College tuition inflation.

[dblack]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

 

[Disir]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

 

[dblack]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

Nah, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. In general, as more money gets pumped into a given market, prices go up. But it sounds like you're only talking about the tuition charged to students, which would naturally go down the more their education is subsidized by government. But that doesn't mean the actual cost of the education is reduced.

 

[Disir]

You understand just fine. This is what happens when there is a movement towards privatizing state universities. You support this wholeheartedly. So, maybe we can just cut the preliminary crap?
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf
Higher Education in California Institutional Costs PPIC Publication
From Master Plan to No Plan The Slow Death of Public Higher Education Dissent Magazine
On Campus NYU s John Sexton Quality Higher Education Costs

 

[dblack]

You understand just fine. This is what happens when there is a movement towards privatizing state universities. You support this wholeheartedly. So, maybe we can just cut the preliminary crap?
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf
Higher Education in California Institutional Costs PPIC Publication
From Master Plan to No Plan The Slow Death of Public Higher Education Dissent Magazine
On Campus NYU s John Sexton Quality Higher Education Costs

I wouldn't say wholeheartedly. The military budget is a far worse problem.

But schemes to alleviate the burden of rising costs by throwing money at them doesn't make them go down. It does the opposite. In particular, reducing the out of pocket expense to the customer gives them ever more incentive to seek more expensive alternatives. That's what's happened with health care. It's happening with education. I suspect food will be next. They're using this dynamic to centralize control of all the important necessities of life.

 

[Disir]

You understand just fine. This is what happens when there is a movement towards privatizing state universities. You support this wholeheartedly. So, maybe we can just cut the preliminary crap?
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf
Higher Education in California Institutional Costs PPIC Publication
From Master Plan to No Plan The Slow Death of Public Higher Education Dissent Magazine
On Campus NYU s John Sexton Quality Higher Education Costs

I wouldn't say wholeheartedly. The military budget is a far worse problem.

But schemes to alleviate the burden of rising costs by throwing money at them doesn't make them go down. It does the opposite. In particular, reducing the out of pocket expense to the customer gives them ever more incentive to seek more expensive alternatives. That's what's happened with health care. It's happening with education. I suspect food will be next. They're using this dynamic to centralize control of all the important necessities of life.

This is the privatization of the public education system. Period. There is no song and dance for it. There is no justification that can be drummed up for it.

Economics is the softest science there is.

My preference is that people just shoot straight.

 

[CultureCitizen]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

Nah, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. In general, as more money gets pumped into a given market, prices go up. But it sounds like you're only talking about the tuition charged to students, which would naturally go down the more their education is subsidized by government. But that doesn't mean the actual cost of the education is reduced.

Yes, but there are different ways to pump money into the system. Wouldn't college insurance also pump more money into the system?

I understand public colleges make government larger, increasing expenditure and bureaucracy. Nontheless, they offer an excelent alternative for people with low income because they charge 75% less than the average private college.

I think pricess should be regulated so that they don't deviate from the average prices charged by other developed nations.

 

[Conservative65]

While other countries invest in their own future, our own students must leave the US to afford higher education.

DUMB.

What's dumb is that you expect me to pay for college on behalf of someone else's kid.

 

[Conservative65]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

Who is "you"?

 

[Conservative65]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

 

[dblack]

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

Nah, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. In general, as more money gets pumped into a given market, prices go up. But it sounds like you're only talking about the tuition charged to students, which would naturally go down the more their education is subsidized by government. But that doesn't mean the actual cost of the education is reduced.

Yes, but there are different ways to pump money into the system. Wouldn't college insurance also pump more money into the system?

Off course. I was being sarcastic earlier wth that suggestion.

 

[Disir]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

You know who you is. It's public education. You understand just fine. You just don't wanna. The state has an interest in an educated and competitive populace.

That's the reason that I said, let's skip the preliminary bullshit.

 

[dblack]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

The idea is that an educated society benefits all of us. But like all government programs, everyone wants to ensure that it benefits them more than the other guy.

 

[CultureCitizen]

In order to decrease tuition costs, you will need to return to funding higher ed.

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

The same way of thinking could be applied to many other aspects of government:
Why should taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for the police force from another's person bad neighborhood/city.
Granted, the State has the monopoly of force, so the police activity is part of the definition of what a state does. But the other answer is that as a whole the society works better if certain measures are taken to ensure it works properly. More engineers could provide a competitive advantage over other nations.

If you look at this chart you will see that public tuitions per year are abuot 1/3 of the cost of tuition in private institutions. Does that mean that if all college education was public the cost would by reduced by 66% for every american citizen?
Or would it spiral out of control without the balance of private institutions?
Would this increase the control the government has over citizens ... and lead to a socialist regime?

I don't think there is an easy answer, but it is worth exploring all the posibilities .
Tuition prices are spiraling. How do you suggest they are controlled?

 

[Conservative65]

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

The same way of thinking could be applied to many other aspects of government:
Why should taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for the police force from another's person bad neighborhood/city.
Granted, the State has the monopoly of force, so the police activity is part of the definition of what a state does. But the other answer is that as a whole the society works better if certain measures are taken to ensure it works properly. More engineers could provide a competitive advantage over other nations.

If you look at this chart you will see that public tuitions per year are abuot 1/3 of the cost of tuition in private institutions. Does that mean that if all college education was public the cost would by reduced by 66% for every american citizen?
Or would it spiral out of control without the balance of private institutions?
Would this increase the control the government has over citizens ... and lead to a socialist regime?

I don't think there is an easy answer, but it is worth exploring all the posibilities .
Tuition prices are spiraling. How do you suggest they are controlled?

Get the government out of the student loan business.

 

[Conservative65]

That's not how economics works.

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

You know who you is. It's public education. You understand just fine. You just don't wanna. The state has an interest in an educated and competitive populace.

That's the reason that I said, let's skip the preliminary bullshit.

With what's coming out of public education today, I'm waiting to see an educated and competitive populace. When people are handed a diploma that indicates they've finished the 12th grade, I expect them to be able to function on a 12th grade level. That's not what we are getting. Colleges today are doing remedial classes. That's absolutely embarrassing.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

The same way of thinking could be applied to many other aspects of government:
Why should taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for the police force from another's person bad neighborhood/city.
Granted, the State has the monopoly of force, so the police activity is part of the definition of what a state does. But the other answer is that as a whole the society works better if certain measures are taken to ensure it works properly. More engineers could provide a competitive advantage over other nations.

If you look at this chart you will see that public tuitions per year are abuot 1/3 of the cost of tuition in private institutions. Does that mean that if all college education was public the cost would by reduced by 66% for every american citizen?
Or would it spiral out of control without the balance of private institutions?
Would this increase the control the government has over citizens ... and lead to a socialist regime?

I don't think there is an easy answer, but it is worth exploring all the posibilities .
Tuition prices are spiraling. How do you suggest they are controlled?

Get the government out of the student loan business.

Ok , that could work : by reducing the amount of money that goes into the system, demand would fall , and less expensive alternatives could appear.

There are americans working on making education available for free for every human being.

Khan Academy
Crash Course Subbable

This is just a tiny step towards making college education available for everyone within the bounds of a free market. But my bet is that we will be seeing more of these in the future.

Of course the video tutorials and exercises still have to be complemented by interaction with other students and counceling from teachers, but I like the core idea : You can learn anything you want if you have the will to do it... no taxpayer money is involved.

 

[Disir]

Fun filled fact: the cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

You know who you is. It's public education. You understand just fine. You just don't wanna. The state has an interest in an educated and competitive populace.

That's the reason that I said, let's skip the preliminary bullshit.

With what's coming out of public education today, I'm waiting to see an educated and competitive populace. When people are handed a diploma that indicates they've finished the 12th grade, I expect them to be able to function on a 12th grade level. That's not what we are getting. Colleges today are doing remedial classes. That's absolutely embarrassing.

Stop. The reason that the tuition increases is due to defunding higher education. You like that.

 

[thanatos144]

Tuition increases because greedy faculty with Dean's making more then ceos

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. When you talk about 'cost', you're not talking about the real expense of education, but the costs that students pay, yeah?

The cost of tuition increased because the funding to higher ed decreased. Fact.

There is no bullshitting around this. What you are desperately searching for is a way not to return to funding higher ed.

What I'm looking for is a logical explanation of why taxpayer money forced from one person should be used to pay for college for another person's kid.

You know who you is. It's public education. You understand just fine. You just don't wanna. The state has an interest in an educated and competitive populace.

That's the reason that I said, let's skip the preliminary bullshit.

With what's coming out of public education today, I'm waiting to see an educated and competitive populace. When people are handed a diploma that indicates they've finished the 12th grade, I expect them to be able to function on a 12th grade level. That's not what we are getting. Colleges today are doing remedial classes. That's absolutely embarrassing.

Stop. The reason that the tuition increases is due to defunding higher education. You like that.

Who do you say is defunding higher education?