College kids need more food handouts

[ronburgundy]

And as I said later Ron, it explains some of the growth in tuition, about 40% of it, but the other 60% above and beyond normal inflation isn't.

But cutting the spending on taxes on it, does mean savings for the taxpayer so there is a tradeoff on that part.

Nice invented number. It accounts for about double that. Look at the Table 2/3 down this article. It shows the per student cuts and tuition increases per state from 2004 to 2014. The last column is ratio of cuts over tuition increase. 27 states have a ratio over 75% and 37 states over 50%. Among the 47 states that had cuts during this decade, the average cuts/tution increase ratio was 83%. IOW, public colleges had cuts that were 83% of the amount that they raised tuition by.

 

[Axulus]

So somewhere between free and $20,000 a year?

So everybody's standard of living must be forced down to what he had to endure, right?

The Myth of Working Your Way Through College - Svati Kirsten Narula - The Atlantic

The numbers for Michigan State University:

In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.

The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.

An increase by a factor of 7. So those who smugly brag about how they worked their way through college are all wrong about today. They might have been able to, some decades ago, but most present-day students can't.

It's not just MSU.

He added a linear regression analysis to extrapolate the stats for 1979-2013, and found that the average student in 1979 could work 182 hours (a part-time summer job) to pay for a year's tuition. In 2013, it took 991 hours (a full-time job for half the year) to accomplish the same.

And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)

That makes it a year of full-time work to pay for a year of college.

And what is wrong with working part time and taking on a small amount of debt, plus financial aid for students if parents who were too poor to save a dime for their children's college? It's a complete strawman to suggest people are advocating working to pay 100% of college while in college.

Well, that is good because it is impossible to work full-time and pay off college. There is nothing wrong with working part time to help pay off college... like the books part. The problem is when idiots suggest that working part-time can help pay off any reasonable portion of the tuition bill. My structural design teacher paid off his college bill working each summer. It took me working several years, a few decades after he went.

I didn't get my Masters because it was going to be cost prohibitive. Literally, I needed to eat and a place to stay, so instead of getting a Masters Degree in engineering, I went into the real world, got an engineering job and kind of regret not having the opportunity to have gone that extra step, simply because of money. So fuck off with this "part-time" shit.

Where did you get the idea that you wouldn't have the ability to eat and live somewhere while getting a masters? Did you even bother to work with college resources to find a solution, whether it be a combination of part time work (very common for graduate students to work at the college itself), debt and financial aid? Especially for engineering graduates, some of the most privlidged individuals in the world. I know of extremely few cases of a motivated individual not finding a way, so maybe it is you who should fuck off with your pathetic bullshit.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And as I said later Ron, it explains some of the growth in tuition, about 40% of it, but the other 60% above and beyond normal inflation isn't.

But cutting the spending on taxes on it, does mean savings for the taxpayer so there is a tradeoff on that part.

Nice invented number. It accounts for about double that. Look at the Table 2/3 down this article. It shows the per student cuts and tuition increases per state from 2004 to 2014. The last column is ratio of cuts over tuition increase. 27 states have a ratio over 75% and 37 states over 50%. Among the 47 states that had cuts during this decade, the average cuts/tution increase ratio was 83%. IOW, public colleges had cuts that were 83% of the amount that they raised tuition by.

It came from a chart from 1971 to present. Private school tuition has gone up three fold after inflation over those years. Public school has gone up five fold after inflation. The change in reimbursement rates would account for the 40% difference between the two. However we also need to look at federal spending for higher education and it's impact. The amount of financial aid going out has been the big driver in tuition increase costs.

 

[J842P]

So somewhere between free and $20,000 a year?

So everybody's standard of living must be forced down to what he had to endure, right?

The Myth of Working Your Way Through College - Svati Kirsten Narula - The Atlantic

The numbers for Michigan State University:

In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.

The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.

An increase by a factor of 7. So those who smugly brag about how they worked their way through college are all wrong about today. They might have been able to, some decades ago, but most present-day students can't.

It's not just MSU.

He added a linear regression analysis to extrapolate the stats for 1979-2013, and found that the average student in 1979 could work 182 hours (a part-time summer job) to pay for a year's tuition. In 2013, it took 991 hours (a full-time job for half the year) to accomplish the same.

And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)

That makes it a year of full-time work to pay for a year of college.

And what is wrong with working part time and taking on a small amount of debt, plus financial aid for students if parents who were too poor to save a dime for their children's college? It's a complete strawman to suggest people are advocating working to pay 100% of college while in college.

Well, that is good because it is impossible to work full-time and pay off college. There is nothing wrong with working part time to help pay off college... like the books part. The problem is when idiots suggest that working part-time can help pay off any reasonable portion of the tuition bill. My structural design teacher paid off his college bill working each summer. It took me working several years, a few decades after he went.

I didn't get my Masters because it was going to be cost prohibitive. Literally, I needed to eat and a place to stay, so instead of getting a Masters Degree in engineering, I went into the real world, got an engineering job and kind of regret not having the opportunity to have gone that extra step, simply because of money. So fuck off with this "part-time" shit.

Where did you get the idea that you wouldn't have the ability to eat and live somewhere while getting a masters? Did you even bother to work with college resources to find a solution, whether it be a combination of part time work (very common for graduate students to work at the college itself), debt and financial aid? Especially for engineering graduates, some of the most privlidged individuals in the world. I know of extremely few cases of a motivated individual not finding a way, so maybe it is you who should fuck off with your pathetic bullshit.

There isn't a lot of financial aid for graduate degrees, as far as I know, unless you get accepted to a doctoral program with a training grant (in which case, they actually pay *you* to attend). Probably, he could have found a way, a way which involved mountains of debt. That's normally what these motivated individuals do. Probably not worth it.

Also, that study is silly. As you summarized it, it finds that "tuition fees implemented in the right way is far superior to "free college for all", but it only looked at "free college for all" implemented *in one particular way*.

 

[ronburgundy]

And as I said later Ron, it explains some of the growth in tuition, about 40% of it, but the other 60% above and beyond normal inflation isn't.

But cutting the spending on taxes on it, does mean savings for the taxpayer so there is a tradeoff on that part.

Nice invented number. It accounts for about double that. Look at the Table 2/3 down this article. It shows the per student cuts and tuition increases per state from 2004 to 2014. The last column is ratio of cuts over tuition increase. 27 states have a ratio over 75% and 37 states over 50%. Among the 47 states that had cuts during this decade, the average cuts/tution increase ratio was 83%. IOW, public colleges had cuts that were 83% of the amount that they raised tuition by.

It came from a chart from 1971 to present. Private school tuition has gone up three fold after inflation over those years. Public school has gone up five fold after inflation. The change in reimbursement rates would account for the 40% difference between the two. However we also need to look at federal spending for higher education and it's impact. The amount of financial aid going out has been the big driver in tuition increase costs.

Going back that far is meaningless, because the costs of higher education skyrocketed in the 1970s and 1980s when expensive computer based tech became essential. That make "adjusted" for inflation based on the CPI a massive under-adjustment.

The charts I posted of the last 10 years are far more relevant. They show that in the last decade 1/3 of state colleges increased their tuition by less than they amount they lost in budget cuts, and more than half of schools raised their tuition by less than 25% above what they lost in budget cuts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So somewhere between free and $20,000 a year?

So everybody's standard of living must be forced down to what he had to endure, right?

The Myth of Working Your Way Through College - Svati Kirsten Narula - The Atlantic

The numbers for Michigan State University:

In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.

The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.

An increase by a factor of 7. So those who smugly brag about how they worked their way through college are all wrong about today. They might have been able to, some decades ago, but most present-day students can't.

It's not just MSU.

He added a linear regression analysis to extrapolate the stats for 1979-2013, and found that the average student in 1979 could work 182 hours (a part-time summer job) to pay for a year's tuition. In 2013, it took 991 hours (a full-time job for half the year) to accomplish the same.

And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)

That makes it a year of full-time work to pay for a year of college.

And what is wrong with working part time and taking on a small amount of debt, plus financial aid for students if parents who were too poor to save a dime for their children's college? It's a complete strawman to suggest people are advocating working to pay 100% of college while in college.

Well, that is good because it is impossible to work full-time and pay off college. There is nothing wrong with working part time to help pay off college... like the books part. The problem is when idiots suggest that working part-time can help pay off any reasonable portion of the tuition bill. My structural design teacher paid off his college bill working each summer. It took me working several years, a few decades after he went.

I didn't get my Masters because it was going to be cost prohibitive. Literally, I needed to eat and a place to stay, so instead of getting a Masters Degree in engineering, I went into the real world, got an engineering job and kind of regret not having the opportunity to have gone that extra step, simply because of money. So fuck off with this "part-time" shit.

Where did you get the idea that you wouldn't have the ability to eat and live somewhere while getting a masters? Did you even bother to work with college resources to find a solution, whether it be a combination of part time work (very common for graduate students to work at the college itself), debt and financial aid? Especially for engineering graduates, some of the most privlidged individuals in the world. I know of extremely few cases of a motivated individual not finding a way, so maybe it is you who should fuck off with your pathetic bullshit.

Oh... why didn't I think of that?! Lots of loans! And then idiots would say I shouldn't have taken on so much debt.

But I suppose I could have worked full time while going to college full time and acquired lots more debt. Seriously get a fucking clue!

 

[ZiprHead]

So everybody's standard of living must be forced down to what he had to endure, right?

The Myth of Working Your Way Through College - Svati Kirsten Narula - The Atlantic

The numbers for Michigan State University:

In 1979, when the minimum wage was $2.90, a hard-working student with a minimum-wage job could earn enough in one day (8.44 hours) to pay for one academic credit hour. If a standard course load for one semester consisted of maybe 12 credit hours, the semester's tuition could be covered by just over two weeks of full-time minimum wage work—or a month of part-time work. A summer spent scooping ice cream or flipping burgers could pay for an MSU education.

The cost of an MSU credit hour has multiplied since 1979. So has the federal minimum wage. But today, it takes 60 hours of minimum-wage work to pay off a single credit hour, which was priced at $428.75 for the fall semester.

An increase by a factor of 7. So those who smugly brag about how they worked their way through college are all wrong about today. They might have been able to, some decades ago, but most present-day students can't.

It's not just MSU.

He added a linear regression analysis to extrapolate the stats for 1979-2013, and found that the average student in 1979 could work 182 hours (a part-time summer job) to pay for a year's tuition. In 2013, it took 991 hours (a full-time job for half the year) to accomplish the same.

And this is only considering the cost of tuition, which is hardly an accurate representation of what students actually spend for college. According to the College Board, average room and board fees at public universities today exceed tuition costs by a little more than 100 percent. (For the current academic year, average tuition at 4-year public schools is $8,893, but with room and board, the total average cost comes to $18,391.)

That makes it a year of full-time work to pay for a year of college.

Who needs to buy food? There's lots of grass around the quad at MSU the students can graze on.

 

[ronburgundy]

Speaking of the Republican education cuts being responsible for most tuition hike in the last 20 years, the tax Bill they just passed in the Senate will likely raise tuition by another 5%.

Nearly all graduate programs operate by giving grad students free tuition in exchange for them serving a assistants, either in teaching or research. The GOP bill would force all grad students to pay Fed taxes on the value of the tuition they are not paying. I will numbers from use a University I am familiar with that is a typical mid-size 4-year University, where in-state graduate tuition is about $16,000 per year and out of state is about $25,000. That will amount to around $2,100 in extra taxes for in-state students, and $3,500 for out of state. Since most graduate students are "out-of-state" (b/c grad school is about working with particular faculty), that means an average of $3000 a year per grad student.

Given that grad student stipends are about $18,000 per year pre-tax, they cannot possibly afford this. So, there are two possible outcomes.
1) Graduate school enrollment will massively drop and the quality of students drop. Thus, not only dropping quality of scientific research and other post-grad work everywhere, but making it impossible to staff their courses without outside employees at even greater expense. IOW, both grad and undergrad education will take a massive hit in quality. This option is unlikely.

2) The most likely route will be to increase grad student stipends to cover their tax burden, which will require an increase in undergrad tuition to pay for it.
The ratio of grad teaching assistants to undergrads in the courses over 1 year is about 75 : 1. That means each undergrad will pay $3000/75 = $40 more for every class they take, so about $1600 more for typical bachelor's degree.

Also, research grad assistants will have to be paid more too, and that will come out of the research grant money typically used pay their stipends. Pay for grad research assistants is a sizable % of most grant budgets. So, this could wind up amounting to the equivalent of a 5% cut to most science funding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking of the Republican education cuts being responsible for most tuition hike in the last 20 years, the tax Bill they just passed in the Senate will likely raise tuition by another 5%.

Nearly all graduate programs operate by giving grad students free tuition in exchange for them serving a assistants, either in teaching or research. The GOP bill would force all grad students to pay Fed taxes on the value of the tuition they are not paying. I will numbers from use a University I am familiar with that is a typical mid-size 4-year University, where in-state graduate tuition is about $16,000 per year and out of state is about $25,000. That will amount to around $2,100 in extra taxes for in-state students, and $3,500 for out of state. Since most graduate students are "out-of-state" (b/c grad school is about working with particular faculty), that means an average of $3000 a year per grad student.

Actually, what I expect will happen is they will get rid of the accounting gimmick and simply not charge tuition in those fields.

 

[fast]

What college kids need is free tuition and a free room.

They can afford food without that burden.

A society that burdens students just out of school with huge debt is not a free society.

And that lack of freedom harms and stunts the society that imposes it.

Free tuition? What is that? Tuition paid for by your next door friendly tuition fairy?

 

[Axulus]

Speaking of the Republican education cuts being responsible for most tuition hike in the last 20 years, the tax Bill they just passed in the Senate will likely raise tuition by another 5%.

Nearly all graduate programs operate by giving grad students free tuition in exchange for them serving a assistants, either in teaching or research. The GOP bill would force all grad students to pay Fed taxes on the value of the tuition they are not paying. I will numbers from use a University I am familiar with that is a typical mid-size 4-year University, where in-state graduate tuition is about $16,000 per year and out of state is about $25,000. That will amount to around $2,100 in extra taxes for in-state students, and $3,500 for out of state. Since most graduate students are "out-of-state" (b/c grad school is about working with particular faculty), that means an average of $3000 a year per grad student.

Actually, what I expect will happen is they will get rid of the accounting gimmick and simply not charge tuition in those fields.

That will only work if they are already waiving tuition for the vast majority of graduate students in those fields. Is that the case?

 

[ronburgundy]

Speaking of the Republican education cuts being responsible for most tuition hike in the last 20 years, the tax Bill they just passed in the Senate will likely raise tuition by another 5%.

Nearly all graduate programs operate by giving grad students free tuition in exchange for them serving a assistants, either in teaching or research. The GOP bill would force all grad students to pay Fed taxes on the value of the tuition they are not paying. I will numbers from use a University I am familiar with that is a typical mid-size 4-year University, where in-state graduate tuition is about $16,000 per year and out of state is about $25,000. That will amount to around $2,100 in extra taxes for in-state students, and $3,500 for out of state. Since most graduate students are "out-of-state" (b/c grad school is about working with particular faculty), that means an average of $3000 a year per grad student.

Actually, what I expect will happen is they will get rid of the accounting gimmick and simply not charge tuition in those fields.

That will only work if they are already waiving tuition for the vast majority of graduate students in those fields. Is that the case?

I don't think that can work at all. If they don't charge tuition, then students do not need to serve as assistants to get that tuition waived. Without graduate assistants, the whole University system would collapse, and if you have to pay them directly enough to make it worth it, then undergrad tuition will go up 20%.

Plus, if it were as simple as Loren is claiming, the GOP wouldn't be doing this in the first place. They are doing it because they know it will seriously harm public education and publicly funded science, which is their consistent objective with all their education and science policies.

I got 10 emails today begging everyone to take action,not only from 3 different levels of administration at my University, but most national scientific organizations I belong to. They aren't terrified of this bill, because of easily fixable accounting gimmick.

 

[Playball40]

That and easy credit. Easy credit automatically raises the price way beyond it's value and creates bubbles. Housing market already burst. Commercial building and automobiles is next. College has become a racket and a boom for the federal govt. Easy high interest student loans that you cannot pay back or discharge in bankruptcy. But an economy that DEMANDS you have a college degree. How freaking convenient. A generation of indentured servants or peasants. Take your pick.

Shouldn't you be complaining about the administrators and the football teams getting the money for the rise in tuition? Something does need to control college costs, but nobody in that field is really wanting to.

Rising tuition costs are mostly a direct result of slashed State budgets, not increased expenses, salaries, etc..
When the State cuts per-student funding in half (as has occurred in many States over the last 15 years), then there is no way for the University to operate without sizable increases in what the students themselves have to pay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That will only work if they are already waiving tuition for the vast majority of graduate students in those fields. Is that the case?

I don't think that can work at all. If they don't charge tuition, then students do not need to serve as assistants to get that tuition waived. Without graduate assistants, the whole University system would collapse, and if you have to pay them directly enough to make it worth it, then undergrad tuition will go up 20%.

Plus, if it were as simple as Loren is claiming, the GOP wouldn't be doing this in the first place. They are doing it because they know it will seriously harm public education and publicly funded science, which is their consistent objective with all their education and science policies.

I got 10 emails today begging everyone to take action,not only from 3 different levels of administration at my University, but most national scientific organizations I belong to. They aren't terrified of this bill, because of easily fixable accounting gimmick.

I don't think it's about inflicting harm. Rather, it's about keeping the tax bill's cost below $1.5T by as much as possible putting the burden on Democrats.

 

[laughing dog]

That will only work if they are already waiving tuition for the vast majority of graduate students in those fields. Is that the case?

I don't think that can work at all. If they don't charge tuition, then students do not need to serve as assistants to get that tuition waived. Without graduate assistants, the whole University system would collapse, and if you have to pay them directly enough to make it worth it, then undergrad tuition will go up 20%.

Plus, if it were as simple as Loren is claiming, the GOP wouldn't be doing this in the first place. They are doing it because they know it will seriously harm public education and publicly funded science, which is their consistent objective with all their education and science policies.

I got 10 emails today begging everyone to take action,not only from 3 different levels of administration at my University, but most national scientific organizations I belong to. They aren't terrified of this bill, because of easily fixable accounting gimmick.

I don't think it's about inflicting harm. Rather, it's about keeping the tax bill's cost below $1.5T by as much as possible putting the burden on Democrats.

There are plenty of ways to keep that tax bill under 1.5 Trillion without going after graduate students.

To be fair, the IRS has had a hard-on for graduate student stipends and tuition waivers for decades. When I was in graduate school (30+ years ago), the graduate students at my school had to hire a tax attorney to get the IRS from going after our stipends and tuition waivers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's about inflicting harm. Rather, it's about keeping the tax bill's cost below $1.5T by as much as possible putting the burden on Democrats.

There are plenty of ways to keep that tax bill under 1.5 Trillion without going after graduate students.

To be fair, the IRS has had a hard-on for graduate student stipends and tuition waivers for decades. When I was in graduate school (30+ years ago), the graduate students at my school had to hire a tax attorney to get the IRS from going after our stipends and tuition waivers.

Sure there are other ways--but they had to put the tax burden on people other than their donors. Thus they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find the money.