+Mitjitsu I agree. Simply tell colleges that as of 1 Aug 2016, no school that charges more than 50% above the national average tuition can receive a BIT of government funding (student loans, scholarships, etc). They'll take notice.
@@darthvader7888 here it is, 2022. look how stupid we became. we need way way more schools, teachers, nurses, drs… etc. either that or you have wars because we’re so stupid. want to avoid war? educate.
While I was a student I never realised that I was a parasite: working people (tax payers) were basically paying for my education. Meanwhile, my university was undertaking huge building projects and greatly expanded the sports facilities. I certainly enjoyed the latter, but I was not the one paying for it... And it's great having a nice gym and soccer fields on campus, but it has nothing to do with the core business of universities: education. In fact, hanging out in the gym rather than the library delayed my graduation for several years, so even more subsidies flowed towards the university.
Easy fix, stop student loans, tuition will go down. Colleges can charge more because, to the student, they are not paying for it. So they don't care. You will always have this problem when a 3rd party is paying the bill.
actually yes, because the colleges need to acquire customers, if the customizes can't pay for it, then the colleges can't earn money, so they will lower the tuition fees.
Chris Read higher regulation= more barriers to entry= a more monopolized market price caps=arbitrary closure of pricing factor=complete destruction of normal incentive to study=also runs the risk of ruining educational standards and outright bankrupting and thus removing certain institutions of higher learning. social policies= too broad of a point...
The greatest lie is that the optimal time to attend university is immediately after high school. Millions of relatively ignorant, naive teenagers, who never paid a mortgage or car payment, have to negotiate student loans and attending documents. The unis and loan originators want it that way, they don't want informed, experienced customers making demands on what the hell these documents mean. You want to stop tuition increases cold? Have every student loan become private, and any bank stupid enough to give a 17 year old a $30,000-$50,0000 loan is completely liable for any default. No government assistance, nor subsidy. If you want a loan, then you will approach it as would a business owner, who needs a loan. Prove that you have the capability to pay back the loan, that you have the capacity to control costs, that you have a plan for using the money effectively enough that you can pay it back. It would be an outstanding educational opportunity to have idiots understand how the world actually works, tuition costs would collapse, and worthless universities would be called on their nonsense, and a whole lot of people who do almost nothing for huge salaries would actually need to work for a living.....
College is working overrated… journeymen and trade jobs are increasing salaries at faster rates since there’s fewer of them. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.
I have researched the education bubble for 4 years. It's near impossible to pay your way through college while you are there. Too many people want to sugar coat a college degree but it's just too expensive to justify.
I love they systematic way these videos present complex economic principles in ways that the everyman can understand. the videos are supported by evidence and not by name calling. I love this!
+Nathan Berryhill - That could be logically speaking. One of my friends who happens to be a veteran says some of his veteran friends go to college because they essentially get paid to do it rather than because of any desire to actually be there.
yes it is, it's a hard truth to swallow since my cousin is currently using his right now. but the GI bill is exactly another program that inflates education costs.
Yes. I'm a veteran myself. I appreciate that videos from this channel base their arguments from educated and objective sources versus an emotionally charged one. I'm not arguing that the GI Bill has been squandered on the people who fought for our country. Some vets have moved on to be society's contributors. Still, the Bill is guilty of being abused because it does artificially stimulate the cash flow of that money to go to facilities without increase to the value of the education like this video is presenting.
In germany collage is free (you pay 250€ per semester for a bus ticket and stuff) and you also get a loan (up to 600€ a month) if you cant afford to study (apartment and so on). If you succeed your study you will only have to pay back 50% (down to 30% if you are really good) as soon as you get a job. Next to scholarships from companys (where you have to sign a contract) you can also get a scholarship from germany itself if you are one of the best in your department. >> No money shouldn't be the reason not to study.
Ha11owed It's just free for the one who wants to study of course. Education is an investment and if he will finish his studies he will most likely earn more money and again pay more taxes later on than someone not studying. Taxes are thrown together in one big bag but you could theoretically assume the amount the academics pay more is just spend for the students and the non-academics pay nothing for it. Anyways, we dont differenciate such things which would be stupid in my opinion. Everyone may study and it's his own personal decision not to.
Ha11owed I've meant we dont differenciate people who pay more or less taxes by any means. The one who pays less has the same rights as the one paying more. Most people talking about "taxpayer" differenciate people somehow by paying more or less taxes because in fact everyone is paying tax no matter if he earns money or not. I'm not sure if or how much money the university receives from the country. Our universities are no non-profit organisations. They work together with all kinds of companys and investors. All employees do research all the time and giving lectures is just a "side effect" by being employed at an university and not directly at the company itself. Another side effect is the student being much more integrated into practical work. There are a lot of jobs the universities are offering to its students.
Nation PQ Our graduation rate might be low due to the high requirements to pass. If you pay 30k for collage a year the university wont let you fail since your parents pretty much pay them to make you pass. I don't know if this is a good thing to not be able to pass your studies on your own. I think thats the key in german engineering for example. If your discipline is not strong enough to do it on your own - while being young and party a lot - you will fail. You will fail and leave the university without a degree after years of studying. Germany also has a really high demand on regular workers. It's not only the german engineers which are responsible for our reputation. It's the workers which are doing a great job without having seen a university from the inside too.
Nation PQ I've meant the requirements to pass your studies, not the requirements to get into collage. We have a lot of people failing because they are too lazy. In the US even those lazy dudes can pass their classes because the university wants them to, so they don't lose their reputation. In germany we don't care about reputation. You can basically study everywhere, it doesn't really matter. I haven't even spent a minute checking reputations online when chosing my collage. I've chosen it by the area i want to live and so on. You can't compare what the tax payer pays and what you pay in the US because you don't know how much it actually is the tax payer pays. It is by far less than what you pay because our average wages are arround 20-25k Euros a year. Nobody could afford to pay more than he does right now just because our system is build on that. There is no money inside your salary which you could spend for education as a tax. The money for that is taken from the companies because they support and invest into collages. Their return of investment is educated workers and the research done by the university itself. I think it is just completely different from the ground up.
Its monopoly power of the credentialing by the universities. If a third-party was responsible for granting the degree, then people could evaluate college's true cost. Also, people could self-educate like Lincoln and wouldn't need to take on the immense cost of college. If you know your field, a degree from a university shouldn't matter.
Thanks for the great video. This cuts through the "BS" and really gets to the heart of the matter. I go to ASU and tuition has doubled since the recession in 2008--to handle higher demand. Also, this university CLEARLY has no incentive to cut costs or save money anywhere. The Arizona Board of Regents have the El Dorado of the mind with higher enrollment and tuition due to subsidies, lack of competition, and no incentive to cut costs. Thanks again!
I mentioned the bailouts, and also, if you check the US federal budget, MOST of it is income transfer and subsidies to special parties. The empirically derived position is that private property and competitive markets almost always tend to be more efficient than centralized means.
Generally pretty good, but there is an apologist bent to it. 1) He speaks as if colleges have no choice but to raise tuition since demand is high. But that's largely a false argument, colleges could instead keep their prices the same and just raise entry criteria. 2) He also cites that the two big reasons for the high cost are the better job prospects of graduates and the insidious effects of subsidies, but he forgets one -- blatant greed 3) He does note that colleges keep spending more on student centers, new buildings, etc, but he doesn't note how that drives up all non-tuition college expenses, making it more expensive overall. 4) Finally, he doesn't note the gross greed that drives colleges and professors to insist that a version of a textbook, unique to that one school, be used because it costs twice as much and can't be gotten used AND because they (the professor and college) get a cut of the profits. THAT does NOTHING to improve a class, just transfers money from poor students to rich faculty.
+jahenders Hmm, considering how some colleges already have extremely high standards, I don't see why you would want them to raise entry requirements even further. I agree that he forgot to mention the disproportionately high income of some staff.
+Liuhuayue I'm simply responding to his claim. He claims that, faced with ever-growing demand for education, colleges can respond in only two ways: 1) increase supply by accepting more students, or 2) raise tuition. This is a false argument for two reasons: a) it does nothing to better match supply and demand, b) there is something else they can do -- just be more selective in which students they accept to perfectly match what they can handle. He's essentially saying they raise tuition so that cost is a filter that weeds out those who can't be as much. Instead, they could use some other criteria (grades, test scores, etc) to weed out applicants instead. They do NOT need to raise tuition -- they choose to do that because they're greedy.
+jahenders So your trump card is that they can simply leave more people uneducated? You make it sound as if that was some great panacea. If public schools decided that they would leave millions of people uneducated who were willing and able, that would have a cost as well. That is unless you think that it is ok to have a lower educational attainment here. Secondly, they use that money to give people all of those added benefits (nice dorms, stadiums etc.) I think they don't need all of that. However most people when looking at a college do pay attention to those things. People choose prestigious universities for the look as well. What they should do is create more colleges and not spend money on unnecessary (stadiums) things. Not filter millions of people out of an education. And blaming greed is just ridiculous. Why not just blame human beings for just being inherently evil.
jahenders I think admission standards for some schools are already high enough. I agree that a large part of the massive tuition rise is due to administrative and staff greed. They don't *have* to have mega paychecks, but they ended up with them.
Matthew Graham higher entry level educational standards won't leave them uneducated. It will lead them to alternative less expensive educations and self mastery. That's a hell of an assumption saying the people who get denied will just be uneducated.
Germany keeps Euro costs low by allowing admissions standards to inflate instead. Scandinavia also looks great at first for the same reason, but the price of that "free" education is meeting high academic standards! What if you don't make the cut? They do give more generous aid packages for studying elsewhere, but you do have to pay more out of your own pocket by being one of the students farmed out to colleges in other countries. Not all the students that decide to attend college outside of their home countries in Europe are less skilled than their home country peers, but those that have lower performance are not allowed into the tuition-free schools and have to shop more expensive options, often in the US or UK.
In other words, competition will always exist. If everyone can afford it, just raise the price and select only those who can afford the higher education.
Answer: Highly regulated entrance requirements to the business (unless you want to be unaccredited, where in fact supply is booming--faster than there are people who want an unaccredited degree, even).
I went to a community college for two years before transferring to a relatively inexpensive school(University of California Riverside) and when my parents retired I was able to qualify for enough grant money to pay for my tuition. Also, living at home with my parents reduces my rent and food costs to 0.
There is a sociological perspective with the increase of tuition in college. If you compare the demographics of students from 1950s America, you will see that college had a very specific group of individuals: upper middle class, white. males. heterosexual. However, due to the increase of many different variations of individuals, we must expect the competitiveness will increase because their simply are not enough jobs created for each person. The solution is accepting that humans are complex. Students must realize that degrees of interest will often not equal degrees of lucrative worth. Thus, it is recommended to enter sectors that are in demand such as engineering, mathematics, technology, etc. The problem is the fear of failure. If one cannot optimally perform at a certain level, then it is not worth the risk. College will benefit those who enter fields of the 21st Century. If you go to IVY schools though, many affluent students study the classics and arts because they are not concern about getting a job. Most of the lower middle class focuses on these issues. In conclusion: demographics play a massive factor to this topic.
The only solution for high costs is to have more people willing to provide that service. Ideally you would want every market to be flooded to a point where there is no easy money to be made anywhere. A culture where everyone is a master of what they do. If such a culture existed, people might be less interested on what they would buy and more interested in there living. People might realize that happiness is not something they can buy, but something they must make. Just a thought.
It sounds like the guys who scripted this video do not get out much. Other countries invest more in education than they spend on the military while the US does the opposite and like all market based solutions education left to chance does not work. I knew someone majoring in Latin American Studies at the University of Havana who transfered there from UCLA and tells me the students in Cuba are fluently multilingual and better informed than their American counterparts...and their university tuition is free, imagine that!
And what exactly can you do with a Latin American Studies other than take a seat that could have been invested on someone else? You have just started to prove a piece of a point that he made nearly in the beginning of the video.
It sounds like your background is votech and there is nothing wrong with that either. If you think education is expensive try replacing it with ignorance and see how efficient the results are. I doubt that the values of civilization or the lessons of history require turning a profit to be of value. Sounds like the guys who scripted this video are answering to a rather narrow constituency, no?
You can spend as much as you like, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will get more people to teach. or more people to pass. If it is harder to get into your college in Havana, naturally you will might expect to see a higher caliber of student and teacher.
There is a direct relationship between public investment and social outcomes. The program of education defunding that began with Ronald Reagan in the US 30 years ago has had devastating consequences that have not been corrected for as the theory of market based solutions would have us believe.
My post refers to a Reagan era political agenda that became public when he was governor of California. Your post claims the existence of data. So, present your data and identify the source. Do you know what a factor of 10 means? Please explain how you are going to save Gotham City from the evil conspiracy of public education, Batman!
Its difficult to get into some universities because you have to prove you want to learn. Their quality of instruction is really no different then any other college though, the quality of students is what makes them desirable degrees. The classes tend to test you more though, which is why people think you have to be smart to go to them. Really, all it comes down to is having a passion and being able to spend 100 hours a week on learning.
This video is only *technically* right. Almost every other industrialized nation has publically funded higher education, which is far cheaper and far better quality than American higher education. The answer to the problem is not 'more capitalism' because the problem with higher education in America IS capitalism. Those who can afford college get college, instead of those who need or get the most out of college receiving it. The solution is stricter regulation of capitalist practices in higher education, if not government funded higher education for all that get accepted. For profit institutions turn what is meant to provide as many people with the education they need into a scam. Schools should not be focused on their bank accounts, they should be focused on providing the best possible education to their students.
***** It's the least worse. It still doesn't make it unfair or expensive. The free market is not perfect, it needs regulation to ensure living standards for all of those that deserve it.
A. We do indeed have some of the greatest universities on the planet. Students come from around the world, including from Europe to study in the U.S. B. What capitalist practice are you suggesting we end? Where students are responsible for their own education, including paying for the cost later on? Your solution of "government funded higher education for all that get accepted" essentially is occurring today in the form of loans and subsidies as mentioned in the video. What behavior would change if colleges billed the government directly, rather than to the student only to ask from the government. What would stop them from still increasing the price?
Actually when it comes to higher education, American universities do pretty well. If you look at the top university rankings American universities (along with British ones and a few other countries) are pretty well represented.
Education should be accessible to everybody, independently of their income. It is a right, not a privilege, nor is it like any other merch. It is the transmission of the humanity's knowledge from one generation to another: putting barriers to it is quite counterproductive. Also, why should we ask students to pay when they don't have the money. There is a system that allows everybody to pay in function of their capacity: progressive taxation.
+LegitLimiTz While true, the "not for profit" schools in the US have tuition inflation on par with the profit ones so it's not profit greed, it's just greed.
as he said the demand is what drives prices in China as well as other countries students take a test if they pass they are allowed to go to college if they don't they don't go. This restriction on college keeps prices in check.
Depending, on the state, 1) is wrong. How can a 52% taxpayer funded system be 2) "privatized?" 3) What criterion are you talking about, regulations compared with WHAT country? 4) I did mention that the US is the ONLY developed country in the world without price controls on medical services in general, and so in effect, countries like the Netherlands import US medical capital research AND market prices for free.
World Mentoring Academy(a MOOC est. 4/2010) has 800+ courses with 180+courses aligning with AP/CLEP/DSST/CSS/NYU-SCPS/TECEP etc test out programs. A student can also study courses to challenge their University courses. One student earned has Bachelors in less than a year and $5,000(textbooks & test fees) from a US State University(regionally accredited).
the guy who never uploads anything Since English is your 2nd language, I'll take it easy on you. What you mean is the student, who gets the education, only pays a small amount. The bulk of the cost is paid by the people that _don't_ get the education. Now, why am I not surprised that such a system would produce people that make such an obvious mistake?
jeffiek They already got the education, and are now paying it forward so that the future generations of their fellow citizens also get a quality education. They aren't receiving it at the same time, but quality education for all benefits those receiving it and their fellow citizens at the same time - just in different ways.
ramblingpariah "They already got" - Prove it. ( hint: you can't. Attendance is rate is always less than 100%, at best _some_ "already got" ) "paying it forward" - Prove it. ( hint: you can't. People emmigrate. At best _some_ may pay it forward ) "...and their fellow citizens" - Prove it. Oh, and I want receipts. You know, that thing called _accounting_. You may be dumb enough to trust politicians. I'm not. My original post gives the most optimistic ( least evil ) presentation. Reality is no one even knows if it's been paid for at all. Finland is $153 Billion in debt. For all anyone knows the grandchildren will pay for it. Stealing from the unborn? Really? All you got is a fairy tale.
jeffiek When youre a child you receive all kinds of benefits including education. Then when youre working you pay taxes. when you retire you again start receiving the benefits. It gives everyone the same possibilities and equalises the wage gaps. whats wrong with that?
The only way to combat this madness is to start making social policies. The education should not const a penny. It should be free. Everyone should have equal opportunity from the start of life to make a good life and improve the life of others. The only way to do that is to fund the education by progressive taxes
Are you kidding me? Free education? I agree that everyone should have an equal opportunity but "free" is not the solution. The solution is: cheaper. And who would pay for "free" education? The government? Taxes would skyrocket so you the amount of taxes you would pay would be almost as much as college debt.
I am serious. Here where I live (in Sweden) our eduction gets funded by taxes. We even earn money by going to school up until we become 20 years old. Our taxes has been lowered drastically since the right wing parties got to power in 2006 this has resulted in a declining public sector. I really hope that will change now. I do not mind paying high taxes as long as they are spent for a good cause. It is not possible to have "equal opportunity" when the quality of your eduction depends on how much money you have. The only way to give equal opportunity to all is through progressive taxes where everyone contribute according to their ability.
callofduty102903 I think that you exaggerating quite a bit there. I did not suggest that we should nationalize factories, corporations, farms and land. I did not say that we should implement to "dictatorship of the proletariat". But even if we where to do all that we would still not have communism. For communism (in the traditional Marxist sense) is a theoretical utopian society where: - There are no classes and everyone are completely 100 % equal - There is no money - There is no state This means that none of the so called "communist states" where ever communist. Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and China are/where all what is called "socialist" instead. What I suggested was merely a social policy. It is already practised in many capitalist countries without any problems.
My concern with college education is how it's being oversold. If you are getting a job in intellectualism or high level professionalism like academia, medicine, law, or technology then yes, get a university education. But if not, then there are better options for post-secondary education. Employer-funded vocational schools and apprenticeships are far more effective at training a workforce than universities. This is the kind of tertiary education system you find in Europe and it is working.
I would add that the reason why there is such a disparity between the wages of a high school graduate and a collage graduate is the government regulation of aptitude tests in businesses to ensure that there is no "unfair discrimination." Because of this, more businesses require collage degrees in order to avoid getting litigation from supposedly discriminatory aptitude tests. People are saying now that masters degrees are the new bachelors degrees.
if each student costs the school a different amount of money in terms of resources used, the higher tuition is the more students the school can make money off of and the more students will be accepted to colleges, plus more people will open new colleges if there is more money to be made from it.
true but vocational school in most nations are falling in number and business are becoming less interested in funding their employees' education, preferring to directly source from universities graduates who are in need of employment to pay off dept. But there are still many companies that still provide vocational schooling for their sector and to employees, so I suggest people to still look into them.
One of the biggest problems in the "higher education" arena is that a more expensive school doesn't equate to better pay over time or even a better education. Shopping around to lower cost colleges can actually save you money for the same education. But knowing what you want to study is key, so you can pick the right school... or no school at all. There are jobs that require no college, but apprentiship or on-th-job training. Study shows pay over time can equal college grads' pay in some cases.
In Croatia collages are basically free, if you fail class you must pay according to ECTS points value of that class, if you don't collect half of ECTS points in one year you have to pay whole year whic is about 1100 euros, and thats still far less than 80 grand people pay in America
Building more facilities (dorms & classrooms) is required to expand enrollments, as is hiring more faculty and administrators. All of those are investment costs that must be funded up front, with no guarantee of return. Makes much more sense to limit enrollments and keep those out who don't cut it.
In part, you are right, which is WHY I mentioned before that Keynes' fatal flaw is political economy related. There were other bailouts to GM, Fannie Freddie, subsidies to special parties, most who were NOT "rich" like the bankers. But if you know political economy, you understand that central government spending will eventually get wasted...the temptation is too great when you spend someone else's money on someone else.
You don't have to raise the price because the supply is limited. The tuition from additional students should cover the costs of additional dorms, food service and classrooms.
I think the economics in this video could have been clearer. There are two basic points made here: 1) When demand increases, schools can only increase their capacity by increasing their price (law of supply). 2) A subsidy to *you* makes college more affordable to you, but a subsidy to *everyone* pushes us all up the supply curve.
Absolutely agree with you! Now people would say "then what happens if I go to an unaccredited institution/company that may screw me over" the answer is that they'd go out of business. More competition leads to better quality and cheaper options. Accreditation has recently hurt a great college in my area and licencing has led to a few people I know from being denied entry to participate in markets like hair styling! The things once designed to protect us always come back to hurt us!
It is not just aid, its also loans. When a school sees that a student can obtain a few thousand from another source by essentially asking for it, that school will use that as an excuse to raise fees.
I have a friend who is great with cars. In his free time he buys broken cars, fixes them, and sell them for a profit. He hates school, gets bad grades (c/d average), and the only reason he is still here is because his parents believe that if you dont get a college degree today you will be making minimum wage for the rest of your life. Fun fact: The college graduation rate for a bachelors degree is around 60%.
Private funding and donations ended up being a bad idea in certain places. You are definitely correct, they need to have some kind of fund paying for them that is in the form of a tax.
Don't forget that a rising college premium also drives up the hiring costs of colleges! Higher demand for people with high skills (like college professors) makes it more costly to use them to produce college degrees.
Subsidies dont really lower the price they just pay some of the bill so the university can charge whatever price and know the government will pay it because the student doesn't know the real price.
He has a point about colleges increasing their staff and building bigger football stadiums and buildings on campus, but college educated professionals, such as accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.. have always had higher salaries than somebody with just a high school diploma or a high school dropout. And the high school dropout rate has risen in many states, so while there may be increased enrollment in colleges, there are also increased dropout rates in both high schools and college
Correct me if I'm wrong. Huge demand > high tuition > Less people can affort college > decrease demand / keep up with the demand... first answer = That's also mean there are less educate people US > bad quality employee & business > US company move they're business oversea / or hired educate foreign worker > that will hurt the country in the long term. Second answer = It's takes longer for student to pay the loan back > Less spending > decrease cash flow > Decrease demand for luxery /1st world product > bankrupt company > More jobs will lose > more demand for collage > still increase tuition. What Next ??? 1/2 millions dollar tuition for 1 degree. No wonder US goverment has huge debt , They're entire strategy make no sense at all.
In Europe all prices (small amounts, not cars our houses) are always shown with taxes so you don't feel hate against your government every time you checkout...
yes 100% true. But increase students number to a uni course are found not to increase costs, if their is not a shortage of demand. Uni courses I can tell you are mass produced, same course for a large group of students. Increasing that group, that is receiving the same product increases profits. the increase costs are only short term and most are offset by increase in student numbers.
Online colleges (such as the University of Phoenix), can have near-infinite enrollment, as the marginal cost of each student is the additional bandwidth. However, diplomas aren't just more income, they're also more prestige, something that only established brick-and-mortar schools offer. Building a college takes a lot of time and money, but building respect can take decades.
Well here is something to think about: In the year 1840, a laborer would take 9 months of earnings to pay for a 4 year degree from Yale. 2013 (over a 170 years) later, a laborer would have to work close to 4 years to pay for Yale. thanks God for the government is making college affordable
The example of education/tuition fees in the US is to me a good example of an inflating financial bubble: more and more students are willing to pay for an expensive education in order to get a degree helping getting a job afterwards, however this system has its limit: when students loans become ridiculously high so that they can't pay this money back (+ interests) once they actually get a job.
in Sweden, tax rates are exponentially higher than they are here. I'm not implying anything negative towards both sides but its important to note that everyone in every country must pay tuition, in some way, for a higher education
The risk is not absorbed through higher interest rates. Higher interests rates would cause more students to default causing more government covered losses.You are correct that raising entry requirements would restrict demand by limiting who qualifies for a program. If a school could not lower the requirements, then the school could potentially compete to attract more students who qualify by lowering their costs. However, it is much easier to simply lower the requirements to get more students.
On the advise front, you have several options; here's two off the top of my head: 1) Work for 2 years or so to save, and then go to college. No rule says you have to be right out of HS. 2) Go to a 2-year school to get the basic non-major courses and transfer. Best of luck in any case though. If I had kids, I'd be ripping my hair out trying to figure out how I would pay for them to go to college...
End subsidies. Costs will go up initially, but then when less students enrol costs will drop again to reflect actual supply and demand. I'm a student and I don't see University as some right I deserve that the government must help pay for, I see it as an opportunity to get a degree to get ahead of others. People need to realize they aren't entitled to post-secondary education.
Several reasons - the accreditation process, mountains of regulations and high taxes make it very costly/difficult for new universities to start-up. Also, enrollment caps (set by the state) prohibit many public universities from growing their campuses beyond a certain point. Despite this, the cracks in the system are starting show - as evidenced by the rapid growth and improving reputation of for-profit universities like University of Phoenix.
you make a good point. Depends on the field also. Some degrees you need a high degree just to get a job. Also social sciences and art degrees are hard ones to get a job in. Technical and hard science(math,computer science,engineering, physics,etc) are easier to get a job. We must also consider foreign degree holder to take less pay to compete with us. Work experience and good contact reference will lead us to a job.
The reason why college is so expensive is because while France has invested in higher education and universal healthcare, the United States has invested a large portion of its budget in the military. I'm not sure if you can find them in France but there are for profit colleges in the United States which only adds to the overall cost.
When you compare American taxes to taxes paid in other countries, you have to add primary health care costs to the American "taxes" (even if they're not technically considered "taxes"), because in most other developed countries, those costs are covered by taxes. So if the average household in the USA pays $6,000 per year in health care premiums + deductibles, you need to add $6,000 to their taxes to come up with the "true" value in taxes they're paying.
If you study an aggregate demand diagram you can see that by increasing aggregate supply you help to achieve all of the macro economic objectives, this makes it insane to argue against subsidies to collage.
Get a credit card at high school graduation, work on your credit for two years, get loans to go to school, continue to use the credit card in school and pay it off. Once you graduate your credit should be enough by the six month grace period to fully pay off or massively reduce your debt. Declare bankruptcy. You'll have a fraction of your debt and no credit, which only affects you for seven years. Enjoy the rest of your life.
Its simple really, most kids grow up being told by their parents, and just about everyone else, that they NEED college to live a happy/successful life. What colleges are doing is profiting off of the popularized thought "I need college if i want to live a happy life." Prices will keep rising because this thought is concreted in most of society, and the greedy colleges know it.
All the subsidies actually do is disincentivize savings because these subsidies essentially defer the state funding for schools to higher tuition which penalizes those who save. The only other thing I wished this video talked about is the blowback effect of overqualification. Many students won't get hired based on the sole fact of their secondary education. Many businesses won't go through the cost and effort to train someone who is only going to jump ship when they find school related work.
Actually, for-profit higher education has risen substantially recently. There are pros and cons to this, but in general the rising demand has led to increased supply from those willing to supply it.
Licensing laws, the main purpose for higher education, don't allow for use of "unofficial" learning for credit that leads towards professional licensing. You won't be allowed to go to medical school if you took organic chemistry on Khan Academy.
We got the same saying here in Sweden. People assume that education is free as well as healthcare. I don't know how that false rumor started but I would like it to go away for the sake of both our countries.
Actually I would argue both are major effects that have resulted in increased cost. Our society is moving away from labor jobs, towards service and education based jobs. As such the demand for higher level education increases. The dual effect of both of these causes creates the increased prices. In addition, government financial aid acts through supply and demand. It increase supply by lowering the effective cost for students to get the education in the first place
Secondly, private Universities have not seen as high of a rise in tuition as state funded universities. This is because the state-funded universities have an unintended incentive that they must overspend their budget every year, that way, the government will give them a bigger budget the subsequent year. If they under-spend, then their budget is cut smaller. So State funded universities raise tuition on a nearly yearly basis, where private universities raise tuition as needed.
Here in the Netherlands nearly all schools are subsidized by the government, these schools have to follow certain standards on which the goverment decides. The education is fairly good and affordable. Competition in healthcare tends to scare me slightly because healthcare should be about people, not money. Healthcare should meet standards laid down by the government, not competition. With this system of healthcare the Netherlands have the best healthcare quality to spendings pro capita ratio.
I forgot about trades, you're right. In fact, higher prices and markets, despite being perversed, are pushing many people into trade schools, adults schools, and community colleges.
No, the cause of the problem is that the short-term cost of going to college is artificially low for those who receive grants, scholarship, loans, etc. this means that their demand to attend college is elevated beyond what it would be if they paid directly. And, as with any situation where a third party is "paying the bills" and payment is pushed off into the distant future, costs will rise faster - this is exactly what we see in education, health care, military spending, etc.
The important part is that this correlation increases the demand for a college degree on the part of the student. More people want a degree because it appears that a college degree can yield higher wages. Does it matter whether it's necessarily true? No. This correlation is causing demand to rise.
I'm a college student and feel that paying for college is almost a joke. These days you can learn almost anything on the internet for free. ie. Khan Academy, MIT OpenCourseWare, Google, RU-vid, etc. College only prepares you to get a degree for a job, NOT how to be a critical thinker to solve problems in society. There are so many smart and talented people who have the potential to make our world a better place BUT our education is bounded by our culture, society, media and the gov't.
Tuition in Canada is generally 50% - 90% funded by the government. Ask your college how much it would cost an exchange student to attend the same program. You will be flabbergasted at the number given. In my case, the college I was at was charging local students $2000 a year, and exchange students $10,000 a year (this was 15 years ago).
the reason degrees pay more than they used to is because of computers, the skills you used to need for lower or mid level management are now done by computers, so jobs don't require the skills they used to. but someone has to design and program those computers, hence a degree pays more than before while non degree jobs pay less
As a student junior high school student, I've decided that I am not going to college. I dropped out once but came back due to annoyance from family and friends. If you're an entrepreneur, public speaker, or simply making a living from doing what you love, please contact me and I'd like to hear about your journeys and struggles and we can talk about general things on how to be financially independent and improving lifestyle.
The first point is a typical example of wrongly inferring causation from correlation. There is only a correlation of education attainment and job prospects.
I'll put it another way. At one university where I taught a course on contract students were charged about $500 per course. That course had about 40 students for a total intake of $20k. Granted some portion of this paid for administration and the building costs and my teaching contract of about 7k. I could rent a community center one night a week and teach the same course for just the 7k. Even if total costs in this case were 10k, that would mean a 50% reduction in fees - And I'd make the same.
Thankfully higher education in New Zealand is heavily subsidized by the government, and the average amount per year that you would expect to pay at a university or other institute is about $5000-$8000 per year.
The way my degree benefits me the most is that it impresses egotistical employers who think higher education is noble and valuable. When I was 24, I had an interview with the person who would become my boss. He talked a lot about education and asked why my grades from high school were so low. Yes, high school. Applicants had to include their high school GPA.
Another thing is not even mentioned is that those fees are use to pay the academic reseach bubbles, which outcomes are mostly useless in practice, but rather to increase the number of publications for the member of the universities. Reseachers are, bottom line, living at the expense of the system, which demand higher fees to sustaint their way of living.
I think that education as a whole needs a revamp. It's hard for us from the bottom to make those on top make the changes we need, so we ought to think from the bottom up. Help to educate people in any way you can, especially on the internet, and make sure to educate the young people in the country that college is not the best thing ever. Plead with them to think for themselves, to ask what they really want out of life, and if it's money, is college the best way to get it?
It isn't just subsidies. It's cultural. Everyone and their dog thinks that college (and the college experience) is absolutely necessary. When students start learning in a cost-effective way and employers start testing for skills instead of degrees, that will have tremendous downward pressure on tuition.
Have you seen the video at all? It IS a matter of supply and demand, it is just the demand is artificially increased by all the government actions, students loan guarantees being one of them.
It was also caused by $500,000 loans being given to people who didn't have homes or cars, but just needed to pay off a debt made to a more scary reality (drugs/gambling). This was made possible by Sub-Prime lending, which was created as a norm when international funders wanted to invest in the US. These international investors want to invest but the federal reserve offers them 1%. Banks say, "Hey, we can get you 20%!" Lots of money flows in, lots of sub-prime loans go out.
Systems do exist where education is nearly free for all in Sweden and France for example, where it is mostly funded by the States. The quality of education is also high although there may not be exactly the same campus with the fancy facilities... But at the end of the day these systems are more fair. Subsidies can be used differently if one really wants to improve that system.
The purpose of college is essentially go obtain professional licensing. For most well-paying professions, you need to graduate from college officially to qualify for a license. Since MIT's Open Course Ware doesn't lead to credit and neither does Khan Academy, these two things don't help students as much as you might think.
Another example of throwing money at an industry having the opposite effect: There was a call for donations to purchase slaves in Africa in order to set them free. While this is all very honorable and at the surface a charitable, noble thing to do, the effects were opposite. It drove the price of slaves higher and slave sellers saw more potential for profit. more slaves were being caught and and more being sold. People were even signing up to be slaves because there was agood chance of freedom
