College kids need more food handouts

[Underseer]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/educatio...udents-going-hungry-need-donated-12380152.php

Wages have been stagnating since Reagan, especially at the low end which includes many of the jobs worked by college kids. Cost of living has increased the whole time, and the cost of college has skyrocketed far beyond the cost of living. The net result: every year, college students get squeezed a little bit harder and need more and more help to get by.

I went to college in the late 80s/early 90s, and I remember going hungry even back then. Since that time, things have been getting worse and worse little by little.

Not good news for those of you with kids that have yet to get a college degree, but great news for the Wall Street types, and aren't they what really matters?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not good news for those of you with kids that have yet to get a college degree, but great news for the Wall Street types, and aren't they what really matters?

Isn't it the college kids that become the wall street types? How about those who aren't so privileged as to afford college? Can they eat?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

 

[dismal]

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.

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

Wow, you really have no grasp of basic economics. All public colleges get $ from the State, so the "non-state" schools are private institutions who don't merely raise tuition when they must, but also when they can. Necessarily rising tuition at public institutions allow private ones to also raise their tuition without harming their size and quality of their applicant pool.

What a basic understanding of economics would predict is that private would react to the neccessary public tuition increase, by increasing their own tuition but not to a great an extent because they were already offering a highly priced luxury version of the product and they need to maintain high numbers of applicants in order to maintain high rejection rates that defines the "prestige" of going there.
That is exactly what has happened. Tuition at public institutions is 300% higher today than 30 years ago, but only about 200% higher at private institutions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

Wow, you really have no grasp of basic economics. All public colleges get $ from the State, so the "non-state" schools are private institutions who don't merely raise tuition when they must, but also when they can. Necessarily rising tuition at public institutions allow private ones to also raise their tuition without harming their size and quality of their applicant pool.

So are you saying the profits of the non-state schools are skyrocketing, because the costs of running the schools are not increasing but they can increase what they charge as the state run schools do? That's interesting if true. Maybe we should invest our money into private schools.

 

[ronburgundy]

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

Wow, you really have no grasp of basic economics. All public colleges get $ from the State, so the "non-state" schools are private institutions who don't merely raise tuition when they must, but also when they can. Necessarily rising tuition at public institutions allow private ones to also raise their tuition without harming their size and quality of their applicant pool.

So are you saying the profits of the non-state schools are skyrocketing, because the costs of running the schools are not increasing but they can increase what they charge as the state run schools do? That's interesting if true. Maybe we should invest our money into private schools.

You find it surprising that wealthiest people make more profits when the government fucks over the public by slashing public services?
If that surprises you, then you shouldn't invest in anything without leaving it to those less ignorant.

That's precisely why the GOP slashes public services and education and why the wealthiest 1% try to ensure the GOP has majority power.

That aside, most private Universities are "non-profits". While their administrators who raise the tuition do personally profit from their massive salaries (with private University Presidents having salaries in the $millions), their are no profits that would benefit "investors". So again, you should leave your investment decisions to others.

 

[dismal]

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.

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

Wow, you really have no grasp of basic economics. All public colleges get $ from the State, so the "non-state" schools are private institutions who don't merely raise tuition when they must, but also when they can. Necessarily rising tuition at public institutions allow private ones to also raise their tuition without harming their size and quality of their applicant pool.

What a basic understanding of economics would predict is that private would react to the neccessary public tuition increase, by increasing their own tuition but not to a great an extent because they were already offering a highly priced luxury version of the product and they need to maintain high numbers of applicants in order to maintain high rejection rates that defines the "prestige" of going there.
That is exactly what has happened. Tuition at public institutions is 300% higher today than 30 years ago, but only about 200% higher at private institutions.

LOL @ "basic understanding of economics". There are 1000s of schools competing for students now. If price was how they were competing why would tuition be up 200%?

Why wouldn't East Bumfuck Tech offer a 1980s edcuation at 1980s prices and take all those kids paying $65,000 to go to Sarah Lawrence away?

 

[Elixir]

Why wouldn't East Bumfuck Tech offer a 1980s edcuation at 1980s prices and take all those kids paying $65,000 to go to Sarah Lawrence away?

Actually, a larger percentage than ever (recently at least) of college prospects can only afford Bumfuck Tech, and even more are opting for it because Highbrow University grads are lined up down Wall Street hoping to get a foot in the door, while tradesman graduates of Bumfuck Tech are knocking down six digits after half the time in school. So Bumfuck Tech prices are going up too.

 

[dismal]

Why wouldn't East Bumfuck Tech offer a 1980s edcuation at 1980s prices and take all those kids paying $65,000 to go to Sarah Lawrence away?

Actually, a larger percentage than ever (recently at least) of college prospects can only afford Bumfuck Tech, and even more are opting for it because Highbrow University grads are lined up down Wall Street hoping to get a foot in the door, while tradesman graduates of Bumfuck Tech are knocking down six digits after half the time in school. So Bumfuck Tech prices are going up too.

Yet Sarah Lawrence is still able to attract students charging $65,000 and no one is offering 1980s education at 1980s prices. It's quite the mystery.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[Toni]

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.

I think this is largely correct --in my state the state paid portion of tuition/costs of running a university has decreased very significantly. At the same time, my observations of the local university campus are that there is a pretty significant increase in administration and support staff--but mostly highly paid administrators (multiple VPs for areas that never needed even one VP 10 years ago on a campus that is the same size). At the same time, students are being courted with an ever increasing number and quality of amenities that actually few will utilize. What percentage of the student body actually uses any of the world class fitness facility designed in fact for the football and basketball team? Those box seats at the stadium are nice--but completely unnecessary and expensive. Is there any actual statistical analysis of how much income a winning football team generates for the University? Much less a losing one? I cannot believe that the cash flow is positive..Tuition increases every year. There is very significant pressure to increase class sizes although the main draw for this university is that the classes are small and it is actually possible to get to know your professors...

FWIW, my alma matre just had crowdfund campaign to buy a fluorescence stereo microscope for the biology department. That's pretty fucked up.

I think there is a lot of interest in controlling college costs. But nobody wants to take the financial hit to their area. Admin. certainly does not want to decrease the number of administrators; faculty doesn't want to teach more (and honestly their teaching load is pretty high as it is now), and so on down the line. I do think there is less of a trend for parents and new students to expect the world and a silver spoon and nothing but easy A's...

 

[RavenSky]

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.

^^^ agree.

I'd even be willing to stop at just the free tuition (and required books/supplies/fees)

If the tuition, etc was covered, most people could afford room and board - and we could still have scholarships for those who can't.

 

[Toni]

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.

Yes.

 

[laughing dog]

Well then, the costs at the non state schools must not be going up.

Wow, you really have no grasp of basic economics. All public colleges get $ from the State, so the "non-state" schools are private institutions who don't merely raise tuition when they must, but also when they can. Necessarily rising tuition at public institutions allow private ones to also raise their tuition without harming their size and quality of their applicant pool.

What a basic understanding of economics would predict is that private would react to the neccessary public tuition increase, by increasing their own tuition but not to a great an extent because they were already offering a highly priced luxury version of the product and they need to maintain high numbers of applicants in order to maintain high rejection rates that defines the "prestige" of going there.
That is exactly what has happened. Tuition at public institutions is 300% higher today than 30 years ago, but only about 200% higher at private institutions.

LOL @ "basic understanding of economics". There are 1000s of schools competing for students now. If price was how they were competing why would tuition be up 200%?

Why wouldn't East Bumfuck Tech offer a 1980s edcuation at 1980s prices and take all those kids paying $65,000 to go to Sarah Lawrence away?

Is this response based on an East Bumfuck Tech education from 1980s because it obviously ignores
1) the prices of everything dramatically increased from the 1980s,
2) few, if any, people want a 1980s education Because EBT cannot purchase anything at 1980 prices, and
3) Sarah Lawrence is selling prestige as much as it is selling an education.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 90s I took a night class in CS from a Vietnamese professor. His undergrad was done in Vietnam in the war. He would chuckle and say American students have it too easy.

A lot of people worked their way through school. What do students today expect? Endless pizza and beer? If you eat simply it does not cost a lot to eat well.

If you get a degree and are hungry whose fault is that? Everybody is a victim today.

If you want a job get training in something in demand. Experienced welders make as much or more than college grads.

The rise in tuition and for profit schools was the result of pushing the idea the only way to get ahead is with a degree. Econ 101 supply and demand. Pump out a lot more degrees and the demand and value goes down. Human resources vary with supply and demand.

If I were in a position to hire NCGs these days I would not hire any online degrees, and I'd prefer community college grads who worked their way through school.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 + free room = a lot of freeloaders. I saw enough of that back in college with kids going to school as a way of continuing parental support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there any actual statistical analysis of how much income a winning football team generates for the University? Much less a losing one? I cannot believe that the cash flow is positive..Tuition increases every year. There is very significant pressure to increase class sizes although the main draw for this university is that the classes are small and it is actually possible to get to know your professors...

No being able to believe the cash flow is positive doesn't make mean it isn't. The sports that draw big crowds (mostly football & men's basketball) make a bunch of money that supports other sports that lose money.

 

[Toni]

Is there any actual statistical analysis of how much income a winning football team generates for the University? Much less a losing one? I cannot believe that the cash flow is positive..Tuition increases every year. There is very significant pressure to increase class sizes although the main draw for this university is that the classes are small and it is actually possible to get to know your professors...

No being able to believe the cash flow is positive doesn't make mean it isn't. The sports that draw big crowds (mostly football & men's basketball) make a bunch of money that supports other sports that lose money.

I'm willing to believe that football or(insert game) is a net revenue generator if only someone could point me to data that supports this claim.

But how is it a net gain to the university if say, football subsidizes baseball? If there were zero funds spent on sports, what kind of impact would this have on universities?

- - - Updated - - -

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 + free room = a lot of freeloaders. I saw enough of that back in college with kids going to school as a way of continuing parental support.

The world is greater than your personal experience, Loren. Besides this could be corrected for by strong academic standards.