Beware of the educational-industrial complex

[Okla-homey]

In the nearly 30 years since I graduated, look what's happened to the cost of higher education in this country. Mind you, a substantial number of college and grad school profs still love to rant about the greedy and immoral energy and health care sectors.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/college163819_562882846365_26401167_32293708_34741 49_n.jpg

[Flagstaffsooner]

And look what they're turning out at oSu...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_B1LlYh6iKqs/StEvEkKyUlI/AAAAAAAABEk/_-f2ywoCsBc/s400/funny-ugly-people-4.jpg

[MR2-Sooner86]

Mind you, a substantial number of college and grad school profs still love to rant about the greedy and immoral energy and health care sectors.

Homey! How dare you suggest our institutions of higher learning are liberal breeding grounds no matter how true it is.

[Okla-homey]

Frankly, I think the student loan business is substantially to blame. Bear with me.

Federally-backed student loans are widely and freely available. Students borrow the money, knowing they won't have to repay until years later. Because of this, they feel no pain when they plunk down huge sums at the college bursars office to pay for absurdly high and unregulated tuition and fees.

IMHO, the student loan system is the crack pipe that keeps colleges addicted to tuition increases that are as annual as falling leaves in Autumn.

Contrast another federal program. Medicare caps what it will pay for a procedure. Now, bear with me. Since these loans are now made with public money, like Medicare payments, why is it that we think nothing of the gubmint saying we will only pay "x" for your Aunt Hildegard's coronary by-pass surgery to save her life, but the feds won't tell the educrats it will only pay "x" per contact hour?

Hmmmmm? I think its mostly to do with the political stroke of college and universities.

[jkjsooner]

I agree with what Homey said. It's a lot like the subprime teaser rate adjustable mortgage loan industry. People were able to spend more and more on a house and not have to pay the true price for years. This lead to an exorbitant increase in prices.

We're not doing the younger generation a favor. We're saddling them with debt that will force them to spend a high percentage of their income for decades to pay off.

[fadada1]

another agree with homey.

our assistant pro graduated december of '09 from penn state. his parents really didn't have the ability to flip the bill for him. the lending companies, knowing they've got him over a barrell, assuming he wants a college education, gives him enough to eat/sleep in a dry place for 4 1/2 years. graduates $85K in the hole and won't clear $25K this year. He starts his payments next month - $650/month.:eek:

[Midtowner]

another agree with homey.

our assistant pro graduated december of '09 from penn state. his parents really didn't have the ability to flip the bill for him. the lending companies, knowing they've got him over a barrell, assuming he wants a college education, gives him enough to eat/sleep in a dry place for 4 1/2 years. graduates $85K in the hole and won't clear $25K this year. He starts his payments next month - $650/month.:eek:

He can do income sensitive repayment.

Tell him to check into that. Much lower on the payments while you're starting out.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

When I went to OU many years ago, tuition was about $15 per semester unit. So the total tuition bill was around $225 - $240 per semester.

I seem to recall that we were paying about 20% of the cost with the taxpayers picking up the rest (minus what the endowment, grants, etc. cover).

I wonder what the percentage is nowadays for in-state tuition. What percent does one actually pay for the cost? What percent do the taxpayers pick up?

While Homey has a quite valid issue here, it's bigger than simply the impact on the student. The impact on the taxpayer is there as well.

I got close to a free ride for my many years at OU and then moved to California. And I know many of you ****ers on this board also left - going to Texas, Arizona, or other places. What proportion of the tuition bill should the taxpayer pay (including those who have no children who go to college)?

[Partial Qualifier]

I also concur with Homey. Mainly because it seems like the smart thing to do at the moment.

[Veritas]

Frankly, I think the student loan business is substantially to blame. Bear with me.

Federally-backed student loans are widely and freely available. Students borrow the money, knowing they won't have to repay until years later. Because of this, they feel no pain when they plunk down huge sums at the college bursars office to pay for absurdly high and unregulated tuition and fees.

IMHO, the student loan system is the crack pipe that keeps colleges addicted to tuition increases that are as annual as falling leaves in Autumn.

Contrast another federal program. Medicare caps what it will pay for a procedure. Now, bear with me. Since these loans are now made with public money, like Medicare payments, why is it that we think nothing of the gubmint saying we will only pay "x" for your Aunt Hildegard's coronary by-pass surgery to save her life, but the feds won't tell the educrats it will only pay "x" per contact hour?

Hmmmmm? I think its mostly to do with the political stroke of college and universities.
So in short, easily acquired credit created by the government creates a market with prices far beyond the true market value of an asset.

This sounds vaguely familiar.

[sperry]

Tuition at OU goes up every year becasue the state legislature cuts funding. Not sure where greed or the "educational-industrial" complex come into play. If you want to talk about for profit degree factories like U of Phoenix, than you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

[OutlandTrophy]

sperry, do you have any info that shows what percentage of tuition is paid by the student and State?

[jkjsooner]

I got close to a free ride for my many years at OU and then moved to California. And I know many of you ****ers on this board also left - going to Texas, Arizona, or other places. What proportion of the tuition bill should the taxpayer pay (including those who have no children who go to college)?

This has come up before. I don't think it should make any difference whether you left or stayed in Oklahoma. I can think of two big reasons:

1. Our parents paid taxes for 18 years prior to us going to college.

2. This is most important. You need to good educational system to attract good companies and employees. The worst thing you could do is start telling potential highly skilled workers who are looking at moving to Oklahoma that their children will have to sign away their right to in state tuition if they happen to move out of state after graduation.

Kids are going to go where the opportunities are best for them. There is no shame in doing that. If Oklahoma wants to keep more graduates in state then they need to increase the opportunities for those graduates.

[jkjsooner]

So in short, easily acquired credit created by the government creates a market with prices far beyond the true market value of an asset.

This sounds vaguely familiar.

While I made a similar point earlier, I will point out that the private mortgage industry played a major role in the easy credit situation. Many of the loans did not have any government entity involved.

You can argue the government got the train rolling and maybe greased the tracks but once it started the private sector took it and rolled with it.

[jkjsooner]

Tuition at OU goes up every year becasue the state legislature cuts funding. Not sure where greed or the "educational-industrial" complex come into play. If you want to talk about for profit degree factories like U of Phoenix, than you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

Just because the university is a non-profit institution doesn't mean that those in charge or work for the university do not have a vested interest in increasing revenue.

[Okla-homey]

Just because the university is a non-profit institution doesn't mean that those in charge or work for the university do not have a vested interest in increasing revenue.

If full profs and asst profs were required to teach, as opposed to publishing stuff no one reads and flitting around giving lectures only listened to by other academics, we might cut some costs. Even at public institutions.

Frankly, as a parent who wrote the checks, it was insulting to me that my kid was subjected to TA's, many of whom barely spoke English, in most of her first and second year coursework. Meanwhile, the fatcat prof, who earns in the $90K range, was nowhere to be found.

When I was an undergrad at a public college, admittedly during the Paleozoic Era, I was taught by profs and asst. profs. Tenured guys who still kept a full course load and could generally be found in their offices when they weren't in class. They wrote their papers in the summer. On the whole, it was pretty satisfying experience for me.

[ouwasp]

I graduated in '85... that graph speaks loud and clear to me...especially since I have twins headed to college next year :eek: !!!!

No, we can't afford OU. As much as my daughter wishes it...

[Okla-homey]

I would also support a federal law that made higher ed financial aid personnel fiduciaries for students. They need to be required to tell a kid if he or she is borrowing a lot of money and his earning potential arising from the degree makes it a bad bargain.

For example: "Miss <blank>, I am required by federal law to inform you that an art history degree from this institution is unlikely to result in employment in that field after graduation. In fact, it may be a hindrance to any employment other than that of a Starbucks barista. Currently, you have $40K in student loan debt which you will be required to begin paying back at 400 bucks a month three months after you graduate or leave school. Therefore, are you absolutely sure you want to borrow another $20K to get you through the next two semesters?"

[Okla-homey]

Iespecially since I have twins headed to college next year :eek: !!!!



my condolences. And don't forget the weddings you'll be asked to shell out for someday that each will cost as much as four years of flippin' college. :eek:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

This has come up before. I don't think it should make any difference whether you left or stayed in Oklahoma. I can think of two big reasons:

1. Our parents paid taxes for 18 years prior to us going to college.

2. This is most important. You need to good educational system to attract good companies and employees. The worst thing you could do is start telling potential highly skilled workers who are looking at moving to Oklahoma that their children will have to sign away their right to in state tuition if they happen to move out of state after graduation.

Kids are going to go where the opportunities are best for them. There is no shame in doing that. If Oklahoma wants to keep more graduates in state then they need to increase the opportunities for those graduates.

jkj,

1. my parents paid taxes for 18 years too, but whenever I took the toll road from OKC to Tulsa I paid the same amount everyone else did who used the road. And those who didn't take the toll road didn't have to pay the toll. And more generally, it makes sense to tax gasoline to pay for road maintenance so that those who drive on the roads pay a greater proportion of the cost.

Those who have no kids who go to college pay the same tax rates over those 18 years as those who do have such kids. Any way you cut it, they are subsidizing the college education of others.

2. I agree you need great higher ed in the area to attract certain kinds of industry. But I'm sure that Stanford had a lot more to do with the boom in Silicon Valley than did Hayward State or UC Santa Cruz or San Jose St. And the educational hubs in Boston are primarily private. Point being, we need a great university in Oklahoma but it being expensive is not necessarily the deterrent one might think with respect to attracting good companies.


3. Okla-homey wrote:
If full profs and asst profs were required to teach, as opposed to publishing stuff no one reads and flitting around giving lectures only listened to by other academics, we might cut some costs. Even at public institutions.

Frankly, as a parent who wrote the checks, it was insulting to me that my kid was subjected to TA's, many of whom barely spoke English, in most of her first and second year coursework. Meanwhile, the fatcat prof, who earns in the $90K range, was nowhere to be found.

When I was an undergrad at a public college, admittedly during the Paleozoic Era, I was taught by profs and asst. profs. Tenured guys who still kept a full course load and could generally be found in their offices when they weren't in class. They wrote their papers in the summer. On the whole, it was pretty satisfying experience for me.

If a professor doesn't teach, it is likely that he or she is supported by grant money, so that the university hires a visiting professor or other non-tenure appt. to teach instead, at a much lower cost. It's a windfall money-maker: the grant pays for the salary of the tenured prof and the university hires inexpensive labor to replace.

The hard fact of life in today's higher ed world, is if you want a top ranked PhD granting institution, it must be heavily research oriented. Take for example the geosciences at OU - highly regarded. It didn't build its reputation based on instructors developing really really good lesson plans.

We do have institutions who serve those average students in need of good instructors: Junior/community colleges and regional colleges. And then there are many great private liberal arts colleges which specialize in undergraduate-only programs.


4. But bottom line, I do agree that many students and their parents borrow way too much money for an ill-conceived plan. It's sad how many students begin pursuing a major in psychology or engineering and they really don't have a clue what a profession in their area is like. They may not have even met a psychologist or an engineer. They rack up debt before realizing they have no real interest in their major.

Also there are too many who pursue a health science profession based on their parents desire more than their own. They struggle through chemistry and biology and physics and calculus and then realize that D earned in organic chemistry is telling them something important. "But my parents expect me to be a pharmacist/dentist/physician."

[sperry]

I would also support a federal law that made higher ed financial aid personnel fiduciaries for students. They need to be required to tell a kid if he or she is borrowing a lot of money and his earning potential arising from the degree makes it a bad bargain.

For example: "Miss <blank>, I am required by federal law to inform you that an art history degree from this institution is unlikely to result in employment in that field after graduation. In fact, it may be a hindrance to any employment other than that of a Starbucks barista. Currently, you have $40K in student loan debt which you will be required to begin paying back at 400 bucks a month three months after you graduate or leave school. Therefore, are you absolutely sure you want to borrow another $20K to get you through the next two semesters?"



While I disagree with you on the other points, this I can get behind.

[GKeeper316]

another agree with homey.

our assistant pro graduated december of '09 from penn state. his parents really didn't have the ability to flip the bill for him. the lending companies, knowing they've got him over a barrell, assuming he wants a college education, gives him enough to eat/sleep in a dry place for 4 1/2 years. graduates $85K in the hole and won't clear $25K this year. He starts his payments next month - $650/month.:eek:

he can apply for a financial hardship deferment. he will still be accruing interest, but he won't have to make the full payments if he can show that the $650 would cause and undue burden on his finaces.

[yermom]

Tuition at OU goes up every year becasue the state legislature cuts funding. Not sure where greed or the "educational-industrial" complex come into play. If you want to talk about for profit degree factories like U of Phoenix, than you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

they are allowed to bloat prices and cut funding because they know people will still come because it's insanely easy to get money for it. OU is still a lot cheaper than a lot of other places though.

banks would give out loans because they knew the government guaranteed them, or just bought them outright anyway

now it's the government doing it. with the laws the way they are they know you aren't getting away from the debt, so they give it to anyone.

[yermom]

as for certain degrees, i really don't know what to think about it. someone somewhere can get work with that degree, and maybe they are going to grad school or whatever. should there be quotas?

i do think a lot of people head off to college because that's what them and their parents think they should do next. i don't think it should always be the first choice or not immediately after high school. some people could use some life experience before getting there.

i think it needs to be stressed that you should have other skills. i ended up in my field from a student job and could have basically had any degree and been fine, but not having one seems to have held me back a bit

[AlbqSooner]

Hmmmmm? I think its mostly to do with the political stroke of college and universities.

I disagree with Homey on this one point. The American Medical Association is one of the most powerful lobbies in the Nation.

However, it is easier for a legislator to get on the floor of whatever legislative body and pontificate about the greedy ultra-rich physicians than it is to denigrate those poor underpaid educators.

[jkjsooner]

jkj,
2. I agree you need great higher ed in the area to attract certain kinds of industry. But I'm sure that Stanford had a lot more to do with the boom in Silicon Valley than did Hayward State or UC Santa Cruz or San Jose St.

You kind of cherry picked the colleges there. How about UC Berkeley? California has a lot of outstanding public universities and you can't deny it plays a major role in attracting industry.

Simply put, the state wins if it has great public universities - even if a lot of those students leave for other states. It might have changed but when I graduated with an engineering degree almost all graduates left the state. What do you think it would do to our state if we had not public engineering options? Is that fair to our taxpayers to say, "Sorry since our engineers don't stay in state your kids will not be given an opportunity to obtain an engineering degree in this state?" That's extremely short-sighted.


We do have institutions who serve those average students in need of good instructors: Junior/community colleges and regional colleges. And then there are many great private liberal arts colleges which specialize in undergraduate-only programs.

I won't speak for the regional colleges but I took a single class at one of the highest ranking community colleges. It was a complete waste of time. The students were not prepared to take the class and the materiall was taught at a very superficial level.

What we need is to provide the services we provide to community colleges at our major institutions. There's no reason OU can't hire a full time teacher who speaks English and is not a graduate student to teach calculus. If the community or regional colleges can do it OU should be able to do it as well. The fact that they can't do it strongly implies that we are in fact subsidizing some of the research.

I used to be against the level of research at our major institutions. The reason being that 90% of undergraduate students get little to nothing out of it. I now recognize that this research play a major role in our economy. Nobody can deny it has played a major role in the U.S. leading the world in innovation. I just wish/hope that our undergraduate students aren't paying a huge price for this.

[jkjsooner]

You know, we had a discussion in another thread about whether my biology educated teacher was qualified to teach high school physics. (I'm sure he had to subsidize his education with some calculus based physics classes to be certified to teach physics.)

Anyway, I can say one thing, he sure as hell was more qualified than my calculus 3 teach who, after a full semester, I still could not understand a word he said. (I had a calculus 1 prof who took me about 2 weeks to start to understand him. That was okay.) Luckily, I like to learn by reading the text book and following/understanding the proofs.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You kind of cherry picked the colleges there. How about UC Berkeley? California has a lot of outstanding public universities and you can't deny it plays a major role in attracting industry.

Simply put, the state wins if it has great public universities - even if a lot of those students leave for other states. It might have changed but when I graduated with an engineering degree almost all graduates left the state. What do you think it would do to our state if we had not public engineering options? Is that fair to our taxpayers to say, "Sorry since our engineers don't stay in state your kids will not be given an opportunity to obtain an engineering degree in this state?" That's extremely short-sighted.


I dont think we disagree on the need of great public universities. The colleges I mentioned are the ones in or very close to Silicon Valley, and Palo Alto is the hub. Of course Berkeley is great. It charges about $11,000/year for tuition and could easily charge $20,000 and still have thousands of straight-A applicants begging to get in. Cost is not the biggest issue if the university is great.

Tuition is now around $7800/year at OU, I believe. For the UCs, it's about $11,000/year*, and will continue to climb as the state is finding it must cut its budget. College was tuition-free at California Public Universities until the 1960s. I would compute the percent increase in tuition in California since the 60s, but bad things happen when you divide by 0.

My concern is who pays it. If the true cost is, say, $28,000, is it unreasonable to suggest the student and/or his parents pay at least half? It's different than funding K-12, where all kids go to school.

I don't know what the true cost is, as I was asking in my earlier post. I'd like to know how much revenue OU generates from tuition and fees and how many it receives from the state of Oklahoma.


I won't speak for the regional colleges but I took a single class at one of the highest ranking community colleges. It was a complete waste of time. The students were not prepared to take the class and the materiall was taught at a very superficial level.

I'm not surprised -- where is Leroy Lizard when you need someone to defend community colleges?

I do have sympathy for you if your instructors could not speak English well. For a typical math position, 80% of the applicants will not be native English speakers. Many however speak excellent English, but it's their scholarship that is likely to get them a job at a PhD granting institution. Those who hire should give the English speaking issue more consideration. I don't know what one can do except complain to the Chair of the Department, the Dean, etc. Make an appointment with the Chair, go in and complain. If enough people do this, and the appointment is not tenured, it could make a difference.




* they call it a fee instead of tuition for in-state residents and qualified out-of-state residents.