As if rising tuition rates weren't bad enough - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 3, 2006

As if rising tuition rates weren't bad enough

Date: Jul 3, 2006

If college were limited to qualified students, there would be more than enough money to go around. The U.S. spends far more than European countries on higher education. In Europe the cost is much less to the student because those countries have admission standards.

The idea that large numbers of "qualified" students are kept out of college because of cost is baloney.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Angeline wrote:

Now you all (and me too!) get to pay higher interest on student loans. But we support education in this country right? And we want to keep it accessible to as much of the academically-eligible population as possible right? Students across the nation will have to pay thousands more in college loans beginning Saturday, according to a series of reports released today by the research arm of the Campaign for America’s Future. College students and graduates will be pushed deeper into debt as interest rates on Stafford loans -- the basic student loan -- rise from 5.3 percent to 7.14 percent on old loans and to 6.8 percent on new loans at the end of this week. ...... “The failure of the current administration and Congress to make college affordable for all qualified students is a disservice to the country,” said Borosage. “The Republican leadership has allowed interest rates on student loans to rise, increased the interest rate on loans that parents take out to help pay for their children’s education and refused to allow a vote on a bill that would cut interest rates in half on new loans.” http://www.ourfuture.org/press/releases/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=171

Why, Angeline, you must be one of those left-wing, "liberal" professors everyone talking about.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Why, Angeline, you must be one of those left-wing, "liberal" professors everyone talking about.

Yep - we call it the reality-based community. As Stephen Colbert says, "facts lean liberal," so best to ignore them if you are a right-winger.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Curmudgeon wrote:

If college were limited to qualified students, there would be more than enough money to go around. The U.S. spends far more than European countries on higher education. In Europe the cost is much less to the student because those countries have admission standards. The idea that large numbers of "qualified" students are kept out of college because of cost is baloney.

Curmudgeon,

I'm not sure what your experience with higher education funding in Europe is, but although there too the trend is to move away from government funding of higher education, European governments still generally pay tuition for ALL admitted students and thus allow their graduates to enter the workforce without the burden of high debt we place on them.

Look here for an article on the subject: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News09/text9.html

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Angeline wrote:

Curmudgeon,
I'm not sure what your experience with higher education funding in Europe is, but although there too the trend is to move away from government funding of higher education, European governments still generally pay tuition for ALL admitted students and thus allow their graduates to enter the workforce without the burden of high debt we place on them.
Look here for an article on the subject: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News09/text9.html

Thanks for the link, Angeline. Yes, I am familiar with the trend in western Europe for students to pay a greater part of the cost of higher education. This is an inevitable result of the high demand for access. When only 5% of Britons were going to university, it was easy for government to pick up the tab and provide small grants for living expenses. Fifty years ago in the U.S. only 10-20% of high school graduates went on to college and tuition was highly subsidized. Now the figure approaches 60%. In other words, you can be in the lower half of your high school class and still go on to college.

There has also been a realization in many countries that the beneficiary of higher education is largely the individual student. Giving degrees to marginal students is of minimal benefit for the society at large and could be argued to have a negative effect on the quality of higher education. It's hard to argue that the government should heavily subsidize such activity.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Interest rates are going up on all loans. Why should education be exempt? Education is just another investment similar to investing in a business. For those who believe that education should be free would do well to read Adam Smith's discussion of the commons where everyone could let their sheep graze for free. The result, the commons were over grazed because it was free and no one took responsibility. Students treat free education the same, it has small value to them. Their response is to skip class, study the minimum, if at all, and cheat when they can.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Curmudgeon wrote:

Now the figure approaches 60%.

Curmudgeon, there is a huge disconnect between this number and college graduation rates, which I believe are closer to 25% nationwide and less than 20% in Mississippi. I am not attacking you; rather, I would be interested in clarification. Is the difference one of definition? Community college vs 4-year college? Differences between those who enter college and those who graduate? Attrition that high? Any reference you can steer me to?

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Not on the same page wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:
Now the figure approaches 60%.
Curmudgeon, there is a huge disconnect between this number and college graduation rates, which I believe are closer to 25% nationwide and less than 20% in Mississippi. I am not attacking you; rather, I would be interested in clarification. Is the difference one of definition? Community college vs 4-year college? Differences between those who enter college and those who graduate? Attrition that high? Any reference you can steer me to?

Yes, you are correct. The 60% figure is the proportion of high school graduates who go on to higher education, including junior college. Less than half finish, which produces about 25% college grads among young adults. These are all ball park figures as it is very difficult to track such things with precision.

For the first half of the Twentieth Century the percent of college graduate adults was fairly stable at about 10%. The post WW II GI Bill greatly democratized higher education and began a trend toward increased enrollment. The real boom in higher education began in the Sixties.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Thank you for responding.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Curmudgeon wrote:

... Fifty years ago in the U.S. only 10-20% of high school graduates went on to college and tuition was highly subsidized. Now the figure approaches 60%. In other words, you can be in the lower half of your high school class and still go on to college. ...

Curmudgeon, what you say is true. Wasn't this the market for which USM was created in post WWII Mississippi?

Date: Jul 3, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

...
Curmudgeon, what you say is true. Wasn't this the market for which USM was created in post WWII Mississippi?

To be fair, USM (Mississippi Normal?) was founded before WW I to prepare teachers for a region of the state without a state sponsored school. After WW II USM began to grow as did many schools in America after the war. The student body has always been fairly local with most coming from a hundred mile radius. Given the relative poverty of the area (no real commercial agriculture or major industry) the student body has tended to come from humble backgrounds. Some students have always been quite able and many moved on to good careers.

It seems to me that a conscious decision was made during the McCain era to expand enrollment to achieve numerical parity with State and Ole Miss. This was done largely by reducing academic rigor and becoming very "student oriented" in the worst way. You may recall the old six free repeats rule. That is the era that produced the "Hardy High" appellation. The current administration's early and now dashed aspirations for 20,000 students strike me as a throwback to that time and leadership. It increasingly appears that the Lucas era was a brief respite.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

Curmudgeon wrote:

To be fair, USM (Mississippi Normal?) was founded before WW I to prepare teachers for a region of the state without a state sponsored school. After WW II USM began to grow as did many schools in America after the war. The student body has always been fairly local with most coming from a hundred mile radius. Given the relative poverty of the area (no real commercial agriculture or major industry) the student body has tended to come from humble backgrounds. Some students have always been quite able and many moved on to good careers. It seems to me that a conscious decision was made during the McCain era to expand enrollment to achieve numerical parity with State and Ole Miss. This was done largely by reducing academic rigor and becoming very "student oriented" in the worst way. You may recall the old six free repeats rule. That is the era that produced the "Hardy High" appellation. The current administration's early and now dashed aspirations for 20,000 students strike me as a throwback to that time and leadership. It increasingly appears that the Lucas era was a brief respite.

Agreed. But, thanks to Mc Cain, Mississippi Normal became USM in 1955, in spite of the fact that the state already had enough universities and the board didn't want another "university". It was all politics for the sake of local business, the same reason SFT made his push for Economic Development instead of education.