Take a look at this cross section of articles on higher education https://www.abqjournal.com/987064/higher-ed-boss-not-involved-in-veto-decision.html Colorado legislators need to step up and invest in higher education How federal tax policy interacts with higher education spending | TheHill Expanding community colleges would make higher education more accessible | The Daily Texan Higher education's unsustainable, inexorable rise Tuition Free Higher Education Signed Into Law - Story Minnesota Legislature skimps on higher-ed funding - StarTribune.com
The Affordability Conundrum The Affordability Conundrum: Value, Price, and Choice in Higher Education Today • AEI
"For higher education to function as a mechanism for social mobility..." If that's the purpose then degree mills make sense.
Some sense, to be sure, in cost and time savings - but there's the reliability factor. Not every employer is going to accept these "degrees." Oh well, you pays yer money, you takes yer chances. Seriously, there's a lot of talk / writing out there about the Rule of 10 vs. the (established) EFC (Expected Family Contribution). The newly-hatched Rule of 10 would ask considerably less of wealthy families than the existing EFC. How does that make sense? Also, neither shifting benchmark does anything to reduce the final cost of Higher Ed. I think a benchmark (ceiling) for the price that can be charged would be a far better idea. J.
What do you see as the problem with that? Not everyone has parents who are willing/able to shell out for college, regardless of income. If there's going to be a public program for this, then it shouldn't be based on what your relatives have, it should be based on what you have.
Should be... if you say so, Steve - I'm not sure I agree. At least, not in all situations. BUT both the existing EFC benchmark AND the proposed Rule of 10 take family income/assets into account, although Rule of 10 is less stringent about assets - giving wealthy families a break. That, as I said before, makes no sense to me. I guess you're looking for a third alternative, then. I relieved my parents of the responsibility of higher ed. by doing it in my 40s 50s and 60s - finishing it long after they were dead. Better than having something to (shudder) thank them for. I couldn't have endured that. Still say - better to cap the price. But it'll never happen. Not here, not where you live either. J.
Well, my point would be that education is supposed to be about education. If social mobility and status from a possibly meaningless sheepskin is now the purpose of 'higher education' then we've truly lost our way.
Federal financial aid mostly consists of loans. So I'm not really sure what sort of a break they really get. They can pay up front if they can afford it, if not they'll take out loans. It really sounds like the same thing, other than not expecting young adults with unsupportive parents to wait until they're 24(!) to be able to take advantage. My kids are 20, 17, 16, and 12. Shoot me now! Probably not. In fact, as the sort of aid we're talking about is a subsidy in economic terms, it has the unfortunate side effect of pushing tuition fees up, not down.
No, Steve. They need you, I'm sure. I'm not recommending anyone else do what I did. Just my old bitterness showing... Oh man, it was better around here for school finances, when my kids were in College- late 80s early 90s. Grants covered pretty much all of what they needed. They each graduated with less than $500 in student debt, IIRC. The grants have since dried up, though there's some sort of new "free tuition" plan for students from families with incomes less than 50K. It's here: https://www.pathwaystoeducation.ca/pathways-education-canada-applauds-government-ontario-support-education?gclid=CO7ji7PcttMCFYy2wAodqnoLMg In 1960, Arts tuition at the local uni was a bit under $500. 4 years = a bit less than the cost of a new low-line Chev. or Ford. Present cost - $7,200 per year. 4 years = $28,800 Cdn. That will buy a better car than $2,000 Cdn would in 1960, but nothing extravagant. Oh well... J.
