivenJan 25, 2012
Don't like being an economic slave, don't ask for a loan in the first place. How about working for a living and saving your own money instead of living off the $$$ of others?
Idiots.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionJan 25, 2012
how about working for a living for a job that requires a college degree to get your college degree without taking out loans to get that college degree, so pay for it with the job that.. oh boy why do I even bother.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
I managed to get my first network admin job my 2nd year in college based on my self-taught knowledge and experience. College is a scam for any profession but the hard science professions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesJan 25, 2012
Right norman, because your life is precisely like everyone else's.
So f**king narrow-minded it's incredible.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Really? I grew up poor. My parents couldn't afford to help me with college. It was all on me. When I graduated college I had lots of fast food experience but that's about it. I worked in gas stations, worked around construction areas doing general labor when I could. Nothing special about my situation except that I took the time to teach myself all about computer hardware and networking. ANYONE can do what I did.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jceezJan 25, 2012
"I managed to get my first network admin job my 2nd year in college based on my self-taught knowledge and experience."
"When I graduated college I had lots of fast food experience but that's about it."
O RLY?
unclefireJan 25, 2012
I started worked as a software developer my 2nd year in college. Moved to another company few couple years later that paid for the rest of my college tuition. It took me six years total to get my EE degree- but I was working full time as a programmer WHILE going to school. Tuition paid by my employer.
Signing up for 10's of thousands of dollars in student loans for a degree that won't support paying off that debt is simply stupid.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Exactly. Especially when it's not really needed. I was getting paid FAR less than what I was worth while I worked for that company. Why? Because they could. I didn't have that stupid piece of paper saying I attended and finished college. That was the justification. Even though I knew as much or more than most of their technical staff. I was only paid what I was really worth after I got my computer science degree. What really pissed me off was that college didn't teach anything really related to my job except some very basic programming. It was worthless. People who aren't looking to be engineers, doctors, scientists, or anything just as science intensive would be better served by going to trade schools or apprenticeships than 4+ years of college.
unclefireJan 25, 2012
I made about $6 per hour at my first programming job. It was at the Med school/teaching hospital of the college I attended.
Schweppesale2Jan 26, 2012
Wait, are you suggesting that those K-maps where actually a complete waste of time?
I am shocked.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
When was this?
http://www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com/2007/02/02/222.html
Prices are skyrocketing. Situations are different. There are far fewer jobs. This is not a valid comparison.
gigaandroidJan 25, 2012
You're not entitled to a college degree; you're also not entitled to the professions that it opens for you. If you can't acquire a degree by your own merits, then that's just too bad.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
Then we'd have an economy of gas station attendants and burger flippers.
We're all better off if we maximize the possibilities of others advancing into professional careers.
davidnivenJan 25, 2012
Agreed. Waiting for you to give the rest of us YOUR money to...wait for it...maximize the possibilities of us advancing into professional careers. Waiting...
Or is it only OK when everyone else has to contribute to education for the masses?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
Well, for one thing, I voluntarily chose a lower-paying profession than what I was capable of going into because it will help me contribute to "education for the masses." I also married a middle school teacher because she shared the same values, so I'm not exactly prioritizing personal wealth over educating others here.
I would much rather pay higher taxes to help kids get a good education than I would pay tends of thousands of dollars of interest to Sallie Mae. I would also happily contribute to educational charities and scholarship funds, something I won't be able to do for at least the next ten years while my wife and I are paying $1,000 a month in student loan bills.
davidnivenJan 26, 2012
@pinkfish411
And that is all very noble and charitable of you. But, please don't spend everyone else's money as you see fit to spend yours. Or, at least, understand that everyone else doesn't believe in the same involvement of government in the education system as you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Jan 26, 2012
The point is, I think that people like you are too blinded by stupid selfishness to realize that better education for all is better for everyone. It's better for you too. It means a more civil and cultured society and a stronger economy--maybe even more money in your pocket at the end of the day.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
Perfect, and if more and more people can't afford to attain degrees that are needed by Industry, we can just ship off more of those jobs to India and elsewhere. Grand.
norman619Jan 25, 2012
Exactly. I worked full time AND was a full time student and managed to put myself through college. I had to sacrifice going to some of the parties and some dates but I was focused on getting out of college w/o debt not on having all the fun I can.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I also worked my way through college, like many other people of my generation. However, my state college tuition was about $2000/year and I could actually earn enough money working for minimum wage (about $2.50/hour, as I recall) to pay for it.
When my daughter goes to college in a couple of years, I will probably be paying in the $15-25k/year range. I think the minimum wage is about $7-8/hour these days. With the exception of community colleges, I understand why many students have no alternatives to student loans.
unclefireJan 25, 2012
Parties? What parties? There were parties in college? :-)
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
Some of us actually did a lot of academic work during college and didn't have time for parties or a full-time job.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
I went to school full time for six straight years to earn my mscs. That was while working full time, running my own business, and raising a child.
I don't want to hear any whining. I slept on average 3 - 4 hours per night for over a half decade of my life.
Schweppesale2Jan 26, 2012
damn, that is hardcore.
pinkfish411Jan 26, 2012
And you might have taken a decade off half a decade of your life by living with that stress and that little sleep. That's not exactly something we should be wishing on others.
randomfaceJan 25, 2012
The costs of college have risen so high that those not taking loans are at a serious disadvantage. The cost won't fall down to a level where the average person can work their way through college until student loans are harder to get and colleges can't simply inflate their way to more money.
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
These moron kids wants everything for free.
This is an occupy wall street protester with a sign that says "pay my tuition"
When someone asks him why, he says "because it's my opinion"
The stupid look on his face when the guys asks him questions mimics the stupid replies from the freloaders on digg.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Yea, they should get off your lawn! Damned kids these days have it too easy! When you were little you had to walk 30 miles every day to school, up-hill both ways, in the snow!
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
You forgot to mention the cheetahs, land sharks and flying spiders. You agree to a load. Pay it back.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
Many of us just want to be able to work and contribute to society, and the current education financing system can be an obstacle in the way of doing so.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
The moron here is you. That amazingly simplistic 'freeloader' perception paints you as the moron. You know the wealth of Diggers? You know for a fact that most don't earn a living? Just because someone doesn't believe skyrocketing costs of education are good for our country (nor massive student loans) doesn't mean it's all about such a simpleton thought as 'freeloading'.
JustSayNoPartyJan 25, 2012
Leave it to you to provide the 'narrow minded' perspective based on applying your extreme views to every situation. So, if College Education costs continue to skyrocket and salaries continue to decline, your simple retort will always be 'work for a living'? Do you ever address systemic issues?
Jkidder18Jan 25, 2012
College is a joke. The only reason I go is because it is essential to even get my foot in the door with any hopes of a job interview. I can only count down the days until I get a piece of paper that says I'm smart.. You don't learn s**t in class except for maybe a random fact of the day then you go back home to continue learning. Your not allowed to miss class because attendance is now taken and professors will fail your ass. The blind are leading the blind while the stakeholders rake in all the tuition money and any other way they can rape you of a good quality of life.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drewdaddy213Jan 25, 2012
I don't know if you're doing it right dude. I learned so f**king much in college it's ridiculous.
dauntless1Jan 25, 2012
As I've said many times, you only get out of college what you put into it.
People saying they got nothing from college, well......
Jkidder18Jan 25, 2012
like i already stated. i learned nothing from the money hungy institution. most of the learning process is done outside of the class room.
chassupJan 25, 2012
Then you are a sucker.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
That's exactly how it's supposed to be. I'm a college professor (not a teacher). Students who think that most of the learning is supposed to happen during the three hours a week they're in class are the worst students. If you're in class three hours a week, you should be spending 10 or 12 hours a week learning that material outside of the class. The classroom is there to offer you guidance in your learning, not to spoon feed you. You're not in high school anymore, kid.
Jkidder18Jan 25, 2012
ouch! and all i have to say about that is... Your Mother. You really put me in my place today. I think you really did give me some constructive criticism that will change my whole insight as to how I need to live my life. I wasn't asking anyone to "spoon feed" me anything. All i want is a decent paying job without being raped financially and nickle and dimed for anything I do. I switched doorms mid semester and they charged me $100 dollars for no reason. This is and was my point. The so called basics of college are the same god damn thing ive been doing since my freshmen yr of highschool.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
Perhaps colleges need to go back to teaching more rhetoric classes, because you're not making your point very well. What's your gripe exactly? What does getting charged a $100 administrative fee have to do with the amount of learning you're getting done?
I learned a ton in college, exponentially more than I learned in high school. Most of that learning required active involvement, doing the readings, chatting with professors outside of class, getting guidance for additional readings, getting involved in conferences and scholarly societies, etc. It takes initiative. If you aren't learning anything, you either aren't putting much into it or you picked a bad university. If nothing else, do what I did most of the time: test out of the core class and take an upper-level course in that department in its place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DF68Jan 26, 2012
“That's exactly how it's supposed to be. “
BULLs**t!
For the money paid, students should expect "in class" instruction and drilling to make them confident and competent in their career centric skills. What do they get instead? They get 50 minutes of talking head 3 times a week from instructors re-reading the material from the assigned reading assignment. Talk about "spoon feeding" by doing the barest minimum of actual "teaching". Solely practicing rote and regurgitate instruction is neither education nor guidance.
It's true that the students need to read the material in the books and do the homework, which might take 10 to 12 hours per week "per course". You do have to read, comprehend, and digest the material. Also, you do need to do the homework in order to understand and be able to apply the fundamentals. Although, if the books used for study are written by people that can’t be concise, or if the homework assignment is based on some shabbily written lab workbooks barely edited for consistency and clarity, the student making the good faith effort is screwed before he/she starts.
What students don't need is their time wasted by having instructors re-read the reading assignment, as if the class is a bunch of illiterate idiots. It may not be high school anymore, but students are still treated to 50 minutes of "story time" as if they were in kindergarten? Personally, when I finished reading the assigned chapter in my IT courses, I expected to come to class and apply what I had learned, not have some teacher read it back to me.
Your remarks strike me as how I saw most of the instructors I had in my two degree programs, i.e. arrogant, lazy, coasting to retirement, minimalist, lowest common denominator, sorry excuse for an "educator". Maybe I'm wrong for being so stern in my response to you. Although, I’ve had a lot of lackluster, sorry ass, “dead wood” instructors in the past that blame the students rather their own incompetence. So, I’m sick and tired of seeing and hearing remarks from teachers, instructors, and professors denigrating students that might be doing as good as they can do in spite of a piss poor curriculums, study materials, and aloof instructors.
pinkfish411Jan 26, 2012
I'm sorry to break it to you, but most lower-level classes ARE half full of illiterate idiots. If I didn't lecture over the exact same material that was in the book, most of my students wouldn't understand the material. I know this from experience. Trying to assign readings and then opening with a student discussion, which is what I wanted to do when I first started teaching, turned out to be an abysmal failure, because half the class either wouldn't do the reading or couldn't make sense of what they read. Blame your classmates if you aren't getting anything out of class, because bad students quickly suck the motivation out of eager young teachers who go in excited about sharing the material they know and love.
Try teaching for a while. Unless you're in a great school with a great group of students, there's going to be a lot of frustration when the work you put in has no payback. That's the thing about teaching: whether or not your work pays off is out of your control and in the control of the students.
I know from personal experience and from the experiences of my fellow instructors that the students in a class make a huge difference. I've taught different sections of the same course in the same semester that turned out radically differently. One section would be fantastic, and the next would be so awful I'd dread going in. I'd have the same material and do the same things in both sections; the difference was the eagerness of the students to actually do their part.
Please, try seeing things from the professor's perspective for a while. I've been on both sides of the room, so I know what it's like from both perspectives, and I've found it far more difficult to teach than to be taught. That's the same experience that most of my colleagues share with me, too.
Perhaps you have genuinely bad professors. I know they're out there. But that's in part your fault for you not doing you research and for going to a sub-par university. I can honestly say that in the three universities I went to, I had maybe two or three bad (adjunct) professors, but that's because I knew that all schools aren't created equal, and I did extensive research before deciding where to go and what to study there. If you're investing tens of thousands of dollars, you should be doing the same research yourself.
DF68Jan 27, 2012
pinkfish411, you may not see this response, but thanks for the reply. I can absolutely see your pov and agree that if the clay you've been given to mold is full of rocks, you can only do so much. As for saying that I might have not done my research prior to attending a school, that wasn't the case.
Even so, we don't all have the option or opportunities to attend the well known high end colleges and universitites. Sometimes, you have to make the best of things based on the available educational institutions. It's just very aggravating and annoying that there's so much dead wood in some colleges and universities. It makes the educational process such a joke rather than an enlightening and fulfilling experience.
unclefireJan 25, 2012
Uh-- the idea IS to learn something while you're there. Beyond that, college should also be a place where you learn how to THINK, not just memorize facts or formulas. What classes are you taking? You teaching yourself chemistry, or physics, or calculus, or biology? If you're doing underwater basket weaving, you're doing it wrong.
Jkidder18Jan 25, 2012
Uh-- Right and i do that. im a god damn genius.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
Sounds like you confused college with middle school. Or you went to a s**tty college and took the simplest and most basic classes you could find.
chassupJan 25, 2012
Some get a degree in french classics or social work and then cry because their job sucks or doesn't pay enough to pay back the $100,000 student loan it cost them. Smart people figure all that out before they take out loans.
elimgarakJan 25, 2012
It depends. Some get a degree in literature and then go into business. I got mine in applied math and went into dev work (programming). Of course I also did not get loans.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
I'm glad Im not paying your tuition, and it's pretty clear that you are not paying it. Maybe you shouldn't be there. There are jobs/careers that don't require an undergrad degree. It sounds like you are wasting everyone's time and money.
mercedrocksJan 25, 2012
Abused? Dont like the loan? Dont take it out.'
The real abuse is by the fed govt which outlaws borrowers from discharging their loans in bankruptcy.
And the fed govt furthers the escalation in tuition increases by telling universities sky's the limit when it comes to loans.
Lower the max for student loans and theyd have to lower their tuition.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ajnickmomJan 26, 2012
This is one of the best articles on the net. I currently have student loans and wish I could do something about them, especially since I can not afford to make payments at the current time. Why are student loan debts not a major political issue for the next presidential election? Should it not be? Realistically, if both myself and spouse were to make payments on our student loans we would be shelling out over $1000.00 each month. It makes no sense to pay it when the family income is stuck at 20K. If we had to pay rent, feed our kids, keep warm, save and pay for all of it on 8k we would likely starve.
DF68Jan 26, 2012
It's the hot potato topic no politician wants to touch anymore than they wanted to touch the housing bubble that put the economy into a tail spin.
grimoriumJan 26, 2012
Simple answer to this is, Don't get a loan. Take a semester or 2 off and get a job. Go to a community college and get an associates degree. With most employers your credit rating is looked more into than your education so its better to save your money and not go into debt.
PeterPDJan 27, 2012
Finally common sense - after reading whole article and comments above.
No wonder someone took your digg point off. You telling him/her to actually do some work.
Such a degrading thing to do, isn't it.
kasha34Jan 26, 2012
"Get conscious" that you don't have enough stuff.
"get angry" that other people have more stuff.
And demand some of other people's stuff.
The threat of violence and riots will help.
kasha34Jan 26, 2012
Sticking your neighbors with YOUR bill is immoral.
WTwebteamJan 25, 2012
join us wtwebteam world team web team now let us help you as you help us
WTwebteamJan 25, 2012
join us wtwebteam world team web team now let us help you as you help us
ferretmanJan 26, 2012
What, a bailout for those who took out student loans?
No.
You took them out...often this was one of the first adult financial decisions you ever made. ACT like an adult and pay back what you borrowed.
Sheesh.
bcronosJan 25, 2012
LOL! I never realized there were so many lazy, irresponsible, whiny college age losers around...
If you don't know the difference between a grant and a loan, perhaps you should just skip college and get a job suited to your intelligence...
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
This is the stupid face of people who want their tuition paid for by others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc
And the stupid face of all occupy wall street morons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CentristFiascoJan 25, 2012
There is no such thing as a "student loan industry" and the reason why college intuition is expensive is because of the increasing socialist measures implemented in our Country. What's the point in keeping the prices low when the government is paying for it? Anyway, I would like you guys to check out my submissions, particularly the one with Anonymous Taking on the Obama Administration in regards to the Federal Reserve.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stubearJan 25, 2012
Do a little research in Ashford University and the thousands of corporate "universities" across America that have sprung up over the past decade or so and take student loan money from the government and provide little to no education in return. After you've read a little more about these abusive corporate entities, come back here and see if you can make the same statement about no "student loan industry" with a straight face.
CentristFiascoJan 25, 2012
There's a fine difference between a for-profit University and a public university, my friend.
DF68Jan 26, 2012
That fine line/difference was obliterated when public university tutition reached or exceeded for-profit university tutition.
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
They can try. But when the university faculty all the way down to the toilet cleaners don't get paid, there will be another uprising. Who the f**k is going to maintain the facility?
You think the HVAC guy is going to lend his services pro bono when he has a family to take care of? The only class exploitation crime here would be the students using the services of the janitors, landscapers, cooks ect.. and then not paying them s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireJan 25, 2012
Part of the problem is colleges have gone nuts with "amenities" which add costs. No, I'm not talking about top notch labs. I'm talking about posh student centers and non-educational facilities (work out rooms), etc. etc.
specimen7Jan 25, 2012
If you don't like a university because it has a work out room, don't go there. The people at Stanford, MIT, Berkley ect busted thier asses to get in and they deserve a facility with "amenities".
unclefireJan 25, 2012
If you go to Stanford, MIT or Berkley, expect to pay a s**t-ton of money to go there. If you have a degree from one of those in social work or other lower paying white-collar job, don't expect to be able to pay off your loans any time soon.
penglustJan 25, 2012
Except it in not the MITs and Berkleys that are the major problem with these kinds of degrees. It is the University of Phoenixs and other "for profit" scams that do just enough to work the government.
pinkfish411Jan 25, 2012
I've attended two top-tier universities, and I can tell you that the students are there because they're willing to fork over $50K a year to be there. They don't have those amenities because they "deserve" them, they have them because they pay a hell of a lot for them.
Part of the problem is that MOST schools are offering these amenities, and increasingly so. They pride themselves on them, because let's face it, the amenities help sell the school. For those who don't want the amenities and don't want to pay for them, they're basically out of luck, because the state-of-the-art rec center and the year-round landscaping are just part of the package.
dauntless1Jan 25, 2012
Except that their funding from boosters and alumni is usually tied to such things. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
alexisromanoJan 26, 2012
will the higher education criminal enterprise charge less the half a million dollars to get a four year degree?
DF68Jan 26, 2012
“I have never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education.” - Mark Twain
----
In the spirit of Mark Twain, these are some observations I made while in college:
The term “higher education” is a misnomer.
Most of the time it is neither “higher” nor “educating”.
“Expect to teach yourself more than you will actually be taught in class."
“You’re in this by yourself. No one really cares if you succeed.”
“Mediocrity is the prevailing style of “higher education”. Strive to be better.”
“Give the teacher and the course the benefit of the doubt.
After both are given ample time to be unchallenging and disappoint, move on.”
Closed AccountJan 26, 2012
No. Probably not.