Manhattan Buckeye;1572904 wrote:"cuts in state support for education have had quite the opposite effect,"

Interesting, because some of the highest funded public schools in the nation have the worst performance results....how could that be?

probably because they have high populations of students who come from homes with the few resources to support their children educationally. And because of greater expense of providing services in large urban environment.
But most importantly the context in which the phrase was used had nothing to do with primary and secondary education but with POST SECONDARY EDUCATION where in the last year years the cost of tuition and books has risen at a rate nearly 3 times the cumulative inflation rate. At the same time states are cutting back their financial support for their post secondary education system. That is what I was talking about.

gut;1572853 wrote:The interest is so low (and deductible on incomes under like $60k) that it's pretty trivial. Learn personal responsibility at a young age - no one to blame but yourself if you take on $200k in debt to pull a C-average in art history at Columbia.

College (and even graduate school) in most non-technical fields is little more than a signal of ability and confidence to perspective employers. There's very little intrinsic value in, say business undergrad, as any smart person will easily be taught and learn what they need on the job. Wall Street and top-tier consulting firms are actually fairly notorious for NOT taking business undergrads because they want a clean slate to teach how they do things.

The people who really suffer with the debt or their school/major choice were poorly advised in more ways than one.

The larger failing is a disconnect between supply and demand - the vast majority of schools will offer a variety of business majors, with absolutely no regard for demand/need in the private sector. As a result, students who perform poorly can't find a job, and even those who do well see the supply glut drive down their earning power.

The interest is not the problem, it is the principal of the thing. The cost of tuition and books has increased at a rate of nearly triple the cumulative inflation rate. The shrinking of state government support is a major reason for this
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1312.pdf
The job market for the graduates is improving
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130405.htm

isadore;1572921 wrote:The shrinking of state government support is a major reason for this

No, the US spends more per student than any other country in the developed world.

Part of the problem for skyrocketing tuition costs (besides the perverse effect of subsidized and readily available loans) is all the non-educational related expenses colleges incur for "student life" to attract kids. And it's just like big govt - with a huge pot of money many of these schools have ginormously bloated administrative staffs.

More money is not the answer, that's just a liberal non-solution.

gut;1572926 wrote:...
More money is not the answer,....

Please, no more money for education.

isadore;1572905 wrote:implied in governments being instituted to insure the pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration
implied in government promoting the general welfare in the Preamble
and legislated in the Humphrey Hawkins full employment bill
the reason for US government student loan programs.

The Constitution's preamble is a declaration of it's purpose and what the founders hoped it would achieve. Courts have time and time again relied on their belief of what the Founders saw as the overriding purpose of the Constitution to function as so that they may be able to rule on governmental activities. With a few noteworthy exceptions, they have determined the focus of rule should be with the intent of favoring action of the individual and the State as opposed to the Union.

That being said, there's nothing specifically mandating the federal governemnt to provide opportunity for the people but rather be certain the people are able to seek it out and act on it when present.

isadore;1572840 wrote:well gosh a ruddies that is far from what we see. Tax cuts, deregulation and cuts in state support for education have had quite the opposite effect, reducing opportunity and social mobility. GI Bill that provided free post secondary education for the veterans of WWII was a great example of government action that successfully increased opportunity and social mobility.

Upward mobility is the same as it was in the '70's; you choose to ignore facts in favor of playing along with the divisive class warfare rhetoric of the activist in the White House.

The GI bill was in part re-payment of SERVICE RENDERED TO THE NATION, for those who wished to continue bettering their chances of upward mobility in the economic strata. Contrary to that, handouts to deadbeats, into the trillions, for doing nothing productive will only grow the welfare state - as we are seeing under this activist in the White House.

I can only pray that you will begin to see the light; it is incredible how dim you are right now.

gut;1572926 wrote:No, the US spends more per student than any other country in the developed world.

Part of the problem for skyrocketing tuition costs (besides the perverse effect of subsidized and readily available loans) is all the non-educational related expenses colleges incur for "student life" to attract kids. And it's just like big govt - with a huge pot of money many of these schools have ginormously bloated administrative staffs.

More money is not the answer, that's just a liberal non-solution.

1. Not true if you look at the public cost of primary and secondary education.
And it's not as though all spending on education is public, the OECD report found. Public spending accounts for just 70 cents of every education dollar in the United States. Parents picked up another 25 cents and private sources paid for the remainder in 2010.
A decade earlier, the public's share of education spending was 72 cents on every dollar.
The average OECD nation spent 84 cents of every education dollar, down from 88 cents a decade earlier.
2. But as I said previously my statement was about Post Secondary education

isadore wrote:But most importantly the context in which the phrase was used had nothing to do with primary and secondary education but with POST SECONDARY EDUCATION

200# this thread
And as this statement show America grievously underfunds post secondary education.
For post-high school programs, the United States is far outspent in public dollars. U.S. taxpayers picked up 36 cents of every dollar spent on college and vocational training programs. Families and private sources picked up the balance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

Con_Alma;1572939 wrote:The Constitution's preamble is a declaration of it's purpose and what the founders hoped it would achieve. Courts have time and time again relied on their belief of what the Founders saw as the overriding purpose of the Constitution to function as so that they may be able to rule on governmental activities. With a few noteworthy exceptions, they have determined the focus of rule should be with the intent of favoring action of the individual and the State as opposed to the Union.

That being said, there's nothing specifically mandating the federal governemnt to provide opportunity for the people but rather be certain the people are able to seek it out and act on it when present.

noteworthy chief.
Humphrey Hawkins.

isadore;1572979 wrote:1. Not true if you look at the public cost of primary and secondary education.
And it's not as though all spending on education is public, the OECD report found. Public spending accounts for just 70 cents of every education dollar in the United States. Parents picked up another 25 cents and private sources paid for the remainder in 2010.
A decade earlier, the public's share of education spending was 72 cents on every dollar.
The average OECD nation spent 84 cents of every education dollar, down from 88 cents a decade earlier.
2. But as I said previously my statement was about Post Secondary education
200# this thread
And as this statement show America grievously underfunds post secondary education.
For post-high school programs, the United States is far outspent in public dollars. U.S. taxpayers picked up 36 cents of every dollar spent on college and vocational training programs. Families and private sources picked up the balance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

There's a difference in speaking about the expenditure in percentages as opposed to value. The U.S. spends massive amounts per student in actual value. Forget how much is picked up by others as a percentage. It's the total amount that was commented on.

isadore;1572982 wrote:noteworthy chief.
Humphrey Hawkins.

Who's chief?

Humphrey Hawkins is noted. There's more to consider.

QuakerOats;1572966 wrote:Upward mobility is the same as it was in the '70's; you choose to ignore facts in favor of playing along with the divisive class warfare rhetoric of the activist in the White House.

The GI bill was in part re-payment of SERVICE RENDERED TO THE NATION, for those who wished to continue bettering their chances of upward mobility in the economic strata. Contrary to that, handouts to deadbeats, into the trillions, for doing nothing productive will only grow the welfare state - as we are seeing under this activist in the White House.

I can only pray that you will begin to see the light; it is incredible how dim you are right now.

the rich piss on the heads of the poor and then whine when they complain. Obviously you have either ignored the facts shown on this thread or read very selectively. The poor and middle class positions increasingly worsen in comparison to the rich. But you chose to miss that. America is near the bottom among developed nations for social mobility but you chose to miss that. American has increasingly reduced the chance for most Americans to better themselves but you chose to miss that
Open your eyes Ebenezer.

Con_Alma;1572983 wrote:There's a difference in speaking about the expenditure in percentages as opposed to value. The U.S. spends massive amounts per student in actual value. Forget how much is picked up by others as a percentage. It's the total amount that was commented on.

The complaint has been about what the public has to spend.
Read the statistic chief, US public is spending 72% (11,370 x .72)of the number quoted, the parents pay the rest. You look at a country like Norway, the public is responsible for 84% (10179 x .84) of the cost
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Expenditure_on_educational_institutions,_2004_and_2009_(1).png&filetimestamp=20121001105841

You chump

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXkgA2rUAY-o

isadore;1572995 wrote:The complaint has been about what the public has to spend.
Read the statistic chief, US public is spending 72% (11,370 x .72)of the number quoted, the parents pay the rest. You look at a country like Norway, the public is responsible for 84% (10179 x .84) of the cost
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Expenditure_on_educational_institutions,_2004_and_2009_(1).png&filetimestamp=20121001105841

The comment you responded to was "the US spends more per student than any other country in the developed world." The complaint is how much money not what percentage comes from where. The reason that's the complain is because we don't want to spend more money. It won't improve things. Money isn't the issue at it relates to education.

I don't care what percentage I am helping pay for as a taxpayer. I care about the total dollars I am contributing and it isn't as effective as the totals dollars or value others spend.

isadore;1572979 wrote:1. Not true if you look at the public cost of primary and secondary education.

Did you fail math? I read that same article. We are talking education dollars in total - if you want to cherry pick that the US spends less on post-secondary education, then it paints a very bleak picture on K-12. That K-12 ROI doesn't make for a very strong argument in favor of pumping MORE public money into post-secondary education. If you want better results out of post-secondary, start by fixing K-12 first (and money is not the problem there, clearly).

The US spends more per student than any other OECD country, and that report INCLUDES post-secondary education (did you even read your own link?)

Even when you factor in the disparity in "public" burden, the US at 70% still outspends the average OECD nation by $2400 per student (30% above the OECD average). You're also ignoring the relative ROI for students - if we look at post secondary age 25-34 (so recent, and early in their career) those relative incomes in the US are almost 30% higher than Switzerland, for example, and nearly 20% higher than the OECD average. So what actually happens here is the US more than compensates degree EARNERS for the extra cost they bear vs. other countries subsidizing degree PURSUERS = the US is a better deal, for people that actually earn their degree.

Con_Alma;1573020 wrote: I don't care what percentage I am helping pay for as a taxpayer. I care about the total dollars I am contributing and it isn't as effective as the totals dollars or value others spend.

I don't get the argument, at all, that the taxpayer should provide free or cheaper college educations. Cheap loans are abundantly available - the incentives are properly aligned when the student bears the risk of that investment. The taxpayer should not be responsible for supporting a 5-6 year failed pursuit of a college degree.

gut;1573028 wrote:I don't get the argument, at all, that the taxpayer should provide free or cheaper college educations. Cheap loans are abundantly available - the incentives are properly aligned when the student bears the risk of that investment. The taxpayer should not be responsible for supporting a 5-6 year failed pursuit of a college degree.

No way.

Con_Alma;1573020 wrote:The comment you responded to was "the US spends more per student than any other country in the developed world." The complaint is how much money not what percentage comes from where. The reason that's the complain is because we don't want to spend more money. It won't improve things. Money isn't the issue at it relates to education.

I don't care what percentage I am helping pay for as a taxpayer. I care about the total dollars I am contributing and it isn't as effective as the totals dollars or value others spend.

Of course money is the issue and the United States is unwilling to spend what is necessary to provide students with a post secondary education that will allow them to achieve upward social mobility.

isadore;1573041 wrote:Of course money is the issue and the United States is unwilling to spend what is necessary to provide students with a post secondary education that will allow them to achieve upward social mobility.

No disagreement there.....just didn't need all the deflection to try and steer towards something other than that.

No more money for education. K-12 of college....no more. We aren't good at using them effectively.

gut;1573023 wrote:Did you fail math? I read that same article. We are talking education dollars in total - if you want to cherry pick that the US spends less on post-secondary education, then it paints a very bleak picture on K-12. That K-12 ROI doesn't make for a very strong argument in favor of pumping MORE public money into post-secondary education. If you want better results out of post-secondary, start by fixing K-12 first (and money is not the problem there, clearly).

The US spends more per student than any other OECD country, and that report INCLUDES post-secondary education (did you even read your own link?)

Even when you factor in the disparity in "public" burden, the US at 70% still outspends the average OECD nation by $2400 per student (30% above the OECD average). You're also ignoring the relative ROI for students - if we look at post secondary age 25-34 (so recent, and early in their career) those relative incomes in the US are almost 30% higher than Switzerland, for example, and nearly 20% higher than the OECD average. So what actually happens here is the US more than compensates degree EARNERS for the extra cost they bear vs. other countries subsidizing degree PURSUERS = the US is a better deal, for people that actually earn their degree.

yes I read that link and as it shows the American governments underfunds post secondary education compared to other developed nations.
"Per-student spending on public higher ed drops to 25-year low"
The report, by the Boulder, Colorado-based State Higher Education Executive Officers, or SHEEO, shows that state and local financial support for public colleges and universities fell 7 percent last year, on top of a 9 percent drop the year before. And while enrollment also fell slightly—a result, the organization’s president said, not of lower demand, but of higher tuition—it’s still higher than in 2008, when the steep budget cuts began.

Lingenfelter said that last year’s decline in enrollment, which has been previously detailed by The Hechinger Report, was a result of higher tuition and, in some states, enrollment caps imposed by institutions in response to lower legislative subsidies
Other countries are rapidly improving the postsecondary education of their citizens,” said Marshall Hill, director of the Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education and chairman of SHEEO’s executive committee. “If the United States falls further behind in either quality or the number of students who enroll and graduate it will not be easy to catch up.”
http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?43636-the-rich-get-richer/page9

Of course we have those who have their education and employment and the attitude I got mine, screw you.

Con_Alma;1573043 wrote:No disagreement there.....just didn't need all the deflection to try and steer towards something other than that.

No more money for education. K-12 of college....no more. We aren't good at using them effectively.

really, we have a post secondary education system that attracts people from all over the world. We have just priced our own financially strapped young people out of it.

Con_Alma;1573030 wrote:No way.

In 2012, the average student loan debt of graduating seniors was like $29k. That is not remotely an amount that needs to be picked-up by the taxpayer. That monthly payment, before taxes, is about $230 - hardly a troubling amount with even a minimum of fiscal prudence.

isadore;1573044 wrote:...Of course we have those who have their education ....

...by working through school so I could pay for it. No money = no class. Enough for 1 class = enroll in one class.

gut;1573048 wrote:In 2012, the average student loan debt of graduating seniors was like $29k. That is not remotely an amount that needs to be picked-up by the taxpayer. That monthly payment, before taxes, is about $230 - hardly a troubling amount with even a minimum of fiscal prudence.

Seems like a reasonable investment by the student.