aceventura3

It seems that the typcal answer regarding higher education is that it needs to be made more affordable for the typical family. Obama's plan involves tax credits and financial aid assistance. Similar to minimum wage where Democrats falsely believe increasing the minimum wage benefits workers with no or low skills, giving money through tax credits and financial aid does not make higher education more affordable. what happens is the costs of higher education increase to the level of additional money made available - all other things being equal.

Generally we would expect the costs of higher education to trend with inflation and increase at about the rate of inflation. This should especially be true given that most institutions are non-profit. However, cost increases generally far exceed inflation. And when you adjust for financial aid, grants, tax credits, the real cost increases students pay is actually in line with inflation. Here are a couple of reference points for initial consideration.



FinAid | Saving for College | Tuition Inflation

The real reasons college costs so much - MSN Money

If, we really want to address affordability (real change) we need to look at what is really driving the costs of higher education up. I am not saying McCain is a change agent on this issue either, but I am tired of the empty political rhetoric on this issue, aren't you?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

There is a difference between "more affordable" and simply "affordable," the latter implying that college may not be a possibility without financial aid.

What is Obama's plan for financial aid assistance?

If it weren't for financial aid, there's a good chance I'd have only a high-school education.

Are we to talk about the cost of education here or the accessibility to it?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

But what happens when a person faces a bill for $100,000 for a four year degree, gets $50,000 in aid and before they graduate the cost ends up being $150,000? It seem like a shell game to me.

I think he wants to simplify the process and give tax credits.

Or, you would have found an alternative. Perhaps, some people would actually get more out of college after spending a few years working full time and saving before entering.

Also, the point is to look at the real costs. And we should ask the question why are the costs of higher education consistently exceeding the national inflation rate. why do you think this is happening?

I think the two issues are connected. I think if classroom capacity was increased, costs could be driven down. Giving more access and lowering the cost. I think this can be done while maintaining the quality of the degrees.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

snowy

If you're going to a state school, the state decides how much they're going to give the institution in state funding, and the school decides from there how much they need to charge in tuition to make up the difference. In my state, the amount of funding we receive from the state has decreased, therefore tuition has gone up at my university. And your little blurb about the increase in rates is incredibly out of date with their statistics; 8 years have passed since then, and my university has seen a tuition increase just about every year, as well as a temporary overhaul of how tuition was charged. Why? Because we don't get enough money from the state--and we're supposed to, as a state-sponsored insititution--to keep tuition steady.

So Obama, by promoting financial aid and tax breaks, is coming up with a solution that attempts to address the problem at the federal level, even though it is a state level issue. I'm not sure there's much more he or another president could do to make college more affordable, by and large. The tertiary education system in this country is a behemoth, and it's a patchwork of public and private institutions the federal government has little to no control over, except when it comes to financial aid or providing tax breaks (we're going to ignore the issue of research grants, as they usually don't play into the tuition equation).

And your argument of increasing classroom capacity is irrelevant; many college classes are already 150 people or larger, depending on the institution. The movement is to actually do away with classrooms entirely, and have students start taking more and more classes online, as universities get to pay instructors who teach online classes less, they don't have to pay the capital cost for a classroom, and they get to teach more students than they could in a conventional classroom situation.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Baraka_Guru

This compared to not going at all? Financial aid helps with such things as living expenses. It's hard to attend school full time while working full time.

So tax credits instead of loans?

The alternative would be to find a job that doesn't require a college diploma, most of which are low-paying. Saving up for college would be a difficult thing to do in this situation. How long would you expect one to delay college in this case?

I'm sure there are a number of factors. I think one is the level of competition. To run a successful college or university you must be constantly upgrading and developing your facilities and programs. You must pay a lot to retain and obtain talented faculty, etc., etc. A big reason why the cost of education is increasing is because the sophistication of education is increasing. We are shifting from a manufacturing-based society to an information-based society. The spiraling costs of education is a result of this. The problem is not everyone can be a knowledge worker. The realities of blue-collar, white-collar, pink-collar still exist despite this shift toward higher education as the pinnacle of pre-workforce achievements.

They are connected. And I think many schools (in Canada anyway) are increasing their capacities. But I think this is only one factor that would affect the costs. There are far too many other factors that are likely driving things up, as I've mentioned.

The factors affecting degree quality depends on the area of study.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

jorgelito

What's wrong with loans? State schools are another cheap alternative too.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 12 : 38 : 21-----
The problem is you cheapen education really. As it is, college degrees in the US are diluted. It's not worth much these days. You have to have a Master's to be competitive unless you have a useful degree in a hard science or accounting/business/finance.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

pan6467

Loans are somewhat of a problem. Here, our state schools have risen tuitions faster than the private schools and have cut drastically the scholarships. It's not lack of state funding or their raising the bar on education..... it's the loans. They know they can charge the maximum allowed and a school like Akron that is nothing more than a city college with very little prestige.... but they charge upwards of 10,000 just in tuition, room and board is almost as much. Meanwhile they have taken advantage of "eminent domain" and took over a few blocks of housing including some landmark housing and destroyed them to build a multi-hundred million dollar football stadium that doesn't need built. The Rubber Bowl is quite nice for this city and could have been refurbished for far less. They have and are in the process of spending another couple hundred million to build new dorms and buildings.... meanwhile most commute to the college and have to max out their loans while services are going down.

It's all about the money they can get not about educating the students and helping them get good jobs outside. I remember 20+ years ago one of the biggest selling factors at the colleges {state and private} I looked at was who they could bring in to recruit graduates and placement in good paying jobs. That was part of the price in going to college, having them help you get connected and employed. I don't know about elsewhere but Akron doesn't have any program like that anymore.... their excuse "no money".

So, I would propose far more than tax credits and more money in loans, that just leads to tuition increases. I would propose making colleges do what they are supposed to do. Teach, help kids transition from home to responsibility, and provide students hope for the future not a useless degree with no help getting a job and bogged down with loans they can not pay. I would propose that colleges that want sports and want fancy stadiums, need to build them on funds from those sports and not on tax monies or tuitions.

Anything else would be an injustice to those students and the families attending those schools.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

Soaring student numbers pose funding and quality challenges for universities in OECD countries

there's alot i could say about this, but for the moment i'll limit myself to mentioning that this debate, like most in the states, could benefit from a less parochial frame of reference. this link goes to the oecd's 2008 report on higher education, and outlines a range of state-level strategies that have been adopted to address the questions of access to quality education and how to deal with its expense. the american system is outmoded, functioning mostly to reproduce the class system at the expense of enabling kids from a range of class backgrounds to access the best quality education they can manage.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

tisonlyi

Those tuition inflation figures would probably look pretty similar to general inflation figures if the fiddles were taken out of those general inflation figures.

By fiddles I'm thinking of hedonics, varying baskets, etc, etc...

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

aceventura3

If a State decreases funding one result could be increases in tuition, true. Other possibilities are costs are cut at the University or the difference is made up in other ways.

In your State when you say "cut" are you really talking about a "cut" or are you talking about a reduction in the rate of increase in funding?


Again, the question is what is the real cost of higher education? I think the two sources in my original post suggest that cost increases are due to real inflationary factors and the availability of aid. In my view increasing aid will have no impact on the real cost or in making higher education more affordable.

Why do universities have artificial caps on admission?

Why couldn't our universities simply accept every student that qualifies?

Do you think in the cases of some universities there is the perception that if the degree is more expensive or that the school is more restrictive in admission that the degree has more value? This implies that actual education or affordability is secondary to perception. Do you think that, perhaps, federal funds could be targeted to intuitions based on them being accessible and affordable - giving those institution an incentive to lower costs and admit more students? Whould something that simple be "real change"?

Assuming some of our best thinkers are in these institution, they might be able to come up with a solution to educating more and doing it more efficiently. what difference does it make if 150 or 250 or 350 are taking a course, if they get the information and assistance they need? If a leading professor in a subject tapes a lecture, it seems to me that lecture could be used millions of times for millions of students at virtually no incremental cost. Perhaps the federal government can give incentives for those willing to do these things in order to make education accessible and affordable.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 02 : 30 : 03-----
No. I said that some people might benefit from working and saving and then going to a university. I have never met a person who was motivated to get a degree who did not do it.

I don't know the details of his plan. Is rhetoric is the same old bull we hear all the time.

Yes, under Democratic party policies. There has been a few threads on tax policy and I went through some examples of how the working poor can face marginal tax rates of up to 50%. I agree Democrats want to make it impossible for people to do it on their own.

Imagine a working poor family. Mom, a waitress and dad a bus driver. The make a family income of $40,000 and have 2 high school children. the decide to get second jobs, and the children get part-time work. the income goes up to $75,000. Of that extra $35,000, how much do they pay in taxes, lost credits, state taxes, FICA? then on top of that, they may have worked themselves out of some forms of aid. So, they actually may be better off not working harder and staying "poor". That is wrong in my view.

Democrats are fooling people into thinking their policies are helpful when they are not.

Yes, of course. You have to have million dollar stadiums. You have to have spacious dorm rooms, with all the latest amenities. You have to build the most expensive buildings on the most expensive real-estate in the area. I get it. No need for any cost cutting.



And football coaches, usually the highest paid staff in the major "sports" schools.

Would you use that same argument for companies in the energy sector, pharmaceuticals, technology... Seems to me that when companies in the private sector have costs accelerating at a rate greater than the general inflation rate that it is a problem that need to be fixed and can be fixed.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 02 : 35 : 59-----

If degrees are being "cheapened", why are they charging more and more (inflation plus) for the degree?
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 02 : 42 : 27-----
Why do you think the impact on the general inflation rate would be greater than the impact on the inflation rate of higher education? Could it actually make the difference greater rather than less?

Even if the graphic in the OP is not a "real" reflection of inflation it is possible that the graphed relationship is, I would be interested in seeing more on this if you have a source that makes the adjustments.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I think Obama's "rhetoric" on higher ed is that his proposed $4000/yr tax credit would make community college accessible to all and four-year state institutions more affordable....so your example of $100,000 increasing to $150,000 cost over four years might just be a bit high.

A more realistic case would put the cost of a state uni at more like $10,000/yr....increasing to maybe $12,500 over four years....so Obama's tax credit would go from covering 40 percent of the cost to a third. And I dont know how you can dispute that it would make a community college education virtually free.

I agree that his plan would probably not be as beneficial to a middle class kid who wants to go to Harvard or Williams instead of Univ. of Illinois or Univ. of Delaware.

Personally, I like the tax credit idea more than additional loan support because it takes the middlemen (lending institutions) out of the mix. And for kids from low income families, the opportunity for a community college or state uni education might not otherwise be available.

Although Obama also proposes federally backed student loan reform that is less clear to me.

BTW, I think McCains higher ed plan has something in it about reducing costs by cutting research earmarks to higher ed (cutting earmarks seems to be his "solution" for everything). WTF?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

I think it is interesting that there is a trend in the world to "socializing" property, while knowledge is becoming more privatized. Public investment in privatized knowledge probably should trend lower.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 03 : 05 : 41-----
How many people actually want to go to college but can't? I would argue the number is zero.

I use simple numbers in examples, but the point was not in reference to $100K or $150K. The point was that if the real cost of higher education is $X, but that the stated cost is $X + aid, and the student pays $X then the aid had no impact on the real cost.

There are costs other tuition. Even at a state school what is the real cost of attending for four years? I think your number significantly underestimates that cost. But I do understand your point.

Real change would be doing something like making community college tuition free for all who qualify. I would support that, and I think we could afford it, however, I would target all the higher education state and federal aid to that level. I think as a nation, at this point in time, 2 year degrees are a net benefit to society ( similar to a high school diploma is), a four year degree is a net benefit to the individual. I think this would be a more efficient use of government funds in higher education.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

i would think that is the opposite of a rational approach, ace.
look at the data i linked to. seriously.

i'll get back to this when i have a bit more time.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jorgelito

Community College is already very accessible. In fact, it is one of the wonders of this country. I went to community college working on a Starbucks salary. You really can't get cheaper than community college. Even at the whopping cost of $20/unit, you would have to be fiscally irresponsible not to be able to afford to go to cc. A full-time load of 12 units is a $240 tuition bill for the semester. Add some used books or library books and you're looking a real bargain. Plus, many cc profesoors are from nearby universities. My cc years were filled with profs from UCLA, USC, and Pepperdine (I know these are shitty schools but at least it's something). So in essence, you are getting a quality education from decent profs (if you're on the east coast then even better) for a cheap price.

2-4 years of community college also reduces your over-all tuition because you only have two years of university left. CC also has the benefit of being a vocational school as well so students can go for 2 years and get an AA or certificate in a real skill while the rest can go for liberal arts.

The money may be better spent on transition programs or at the high school, intermediary years. Programs for getting people ready for college and returning students.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

aceventura3

"That"? I don't know what you refer to. I looked at the data you linked, what is the main point you want me to get out of it?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

snowy

It's about $900 here for a full courseload at a CC per term, and about $2400 for a full courseload at the state 4-year university. Like I said in my first post, the cost of tuition varies widely from state to state depending on how much funding the state is willing to provide. California does a much better job than Oregon does in this respect. And ace, even with "other costs", it still only cost me about $10,000/yr to go to school--less when I moved out of the dorms.

And ace, yes, there have been many cuts to funding tertiary education in Oregon--actual cuts to our funding. It is usually the first thing to get cut when it comes to the budget. We've also had a steady increase in enrollment rates over the last 8 years, from 14,500 or so students when I started to over 20,000 expected this fall. It puts a real strain on our facilities. Our facilities are not in the greatest of shape, our faculty aren't overpaid, and so there really isn't anything to be cut or lessened at the university itself. We're reliant on donations to help fund capital improvement projects, though that is one area we can get funding from the state for. However, until the last Legislature session, that money was really hard to come by, and our campus really suffered because of it.

And universities have admission caps because you cannot accept more students than your core facilities will support--that's just common sense. It has nothing to do with increasing the value of the degree; the value of a degree is determined by the quality of the faculty and the effort put into attaining it by the student. We can cram more bodies into classrooms, but at some point you begin to overtax the other facilities on campus--the computer labs, the library, the bathrooms. It's the same thing at the elementary and secondary level--sure, you can put more kids in a school, you can add portable classrooms, but then you'll have to add lunches, think about building some new bathrooms, and so on. Furthermore, a lot of universities and colleges depend on the goodwill of the community they are part of, be it a big city or a small one, and taxing the infrastructure of that city or town is not exactly good business. If we truly wanted to do away with admission caps, someone would have to cough up the dough for some serious capital improvement projects, and that's just not going to happen.

And I've taken classes online, and taken classes with a taped lecture--they do not compare (if we're going for educational value) with a small group of students led in discussion by a professor, in person. There is no interaction with a taped lecture, and there is much to be gained on the part of the student from interaction with faculty, and interaction with fellow students isn't exactly encouraged. As for online classes, there is usually a discussion component via some kind of discussion board similar to TFP, but to be frank about my experience, it seems that TFP is better at having true discussions regarding academic topics than any discussion group I ever took part in via an online class. There isn't a whole lot of interaction going on with your classmates via these discussion boards. And that really is key to the whole college education experience--interaction with your peers as scholars and interaction with faculty as scholars. Otherwise, the student just isn't getting as much out of their education--or value from their education--as they could be.

I have to wonder, ace, when was the last time you stepped foot on a college campus, be it a community college or a four-year school?

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

aceventura3

I looked at your Governor's recommended budget for 2007-2009 he proposed an increase:

The 2003-2005 budget was $3.8 billion. The 2005-2007 budget was $4.4 billion.

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/P..._Education.pdf


All I suggest is "thinking outside the box". I think it can be done, however I think some school like the fact that they are being "selective". It is a badge of honor. I think that is the wrong focus.


...the football stadiums, the hot tubs, rec. centers, admin office space, etc. They can put more focus on education or they can put focus on other things. I simply suggest that tax dollars go to education and let individuals pay for the "other things".

With proper planning a school district can accommodate every student in a district. A state university system could do the same thing. There is no acceptable reason to have more students than available space. I am not sure I understand the position you are taking on this issue.


I have an 11 year old son, we try to visit a few campuses a year. We visited Clemson a few weeks ago. I started saving for his education when he was born, at that time I planned on needing about $100,000. By the time he finishes I anticipate the actual cost will be up to $150,000. It is possible that he will go to an in-state public university and the cost will be less, or it could be more. Some programs actually require 5 rather than 4 years for completion due to difficulties in getting needed classes. I think our system needs real solutions, it is too bad all we are getting is empty rhetoric.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Yakk

Except I, as a student, want to go to a school where there are other students who really care about going to school. I want the 'high school rif-raf' out of my hair as a university student.

So the question becomes -- is it more useful to educate 2 people who don't care about education or schooling, or 1 person who does?
Because running an institution with 10,000 to 100,000 people going through it every day doesn't take any administration?
US pre-university education is, statistically, utter crap. Much of it is baby sitting.

Everyone in the USA is guaranteed a pre-university education, and the institution cannot (for the most part) kick students who are disruptive to the learning environment out of the programs.

US university education is well enough regarded that people from around the world compete to enter it.

University students in the USA have to put down a serious commitment (usually, money wise), pass standards to get in, and pass standards during the course of study. Students who are disruptive to the learning environment can be kicked out.

US graduate education is yet another notch up. At this point, the students have to pass another yet higher bar. In some areas, they actually get paid to help other students (undergraduates) learn, or do research with their professors. Students who fail to completely demolish the material and produce research and results are not invited back. (admittedly, this last takes time)

In each of these cases, the selectivity goes up, and so does the quality.

...

Up here in Canukistan, there is a tax credit on money spent on higher education -- I think it is about 17% of what you spend (note that this lowers taxes, as opposed to income), plus a fixed amount for every month spent (about 100$). This can be transferred to a parent or someone you are a dependant of, or kept indefinately until you need to use it.

As an aside, it works on foriegn education institutions, so my brother ended up with a _huge_ pile of tax credits after getting an MBA in the USA.

The trick with public investment in private knowledge is that private knowledge often causes public spin-offs. This is known as positive externalities, and conventional wisdom is that innovation and new knowledge has significant positive externalities even if it is privately owned.

How hard do they want to go to college? How much are they willing to give up to go to college?

In theory, that aid will pay for a higher quality college experience?
You don't think a 4 year degree is a net benefit to both the community and the individual? Or do you think we are playing a zero-sum game?

Yes, marginal taxation on the poor that is higher than on the rich is very questionable. And means-tested aid, especially when you have multiple programs, can often result in ridiculously high marginal loss of income.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

aceventura3

I thought the point was to make higher education more affordable and accessible. Perhaps you agree with me and understand that people willing to make a sacrifice to go to a University probably will have an appreciation of actually being there. Again, I support primary education and perhaps community college for every child, but I think a university degree should be a personal responsibility.



There are both benefits to the individual and to society, however the biggest (or net) benefit is to the individual

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

loquitur

The more "aid" is given, the higher price goes, because it removes market discipline from the providers.

When I applied to Columbia back in 1976, IIRC tuition and fees for the year, non-residential, was about $3000. My daughter goes there now. On an nonresidential basis, tuition and fees is about $43,000 (that's without books, without room and board). That's almost 15 times the cost in just over 30 years. What do you think is driving prices up at that rate? The CPI isn't moving anywhere near as quickly as that. They raise their prices for the same reason dogs lick their balls - because they can. People will scrimp and save and take out loans to send their kid to college (as my wife and I are doing, btw), and there are all sorts of programs to help them do it. Like most government programs, they have the opposite effect of what was intended - the availability of that money is an invitation to the colleges to raise their prices because there is more money available to them. So it gets harder to pay for college and requires more debt.

I'm not complaining - we could have insisted she go to a public university - but that doesn't mean this business isn't a racket.

Paq

just my .03..my tuition in 2003 was $1500/semester for grad school full time, tuition only, in state, 12 hrs, at a state funded school (winthrop uni) small school, had a program i liked, etc. I asked today and it is now $5500..for 9 hrs, in state, tuition only for the same program...

the only thing i can think of that has increased in price that much in that little time is gas....

__________________
Live.

Chris

Yakk

That isn't what net benefit means, not in any usage I've ever seen it.

Net benefit is when you add up the benefits, and subtract out the costs.

As such, both the individual and the society can have a positive net benefit when the society subsidizes the higher education costs of the individual.

In fact, there is a technical term for when a situation (like higher education) is worth subsidizing -- a "positive externality".

Suppose that each person who has a higher education earns an extra 100,000$ over their lifetime.

But, they generate, on average, an extra 50,000$ worth of benefit for the rest of the society they live in, above and beyond that million dollars.

And let's presume we properly future-discounted both.

Finally, let's assume we have 3 people. A gets half the benefit as above from the university education, B the above benefit, and C gets +50% over. On average, they line up with that benefit.

In Country X, higher education costs 120,000$. Nobody but C (1/3 of the candidates) finds it worth taking higher education.

In Country Y, the city makes higher education cost 30,000$ less by spending taxpayer money. In Y, both B and C end up going to higher education.

In Country X, there was 50,000$ in education-externalities captured by the citizens of the country.

In Country Y, there where 100,000$ in education-externalities captured by the citizens of the country, and they spent 30,000$ in extra taxes to get it.

Country Y became 20,000$ richer because it made it's university education cheaper.

Now, note that citizen B also gained a benefit from the education -- but before the subsidy, it wasn't worth citizen B's personal spending to get that education.

I apologize if this econ 101 rant is something you have heard before.

...

An alternative explanation is that you meant you should subtract the benefits to the individual from the benefits to the rest of society. This is a zero-sum economics model, and leads to silly and dangerous things like Marxism and not spending money on education.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

smooth

You can't use California as an example to try and understand what happens in any other state. We have a special system that Ronald Reagan set up before leaving office. Whereas we pay about $10 per credit and our JCs have guaranteed programs to transfer to 4 year universities, places like Oregon don't have that type of infrastructure and have to charge $45+ per credit (that was nearly 8 years ago, though).


And "cuts" in Oregon's context mean cuts...or clearcutting to be more precise.
The education system in Oregon is in shambles. The population is becoming older, along with people moving from other states (such as California) to retire, and they have no sales tax. The only way to raise money is through initiative, and retirees that have no personal stake in educating young people and are living on fixed incomes anyway regularly vote down initiatives for school funding.

If you don't think it's serious, perhaps you would if you were one of the kids whose school was shut down entirely and you had to be bussed to the next closest middle school on a staggered schedule with the population that was already at the school (you go to school at 6am and leave at 2pm and the kids who attended the school before your school was merged go in at 7am and leave at 3pm, for example).

Deptartment heads have been asked to squeeze blood from turnips for about 10 years now. Things like charging students for printing in labs, making them print their own syllabii from an online course listing instead of passing them out in class, and hiring professors part-time and paying them a portion of full time professors' salaries.

Hey, maybe you think that professors shouldn't be paid as much as they were, but the fact is that the best students and professors just leave where they can get better education and higher pay...if it's moving from Oregon to California that's one thing (that doesn't really affect you unless you're an Oregonian). If it means people leaving to Canada or the UK, for example, it's a net loss to the entire country's pool of workers and educators.

If you're actually curious what I'm talking about, the term to google would be "brain drain"

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

guyy

In reference to the idea that the benefits of education are primarily individual:

If you merely sit on your knowledge, smirking at the Complete Fucking Morons all around you, it does no one any good -- even you. Your career options are ranting while you pick up scrap metal with your shopping cart or maybe, i dunno, panhandling. On the positive side, the price for scrap metal is pretty good these days. Look for copper.

Like anything else in capitalist society, for you to cash in the value of your university-acquired knowledge, it has to be put on the market, has to be exchanged, has to be useful in some way to some one. Ace seems to be arguing, in effect, that there is some sort of market distortion which has the middle class ripping off society and receiving more than it contributes. Or maybe the assumptions of liberal economics are wrong. You tell me.