RadioBanter - View Single Post - It's the Economy, Stupid! (Was Ham-radio is a hobby not a service)

March 11th 04, 10:41 AM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting
defaults on student and other loans.

The problem with that is that I don't think you can write off student
loans through bankruptcy.

I'm not sure if you can or cannot. Anybody know for sure?

So, you may not get graduates going intentionally
bankrupt, but the inability to pay it off may lead more people into
bankruptcy. They may then still owe the loan, but it won't get paid
back.

Either way spells trouble.

Makes me think of the "They Might be Giants" Sone "Minimum Wage"

Here's one data point:

In the fall of 1972, when I entered the University of Pennsylvania,
tuition alone (no books, fees, etc.) was $3000/year. Which was very
expensive at the time. Today the same school charges more than 10
times that. But will the starting salary offered to a BSEE in 2006
be more than 10 times what it was in 1976, when I graduated? Is
fininacial aid 10 times what it was in my time there? Nope.

Add to this the fact that a kid who worked at minimum wage during the
weekends, summer and holidays could make a sizable dent in that
$3000/year
tuition. If a
kid could take home $1.50 an hour, and manage to put in 1000 hours
per year, there's half the tuition. Today, if a kid can take home $5
an hour and put in the same 1000 hours, the resulting $5000 is only
about 1/6 of the tuition.

That's just not right.

No argument there. Back home in the UK they used to give everyone
grants. They were means tested, and of course if your parents were
middle income you would be the poorest student in college.

Still, the effective result was that almost any kid who was smart
enough to get in could go to college and get a degree. The rich ones
paid their way and the rest got various forms of help but did not have
to start out their professional lives way in debt.

Correct

However, now they are phasing out grants and bringing in loans. This
is also a big mistake.

Actually, I think loans make sense *IF* they are reasonable and the job
situation is such that they can be paid back in a short period of time.

True.

I'm not sure whether those couple of IFs hold true in the UK as I'm not
there. An engineer's starting salary over there would not have been enough
to pay back a loan when I graduated (it was barely enough to live on), but
I think things have improved since then.

As for the US, the problem is more the size of the fees rather than the
size of the paychecks. That and finding a job.

The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college
cost so much?"

Here in Radnor Township, we spend a bit over $10,000 per year per
student in the public schools. And that's one of the highest outlays in
the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if not the whole country. Why should
a year of college tuition cost more than that? The college school day
and school year are shorter, the classes bigger, and the college
students pretty much provide their own supplies and/or pay lab fees.
College students also usually provide their own transportation, don't
need special ed services, etc.

So why does college cost so much?

I don't know. It's a puzzle. I don't think it's big salaries.

Our governments need to invest more in putting people through higher
education. It doesn't really matter whether they do it by giving money
to the colleges or to the students, provided the former results in
lower fees, but they need to do it. An educated workforce is the most
important thing they could be putting their money into.

I agree 100%. It's an investment in the future.

Public education (meaning universally-available, publicly funded
education) was recognized as a necessary function of government from
the very beginning of this country. Nowadays that means either college
or some form of post-high-school specialized training.

Money well spent.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Alun, N3KIP