Skip to main content

http://finance.yahoo.com/...

A big change is coming soon for graduate students who use federal student loans to fund their education.

Currently, grad students with demonstrated financial need can take out subsidized Stafford loans, which don't accrue interest until after graduation. Through school and six months after graduation, the government pays for the interest that accrues on subsidized loans.

So, you have to pay back your loans immediately? On what income?

Oh, but they had to do this say the shills:

Though the decision may seem egregious to loan-burdened graduate students, it was the "lesser of two evils" debated in what became the Budget Control Act of 2011, says Mark Kantrowitz, founder of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com. Instead of cutting the Pell grant program, a lifeline that makes college possible for millions of needy students, Congress moved to eliminate graduate student loan subsidies.
I like how Kantrowitz pits Pell Grants against subbed loans for grad school. No one mentions though the massive defaults (over 50%) on loans for for-profit and online schools, with CEOs and investors siphoning off billions for their pockets. No, it's subsidized loans versus Pell Grants. Nothing to see here, move on.

Just a couple additional points:

1. To forestall the inevitable argument that loans cause increases in tuition, I don't buy it, and the studies show this isn't happening, and I wrote a diary about this:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

2. I really do like (almost wrote love) Obama as our president, and very well recognize he has a huge uphill battle to climb in the current context, but when it comes to education (primary, secondary and higher) he has been an utter disaster. From Arne Duncan to this decision, one bad deal after another. Race to the Top is as big a joke as No Child Left Behind, and he did not fight hard enough against loans for for-profit shysters.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:31:02 AM PDT

  •  Change your title please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    upstate NY

    Daily KOS gets blocked from many sites as inappropriate content when there is offensive languaged used in the diary titles.

    “Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” ― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

    by Cinnamon on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:34:04 AM PDT

  •  Lesser of two evils? (4+ / 0-)

    Apparently spending public money on education is an "evil."

    Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

    by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:42:20 AM PDT

    •  A lot of these so-called education websites (4+ / 0-)

      are right-wing shills (posing as defenders of everyman) who operate on the idea that public subsidy for Higher Education leads to rising tuitions whereas in reality, the exact opposite is true.

      It's another assault on education in America coming from the right wing.

      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

      by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm somewhat indifferent about this issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan

      ...and I say that as a current grad student.

      Also, I should point out that people don't have to repay loans immediately because of this. The issue is that they're going to stop originating subsidized loans.

      This is only for grad students, though. So the people we are talking about have already been through college, and should have learned enough to have a successful career already (yeah, sorry if you chose spanish lit for your major - that was dumb on your part). I, like most people going to grad school, chose a discipline for which there is demand. And now when I return to school as a grad student, I can pay a little more interest than the undergrads who are just getting started in life. I think that's fair.

      Access to graduate school isn't being taken away. Granted, I think cutting education funding instead of military is kinda dumb, but I can see that this isn't going to have a massively disruptive effect on higher education. If anything, it will weed out the people who are going to graduate school for disciplines that don't qualify them for careers in demand. And that's fine with me.

      •  It's OK (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bach50b3, Joe Bob

        as long as you the liberal arts are worthless.

        God help us if more people shared your attitude.

        There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

        by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:54:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Worth" is in the eye of the purchaser (0+ / 0-)

          It's not that I don't value Spanish Lit, it's that society does not value Spanish Lit enough to pay for people who have that skill. So, as a society, why should we be subsidizing this? Why should tax dollars go to pay for someone to learn Spanish Lit when that money could go towards helping someone learn engineering and be able to "repay" that investment with the added wealth their services bring to society?

          But really, that argument is moot for this discussion. We do allow people to spend tax dollars through subsidies on educations for which there is no market demand. What we we're now talking about is whether or not taxes should subsidize post-graduate studies. And the issue is whether or not we can rely on college graduates (people who should be responsible adults) to take out their own loans for their schooling without government intervention. I think they can. And if they can't, it's probably because they are pursuing careers that don't have a lot of societal benefit - giving cause for why taxes shouldn't fund them.

          •  Simply put: I see a lot of value (0+ / 0-)

            in the liberal arts.

            There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

            by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It depends on the art for me... (0+ / 0-)

              Spanish Lit, probably not so much.

              Theatre (which the next comment talks about) does have great value in my eyes. I probably see 1-2 theatre events a year, paying money each time to do so. Some of this money gets passed on to the people performing the work that makes theatre possible. So, they wind up with some money that can then be used to pursue post-graduate education. I know most theatre jobs don't pay all that well, but there are market reasons for that (usually that lots of people want to supply these jobs, so the labor rate gets bidded down... but that's another issue).

              The main point is that if you find it valuable, you'll spend money on it, and the people responsible will be able to take a cut of that - which can they can then reinvest in their liberal arts post-graduate education. This mechanism doesn't exist for undergraduates, so those kids need more proportional help from the government than graduate students in my mind.

              •  Not everything in life.... (0+ / 0-)

                ....is investment grade.

                Some things are valuable but not immediately to be invested.

                The top economic theories out there right now (the ones that didn't fail miserably in the last few years) are highly informed by literary theory and philosophy, and no one put stakes in those currents of thought.

                Where would would be if everything was reduced to its monetary value?

                There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That being said... (0+ / 0-)

                  College is a bum deal unless it provides you an increased earnings potential that is worth the cost.  We don't want to demean education and scholarship by reducing it to a monetary value, but if students don't at least think about where college will get them, then they're setting themselves up to be screwed.

                  However, this is not so much a matter of choosing a lucrative major, but making sure you take enough courses across multiple departments and acquire a portfolio of skills that can be placed on a resume.

                  Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                  by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:34:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree. The whole point of society, and what (0+ / 0-)

                    makes our species great is our capacity to mutually serve the needs of one another. Actually, I'm going to make this my sig line.

                    The point is that if you want the society to invest in giving you skills, those skills need to be demanded (at rates high enough to reimburse the costs) by the society.

                    If, on the other hand, you just want to pursue Spanish Lit with your own money, have at it. I genuinely hope you enjoy it, and I hope the knowledge gives you what you hope for. I like learning for no particular reason. It's asking society to help pay for it that I disagree with.

                    •  WTF is it with you and Spanish Lit? (0+ / 0-)

                      Spanish-speaking people give you the heebie-jeebies?

                      •  I'm just using Spanish Lit as an example (0+ / 0-)

                        because I have a friend who just returned to school to get a Masters in Spanish Lit.

                        I have nothing wrong with Spanish-speaking people. I've taken some Spanish. My mother-in-law is a Spanish teacher. I've made multiple trips to Spain and Mexico, and I love the cultures. Spanish isn't my problem at all.

                        My problem is tax dollars going to fund post-graduate education in fields not likely to raise the students' salaries enough so that the spent tax dollars are offset by higher tax revenues from the students after they graduate.

                        The whole point of society and what makes our species great is our capacity to mutually serve the needs of one another.

                        by probusinessdem on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:34:59 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Problem with your logic: (0+ / 0-)

                          If you want to have a university instead of a trade school, you can't restrict funds to lucrative departments like computer science.  Any respectable university is going to have departments of philosophy and history and English, and a university education requires that students take courses in liberal arts to round out their education.  Otherwise it's not going to survive as an accredited university.

                          If you have trouble with tax dollars going to specific departments, then you have trouble with the whole university concept.  

                          Another problem with your argument, and a general problem with the "I don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on XYZ" argument:  it often costs money to implement this kind of policy.  Conservatives didn't want to spend tax money giving welfare checks to drug addicts---but to implement this policy they needed to drug test welfare applicants, which cost a lot more money.  

                          How much will it cost to redesign our student loan system so that subsidized interest only goes to people who are expected to contribute more in tax revenue to offset the interest expense?  How many people are you going to hire to keep track of everyone's major, program and school, and to crunch the statistics on how much you could potentially make with a major in meteorology and a minor in Russian?

                          Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                          by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:20:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think we're talking about different things (0+ / 0-)

                            But I think we're mostly on the same page.

                            I too think universities should continue to offer a broad range of courses. I think it's important for people to be well rounded. I think there's a lot of value in that, because CS people are notoriously incapable of communication when they get out into the real world. I know; it's my industry. I know the value that education brings. I think universities should be able to shape their own curriculum as they see fit. Many get state funding that helps them pay for Spanish Lit professors. I'm fine with that.

                            I love to see government invest in things that bring in more money than the investments cost. Government can do this in some areas. Education is one, but the payback period is often years or decades. If the government can invest in post-graduate educations that increase future tax revenues, and the costs (including figuring out which of those fields likely fill that requirement) is still less than the payoff, I'd say go for it. But those costs are practically pretty high, so I'm fine with the government just getting out of this activity. The interest rate set by the private market is enough of an incentive to encourage income-increasing masters and enough of a disincentive to dissuade non-income-increasing masters.

                            I think the system will work with or without subsidized graduate loans.

                            The whole point of society and what makes our species great is our capacity to mutually serve the needs of one another.

                            by probusinessdem on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:46:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  There have been studies showing (0+ / 0-)

                      that the finance industry has a negative net effect on society; through court cases, bailouts, etc. they take more from society than they put into it, so am I right in assuming that you are also in favor of cutting financing for all MBA and finance programs as well?

              •  You keep singling out "Spanish lit" (0+ / 0-)

                It is clear that you don't mean Spanish lit at all. You mean every major that teaches people to read complex material, understand it, and write about it.

                It's a good thing that all the majors you are supporting being flooded with new students not only have full employment, but have millions of opening going unfilled.

                Except that they don't. Openings go begging only when employers are unwilling to pay the going wage, because they know they can bring in H1B workers at a fraction of the cost.

          •  Ummm.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            upstate NY, wenchacha, Bach50b3

            Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in a "no market demand" field (theatre) and received subsidized loans to do so, I take great exception at your comments...

            First, I earn way more with an MA than I would have with a BA, even if it's not related to my current field.

            Second, I've also paid more in interest (at 6%, gwar!) on my student loans than my original principal balance, so the taxpayers have received an excellent return on investment.

            Third, isn't the "taxpayper demanding tax dollars only be spent on things that benefit them personally" what got us into this conservative mess? We've now allowed the debate to be framed in such a way that it's become reasonable for fundy whackjob men to have a say over women's health care, because it's "their" tax dollars.

            Fourth, societal benefit isn't just from well-educated worker bees in fields currently in demand. We need artists, we need non-profits, and we even need people educated in spanish lit so that we can be a part of a global world view.

            Republicanism: the political theory that the poor have too much money and the rich do not have enough.

            by bacchae1999 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:24:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Even if we assume a Spanish Lit. grad student (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wenchacha

              would find absolutely no employment in fields that require knowledge of either Latin American or Spanish culture, one might ask if reproducing Spanish Lit. scholars in academia is necessary.

              What of academics? Do we need academics? In the liberal arts? If so, then you've simply made it much tougher on them.

              There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

              by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:30:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Theatre has market demand (0+ / 0-)

              I consume the services that theatres offer. So, I'd say your example supports my assertion. Of course you earn more with an MA. That's why loans are available - because you're a good candidate to pay the money back. The question at hand is "How much do we think government should help?"

              Without government help, graduate loans are at 6.8%... so about what you paid. I don't think that's a big deterrent to going back to school. I think that's a pretty good rate. It deters people from going back to grad school if they're not likely to get a substantial pay increase, but it allows people to go back that will. I think that's the right idea for structuring incentives for people to go back to grad school.

              To address a couple of your points...

              Just because you paid your loan back doesn't mean the pool of these government investments in loans gave a good return to taxpayers. People in shoes similar to your defaulted on the loans, or didn't get pay raises and start paying more taxes. Also, there's a time value of money issue that I won't talk about except to mention. Also, the government's return is not the amount you paid back, it's the increase in taxes they get from your higher salary pitted against the interest money they paid during your schooling.

              I don't follow your third point. Can you elaborate?

              On your fourth point, I agree that we need artists. There is market demand for artists. There's just a lot more supply than demand, so artist wages get bidded down. That makes the field look less profitable to enter. This serves as a signal to people that "Hey, we have enough artists right now, perhaps you should try a career more in demand." So some potential artists will change careers to better meet the needs of society. There's an equilibrium here, and basically, the market is working. It does ensure that we have an adequate number of artists to meet societal demands for it.

              Like I said earlier. Theatre exists because people like me pay to watch it. It's supply and demand, and the system works to ensure those needs are met.

              •  I don't know... (0+ / 0-)

                If you caught it, but I don't work in theatre. Never could find a job that didn't involve living with my parents, which I was not enough of a theatre-driven person to do. I work in finance. However, saying "we have enough artists, which means no more artists can go to school," is a horribly limiting way of looking at it. It goes without saying that career changes happen because of what society currently needs (I happen to know quite a few engineers working outside their field atm), but managing this through access to education will always put us 10 years late on supply and demand.

                With that being said, just having a piece of paper with "Master's" written on it made me a much more valuable employee, and as such, I receive more pay, and was promoted faster. Part of that is it's prestigous for my employer to have graduate degrees in the staff, but also, the education I received wasn't just theatre. Schooling isn't just a rote memorization of facts that are inapplicable in other fields. It's teaching us how to think, how to comprehend and how to work hard and quickly. My non-college educated, or even non-graduate educated co-workers have a much harder time at work than I do.

                I actually haven't finished paying my loan back, lol. I'm on year 12 (sigh), but already have paid more in interest than the original principal balance. Yes, people do default (student loans can't be discharged by bankruptcy fyi), but the overall loan program is solvent.

                Republicanism: the political theory that the poor have too much money and the rich do not have enough.

                by bacchae1999 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:58:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Liberal arts are overpriced. (0+ / 0-)

          Not worthless. Just overpriced.

          There is huge value in learning poetry, literature, languages, and art.

          But there is no reason why it should cost $23,000/year.

          No. Excuse. Whatsoever.

          The ancient Greeks used to gather in an olive grove to learn philosophy. You could go and lean from Plato or Socrates.

          Today they want to charge $23,000 to hear about the post-modern semiotic psycho-sexual zeitgeist's effect on embedded patriarchal stereotypes. Or whatever.

          $23K is too much. Too much money. Figure out how to do it cheaper and get back to us, please.

          •  We value it differently (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Caj

            And, state schools still don't charge $23k.

            Most average around $7k-8k.

            There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

            by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:12:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  By the way, top diary today is from (0+ / 0-)

            Lakoff.

            Do you know what Lakoff's specialty is?

            Post-modern semiotic, etc. etc.

            There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

            by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:13:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That stuff... (0+ / 0-)

              ...is incredibly valuable.

              I often snark at the Arts and the Social Sciences, but I recognize that they are very valuable.

              I am just questioning the cost.

              To educate the next 50 George Lakoffs we need a library, some computers, and a dozen or so professors. There is no way this costs $23k. Let's do the math:

              Building rent (assume a$17 million building of which we use 10%. Rent cap rate is 5%) = $85k

              50 laptops (one for each student) = $50k

              5 Professors at $100k/year = $500x

              TOTAL = $645k
              Divided by 50 students = $13k/year

              This budget assumes a very leisurely 10-1 student/teacher ratio. I am also giving each student a brand new expensive laptop each year.

              Universities really need to look at their cost structure. They need to charge less money and deliver more education. Subjects like Literature, where there are no fancy laboratories needed should be cheaper.

              •  Your math is a bit squiffed (0+ / 0-)

                So we need a library, but it's not in the budget?  Or do we just rent an empty building and call it the library?

                Several expensive items completely missing from your budget:  

                o  Staff, including the department needed to manage records and registration for current students and alumni, maintain academic facilities (your librarians, and also computer services, lab technicians, building services,) the bursar's office, and the usual slate of departments needed to run any company such as HR.

                I'm not even going to count such as secretaries, because let's just assume that those 5 profs will take all the phone calls and process all the paperwork for major petitions and applications and certification forms, and stock the file cabinets and otherwise handle all their own administrative affairs.

                o  The computer equipment, software and service contracts needed to run all administrative offices.  This is not a fixed cost, but a significant annual expense even for a small college.

                o  Material and equipment expenses for courses.  Just think how much it costs in infrastructure to teach a microbiology lab.  You can't do that with a room and some people.

                And before you say "I'm just talking about liberal arts, which only needs like a chalkboard:"   is your college not going to have any science core competency requirements?   Are we talking an accredited college whose degree is worth something, or just a "school" that meets no official standards and is not going to be recognized as a school by employers?

                Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Haha (0+ / 0-)

                Average pay for profs nationally is $50k.

                That's full-timers.

                Whereas full-timers used to be 75% of instructors, that number is down to 30%.

                While no one was watching, the universities not only cut costs, they slashed, and schools are all the worse for it.

                As Mark Yudof (U. Cal. System) said to incoming students, you will pay a lot more than your predecessors, but you will not receive half the education they did.

                Welcome to America.

                I mean, did you really read my diary linked above? All the issues are addressed.

                There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:30:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I read your Diary... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...on college costs. It was very good.

                  You looked at it "top-down", taking existing costs and seeing how much they changed.

                  I am looking at it "bottom-up", asking what we actually need and pricing it out.

                  If we are going to re-invent higher education, we need to go bottom-up. We need professors, buildings, books, computers, and laboratories. We don't need an Assistant Vice Dean of Student Life.

                  •  The bottom up approach is what I live with (0+ / 0-)

                    every day. It's anecdotal though so I'm hesitant to tell people my office at an AAU school is unheated, and that I have no phone, and that my students freeze in our winterized classroom, and that I ran out of copying privileges last week for overcopying, etc. I'm one of 20 in a department of 50 lines (still existent, never to be filled, we just retire and the responsbilities are then shared, no one is ever hired).

                    The dirty secret is that students are receiving a dysfunctional education for the time being because faculty and administrators haven't acclimated to the new paradigm. We need several years of this before we get together and agree to lower educational standards, because that's the only thing that will allow students to graduate on time. Right now, we're just not offering courses that allow students to finish.  A few years from now, we'll drop requirements to allow them to finish on time.

                    I'm all for community colleges taking our students at much cheaper tuition, but the problem is, this has already happened. Schools have not raised their available seats. They've largely stayed the same. Yet our demographics nationally are rising. This means that the current schools that charge high tuition will continue to charge it because those seeking a cheaper alternative (and presumably a lesser education) already have that available to them. Sure, some privates and even publics will fall by the wayside, but since costs are cut to the bone right now, I don't think there's an easy solution.

                    Universities right now receive less public funding per student than primary and secondary schools. There's something wrong there, given the level of work being done.

                    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                    by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:13:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  But why? (0+ / 0-)
                    If we are going to re-invent higher education, we need to go bottom-up.
                    First of all, why do we need to re-invent higher education?  I think re-inventing is the problem:  higher education was just fine 40 years ago, and now people want to re-invent it as something lean and profitable and efficient, run like a proper business.  

                    But you know what happens when you run a college like a proper business?  Everything you're complaining about.   Of course we ended up with a redundant mass of highly paid executive positions and rockstar CEO presidents---just like the "efficient" private sector.  If they have the talent to grow the university to twice its size and double its revenue, then it's worth overspending at the top.  And that means that you have an executive class that hires more of its own to fill superfluous assistant dean of student life positions.  This is a natural consequence of re-inventing college in a profit-conscious manner.

                    And of course prices have soared in response to high demand.  You think that a price-conscious group of people could run a college on the cheap---but that price-conscious group of people can and will charge a lot of money for their college-on-the-cheap, because supply and demand currently allows them to.

                    And of course dorms have been transformed into mini resorts (students now have "suitemates") because the college experience is a cherished life experience like a wedding or a childhood trip to Disney World, and parents can be extorted into paying large for them.  Your price-conscious group of professors would be fools not to buy the adjoining hotel and turn it into a residence hall with a weight room and food court.  They could use the extra profit to outfit their teaching labs.

                    College has already been reformed, and is being run efficiently, like a proper business.  Colleges are making money, and growing to make more money.  Your argument that we could do it more cheaply is misplaced, because we already are doing the actual teaching part cheaply---because college is now being run like a business.

                    Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                    by Caj on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:57:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  We already did. (0+ / 0-)
            $23K is too much. Too much money. Figure out how to do it cheaper and get back to us, please.
            You are posting a link to Columbia University, which (last I checked) was the 5th most expensive college in the nation.

            College is, on average, a lot cheaper than this.

            Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

            by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:41:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

              There are many schools that charge lower tuition, but they are dependent on government subsidies to keep those numbers low.  When state budgets get cut, the tuition is forced back up.

              We need to worry less about the sticker price on college educations. We need to look more at the cost. Can we teach Universities to get it done cheaper?

              •  They've done these studies before (0+ / 0-)

                and they do them regularly.

                I'm not sure what the controversy is.

                Do you honestly believe they haven't looked at cost savings?

                I even linked to one such study in the diary referenced.

                There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:31:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The evil referred to (0+ / 0-)

      was cutting student financial aid, not student financial aid.

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:02:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pitting the two types (5+ / 0-)

    of loans against each other is just obnoxious. It would be like if a billionaire family lost money in the stock market and was worried about keeping its 3 homes and 2 boats, so they said "ok, kids, we can only afford desert for one of you tonight."

    This is a huge blow. I'm not sure I would have been able to finish grad school without subsidized loans.

  •  Students are a commodity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Gee, snark, I wonder if we can become billionaires playing the market in just the right way to profit from student loan defaults?

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:46:42 AM PDT

  •  it was the right call (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error, 1918

    pell grants are only for undergraduate education, if you've never been to college before.  they expanded the crap out of the pell grant program with the same legislation that made this cut.

    but this cut is only to subsidized graduate school loans; the government is no longer going to cover the interest on them.  

    and not all student loans are associated with the government.  some are private; how many of those 50% defaults at online institutions are stafford loans?

    here's an interesting read:

    http://online.wsj.com/...

    The centerpiece of the plan Mr. Obama is expected to unveil here would allow the estimated 5.8 million people who hold both direct government student loans and government-backed private loans to consolidate their debts into one government loan.

    ...The president is also expected to say the administration is moving up the start of a program approved by Congress that caps monthly student-loan payments for borrowers with low incomes, from 2014 to 2012.

    it may not be true that loans in and of themselves cause tuition increases.  but more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.  not to mention competition for entry creates further incentive to hike tuitions.

    Never forget that the Republican War on Women originated with religion; the GOP is but theocracy's handmaiden.

    by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:51:17 AM PDT

    •  Read my earlier diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      All these claims ("it may not be true that loans in and of themselves cause tuition increases.  but more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.  not to mention competition for entry creates further incentive to hike tuitions.") are addressed there.

      The argument doesn't hold water.

      Why are you pitting Pell Grants against Subbed loans for grads by the way? Why compare the two?

      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

      by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:54:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because as i said, (0+ / 0-)

        pell grants are only for undergrads who have never attended above high school. more education being spread around that way, truly giving people who otherwise couldn't the chance to go to college.

        graduate students can still get loans; they just won't be subsidized the same way.  did you read the WSJ article?

        i just went and read your other diary and yes; the points i raised are addressed there.  it underscored them.

        Facilities. Growth in higher education enrollments over the past 30 years has meant that colleges and universities have had to construct new classrooms, laboratories, and dormitories to accommodate students.

        ...A 1997 study completed by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, the National Association of College and University Business Officers, and Sallie Mae estimates deferred maintenance costs for all campus facilities to be approximately $26 billion. Facilities could thus become a major cost driver in the next decade.

        ...Students. The need to offer remedial courses to students could also contribute to rising costs...Although it is difficult to provide national estimates of the costs, data for individual institutions exists.

        For example, in 1993-94, California spent $9.3 million to provide remedial courses for students on the 22 campuses of the California State University system, representing just under one percent of the system's total budget. A Florida legislative report said that, with nearly 70 percent of community college freshman requiring remedial education courses, Florida community colleges are spending $53 million a year providing this type of instruction.

        like i said.,.more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.  new facilities include everything needed for all those remedial classes.

        Never forget that the Republican War on Women originated with religion; the GOP is but theocracy's handmaiden.

        by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:09:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand perfectly what Pell Grants are (0+ / 0-)

          for, I was asking why are they pitted against grad loans?

          As for the WSJ article, can you highlight for me where it addresses loans for grad school (the subject of my diary), because I see nothing there addressing that?

          My earlier diary didn't underscore at all your points about rising costs being due to subsidies. It did the opposite. It showed that COSTS are not rising, nor are expenditures. Only tuition is rising. Of course new buildings get built, and of course some costs increase such as health care for workers, new technology. The point remains, however, that COSTS and EXPENDITURES are not rising at a rate above inflation.

          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

          by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:17:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and i've answered that question twice now (0+ / 0-)

            pell grants do more to make higher education accessible than subsidizing graduate school loans.

            why they arrived at that particular crossroads, i'm not sure.  but they absolutely made the right choice on pell grants versus graduate school.

            My earlier diary didn't underscore at all your points about rising costs being due to subsidies.
            i never made that point, or came anywhere close to it.  what i said, for the third time now, was this:
            more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.

            Never forget that the Republican War on Women originated with religion; the GOP is but theocracy's handmaiden.

            by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:26:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK have it your way (0+ / 0-)

              You can pit grad school loans against pell grants all you like.

              There is no reason for doing so, but if you must, go ahead.

              There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

              by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:31:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You can't have it both ways (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManhattanMan

        The business model of bad apple for-profit schools is to milk financial aid. Thus, the fact that they exist and charge tuition is a direct consequence of the availablity of a government financial aid, including loans.

        Yet you claim that the existence of loan programs doesn't drive tution increases?  How is that possible when some of these institutions would not exist (or would be far smaller and/or less profitable) without loan programs?

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:09:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The difference is in "for-profit" and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bach50b3

          "non-profit."

          The vast majority of for-profits are diploma mills that offer little to no services in terms of educating. They exist to pump money into the pockets of investors. They rely on cheap labor and the absence of brick and mortar structures where real educational work is taken on. Because of this, because they offer little value to their students, their students are experiencing default rates above 55%, and recently--in the last year--65%. Loans for the for-profits comprise a huge percentage of revenues, well over 50% (they largely deal with poor to lower middle income students who could not otherwise afford it).

          As for non-profits, I already answered this question in the earlier diary. The non-profits have default rates at 4% (national average is now 8%) and comprise 90% of the market. Of these, public institutions comprise 85% of the market. Tuition at public institutions comprises 25-30% of total revenues, and loans are a fraction of tuition (20%). But, since the size of subsidized loans at non-profits have not increased above the rate of tuition increase nor even the rate of inflation (look at the caps on subbed loans, they were at $3,000 in 1985, then $5,000 in 1993, and now they are at $5,600), they would not account for the rise intuition. Instead, we've seen massive cuts for education from the public sector which correspond precisely to the rise in tuition.

          To answer your question in short: the amount of student loans comprise a much smaller % of the revenues of non-profits (at a level below the annual rise in tuition) and the increase in loans for these schools has been below the rate of inflation. Tuition is rising rapidly.

          At for-profits, loans comprise the large % of revenues.

          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

          by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:27:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A distinction without a difference (0+ / 0-)

            There are many administrators at traditional (i.e., not for profit) educational institutions making high six and even seven figure salaries.

            The legislators cutting funding for public universities know that students will have to make up the difference.  Why would you expect them not to be aware of the availability of student loans?

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:25:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You mean preisdents, not (0+ / 0-)

              administrators. Big difference. Those president better be good at fundraising to earn that money.

              You can't compare the structure of for-profits and non-profits in this fashion. The vast majority of revenues is given to investors in for-profits. At non-profits, administrators account for less than 1 % of total revenues.

              Do you honestly not see the huge difference here between 1% of total revs going to admin. and well over 50% going to investors?

              There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

              by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:44:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Show me a school (0+ / 0-)

                that is dividending out "well over 50%."

                "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:01:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some links (0+ / 0-)

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                  The link below takes you to one of the more "legitimate for-profiters."
                  http://www.apollogrp.edu/...

                  Read below to see how bad things are, and if they're this bad at U. Phoenix, how bad are they at the fly-by-nighters?

                  Page 76, Annual revenues: 4.3 billion. Operating Costs: 1.2 billion. The rest is reported as profits (cash) and executive compensation. The CEO earns 25 to 30 million a year.

                  And look at this:

                  It was during this period — in July 2009 — that the second spurt of insider selling took place at Apollo. John and Peter Sperling sold 2.1 million shares at between $65 and $70 per share. At the end of October 2009, according to company filings, John Sperling held 16.8 million shares and Peter Sperling held 7.9 million.

                  65% of the revenues come from federal financial aid in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized loans.

                  http://www.pbs.org/...

                  This is all from WIKI on for-profits:

                  2010 Pell Grant fraud controversy

                  For-profit higher education in the US has been the focus of concern regarding business practices. In August 2010, the Government Accountability Office reported on an investigation that randomly sampled student-recruiting practices of several for-profit institutions. Investigators who posed as prospective students documented deceptive recruiting practices, including misleading information about costs and potential future earnings. They also reported that some recruiters had urged them to provide false information on applications for financial aid.[28]

                  Out of the fifteen sampled, all were found to have engaged in deceptive practices, improperly promising unrealistically high pay for graduating students, and four engaged in outright fraud, per a GAO report released at a hearing of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held on August 4, 2010.[29] Examples of misconduct include:

                      offering commissions to admissions officers,
                      employing deceptive marketing tactics by refusing to disclose total tuition cost to prospective students before signing a binding agreement,
                      lying about accreditation,
                      encouraging outright fraud by enticing students to take out student loans even when the applicant had $250,000 in savings,
                      promising extravagant, unlikely high pay to students,
                      failing to disclose graduation rate, and
                      offering tuition cost equivalent to 9 months of credit hours per year, when total program length was 12 months.

                  The four for-profit colleges found to be engaging in fradulent practices were:

                      Westech, California: Encouraging undercover applicant with falsified $250,000 in savings to falsely increase the number of dependents in the household in order to qualify for a Pell Grant, as well as take out the maximum amount in student loans;
                      Medvance Institute in Miami, Florida: Financial aid representative told an applicant not to report $250,000 in savings, comparing student loans to a car payment in that, "no one will come after you if you don’t pay.” In fact, a student loan default may remain in the debtor's credit history, prevent them from taking out a car loan, mortgage or rent, and may have their pay garnished up to 15%, until the student loan is paid in full.[citation needed] Another admissions officer at Kaplan College in Pembroke Pines, Florida,[30] alluded to fraudulent behaviour stating to the applicant when inquiring about the repayment of loans, "You gotta look at it...I owe $85,000 to the University of Florida. Will I pay it back? Probably not...I look at life as tomorrows never promised... Education is an investment, you’re going to get paid back ten-fold, no matter what.";
                      Anthem Institute in Springfield, Pennsylvania: Financial aid representative editing applicant's FAFSA form by omitting $250,000 in savings;
                      Westwood College in Dallas, Texas: Admissions representative telling applicant to falsely add dependents to qualify for Pell Grants, assuring the applicant that the dependents would not be verified through previous income tax returns nor Social Security numbers, and financial aid representative encouraging applicant not to report the $250,000 in savings, stating that "it was not the government’s business how much money the undercover applicant had in a bank account.", when the Department of Education requires students to report such assets, along with income, to determine how much and what type of financial aid will be awarded.[citation needed]

                  It was found that 14 out of 15 times, the tuition at a for-profit sample was more expensive than its public counterpart, and 11 out of 15 times, it was more expensive than the private counterpart. Examples of the disparity in full tuition per program include: $14,000 for a certificate at the for-profit institution, when the same diploma cost $500 at a public college; $38,000 for an Associate's at the for-profit institution, when the comparable program at the public college cost $5,000; $61,000 for a Bachelor's at the for-profit institution, compared to $36,000 for the same degree at the public college.[31]

                  This is counter to International Education Corporation CEO Fardad Fateri's claims of the lack of use of unorthodox recruiting practices and a for-profit's "value" in an IEC open letter to Congress,[32][citation needed] the tuition cost of certificates and Associate's degrees being 28 and 6 times more than at a public college, respectively; Fateri writes, "Credit should be given to non-profit universities that have been able to convince students and their sophisticated parents to pay approximately $400,000.00 for an undergraduate degree that will seldom lead to an academically-related career." However, the most expensive college in the US, Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY, had a tuition cost of $41,040 for 2009 fiscal year,[33][34] bringing the tuition of a four-year Bachelor's degree to just above $160,000.

                  The institutions identified in the Committee hearing in respect to the GAO report numeration were:
                  Tuition cost comparison between for-profit, public and private colleges for equivalent programs.

                      University of Phoenix – Phoenix, Arizona[35]
                      Everest Institute – Mesa, Arizona[36]
                      Westech College – Victorville, Ontario, Moreno Valley, California[37]
                      Kaplan – Riverside, California[38]
                      Potomac College – Washington, D.C.
                      Bennett Career Institute – Washington, D.C.
                      Kaplan – Pembroke Pines, Florida[39]
                      College of Office Technology – Chicago, Illinois[40]
                      Argosy University – Chicago, Illinois[41]
                      University of Phoenix – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[36]
                      Anthem Institute – Springfield, Pennsylvania[42]
                      Westwood College – Dallas, Texas[42]
                      Everest Institute – Dallas, Texas[43]
                      ATI Career Training – Dallas, Texas[44]

                  Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults.[45][46] University of Phoenix tops this list with Pell Grant revenue of $656.9 million with second and third place held by Everest Colleges at $256.6 million and Kaplan College at $202.1 million for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, respectively.[47] In 2003, a Government Accountability Office report estimated that overpayments of Pell Grants were running at about 3% annually, amounting to around $300 million per year.[48] Some of the universities that are top recipients of Pell Grants have low graduation rates, leaving students degreeless, and graduating alumni may find it excessively difficult to find work[49][50] with their degrees, leading some former students to accuse recruiters of being "duplicitous", and bringing into serious question the effectiveness of awarding Pell Grants and other Title IV funds to for-profit colleges.[51][52] University of Phoenix's graduation rate is 15%.[53][54] Strayer University, which reports its loan repayment rate to be 55.4%, only has a repayment rate of roughly 25%,[55] according to data released by the U.S. Department of Education on August 13, 2010.[56] The low repayment rate makes Strayer ineligible for receiving further Title IV funds in accordance with new "Gainful employment" regulations brought forth by the Department of Education, which are to take effect on July 2011.[57] If passed, the minimum loan repayment requirement for any institution receiving Title IV funds, subject to suspension and expulsion if not compliant, will be 45%.[58]

                  For-profits top the Department of Education's list for the 2005–2007 cohort default rates, with campuses at ATI and Kaplan reporting default rates far above 20%. Most of the for-profits' expansion has been in the states of California, Arizona, Texas and Florida, with the metro areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas and Miami-West Palm Beach being centers of their growth.[35][59][60][61][62] For comparison, in Miami, Everest Institute reports a default rate for two of its campuses to be 18.1% and 20%; Miami Dade College, the district's community college, which serves as a primary channel for local beginning students, reports a default rate of roughly 10%; Florida International University, a public university serving the Miami metropolitan area, reports approximately 5%.[63]

                  In an August 4, 2010 Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, Gregory Kutz of the GAO stated that the fraudulent practices may be widespread in the For-Profit industry, noting a University of Phoenix executive chart that encouraged deceptive practices.[64] Joshua Pruyn, a former admissions representative, disclosed to the committee hearing several internal emails distributed among admissions officers in March 2008 which encouraged applications and enrollments through the use of a commissions reward system.[65] Chairman of the committee Senator Thomas Harkin noted the conflict of interest due to the ACCSC, a national accrediting agency that accredits many for-profit colleges nationwide,[66] receiving compensation directly from the institutions to which it awards accreditation. The Inspector General issued an assessment in late 2009 recommending the limiting and possible suspension or expulsion of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools due to conflicts in the manner in which the accrediting agency reviews credit hours and program length for online-colleges, specifically American InterContinental University, a For-Profit college.[67] The NCA HLC accredits the University of Phoenix and Everest in Phoenix, Arizona. The Department of Education Inspector General is currently reviewing the GAO's documents and report on for-profit colleges dated August 4, 2010.

                  On November 30, 2010, the GAO issued a revised report, softening several examples from an undercover investigation and changing some key passages, but stood by its central finding that colleges had encouraged fraud and misled potential applicants.[68]

                  There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                  by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 04:05:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't know how to read a financial statement (0+ / 0-)

                    Apollo Group (the parent of U of Phoenix) made $535,796 (after taxes) on net revenue of about $4.8 billi

                    By the way, I completely agree that these schools suck and are ripping off students (and taxpayers).

                    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                    by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 02:09:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                      I never made any claims about their profits.

                      I'm looking at revenues versus expenses.

                      At most universities, these are within 5% of each other.

                      There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                      by upstate NY on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes you did (0+ / 0-)

                        You wrote:

                        "Do you honestly not see the huge difference here between 1% of total revs going to admin. and well over 50% going to investors?"

                        "50% going to investors" means that the profits exceed 50%.

                        Revenues less expenses equals profit.

                        Get it?

                        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                        by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 05:25:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Depends on what you mean by investors (0+ / 0-)

                          Look at the stock options. I wasn't only referring to investors in the market.

                          Look at the capital that went into the company in the first place.

                          I mean, where do you think the other $2 billion goes to anyway?

                          IO wasn't saying it was all in dividends and profits.

                          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                          by upstate NY on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:05:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  By the way, we are well off from the original (0+ / 0-)

                          point which stated that in a non-profit school, all but less than 1% (the total administrative salaries) are plowed back into expenses for the school (these are often fixed costs related to research), whereas at the for-profits, only 50% of the revenues go toward expenses.

                          There's a big difference here. Since admin. is less than 1%, you can't say that's driving tuition increases since the rise in administrative costs has gone from a level below 1% to some level below 1%.

                          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

                          by upstate NY on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:07:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I question your premise (0+ / 0-)
          The business model of bad apple for-profit schools is to milk financial aid. Thus, the fact that they exist and charge tuition is a direct consequence of the availablity of a government financial aid, including loans.
          They certainly do milk financial aid, but they don't owe their existence to it.

          For-profit colleges exist and are profitable because of the high demand for college---especially among students who cannot get admitted into real universities.  If we try to send 60% of high school graduates to a four-year college, and as long as 50% of students are below 50th percentile on the SAT, we are mathematically guaranteed to have for-profit colleges that don't look at your SAT scores.

          If you prevent loan abuse, for-profit colleges will be less profitable, but they still will be profitable because lots of people want to go to college who otherwise couldn't get in.

          Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

          by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:47:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The size and profitability of the for profits (0+ / 0-)

            is a direct result of the availability of (principally federal) financial aid.

            You make the ridiculous assumption that the choice for students is between a "real university" and a rip-off for profit.  That's bullshit--haven't you ever heard of community colleges?

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:05:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're not reading. (0+ / 0-)
              If we try to send 60% of high school graduates to a four-year college,
              Regardless of the role of community colleges, we are trying to send far too many students to 4-year colleges, and those colleges are straining to increase their enrollment capacity (with prices soaring as a natural consequence of excessive demand.)

              As long as we have this demand, we will have for-profit colleges offering 4-year degrees---especially when you consider that a lot of the extra demand consists of kids who will have trouble being admitted to a conventional university.

              Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

              by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 02:30:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're a shill n/t (0+ / 0-)

                "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                by Old Left Good Left on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 03:37:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was totally with you... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...until someone disagreed with you on the Internet, and you accused him of being a covert agent paid by nebulous corporate interests to undermine your arguments in a web forum.

                  I don't know why people think this sort of accusation is appropriate, or for that matter why they think it advances their point rather than making them look simultaneously paranoid, vain and not-all-there.

                  Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                  by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  But isn't this bad? (0+ / 0-)
      ...The president is also expected to say the administration is moving up the start of a program approved by Congress that caps monthly student-loan payments for borrowers with low incomes, from 2014 to 2012.
      Credit card companies have long abused the ability to charge low minimum payments so that you rack up a huge debt over time.

      Back when I paid off my student loan, I found it difficult to set up a recurring payment that wasn't set by SallieMae to some absurdly low amount that would keep me paying longer and handing over more interest.

      It's good to cap monthly payments so that fewer people go into default, but it isn't really a reform or a good thing to have people pay less of their loan per month; for banks, it just means you will owe more and eventually pay more.

      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

      by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:59:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I understand this correctly (the article (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows, Cedwyn

        is confusing), it refers to the IBR program.

        But IBR is already in place.

        You pay a low amount (5%-10% of income) and after you've paid for 20 years (or 10 years if you're a public employee) the rest of what you owe is totally forgiven.

        That's a great deal for student loan borrowers making a middle class income.

        BUT, I'm confused about this idea that the provisions are being pushed forward. IBR has been available since 2008-2009.

        There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

        by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:07:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who in the hell are these people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      upstate NY

      and how did they get into grad school?

      but more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.
      •  1/2 the people at uni (0+ / 0-)

        are only there as a career stepping stone, or their parents are making them go, etc.

        anyhoo, the question at hand was loans contributing to tuition increases; it was not specific to grad school, nor was my comment.

        Never forget that the Republican War on Women originated with religion; the GOP is but theocracy's handmaiden.

        by Cedwyn on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:30:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well I think your analysis of why people (0+ / 0-)

          go to college is off.  When study after study shows college grads make significantly more than high school grads, I think parents have a good reason to make their kids go.  You make it sound like they are going for a laugh or because their bored - you need to go to college to compete for jobs in our economy.  

      •  most people in grad school don't care about it (0+ / 0-)

        That's true for most people in college as well.  We made it far to easy to get into schools.  As a result jobs that should not require a college education now require an undergrad.  Jobs that one required an undergrad now require a graduate degree.

        People go to school because they have to.  Most of the people I know have a masters, none of them "wanted to get it".  All of them went out and got it because short of having a masters all their BA from a top flight school let them do was put out water for meetings, pour coffee, and handle paper works.  

        And since far too many people have graduate degrees and people with them are a dime a dozen, if you don't want to pour coffee for a living you better get a masters.

        So off they to grad school.  And of course, anybody can go because of the stupidly easy to get loans and funding.  Which means more people go, which means the value of that degree now is down... so now we have... people with masters degrees pouring our coffee at work.

        "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

        by overclocking on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:31:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any stats for all this? (0+ / 0-)

          Show me how schools have more grads than before?

          I learned stuff in grad school.

          Are you referring to business school? There has been a huge rise there, but lawyers, doctors, academics, teachers, etc., these people have had to go to grad school for many decades now.

          There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

          by upstate NY on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:42:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's sad, but they do exist. (0+ / 0-)

        I graduated from a Master of Public Health program that uses a funnel approach. They admit a lot of people to generate that first year of tuition payments. But the majority do not graduate.

        The MPH is sometimes a holding pattern for people who didn't get into med school on the first try. We also get a lot of international MDs whose real goal is to pass US boards and gain admittance to a residency program.

        Then you've got the people who realize they do not want a PhD in sociology or anthropology or whatever ... and a bachelor's in those fields isn't worth much in the job market. They want a "practical degree," but they really aren't interested in public health.

        My favorites are the JD and MBA dual-degree students in the organization and policy department.  They are a bunch of damned wingnut Republicans who are anti-intellectual and anti-science in particular. Seriously .... we're doomed. They enroll because any kind of health-related credential increases your job prospects.

        I went back to grad school in my 40s. Maybe I'm just old and grumpy. But by my count, probably half the traditional students in my class did not belong there.

        Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

        by susanala on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:36:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina
      but more people who couldn't care less about attending college but go anyway means the universities need to expand and new facilities cost gobs and gobs of money.
      I don't think this is caused by loans, but by our recent cultural obsession with sending everyone to college to better their lot.  Loans might make it easier to go and thus contribute to demand and rising prices, but I suspect that the opposite is the case:  that demand contributes to rising prices that then results in more loans and a more lucrative lending biz.

      Both the Bush and Obama administrations have enforced this idea that we can reduce poverty by increasing the ranks of the college-educated.  I personally think this is bad policy, for two reasons.  First, you can't send most people to college, because college is hard---most universities have admissions criteria that exclude the majority of the population.  Secondly, it's a cop-out, because it ignores the actual problem of stagnant wages and income inequality.  The solution is to increase wages for factory jobs, not to tell factory workers that they should try getting a bachelor's degree and compete for some other job.

      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

      by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:56:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP Congress cut HEAL Loans in 1998 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    upstate NY, Trotskyrepublican, marina

    Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program

    New HEAL loans to student borrowers were discontinued as of September 30, 1998. HEAL refinancing terminated September 30, 2004.
    the Federal Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program insured loans made by participating lenders to eligible graduate students in schools of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, public health, pharmacy or chiropractic and in programs in health administration or clinical psychology.

    AND, CAN YOU BELIEVE that the HEAL Loan Defaulting Doctors are listed on line for all to see?  And if in default are not allowed to bill Medicare/Medicaid for medical services to those two groups.  True.  So their ability to actually earn a living and pay the loans is narrowed.  Who makes up this stuff anyway?

    Defaulted HEAL Loan Doctors, Dentists, etc.

    Listen to this Doctor's nightmare story thanks to HEAL

    All logic aside, punish trained doctors, limit their service options.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:59:33 AM PDT

  •  This is already outdated (2007) but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    upstate NY


    Did You Know? originally started out as a PowerPoint presentation for a faculty meeting in August 2006 at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado, United States. The presentation "went viral" on the Web in February 2007 and, as of June 2007, had been seen by at least 5 million online viewers. Today the old and new versions of the online presentation have been seen by at least 20 million people, not including the countless others who have seen it at conferences, workshops, training institutes, and other venues.
    from  shifthappens

    THIS is why we need advanced degrees, and as many of them as possible. Higher education and professional education should be openly accessible and free as a basic right in this country if we want to compete globally in the future.

    “Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” ― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

    by Cinnamon on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

  •  I went to grad school to get a good job. (0+ / 0-)

    After grad school for the past 20 years I crammed philosophy, economics, psychology, theology, law and much more on my own to get a real, in-depth across-the board education - in life.

  •  Our govt cut grad education (0+ / 0-)

    because they do not want the highly educated to "cause trouble" when they give our  lands and bodies away to corporations (PA HB 1950, sellout to gas industry).  Educated people would protest and raise relevant issues.

    No billion dollar subsidies for oil companies have been cut. .  With the plutocrats and their Republican/Blue Dog servants, it is "no billionaire left behind." Grad students can go eat dirt; they hate educated folks.

    Reaganomics raped the American worker & this depression is the result. When will we wake up & vote with our own financial interests?

    by phree on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:06:31 PM PDT

    •  I wish we'd lose this silly argument. (0+ / 0-)

      A Ph.D. is not necessary to "cause trouble" or notice when someone's trying to screw over the system.  

      And how would a Ph.D. help, anyway?  You spend 6 years trying to isolate persister cells in bacterial colonies---how does that make you better than your neighbors at raising a stink in a town hall meeting?  They can probably understand political issues as well as you can, despite not having graduate degrees.

      It's generally true that we need an educated populace as a hedge against all sorts of social ills, but for most of these ills a high school education is sufficient.  There's not much you learn after high school that is necessary for participation in the political process as a citizen.

      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

      by Caj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site