This is correct. In many other countries it is almost free. You have to think, why is that? It is because the people they admit have a very high chance of success thus it is a wise investment for the public good. In USA we offer freedom to decide for yourself so witht hat freedom comes the personal risk
Right but reducing the number of failures and people who cost the .gov thousands and recieved nothing will reduce cost greatly.
I understand your point but it really doesn't address your concerns. making it harder for kids who can't afford college won't solve the problem of kids going to college who shouldn't be there. its two separate problems and you're only making it harder for the kids who want to be there but can't afford to. as a matter of fact you're associating poverty or lack of extra wealth with being not college worthy which I would think or at least hope you're not trying to do.
Where did I say make it harder for poor kids? I think I showed a ideal model to be the split of a gov paid, lower number of admissions college and our current high cost high admission system. The loan I spoke of was in response to you saying they are spending thousands. Not that kids who need loans should not go.
If you read the entire paper and accept its conclusions, that's not really true. It may reduce cost to the taxpayers, but not to the students. There are some supply and demand dynamics affecting cost, but a lot of it is increased student services and administrative costs that wouldn't exist if there weren't such easily available aid. He doesn't write about them (the paper is from 2005), but the parallels to the housing bubble are interesting.
simple question, how do you think actually decreasing the number of paying students will make college more affordable? I don't get that logic at all.
I am speaking of the education system as a whole. Cost is increased by state and .gov spending on education where nothing is achieved. Also wasted by the poor student who now owes 5-20K and is no further in career.
Yeah I disagree with that point kinda. I don't think absolute economics can be used because of the positive effect of an educated population. Obviously decreasing funding would make it cheaper overall but I think at to great a cost. MY point is that if the .gov was buying more than they are now for their money than increased funding would make sense. Th .gov wants to buy degrees for its people. Not 2 years of drinking and 10K of debt.
The idea is that the price is artificially propped up by the ease of accessibility to funds. If you take away that ease, far fewer people can pay the current rates...and the colleges will have to decrease tuition.
so why do you think a private school like rice with very high admission standards is so expensive? as a matter of fact, ut was one of the best values in america for education when I went there in the early nineties.
ummm yes, but if the logic doesn't work with a private school, why do you think it works with a state school
Yeah but normal economics cannot be applied because of the positive influence an educated population gives.
Why is that relevant to the cost of tuition? I'm not sure how this comment makes sense. If people can't afford it...the price has to come down. Or they have to figure something else out entirely.
Colleges are not supposed to be for profit is more like it. I have learned that by working at one for a mere 3 months.
Yes I agree. Thats basic economics. Demand curve I get it. NOW- I think that the .gov has to say, we drop the funding and we lose x number of educated people, this loss drops our GNP x*N, so its better to fund the school even if the artificial demand curve makes the cost higher.
Absolutely!! fund the school!!! No problem with that!! We do that through taxes, though...to all of society because we all benefit from it. What we don't do is jack up tuition rates at a rate bazillions of times faster than the rate of inflation.
