We are the 99%/Occupy Movement

Ok, LITS, so you think it's stupid to take on excessive debt to go to a fancy school. I agree, I think most people on this board actually and personally agree, and the vast majority of people everywhere agree in terms of undergraduate education. The statistics would bear this out. The vast majority of student loan debt in this country comes from public institutions: http://www.finaid.org/loans/

Look at the chart there for 4-year colleges. 61% of people going to public schools take on debt, and on average that debt is nearly $20,000 (remember that 5 times as many people go to public colleges vs. private colleges, so even the extra loan burden shown by private college graduates, which is real, in aggregate still only represents a tiny fraction of U.S. student loan debt, somewhere in the neighborhood of 4%). That means for every person who only takes out $5,000 in loans at State U, you've got someone (or several someones) taking on significantly more than $20,000 in debt. This is for a public, state-sponsored education.

It's a straw man argument to say that people raising this issue are just a bunch of whiners who opted for $80,000 in debt from Harvard over no debt from U Mass. That's a such a statistically insignificant portion of the population it's entirely irrelevant. And, I think, to Hornet's personal point, most people who made that decision aren't, in fact, out of jobs. They get the job over the kid who went to State U. Unfair, but true.

People are upset because lots of kids took out loans to get through state universities because this is what high schools forcefully encourage students to do (high schools are rated, both socially, and explicitly by districts, based on the percentage of graduates who go onto higher education) and suddenly they graduate (or graduated 2-3 years ago) and find themselves without jobs, without prospects for jobs, and with $25,000 in loans that they can't pay off and quickly capitalizing interest. That's what people are terrified about. And no matter the number of anecdotal stories we all tell about ourselves and/or our high-caliber friends who managed to get through school without debt, they don't erase the fact that we're looking at swarms of young people swimming under unmanageable debt that they were encouraged to take on to avail themselves of "low-cost" public education options.

I understand your perspective that you made better financial choices than other people, and I'll agree and congratulate you, but in terms of public policy, we need to figure out what to do about the generation of people who took on excessive debt to go to STATE schools and who now are out of work and getting financially encumbered in a way that will shape their futures and our country's future. How are people who are saddled with $25,000 or $30,000 in debt with capitalizing interest ever going to buy houses? If this generation has 15% fewer home buyers will our housing market ever get out of free fall?

Maybe all of this is a-okay. Maybe you can make an argument that discouraging people from going to college and shuttering a few hundred universities is good in the long run. Maybe the housing market should be in free fall, and we should stop construction. There are valid arguments to support these claims. But there will be severe consequences to any of these scenarios. Jobs associated with real estate and construction and higher education will all evaporate then too, leaving fewer jobs for this exact same generation of people. The fewer kids who go to college mean more kids applying for jobs that don't demand a degree, which, you might see in other news articles, is a job pool that's been shrinking for years.

This might be a period of creative destruction and everything will work out better in the end, but it will be painful along the way and I don't think it benefits any conversation to pretend that the issue is whiny, Harvard-grads who don't want to work and should have done whatever thing it is that we did when we had this decision to make. We can all get annoyed by that image of a person.

I'm also one of the lucky ones who made a smart college-debt related decision back when I had that decision to make (my options included service academies, Ivys, and public institutions, so my decision allowed for a variety of financial options), but a few years ago (at the start of the financial downturn) I happened to be teaching at the University of Wisconsin and I saw a lot of hardworking, earnest kids who made the financially prudent choice to go to their state school but still had to take on debt to do it and graduated last spring into a bleak situation. They were anything but lazy and entitled. They have worked part-time jobs, carried full course loads, lived frugally, and are stuck in a tough financial position now. Should they have known in April of 2007 when they were deciding where to go to school that they simply shouldn't have enrolled in college because the financial universe was about to melt down? Where would that have left them? In small towns without job opportunities and without a degree? No debt, but what else?

The kids I taught by and large aren't at the Occupy rallies, and they will by and large grit their teeth and figure things out, move back home, take part-time retail jobs, unpaid internships, and save money and gain experience. But there's no use pretending that the deal they got isn't a lot more raw than the deal most of us got. They have a right--and even a social obligation--to point this out to the generation that encouraged them to make this very series of choices and is now sticking them with the bill. I'm not saying they get to default on that bill, but I do think we can all stand to look a little more closely at what we, as a society, have been encouraging people to do.
 
Heard all this crap in the sixties. "Deja Vu" all over again. A new generation finding the cause of the Haves and the Have Nots. School wasn't cheap then either. A lot of us took the route of the GI Bill and finished our undergraduate and masters without a load of debt or raging against the machine. If you graduate with a degree in basket weaving because college was the thing to do and you don't have a job is it my fault? Believe me I am not one of the 1% and still have two out of three I have to put through school. If only the "POTEMKIN" was docked in Oakland.
 
Scout,
I did not want you to think I was avoiding/ignoring your post. It just happened to be you were a page before Jcleppe's most recent post.

So let's go point by point.


As you know by being an AD member, you pay monthly for TriCare and Concordia. It is deducted from your LES.

So as much as your parents paid for our kids health care, we got hit harder. We not only paid taxes like your parents, but the premiums which your folks didn't. We also paid the co-pay and deductibles.

Tell me did your parents pay for their personal health care program, BCBS, Aetna, through their federal taxes and than pay a monthly premium?

No they didn't. Their taxes paid for the military just like your taxes. You pay a monthly premium to Tri-Care just like me and federal taxes too. To state that our kids were on their dime is wrong. We actually get hit 2x.

Unless I missed the check from Scoutpilot SR, we paid the difference, plus the co-pay and premiums. I am 100% positive that I never paid the premiums, co-pay and deductibles for ScoutSR's for their health care insurance when they had an insurance carrier.

When our DD was rushed by ambulance for being bitten by a copperhead snake (3X), took 5 vials of anti venom from the CDC which cost 12K, spent 3 days in the hospital, Bullet and I paid the co-pay, not your folks. We were charged for crutches out of pocket by Tri-Care. I didn't get that check from Scoutpilot SR for her crutches.

Back in 93, when I was pregnant with DS2, I was forced off base for OB/GYN...no room at the inn (82nd AB). I got sick, I had to pay co-pay for a doc. DS2 also could not get a ped. apptmt. on post. We paid for the 1 week, 2 week, 1 mo, 2mos, 3 mos, 6, mos, 9 mos, and 12 mos check ups using Tri-Care and co-pay for immunizations.

We were actually paying for the military health care system like your folks, and worse yet, we couldn't get the bennies as an AD member.

OBTW, we in this area cannot get into any military hospital now. We are retirees and they over crowded. Your folks are paying for our health care, but tell them no fear, the only people being seen for retirees on base/post is the person who actually served. 3 yrs after retirement and our kids are still Tri-Care.

Start popping out kids and use only your Tri-Care bens; than talk to me about how my kids were on your folks dime. Your DW is a doc, do not use her, or her insurance for medical care. Tell me when you visit the folks that are 500 miles away from your post, and your child gets so sick you took them to a doc, and now had to pay a co-pay that they paid with their taxes for your health care.

Go for it. I have shown 2 issues where we paid out of pocket. I can also show that during a PCS I contracted Lyme disease and because we were at my Mom's home,(no military base near) we had to pay for the doc office bill for the diagnosis and we had to pay a co-pay for the meds. Bullet was AD O5 select.



Point being? He pays his taxes? So do I.

We are not talking about LITS SR here. We are talking about LITS. LITS IMPO used the system wisely. I do not begrudge him one bit.

My issue was his post saying I didn't take any debt. I felt it was condescending because he didn't have to take any FINANCIAL debt since he went to an SA, and got his Master's as an AD officer. Yes 5 yrs of his life, so don't go down that road.

That is not the traditional route for the avg college kid. He was afforded this opportunity because of my dime as a taxpayer. Just as a Pell Grant recipient is afforded the same opportunity. It is the tax payer that pays.

LITS SR didn't receive a statement from the CGA for tuition due. He didn't get it because our tax dollars paid.



I never had an issue with him or anybody attending an SA, accepting ROTC scholarship, SMP, GI Bill, etc.

My issue was this comment from LITS, he is implying on that post he is paying. He was replying to Hornet's comment



LITS took tax payer dollars so he would not have debt. He owed 5 yrs., and also during that time he also got assistance for his Masters from GTU or GW, can't remember which. At the same time he is blasting Hornet for his opinion of taking a loan to attend Harvard which would be backed with tax payer dollars.

Let's keep it apples with apples. Hornet is stating him and many other kids would take loans, 93% repay those loans. Only 7% default.

LITS is correct who pays for that debt? US, the taxpayer. I like him a lot, but also at the same time, I am going to be honest. He worked the system to his advantage. No judgement just saying.

He is angry right now, and I get it.

He jumped without a job. I am not inferring or implying he shouldn't have. That is/was a personal decision. However, I am saying don't play the no debt card.

Honestly, his employment issues should illustrate to everyone that has an SA degree, and a Masters with a security clearance how bad it is out there.

FLAME ON.

I am 1000% sure you will find fault in my defense and I have no issue with that fact.

Fly safe

I find fault in your defenses because your defenses are faulty.

You paid a "premium." Tricare is grossly subsidized by the US Gov't. Thus the "premium" you paid for your healthcare was nowhere close to on par with that of your civilian counterparts. Based on your husband's rank, the non-taxable portion of his pay, and my parents' income, I can safely venture that their tax dollars paid a far larger portion of your subsidized healthcare than you did. So your argument is moot. You got nearly free healthcare, and expect us to believe you paid for LITS' college but no one paid for your healthcare? Get real. That takes some real gall. And some willful blindness.

You had to see an off-post provider? Hopefully you didn't have to spend too long amongst the unwashed rabble of the American public who regularly go to those off-post docs and pay much higher premiums and co-pays to receive the same coverage.

On top of the tax breaks the military gets (how many times did Bullet get tax-free months for flying overseas?), the money you "paid" with came directly from the taxpayers. So if you want to play the martyr game and tell LITS that YOU (don't you mean your husband?) paid for his college with YOUR dime (despite paying far less in taxes than a civilian with your take-home income would), then you have to live with a knife that cuts both ways. If that's your stance, you have no choice but to admit that your food, cars, and kids' lunch boxes were paid for with everyone else's dime.

And LITS did not "work the system." He served his country in exchange for benefits. We're all aware at this point that you firmly believe that the only one who did his career as right and true and hard as your DH was your DH himself, but LITS and many others here have served their country well and earned the benefits of said service. So unless you're willing to say that you yourself, as a dependent, "worked the system" by marrying your DH, stop trying to apply that offensive and derisive phrase to other people.
 
I'm getting tired of hearing how if you just worked hard enough, then you get scholarships and don't get debt. Let me tell you about my USAFA alternatives.

My HS GPA, SAT, class rank, SCHOOL rank, etc. were all up there. USAFA ranked me, incoming, as much more academically qualified than most of my classmates by the academic composition I had. I should have been among those people getting all those wonderful full rides everywhere based on academics and being "well-rounded"

Guess what, my only "scholarship" was a $3,000 discount at my top back up school. That was Rose-Hulman. They were discounting my yearly tuition from $41,000 to $38,000. This was in 2006! All my other schools were Georgia Tech, CO school of mines, and Purdue (my dad's alma mater). None offered me any scholarship, ROTC denied me a scholarship, and no tuition was less than $20K per year. I didn't apply to TX schools because I didn't want to go to them, but financially I was not eligible for any scholarships for merit or otherwise. They would have been $15K or more a year as well.

So guess what, if I hadn't chosen the military, I would have had to pay out the ass like most do despite great credentials. Doing everything right doesn't automatically mean you can get scholarships. I stand by my earlier comment on paying for Harvard. Their grads are still doing pretty well in getting jobs compared to State U.
 
I'm getting tired of hearing how if you just worked hard enough, then you get scholarships and don't get debt. Let me tell you about my USAFA alternatives.

My HS GPA, SAT, class rank, SCHOOL rank, etc. were all up there. USAFA ranked me, incoming, as much more academically qualified than most of my classmates by the academic composition I had. I should have been among those people getting all those wonderful full rides everywhere based on academics and being "well-rounded"

Guess what, my only "scholarship" was a $3,000 discount at my top back up school. That was Rose-Hulman. They were discounting my yearly tuition from $41,000 to $38,000. This was in 2006! All my other schools were Georgia Tech, CO school of mines, and Purdue (my dad's alma mater). None offered me any scholarship, ROTC denied me a scholarship, and no tuition was less than $20K per year. I didn't apply to TX schools because I didn't want to go to them, but financially I was not eligible for any scholarships for merit or otherwise. They would have been $15K or more a year as well.

So guess what, if I hadn't chosen the military, I would have had to pay out the ass like most do despite great credentials. Doing everything right doesn't automatically mean you can get scholarships. I stand by my earlier comment on paying for Harvard. Their grads are still doing pretty well in getting jobs compared to State U.

Did you seek out the full rides and things like that? I applied to Rose-Hulman and Purdue as well. Ended up getting the same amount discounted from the Rose-Hulman tuition, but it still was out of my cost range. Ended up getting a full ride to Purdue and a couple of ROTC scholarships, as well as some smaller scholarships to a few other in-state schools.

I think if you perform well academically and are well rounded you can earn a lot - but you have to aggressively pursue those scholarships. My GPA wasn't the highest (in fact it was LOWER than the average awardees of the full ride I got), but I had good interviewing skills and went for things even though I knew that I wasn't the best qualified.

If you don't try for something then the answer is always no. Being proactive and really selling yourself go a long way
 
Did you seek out the full rides and things like that? I applied to Rose-Hulman and Purdue as well. Ended up getting the same amount discounted from the Rose-Hulman tuition, but it still was out of my cost range. Ended up getting a full ride to Purdue and a couple of ROTC scholarships, as well as some smaller scholarships to a few other in-state schools.

I think if you perform well academically and are well rounded you can earn a lot - but you have to aggressively pursue those scholarships. My GPA wasn't the highest (in fact it was LOWER than the average awardees of the full ride I got), but I had good interviewing skills and went for things even though I knew that I wasn't the best qualified.

If you don't try for something then the answer is always no. Being proactive and really selling yourself go a long way

I didn't qualify, period. They're answer was on the verge of laughing that I would ask. Once I had USAFA I didn't bother.
 
Interesting. I had a 3/4 scholarship at Illinois Institute of Technology and the ROTC scholarship. The odd one about IIT was that they invited me to interview for it.
 
Stating that people should just get over it and use the GI Bill to pay for school is like saying everyone should just get a scholarship: There aren't enough GI Bill benefits to cover the college costs of everyone in the US, just like there aren't enough scholarships for everyone out there. What would happen if every kid in the U.S. decided to enlist in order to earn the GI Bill? The services would accept a small % making it MUCH more competitive to enlist, and the rest of the kids would still be out of luck. The services aren't going to expand exponentially in order to serve as a cash reserve for aspirational college students.

And it's actually not just the 60s all over again. It's a quantifiable fact that college costs have risen dramatically in the past 50 years, above inflation. No one here is talking about studying basket-weaving at a private university. We're talking about what it costs to be a chemistry or engineering major at a state school (Illinois: $15,000+ dollars per year). And even if a whiny, entitled basket-weaver were the one raising the question, why would we reject the validity of the question based on the idiocy of the person asking it? That's more of less the definition of ad hominem.

Do we want a large pool of well-trained engineers in the U.S.? If the answer to that is yes, then we want a system that places as few barriers as possible between a promising young engineer and his/her career. Asking that person to take on $20,000+ in loans while a teenager seems like a pretty clear barrier.
 
I would like to know why basket-weaving got such a bad rap.

I had to weave baskets in scout camp, and it was hard. To make a big one, especially the top part, you have to have some skill.

Doing it underwater would take an expert talent.
 
I agree sprog, I am sure the people who own Longaberger always laugh at people talking crap about basket weaving because they are the same people who are willing to pay 100 bucks for their baskets!
 
I had to weave baskets in scout camp, and it was hard. To make a big one, especially the top part, you have to have some skill. Doing it underwater would take an expert talent.

Looks challenging to me. :smile:

course4.jpg
 
Stating that people should just get over it and use the GI Bill to pay for school is like saying everyone should just get a scholarship: There aren't enough GI Bill benefits to cover the college costs of everyone in the US, just like there aren't enough scholarships for everyone out there. What would happen if every kid in the U.S. decided to enlist in order to earn the GI Bill? The services would accept a small % making it MUCH more competitive to enlist, and the rest of the kids would still be out of luck. The services aren't going to expand exponentially in order to serve as a cash reserve for aspirational college students.

And it's actually not just the 60s all over again. It's a quantifiable fact that college costs have risen dramatically in the past 50 years, above inflation. No one here is talking about studying basket-weaving at a private university. We're talking about what it costs to be a chemistry or engineering major at a state school (Illinois: $15,000+ dollars per year). And even if a whiny, entitled basket-weaver were the one raising the question, why would we reject the validity of the question based on the idiocy of the person asking it? That's more of less the definition of ad hominem.

Do we want a large pool of well-trained engineers in the U.S.? If the answer to that is yes, then we want a system that places as few barriers as possible between a promising young engineer and his/her career. Asking that person to take on $20,000+ in loans while a teenager seems like a pretty clear barrier.

Im just curious, since obviously Basket Weaving is not a major and the term is just used as an example....just what Majors do you consider Basket Weaving. I'm not so sure the question of tuition and student loans was being directed exclusively to Chemistry and Engineering Majors.
 
I look at my niece who is attending a private no-name college, paying 47K a yr, 25K in loans, and I would say her major of Fashion Design would classify as a basket weaving education.

One of her electives she is taking this semester is Chocolate. :eek: I don't know if it is the history of chocolate or chocolate sampling :biggrin: however, it is a prime example of how our society has gone amuck when it comes to college and the courses they offer. If she was going to Culinary school or Johnson and Wales, I could at least get Chocolate, but chocolate and your major is Fashion Design? What? Are they teaching them how to design a new outfit for Lady Gaga, this time not made out of meat, but instead chocolate? How does this class have anything to do with Fashion, and how as a parent, do you not say to your kid, You're kidding me, right?

No offense to my niece, but the school she is attending is a school that is in business of "if you are willing to pay to say you attend college, we'll take you". Her Mom is very proud of where her DD attends college and the thought has yet to cross her mind that in 4 yrs she will have a degree in a field that in a good market the jobs start at 40K...and that is for the kids that go to the elite fashion schools, such as Parsons, Textiles or FIT in NYC or even the top rated public schools like PSU.

MPO, they prove that parents buy into MY KID HAS TO GO TO A 4 YR or I AM A FAILURE AS A PARENT. No, you are a failure IMPO, as a parent to saddle your kid with 100K in loans with this degree just because you wanted her to go to a 4 yr college.

They will be the ones blaming WS for making gobs of money while they can't get a job. Nobody on WS told her to go to a 47K yr college that has classes like Chocolate and take 100K in debt for the 4 yrs. She could have gone to a CC for 2 yrs, than transferred to a 4 yr with no debt.
 
One of her electives she is taking this semester is Chocolate. :eek: I don't know if it is the history of chocolate or chocolate sampling :biggrin: however, it is a prime example of how our society has gone amuck when it comes to college and the courses they offer. If she was going to Culinary school or Johnson and Wales, I could at least get Chocolate, but chocolate and your major is Fashion Design? What? Are they teaching them how to design a new outfit for Lady Gaga, this time not made out of meat, but instead chocolate? How does this class have anything to do with Fashion, and how as a parent, do you not say to your kid, You're kidding me, right?

Ok, If you are going to do this I can see ending up with a bunch of debt because WHY WOULD ANYBODY HELP YOU!

If my kids want to do something like this they are on there own.

Yeah, I know I should be more open minded!
 
It was a very good skill learned but not a major life commitment or career for most. Like knot tying, it was an accomplishment you can be proud of but most don't make a life's work of it. There is always a niche market for those who can do something very very well and create a market for their skill. Blackbird: Loved those pictures.:shake: Pay fifty plus K for one of these and incur debt while doing it seems just foolish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...911809.html#s317428&title=Children_and_Family

How many of those involved in the OWS would even consider the GI Bill route since some are spitting on uniformed officers of the military? If they all did consider it as an alternative so much the better for the all volunteer military. Raise the standards for selection and we don't have to go through McNamara's One Hundred Thousand again.

If you can get an Engineering Degree for $15K a year jump at it. In State yearly estimated cost at main campus here is $23,000. No one said that college costs are not outrageous. I don't see any "occupy" Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stamford or Illinois. Just those attending those schools setting up encampments on someone elses dime to rail against the machine.

Loved the Chicago Board of Trade showering demonstrators with McDonald employment applications.:yllol:
 
I look at my niece who is attending a private no-name college, paying 47K a yr, 25K in loans, and I would say her major of Fashion Design would classify as a basket weaving education.

One of her electives she is taking this semester is Chocolate. :eek: I don't know if it is the history of chocolate or chocolate sampling :biggrin: however, it is a prime example of how our society has gone amuck when it comes to college and the courses they offer. If she was going to Culinary school or Johnson and Wales, I could at least get Chocolate, but chocolate and your major is Fashion Design? What? Are they teaching them how to design a new outfit for Lady Gaga, this time not made out of meat, but instead chocolate? How does this class have anything to do with Fashion, and how as a parent, do you not say to your kid, You're kidding me, right?

No offense to my niece, but the school she is attending is a school that is in business of "if you are willing to pay to say you attend college, we'll take you". Her Mom is very proud of where her DD attends college and the thought has yet to cross her mind that in 4 yrs she will have a degree in a field that in a good market the jobs start at 40K...and that is for the kids that go to the elite fashion schools, such as Parsons, Textiles or FIT in NYC or even the top rated public schools like PSU.

MPO, they prove that parents buy into MY KID HAS TO GO TO A 4 YR or I AM A FAILURE AS A PARENT. No, you are a failure IMPO, as a parent to saddle your kid with 100K in loans with this degree just because you wanted her to go to a 4 yr college.

They will be the ones blaming WS for making gobs of money while they can't get a job. Nobody on WS told her to go to a 47K yr college that has classes like Chocolate and take 100K in debt for the 4 yrs. She could have gone to a CC for 2 yrs, than transferred to a 4 yr with no debt.

On one level I certainly agree with you. My son has some friends that are currently attending very expensive Private Schools just to ge a Liberal Arts Degree. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with Liberal Arts degrees, spending upwards of 47K per lear to get one is where I have the problem. I have always maintained that if you are getting a Liberal Arts undergrad, do it at a local and less expensive shool, save that money for you Graduate degree at a more specialized and respected school.

As far as the "Chocolate Class" Most Lib Arts degrees require a certain number of elective credits, my son is now taking a 1 credit "Deep water conditioning" class, does that have anything to do with his major, no, but he will ace the CWST..HaHa. He took the class just for fun, it didn't replace any required class just added to his classes this semester. I do see your point though.

There are a lot of people, some who have posted on this board that consider not only Fasion Design, but History, International Affairs/Relations, Political Science and others to be included in that "Basket Weaving" catagory, I don't agree with them but still they insist. I do agree that spending huge amounts of money for private schools for these majors is not worth the money, again save it for graduate school.

Taking out huge student loans for Lib Arts degrees just doesn't make any sense in my opinion, not that those degrees are not a worthy goal, just not worth the large debt.

Just for full disclosure, I have one son graduating this year with a History degree and one freshman son majoring in Political Science. I'm not sure where I'll put all the Baskets they weave but I'm sure I'll find space for them.
 
You may also get a good indication about your Major when your Professor cuts in line ahead of you at the Job Fair.:wink:

Sorry. Repeated Pima's list, just from another site.
 
Last edited:
On one level I certainly agree with you. My son has some friends that are currently attending very expensive Private Schools just to ge a Liberal Arts Degree. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with Liberal Arts degrees, spending upwards of 47K per lear to get one is where I have the problem. I have always maintained that if you are getting a Liberal Arts undergrad, do it at a local and less expensive shool, save that money for you Graduate degree at a more specialized and respected school.

As far as the "Chocolate Class" Most Lib Arts degrees require a certain number of elective credits, my son is now taking a 1 credit "Deep water conditioning" class, does that have anything to do with his major, no, but he will ace the CWST..HaHa. He took the class just for fun, it didn't replace any required class just added to his classes this semester. I do see your point though.

There are a lot of people, some who have posted on this board that consider not only Fasion Design, but History, International Affairs/Relations, Political Science and others to be included in that "Basket Weaving" catagory, I don't agree with them but still they insist. I do agree that spending huge amounts of money for private schools for these majors is not worth the money, again save it for graduate school.

Taking out huge student loans for Lib Arts degrees just doesn't make any sense in my opinion, not that those degrees are not a worthy goal, just not worth the large debt.

Just for full disclosure, I have one son graduating this year with a History degree and one freshman son majoring in Political Science. I'm not sure where I'll put all the Baskets they weave but I'm sure I'll find space for them.
Agreed:thumb:
Except maybe not on the fashion design.
 
AF--I would agree that $15,000 per year is a low estimate as I was quoting only tuition costs. I would guess the $23,000 figure you found factored in basic living expenses. Either way, glad we agree that college costs are outrageous.

I guess we just disagree on whether or not it's useful to just accept that college costs must be outrageous. About 100 years ago people accepted the premise that going to high school was a luxury and it seemed normal that less than 10% of Americans graduated from high school. Then we instituted free, mandatory schooling, kids got better educations, society became broadly literate, and, by and large, good things happened in terms of our economy and society. The same thing then happened in the post-war years with the democratization of higher ed due to the GI Bill. We found a way to make education cheap that was politically palatable to everyone and our reward was a vastly more educated populace and incredible economic and cultural benefits in the form of more innovation and a better equipped workforce. We are beginning to backslide on some of those gains, and it doesn't look pretty for our collective future. We will have fewer people prepared to do the kind of intellectually-challenging work that will be demanded by a 21st century, information-based economy unless we properly educate them. It's bad for all of us if college costs are through-the-roof.

As for college campus protests, people have been protesting about these very issues on state campuses from California to Wisconsin to Illinois! It's just we all started to pay more attention when they began protesting on Wall Street. And no, they don't protest at Harvard and Yale and Princeton because those schools have exceptional financial aid programs that mean their graduates don't get saddled with excessive debt AND their graduates are among those that still have high job placement rates. There's no reason to protest.
 
Back
Top