Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 3rd, 2012 #121
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

College Admissions Directors Are Very Comfortable With Your Huge Student Debt

Hamilton Nolan

To briefly recap: America is currently in a student loan bubble, holding an unimaginably huge amount of student debt, as delinquency of loan payments swells, and even the well-off question whether they can afford college. It would seem, then, rather obvious that student loan debt is too big. Surprise: the people who control the higher education spigot—college admissions directors—disagree!

A new Inside Higher Ed survey of college admissions counselors of all sorts asked: What do you consider a "reasonable debt level" for a student to have, for four years in school? Fort two percent said $20k-$30k, and 17% said $30K-$40K, meaning that a vast majority of college admissions directors are perfectly comfortable with you coming out of their school with between $20k and $40K worth of debt.

Whether you believe that is problematic or not probably correlates with both your income and your faith in our economy to provide stable, well-paying jobs to new college graduates. As a statement of The New Normal, yes, it is problematic.

Furthermore, 61% of admissions directors said that "gapping"—admitting students and giving them financial aid packages that they know are insufficient, meaning they will have to take private loans or, you know, rob a bank in order to enroll—is ethical. That is problematic as well.

Notably, admissions directors at community colleges had a far more conservative view of acceptable debt, and were far less likely to consider gapping to be ethical. Good for them. Community colleges are the last hope for lower and middle class kids chasing the elusive American dream. Too bad they can't get in.

http://gawker.com/5948561/college-ad...e-student-debt

[What do you get for the thousands or tens of thousands you spend on your education? What do you walk away with at the end of your 'college' 'education'? Besides the bogus claim that college graduates will outearn others by millions over a lifetime? If you can't come up with pretty specific answers to these questions, the chances are that you are wasting your time and money.]
 
Old October 9th, 2012 #122
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Going to college is nothing more than a lesson on how to use your library card and internet connection. That's it, basically. This shit is not special. You hear a lecture that already has equivalents or superiors to it online for free. After the lecture you read a textbook that you paid 100 bucks or more for that you could have downloaded for nothing on the internet. Finally, the student uses an internet connected computer in a library to write a paper about stuff that he read for free at the library and heard for free on the internet. 90 percent of college is pointless. The travel, textbooks, notes, lectures, all pointless. The only thing that mattered was the library card and internet connection and the term papers it produced. If the professor really had anything hot to say he could send it to you over the internet. You could have even used webcams and Skype to talk with the class if necessary. Probably wouldn't be, though.

This shit ain't special, folks. It shouldn't be a full time thing in anybody's life nor should anybody pay tens of thousands per month to do it. Young People in the Time of the Public Library and Cheap Internet, in the Age of Information, have been doing it since high school or even earlier. There is no reason for anybody to do it for 4 more years and take on 30 grand of debt, other than it is a great way for the heebs to indoctrinate and burden America's youth with 1 trillion plus debt that can't be done away with bankruptcy.


There is so much knowledge for the taking at libraries and on the internet that college is outmoded. This current college scam situation will pop within 10 years and entirely new way of getting education will come about in 25 that will eventually take over for this scam.
 
Old October 10th, 2012 #123
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I first started noticing it about a year ago: My ‘90s college education is nearly obsolete.

I can tell when I talk to Silicon Valley types brimming with resources and well-being and wisdom. They have never heard of Harold Bloom or dialectical materialism or the Oxford English Dictionary. Americans are thriving without even passing acquaintance with the totems I once thought you had to master before you could amount to anything in America.

http://news.yahoo.com/bursting-the-h...GQ2NTUz;_ylv=3

Last edited by Alex Linder; October 10th, 2012 at 07:37 PM.
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #124
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Morrow View Post
There is so much knowledge for the taking at libraries and on the internet that college is outmoded. This current college scam situation will pop within 10 years and entirely new way of getting education will come about in 25 that will eventually take over for this scam.
Because there are new ways of learning does not make college a scam or obsolete. If you want to be an economist or a physicist, you can't do so by simply reading online - unless it's through an accredited college or university. Even then, those degrees may be considered suspect. No, they will be.

Self-taught learning is a bit easier, these days, but it has always existed. Now, you just have to be more careful of your source material, as there is no Internet librarian.

As for the notion of obsolescence, college is not meant to provide you all the knowledge and learning you will need over a lifetime. That was never its purpose. If you don't keep up with changes in your field of interest, your knowledge will likely become obsolete in a decade or two; much sooner in more technical areas. Whenever I hear people complain that what they learned in college twenty years ago is obsolete, I have to wonder if they were just going through the motions and paying tuition to get a degree.

The notion of earning potential is often brought up in ramblings about higher education. On average, you will make a great deal more with a college education than without one. Not everyone is a Steve Jobs; most need some form of credentialing to get them through the door. But, did Jobs hire non-degreed software engineers? No, why should he?

Why can't you have a college education and a lucrative trade skill? The two are not mutually exclusive. Many auto mechanics, for example, work their way into upper-management by combining the two. And, they always have their technical skills to fall back on if Dickhead Joe decides to blow out his dealership to marry that 23 year old Vietnamese massage parlor tramp and move to Hawaii.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #125
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Why Are You People Paying $61,236 For a Year of College?
Robert Kessler

Campus Grotto has put out its annual list of the 100 most expensive colleges. Sarah Lawrence College comes in at first place, with an annual cost for the current 2012-2013 school year a whopping $61,236. Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? Do they just serve gold in the dining hall?

Rounding out the top five are:
2. New York University - $59,837
3. Harvey Mudd College - $58,913
4. Columbia University - $58,742
5. Wesleyan University - $58,202

Kids: college is not worth this much. I know you want to be JUST LIKE Sigourney Weaver or J.J. Abrams or Barbara Walters or Vera Wang or some other Sarah Lawrence alumnus I found on Wikipedia just now, but you do not need to spend the equivalent of 1,224 iPhone 5s on 4 years of warm beer and Pizza Hut. It is not worth it unless these colleges are offering free blowies when you sign up for 15 credit hours.

Parents: do not spend this much on your kid. Buy yourself 1,224 iPhone 5s instead.

http://gawker.com/5951308/why-are-yo...ear-of-college

list of 100 most expensive
http://www.campusgrotto.com/the-100-...-colleges.html
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #126
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
As for the notion of obsolescence, college is not meant to provide you all the knowledge and learning you will need over a lifetime. That was never its purpose. If you don't keep up with changes in your field of interest, your knowledge will likely become obsolete in a decade or two; much sooner in more technical areas. Whenever I hear people complain that what they learned in college twenty years ago is obsolete, I have to wonder if they were just going through the motions and paying tuition to get a degree.
It's not even remotely possible for people like doctors to stay abreast of much more than a slice of their fields; there's too much new information generated.

Not that they're open to listening to patients talk about what they've researched, though. Some of them are, the younger ones. Not the older ones.

Quote:
The notion of earning potential is often brought up in ramblings about higher education. On average, you will make a great deal more with a college education than without one.
That's the propaganda. That is why dumb people go into debt to get what are called college educations, online or elsewhere. It's propaganda to get people to go into debt. People who have college degrees might tend to make more money over a lifetime, but it's not caused by the college degree.

Quote:
Not everyone is a Steve Jobs; most need some form of credentialing to get them through the door. But, did Jobs hire non-degreed software engineers? No, why should he?
Are you sure about that? I doubt Jobs cared about anything except the coder's ability.

Quote:
Why can't you have a college education and a lucrative trade skill? The two are not mutually exclusive. Many auto mechanics, for example, work their way into upper-management by combining the two. And, they always have their technical skills to fall back on if Dickhead Joe decides to blow out his dealership to marry that 23 year old Vietnamese massage parlor tramp and move to Hawaii.
What upper management is there with auto mechanics? There's either owning your own shop or working for someone else.

The point of this thread is, 1) what is called college education usually isn't. 2) it's a waste of money, for the most part. 3) Be very sure that what you are getting is worth what you're paying for. I would also say 4) it's the liberal arts where your money is most wasted. Liberal arts themselves are fine things, and worth studying. But true study has mostly been replaced by left-wing ideology, and that's not worth paying for unless you are a) a left-wing ideologue, and probably not even then unless b) you eventually want a job in that system. Otherwise you can study liberal arts on your own.

Even if you want to become a doctor or lawyer, or some other professional where you need formal credentials, there are vastly different ways to go about doing that, in terms of money spent and quality of education received. Consider carefully your purchase of formal education. Don't let down your guard because of the magic word "college education" - a term that covers a million different things, most of them not very impressive - or because you hear endlessly repeated propaganda that having a college degrees means you'll make a million dollars more over your lifetime than if you didn't have one.
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #127
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Why Are You People Paying $61,236 For a Year of College?
Robert Kessler

Campus Grotto has put out its annual list of the 100 most expensive colleges. Sarah Lawrence College comes in at first place, with an annual cost for the current 2012-2013 school year a whopping $61,236. Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? Do they just serve gold in the dining hall?

Rounding out the top five are:
2. New York University - $59,837
3. Harvey Mudd College - $58,913
4. Columbia University - $58,742
5. Wesleyan University - $58,202
Pomona comes in at $55,000 a year. Washu is nearly $57K. My wife's Alma Mater, Mount Holyoke, is over $53K.

Now, the total annual costs when we went were probably more around $35K, but there is a notion that college costs are out of control.

Yes, they are. They outstrip nearly any other cost increase by industry.

The problem is faculty. Well, not so much faculty, but tenure. There is so much dead wood at these Top 100 institutions that there are no sticks left to shake at it.

The arguments you hear from AAUP on the matter are BS. There is no real need for tenure these days, as tenure was created to protect faculty from the often intolerant industrialists who funded universities at the time. The real problem with costs are the maintenance of tenured faculty, and tenure is THE door to inactivity. There is no justification for lifetime employment because someone is really smart. They're mostly not productive and everyone knows it. I've had more than one Assistant Professor ask me over the the years if there seems to be a lot of unproductive ("dead wood") around the place.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #128
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It's not even remotely possible for people like doctors to stay abreast of much more than a slice of their fields; there's too much new information generated.

Not that they're open to listening to patients talk about what they've researched, though. Some of them are, the younger ones. Not the older ones.
In the medical field, it's common for younger doctors to be good replacements for older ones; there is a lot of technical knowledge required. In Law, this is rarely the case, as experience with the legal system is paramount. In engineering, it's a mix of recent training and experience. For software developers, upkeep means learning on a weekly or monthly basis. Even English Lit professors need to update their syllabi from time to time.

Quote:
That's the propaganda. That is why dumb people go into debt to get what are called college educations, online or elsewhere. It's propaganda to get people to go into debt. People who have college degrees might tend to make more money over a lifetime, but it's not caused by the college degree.
I have four degrees and came out - overall - with $30K in debt, all of which was taken in loans for living expenses. If you don't get scholarships where you apply, apply somewhere else. If you go into $100K in debt for a degree in English Literature, you should probably be institutionalized. In fact, I'm pretty sure you will be.

Quote:
Are you sure about that? I doubt Jobs cared about anything except the coder's ability.
Apply to Apple sometime. I've had many students do so, only to find that Apple takes only the top 10% of applicants from the top 10% of colleges. The same goes for Google and MS.

Quote:
What upper management is there with auto mechanics? There's either owning your own shop or working for someone else.
The last time I checked, they made as much as sales managers. But, it doesn't address my question why one cannot be skilled in a trade and also have a college degree. Much of the rhetoric on these issues paints them as mutually exclusive pursuits.

Quote:
The point of this thread is, 1) what is called college education usually isn't. 2) it's a waste of money, for the most part. 3) Be very sure that what you are getting is worth what you're paying for. I would also say 4) it's the liberal arts where your money is most wasted. Liberal arts themselves are fine things, and worth studying. But true study has mostly been replaced by left-wing ideology, and that's not worth paying for unless you are a) a left-wing ideologue, and probably not even then unless b) you eventually want a job in that system. Otherwise you can study liberal arts on your own.
Is your beef with college education or with liberal arts? So, if you want a 4-year degree, you have to take about 50% of your required courses in general education. If your field of choice or occupation doesn't need a 4-year degree, then skip it.

If you're not independently wealthy, I wouldn't recommend a LA degree, unless you plan to be a journalist, writer, or case worker. As for studying fields on your own, good luck. But, you're not going to become an economist, engineer, or physicist by skipping college.

Quote:
Even if you want to become a doctor or lawyer, or some other professional where you need formal credentials, there are vastly different ways to go about doing that, in terms of money spent and quality of education received. Consider carefully your purchase of formal education. Don't let down your guard because of the magic word "college education" - a term that covers a million different things, most of them not very impressive - or because you hear endlessly repeated propaganda that having a college degrees means you'll make a million dollars more over your lifetime than if you didn't have one.
It's not just the professions, but many fields that requires credentialing.

It's not propaganda that college education results, on average, in much higher lifetime earnings. Whether or not a college education "pays off" depends as much on you as it does on the college and the degree you choose. Like I said, college is not there to give you all the knowledge you need over a lifetime.

But, I would agree to be prudent in selecting a college and getting the financial aid support you need. Too many times, students jump into the "best" college that will accept them and take on massive debt. As I have told many undergrads, it's not where you go, but what you do.

College education is a two-way street; it's not just fee-for-service. So, yeah, be prudent about what you spend and demand the best from faculty and administrators. But, don't forget that you are not only a consumer, but a student, as well.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old October 13th, 2012 #129
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
R. Pearson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Furthermore, 61% of admissions directors said that "gapping"—admitting students and giving them financial aid packages that they know are insufficient, meaning they will have to take private loans or, you know, rob a bank in order to enroll—is ethical. That is problematic as well.
I fucking hate Admissions directors. They have been the bane of my existence for over twenty years. Get 'em in. Assess in Seats.

Take a two-bit car salesman, give him a degree, and put him to work in a college at mid-six figures and you have an Admissions director.

OK, in the past 25 years, there was ONE Admissions director I liked. She wanted to actually manage enrollment, keep the numbers stable, where faculty wanted them, and attract more students who qualified for scholarships or could cash-out their tuition. She lasted a couple of years.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old January 24th, 2013 #131
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Interesting, that chart.

I take it those are 10 year data points, so any slope changes should not be construed to have necessarily begun at a decade mark.

Beyond the obvious anti-White message, the Michigan graph is interesting. They were part of an anti-White discrimination lawsuit (if only implicit), were they not? Seems like it was reported they made big changes in their admissions, and this chart would seem to confirm that.

The Ivys appear to be converging at a point less than 50%, with the level set by Harvard, which may have also changed standards during the Michigan business. Princeton and Yale look like they hit the gas, but it was probably only to follow their leader Harvard. They'll likely put in a bottom soon. UT-Austin is a wannabe Ivy, so it follows suit. Other prominent State U's almost certainly do as well, they're just not on the chart.

Even Berkeley put in a bottom, and they'd have gone to 0% if it were feasible.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; January 24th, 2013 at 08:22 AM.
 
Old January 24th, 2013 #132
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

In a sense, it would be better for these institutions to just go all mud, tell these humanoids what they already believe anyway. Let them crash and burn with the whore profs and admins.

Unfortunately, the state licensing requirements for many professions demand a college degree, and the shift by personnel dept. practices to demand college diplomas for jobs that don't actually require them--the vast majority--puts a bottom under White diploma mill adherence just like government loans further put a floor under college expenses (ie, artificially raise them in the guise of making college more affordable).

Government subsidized grants and loans are a backdoor payoff to the academic whores, and the state licensing requirements and general HR customs ensure there will be a steady stream of White suckers availing themselves of the government's great 'benefit,' and thereby keeping the POS diploma mill hirelings in the penthouse instead of the outhouse. That's where the free market would have them, and the know that deep down if nothing else about economics.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; January 24th, 2013 at 08:36 AM.
 
Old January 25th, 2013 #133
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Michigan, as a state, is 75 percent non-Hispanic White.
So why not 75 percent White?

And we all know the games these colleges play. If it looks like it helps Whites, like in college admission, a kike is a White. Columbia has more jews than Whites.
Harvard and Yale and Princeton are nearly the same way. Campuses with as many kikes as Whites, even though Whites outnumber them over 60 to 1.
Then we are told this is all a meritocracy! Ha!

One nigger or spic in 200 wouldn't make it out of community college if that were the case!
 
Old January 27th, 2013 #134
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Big Ed (e.g University Of Washington) Betraying US Taxpayers Students
By Jesse Mossman on January 27, 2013 at 12:07pm

Yesterday I congratulated a high school student on being admitted to a couple of colleges she had applied to, however she said she had not heard from her first choice--The University of Washington. I cautioned her that I had heard on the radio that even if a Washington resident had a 4.0 grade point average she still may not be admitted because UW was seeking foreign and out-of-state students because they paid higher tuition rates. My wife confirmed that a recent graduate of UW told her the same thing.

A quick search reveals that this is no secret and is happening many places. State Colleges Seeking More Out-of-State, International Students Amid Fiscal Crunch | Education News, July 211, 2011

Indeed, professional recruitment of foreign students is big business and many Big Education recruiters bring in unqualified students--in China college application fraud is rampant. College controversy: Recruiters get paid for foreign students, By Alan Scher Zagier, Associated Press, November 25, 2011.

But state taxpayers pay high taxes in the expectation that they are providing education opportunities for their own and local children--not foreigners. Ironically, the young lady wanting admission is herself a child of immigrants from Taiwan--but her place may be taken by a foreign student from China.

Romney often talked about stapling a green card to the diplomas of foreign college graduates--and there is actually a "staple bill" proposed which would accomplish this. Furthermore there is another bill farther along:

"HR 3012 simply reduces the wait time for green cards now experienced by low- and high-tech workers from China and India while adding to the wait time for EB-2 and EB-3 employment-based workers from other nations. It would do this by removing the country-of-origin numerical limits after a transition period." [Big Majority of Foreign PhDs Stay in the U.S. Many Years After Degree,By David North, CIS, January 19, 2012]

The same CIS article puts the number of Chinese PhD recipients who already stay in this country at 89%.

It is well known that Americans with existing jobs are frequently replaced by foreigners--often being required to train their own replacement under threat of losing all remaining benefits. A political candidate told me that he had observed this himself at Microsoft. However, taxpayers may be unaware that their children may not only be priced out of a job after graduation, but may be pushed out before even entering college. In spite of pretensions of academics, it appears the greed of universities is equal to that of corporate employers.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/universit...ying-taxpayers
 
Old February 4th, 2013 #135
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Student Loan Consequences: Real, Costly, and Personal

Written by Bob Adelmann

The consequences of making low-interest loans to unqualified buyers created the real-estate bubble that popped in 2007, resulting in the Great Recession. According to Gary Jason at the American Thinker, it’s about to happen again, only this time over student loans. He wrote: “This bubble has been fueled by the federal government’s lavish subsidization of the student loan program … in a way similar to how the housing bubble was fueled by government agencies pushing subprime mortgages.”

Under the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) signed into law as part of ObamaCare in March of 2010, students may borrow money directly from the federal government regardless of their credit score or any other financial “issues” they may be facing. They are not priced according to any “individualized measure of risk” nor are there loan limits. They are instead politically determined by Congress with undergraduates receiving lower interest rates than graduate students, but graduate students allowed to borrow more than undergrads.

This forced entry by the government into what was once a private market transaction has numerous consequences, nearly all of them negative, and most of them predictable.

First, private lenders disappeared from the market as they could not compete with taxpayer funds and taxpayer guarantees and the resulting below-market interest rates that became available.

Second, the growth in the education industry expanded far beyond what was normal as college administrations saw their opportunity to dip into the “honey bucket” of federal funds, with the consequent growth in administration overhead and higher tuition fees. According to a study by Bain & Company (yes, Mitt Romney’s Bain), “operating expenses are getting higher [at major colleges and universities such as Cornell, Harvard, and Princeton] and they’re running out of cash to cover it.” According to that study, the growth in those colleges’ debt and rate of spending on new buildings and equipment rose far faster than did their spending on actual education itself. Said Bain, "Boards of trustees and presidents need to put their collective foot down on the growth of support and maintenance costs. In no other industry would overhead costs be allowed to grow at this rate — executives would lose their jobs."

Thirdly, this growth in the cost of obtaining what was once a coveted possession, a college degree, makes any mathematical justification or cost-benefit analysis highly questionable. Many students are entering a job market with degrees that over-qualify them for what the market is able to provide. According to Jason, “over half of all recent college grads are unemployed (or employed only at jobs not requiring a college education).”

The unnatural increase in the flow of funds into the education industry has predictably driven prices higher. As Jason Bower pointed out at The Freeman,

Since 2000, tuition at public, four-year colleges has risen by an inflation-adjusted 72 percent, and over the past 25 years it has increased at an annual rate 6 percentage points higher than the cost of living. [Emphases added.]

Fourth, when the deferred payments on these loans start, the newly-minted grads without work cannot make them and they go into default. In a recent Department of Education study, loan default rates have risen in each of the last five years, and at an increasing rate, touching almost one in every seven students with a loan.

Fifth, those loans cannot be dissolved or forgiven in bankruptcy except in extreme circumstances, leaving students in a figurative “debtors’ prison” interminably. As The New American noted,

Inasmuch as the student borrowers are uniquely required by law to repay under [nearly] any circumstances, the student loan business is the closest thing … to debtor prison in modern society.

With such a debt burden, students are forced to make, or avoid making, life choices, such as getting married or buying a home. Who would want to take on a partner who owes tens of thousands to the federal government on the day of the wedding?

And then there is the issue of bribery and insider-dealing. Lenders found ways to entice school officials to direct students needing money to them in exchange for incentives. In addition, administration officials found it profitable to support candidates willing to enhance the loan programs for the benefit of the schools. Peter Wood, executive director of the National Association of Scholars, put the matter succinctly:

The "free market" in this case was never anything close to lean and efficient. To the contrary, it was (and still is) inefficient and frequently corrupt, dominated by players who found it easy to bribe college officials, wring favors from politicians by means of campaign contributions, bilk the Department of Education, and live off generous subsidies.

All of these consequences come from first causes: the belief that the government has the right to impose its ideological position onto students and then force taxpayers to pay for those consequences when they inevitably arrive. As Kevin Villani, former chief economist at Freddie Mac, wrote in the American Banker, the progression from ideology to practice is fraught with danger. First, he says, the government must

declare that the opportunity to … go to college, is a basic right. Then [set] a goal for … college attendance well above private individual demand. When budgets become tight, have government lenders replace private lenders.

This cements into place the “moral hazard” that provides government loans to students without concern about how they might be paid back, because ultimately all government promises are backed by the taxpayer.

The ultimate consequence is borne by the student himself. Once he realizes his predicament — like a lobster trap — it’s too late.

For 36-year-old Nick Keith, it’s too late.

When he decided to go to culinary school, Keith was persuaded that he could indulge his interest in food by learning the food service industry. The school provided him with all the answers to his questions (for which the school later was successfully sued for making false statements but far too late to help Keith), and pointed him to the sources to lend him the money.

Said Keith, “I should have seen all the signs. [The campus tour guide] had a used car salesman’s answer for everything,” including the lie that 99 percent of all graduates found work after graduation. It turned out later — much later — that the real number was closer to 48 percent, and that counted graduates who had to find work outside of food service. Keith’s first job upon graduation was working on a meal assembly line, making $10 an hour.

But that’s when his student loan payment program kicked in. He had to make a choice: Pay the rent, or his student loan, but not both.

It’s now nearly a decade since his graduation. His debt, with interest compounded upon interest, is $142,000 at a 17-percent interest rate. He can’t get out:

I get my groceries at the local food bank. I have sold or lost 99 percent of everything I ever owned.

He can’t get work because his bad credit turns off prospective employers. He lives in an aged minivan, relies on the Salvation Army for meals, and parks his van at highway truck stops. For all intents and purposes, he is homeless.

Solutions abound, at least in theory. The government should get out of the student loan business altogether and let the private market take over. And Congress should allow students to declare bankruptcy over their loans when necessary. Even there, however, the consequences are towering. There is more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. Almost 15 percent of loans are already in default. The Department of Education would have to receive special funding from Congress — the taxpayer — to be able to write off the bad loans that would result.

The costs of college education would rise to more normal, market-driven levels, keeping some qualified students away. Colleges and universities would have to make massive, perhaps draconian, cuts in their overhead. It would take years for some semblance of balance between supply and demand to return to the education industry. And changing the laws would have precious little immediate impact on people such as Keith.

Restoring freedom through private markets, however, is worth the effort despite the pain. The alternative — a continuing debtors’ prison for students and a continuing of the corrupt educational cartel and its incestuous relationship with politicians — is unthinkable.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at [email protected].

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...y-and-personal
 
Old February 21st, 2013 #136
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The case for blue-collar work: College no longer guarantees success

I make more money bagging groceries than lecturing at a university. 'Menial' work doesn't deserve the stereotypes

Patricia Park
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 February 2013 09.35 EST
Jump to comments (173)

A plumber fixes a boiler. Photograph: Alamy

I have a graduate degree, and I work two part-time jobs. One is teaching writing at a university; the other working at a supermarket. People don't believe me when I tell them I make more money per hour bagging groceries than I do lecturing on literary techniques.

On occasion I run into old colleagues from my early career days while I'm on shift at the grocery. Their reactions range from mild embarrassment to disdain (curled lip and all) to pity; usually a combination of all three. Sometimes there's an awkward backpedaling on their part: "Well … it's a tough economy out there," or "Hey, whatever pays the bills, right?" before they shoulder their reusable ChicoBags and beat a hasty retreat.

We are a society that glamorizes white-collar professionals at the expense of their blue-collar counterparts. We take our cues from the likes of Mad Men, White Collar, or The Apprentice, not Dirty Jobs (whose name alone tells us how we as a culture deem the show's profiled professions, however lucrative). We all want to "suit up", not "uniform up". We associate office jobs with higher levels of class, income and education; "menial" jobs with lower status.

The traditional formula has always been: college = white-collar job = success. To achieve this covetable endgame, parents prep their children, as young as four-years-old, for the college path. Private pre-nursery school interviews are conducted with the sort of competitive rigor reserved for university admissions. What's most disturbing in all of this is not our desire to want the best for our children, but how narrow our definition of success is.

At a time when unemployment is at an all-time high and college tuition continues to climb, the old formula no longer upholds. Students emerge with their hard-earned degrees and the college loans to show for it, but for what returns? The majority do not land a six-figure banking job straight out of school. According to the Economic Policy Institute, wages for recent college graduates have not grown over the last decade, and actually dropped from 2007-11. In 2011, that average was just $16.81 per hour, a figure that barely makes a dent into student debt. The average wage for high school graduates is $9.45 per hour, a figure not much lower than that of a newly-minted university graduate, especially after you factor in tuition costs as well as the four years of being out of the workforce.

Some decide to sit out the bad economy by pursuing an advanced degree, aiming to boost their future earning potential. It's a risky move in a climate where even Ivy League MBAs and lawyers are not immune to one or more rounds of layoffs. A college degree is increasingly becoming a privilege for those from higher-income households. The only guaranteed payoff from a college degree is the bill you'll be forced to pay every semester (and, likely, for years after you graduate).

Compare this doom and gloom to some "menial" jobs. Blue-collar professionals like electricians are enjoying 23% job growth this decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They earn on average $52,910 a year, almost $10 more per hour than recent college grads, and the top 10% earn at least $82,680. Welding, light truck driving and plumbing are just some of the blue-collar fields with similar earning potential, and the vocational training required is a fraction of the cost of a college degree. If financial freedom is your ultimate endgame, then going into business for yourself can increase earnings exponentially, a message Rich Dad, Poor Dad has been peddling since the beginning of this millennium.

But do these blue-collar jobs lead to fulfillment? It is certainly an argument I'm sympathetic to. We are told to do what we love; the money will assuredly follow. Your average kindergartener doesn't dream of growing up to become a master plumber. But you can also make the counter-argument that there is a personal satisfaction that comes with being financially solvent. There's also something to be said for a job you can clock in and out of, leaving work safely behind, as opposed to one finger-swipe away. It creates more time for family, friends, and other enriching pursuits (… or a second job).

In this tight job market, we cannot afford to ignore the reality that a college degree is becoming a luxury: one that no longer translates directly to success. It is time we shed our stigmas towards "menial" workers. The irony is that their salaries – and accompanying lifestyles – are anything but.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...antees-success
 
Old February 21st, 2013 #137
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

I was in the military as a high-faluting "signals analyst." Who gives a fuck? Certainly not employers. Right now I am in college and my brother who trained as an engine mechanic and electrician makes me look like the imbecile I was (still am?).

I rent. He owns a house. I'm single. He's married with a kid. I get 3 figure government stipend checks. He makes about 30 bucks an hour. If I had any hair I would tear it out. I'd wear sack-cloth but I'm too poor to afford it.
 
Old March 2nd, 2013 #138
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,486
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Student Debt Is a Runaway Train to Hell, as Always

Hamilton Nolan



Your grandparents, enterprising and hardscrabble dirt farmers that they were, could probably work their way through college with nothing more than a job as a soda jerk at the Moderne Tyme Coca-Cola Soda and Sweetes Fountainne and Heroin Dispensary. Now, though, you would have to actually be a heroin trafficker in order to pay your own way through college. The latest figures on the humongous US student debt load are out. They are not improving.

Virtually every chart in this report from the NY Fed is a tale of looming disaster. "Student debt is the only kind of household debt that continued to rise through the Great Recession." Thirteen percent of borrowers owe more than $50,000. The number of borrowers and their average balance have both risen by 70% since 2004. Seventeen percent of borrowers are more than three months delinquent on their payments. All of these figures have been steadily rising for the better part of a decade now.

College grads do still tend to make more money, so as long as that salary bump stays high enough to justify all those massive loan repayments, the universities of America can continue raising prices while paying their T.A.'s starvation wages.

http://gawker.com/5987915/student-de...hell-as-always
 
Old March 2nd, 2013 #139
Ghetto-Blaster
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 511
Default

Quote:
Is your beef with college education or with liberal arts?
Their beef is with liberal arts. A liberal arts major or BA in general is for:

1.) "Sensitive" trust fund kids before starting work at a non-profit to help non-Whites or joining the peace corps
2.) Women, the football team, other affirmatives
3.) White guys wanting 4 years of beer and pussy before business school/law school
4.) White suckers

-

If one has an interest in say, literature it is possible to educate oneself while pursuing a trade or degree program. Having a practical skill and/or STEM degree will make the young lit enthusiast a better writer. Does anyone really expect some MSNBC viewing BA-toting binge-drinker to write the great kwan novel?
 
Old March 2nd, 2013 #140
Ghetto-Blaster
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 511
Default

Quote:
When he decided to go to culinary school, Keith was persuaded that he could indulge his interest in food by learning the food service industry.
That guy was going to lose his shirt somewhere, somehow. He went to the art institute which is primarily Nig. Reputable cooking trade schools like FCI (now called ICC) is where people that already have degrees go to change careers, network and blow 60k in six months. Rich guys from around the world send their wives there to become better cooks, people learn how to make high tech avant garde cocktails. It's where you go if your family owns restaurants...... Not if you're a poor guy with a "passion for food". That guy never had a chance.

He needs to fake his death and start over somewhere else.
 
Reply

Tags
edu-business

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.
Page generated in 0.32048 seconds.