PDA

View Full Version : Obama proposes shifting fed dollars away from colleges with outta control costs



badger
1/27/2012, 09:58 AM
If this isn't a scam to punish states that vote red, I am for this.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120127_335_0_ROMULU666714)


The money Obama is targeting is what's known as "campus based" aid given to colleges to distribute in areas such as Perkins loans or in work study programs. Of the $142 billion in federal grants and loans distributed in the last school year, about $3 billion went to these programs.

I am not sure what the impact would be, but the college racket has got to stop. And by that, I meant that expecting students and their families to take out 20 years in loans in order to pay for their education because costs are raising higher than the inflation rate is RI-DIC-U-LOUS.

I know that higher ed institutions will whine that state funding levels are not the same percentage they used to be. But, I'd argue that you should look at the dollar amount, not the percentage... and that practically everything else funded by state money is getting their budgets slashed nowadays.

I just worry that, like I said, this is a way to take funds away from states with voters that do not support this administration, much like "Race to the Top" seemed to be a way to reward states that voted blue (Oklahoma, even if its strongest education category, early childhood ed, ranked very low in the competition).

Ike
1/27/2012, 10:45 AM
There are a number of things that could be done in this realm that I fully support.

Firstly, especially with well established institutions, it should not be too much of a problem to statistically look at earnings (via tax returns) of alumi of those institutions (maybe even down to the specific degree programs) to make a determination of how likely a student will be to pay back loans of a given dollar amount (rather than looking at default rates, which I believe is the current practice). This could be used to set a ceiling on how much should be given out in loans to students.

Secondly, I think that one of the great triumphs of the internet is that it has vastly lowered the cost of access to information (and thus learning). Sadly though, this has not brought down the cost of higher education. And I think the reason for that is that, in reality, a college or university is not really in the business of selling learning or information. They are in the business of selling credentials. And those credentials are in very high demand, especially as the gap between earning potential of the educated and uneducated continues to grow. The teaching that goes on is simply what they have to do to ensure the bearer of their credential has actually earned it. In that respect, I think that maybe we should start exploring the possibility of a new kind of institution. One that says "we don't care where you got the knowledge, but we will verify that you indeed know what you claim you know and offer a credential based on that". Essentially a testing institution, with the power to grant degrees. In certain fields this would be EASY to do. In others it might be rather difficult. But in principle, if you can offer something that business will accept as a valid credential, you can lower the cost of providing it by outsourcing the learning part completely to the student. If an institution can do a good job of verification of that knowledge, such a credential might be even more sought after than a traditional degree, as it would also show a certain amount of self-motivation. One subject I am thinking clearly about here is computer science.

BTW, as a favor to certain potential presidential nominees, I submit that either of these two ideas (or any other idea that puts real downward pressure on the cost of education without reducing the demand for it) is worth far more than a colony on the moon.

badger
1/27/2012, 10:56 AM
Agree that colleges are basically a means of proving that you know what you're doing by virtue of having a piece of paper that says so... and that those pieces of paper are not really that valid in every case.

I remember looking around my peers at my college's graduation ceremonies... there were those that I worked tons of projects and assignments and study groups with over the past several years, as well as outside college programs that were related to the major... and then there were those that were basically the students that didn't pan out in other colleges that quickly transferred to our program just to save face and end up with a diploma.

We all ended up with the same diploma... but did we all get the same education to get to that point?

There are other factors also... kids that transfer in from community and junior colleges... adults that have been on break for years and come back to finish their last few credits finally... those that sleep in during morning lectures and stay up all night that you only see on exam day... etc.

SoonerAtKU
1/27/2012, 11:20 AM
Ike, that's the most reasonable and forward-thinking idea for education reform that I've ever seen. It's succinct, smart, effective, inexpensive, and addresses an immediate need.

For all of those reasons, nobody would ever vote for it.

Sad as hell right now.

Sooner5030
1/27/2012, 11:26 AM
There are a number of things that could be done in this realm that I fully support.

Firstly, especially with well established institutions, it should not be too much of a problem to statistically look at earnings (via tax returns) of alumi of those institutions (maybe even down to the specific degree programs) to make a determination of how likely a student will be to pay back loans of a given dollar amount (rather than looking at default rates, which I believe is the current practice). This could be used to set a ceiling on how much should be given out in loans to students.

Secondly, I think that one of the great triumphs of the internet is that it has vastly lowered the cost of access to information (and thus learning). Sadly though, this has not brought down the cost of higher education. And I think the reason for that is that, in reality, a college or university is not really in the business of selling learning or information. They are in the business of selling credentials. And those credentials are in very high demand, especially as the gap between earning potential of the educated and uneducated continues to grow. The teaching that goes on is simply what they have to do to ensure the bearer of their credential has actually earned it. In that respect, I think that maybe we should start exploring the possibility of a new kind of institution. One that says "we don't care where you got the knowledge, but we will verify that you indeed know what you claim you know and offer a credential based on that". Essentially a testing institution, with the power to grant degrees. In certain fields this would be EASY to do. In others it might be rather difficult. But in principle, if you can offer something that business will accept as a valid credential, you can lower the cost of providing it by outsourcing the learning part completely to the student. If an institution can do a good job of verification of that knowledge, such a credential might be even more sought after than a traditional degree, as it would also show a certain amount of self-motivation. One subject I am thinking clearly about here is computer science.

BTW, as a favor to certain potential presidential nominees, I submit that either of these two ideas (or any other idea that puts real downward pressure on the cost of education without reducing the demand for it) is worth far more than a colony on the moon.

Ike,

Run for office now please.

badger
1/27/2012, 11:33 AM
I remember when David Boren promised the state legislature that he would not raise tuition and fees if he got XXX funding for higher education that year.

Then, the recession happened and OU followed suit with most major universities and didn't raise tuition.

They didn't get the astronomical bump to funding that Boren requested, either :)

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2012, 12:58 PM
Ike,

Run for office now please.

Ike,

Don't run for office. Just start one of these testing colleges.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2012, 01:01 PM
It's like the housing bubble. Anybody can get the loans so the prices inflate to absorb the money. Ron Paul is right on this.

Get gov't out of the education loan business.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2012, 01:05 PM
What I fear is some kind of No Coed Left Behind, where federal money is tied to some measurements that, in the end, distort the true goals.

Mississippi Sooner
1/27/2012, 01:44 PM
I'll gladly volunteer to measure the coeds.

47straight
1/27/2012, 02:49 PM
It's like the housing bubble. Anybody can get the loans so the prices inflate to absorb the money.

This. And students go along because it's a loan and they don't have to think about it. Until they graduate with 200k in debt, a "____ studies" degree and a low-paying job.

The biggest variable in rising tuition has been the availability of more and more loan money. East Popcorn U is going to raise their prices to get the maximum payout they can.

badger
1/27/2012, 03:00 PM
The biggest variable in rising tuition has been the availability of more and more loan money. East Popcorn U is going to raise their prices to get the maximum payout they can.

Someone mentioned on a scholarship thread that OU seemed to favor giving money to outta staters rather than in-staters, regardless of academic credentials.

It all boils down to money. In-state at OU tuition and fees is about $9k a year now, outta state is about $19k. If OU gives $9,000 to an in-stater, they don't get any more money, but if they give that money to an outta stater, they are still getting $10k.

Thus, if other universities are like OU (and they are), a few things will have to happen for the increasing tuition/fees to finally stop, or at least be curtailed to inflation rates and not a penny more:

1- Directly regulate raising tuition and fees. Take it out of the regents hands if necessary. If it's publicly funded, then publicly elected officials have every right to dictate exactly when tuition and fees can rise (or fall, hahaha not gonna happen). Make laws if you want. Make it happen.

2- Make funding directly attached to tuition/fee rates. Remember when every state suddenly had a 21 drinking age? It was because some federal tax dollars were tied to it making it 21.

3- Regulate how tuition/fee money can be spent. Not as far fetched as you may think. It seems like just a blank check right now that can be used for pensions, for Molly Shi gardens, for programs that have few students with little prospects for post-graduation jobs, etc. If tuition/fees were directly tied to classroom instruction and resources, you might see smaller programs die off and resources put where the majority of students actually use them... and lower costs as a result. OU may no longer have a religious studies program or new mums planted every fall in a pretty OU pattern, but OU might have longer library hours during the entire semester, more computer labs on campus or more course offerings to help students complete their degrees faster.

SanJoaquinSooner
1/27/2012, 06:00 PM
Someone mentioned on a scholarship thread that OU seemed to favor giving money to outta staters rather than in-staters, regardless of academic credentials.

It all boils down to money. In-state at OU tuition and fees is about $9k a year now, outta state is about $19k. If OU gives $9,000 to an in-stater, they don't get any more money, but if they give that money to an outta stater, they are still getting $10k.


Thus, if other universities are like OU (and they are), a few things will have to happen for the increasing tuition/fees to finally stop, or at least be curtailed to inflation rates and not a penny more:

1- Directly regulate raising tuition and fees. Take it out of the regents hands if necessary. If it's publicly funded, then publicly elected officials have every right to dictate exactly when tuition and fees can rise (or fall, hahaha not gonna happen). Make laws if you want. Make it happen.

2- Make funding directly attached to tuition/fee rates. Remember when every state suddenly had a 21 drinking age? It was because some federal tax dollars were tied to it making it 21.

3- Regulate how tuition/fee money can be spent. Not as far fetched as you may think. It seems like just a blank check right now that can be used for pensions, for Molly Shi gardens, for programs that have few students with little prospects for post-graduation jobs, etc. If tuition/fees were directly tied to classroom instruction and resources, you might see smaller programs die off and resources put where the majority of students actually use them... and lower costs as a result. OU may no longer have a religious studies program or new mums planted every fall in a pretty OU pattern, but OU might have longer library hours during the entire semester, more computer labs on campus or more course offerings to help students complete their degrees faster.



Badger, all three points are worth respones, but let me start with number 3.

Ultimately, programs must be reviewed and an allocation of resources must be determined. I just believe elected officials are not the best choice for decision makers on this. It's like Raider owner Al Davis (RIP) telling the coach who to play and what plays to run. Best left to the coach, and if the coach is incompetent, fire the coach.

Elected officials will make terrible decisions about curriculum for which they have zero expertise: e.g., Very few physics majors? Let's get rid of the physics dept. They're teaching a course called "evolution" in zoology? Let's cut the budget of the zoology dept. The English dept is full of gay liberals? They have way too much money in their budget!

etc.

Watch OU's rankings nosedive.

soonercoop1
1/27/2012, 06:54 PM
A trillion dollars of student loans have been funnelled to academia...would guess it is past time to stop...doesn't even count research grants...who knows how large that number is...

Ike
1/28/2012, 12:31 AM
Ike,

Don't run for office. Just start one of these testing colleges.

I've seriously considered it. There is a ton of groundwork that would need to be laid first. Not to mention funding I don't have. This has been kicking around in my head for a while, but while I'd love to have a hand in getting something like it off the ground, at this point I would just love to see it happen.

And don't worry, I wont be running for office. I'm too liberal to even win a race for dog catcher in Oklahoma.

diverdog
1/28/2012, 07:33 AM
There are a number of things that could be done in this realm that I fully support.

Firstly, especially with well established institutions, it should not be too much of a problem to statistically look at earnings (via tax returns) of alumi of those institutions (maybe even down to the specific degree programs) to make a determination of how likely a student will be to pay back loans of a given dollar amount (rather than looking at default rates, which I believe is the current practice). This could be used to set a ceiling on how much should be given out in loans to students.

Secondly, I think that one of the great triumphs of the internet is that it has vastly lowered the cost of access to information (and thus learning). Sadly though, this has not brought down the cost of higher education. And I think the reason for that is that, in reality, a college or university is not really in the business of selling learning or information. They are in the business of selling credentials. And those credentials are in very high demand, especially as the gap between earning potential of the educated and uneducated continues to grow. The teaching that goes on is simply what they have to do to ensure the bearer of their credential has actually earned it. In that respect, I think that maybe we should start exploring the possibility of a new kind of institution. One that says "we don't care where you got the knowledge, but we will verify that you indeed know what you claim you know and offer a credential based on that". Essentially a testing institution, with the power to grant degrees. In certain fields this would be EASY to do. In others it might be rather difficult. But in principle, if you can offer something that business will accept as a valid credential, you can lower the cost of providing it by outsourcing the learning part completely to the student. If an institution can do a good job of verification of that knowledge, such a credential might be even more sought after than a traditional degree, as it would also show a certain amount of self-motivation. One subject I am thinking clearly about here is computer science.

BTW, as a favor to certain potential presidential nominees, I submit that either of these two ideas (or any other idea that puts real downward pressure on the cost of education without reducing the demand for it) is worth far more than a colony on the moon.

Here is the problem. You are talking training vs education. I think with things like computer programing you are spot on. However when you talk about liberal art degrees things get much more difficult.

The real culprit is that most major universities have these massive endowment fundraising departments that raise funds just to raise funds. If you want to lower the cost of college force them to use much of these funds for financial aid. Harvard has so much money that they could damn near educate every student for free for ever and never hurt their endowment. OU is not as wealthy but even the interest of the endowment could help lots of kids.

jkjsooner
1/28/2012, 06:48 PM
If this isn't a scam to punish states that vote red, I am for this.

I haven't done the analysis but just looking around it seems to me that red states have the most affordable tuition around. That's definitely true for Oklahoma.

I think your concern doesn't mesh with reality at all.


As for Ike's proposal, it sounds good on first reading but I would think the drawbacks are pretty severe.

1. You can't simply test the experienced gained from being in an educational environment.

2. Even engineering students have to take humanities courses. I hope you wouldn't lose that. How would you you test that?

3. How do you test the design courses, the projects?

4. RESEARCH. I know we all hate it that professors care more about their research than teaching. I definitely do. However, research does help our GDP and national prestige more than people realize. With corporations now focused on short term gain, we no longer have the Bell Labs of old. Universities are our main source of research.


We have a great higher education system in this country. I think it would be dangerous to dismantle that.

jkjsooner
1/28/2012, 06:51 PM
Harvard has so much money that they could damn near educate every student for free for ever and never hurt their endowment.

I believe they've stated that they could do just that. They keep their tuition high for prestige reasons as much as anything.

MR2-Sooner86
1/31/2012, 02:17 PM
1. Students need money for college.
2. Students apply for a loan, from the government, to pay for said college.
4. Colleges raise their tuition cost.
5. See 1.

badger
1/31/2012, 03:39 PM
I haven't done the analysis but just looking around it seems to me that red states have the most affordable tuition around. That's definitely true for Oklahoma.

I think your concern doesn't mesh with reality at all.

Oklahoma tuition has actually been labeled unaffordable, believe it or not. This is based on the fact that despite a lower cost than other state universities around the country, Oklahoma income overall is much lower and tuition, by comparison, takes a larger chunk of people's incomes in this state than others do.

That said, with more and more families opting to let the kid foot the bill themselves, the student's income is likely close to zero, regardless of what state they live in. Thus, OU suddenly becomes far more affordable than, say, Cal-Berkeley or Meatchicken or UT-Austin.

It all depends on how you classify affordability.