| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
March 10th 04, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: And the truly ironic part is that Ralph "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a major factor in putting an oilman in the White House by dividing the opposition in 2000. And he's poised to repeat that trick later this year. I heard the Green party has something to say about all this. I betcha there were a LOT of resignations from that party when they saw what happened in 2000. At any rate, they aren't backing Ralph. His support this year is likely to be down in the noise. Without a party backing him, he's just another Harold Stassen. I hope so. Another example is the expectation of a trained workforce without investing the resources in education to produce that workforce. "Resources" doesn't just mean "money", either, though money is a big part of it. Agreed. The cost of education is running out of control. It has far exceeded the general inflation level, yet is more necessary than ever. If the cost continues at double digit increases every year, and the graduate stands a pretty good chance of his/her entire field being made redundant, the necessity of the education is going to go away. Granted the would-be student is flippin burgers, but their job won't be made irrelevant. That's one possibility. Another is bankruptcy and the resulting defaults on student and other loans. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#2
March 10th 04, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
March 11th 04, 02:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. 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? 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 |
|
#4
March 11th 04, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
March 11th 04, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Alun
writes: 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 That's a good thing! 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. If that's the case, then I share your opinion that loans aren't a good idea at all. 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. Exactly. 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. Some years back the local paper did a series of stories on my alma mater and the tuition explosion. Two things were obvious cost-increasers: big jump in the number and ratio of nonteaching administrators, and a building boom. Still, the local school district built a new elementary school a few years ago without breaking the bank. We're not top-heavy with administration by any means, either. I would think that primary and secondary education are actually more complex and costly than college, for a number of factors ranging from classroom hours to diversity of student needs. 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. Responsibility to the next generation. What a concept. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
March 11th 04, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
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? Yes and no: from http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very difficult standard to meet. At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA! America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were doing this, the law was changed. So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to happen. 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. 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. The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable. The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so much?" You actually do know, don't you? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#7
March 13th 04, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: 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? Yes and no: from http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very difficult standard to meet. At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA! America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were doing this, the law was changed. Guess I wasn't one of the best and brightest - I paid all mine back in full! So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to happen. Yup, they'll just renegotiate the loan but it's still there. 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. 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. The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable. The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so much?" You actually do know, don't you? I'm not sure. Seems to me that at the bottom of it all is the fact that people will pay the inflated tuitions because colege is seen as an absolute necessity these days. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#8
March 13th 04, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: 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? Yes and no: from http://www.mdbankruptcylaw.com/lawgu...u_cant_pay.asp Another possible solution is to discharge your student loan in bankruptcy. However, due to a 1998 change in the bankruptcy law, this is harder than ever to do. In general, you can discharge a student loan in bankruptcy only if you can prove that repaying the loan would be a severe hardship for you. There are several factors that courts consider in making this determination, but suffice it to say, it's a very difficult standard to meet. At one time, many students simply completed their education, and as a matter of course, declared bankruptcy and wiped out their debts (HA! America's best and brightest, eh?) After it caught on that they were doing this, the law was changed. Guess I wasn't one of the best and brightest - I paid all mine back in full! They are definitely the ones that are stupid. That bankruptcy follows them forever. Seven years is the legal time limit, but face it, it's forever. Then when they do get some semblance of credit back, they aren't getting the most favorable rates. So a person that declares bankruptcy has to continue repayment unless they can prove they simply can't pay. And that isn't all that likely to happen. Yup, they'll just renegotiate the loan but it's still there. 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. 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. The loans and their repayment are pretty reasonable. The big question nobody wants to answer is "why does a year of college cost so much?" You actually do know, don't you? I'm not sure. Colleges build a lot of new buildings these days. They are involved in a lot of the research that used to be done by Research and Development divisions of business. Many of them don't get as much support from their State governments as in years past. All of this adds up to increased costs that are driving the education cost inflation. Seems to me that at the bottom of it all is the fact that people will pay the inflated tuitions because colege is seen as an absolute necessity these days. For now. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#9
March 13th 04, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
March 14th 04, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Seems to me that at the bottom of it all is the fact that people will pay the inflated tuitions because colege is seen as an absolute necessity these days. "Colege?" An MSEE who failed English? :-) Is a college or university degree necessary for being an radio amateur? Is an amateur radio license test equal to a college or university examination? Walk the plonk, TAFKARJ... I seem to remember you using terms like "Atila" and "beligerant" and you used them more than once, indicating not a typographical error but in inability to spell the words. You're quite a fellow, Len. Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
