Elizabeth Warren's student loan bill stalls

[GannonFan]

Everything in this country is for a profit. Some things shouldn't be. We shouldn't be lining our pockets at the expense (and under the pretense) of education and healthcare (for example).

Well, not everything is. K-12 education, I would argue, is not really for profit.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think that higher education (college and beyond) should be not for profit. If you really want that education, there should be a price for it. Trying to make it free and accessible is where we got into this problem with student debt in the first place. We made a conscious decision that college is almost mandatory (when it's not really and probably shouldn't be) and we opened ourselves up to price gouging by higher education (even though many schools claim they are "not for profit" while raking in the cash themselves). If we got out of the business of trying to push everyone possible through college, and giving them the financial means to do so, then we might be in a better place. Those who do value college and can afford it will go, and the affordability will improve as colleges won't have a captive market and will now have to price themselves accordingly. Nothing's perfect, but that seems better than what we have now.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax and again, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to make it entirely not for profit. People making money for providing a service isn't a bad thing, per se.

[Ibanez]

Everything in this country is for a profit. Some things shouldn't be. We shouldn't be lining our pockets at the expense (and under the pretense) of education and healthcare (for example).

Well, not everything is. K-12 education, I would argue, is not really for profit.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think that higher education (college and beyond) should be not for profit. If you really want that education, there should be a price for it. Trying to make it free and accessible is where we got into this problem with student debt in the first place. We made a conscious decision that college is almost mandatory (when it's not really and probably shouldn't be) and we opened ourselves up to price gouging by higher education (even though many schools claim they are "not for profit" while raking in the cash themselves). If we got out of the business of trying to push everyone possible through college, and giving them the financial means to do so, then we might be in a better place. Those who do value college and can afford it will go, and the affordability will improve as colleges won't have a captive market and will now have to price themselves accordingly. Nothing's perfect, but that seems better than what we have now.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax and again, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to make it entirely not for profit. People making money for providing a service isn't a bad thing, per se.

Don't you think that needs to be changed? People bitch and moan about social and corporate welfare, government contractors living off the government but say nothing about higher education.


I'm not trying to be argumentative.

[GannonFan]

Well, not everything is. K-12 education, I would argue, is not really for profit.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think that higher education (college and beyond) should be not for profit. If you really want that education, there should be a price for it. Trying to make it free and accessible is where we got into this problem with student debt in the first place. We made a conscious decision that college is almost mandatory (when it's not really and probably shouldn't be) and we opened ourselves up to price gouging by higher education (even though many schools claim they are "not for profit" while raking in the cash themselves). If we got out of the business of trying to push everyone possible through college, and giving them the financial means to do so, then we might be in a better place. Those who do value college and can afford it will go, and the affordability will improve as colleges won't have a captive market and will now have to price themselves accordingly. Nothing's perfect, but that seems better than what we have now.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax and again, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to make it entirely not for profit. People making money for providing a service isn't a bad thing, per se.

Don't you think that needs to be changed? People bitch and moan about social and corporate welfare, government contractors living off the government but say nothing about higher education.


I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Yes, I do, that's been the point of pretty much anything I've said in this thread. That's why I'm against this idea of refinancing the rates that student loans are at, because it only feeds the problem and make it worse while under the guise of helping.

[kalm]

Everything in this country is for a profit. Some things shouldn't be. We shouldn't be lining our pockets at the expense (and under the pretense) of education and healthcare (for example).

Well, not everything is. K-12 education, I would argue, is not really for profit.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think that higher education (college and beyond) should be not for profit. If you really want that education, there should be a price for it. Trying to make it free and accessible is where we got into this problem with student debt in the first place. We made a conscious decision that college is almost mandatory (when it's not really and probably shouldn't be) and we opened ourselves up to price gouging by higher education (even though many schools claim they are "not for profit" while raking in the cash themselves). If we got out of the business of trying to push everyone possible through college, and giving them the financial means to do so, then we might be in a better place. Those who do value college and can afford it will go, and the affordability will improve as colleges won't have a captive market and will now have to price themselves accordingly. Nothing's perfect, but that seems better than what we have now.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax and again, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to make it entirely not for profit. People making money for providing a service isn't a bad thing, per se.

I have to hand it to ya, Ganny. Your last two posts are strong. You argue the free market/libertarian angle as well as anyone I've seen. I don't buy into it 100% but it gets me thinking,

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

[CitadelGrad]

Well, not everything is. K-12 education, I would argue, is not really for profit.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think that higher education (college and beyond) should be not for profit. If you really want that education, there should be a price for it. Trying to make it free and accessible is where we got into this problem with student debt in the first place. We made a conscious decision that college is almost mandatory (when it's not really and probably shouldn't be) and we opened ourselves up to price gouging by higher education (even though many schools claim they are "not for profit" while raking in the cash themselves). If we got out of the business of trying to push everyone possible through college, and giving them the financial means to do so, then we might be in a better place. Those who do value college and can afford it will go, and the affordability will improve as colleges won't have a captive market and will now have to price themselves accordingly. Nothing's perfect, but that seems better than what we have now.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax and again, there are reasons why you wouldn't want to make it entirely not for profit. People making money for providing a service isn't a bad thing, per se.

I have to hand it to ya, Ganny. Your last two posts are strong. You argue the free market/libertarian angle as well as anyone I've seen. I don't buy into it 100% but it gets me thinking,

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Because it isn't a free market, and government has been promoting non-STEM programs of study since the 70s.

[GannonFan]

I have to hand it to ya, Ganny. Your last two posts are strong. You argue the free market/libertarian angle as well as anyone I've seen. I don't buy into it 100% but it gets me thinking,

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Because it isn't a free market, and government has been promoting non-STEM programs of study since the 70s.

Agreed that health care in America is almost one of the furthest things from a free market as you can find. No need for any specific political labels, but the manipulations and regulations surrounding it mark it as far from free market as you can get. As for the engineer shortage, well, you can argue that we don't have a shortage if you just look at current available jobs and the ability to fill them. The rub is how do we foster an innovative and entrepenurial culture that gives us the kind of vibrant economy that will keep us from worrying if some third world nation is making the toothpicks that come in cocktail drink umbrellas and whether that work should be done here. How do we graduate people with the kind of tools and know-how so that the best inventions and innovations continue to be made here. And even more so, how do we make sure that the general populace has enough base technical knowledge that they can be the labor force we need for these advanced markets. That's more important and is similar to what Cit is saying.

[SDHornet]

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Not a bad time to be a young engineer or doctor.

[CID1990]

One other thing to throw into the mix is the decline of trade schools.

It follows right in the footsteps of losing manufacturing and heavy industry overseas

If one of my daughters told me that they wanted to go to one of the dwindling maritime schools to learn lofting, drafting or marine engineering I would be overjoyed because they'd be in better shape than 95% of the bachelors degree holders these days

nothing wrong with apprenticeships, either but it isnt 1890 anymore

[Chizzang]

One other thing to throw into the mix is the decline of trade schools.

It follows right in the footsteps of losing manufacturing and heavy industry overseas

If one of my daughters told me that they wanted to go to one of the dwindling maritime schools to learn lofting, drafting or marine engineering I would be overjoyed because they'd be in better shape than 95% of the bachelors degree holders these days

nothing wrong with apprenticeships, either but it isnt 1890 anymore

I though you lifetime Federal employees all hired your children into the fold..?
That's how Federal jobs work right..?

[Pwns]

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Our capacity to produce doctors is limited by the number of medical school and residency positions which the government has still stubbornly refused to increase.

With engineers, part of it is that a lot of the smartest students are going into finance, wealth management, or some kind of Wall Street jobs that are very lucrative and require fewer years of school than becoming a doctoral-level engineer or scientist. The other issue is culture. There's no shortage of people who want to be scientists or engineers but then they fail their first calculus or physics exam and realize that it will require hard work and just throw in the towel.

I think the idea that the US is starved for scientists and engineers is a bit of an exaggeration (especially since a lot of foreigners are able to pick up the slack) but we should be doing better.

[CID1990]

One other thing to throw into the mix is the decline of trade schools.

It follows right in the footsteps of losing manufacturing and heavy industry overseas

If one of my daughters told me that they wanted to go to one of the dwindling maritime schools to learn lofting, drafting or marine engineering I would be overjoyed because they'd be in better shape than 95% of the bachelors degree holders these days

nothing wrong with apprenticeships, either but it isnt 1890 anymore

I though you lifetime Federal employees all hired your children into the fold..?
That's how Federal jobs work right..?

well considering that i have been State Dept for only 5 years i wouldnt go that far yet

there are other things that interest me where i might be drawn away in the future

but i dont know of too many diplomats' kids who follow them... it happens but it doesnt seem all that common

I cant speak to the civil service side of the house- although they do seem to be quite clique-ish

[Cap'n Cat]

-
Instead of hurting the economy with regulations and taxes it would have been nice if they actually considered doing something to create a few jobs

Yeah, let's try "trickle down", you fuckin' hillrod.

[Ivytalk]

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Our capacity to produce doctors is limited by the number of medical school and residency positions which the government has still stubbornly refused to increase.

With engineers, part of it is that a lot of the smartest students are going into finance, wealth management, or some kind of Wall Street jobs that are very lucrative and require fewer years of school than becoming a doctoral-level engineer or scientist. The other issue is culture. There's no shortage of people who want to be scientists or engineers but then they fail their first calculus or physics exam and realize that it will require hard work and just throw in the towel.

I think the idea that the US is starved for scientists and engineers is a bit of an exaggeration (especially since a lot of foreigners are able to pick up the slack) but we should be doing better.

Excellent post. We're importing more engineers from south Asia and the Far East to plug the gap, and we need to beef up the STEM core from the elementary grades on up. Studies have shown that kids can pick up the basic concepts of physics and applied mathematics at an early age.

[CitadelGrad]

Our capacity to produce doctors is limited by the number of medical school and residency positions which the government has still stubbornly refused to increase.

With engineers, part of it is that a lot of the smartest students are going into finance, wealth management, or some kind of Wall Street jobs that are very lucrative and require fewer years of school than becoming a doctoral-level engineer or scientist. The other issue is culture. There's no shortage of people who want to be scientists or engineers but then they fail their first calculus or physics exam and realize that it will require hard work and just throw in the towel.

I think the idea that the US is starved for scientists and engineers is a bit of an exaggeration (especially since a lot of foreigners are able to pick up the slack) but we should be doing better.

Excellent post. We're importing more engineers from south Asia and the Far East to plug the gap, and we need to beef up the STEM core from the elementary grades on up. Studies have shown that kids can pick up the basic concepts of physics and applied mathematics at an early age.

But if the education system focuses on STEM, how will it be able to feed gender and ethnic studies programs at the university level? How will all of those Marxist professors keep their jobs?

[Ivytalk]

Excellent post. We're importing more engineers from south Asia and the Far East to plug the gap, and
we need to beef up the STEM core from the elementary grades on up. Studies have shown that kids can pick up the basic concepts of physics and applied mathematics at an early age.

But if the education system focuses on STEM, how will it be able to feed gender and ethnic studies programs at the university level? How will all of those Marxist professors keep their jobs?

Forgot about that, Graddy! The horror!

There's just a teensy bit of irony in Senator Warren's background: a bankruptcy law professor.

[JohnStOnge]

Since others have already said what's wrong with doing this I'll just say that the long term solution to stuff like this is to slaughter a bunch of "higher education" sacred cows and completely change the paradigm with respect to what higher education should entail. It costs way too much because we've got this pampered class of academics who have niches in part because we require people to take a bunch of courses they don't need to take in order to function in their chosen fields.

What does someone need to know in order to be a biologist? What does someone need to know in order to be an engineer? That's the kind of stuff we need to ask. And if they don't need it they shouldn't have to take it. There's now way it should cost what it costs to get a college degree, undergraduate or otherwise. Someone needs to pop the balloon.

[kalm]

Since others have already said what's wrong with doing this I'll just say that the long term solution to stuff like this is to slaughter a bunch of "higher education" sacred cows and completely change the paradigm with respect to what higher education should entail. It costs way too much because we've got this pampered class of academics who have niches in part because we require people to take a bunch of courses they don't need to take in order to function in their chosen fields.

What does someone need to know in order to be a biologist? What does someone need to know in order to be an engineer? That's the kind of stuff we need to ask. And if they don't need it they shouldn't have to take it. There's now way it should cost what it costs to get a college degree, undergraduate or otherwise. Someone needs to pop the balloon.

Yeah! Because in the grand scheme of things, loads of people are getting mega rich off of higher ed.

[SDHornet]

That being said, why hasn't the free market fixed the shortage of engineers and doctors?

Our capacity to produce doctors is limited by the number of medical school and residency positions which the government has still stubbornly refused to increase.

With engineers, part of it is that a lot of the smartest students are going into finance, wealth management, or some kind of Wall Street jobs that are very lucrative and require fewer years of school than becoming a doctoral-level engineer or scientist. The other issue is culture. There's no shortage of people who want to be scientists or engineers but then they fail their first calculus or physics exam and realize that it will require hard work and just throw in the towel.

I think the idea that the US is starved for scientists and engineers is a bit of an exaggeration (especially since a lot of foreigners are able to pick up the slack) but we should be doing better.

Depending on what type of engineering, I have yet to see the point in getting an advanced degree in engineering. I guess if they want to serve in academia then sure, but in my experience a BS coupled with a license and real world experience is more than enough to succeed and make some solid coin.

Ad spot on about those lower level physics and calculus classes. We called those the "weed out" courses.

Not everyone that goes into engineering will, or should make it through with an engineering degree. Had the pleasure of sharing that tid bit to a college bound HS class a few months ago. The blank stares in the classroom (and horrified look on the teacher's face) was pure gold.

[Ivytalk]

Since others have already said what's wrong with doing this I'll just say that the long term solution to stuff like this is to slaughter a bunch of "higher education" sacred cows and completely change the paradigm with respect to what higher education should entail. It costs way too much because we've got this pampered class of academics who have niches in part because we require people to take a bunch of courses they don't need to take in order to function in their chosen fields.

What does someone need to know in order to be a biologist? What does someone need to know in order to be an engineer? That's the kind of stuff we need to ask. And if they don't need it they shouldn't have to take it. There's now way it should cost what it costs to get a college degree, undergraduate or otherwise. Someone needs to pop the balloon.

Yeah! Because in the grand scheme of things, loads of people are getting mega rich off of higher ed.

The administrators certainly are. Ever check out the salaries for college presidents?

[kalm]

Yeah! Because in the grand scheme of things, loads of people are getting mega rich off of higher ed.

The administrators certainly are. Ever check out the salaries for college presidents?

Class envy!

[Baldy]

Since others have already said what's wrong with doing this I'll just say that the long term solution to stuff like this is to slaughter a bunch of "higher education" sacred cows and completely change the paradigm with respect to what higher education should entail. It costs way too much because we've got this pampered class of academics who have niches in part because we require people to take a bunch of courses they don't need to take in order to function in their chosen fields.

What does someone need to know in order to be a biologist? What does someone need to know in order to be an engineer? That's the kind of stuff we need to ask. And if they don't need it they shouldn't have to take it. There's now way it should cost what it costs to get a college degree, undergraduate or otherwise. Someone needs to pop the balloon.

Yeah! Because in the grand scheme of things, loads of people are getting mega rich off of higher ed.

Tell that to the presidents of the public universities making over $1,000,000 per year (and there are a whole lot more than you think).

[kalm]

Yeah! Because in the grand scheme of things, loads of people are getting mega rich off of higher ed.

Tell that to the presidents of the public universities making over $1,000,000 per year (and there are a whole lot more than you think).

Actually, there ARE quite a few…
http://chronicle.com/article/What-Publi ... ts/131912/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But I get it, while there are tons of school administrators making six figure salaries, that's not exactly what I'd call getting mega rich. It reminds me of the global warming debate where I'm told the money flowing into pro AGW research is defining the research outcomes. I'll bet those climate "scientists" are as loaded as Exxon executives by now.

Meanwhile…never a peep about private contractor income. You know…those other guys getting as rich as…well probably school administrators, also off of government largesse.

[CID1990]

It reminds me of the global warming debate where I'm told the money flowing into pro AGW research is defining the research outcomes. I'll bet those climate "scientists" are as loaded as Exxon executives by now

the reason it reminds you of that is because youre stuck in liberal flack gear

soooo i suppose the money "flowing" into anti-AGW research isnt defining outcomes, right? i mean if we are going to scoff at the idea that if the government money spigot doesnt affect outcomes, then neither do the antichris- er i mean Koch brothers (oh my) right?

since we're being all ironical and all

[kalm]

It reminds me of the global warming debate where I'm told the money flowing into pro AGW research is defining the research outcomes. I'll bet those climate "scientists" are as loaded as Exxon executives by now

the reason it reminds you of that is because youre stuck in liberal flack gear

soooo i suppose the money "flowing" into anti-AGW research isnt defining outcomes, right? i mean if we are going to scoff at the idea that if the government money spigot doesnt affect outcomes, then neither do the antichris- er i mean Koch brothers (oh my) right?

since we're being all ironical and all

Touché. I suppose it depends on how cynical you are regarding the motivations of scientists and Kochs.

[Baldy]

Tell that to the presidents of the public universities making over $1,000,000 per year (and there are a whole lot more than you think).

Actually, there ARE quite a few…
http://chronicle.com/article/What-Publi ... ts/131912/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But I get it, while there are tons of school administrators making six figure salaries, that's not exactly what I'd call getting mega rich. It reminds me of the global warming debate where I'm told the money flowing into pro AGW research is defining the research outcomes. I'll bet those climate "scientists" are as loaded as Exxon executives by now.

Meanwhile…never a peep about private contractor income. You know…those other guys getting as rich as…well probably school administrators, also off of government largesse.

You mean the contractors getting money from the same government that is funding the pro AGW studies?
Then again, doesn't that make climate scientists who benefit from government largesse contractors too?