• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Who do you plan to vote for in November?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 93 39.6%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 44 18.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 55 23.4%
  • I won't vote

    Votes: 43 18.3%

  • Total voters
    235
I am pretty left when it comes to social ideas, but my fear is making school all the way to grad school free would encourage students even more to take worthless degrees. Home many thousands of people with masters in social work or art history does society need?

Here's an article on how the wide availability of college loans/grants have been a major contributor to rising college costs:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/08/15/why-college-tuition-is-out-of-sight-the-federal-government-n2038966

And an excerpt that kind of addresses the point you made:

Meanwhile, colleges and universities are doing just what hospitals do to capture more federal dollars. They are competing on amenities. Water parks, climbing walls, elaborate dorms and dining facilities – these are all part of the modern college experience – which is increasingly a social and recreational experience rather than an academic one.

If "free" school is instituted, then the degree's available need to be limited. Force the kids to get degree's that are good for society, computer degrees, teaching, engineering, nurse practitioner, not a bunch of worthless degrees that lead to jobs in retail.

A bunch of people have mentioned this, and it seems a perfectly reasonable idea, but I don't think it would be politically sustainable in the long (or even medium) term. You'd have to delegate to appointed federal bureaucrats the power to decide which majors qualify, and which don't, and that's where the problems would start....

Here's a Princeton study on major preference by gender and race. It's from 2009, and maybe someone else can find a more current one, but I doubt the general trends have changed very much. The study points out that non-whites (Asians are the exceptions) and females are less likely than whites and males to get majors in STEM fields.

http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Dickson_Manuscript%20(Feb%2009).pdf

What that means is that if you gave a preference to STEM majors, you'd be subsidizing more white (and Asian) males at the expense of females and minorities, and I don't think that's politically sustainable, particularly for a Democratic Administration. You'd be cutting out degrees in African-American studies, Gender Theory, etc. etc. etc. And you'd have interest groups going nuts. So what would happen is that there would be political pressure to broaden the fields that qualify, and I think you'd inevitably see those distinctions crumble. We'd then be left with an even worse (at least to some of us) situation where we've made it easier/more affordable for people to go to college and get relatively useless degrees.

But as it turns out (can't stop banging that drum....), the study also points out that this:

Several studies have found that the sciences and engineering are among the most highly rewarded in the labor market including: Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003), Berger (1988), Dickson (2008) and Hamermesh and Donald (2008). Bedard and Herman (2008) and Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003) provide evidence that undergraduate major affects graduate school attendance.

In other words, the students who go into those fields -- or any other field with a strong demand and better paying/more stable jobs (nurses can make very good money) are the ones most likely to be able to repay their loans. Therefore, loan forgiveness/higher grants are most likely to help those who are not taking the most useful degrees.

A freer market with fewer subsidies will naturally steer students to those fields most likely to offer increased earnings.
 
Saddling people with debt as soon as they get out of college makes people take secure jobs instead of risking entrepreneurial enterprises that make everyone more money. Oh well

It steers them to jobs that are most likely to generate an income. What's wrong with that? Start off with a secure, steady job, learn something about how the works (while repaying your loans) and then become an entrepreneur. Or, if you're one of those who truly has a great entrepreneurial idea and the skills to pull it off right out of college, then go to a bank, get financing, and start it anyway. Loads of people have done that.

But if you're not confident enough in your idea (or can't find enough financial backers) to risk everything coming out of school, why should the rest of us have to subsidize what will likely result in nothing more than a failed venture or someone's hobby? A hell of a lot of self-described entrepeneurs lose money. Or at least, don't really make any.
 
Last edited:
Here's an article on how the wide availability of college loans/grants have been a major contributor to rising college costs:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/08/15/why-college-tuition-is-out-of-sight-the-federal-government-n2038966

And an excerpt that kind of addresses the point you made:

Meanwhile, colleges and universities are doing just what hospitals do to capture more federal dollars. They are competing on amenities. Water parks, climbing walls, elaborate dorms and dining facilities – these are all part of the modern college experience – which is increasingly a social and recreational experience rather than an academic one.



A bunch of people have mentioned this, and it seems a perfectly reasonable idea, but I don't think it would be politically sustainable in the long (or even medium) term. You'd have to delegate to appointed federal bureaucrats the power to decide which majors qualify, and which don't, and that's where the problems would start....

Here's a Princeton study on major preference by gender and race. It's from 2009, and maybe someone else can find a more current one, but I doubt the general trends have changed very much. The study points out that non-whites (Asians are the exceptions) and females are less likely than whites and males to get majors in STEM fields.

http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Dickson_Manuscript%20(Feb%2009).pdf

What that means is that if you gave a preference to STEM majors, you'd be subsidizing more white (and Asian) males at the expense of females and minorities, and I don't think that's politically sustainable, particularly for a Democratic Administration. You'd be cutting out degrees in African-American studies, Gender Theory, etc. etc. etc. And you'd have interest groups going nuts. So what would happen is that there would be political pressure to broaden the fields that qualify, and I think you'd inevitably see those distinctions crumble. We'd then be left with an even worse (at least to some of us) situation where we've made it easier/more affordable for people to go to college and get relatively useless degrees.

But as it turns out (can't stop banging that drum....), the study also points out that this:

Several studies have found that the sciences and engineering are among the most highly rewarded in the labor market including: Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003), Berger (1988), Dickson (2008) and Hamermesh and Donald (2008). Bedard and Herman (2008) and Black, Sanders and Taylor (2003) provide evidence that undergraduate major affects graduate school attendance.

In other words, the students who go into those fields -- or any other field with a strong demand and better paying/more stable jobs (nurses can make very good money) are the ones most likely to be able to repay their loans. Therefore, loan forgiveness/higher grants are most likely to help those who are not taking the most useful degrees.

A freer market with fewer subsidies will naturally steer students to those fields most likely to offer increased earnings.

It would be fairly simple concept. All majors qualify, but some are more limited than others. It would be like a hunting license. You apply for the major, but each school that is publicly funded is limited for majors. Leave it up to the school to determine how they decide who gets what, but each school is only given federal money per a program.

If we allow school to be free and get a million useless degrees, unlike like hunting, it is the USA that will become extinct.
 
I am pretty left when it comes to social ideas, but my fear is making school all the way to grad school free would encourage students even more to take worthless degrees. Home many thousands of people with masters in social work or art history does society need?

If "free" school is instituted, then the degree's available need to be limited. Force the kids to get degree's that are good for society, computer degrees, teaching, engineering, nurse practitioner, not a bunch of worthless degrees that lead to jobs in retail.
Sounds like every dystopian novel ever written.
 
It would be fairly simple concept. All majors qualify, but some are more limited than others. It would be like a hunting license. You apply for the major, but each school that is publicly funded is limited for majors. Leave it up to the school to determine how they decide who gets what, but each school is only given federal money per a program.

I don't see how that changes the political realities. You're still going to be disproportionately affecting females and minorities, because there will be so many fewer slots for their preferred majors than for the STEM fields disproportionately favored by white males. How is that not going to become a campaign football by candidates trying to appeal to those voting blicks?

To be clear, I agree with your sentiments. I just think the wailing of discrimination, bias, "undervaluing the humanities", etc. will result in those limits being broadened until they no longer exist. All it would really take is one sympathetic administration, because once it's expanded, there's no going back.

If we allow school to be free and get a million useless degrees, unlike like hunting, it is the USA that will become extinct.

Agreed.
 
It steers them to jobs that are most likely to generate an income. What's wrong with that? Start off with a secure, steady job, learn something about how the works (while repaying your loans) and then become an entrepreneur. Or, if you're one of those who truly has a great entrepreneurial idea and the skills to pull it off right out of college, then go to a bank, get financing, and start it anyway. Loads of people have done that.

But if you're not confident enough in your idea (or can't find enough financial backers) to risk everything coming out of school, why should the rest of us have to subsidize what will likely result in nothing more than a failed venture or someone's hobby? A hell of a lot of self-described entrepeneurs lose money. Or at least, don't really make any.

Your point about how easy it is to come out of school, go to a bank and get financing for a business is cute.
 
If we allow school to be free and get a million useless degrees, unlike like hunting, it is the USA that will become extinct.

I think most would agree with that. I also think that schools will still need to maintain standards for admission. Just because they become federally funded does not mean that they're allowed to let everyone in. Their admission standards should not change, with some schools (as they are now) having more rigid standards than others.
 
Your point about how easy it is to come out of school, go to a bank and get financing for a business is cute.

Except that wasn't my point.

I think it is very hard to do that, and it should be hard, because the vast majority of newly-minted college graduates aren't capable of starting a successful business. They'd be a terrible risk. So the idea (not mine) that we should make sure college graduates don't have a lot of debt so they can "risk entrepreneurial enterprises that make everyone more money" is based on the flawed assumption that starting a successful business from scratch is easy to do.

Now, of course there is Zuckerberg, and there have been others that age who do have great ideas (often based on a patent), and if the idea is good enough, they can get financing. That's rare, but it does happen if you're one of those folks. But most people aren't, and so the smart move for them is to get something more stable first. That was my point.

If someone wants to take risks on getting super wealthy, fine. I'd just prefer they not do it by risking taxpayer dollars they were loaned to finance an education. Pay what you owe to others, and risk your own money.
 
Last edited:
Except that wasn't my point.

I think it is very hard to do that, and it should be hard, because the vast majority of newly-minted college graduates aren't capable of starting a business. They'd be a terrible risk. So the idea (not mine) that we should make sure college graduates don't have a lot of debt so they can "risk entrepreneurial enterprises that make everyone more money" is based on the flawed assumption that starting a successful business from scratch is easy to do.

Now, of course there is Zuckerberg, and there have been others that age who do have great ideas (often based on a patent), and if the idea is good enough, they can get financing. That's rare, but it does happen if you're one of those folks. But most people aren't, and so the smart move for them is to get something more stable first. That was my point.

If someone wants to take risks on getting super wealthy, fine. I'd just prefer they not do it by risking taxpayer dollars they were loaned to finance an education. Pay what you owe to others, and risk your own money.

Tangential.

Q-Tip is against subsidized college education. Talking about getting business loan's is beside the point.
 
The very same Baby-Boomers now depicting Millennials as cry-babies about debt are also the very ones who benefited greatly from subsidized education. Obviously, they got theirs and now the rest of us can fucking eat a dick..

You're deliberately ignoring the key distinction. Yes, boomers borrowed money at reduced interest rates and so had a subsidized education. But they also were required to pay it back. I borrowed $24k to put myself through school, and I paid it all back. What some Millenials are doing now is asking for the same subsidized loans, but saying they shouldn't have to pay it back. So yeah, there are plenty of people who think that's bullshit.

I'd point out that one group that really gets double-fucked here are the non-college educated. They not only don't get to go to college, but are being asked to help subsidize the loan forgiveness of those who did.
 
I find the morality of debt interesting. If a company restructures debt which they do all the time its considered part of doing business. There is very little moral arguments about: its considered a cost of doing business.

However when it comes to individuals there is a strong moral condemnation of people who stop paying their mortgages for example. When in financial terms it is still just s business transaction: higher interest rates the poorer your credit for example. Its an interesting dichotomy

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You're deliberately ignoring the key distinction. Yes, boomers borrowed money at reduced interest rates and so had a subsidized education. But they also were required to pay it back. I borrowed $24k to put myself through school, and I paid it all back. What some Millenials are doing now is asking for the same subsidized loans, but saying they shouldn't have to pay it back. So yeah, there are plenty of people who think that's bullshit.

I'd point out that one group that really gets double-fucked here are the non-college educated. They not only don't get to go to college, but are being asked to help subsidize the loan forgiveness of those who did.

Boomers were able to pay it back because my mom went to college for 5k total. You could pay college off with a part time job. It is wages lagging far behind productivity that makes your comparison apples and oranges

24k would have paid for 1 year of school for me
 
My wife and I both have degrees many would call worthless. We have no debt, own a house and 3 cars outright and send our kid to a private school and yes we are doing what our degrees were in. Ergo I am against limiting what majors could be provided free. However I wouldn't have a problem saying to a potential Fine Art major - sure you can major in ceramics but part of that major is business and marketing geared toward developing a sustainable small business. We were lucky to have a good network to help us out and prevent some big mistakes but I'm always astonished/pissed that my school let me graduate without knowing how to run a spreadsheet much less build a budget and get a tax ID number
 
Boomers were able to pay it back because my mom went to college for 5k total. You could pay college off with a part time job. It is wages lagging far behind productivity that makes your comparison apples and oranges

24k would have paid for 1 year of school for me

This. Another argument I commonly see is: "I didn't need help from the taxpayers to pay my tuition (or loans)".

Yes you did. The major reason that education costs have skyrocketed is because of the ever increasing decline in subsidization at the state and federal levels. States have cut funding to universities and the federal government has cut funding. Your help from the taxpayers was direct and you never saw it.
 
Last edited:
Just pointing out a large part of the problem, in this post:

Ohio State University:

Tuition and fees $10,037

Room and board $11,666

Meal Plan $2,258

Total $23,961 to attend Ohio State University, per year.


Why is room and board + meals $14,000/year? How can they justify charging $1,555/month for a small room, with a roommate and community showers/bathrooms?


I rented an apartment when I was at OSU for $600/month with utilities included and bought my own food for ~$150/month, x 9 months = $6,750 (~$8,000 adjusted for inflation). I had my own bathroom, privacy, a quiet place to study, 10x the square footage, and no roommate. OSU recently mandated that ALL freshmen AND sophomores have to live in the dorms.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top