Education Reform

[clenz]

What the hell is a useless degree. I was taught that a degree states that you are an expert in your feild of study. NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!. Now, people think that if I have a degree I will make 75k a year. We forget that a formal Education is to better one's self, not to own a BMW 750.

A useless degree is one that has no economic value. It's OK to have a passion but should you go into big debt for your passion unless you are already independently wealthy? A while back I read an article about student loan debt. They interviewed a woman who was complaining because she had $100,000+ in student loan debt. She majored in cello. She had a job with an orchestra that paid $11,000 a year. I can't feel sorry for somebody that fucking stupid. And what's worse is I'm afraid the idiot in the White House is going to make a move to have the govt eat all that student loan debt.

I don't agree with forgiving all student loan debt, HOWEVER, I do think something can/possibly should be put in place to reward those who have college educations and are using them/fully employed. I can tell you if TBH and I (2 B.A.'s and M.A.) have more than our fair share of loan debt. Neither of us qualified for "need based" scholarships and apparently weren't good enough students (even though TBH pulled a 3.98 during her M.A. program) to qualify for academic scholarships. Both of us have been employed full time since graduating, never missed a student loan payment (or mortgage, cell phone, utilities, credit card, etc... for that matter we pay more than the minimum on everything as well).

If we want to stimulate the economy, reward those who meet strict guideline with some sort of forgiveness. That would have a huge trickle down on the economy....adults in their mid/late 20's with a couple hundred extra dollars a month would be huge.

[kalm]

Well having a rec degree from a random and directional university' I take great umbrage with that statement.

Recreation professionals manage multi-million dollar programs that keep your snot nosed kids happy and healthy in youth sports, take your elderly parents on trips to the Indian casino so that you don't have to deal with them, expertly guide your white water float down a river, coordinate the on-board entertainment on your carribean cruise etc.

There's more to life than say accounting, lawyering, mortgages, or engineering. The world needs court jesters too. imagine how miserable life would be if it consisted only of the 89hens, ivytalks, Gannons, and chizzangs of the world.

I'm glad you like your job-- I sure don't. It was just an example of a profession that may have difficult job prospects and low pay (although I am sure many in your profession make a good wage). Don't take offense.

No offense whatsoever Frank. I make fun of my major constantly. But yes, rec tends to get under appreciated. Especially therapuetic rec which is tied into healthcare.

[UNI88]

I'm glad you like your job-- I sure don't. It was just an example of a profession that may have difficult job prospects and low pay (although I am sure many in your profession make a good wage). Don't take offense.

No offense whatsoever Frank. I make fun of my major constantly. But yes, rec tends to get under appreciated. Especially therapuetic rec which is tied into healthcare.

I think you need to differentiate between a parks & recreation type degree and a sports management type degree. There are lots of park districts, ymca's, etc. out there where P&R majors can hope to find work as well as therapeutic rec. There might be fewer jobs than there are students but the ratio isn't completely out of whack. I hear all sorts of commercials for masters programs in sports management where they lead listeners to believe that graduates will end up working as agents, for teams or conferences, etc. and I have to believe that there is fewer than 1 job per 20+ graduates. That's a tough road to hoe if you're not a top student or well connected.

It used to be that a Bachelors was enough to demonstrate the ability to learn and become a productive employee but I think expectations are changing and employers want students that can contribute more earlier.

Prospective students should research the job prospects of their major before declaring and make sure that they can make their loan payments with the income from their field.

[HI54UNI]

A useless degree is one that has no economic value. It's OK to have a passion but should you go into big debt for your passion unless you are already independently wealthy? A while back I read an article about student loan debt. They interviewed a woman who was complaining because she had $100,000+ in student loan debt. She majored in cello. She had a job with an orchestra that paid $11,000 a year. I can't feel sorry for somebody that fucking stupid. And what's worse is I'm afraid the idiot in the White House is going to make a move to have the govt eat all that student loan debt.

I don't agree with forgiving all student loan debt, HOWEVER, I do think something can/possibly should be put in place to reward those who have college educations and are using them/fully employed. I can tell you if TBH and I (2 B.A.'s and M.A.) have more than our fair share of loan debt. Neither of us qualified for "need based" scholarships and apparently weren't good enough students (even though TBH pulled a 3.98 during her M.A. program) to qualify for academic scholarships. Both of us have been employed full time since graduating, never missed a student loan payment (or mortgage, cell phone, utilities, credit card, etc... for that matter we pay more than the minimum on everything as well).

If we want to stimulate the economy, reward those who meet strict guideline with some sort of forgiveness. That would have a huge trickle down on the economy....adults in their mid/late 20's with a couple hundred extra dollars a month would be huge.

And I can tell you that if govt quits taking money from me to give to someone else I will spend more and stimulate the economy. Or tell me my two kids can go to college for free when the time comes and I'll spend the money I put in a 529 plan every month instead of saving it so my kids and I don't have to rely on the govt.

[blueballs]

I've read some interesting essays from real estate and financial consultants lately about student loan debt and the impact it will have on the economy in the coming years.

The amount of debt some young adults are coming out of school with is just staggering, and it will hinder or downright destroy their ability to buy their first home, build equity (which is huge at an early age), accumulate wealth, and properly save for retirement (again, the earlier you start the better off you are).

Some of the posters above are exactly right about some of the useless CRAP being taught at the university level and the exhorbitant price students are paying for it. The impact of it going forward on other areas of the economy and the students themselves will be real and painful. It truly is the 800 pound gorilla in the room but since it is "higher education" nobody really calls it what it really is- a scam.

[Chizzang]

For-profit colleges sucking in students who qualify for government-subsidized loans (but probably can't get into most traditional schools) is also something that needs a serious looking-at. Those places are turning into bona fide cash cows, and taxpayers are bankrolling a large chunk of the gravy.

Yeah but is it creating jobs..?

[Grizalltheway]

For-profit colleges sucking in students who qualify for government-subsidized loans (but probably can't get into most traditional schools) is also something that needs a serious looking-at. Those places are turning into bona fide cash cows, and taxpayers are bankrolling a large chunk of the gravy.

Yeah but is it creating jobs..?

Oh, of course. The private sector LOVES profiting from government largesse, then turning around and bleating about how the government needs to quit taking and spending so much of its money.

[Franks Tanks]

Yeah but is it creating jobs..?

Oh, of course. The private sector LOVES profiting from government largesse, then turning around and bleating about how the government needs to quit taking and spending so much of its money.

For profit colleges basically engage in predatory lending practices. They look for potential students who often times have limited academic credentials, and lack knowledge of college in general. They tell them to enroll and sell them a bill of goods. Chances are slim they graduate, and even if they do they are many times no better off.

It is shame that people go to "Devry University" or one of the dozens like them and pay 10x what it would cost go to a local community college. Many traditional state universties also now offer completely online classes at a much lower cost. It is a sham.

[GannonFan]

Oh, of course. The private sector LOVES profiting from government largesse, then turning around and bleating about how the government needs to quit taking and spending so much of its money.

For profit colleges basically engage in predatory lending practices. They look for potential students who often times have limited academic credentials, and lack knowledge of college in general. They tell them to enroll and sell them a bill of goods. Chances are slim they graduate, and even if they do they are many times no better off.

It is shame that people go to "Devry University" or one of the dozens like them and pay 10x what it would cost go to a local community college. Many traditional state universties also now offer completely online classes at a much lower cost. It is a sham.

The thing is, there's not a whole lot of difference between the "for profit" colleges and the "regular" college (who make a pretty insane profit as well, oddly enough). Both are taking kids in, charging excessive amounts, and then graduating or not graduating those kids into an economy with little skills to get a good enough job to be able to pay back the large amount of student loans they took. Trying to single out one small segment of the problem ignores the elephant in the room - we've doubled down too many times on helping kids to pay for college (which is certainly noble and well intentioned) and all that we've done is to basically transfer all that tax payer money to colleges by way of jacked up tuitions. It's no coincidence that the cost of college has sky rocketed at the same time that the amount of government-backed student loans has also increased. Colleges and University's aren't dumb - the more money that is out there means more money they can take in. We have more college graduates than ever now but we also have more student debt than ever as well, and debt to a level that makes the housing crash look minor in comparison. I think it's great that we help kids get to college, but we've been so bad at doing it that we've created a bubble of our own making. And colleges, from the DeVry's to the Harvard's, have been raking in the profits, whether we call them "for profit" or not.

[Franks Tanks]

For profit colleges basically engage in predatory lending practices. They look for potential students who often times have limited academic credentials, and lack knowledge of college in general. They tell them to enroll and sell them a bill of goods. Chances are slim they graduate, and even if they do they are many times no better off.

It is shame that people go to "Devry University" or one of the dozens like them and pay 10x what it would cost go to a local community college. Many traditional state universties also now offer completely online classes at a much lower cost. It is a sham.

The thing is, there's not a whole lot of difference between the "for profit" colleges and the "regular" college (who make a pretty insane profit as well, oddly enough). Both are taking kids in, charging excessive amounts, and then graduating or not graduating those kids into an economy with little skills to get a good enough job to be able to pay back the large amount of student loans they took. Trying to single out one small segment of the problem ignores the elephant in the room - we've doubled down too many times on helping kids to pay for college (which is certainly noble and well intentioned) and all that we've done is to basically transfer all that tax payer money to colleges by way of jacked up tuitions. It's no coincidence that the cost of college has sky rocketed at the same time that the amount of government-backed student loans has also increased. Colleges and University's aren't dumb - the more money that is out there means more money they can take in. We have more college graduates than ever now but we also have more student debt than ever as well, and debt to a level that makes the housing crash look minor in comparison. I think it's great that we help kids get to college, but we've been so bad at doing it that we've created a bubble of our own making. And colleges, from the DeVry's to the Harvard's, have been raking in the profits, whether we call them "for profit" or not.

I agree with your statement. Just like housing, costs go up because it is easy to be approved to borrow money. At least traditional colleges have some admission standards and those attending and graduating have a reasonable chance at success. For-profit colleges don't bother with only admitting people who have a shot at doing the work. When a kid drops out after two years he owes 60K to Strayer University instead of oweing 6k to a community college of 11k to your local state school.

[GannonFan]

The thing is, there's not a whole lot of difference between the "for profit" colleges and the "regular" college (who make a pretty insane profit as well, oddly enough). Both are taking kids in, charging excessive amounts, and then graduating or not graduating those kids into an economy with little skills to get a good enough job to be able to pay back the large amount of student loans they took. Trying to single out one small segment of the problem ignores the elephant in the room - we've doubled down too many times on helping kids to pay for college (which is certainly noble and well intentioned) and all that we've done is to basically transfer all that tax payer money to colleges by way of jacked up tuitions. It's no coincidence that the cost of college has sky rocketed at the same time that the amount of government-backed student loans has also increased. Colleges and University's aren't dumb - the more money that is out there means more money they can take in. We have more college graduates than ever now but we also have more student debt than ever as well, and debt to a level that makes the housing crash look minor in comparison. I think it's great that we help kids get to college, but we've been so bad at doing it that we've created a bubble of our own making. And colleges, from the DeVry's to the Harvard's, have been raking in the profits, whether we call them "for profit" or not.

I agree with your statement. Just like housing, costs go up because it is easy to be approved to borrow money. At least traditional colleges have some admission standards and those attending and graduating have a reasonable chance at success. For-profit colleges don't bother with only admitting people who have a shot at doing the work. When a kid drops out after two years he owes 60K to Strayer University instead of oweing 6k to a community college of 11k to your local state school.

How do you get the numbers of $6k and $11k? Maybe the community college costs are correct, but in-state tuition at Penn St, for instance, is something like $25k per year (going from memory of an article saying this - not exactly sure of the number but it's in that neighborhood). So how after two years does a kid who drops out of there ($50k for two years) only end up owing $11k?

And even worse, even if a kid does graduate after 4 years, if he can't find a job because his major was in something not specific (let's say Art History for argument's sake) or not geared toward future employment, how is the school that granted him admission absolved from the fact that it let someone borrow large sums of money to pursue an educational path that wouldn't lead them to a career that could repay the money? The Strayer's of the world are a good scapegoat, but there are very few schools that haven't taken advantage of the easy supply of borrowed money. Calling only some schools "for profit" hides the fact that even the most distringuished schools out there have chased profits.

[Franks Tanks]

I agree with your statement. Just like housing, costs go up because it is easy to be approved to borrow money. At least traditional colleges have some admission standards and those attending and graduating have a reasonable chance at success. For-profit colleges don't bother with only admitting people who have a shot at doing the work. When a kid drops out after two years he owes 60K to Strayer University instead of oweing 6k to a community college of 11k to your local state school.

How do you get the numbers of $6k and $11k? Maybe the community college costs are correct, but in-state tuition at Penn St, for instance, is something like $25k per year (going from memory of an article saying this - not exactly sure of the number but it's in that neighborhood). So how after two years does a kid who drops out of there ($50k for two years) only end up owing $11k?

And even worse, even if a kid does graduate after 4 years, if he can't find a job because his major was in something not specific (let's say Art History for argument's sake) or not geared toward future employment, how is the school that granted him admission absolved from the fact that it let someone borrow large sums of money to pursue an educational path that wouldn't lead them to a career that could repay the money? The Strayer's of the world are a good scapegoat, but there are very few schools that haven't taken advantage of the easy supply of borrowed money. Calling only some schools "for profit" hides the fact that even the most distringuished schools out there have chased profits.

PA State school are super cheap. The tuition at Kutztown is just a shade over 3k per semester (just tuition). Most PA state schools also now offer most popular classes on-line so a student does not need to physically attend the school. If a student takes less than a full course load of on-line classes at Kutztown for 2 years, and then flunks out, his debt will be minimal- 10k is just a reasonable guess. Penn State, or other higher quality public schools, are a bit different as they service a different student population to a large degree. I am talking about at risk students, or those that typically attend for profit online colleges.

I couldn't find Kutztown's cost per credit, but it is something like $200 per credit, of course assuming 15 credit for 3k. A poor student taking on-line classes will most likely not be taking 30 credits per year hence my math.

The University of Phoenix costs $570 per credit hour per the below link. To be fair some of the other on-line for profit schools are cheaper, but all are more expensive that on-line classes at a local state school (for most states)

http://www.onlinecollege.com/first-time ... e-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure if you are aware but the University of Phoenix is a publically traded corporation whose shares are traded on NASDAQ. The school is a slave to it's shareholders and looks to maximize revenue just like any other public corporation. I see a huge issue here when federally backed student loans go to places such as this. Yes, traditional non-profit colleges "make" money as well but I believe there is a huge distiction here. I dont see why the University of Phoenix is 3x the cost of Kutztwon University (well they are generating profit of course).

[GannonFan]

How do you get the numbers of $6k and $11k? Maybe the community college costs are correct, but in-state tuition at Penn St, for instance, is something like $25k per year (going from memory of an article saying this - not exactly sure of the number but it's in that neighborhood). So how after two years does a kid who drops out of there ($50k for two years) only end up owing $11k?

And even worse, even if a kid does graduate after 4 years, if he can't find a job because his major was in something not specific (let's say Art History for argument's sake) or not geared toward future employment, how is the school that granted him admission absolved from the fact that it let someone borrow large sums of money to pursue an educational path that wouldn't lead them to a career that could repay the money? The Strayer's of the world are a good scapegoat, but there are very few schools that haven't taken advantage of the easy supply of borrowed money. Calling only some schools "for profit" hides the fact that even the most distringuished schools out there have chased profits.

PA State school are super cheap. The tuition at Kutztown is just a shade over 3k per semester (just tuition). Most PA state schools also now offer most popular classes on-line so a student does not need to physically attend the school. If a student takes less than a full course load of on-line classes at Kutztown for 2 years, and then flunks out, his debt will be minimal- 10k is just a reasonable guess. Penn State, or other higher quality public schools, are a bit different as they service a different student population to a large degree. I am talking about at risk students, or those that typically attend for profit online colleges.

I couldn't find Kutztown's cost per credit, but it is something like $200 per credit, of course assuming 15 credit for 3k. A poor student taking on-line classes will most likely not be taking 30 credits per year hence my math.

The University of Phoenix costs $570 per credit hour per the below link. To be fair some of the other on-line for profit schools are cheaper, but all are more expensive that on-line classes at a local state school (for most states)

http://www.onlinecollege.com/first-time ... e-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure if you are aware but the University of Phoenix is a publically traded corporation whose shares are traded on NASDAQ. The school is a slave to it's shareholders and looks to maximize revenue just like any other public corporation. I see a huge issue here when federally backed student loans go to places such as this. Yes, traditional non-profit colleges "make" money as well but I believe there is a huge distiction here. I dont see why the University of Phoenix is 3x the cost of Kutztwon University (well they are generating profit of course).

Huh, so on the link you provided Boston University charges $630 per credit hour for online courses? Why are they 3x the cost of Kutztown? Do you think they make any profit or does it really cost $630 for BU to offer an online course?

I understand you're just looking at the "at-risk" kids when you're evaluating student debt, but the point again is that those kids are the minority of those being saddled with large amounts of debt and little job prospects/career opportunities to pay off the debt they've accrued (granted, they might have more debt, on average, but there are fewer of those people). The University of Phoenix (and not all of them - your link had some pretty affordable ones, relatively speaking, on it) is, like I said, a convenient scapegoat for a system-wide dash for cash. When schools are commonly listing tuition in the $40k-$60k per year ranges (and plenty of schools do that - even LaSalle in Philly is that expensive) there is no way that they aren't pursuing profits at the long term debt risk of their students. And yes, I love double negatives.

[blueballs]

To further the point, I interviewed a young couple seeking to buy their first home yesterday afternoon.

The male was going to back to school to pursue his degree. He had run up $10k of student loan debt in one year alone even though his spouse is earning about $75k.

Just to give this perspective, my entire BBA- including tuition, board, books, meals, and fraternity dues- in total didn't cost that much.

I graduated 30 years ago this year and incurred zero debt in doing so.

[Grizalltheway]

To further the point, I interviewed a young couple seeking to buy their first home yesterday afternoon.

The male was going to back to school to pursue his degree. He had run up $10k of student loan debt in one year alone even though his spouse is earning about $75k.

Just to give this perspective, my entire BBA- including tuition, board, books, meals, and fraternity dues- in total didn't cost that much.

I graduated 30 years ago this year and incurred zero debt in doing so.

No doubt, the costs have definitely spiraled out of control. I've tossed the idea of grad school around, but the programs I've looked into on the WC (international MBAs) are all 40-50k per year...at state schools.

[UNI88]

Agree with GF and others that all schools are pursuing the dollar and that as Uncle Sam has made more $ available costs have skyrocketed. The for-profit schools might be the biggest whores but they're all doing it. I've heard radio ads from Northwestern promoting their Masters in Sports Management or something like that degree and I can't help but think it's a money grab.

Unfortunately the college experience is changing. It isn't going to be freshmen living in the dorms and being on their own for the first time, formative experience that it has been in the past as more and more students are going to live at home and go to a community college for their general education credits before transferring to a college or university for 2-3 years. It's a more cost effective way to pursue a degree that people will use to adapt to the higher costs.

[Franks Tanks]

PA State school are super cheap. The tuition at Kutztown is just a shade over 3k per semester (just tuition). Most PA state schools also now offer most popular classes on-line so a student does not need to physically attend the school. If a student takes less than a full course load of on-line classes at Kutztown for 2 years, and then flunks out, his debt will be minimal- 10k is just a reasonable guess. Penn State, or other higher quality public schools, are a bit different as they service a different student population to a large degree. I am talking about at risk students, or those that typically attend for profit online colleges.

I couldn't find Kutztown's cost per credit, but it is something like $200 per credit, of course assuming 15 credit for 3k. A poor student taking on-line classes will most likely not be taking 30 credits per year hence my math.

The University of Phoenix costs $570 per credit hour per the below link. To be fair some of the other on-line for profit schools are cheaper, but all are more expensive that on-line classes at a local state school (for most states)

http://www.onlinecollege.com/first-time ... e-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure if you are aware but the University of Phoenix is a publically traded corporation whose shares are traded on NASDAQ. The school is a slave to it's shareholders and looks to maximize revenue just like any other public corporation. I see a huge issue here when federally backed student loans go to places such as this. Yes, traditional non-profit colleges "make" money as well but I believe there is a huge distiction here. I dont see why the University of Phoenix is 3x the cost of Kutztwon University (well they are generating profit of course).

Huh, so on the link you provided Boston University charges $630 per credit hour for online courses? Why are they 3x the cost of Kutztown? Do you think they make any profit or does it really cost $630 for BU to offer an online course?

I understand you're just looking at the "at-risk" kids when you're evaluating student debt, but the point again is that those kids are the minority of those being saddled with large amounts of debt and little job prospects/career opportunities to pay off the debt they've accrued (granted, they might have more debt, on average, but there are fewer of those people). The University of Phoenix (and not all of them - your link had some pretty affordable ones, relatively speaking, on it) is, like I said, a convenient scapegoat for a system-wide dash for cash. When schools are commonly listing tuition in the $40k-$60k per year ranges (and plenty of schools do that - even LaSalle in Philly is that expensive) there is no way that they aren't pursuing profits at the long term debt risk of their students. And yes, I love double negatives.

Boston U is at least a respected institutiuon. Yes, they can surely offer classes for less than $630 per credit, but they do have real expenses with profs. Many of the professors at Phoenix and others are part-timers making peanuts.

My only point is that for profit schools have costs that are typically much higher than comparative programs at local junior colleges or regional state schools. The "profits" banked by non-profit schools are also benefiting the school. They may not be spending their money wisely, and may be over paying admins, but the money at the end of the day benefits the school and ideally those that attend. A for profit college benefits it owners and shareholders first. They don't invest in the school or its programs. They do not invest to hire better profs. They seek profit for their owners and shareholders, and reap that profit on the backs on many who are the least prepared to pay back the loans.

[GannonFan]

Huh, so on the link you provided Boston University charges $630 per credit hour for online courses? Why are they 3x the cost of Kutztown? Do you think they make any profit or does it really cost $630 for BU to offer an online course?

I understand you're just looking at the "at-risk" kids when you're evaluating student debt, but the point again is that those kids are the minority of those being saddled with large amounts of debt and little job prospects/career opportunities to pay off the debt they've accrued (granted, they might have more debt, on average, but there are fewer of those people). The University of Phoenix (and not all of them - your link had some pretty affordable ones, relatively speaking, on it) is, like I said, a convenient scapegoat for a system-wide dash for cash. When schools are commonly listing tuition in the $40k-$60k per year ranges (and plenty of schools do that - even LaSalle in Philly is that expensive) there is no way that they aren't pursuing profits at the long term debt risk of their students. And yes, I love double negatives.

Boston U is at least a respected institutiuon. Yes, they can surely offer classes for less than $630 per credit, but they do have real expenses with profs. Many of the professors at Phoenix and others are part-timers making peanuts.

My only point is that for profit schools have costs that are typically much higher than comparative programs at local junior colleges or regional state schools. The "profits" banked by non-profit schools are also benefiting the school. They may not be spending their money wisely, and may be over paying admins, but the money at the end of the day benefits the school and ideally those that attend. A for profit college benefits it owners and shareholders first. They don't invest in the school or its programs. They do not invest to hire better profs. They seek profit for their owners and shareholders, and reap that profit on the backs on many who are the least prepared to pay back the loans.

That's the part where you lose me. If the "non-profit" schools (really, I can't believe we're calling them that now) are really benefitting those who attend, then we wouldn't have the issue that we do with kids graduating with mountains of debt and, even if jobs were there, would be faced with decades of paying those loans back. The people that are benefitting, however, are the colleges themselves: the administrators, the professors, the trustees, etc. Maybe the student is "benefitting" while they are there, with the ability to go to a Starbucks on campus, live in a fancy dorm, or other comforts while on campus, but that is just an illusory benefit. When they leave the school, the benefits cease. Just because a Univ of Phoenix has people who benefit who are "stockholders" doesn't make them really any more greedy or ultimately harmful to the students than the non-students who are benefitting at a regular school. In the end, students are the ones being hurt and that happens at way too many schools, traditional or non-traditional. And it's because they, the schools, want more money.