Con_Alma;1476295 wrote:Can't technology influences lower the cost of secondary education?

Truth is, employers will always weight where your degree is from heavily, if for no other reason than the signaling effect. Nevermind what it says about your preparation and ability to even get into an elite university, the decision to take-on $200k in debt says something about your perceived ability to recover that investment (even if anecdotal evidence suggests 18-yr old kids simply aren't that savvy).

Anyway, the push to allow more kids to go to college has simply watered-down the value of the degree and created a need for graduate degrees to get ahead (a double-whammy "tuition" inflation impact).

I'd be curious as to how many kids simply run out of money vs. "fail out". I think graduation rates (inside 6 years, a joke in itself) are somewhere between 50-60%. That begs the question if colleges aren't selective enough, or not nearly aggressive enough in failing out incapable students. I think there is 0 incentive for a university to fail someone out.

And maybe that's the solution - if universities were on the hook for defaults you'd see a dramatic change in the student loan market.

Con_Alma;1476301 wrote:Was it not deemed effective because it was from Phoenix or was the actual usage of technology not effective in facilitating a class?

Both. People haven't bought into the credibility of online classes and therefore they are effectively useless.

vball10set;1476210 wrote:Actually, this statement is flat out delusional.

Then you didn't read the link I posted.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

I guess it's easier to just gloss over the details and facts.

dlazz;1476330 wrote:Then you didn't read the link I posted.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history/

I guess it's easier to just gloss over the details and facts.

Boomers aren't interested in facts. They are more interested in voting for benefits that they don't have to pay for and then calling anyone who calls them out on it "a bunch of whiners who expect $100k a year right out of college". I can't wait until they retire and SS is broke and they have to eat cheese and bread for the rest of their lives.

gut;1476223 wrote:I'm not so sure. I think I saw a blurb somewhere that if the min. wage had kept pace with inflation it would be like $20/hr. Obviously that's some pretty ridiculous implications, but at face value his statement is accurate.

Where it gets messy is adjusting for the quality/value of that dollar. This is where simple inflation-adjusted falls short. For example, in inflation adjusted dollars maybe we are paying 2-3X as much for a gallon of gas, but our cars are going 3-4X farther so net-net this today's kid comes out ahead.

And we can extend that to a number of other things, obviously cell phones and computers. Kids 30-40 years ago couldn't afford a car, much less one with a cd player (or even a tape deck). I have no idea what the relative comparisons are on the cost of a music album, but I'm pretty sure with Pandora and a variety of other very affordable music services today that kids have more there, too.

Basically, the dollars don't go as far but you get much more for your dollar. Although that's not really the case for the first two necessities - food and rent. The next big one for a kid might be college tuition - but loans are far more available today...

We can go on and on. IMO kids today might earn less in inflation-adjusted wages, but they seem to enjoy a much higher standard of living from those wages.

Food is proportionally more expensive, as well as living space (rent or mortgage). While loans are more available, it still takes about three times the amount of money to attend college, after adjusting for inflation, so while the loans are available, they are much more of a burden after college (my school loans are about $20,000 HIGHER than my entire mortgage). At some point, college is going to be expensive enough that it is no longer a viable investment for all but a few areas of study. I'd say we're fast approaching that, given that it appears to be one of the single largest disproportionate expenses. Most that I saw seemed like they were about time-and-a-half what they should be after adjusting for inflation. With college being double that, you're nearly gambling already that the payoff from having a college degree will not only be worth the debt, but it will be worth it soon enough that you don't go under trying to reach that point where your career makes it manageable.

That's becoming a gamble with worse and worse odds. Couple that with the fact that more and more occupations are requiring a college degree, and something is going to have to give very soon.

As for the automobiles, do you really think they go three or four times as long as they did back in the mid-80s? I'd be interested in seeing that study.

As for the entertainment part ... meh ... that's a luxury, and therefore, it is expendable in either side of the example.

I don't see a better standard of living except for a few who either have indeed been able to make the odds and have sound careers or who are living on debt to have that lifestyle, which will come crashing down.

It used to be that you didn't need a college career to support a family on one income. Now, you can barely support a family on two incomes if they are from jobs where a college degree isn't required.

sleeper;1476368 wrote:Boomers aren't interested in facts. They are more interested in voting for benefits that they don't have to pay for and then calling anyone who calls them out on it "a bunch of whiners who expect $100k a year right out of college". I can't wait until they retire and SS is broke and they have to eat cheese and bread for the rest of their lives.

lol The Whiner Generations vote in the Obama Debacle and then want to blame Boomers for voting for benefits they don't have to pay for. Thanks to the tattooed, clueless Whiner Gen pinheads we all get to enjoy ObamaKare.

You're gonna need that 6 figure income just to pay for our "free" gubmint healthcare and my SS checks. :thumbup:

sleeper;1476368 wrote:Boomers aren't interested in facts. They are more interested in voting for benefits that they don't have to pay for and then calling anyone who calls them out on it "a bunch of whiners who expect $100k a year right out of college". I can't wait until they retire and SS is broke and they have to eat cheese and bread for the rest of their lives.

Fact: The Whiner Generations vote in the Obama Debacle and then want to blame Boomers for voting for benefits they don't have to pay for.

Fact: Thanks to the tattooed, clueless Whiner Gen pinheads we all get to enjoy ObamaKare.

Fact: You're gonna need that 6 figure income just to pay for our "free" gubmint healthcare and my SS checks. :thumbup:

sleeper;1476368 wrote:Boomers aren't interested in facts. They are more interested in voting for benefits that they don't have to pay for and then calling anyone who calls them out on it "a bunch of whiners who expect $100k a year right out of college". I can't wait until they retire and SS is broke and they have to eat cheese and bread for the rest of their lives.

Fact: The Whiner Generations vote in the Obama Debacle and then want to blame Boomers for voting for benefits they don't have to pay for.

Fact: Thanks to the tattooed clueless Whiner Generations, we all get to enjoy ObamaKare.

Fact: You're gonna need that 6 figure income just to pay for our "free" gubmint healthcare and my SS checks. :thumbup:

gut;1476309 wrote:Truth is, employers will always weight where your degree is from heavily, if for no other reason than the signaling effect....

What does where someone gets a degree from have to do with my question? I haven't excluded an "elite" university from my question. I don't understand why you would assume only certain universities would have access to the technology which could lower educational expenses.

sleeper;1476312 wrote:Both. People haven't bought into the credibility of online classes and therefore they are effectively useless.

Im not talking about a classic on-line classes. I'm talking about even more. Dont limit you thought to the present. Think bigger.

believer;1476411 wrote:Fact: The Whiner Generations vote in the Obama Debacle and then want to blame Boomers for voting for benefits they don't have to pay for.

Fact: boomer voters considerably outnumber "whiner" voters. Blame yourselves for electing Obama.

believer;1476411 wrote:Fact: The Whiner Generations vote in the Obama Debacle and then want to blame Boomers for voting for benefits they don't have to pay for.

Fact: Thanks to the tattooed clueless Whiner Generations, we all get to enjoy ObamaKare.

Fact: You're gonna need that 6 figure income just to pay for our "free" gubmint healthcare and my SS checks. :thumbup:

Fact: There isn't enough money to fund your entitlements.

Con_Alma;1476415 wrote:Im not talking about a classic on-line classes. I'm talking about even more. Dont limit you thought to the present. Think bigger.

You'll have to pay me to think bigger Con_Alma. If you're good at something, never do it for free. :thumbup:

sleeper;1476484 wrote:You'll have to pay me to think bigger Con_Alma. If you're good at something, never do it for free. :thumbup:

I'd rather put up with people complaining about student loans they took out for living expenses than pay you. No thanks.

Con_Alma;1476414 wrote:What does where someone gets a degree from have to do with my question? I haven't excluded an "elite" university from my question. I don't understand why you would assume only certain universities would have access to the technology which could lower educational expenses.

Con_Alma, please describe how technology could make education cheaper if you aren't referring to online classes. Think bigger.

Con_Alma;1476486 wrote:I'd rather put up with people complaining about student loans they took out for living expenses than pay you. No thanks.

Thankfully there are plenty of people willing to pay me to sit at a computer all day and think for them. It's a great life. :thumbup:

sleeper;1476487 wrote:Con_Alma, please describe how technology could make education cheaper if you aren't referring to online classes. Think bigger.

If I knew I wouldn't have asked.


...more broadcasting of classes with remote lab sites facilitated by grad student maybe.

sleeper;1476489 wrote:Thankfully there are plenty of people willing to pay me to sit at a computer all day and think for them. It's a great life. :thumbup:

I am not one of those plenty and for that I am thankful.

Con_Alma;1476491 wrote:If I knew I wouldn't have asked.


...more broadcasting of classes with remote lab sites facilitated by grad student maybe.

Well then isn't your question already answered? The cost of tuition is skyrocketing despite the increased amount of available technology.

That one was for FREE Con_Alma. The next one is going to cost you $250/hr.

sleeper;1476499 wrote:Well then isn't your question already answered? The cost of tuition is skyrocketing despite the increased amount of available technology.

That one was for FREE Con_Alma. The next one is going to cost you $250/hr.

No, that doesn't answer my question. There's currently no incentive to lower educational cots and thus no need to. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because it's not being done doesn't constitute the inability to do so. My question seeks the opinion of people regarding can it be done.

Don't bother providing any information if you feel the desire to charge for it. There will be no implied agreement to purchase.

Con_Alma;1476508 wrote:No, that doesn't answer my question. There's currently no incentive to lower educational cots and thus no need to. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because it's not being done doesn't constitute the inability to do so. My question seeks the opinion of people regarding can it be done.

Don't bother providing any information if you feel the desire to charge for it. There will be no implied agreement to purchase.

I agree there is no incentive to lower educational costs. I find it interesting you are now agreeing that technology is irrelevant to lower educational costs and the burden on young people to get degrees for a slim to none chance of ever getting a job that pays more than minimum wage.

sleeper;1476594 wrote:I agree there is no incentive to lower educational costs. I find it interesting you are now agreeing that technology is irrelevant to lower educational costs and the burden on young people to get degrees for a slim to none chance of ever getting a job that pays more than minimum wage.

??? Glad you find that interesting. ???? I've never given any other indication.

Another incentive to continue to raise prices of education is the easy, inexpensive money available to be used for it. The question still remains can technology lower the educational costs. I think it can. I also think it will but that won't happen until enrollment decreases due to money drying.

Con_Alma;1476606 wrote:??? Glad you find that interesting. ???? I've never given any other indication.

Another incentive to continue to raise prices of education is the easy, inexpensive money available to be used for it. The question still remains can technology lower the educational costs. I think it can. I also think it will but that won't happen until enrollment decreases due to money drying.

I find this post interesting Con_Alma. Typical Boomer, just asks questions and never proposes any solutions except that you hope the whining generation figures it out. Refer to the thread title for any additional comments on this matter.

sleeper;1476650 wrote:I find this post interesting Con_Alma. Typical Boomer, just asks questions and never proposes any solutions except that you hope the whining generation figures it out. Refer to the thread title for any additional comments on this matter.

I try and learn by asking questions.

You think I'm a boomer??? :laugh:

I couldn't care less if the whiner generation figures it out or not. I am inquiring to see if I can learn something.

Con_Alma;1476655 wrote:I am inquiring to see if I can learn something.

Seems doubtful at this point