Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on June 29, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
-
The Democrats are probably going to use this issue as a new giveaway to lure voters.
While it may not have been the plan all along, this is just another case of leftists creating a problem by demanding everyone go to college and institutions must lend to them. Then once it all falls apart they declare an emergency, blame everyone else and claim to want to fix it.
It’s a similar thing that happened with mortgages.
I think Trump should pull the rug out from under them.
He should declare a one time education loan jubilee then disconnect education loans from government immediately afterword.
For those that aren’t familiar with the concept, it’s total debt forgiveness, poof! it’s gone!
I realize all the folks like me, who are careful with debt, always pay their bills and live within a budget will chafe at this ...
But, I submit the current alternative is worse.
The people are enslaved to debt, debt owned by the government.
The leftist higher educational system is raping the people financially and in far too many cases the education is useless, even as just a credential.
Another alternative would be to allow these loans to be discharged during bankruptcy.
I think the right should just go for the jugular, go big and just discharge the debt and say no more educational slavery underwritten by the state.
-
While the idea is interesting, it's IMO completely unfeasible, and will never happen. To get the Fed.gov out of student loan backing business would require congressional action. Among other effects, it would mean that private companies giving student loans and buying them on the market would be incentivised to look at things like cost of the degree vs. income in the field and rate loans by the likelyhood of repayment. That alone would stop this in congress. There is zero chance that a bill making it harder to get stupid soft degrees will make it through. Big ed would scream and lobby, poverty pimps would scream and lobby, and a good portion of the "intellectuals" that would have to vote would see themselves in the demographic that couldn't get student loans.
Since we can not reasonably expect the second part to happen, I can't really support the first part.
I didn't finish college, had to pay off my loans from 2 years of trying while working three jobs, pulled myself out of debt and have built a decent career by learning skills (increasingly specialized skills at that) and selling them to an employer. True, my employer is currently the fed.gov, but I could make as much (more actually) selling those skills in the market. The idea of having my money stolen to bribe a bunch of brats who didn't read the loans they signed, or do the most basic research on their chosen career makes me very, very angry.
-
The Democrats are probably going to use this issue as a new giveaway to lure voters....
The people are enslaved to debt, debt owned by the government....
The leftist higher educational system is raping the people financially and in far too many cases the education is useless, even as just a credential....
It's a feature, not a bug.
-
The idea of having my money stolen to bribe a bunch of brats who didn't read the loans they signed, or do the most basic research on their chosen career makes me very, very angry.
Word.
I worked in the oil patch and at the county dump to earn money to go to college as an older, returning student so I could pay my own way. The idea of paying for someone's PhD in gender studies, or forgiving the loan they got themselves into, makes me very, very angry.
-
Our money is being stolen regardless.
Herd behavior, lower IQ, lack of resources combined with a concentrated propaganda push by both the educational establishment and media created this crises.
Terminate the debts and terminate the educational establishments ability to fleece the unwary.
I get it guys. My family has always been debt averse and we all live below our means. I don’t have a personal financial stake in this idea nor does my family.
The banks, the schools and the government herded the people into this situation. Like jamis said, this was the whole point.
Undo the past wrongs and it will damage all the crooks who are guilty and set free 2-3 generations of Americans.
You did the right thing, you have and will reap all the benefits of your actions. Ending the wage slavery of the upcoming generations and giving them a second chance to do right is also the right thing.
I’m just throwing things against the wall here. I’m not fully committed yet.
-
I don't think loans should be forgiven, unless they get into a program like working in an underserved area, public service, etc. I would also be fine with a tax savings for businesses to offer load forgiveness (with a cap) after so many years of employment.
I do think you should be able to refinance student loans and write them off in bankruptcy (same for medical debt)
-
It's hard to consider a deal they voluntarily entered as "wage slavery "
-
I work with many physicians and dentists who are in the process, or have paid off their medical school loans by working for several years after graduation in the military or in medically-underserved areas. After a certain number of years of public service, the Federal Government forgives the loans.
-
I’m not fully committed yet.
Not to worry. The men in white coats will be along shortly to pick you up.
-
Not to worry. The men in white coats will be along shortly to pick you up.
:rofl:
Got to go, someone’s at the door [tinfoil]
-
It's hard to consider a deal they voluntarily entered as "wage slavery "
Think of them as being caught up in a mass delusion (everyone should go to college).
It’s a modern day Tulip-mania.
Who is left holding the bag and who got rich?
In any other realm it would be acknowledged as predatory behavior signing up unqualified people for huge unsecured loans.
It’s like a huge payday loan scam being perpetrated on the public at large.
Many were able to use the system, get an education and escape, stipulated.
But if this was a well designed system we wouldn’t have an education loan crises.
I’m less inclined to think it’s a conspiracy and more inclined it is a failing to accurately assess reality.
Failing upward via bureaucracy on a massive scale. The bureaucrats gave the delusional people what they demanded even though it was based on lies.
Lies like everyone should go to college or everyone is equal when given the same opportunity.
That folks running the banks and schools were getting rich running the scam was just the market giving the people what they wanted. Bright futures as Tulip entrepreneurs.
-
Let me tell you what a lot of these mother *expletive deleted*ers did who are whining about their debt did.
Did they fall for the “everybody must go to college” mantra? Perhaps. But once they did “go to college” these morons made it worse for themselves a thousand fold in many cases
It starts by instead of picking a lower cost school they pick “the party school”, or the school with their favorite sports team that costs more money. Or the fancy private university that costs $$$$ per semester (we have one here that’s nothing special, but still costs $40k a semester...the pretty even matched public university in a town about 45 mins away costs 10-15k a semester)
Then when they get there they don’t take out the minimum loans needed for school and room/board. No they take out the max possible to get a “surplus” that’s meant for living expenses and use it for partying. Oh and they sign up for a full load, wait for that check to be disbursed, and drop half their course load so they can stretch out the party train as far as possible, for at least a few additional semesters or even a couple of years.
Do they at least pick a useful degree? Hell no most of the time it’s some damn near useless liberal arts bullshit that sounds nice but is in a very limited field, a field where you have to go to post graduate (but with no intentions of doing so), or just plain no call for it.
Oh and I forgot to mention, applying for scholarships instead of loans is “just too hard”, working a job to supplement the income is too much for “studying”, so living off of daddy’s money and wasting it is the way to go.
I will admit, I *expletive deleted*ed up and got a history degree with the intentions of going into law school, then I found out that the job market for lawyers was terrible (not sure about today). I didn’t take our crazy loans, I was at a reasonably priced state school, and I worked one or two jobs throughout school. I even had a career in the history field for about 7 years. I am on track to pay off my loans and they are not astronomical. But even if I was being crushed by 100k in student loan debt it would be my fault for being financially retarded. They require you to go through counseling basically amounting to “yes I understand what I am getting into and what it will cost and yes I have to pay it back” when you apply for the loans.
-
I certainly agree with severing the tie between student loans and the government. And with making at least future student loans bankruptable. Not so sure I'm ok with just cancelling all that debt. I might be fine with dropping interest rates to something approaching zero as a compromise to limit the damage, though there should be some interest to get people to be serious about paying it off.
If we were going to cancel any debt, and I don't think we should, I'd say to limit that to those with a 10+ year history of making payments on time, again as damage limitation. And yes, I realize the normal repayment term is 10 years. Those few that would benefit would be of negligible overall remaining balances on a nation wide scale.
-
I certainly agree with severing the tie between student loans and the government. And with making at least future student loans bankruptable. Not so sure I'm ok with just cancelling all that debt. I might be fine with dropping interest rates to something approaching zero as a compromise to limit the damage, though there should be some interest to get people to be serious about paying it off.
Making student loans bankruptable is the same as just cancelling them, but cancelling is more efficient. If you're going to make future student loans subject to bankruptcy, I think it would be only fair to make existing student loans subject to bankruptcy as well.
The problems began when Uncle Sugar took over the student loan business from the banks. Colleges saw the gravy train rolling and jumped on board, admitting students who should probably never have made it into a college, and jacking up the tuition and fees astronomically. Just end student loans ... period. Force the schhols and the applicants to face up to reality, and get things back to an even keel.
-
The problem with the entire thing is this is exactly what happens when .gov interferes in the markets and education.
.Gov wanted to see more people go to college. So they began incentivizing schools to push kids towards college. Then they began backing the student loans. Colleges, seeing this opportunity to make money, jacked up tuition rates and created more and more garbage programs within the system.
The business world, seeing a glut of college graduates applying to jobs, began requiring higher education for jobs that didn't historically require them.
Interest rates dropped.
Colleges have been doubling down since that happened and making tuition more and more expensive.
Liberals in the education system and in big gov sank their teeth into it and began pushing agendas with those college degrees.
All because big gov wanted to socially engineer the workforce.
-
Also in the late 1990s many states started to reduce financial support for their public higher education institutions. This caused the public universities and colleges a need to raise revenues elsewhere with higher tuition and fees, plus let just about anyone in.
-
All because big gov wanted to socially engineer the workforce.
Depending on which school of economics you follow, human capital improvement through education has been a generally well-regarded driver of economic improvement.
-
Depending on which school of economics you follow, human capital improvement through education has been a generally well-regarded driver of economic improvement.
That only works to a point, and then only if the additional education is better than what existed before. I would posit that we have violated both conditions. There are more people going to college than is a net benefit. And, because high schools, in aggregate, suck, and a bachelor's degree has basically replaced the education that used to come from high school, we're just collectively spending vastly more money on an education that, at best, matches a non-college level from 60+ years ago. And in many cases it's not even that good.
-
That only works to a point, and then only if the additional education is better than what existed before. I would posit that we have violated both conditions. There are more people going to college than is a net benefit. And, because high schools, in aggregate, suck, and a bachelor's degree has basically replaced the education that used to come from high school, we're just collectively spending vastly more money on an education that, at best, matches a non-college level from 60+ years ago. And in many cases it's not even that good.
All this and a bag of chips.
-
That only works to a point, and then only if the additional education is better than what existed before. I would posit that we have violated both conditions. There are more people going to college than is a net benefit. And, because high schools, in aggregate, suck, and a bachelor's degree has basically replaced the education that used to come from high school, we're just collectively spending vastly more money on an education that, at best, matches a non-college level from 60+ years ago. And in many cases it's not even that good.
+2
-
I work with many physicians and dentists who are in the process, or have paid off their medical school loans by working for several years after graduation in the military or in medically-underserved areas. After a certain number of years of public service, the Federal Government forgives the loans.
Wasn't that the background premise in the TV series "Northern Exposure?" IIRC, in the show Alaska underwrote an MD's student loans, and ended up assigning him to some little backwoods town that needed a doctor. Much hilarity ensued.
On the other hand, if the borrower gets a degree in theater arts, womyn's studies, finger painting, or Medieval French poetry, even the government may have difficulty finding a position for that individual in his/her field.
-
The other part that bugs me is a portion of those students were busy partying on that borrowed money for 4 years and had no time to consider the future.
-
The other part that bugs me is a portion of those students were busy partying on that borrowed money for 4 years and had no time to consider the future.
Or even more nefarious: during the obama administration, kids were encouraged to take out loans and stay in school as long as possible with the hint that there would be a student loan amnesty down the road. obama was a 'community organizer' first and foremost, which is just a euphemism for someone who encourages and enables people to participate in wealth transfer.
There were a lot of people who barely stepped foot into a classroom who were running up a tab on their student loans on expensive apartments, cars, and lifestyles that none of them could afford without these loans.
-
Also in the late 1990s many states started to reduce financial support for their public higher education institutions. This caused the public universities and colleges a need to raise revenues elsewhere with higher tuition and fees, plus let just about anyone in.
Sortakindanotreally.
During the 90s state and local spending ramped up from $7,355 per student in 1992 to a high of $9,018 per student in 2000 (using inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars). The low has been 2011 when it hit $6,320. In 2016 it was back up to $7,642 per student.
All that said state funding variation for public schools had very little to do with actual tuition increases which have gone up significantly. Nor would that impact the private schools whose prices went up way, way faster. So ... no.
(https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2018-figure-15b.png)
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/total-and-student-state-and-local-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time
Then there is this:
(https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2018-figure-3.png)
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-fees-room-board-over-time
-
Plenty of “bad guys” to go around.
The lending institutions, educational institutions and government are the most culpable in my opinion.
Were there and are there moochers who work the system? Yes
The banks and schools should bear the burden of this fiasco as they played upon the weaknesses of the people.
The free *expletive deleted*it army is not known for its low time preference and good judgement.
We rely on the adults running institutions to keep these types of fiascos from happening
-
Regarding the "extended hanging out at college", student loans contribute a lot to that as well. When I attended UCSB, the average undergrad stay was 6 years. While it was a good school, it was also right on the beach, so it was also a party central school. I saw two different segments that seemed to extend their stays past 4 years: First, the kids who had good loans, because it "wasn't their money" so why not hang around longer since they're basically getting paid to do so, since they didn't have to start paying the loan back till they were done with college. Second, there was a decent sized contingent of kids at that school rolling into the parking lot in BMWs and Mercedes and other expensive vehicles. Trust fund babies whose parents paid for school, the car, and often bought a condo in town for the kids to stay in. Again, it wasn't their money, so why not drag it out?
Both cases were kids who didn't have to take any fiscal responsibility at the time of their college stay. No fiscal responsibility, so no responsibility period. People who had to pay their own way as they went, or saw their middle class parents struggle to pay, were more likely to get out in 4 years because they had a direct connection to what it took to get them through college.
-
When I attended UCSB, the average undergrad stay was 6 years. While it was a good school, it was also right on the beach, so it was also a party central school. I saw two different segments that seemed to extend their stays past 4 years: First, the kids who had good loans, because it "wasn't their money" so why not hang around longer since they're basically getting paid to do so, since they didn't have to start paying the loan back till they were done with college. Second, there was a decent sized contingent of kids at that school rolling into the parking lot in BMWs and Mercedes and other expensive vehicles. Trust fund babies whose parents paid for school, the car, and often bought a condo in town for the kids to stay in. Again, it wasn't their money, so why not drag it out?
I took six years to get a 4 year degree too. But I paid for it myself and had zero debt when I finished.
-
Re: State funding 'cutbacks' to universities
These 'cutbacks' are they are called, are more often than not, decreases in spending increases meaning that the University board may ask for $10 million in spending increases for a budget term, and only get $8 million more from the state government. When this happens, the University folk and the left squawk about how "eeeebil republicans are cutting funding to the university system and presumably using the money to set up death camps."
This stuff is even more hilarious when Universities are audited, like UW-Wisconsin, and over a billion dollars in various slush funds are uncovered.
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2017/05/four-years-after-the-slush/
-
I took six years to get a 4 year degree too. But I paid for it myself and had zero debt when I finished.
There are plenty of valid reasons to take more than 4 years, like working while paying your way through school, familial obligations, etc. I was referring to people that got their way paid, had nothing to do but go to school, and turned it into a party/6 year vacation opportunity. :)
No skin in the game, so they didn't take their opportunity seriously.
-
Step 1:
Realize that there are no "kids" in college. College students are 18 or older. They are adults, and bear the responsibility of their decisions, good and bad. The used car lot outside Ft. Bragg is taking advantage of stupid boots, but there is not a movement to payoff their Mustang's.
A LARGE part of many of the problems we have today is this willingness for society at large to pretend adults are children, and to search for excuses not to hold them accountable for their bad decisions.
If you think banks and the fed.gov shouldn't loan to students at ludicrously low interest rates (for unsecured loans) then we should change the laws that incentive that. Less folks, and especially less poor folks will go to college, and I suspect that outcome is politically unattainable.
But adults that entered into voluntary agreements to pay for something they thought was valuable shouldn't be released from that just because it didn't turn out to be as valuable as they thought. Where does it stop? Can I get a loan on a Ferrari, and then have it forgiven when the car is no longer worth $300,000?
-
Step 1:
Realize that there are no "kids" in college. College students are 18 or older.
This is a very good point. The fact that "college kids" is popular vernacular is part of the problem. It seems to me pre-1960s it was "college MAN"(and I guess would have been "woman" too except for the era). It used to be that just getting into college showed you had some responsibility, but nowadays it's too often looked at as a long vacation between high school and real life. At least if someone else is footing your bill.
-
Step 1:
Realize that there are no "kids" in college. College students are 18 or older. They are adults, and bear the responsibility of their decisions, good and bad. The used car lot outside Ft. Bragg is taking advantage of stupid boots, but there is not a movement to payoff their Mustang's.
When I was in college, 20-some almost 30 years ago, the biggest issue was credit card debt.
It was very easy to get a credit card as a college student, I had 2 of them... and graduated with about $5k in credit card debt.
I paid it off in about a year after getting my first job- lived in a really cheap apartment, drove a 10 year old vehicle, and lived very cheaply all around while making as large of payments as I could every month. I was long an adult by the time I got those cards and incurred that debt.
I knew guys/gals who took out multiple credit cards and ran them upwards of $20k, then when they were no longer credit worthy, got cards from places like 'bank of jamaica' and ran those up too, and had nothing to show for because they spent it on beer, pizza, or fashion. Weirdly, these people always had money to be 'the life of the party' or take expensive vacations, but it eventually came crashing down on them.
They say that an education is always going to cost you pain or money, and if it costs you neither, then you haven't learned anything.
-
Sortakindanotreally.
During the 90s state and local spending ramped up from $7,355 per student in 1992 to a high of $9,018 per student in 2000 (using inflation-adjusted 2016 dollars). The low has been 2011 when it hit $6,320. In 2016 it was back up to $7,642 per student.
All that said state funding variation for public schools had very little to do with actual tuition increases which have gone up significantly. Nor would that impact the private schools whose prices went up way, way faster. So ... no.
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2018-figure-15b.png
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/total-and-student-state-and-local-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time
Then there is this:
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2018-figure-3.png
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-fees-room-board-over-time
I went to a state university in the 1990s and worked at a Tier 1 university from 2002 to 2015. I was on several committees that got to look at the budget (and provide some input) for 8 of those years there. In Iowa there was a decline of state funding starting in 1999/2000, state and fed used to cover about 70% of the cost of the education up to 1999 then it has declined below 50% in the 20-teens, IIRC many peer institutions were going through similar reduction in public money. I got a better offer to leave the university in 2015 so I don't know what percentage it is now. I do know that one used to be able to work a fulltime job in the summer and it would just about cover tuition, room and board for 2 semesters at Iowa public University up to the late 1990s.
The increase in enrollment from 2008-2014ish was due to the great recession, fulltime jobs that paid well just weren't there for many people during that time, so it made sense for many to wait it out in college for a better job market. I really can't blame any US president for that, just a shitty economic time for a lot of people.
something else to view https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/most-americans-dont-realize-state-funding-for-higher-ed-fell-by-billions
-
I went to a state university in the 1990s and worked at a Tier 1 university from 2002 to 2015. I was on several committees that got to look at the budget (and provide some input) for 8 of those years there. In Iowa there was a decline of state funding starting in 1999/2000, state and fed used to cover about 70% of the cost of the education up to 1999 then it has declined below 50% in the 20-teens, IIRC many peer institutions were going through similar reduction in public money. I got a better offer to leave the university in 2015 so I don't know what percentage it is now. I do know that one used to be able to work a fulltime job in the summer and it would just about cover tuition, room and board for 2 semesters at Iowa public University up to the late 1990s.
Charby, I'm not arguing that funding hasn't changed over time. It has gone up and down many times. However, the prices have consistently increased - significantly outpacing inflation regardless of what the government input has been. The prices have increased much faster in private schools which receive far less overt government money (most of the money private institutions receive is laundered through student loans), so I'm not sure how you can claim the problem is just too little government money being thrown at college.
-
Charby, I'm not arguing that funding hasn't changed over time. It has gone up and down many times. However, the prices have consistently increased - significantly outpacing inflation regardless of what the government input has been. The prices have increased much faster in private schools which receive far less overt government money (most of the money private institutions receive is laundered through student loans), so I'm not sure how you can claim the problem is just too little government money being thrown at college.
it is one of many problems. Demand to go to school has increased, it takes money to hire new faculty away from industry/business (that usually pay better than a uni job), infrastructure needs built and maintained, etc. Can't blame university sports, for the most part sports programs are self funding and usually generate income for a university/college.
Private schools also usually have some wealthy alumni that donate to their foundations or for building projects. Faculty and staff are usually paid less too, usually because the demands of research is lower at many private schools, because most are primarily undergraduate with a few graduate degree options. I said most, not all.
This recent article spells a lot of that out. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-college-so-expensive-2018-4
-
Once again, saying the percentage of tuition paid by the state falling is not the same thing as the state cutting funding- it usually means that the universities increased tuition faster than the state increased funding... more often than not, as in my state, the state froze spending increases, which not the same as ‘spending cuts’ no matter how people want to spin it.
-
And while it does cost money to hire teachers, but the real money is for the administrators. University of Michigan now has over 100 diversity administrators. They need precisely none of them. Factor in the bloat in other areas of administration and it's not hard to see where the majority of the tuition increases over the last 30 years has gone.
-
I would like to see more expansion of distance-learning and online options. WGU (Western Governors University) is very popular in this area for RNs getting a BSN, which is increasingly required for advancement in the nursing profession. My niece is getting her RN via an associates program at a local community college and will then enroll in WGU to finish her BSN. I have also heard good things about WGU for business and teaching graduate degrees, and it is much better regarded than the University of Phoenix.
-
And while it does cost money to hire teachers, but the real money is for the administrators. University of Michigan now has over 100 diversity administrators. They need precisely none of them. Factor in the bloat in other areas of administration and it's not hard to see where the majority of the tuition increases over the last 30 years has gone.
They are never going to cut back on the sacred cows and fat like faculty/administration, SJW intersectionality degrees, or the profession sportsball farm system.
-
Prior to 2008-2009, student loans were issued by banks. Since they are in the business of making money (Rule #1 Don't lose money.), they were somewhat circumspect in who they gave money too. (Engineering degree? Here's some cash. Gender Studies? Try that other bank down the street.)
So the Democrats said "Banks are mean and unfair!! We'll have the Fed.gov run the student loan bidness because it can do a much better job !!" So as part of Obamacare the student loan program became a Fed.Gov program. It was even touted that it would be a moneymaker for the feds. IIRC, the "profits" from the student loan program went into the CBO scoring of Obamacare to make it "revenue neutral".
So after that, the money taps opened and Uncle Sugar couldn't hand out loans fast enough. It didn't matter if they thought you could repay it with the income from your Ethnic studies or Journalism degree, have some more cash. And suddenly after all the years of "free money" Uncle Sugar wants his cash back, and the vig on top of it too.
Now it's a "crisis" and since Fed.gov screwed it up. We need more Fed.gov to "fix" the problem the Fed.gov created in the first place.
Perhaps if we did go back to sane lending in the student loans, and actually cut the money to schools (dramatically reducing the number of administrators), then we could get back to "kids" being able to work a summer job and part-time during the school year to pay for college.
-
Prior to 2008-2009, student loans were issued by banks. Since they are in the business of making money (Rule #1 Don't lose money.), they were somewhat circumspect in who they gave money too. (Engineering degree? Here's some cash. Gender Studies? Try that other bank down the street.)
So the Democrats said "Banks are mean and unfair!! We'll have the Fed.gov run the student loan bidness because it can do a much better job !!" So as part of Obamacare the student loan program became a Fed.Gov program. It was even touted that it would be a moneymaker for the feds. IIRC, the "profits" from the student loan program went into the CBO scoring of Obamacare to make it "revenue neutral".
So after that, the money taps opened and Uncle Sugar couldn't hand out loans fast enough. It didn't matter if they thought you could repay it with the income from your Ethnic studies or Journalism degree, have some more cash. And suddenly after all the years of "free money" Uncle Sugar wants his cash back, and the vig on top of it too.
Now it's a "crisis" and since Fed.gov screwed it up. We need more Fed.gov to "fix" the problem the Fed.gov created in the first place.
Perhaps if we did go back to sane lending in the student loans, and actually cut the money to schools (dramatically reducing the number of administrators), then we could get back to "kids" being able to work a summer job and part-time during the school year to pay for college.
Well the feds backed/subsidized/guaranteed the federal student loans, so banks didn't/couldn't say no on which major you chose. Maybe if you took out additional loans banks decided, but not for up to the annual limit of the FFEL. https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/10/student-loans-hcera-leadership-education-fox.html#5407d6576edd
-
And while it does cost money to hire teachers, but the real money is for the administrators. University of Michigan now has over 100 diversity administrators. They need precisely none of them. Factor in the bloat in other areas of administration and it's not hard to see where the majority of the tuition increases over the last 30 years has gone.
I don't disagree with that at all, seems like a PhD administrator/manager has to surround themselves with other PhDs (and PhD salaries) where someone with a BS/BS or work experience would be just fine as a member of their management team.
I also don't understand why a MA/MS can't teach the freshman/sophomore classes instead of needing a PhD.
-
They are never going to cut back on the sacred cows and fat like faculty/administration, SJW intersectionality degrees, or the profession sportsball farm system.
At Texas A&M, the sportsball farm system funds itself. I am pretty sure the entire athletic department is self funded though I am sure that includes donations. Texas A&M is also in the top 10 of universities for overall athletic revenue so that is maybe not the average example.
I guess I do not put athletics in the same ballpark as trash degrees and excessive administration. I think most of the problem is the govt backed student loans that are handed out too easily and lack of adequate outside auditing.
-
I also don't understand why a MA/MS can't teach the freshman/sophomore classes instead of needing a PhD.
This was often done in the UC system when I attended.