Continuation The Biden Presidency (3)

[SuburbanTurkey]

Maybe I'm missing it, because I admittedly don't consume the type of media that covers the actions of Democratic party members that closely, but what exactly is the Biden/Dem response to this absolutely insane moral panic the right wing is currently on?

It almost seems to me they're largely pretending it's not happening. A total nonresponse as red states are galloping to oppress trans kids, reigniting the old "gays are pedophiles" smear, and marching abortion rights up to the SCOTUS gallows.

You'd think these are the kinds of things that would at least merit some public dissent.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

How much money should be set aside to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and how many people are you willing to allow fall through the cracks that is inevitable in such means testing schemes? This kind of means testing isn't free you know.

Again, pry the means testing from our cold dead hands. There's nothing this country loves than wasting huge amounts of effort and money passing judgement on others rather than just doing the right thing.

I'll weigh in here. Why is spending many billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out voluntary debt freely undertaken "doing the right thing?" Do you see any distinctions between borrowing money to get a BA from a state school and borrowing to get a professional degree in a high-income field from a private u.? Or a graduate degree unrelated to any realistic employment prospects? And how is that fair to people who managed to slog through school without borrowing big bucks? And if you hand out a big bucket of money to pay off existing loans, will that factor into the borrowing decisions people are making now? "Sure, we'll borrow more now, but down the road it'll go away." As in many public policy issues, the devil is in the details.

I think there are arguments to be made that repayment should be income-based. But if we're going to put huge amounts of money into higher education, as we well should, maybe it should go to reducing costs for people who are going to school now.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I'll weigh in here. Why is spending many billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out voluntary debt freely undertaken "doing the right thing?" Do you see any distinctions between borrowing money to get a BA from a state school and borrowing to get a professional degree in a high-income field from a private u.? Or a graduate degree unrelated to any realistic employment prospects? And how is that fair to people who managed to slog through school without borrowing big bucks? And if you hand out a big bucket of money to pay off existing loans, will that factor into the borrowing decisions people are making now? "Sure, we'll borrow more now, but down the road it'll go away." As in many public policy issues, the devil is in the details.

I think there are arguments to be made that repayment should be income-based. But if we're going to put huge amounts of money into higher education, as we well should, maybe it should go to reducing costs for people who are going to school now.

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

There must be some sort of bare bones model of a college education. What exactly do you need? A dormitory. A classroom. A curriculum that you're interested in. An instructor who is willing and able to teach that curriculum. A handful of administrators and maintenance staff. That's it. The only reason prices should go up is to recruit and retain a higher quality of professor.

You want a party atmosphere? You want a six-year vacation? That's extra, and you pay for it yourself. No student loans. No government subsidies.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

There must be some sort of bare bones model of a college education. What exactly do you need? A dormitory. A classroom. A curriculum that you're interested in. An instructor who is willing and able to teach that curriculum. A handful of administrators and maintenance staff. That's it. The only reason prices should go up is to recruit and retain a higher quality of professor.

You want a party atmosphere? You want a six-year vacation? That's extra, and you pay for it yourself. No student loans. No government subsidies.

Indeed.

I was at Clemson University during their long term project to be a "top 20" public university (I think it peaked at 22, but still a big jump in the rankings).

As far as I can tell, that meant spending a ****-ton of money. Some of which went to things that arguably improved quality (smaller class sizes, funding prestigious academic projects, etc), but much also went to quality of life issues like newer dorms and more amenities.

If I recall correctly, one year the tuition rate increase was just shy of the 7% limit in state law.

I really doubt that this huge increase of cost has resulted in a corresponding increase in the value or quality of the education received, but it absolutely made the university more competitive and more attracting to prospective students and made the University much richer as a result. The school gets paid regardless of whether or not the students ever make good on their loans.

https://www.wyff4.com/article/clemso...reeze/36006490

The "bare-bones" type institution you describe that provides high quality education without all the expensive frills seems far more in line with the mission of a public university. There's always Duke or whatever if you want to live at a country club and have the scratch.

[jnelso99]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

But then the football coaches might not get their multi-million dollar salaries! Can’t have that!

[theprestige]

I suddenly realized that we're talking about community college. If the federal government really believes that a baseline college education for everyone is a valuable investment that makes our society better, that's where they should be focusing their efforts.

No more subsidies for state universities. No more student loans.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

....
No more subsidies for state universities. No more student loans.

What? Do you mean private universities? Higher education is an important, if not vital, function of government. That's why land grant universities and state colleges were founded. State institutions have been a major factor in building the middle class. The reason the college loan industry has expanded so dramatically is that starting in the '80s, there were big cutbacks in appropriations for higher education. There was a time when state colleges were cheap, sometimes free. People could work their way through school with summer jobs and graduate without owing anybody anything. That's the direction we should be moving.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I may have an outlier opinion here, but I think the easy availability of loans for college has contributed a lot to rising college costs. Colleges can charge what they want, knowing that students will borrow what they have to. As recently as the 1980s, state college was affordable for a large percentage of people, and in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases, and a whole new industry arose to finance college with loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. If college loans were treated like any other consumer debt, lenders would set tougher restrictions on how much anyone could borrow, which in turn would compel colleges to lower their costs and/or get more state funding if they want to stay in business.

THAT is the aspect of this which gives me the most pause. I agree with the idea of a student loan, that someone who can perform successfully, but lacks the means to pay for secondary education up front is a good investment for society. Finding a way to make credit available to them is valuable, not just to themselves but their communities and our society as a whole.

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by gnome

THAT is the aspect of this which gives me the most pause. I agree with the idea of a student loan, that someone without the means to pay for secondary education up front is a good investment for society. Finding a way to make credit available to them is valuable, not just to themselves but their communities and our society as a whole.

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

A society with a more educated work force is absolutely generating more wealth, but it doesn't mean the workers themselves are getting much of it. US wages have stagnated while worker productivity continues to climb. I assume bosses and the ownership class are taking the lion's share.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by gnome

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

State funding, supplemented for private schools by loans that colleges are kept on the hook for.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by gnome

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

Random suggestion that just popped into my head, so take it with a grain of salt.

Link the maximum amount legally allowed to be charged for an education to the amount of income that it can reasonably be projected to produce. ETA: No more rise in cost of education greatly outstripping the rise in income in a field, for example.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? Do you mean private universities? Higher education is an important, if not vital, function of government. That's why land grant universities and state colleges were founded. State institutions have been a major factor in building the middle class. The reason the college loan industry has expanded so dramatically is that starting in the '80s, there were big cutbacks in appropriations for higher education. There was a time when state colleges were cheap, sometimes free. People could work their way through school with summer jobs and graduate without owing anybody anything. That's the direction we should be moving.

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by theprestige

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Or forego all that and put that back into the students.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Random suggestion that just popped into my head, so take it with a grain of salt.

Link the maximum amount legally allowed to be charged for an education to the amount of income that it can reasonably be projected to produce.

I don't like it. The cost of providing a comprehensive education on a subject is going to be a certain amount, regardless of how commercially profitable that education is.

If someone wants to spend a hundred thousand dollars to master underwater basket-weaving as a hobby, there should be no reason why a university can't offer that course at that price. People are allowed to have expensive hobbies. People should be allowed to provide expensive goods and services to such hobbyists.

On the other hand, I think you can get the effect you have in mind by treating student loans just like any other loans: As an investment with a certain amount of risk to the investor. The lender only lends as much money as they think they can reasonably get back, with interest. And that will vary greatly depending on which degree the borrower is hoping to finance.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Or forego all that and put that back into the students.

I have no idea what this means. I can think of nothing more literally 'put that into the students' than 'help pay for their education'.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't like it. The cost of providing a comprehensive education on a subject is going to be a certain amount, regardless of how commercially profitable that education is.

If someone wants to spend a hundred thousand dollars to master underwater basket-weaving as a hobby, there should be no reason why a university can't offer that course at that price. People are allowed to have expensive hobbies. People should be allowed to provide expensive goods and services to such hobbyists.

On the other hand, I think you can get the effect you have in mind by treating student loans just like any other loans: As an investment with a certain amount of risk to the investor. The lender only lends as much money as they think they can reasonably get back, with interest. And that will vary greatly depending on which degree the borrower is hoping to finance.

It's also going to vary quite a bit on who the borrower is, regardless of degree.

Such a totally privatized system would lead to retrenchment of existing class divides. Bright kids from poor backgrounds would be higher credit risks than failsons from rich families.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

That would increase the disparities even more between the blue and red states (which generally are the richer and poorer states). The whole country benefits from an educated populace. The primary reason for federal spending on anything is to equalize the experience of being an American, going back to works projects during the Depression and the construction of the TVA. Leaving higher education entirely up to the states would be a catastrophe.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

How much money should be set aside to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and how many people are you willing to allow fall through the cracks that is inevitable in such means testing schemes? This kind of means testing isn't free you know.

Again, pry the means testing from our cold dead hands. There's nothing this country loves than wasting huge amounts of effort and money passing judgement on others rather than just doing the right thing.

IOW, because some people may fall through the cracks and it may cost some money....but, I'd wager a hell of a lot less than the $1.61 trillion of outstanding student debt...we should say "OK...we'll just write the $1.61 trillion off for all you people who took out loans so you could go to a fancy, high end uni to get your secondary school teaching certificate or degree in Art History and can't pay it back now cuz your job pays crap? Sure, that makes sense. And who decided that it's 'just the right thing'? I know I didn't.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Maybe I'm missing it, because I admittedly don't consume the type of media that covers the actions of Democratic party members that closely, but what exactly is the Biden/Dem response to this absolutely insane moral panic the right wing is currently on?

It almost seems to me they're largely pretending it's not happening. A total nonresponse as red states are galloping to oppress trans kids, reigniting the old "gays are pedophiles" smear, and marching abortion rights up to the SCOTUS gallows.

You'd think these are the kinds of things that would at least merit some public dissent.

Try watching some of the media that does cover this kind of thing. Or is this just another opportunity to complain about how inept and out of touch the Dems are?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

IOW, because some people may fall through the cracks and it may cost some money....but, I'd wager a hell of a lot less than the $1.61 trillion of outstanding student debt...we should say "OK...we'll just write the $1.61 trillion off for all you people who took out loans so you could go to a fancy, high end uni to get your secondary school teaching certificate or degree in Art History and can't pay it back now cuz your job pays crap? Sure, that makes sense. And who decided that it's 'just the right thing'? I know I didn't.

Okay, well first off this is totally indistinguishable from a standard Republican talking point I've heard for at least 10 years. It's a cheap shot and stacked with classist overtones for wanting to better oneself or pursue a difficult field of study above maximizing potential economic benefit. More so since this decision comes at 18.

But especially throwing in secondary school teachers as a dead-end degree (by virtue of the same de-funding of education that created the very mess we're talking about) to be regretful over takes the cake.

From someone who was, by vagaries of circumstance, able to give their child the comfort, safety, and peace of mind that is being cast adrift to tread water upon the ocean of the world without having to wear lead-lined boots.

And by the way the two art history majors I know, one does graphic design and has enough business to pick their gigs, the other does engagement analysis in marketing. Art history majors don't imagine some job in a museum reciting a script about the kind of oil used in some painting. They used a subject they found interesting to them to pick up numerous skills valuable in media, communications, and marketing fields to name a few.

Yes, a few years intensively studying how ancient coins were some of the first state propaganda or comparative interpretations of various artistic periods and movements and their relationship to ongoing social and political circumstance they arose from does, in that wax-on/wax-off way, prepare a mind to do some very high-value work.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Okay, well first off this is totally indistinguishable from a standard Republican talking point I've heard for at least 10 years. It's a cheap shot and stacked with classist overtones for wanting to better oneself or pursue a difficult field of study above maximizing potential economic benefit. More so since this decision comes at 18.
......

That's really a distraction. People are free to do what they want. The question is how much should the rest of us have to pay for it? The taxes that would pay off many billions of dollars in student loans are paid in part by people who may have worked their way through state college, or maybe couldn't go to college at all. Why should a plumber or construction worker or cab driver or retail clerk pay for somebody else's master's degree in, say, public relations? If anything is "classist," it's privileged people telling the less privileged not to think about class. I note again that loans have been necessitated by big cuts in public spending for higher education, and the availability of loans has reduced market pressure on colleges to hold prices down. There was a time in living memory when state college was cheap, sometimes free. That's where money should be spent. And the most prestigious private institutions usually have such huge endowments that they could reduce costs for every student to zero.

Wiping out college loans is just not the most urgent social need right now.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Okay, well first off this is totally indistinguishable from a standard Republican talking point I've heard for at least 10 years. It's a cheap shot and stacked with classist overtones for wanting to better oneself or pursue a difficult field of study above maximizing potential economic benefit. "

Oh, nonsense! Talk about cheap shots! I'm no Republican and maybe you've heard it for the last ten years because it's true. Do you think I'm the only Democrat to have this opinion?

"Classist overones", my patootie. You've just resorted to the Motte and Bailey Fallacy: I've never criticized anyone "wanting to better oneself or pursue a difficult field of study above maximizing potential economic benefit", only for some people taking out exorbitant loans for expensive universities they can't afford when excellent, but less expensive universities are available. There are also community colleges for your first two years at much less cost and then you can transfer to a university for your degree....like my sister and I both did. She got her BSNursing and I got my teaching credential and neither of us didn't get a job because our diploma didn't say Stanford.

Quote:

More so since this decision comes at 18."

No, it doesn't. You don't apply for 4+ years of student loans at 18. You apply
every year.

Quote:

But especially throwing in secondary school teachers as a dead-end degree (by virtue of the same de-funding of education that created the very mess we're talking about) to be regretful over takes the cake.

I WAS a secondary school teacher so don't preach to me or put words in my mouth. I never said it was a "dead end job."

Quote:

From someone who was, by vagaries of circumstance, able to give their child the comfort, safety, and peace of mind that is being cast adrift to tread water upon the ocean of the world without having to wear lead-lined boots.

Oh, get of your high horse. If my mother hadn't given me that money (which she took out of her home) in advance of inheriting it a few years later, my daughter would have gone to the local community college and then a State U and lived at home doing it...just like I did. But my mother wanted her only grandchild to have the full live away uni experience.

Quote:

And by the way the two art history majors I know, one does graphic design and has enough business to pick their gigs, the other does engagement analysis in marketing. Art history majors don't imagine some job in a museum reciting a script about the kind of oil used in some painting. They used a subject they found interesting to them to pick up numerous skills valuable in media, communications, and marketing fields to name a few.

Yes, a few years intensively studying how ancient coins were some of the first state propaganda or comparative interpretations of various artistic periods and movements and their relationship to ongoing social and political circumstance they arose from does, in that wax-on/wax-off way, prepare a mind to do some very high-value work.

Well, good for them! Are they in hock up to their necks in student loans because they wanted to go the fancy uni route and now want to have it all wiped away while, as you claimed, they are doing quite well financially? If they are, let them pay for their own loans and don't make the rest of us pay their debts along with the other $1.6 TRILLION.

And stop pretending like I never said "I'm not against cancelling some student loans or portions of depending on the reasons they were taken out or the reason someone is unable to pay it back, but 100% across the board? Hell, no."

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

That's really a distraction. People are free to do what they want. The question is how much should the rest of us have to pay for it? The taxes that would pay off many billions of dollars in student loans are paid in part by people who may have worked their way through state college, or maybe couldn't go to college at all. Why should a plumber or construction worker or cab driver or retail clerk pay for somebody else's master's degree in, say, public relations? If anything is "classist," it's privileged people telling the less privileged not to think about class. I note again that loans have been necessitated by big cuts in public spending for higher education, and the availability of loans has reduced market pressure on colleges to hold prices down. There was a time in living memory when state college was cheap, sometimes free. That's where money should be spent. And the most prestigious private institutions usually have such huge endowments that they could reduce costs for every student to zero.

Wiping out college loans is just not the most urgent social need right now.

Excellent reply with one correction: It 1.61 TRILLION dollars in outstanding student loans, not Billions.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I'll weigh in here. Why is spending many billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out voluntary debt freely undertaken "doing the right thing?" Do you see any distinctions between borrowing money to get a BA from a state school and borrowing to get a professional degree in a high-income field from a private u.? Or a graduate degree unrelated to any realistic employment prospects? And how is that fair to people who managed to slog through school without borrowing big bucks? And if you hand out a big bucket of money to pay off existing loans, will that factor into the borrowing decisions people are making now? "Sure, we'll borrow more now, but down the road it'll go away." As in many public policy issues, the devil is in the details.

I think there are arguments to be made that repayment should be income-based. But if we're going to put huge amounts of money into higher education, as we well should, maybe it should go to reducing costs for people who are going to school now.

Excellent and sensible post.

Another niece's boyfriend works one semester then goes to school one semester because he refused to indebt himself with student loans for decades. Yes, it'll take him longer, but he'll graduate debt free.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? Do you mean private universities? Higher education is an important, if not vital, function of government. That's why land grant universities and state colleges were founded. State institutions have been a major factor in building the middle class. The reason the college loan industry has expanded so dramatically is that starting in the '80s, there were big cutbacks in appropriations for higher education. There was a time when state colleges were cheap, sometimes free. People could work their way through school with summer jobs and graduate without owing anybody anything. That's the direction we should be moving.

EXACTLY! We should also be investing in vocational schools. Not everyone is college material or wants to go to college.

[Warp12]

..

[Stacyhs]

FYI:

Quote:

1. The top-paying college majors earn $3.4 million more than the lowest-paying majors over a lifetime.

2. Two of the top highest paying majors, STEM and business are also the most popular majors, accounting for 46 percent of college graduates.

3.STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), health, and business majors are the highest paying, leading to average annual wages of $37,000 or more at the entry level and an average of $65,000 or more annually over the course of a recipient’s career.

The 10 majors with the lowest median earnings are: early childhood education ($39,000); human services and community organization ($41,000); studio arts, social work, teacher education, and visual and performing arts ($42,000); theology and religious vocations, and elementary education ($43,000); drama and theater arts and family and community service ($45,000).

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-repor...theater%20arts

"3. STEM... $37,000 or more at the entry level and an average of $65,000 or more annually over the course of a recipient’s career."

That seems low to me but I guess it depends on where you live and who you go to work for. My daughter has a degree in Computer Engineering and started straight out of college at more than double their $37,000.

[kevbo]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

EXACTLY! We should also be investing in vocational schools. Not everyone is college material or wants to go to college.

^ This.

Finding a career or vocation should not be financially crippling. I support some form of loan forgiveness (especially against predatory schools and businesses), but not a blanket one size fits all program. I sold myself to the Navy to get the GI Bill, and I funded my daughters' education so they wouldn't have to, but part of going to school is learning to make smarter choices. If you don't, there are consequences. Find a way to work it off, if you can't pay it off then try some kind of service exchange (inner cities, rural communities, etc.)

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by kevbo

^ This.

Finding a career or vocation should not be financially crippling. I support some form of loan forgiveness (especially against predatory schools and businesses), but not a blanket one size fits all program. I sold myself to the Navy to get the GI Bill, and I funded my daughters' education so they wouldn't have to, but part of going to school is learning to make smarter choices. If you don't, there are consequences. Find a way to work it off, if you can't pay it off then try some kind of service exchange (inner cities, rural communities, etc.)

[Mike!]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

EXACTLY! We should also be investing in vocational schools. Not everyone is college material or wants to go to college.

True! I was offered a full art scholarship when I graduated high school, which I promptly turned down as I had no desire to go to college. Two years later I was offered a chance to go to a trade school and I jumped at it. College was going to require a lot of classes I didn't want to take, and trade school trained me to do exactly what I wanted to do, with no extra fluff or filler. I have, for the most part, loved my job for the past 40 years. Would I have been better off and happier had I gone to college? Don't know and don't care.

[Stacyhs]

Then there's always the option of the GI Bill for those who want an education but don't want to take out huge loans. You also get other GI benefits like no or lower down payments on a house (that's a big one for first time homebuyers as I know personally). Both my husband and his brother got their degrees in Computer Engineering this way.

Quote:

The Post-9/11 GI Bill includes payment of tuition and fees, a monthly housing allowance and a stipend for textbooks and supplies.

For students attending public colleges and universities, the GI Bill covers all tuition and fees at the in-state rate, but it may not have the same reach at a private or for-profit school. The national maximum at such schools will be $24,476.79 for the 2019-2020 school year and generally increases slightly each year.

If the GI Bill doesn’t cover the full cost of your education, see if your school participates in the Yellow Ribbon program. This is an agreement schools make with the VA to split school costs not covered by the GI Bill, reducing or eliminating the amount students must pay themselves. Currently, only veterans and surviving dependents of service members are eligible for the program, though this will extend to active-duty troops in August 2022.

A lot of schools participate in this program, including prestigious Ivy League institutions. To see if your school is part of the Yellow Ribbon Program, check out the interactive map on VA’s website.

https://www.militarytimes.com/educat...rofit%20school.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Mike!

True! I was offered a full art scholarship when I graduated high school, which I promptly turned down as I had no desire to go to college. Two years later I was offered a chance to go to a trade school and I jumped at it. College was going to require a lot of classes I didn't want to take, and trade school trained me to do exactly what I wanted to do, with no extra fluff or filler. I have, for the most part, loved my job for the past 40 years. Would I have been better off and happier had I gone to college? Don't know and don't care.

Some non-college degree jobs can make more money a year than many college grads, depending on the degree. I know an electrician who makes more than most teachers. These are only 7 but the list has 25.

The 7 highest paying jobs without a college degree in order with median salary:

Patrol Officer. $65,540
Executive Assistant. $63,110
Sales Representative. $62.070
Flight Attendant.$59,050
Electrician. $56.900
Plumber. $56,330
Wind Turbine Technician. $56,230

[Bob001]

Another perspective on college: Who needs it?

Quote:

In recent years, major employers, including Accenture, AT&T, Dell, Google, Hilton Hotels, Ernst & Young, Oracle, IBM and Intel hired more workers, like Williams, without four-year college degrees, according to “The Emerging Degree Reset: How the Shift to Skills-Based Hiring Holds the Keys to Growing the U.S. Workforce at a Time of Talent Shortage,” a recent report by the Burning Glass Institute, an independent nonprofit research center, tapping data from Emsi Burning Glass, a labor-market data firm.

The movement away from the four-year degree prerequisite is growing. With close to two open jobs for each of the 6 million unemployed workers that the Labor Department counted in February, employers struggle to find skilled workers.

https://money.yahoo.com/why-many-emp...135219348.html

Taking note of the fact that for a year+ most college kids, even at the most prestigious schools, took their classes on-line, I suspect that we will see more lower-cost on-line certificate and degree programs. That might not be comparable to four years at Harvard, but they would make it possible for more people to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to begin a decent career. The model of sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture is heading toward obsolescence.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Some non-college degree jobs can make more money a year than many college grads, depending on the degree. I know an electrician who makes more than most teachers. These are only 7 but the list has 25.

The 7 highest paying jobs without a college degree in order with median salary:

Patrol Officer. $65,540
Executive Assistant. $63,110
Sales Representative. $62.070
Flight Attendant.$59,050
Electrician. $56.900
Plumber. $56,330
Wind Turbine Technician. $56,230

Not to digress too far, but the fact that someone can be trusted with a gun and a badge and be expected to understand complex legalities and make life-or-death split-second decisions without a college education might go a long way to explaining problems with U.S. policing. Obviously a college degree isn't a magic wand, but somebody who has gotten though college has at least learned to process information, has dealt with people from varied backgrounds, and has been exposed to different ideas. But in most places a person can become a cop with a GED. There are a lot of jobs where a college degree shouldn't be required, but police officer isn't one of them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Not to digress too far, but the fact that someone can be trusted with a gun and a badge and be expected to understand complex legalities and make life-or-death split-second decisions without a college education might go a long way to explaining problems with U.S. policing. Obviously a college degree isn't a magic wand, but somebody who has gotten though college has at least learned to process information, has dealt with people from varied backgrounds, and has been exposed to different ideas. But in most places a person can become a cop with a GED. There are a lot of jobs where a college degree shouldn't be required, but police officer isn't one of them.

Several states have made an Associate degree and/ or 60 Credits and some other specialized law enforcement experience a requirement.

Only about 1% of cities require a 4 year degree.

However, I think more important than a degree is a complete mental health evaluation of every applicant and then regular psychological evaluations at certain intervals. We need to weed out the ones who are white supremacists/racists, those who have control/power issues, are emotionally unstable, etc. Policing is such a high stress job that officers themselves can become a danger to the public over time.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Taking note of the fact that for a year+ most college kids, even at the most prestigious schools, took their classes on-line, I suspect that we will see more lower-cost on-line certificate and degree programs. That might not be comparable to four years at Harvard, but they would make it possible for more people to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to begin a decent career. The model of sitting in a classroom listening to a lecture is heading toward obsolescence.

The UK's Open University was founded in 1969.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University

Quote:

With more than 175,000 students enrolled,[5] including around 34% of new undergraduates aged under 25 and more than 7,700 overseas students, it is the largest academic institution in the United Kingdom (and one of the largest in Europe) by student number, and qualifies as one of the world's largest universities. Since it was founded, more than 2 million students have studied its courses.[14]

Quote:

The OU uses a variety of methods for teaching, including written and audio materials, the Internet, disc-based software and television programmes on DVD. Course-based television broadcasts by the BBC, which started on 3 January 1971, ceased on 15 December 2006.[40] Materials comprise originally authored work by in-house and external academic contributors, and from third-party materials licensed for use by OU students. For most modules, students are supported by tutors ("associate lecturers") who provide feedback on their work and are generally available to them at face-to-face tutorials, by telephone, and/or on the Internet. A number of short courses worth ten credits are now available that do not have an assigned tutor but offer an online conferencing service (Internet forum) where help and advice is offered through conferencing "moderators".

Quote:

Some modules have mandatory day schools. Nevertheless, it is possible to be excused on the basis of ill-health (or other extenuating circumstances) and many courses have no mandatory face-to-face component.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Then there's always the option of the GI Bill for those who want an education but don't want to take out huge loans. You also get other GI benefits like no or lower down payments on a house (that's a big one for first time homebuyers as I know personally). Both my husband and his brother got their degrees in Computer Engineering this way.


https://www.militarytimes.com/educat...rofit%20school.

I was trying to get into the Air Force ROTC because I wanted to make the military my career. It would have also paid for the Aerospace Engineering program I had been accepted into. It's a fine career path.

That no one, absolutely no one, should feel they have to do in order to pay for an education. Demanding that people should be willing to potentially die or worse, kill, before they complain about an obviously broken system or ask for lone forgiveness isn't a lot of things, including rational. Or moral.

There was never the chance for me to serve or go to that program because I was medically rejected from the military and couldn't afford the loans. One less possible Aerospace Engineer around.

A system that produced this many people chained to unmanageable debt, and producing such a drag on our economy, cannot be written off as 'you made bad choices'. This is systemic failure. Why was subsidizing people buying homes worth the cost, but this isn't? Why were the (white) people of the past not just told to join the army if they wanted to be able to buy homes?

I ended up working my way through college for a different degree (English) without taking loans. I have no debt. This in no way means I think others should just have to deal with joining the military, nor stuck with the bad outcomes of a broken system.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I was trying to get into the Air Force ROTC because I wanted to make the military my career. It would have also paid for the Aerospace Engineering program I had been accepted into. It's a fine career path.

That no one, absolutely no one, should feel they have to do in order to pay for an education. Demanding that people should be willing to potentially die or worse, kill, before they complain about an obviously broken system or ask for lone forgiveness isn't a lot of things, including rational. Or moral.

There was never the chance for me to serve or go to that program because I was medically rejected from the military and couldn't afford the loans. One less possible Aerospace Engineer around.

A system that produced this many people chained to unmanageable debt, and producing such a drag on our economy, cannot be written off as 'you made bad choices'. This is systemic failure. Why was subsidizing people buying homes worth the cost, but this isn't? Why were the (white) people of the past not just told to join the army if they wanted to be able to buy homes?

I ended up working my way through college for a different degree (English) without taking loans. I have no debt. This in no way means I think others should just have to deal with joining the military, nor stuck with the bad outcomes of a broken system.

"That no one, absolutely no one, should feel they have to do in order to pay for an education. Demanding that people should be willing to potentially die or worse, kill, before they complain about an obviously broken system or ask for lone forgiveness isn't a lot of things, including rational. Or moral."

Did I, anywhere in my thread, or did anyone else, demand that anyone should have to join the military? I clearly said it was an option. An option that both my husband (Navy submariner) and his brother (Air Force) chose.

[Parsman]

This all sounds like the arguments over health care in the USA as well. You have grown up in a society where these things have to be paid for and make a profit for someone. We pay something towards higher education here in the UK but nothing like the huge amounts you pay in the USA, and the system seems to work pretty well. My own alma mater Edinburgh is well regarded as a teaching and research establishment around the world. It is not there to make money for people though, it is there for educational purposes. Similarly health care. You don't pay for an ambulance to take you to hospital and you don't pay for life saving surgery. The costs largely come out of general taxation which may mean we pay a bit more tax but we don't get a huge and unexpected bill when sickness strikes. If you really want to go private here in the UK you can, but the vast majority of health care is not provided as a business to make money. Unless the USA can change its societal commitment to profiteering, you'll never find an answer to problems like these.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Parsman

This all sounds like the arguments over health care in the USA as well. You have grown up in a society where these things have to be paid for and make a profit for someone.

It's not quite that simple, I think. It's a matter of age gaps and anti-entitlement sentiment. The Democrats' goal is to make things better for everyone, or try to, which is laudable. But right now they're also a gerontocracy, so "better" is largely defined in the context of problems they remember having in the good old days. Student loans were not one of those problems. So the olds don't understand why the young folks aren't being more appreciative of Biden's efforts to address something they don't even see as a problem in the first place (read the last page or two if you disagree), while the youngs see a backhanded token gesture from Biden that does nothing to fix the broken system he campaigned on fixing.

You are right that there are parallels to health care discussions. Both health and education have evolved tremendously over the course of the past few decades, not always for the better, with political arguments lagging behind.