Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe I'm missing it, because I admittedly don't consume the type of media that covers the actions of Democratic party members that closely, but what exactly is the Biden/Dem response to this absolutely insane moral panic the right wing is currently on?

It almost seems to me they're largely pretending it's not happening. A total nonresponse as red states are galloping to oppress trans kids, reigniting the old "gays are pedophiles" smear, and marching abortion rights up to the SCOTUS gallows.

You'd think these are the kinds of things that would at least merit some public dissent.

 

[Bob001]

How much money should be set aside to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and how many people are you willing to allow fall through the cracks that is inevitable in such means testing schemes? This kind of means testing isn't free you know.

Again, pry the means testing from our cold dead hands. There's nothing this country loves than wasting huge amounts of effort and money passing judgement on others rather than just doing the right thing.

I'll weigh in here. Why is spending many billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out voluntary debt freely undertaken "doing the right thing?" Do you see any distinctions between borrowing money to get a BA from a state school and borrowing to get a professional degree in a high-income field from a private u.? Or a graduate degree unrelated to any realistic employment prospects? And how is that fair to people who managed to slog through school without borrowing big bucks? And if you hand out a big bucket of money to pay off existing loans, will that factor into the borrowing decisions people are making now? "Sure, we'll borrow more now, but down the road it'll go away." As in many public policy issues, the devil is in the details.

I think there are arguments to be made that repayment should be income-based. But if we're going to put huge amounts of money into higher education, as we well should, maybe it should go to reducing costs for people who are going to school now.

 

[theprestige]

I'll weigh in here. Why is spending many billions of taxpayer dollars to wipe out voluntary debt freely undertaken "doing the right thing?" Do you see any distinctions between borrowing money to get a BA from a state school and borrowing to get a professional degree in a high-income field from a private u.? Or a graduate degree unrelated to any realistic employment prospects? And how is that fair to people who managed to slog through school without borrowing big bucks? And if you hand out a big bucket of money to pay off existing loans, will that factor into the borrowing decisions people are making now? "Sure, we'll borrow more now, but down the road it'll go away." As in many public policy issues, the devil is in the details.

I think there are arguments to be made that repayment should be income-based. But if we're going to put huge amounts of money into higher education, as we well should, maybe it should go to reducing costs for people who are going to school now.

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

There must be some sort of bare bones model of a college education. What exactly do you need? A dormitory. A classroom. A curriculum that you're interested in. An instructor who is willing and able to teach that curriculum. A handful of administrators and maintenance staff. That's it. The only reason prices should go up is to recruit and retain a higher quality of professor.

You want a party atmosphere? You want a six-year vacation? That's extra, and you pay for it yourself. No student loans. No government subsidies.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

There must be some sort of bare bones model of a college education. What exactly do you need? A dormitory. A classroom. A curriculum that you're interested in. An instructor who is willing and able to teach that curriculum. A handful of administrators and maintenance staff. That's it. The only reason prices should go up is to recruit and retain a higher quality of professor.

You want a party atmosphere? You want a six-year vacation? That's extra, and you pay for it yourself. No student loans. No government subsidies.

Indeed.

I was at Clemson University during their long term project to be a "top 20" public university (I think it peaked at 22, but still a big jump in the rankings).

As far as I can tell, that meant spending a ****-ton of money. Some of which went to things that arguably improved quality (smaller class sizes, funding prestigious academic projects, etc), but much also went to quality of life issues like newer dorms and more amenities.

If I recall correctly, one year the tuition rate increase was just shy of the 7% limit in state law.

I really doubt that this huge increase of cost has resulted in a corresponding increase in the value or quality of the education received, but it absolutely made the university more competitive and more attracting to prospective students and made the University much richer as a result. The school gets paid regardless of whether or not the students ever make good on their loans.

https://www.wyff4.com/article/clemson-university-students-demand-tuition-freeze/36006490

The "bare-bones" type institution you describe that provides high quality education without all the expensive frills seems far more in line with the mission of a public university. There's always Duke or whatever if you want to live at a country club and have the scratch.

 

[jnelso99]

It almost seems like real higher education reform would be for the executive branch to aggressively pressure universities to eliminate secondary features and luxuries, and reduce prices by reducing any costs that aren't strictly necessary to the core mission.

But then the football coaches might not get their multi-million dollar salaries! Can’t have that!

 

[theprestige]

I suddenly realized that we're talking about community college. If the federal government really believes that a baseline college education for everyone is a valuable investment that makes our society better, that's where they should be focusing their efforts.

No more subsidies for state universities. No more student loans.

 

[Bob001]

....
No more subsidies for state universities. No more student loans.

What? Do you mean private universities? Higher education is an important, if not vital, function of government. That's why land grant universities and state colleges were founded. State institutions have been a major factor in building the middle class. The reason the college loan industry has expanded so dramatically is that starting in the '80s, there were big cutbacks in appropriations for higher education. There was a time when state colleges were cheap, sometimes free. People could work their way through school with summer jobs and graduate without owing anybody anything. That's the direction we should be moving.

 

[gnome]

I may have an outlier opinion here, but I think the easy availability of loans for college has contributed a lot to rising college costs. Colleges can charge what they want, knowing that students will borrow what they have to. As recently as the 1980s, state college was affordable for a large percentage of people, and in some places, like California, it was basically free. Cutbacks in state funding resulted in big cost increases, and a whole new industry arose to finance college with loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. If college loans were treated like any other consumer debt, lenders would set tougher restrictions on how much anyone could borrow, which in turn would compel colleges to lower their costs and/or get more state funding if they want to stay in business.

THAT is the aspect of this which gives me the most pause. I agree with the idea of a student loan, that someone who can perform successfully, but lacks the means to pay for secondary education up front is a good investment for society. Finding a way to make credit available to them is valuable, not just to themselves but their communities and our society as a whole.

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

THAT is the aspect of this which gives me the most pause. I agree with the idea of a student loan, that someone without the means to pay for secondary education up front is a good investment for society. Finding a way to make credit available to them is valuable, not just to themselves but their communities and our society as a whole.

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

A society with a more educated work force is absolutely generating more wealth, but it doesn't mean the workers themselves are getting much of it. US wages have stagnated while worker productivity continues to climb. I assume bosses and the ownership class are taking the lion's share.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

State funding, supplemented for private schools by loans that colleges are kept on the hook for.

 

[Aridas]

How do we adapt our economy so that making that investment doesn't simply drive up costs? In my mind inflation is a problem when we enable more spending without creating wealth--but more educated residents DOES create wealth, so what's going wrong?

Random suggestion that just popped into my head, so take it with a grain of salt.

Link the maximum amount legally allowed to be charged for an education to the amount of income that it can reasonably be projected to produce. ETA: No more rise in cost of education greatly outstripping the rise in income in a field, for example.

 

[theprestige]

What? Do you mean private universities? Higher education is an important, if not vital, function of government. That's why land grant universities and state colleges were founded. State institutions have been a major factor in building the middle class. The reason the college loan industry has expanded so dramatically is that starting in the '80s, there were big cutbacks in appropriations for higher education. There was a time when state colleges were cheap, sometimes free. People could work their way through school with summer jobs and graduate without owing anybody anything. That's the direction we should be moving.

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Or forego all that and put that back into the students.

 

[theprestige]

Random suggestion that just popped into my head, so take it with a grain of salt.

Link the maximum amount legally allowed to be charged for an education to the amount of income that it can reasonably be projected to produce.

I don't like it. The cost of providing a comprehensive education on a subject is going to be a certain amount, regardless of how commercially profitable that education is.

If someone wants to spend a hundred thousand dollars to master underwater basket-weaving as a hobby, there should be no reason why a university can't offer that course at that price. People are allowed to have expensive hobbies. People should be allowed to provide expensive goods and services to such hobbyists.

On the other hand, I think you can get the effect you have in mind by treating student loans just like any other loans: As an investment with a certain amount of risk to the investor. The lender only lends as much money as they think they can reasonably get back, with interest. And that will vary greatly depending on which degree the borrower is hoping to finance.

 

[theprestige]

Or forego all that and put that back into the students.

I have no idea what this means. I can think of nothing more literally 'put that into the students' than 'help pay for their education'.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't like it. The cost of providing a comprehensive education on a subject is going to be a certain amount, regardless of how commercially profitable that education is.

If someone wants to spend a hundred thousand dollars to master underwater basket-weaving as a hobby, there should be no reason why a university can't offer that course at that price. People are allowed to have expensive hobbies. People should be allowed to provide expensive goods and services to such hobbyists.

On the other hand, I think you can get the effect you have in mind by treating student loans just like any other loans: As an investment with a certain amount of risk to the investor. The lender only lends as much money as they think they can reasonably get back, with interest. And that will vary greatly depending on which degree the borrower is hoping to finance.

It's also going to vary quite a bit on who the borrower is, regardless of degree.

Such a totally privatized system would lead to retrenchment of existing class divides. Bright kids from poor backgrounds would be higher credit risks than failsons from rich families.

 

[Bob001]

No, I mean federal subsidies for state universities. If a state wants to establish and subsidize its own university system, they're welcome to do so. The federal government should focus on establishing and supporting a basic college education via bare-bones community college programs. Maybe subsidize certain degree programs for specific areas where the national interest is clearly served by having more people who are masters of that field. Like if there's a shortage of nurses, or rocket scientists. But even these should be time-bound, and subject to regular review to determine if the target numbers are being met, or if the subsidy is even doing what it's supposed to be doing.

That would increase the disparities even more between the blue and red states (which generally are the richer and poorer states). The whole country benefits from an educated populace. The primary reason for federal spending on anything is to equalize the experience of being an American, going back to works projects during the Depression and the construction of the TVA. Leaving higher education entirely up to the states would be a catastrophe.

 

[Stacyhs]

How much money should be set aside to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and how many people are you willing to allow fall through the cracks that is inevitable in such means testing schemes? This kind of means testing isn't free you know.

Again, pry the means testing from our cold dead hands. There's nothing this country loves than wasting huge amounts of effort and money passing judgement on others rather than just doing the right thing.

IOW, because some people may fall through the cracks and it may cost some money....but, I'd wager a hell of a lot less than the $1.61 trillion of outstanding student debt...we should say "OK...we'll just write the $1.61 trillion off for all you people who took out loans so you could go to a fancy, high end uni to get your secondary school teaching certificate or degree in Art History and can't pay it back now cuz your job pays crap? Sure, that makes sense. And who decided that it's 'just the right thing'? I know I didn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe I'm missing it, because I admittedly don't consume the type of media that covers the actions of Democratic party members that closely, but what exactly is the Biden/Dem response to this absolutely insane moral panic the right wing is currently on?

It almost seems to me they're largely pretending it's not happening. A total nonresponse as red states are galloping to oppress trans kids, reigniting the old "gays are pedophiles" smear, and marching abortion rights up to the SCOTUS gallows.

You'd think these are the kinds of things that would at least merit some public dissent.

Try watching some of the media that does cover this kind of thing. Or is this just another opportunity to complain about how inept and out of touch the Dems are?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

IOW, because some people may fall through the cracks and it may cost some money....but, I'd wager a hell of a lot less than the $1.61 trillion of outstanding student debt...we should say "OK...we'll just write the $1.61 trillion off for all you people who took out loans so you could go to a fancy, high end uni to get your secondary school teaching certificate or degree in Art History and can't pay it back now cuz your job pays crap? Sure, that makes sense. And who decided that it's 'just the right thing'? I know I didn't.

Okay, well first off this is totally indistinguishable from a standard Republican talking point I've heard for at least 10 years. It's a cheap shot and stacked with classist overtones for wanting to better oneself or pursue a difficult field of study above maximizing potential economic benefit. More so since this decision comes at 18.

But especially throwing in secondary school teachers as a dead-end degree (by virtue of the same de-funding of education that created the very mess we're talking about) to be regretful over takes the cake.

From someone who was, by vagaries of circumstance, able to give their child the comfort, safety, and peace of mind that is being cast adrift to tread water upon the ocean of the world without having to wear lead-lined boots.

And by the way the two art history majors I know, one does graphic design and has enough business to pick their gigs, the other does engagement analysis in marketing. Art history majors don't imagine some job in a museum reciting a script about the kind of oil used in some painting. They used a subject they found interesting to them to pick up numerous skills valuable in media, communications, and marketing fields to name a few.

Yes, a few years intensively studying how ancient coins were some of the first state propaganda or comparative interpretations of various artistic periods and movements and their relationship to ongoing social and political circumstance they arose from does, in that wax-on/wax-off way, prepare a mind to do some very high-value work.