This is why I'm so skeptical of the "free college" rhetoric from Elizabeth Warren and the like... The underlying problem is the giant wealth transfer to colleges, and the progressive fixes seem to be to transfer even more wealth to them.
I assume by "this" you are refering to the OP's statement that "This is what happens when there's 0 pressure on universities to price their programs competitively."
One of the idea's behind free public college is to apply market pressure to private college's, so that they have to price their programs competitively. In a risk free debt financed system, prices will rise, the same dynamic happens for both medical care and real estate.
I am not sure on what basis you think this kind of system would make the problems worse.
Also I am curious, are you in favor of abolishing public high school? What part of your argument against free college does not apply to free high schools? One of the many talking points behind the free college proposal is that in today's job market, a college degree has the some utility that a high school degree used to have.
The current proposals as I understand them will subsidize tuition at the current, severely inflated rate, letting the colleges get away with their price gouging, and I want to see accountability there. I wonder if as an incremental step attaching cost effectiveness conditions to school's ability to accept loan funds would be better. I believe this was Obama's general approach, though I will admit I have not looked into the issue deeply.
This is great point in my opinion. Solving this issue in the real world is not simple, it comes down more to the political power of various competing factions than it does to coming up with a "big idea". Once you have a "big idea" (like free public college), unless your faction has sufficient political power, then how are you going to implement it?
The problem is not that we are lacking big ideas that will work, there are many of them. The problem is we don't have the political power to implement a single one of them.
Consider this statement from the OP:
"Look no further than this chart (https://i.imgur.com/B3sVMjg.png), around 2010 was when the gov started fully backing and giving the loans directly, and conveniently it's when students needs for loans skyrocketed. It's so obvious that colleges took advantage of it."
Right now the gov't intervene's in public education by "fully backing and giving the loans directly". My position is that not all forms of government intervention are inherently bad, for example, the way the government intervenes in public high school is something we both agree is good.
I believe that the current way the gov't intervenes in college education is deeply problematic, and that instead of completely removing the role of gov't, we should copy the model from high school which has proven to work very well.
High schools definitely seem cheaper (though I’m not sure how much cheaper), but I don’t think high schools have as much incentive to increase performance.
Regardless, I think the bigger problem here is we don’t really know what we want from colleges. They’re a status symbol, a rite of passage, a place to learn about the world, a place to try out adulthood, a place to party, a place to demonstrate intelligence, a place to learn career specific skills, and a place that promises to lift people out of poverty.
Those are all very different things.
I think we’d be better off if each of those goals were separated into different institutions. Colleges have become little utopian towns in which everything a young adult would want is wrapped into a single package. It’s like the space shuttle: it’s been designed by a committee that wants it to do everything. Expense and compromised performance is inevitable.
I think parents, kids and employers are as much to blame as the institutions themselves. You can get a lot of what college promises from different sources for a fraction of the cost. But we don’t accept the alternatives that should be driving the cost down because college is such a deeply ingrained institution, and is considered the only onramp for most forms of success. We accept the price because we feel like we have to.
The key to a good negotiation is the willingness to walk away. Until we accept that there are alternatives to the fantasy package that is modern day college, I don’t think the price will lower.
The major issue is student debt, regardless of any other legitimate criticisms of college culture/education, this is literally the largest source of debt in America today. There is more student debt than there is real estate debt. In many ways, college has become a scam designed to entrap young people in a life time of debt servitude. We dont have to fix all the other problems with college at the same time. I am lucky to have no student loans, but most people I know are saddled with massive debt. I want to do something to help them.
I’m not sure the debt situation can be fixed until we deprogram people to stop seeing college as this one, singular, necessary thing, though. We can transfer that debt around, but I think the key to really getting rid of the bloat is to change how people think about college and to get them to pick the specific things they need/want most.
I’m not sure how you do that without creating competitive, viable substitutions for the different purposes colleges seem to serve that people are willing to do instead of college. I think a lot of those alternatives exist already, people just don’t accept them as substitutions. EX: apprenticeship programs, online classes, meetups, conference organizations, maker spaces, etc. I think part of the key to that is coming up with a reliable measure of performance in and quality of alternative programs.
But at the end of the day, I don’t think there’s an easy solution; I think a lot of things need to change. I’m pessimistic about our ability to reign in the bloat/debt from a top down approach before any of that other stuff happens. I think that any solution that doesn’t solve those other problems will result in student loan debt of about the same size just being passed on to taxpayers.
This is an interesting point of view, and I would like to push back on this.
In my view, it is not a practical suggestion to "deprogram people" like you describe, anymore than it is practical to "deprogram" the general population to no longer fall victim to ponzi scheme's or other scams like fake ICO's etc... This is because con-artists prey on fundamental aspects of human nature and employ sophisticated social engineering techniques to manipulate the behavior of their victims. In order for the social engineering of "our side" (i.e. deprogramming people) to overcome the social engineering of con-artists, we would need to be better at it than they are! We are not going to beat them at their own game, and attempting to do so is a losing strategy.
The student loan industry is a predatory and hostile industry which is backed by the biggest banks and has enormous political influence in congress. The main goal of their lobbying is to prevent being regulated.
This is a smart strategy for them because in my opinion, history has clearly demonstrated that the best solution to this type of problem is government regulation which prevents the worst abuses of a free market system.
There used to be laws where you could clear your debt by filing for bankruptcy, but this is no longer possible for student loans. If my generation had more political power in DC, we would pass laws to allow this as well as cancel a very large percentage of outstanding student debt.
So I strongly disagree with proposal that people need to be "deprogrammed" because I don't think this is a practical approach to address this major problem.
I definitely agree with allowing people to file for bankruptcy to clear student loan debt, and agree it’s a much more practical step than changing the culture. That will cause lenders to be much more cautious and prevent people who can’t afford college and aren’t going into high paying fields from being saddled with enormous debts.
That being said, I don’t think we should ignore the cultural problem, as legislation tends to reflect the culture, whether that be through enforcement of the culture or abuse of the culture. There’s a complex feedback loop going on, and it goes both ways, but I think an approach that only looks at adding or reforming legislation, while maybe more practical in the short term, will eventually lead back to where we are now. A side effect of allowing bankruptcy will be a reduction in the amount of people going to college, since fewer will be able to get the loans to afford it. They will likely demand access to college and get us back to where we are now, or a future where college is “free” and everyone’s taxes start to look like student loan payments.
I think what people currently want is quite expensive, even if we could trim all the fat. Someone needs to pay for it. We could add roadblocks in the form of legislation to prevent lenders from abusing what is often an unnecessary want rather than encouraging it, but as long as that want exists, there will be a large incentive to take advantage of it.
I’m also not sure about the history of this problem. I think a lot of it stems from legislation rather a lack of legislation. Federally backed student loans seem to be a major part of the issue.
So to be clear, I’m not against legislative reform, I’m just worried that it’s not sufficient, and that the current public conception of post secondary education is inevitably going to be too expensive to sustain. In my opinion there are much cheaper and more effective ways of doing what colleges do. The most effective long term solution is to accept more of those alternatives and force colleges to compete.
there are already some very high quality state universities in the US where you can get a first rate education. fund these schools to the point where tuition is somewhere between $0 and $5000 a year and see how the elite private schools justify their prices.
High schools are for minors. The return/cost benefit of them is much higher, and the users of it are not responsible adults, a decision is made unto them.
College is used mostly by the upper half of society, and the majority that goes to college can afford it. Taxing the populace to give the richer resources is "trickle down economics".
ITT! American discovers something else almost all of the rich world is doing, claims it can't be done.
Where things get tricky is funding this. By and large, new construction is donor secured -- it's relatively easy to put a name on a building. But those donations come attached with strings, ie the name on the building. you can't reallocate it elsewhere. And donor funding for endowed faculty seats or administrative costs are not so frequent. Ongoing costs of running the university (salaries, utilities, maintenance, public safety, cleaning) are funded via three main sources: state funding (ever dwindling), tuition (ever growing but small overall) and research. Research is where state universities pull in the big bucks, but it also often requires expensive specialty capital equipment and facilities in which to install and run it. A rule of thumb is 30 percent of research grant is handed over to administrative overhead. That is effectively rent to pay for depreciation of the building.
tl;dr: expensive construction is required to further the mission of public universities, and doesn't mean general funds are available.
Still bad for college: why give free money to the richest of society?
This is what makes me skeptical. A solution in the United States for our education, healthcare, or other problems has to involve removing the leeches from the system. But political bribery is legal in the US, and the leeches have more than enough money to bribe the politicians.
So insurance companies will keep existing. University presidents will keep taking home 7 figures. Turbotax won't go away anytime soon. You can either find a way to suck money away from the vulnerable, or you can be poor.
In all the case of electricity, it is hugely profitable for the government and used to balance the budget. I went to university and turned a good profit working part time as a programmer (while paying everything and having an apartment). My University had a balanced budget too and grew over 50% since I graduated. Hospitals are as good as anywhere else. They spend billions building them and replace the older facility as they become obsolete. Yet the cost are totally under control.
Public infrastructure work as long as the bureaucracy is kept in check and corruption is managed properly. Inefficiencies and corruption is unavoidable, but at least the slippery slope of "on purpose" waste like US Universities is avoided.
edit: typo
Moving to a university as a center for education means ending the iron rice bowl for overeducated good thinkers. Good luck.
It's not like Europe has a carbon copy of the American system but with a greater commitment to throwing money at it.
after all that is the attitude with regards to medical care.
However I feel a better solution is for the government to still do it as loans but set the rates and required classes for each degree type. simply put there are valueless degree programs out there which only enrich the schools. Colleges would still trip over themselves to offer class and degree programs to fit into these restrictions, those that don't could rely on the private market, endowments, and scholarship programs.
Money is a means to quality of life, sure. But you can't ignore the things that are part of the "quality" because they're not profitable.
What the OP is referring to is probably degrees such as theater, women's studies, philosophy, etc. Women's studies and philosophy have no real job potential, and while theater might, there's only a very small market for actors compared to the number of starlets who dream of that job, which is why LA is so full of "actors" working as restaurant waiters.
Career-oriented math degrees are found in the engineering school.
The difference between math and philosophy is that having a pure maths degree will provide someone with a number of job prospects. But that isn't really the intent of math programs. I venture to guess most people studying math are like the GP and doing so because they enjoy math.
I realize this, but the reality, as you stated yourself, is that it really does make you employable. The intent doesn't matter; the actual employability the degree confers does.
Theater degrees are basically the opposite here. The goal of that degree is surely to produce people who can act on stage (and have it transferrable to TV/movies too I suppose), but the reality is that it isn't very employable because there just aren't many job openings in that field compared to the number of people who want to work in it.
The intent doesn't matter if you're in control of allocating money for degrees for prospective students; the only thing that matters is how likely those borrowers will be to pay back their loans, or if this is a grant (i.e. free university), how likely this investment will be to produce someone who will pay back society with taxes. A degree that has a very poor likelihood of leading to a decent-paying job is not a good investment from this point-of-view, and the "intent" of that degree is irrelevant.
But if you think of a degree as purely a signaling mechanism, then a pure math (or astrophysics or latin or whatever) degree is a very clear signal about what your brain is capable of.
In the US, it really comes down to how Republicans feel about a program. The programs they hate are often forced to run at maximum efficiency because they face an large amount of scrutiny and budget instability.
It's the programs that Republican fail to scrutinize that become symbols of waste and mismanagement. The biggest and most obvious case is the military. I can't imagine the HHS being in a situation where they are forced by Congress to spend a few hundred million dollars on equipment they don't need, so it's given away, or having any project that costs $1,500,000,000,000.
I hate to be political like this, but it's an observable trend. Scrutiny over the use of public funds by officials is an efficient means of cost-control. But the country has an issue with selective enforcement based, it seems, on how much of a program's budget is funneled into the hands of private government contractors.
As the child of a couple teachers, I can tell you they're both still waiting on this wealth transfer you speak of.
As for non-sequitur - the administrators are making their money off of the sports teams, not tuition.