or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Education in the U.S.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Education in the U.S.

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 

post #2 of 45

I wouldn't mind free education. But America can't afford it when everyone lives way beyond their means. People bitch about not being able to retire, i would tell them, look in a mirror not at the government. If people would just stopped being so fricken STUPID, and actually gain some wisdom and common sense, maybe we could afford to educated everyone freely. Heck I think if people got into shape, and were able to support their own basic health needs, we can afford free health care. 

 

But when we are heading towards, 

Obesity going to be over 50%

People can't save enough for retirement because they love credit card debt, huge houses, big screen TVs, expensive cars. 

 

We are living a lifestyle that is going to slowly squeeze all the money we have because of easy choices everyone makes. Its not tough, live in smaller homes, live simpler lives, exercise more, eat right, live healthier better lives. Come on, no brainer except that Americans are stuck on, Oh I need the next Ipod, I need to have that car because my neighbor has it. Oh I need the latest 60 inch TV screen when I can't tell the damn difference from the last one. America is mentally ****ed up. 

 

To America, by American I mean its citizens, as one of you I give you the, 

 

 

Rant done :-D

post #3 of 45

When I graduated from a private engineering school in 1982, they told us our average starting salary would equal about our four years tuition.  For me that was correct.  I made ~$28,000 when I graduated and my tuition over the four years was ~$30,000.  Now students from the same school, teaching the same chemical engineering curriculum would need to make $200,000 graduating.  This is part of what results  from trickle down economics.  It is a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions.

 

And BTW, I can retire young because my wife and I have lived well within our means.  We are also putting our son through college without him having to take loans out because of the way we have lived.  He will hopefully pay that forward to his children.

post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

When I graduated from a private engineering school in 1982, they told us our average starting salary would equal about our four years tuition.  For me that was correct.  I made ~$28,000 when I graduated and my tuition over the four years was ~$30,000.  Now students from the same school, teaching the same chemical engineering curriculum would need to make $200,000 graduating.  This is part of what results  from trickle down economics.  It is a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions.

 

It has nothing to do with trickle down economics. Its all about the fact that the government has pumped a ton of money into the education system with out any regard to how it is going to be spent. This has allowed universities to access a ton of DEMAND for a college degree. Basically universities are getting close to a blank check from the government. Why not admit a TON of students to a college? Why not increase tuition every year by 10-15%? The government wouldn't want to deny a people a right to their college education now wouldn't they? 

 

Just saying, before you throw out words like, trickle down economics, which play NO part in the college tuition, you might want to think about what actually is occuring. Trickle down economics is about giving tax breaks to the top percent of the nation in wealth, and to businesses because it allows them to hire more and increases wages of those bellow them. In some regards it works, in others it doesn't. The economics of college tuition is a totally different animal. That is an inflated DEMAND created by the government. 

 

Also, it makes sense that the degree wouldn't be worth as much right. Ask your self this, how may people back in 1982 had college degrees compared to today? A lot more people are getting bachelors today than 30 years ago. What does this do, it DEVALUES the degree in which they are getting, because there are a lot more other people with the same degree as them. Now what do people do, "Oh lets go back and get a masters". Now the new way to set yourself apart is to get a Master's Degree. Soon that will be eliminated as well, because everyone wants one, and all these jobs will demand one because they want the best workers. Start in jobs today required a college degree, when 30 years ago a highschool education could get your foot in the door, and you can work your way up. Nope, you got to spend 100K+ dollars a year to equal a highschool education 30 years ago. 

post #5 of 45

I like this silhouette man ... seems wise. :)

post #6 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

I wouldn't mind free education. But America can't afford it when everyone lives way beyond their means. People bitch about not being able to retire, i would tell them, look in a mirror not at the government. If people would just stopped being so fricken STUPID, and actually gain some wisdom and common sense, maybe we could afford to educated everyone freely. Heck I think if people got into shape, and were able to support their own basic health needs, we can afford free health care. 

 

But when we are heading towards, 

Obesity going to be over 50%

People can't save enough for retirement because they love credit card debt, huge houses, big screen TVs, expensive cars. 

 

We are living a lifestyle that is going to slowly squeeze all the money we have because of easy choices everyone makes. Its not tough, live in smaller homes, live simpler lives, exercise more, eat right, live healthier better lives. Come on, no brainer except that Americans are stuck on, Oh I need the next Ipod, I need to have that car because my neighbor has it. Oh I need the latest 60 inch TV screen when I can't tell the damn difference from the last one. America is mentally ****ed up. 

 

To America, by American I mean its citizens, as one of you I give you the, 

 

The problem for me happened in college. I've been paying an arm, leg, ear, nose, etc just trying to pay off my tuition and credit debt I accumulated living in the city. I even had a full time job during all this and found an ok job after. I eat healthy, work out, have a basic car, basic house, I rarely ever go to a 18 hole course unless I have a deal or coupon for it. I'm not stressed over it at all but it's been hard at times (especially now with a little one.) If I could go back with the basic job knowledge I know now (not the specific training I got in college) I wouldn't have even gone to college. 

But thus is life. You live and learn. I'll continue to chip away at that college debt as I continue to chip away around the greens with my pretty damn decent set of golf clubs (that I bought at a garage sale...) ;-)

post #7 of 45

Also, when I talk about basic job knowledge, I'm talking about figuring out how to network will people. (and who's ass to kiss) When I first started out at my "professional" job, I thought that as long as I worked hard and to a high standard I would easily move forward. Not entirely true by any means. 

The most important thing I've learned in the workplace is networking. All the specific things I learned in college pales in comparison.

post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

It has nothing to do with trickle down economics. Its all about the fact that the government has pumped a ton of money into the education system with out any regard to how it is going to be spent. This has allowed universities to access a ton of DEMAND for a college degree. Basically universities are getting close to a blank check from the government. Why not admit a TON of students to a college? Why not increase tuition every year by 10-15%? The government wouldn't want to deny a people a right to their college education now wouldn't they? 

 

Just saying, before you throw out words like, trickle down economics, which play NO part in the college tuition, you might want to think about what actually is occuring. Trickle down economics is about giving tax breaks to the top percent of the nation in wealth, and to businesses because it allows them to hire more and increases wages of those bellow them. In some regards it works, in others it doesn't. The economics of college tuition is a totally different animal. That is an inflated DEMAND created by the government. 

 

Also, it makes sense that the degree wouldn't be worth as much right. Ask your self this, how may people back in 1982 had college degrees compared to today? A lot more people are getting bachelors today than 30 years ago. What does this do, it DEVALUES the degree in which they are getting, because there are a lot more other people with the same degree as them. Now what do people do, "Oh lets go back and get a masters". Now the new way to set yourself apart is to get a Master's Degree. Soon that will be eliminated as well, because everyone wants one, and all these jobs will demand one because they want the best workers. Start in jobs today required a college degree, when 30 years ago a highschool education could get your foot in the door, and you can work your way up. Nope, you got to spend 100K+ dollars a year to equal a highschool education 30 years ago. 

You are incorrect.  The result of trickle economics is there is much less Federal and State support of colleges and universities than there was a generation ago.  After WWII, the US GI bill made college affordable for the average student.  For several decades, money went to support our university system and therefore tuition was kept low relative to the average wage.  This began to dry up in the 1980's went trickle down started.  We've dropped our support for higher education.

 

As for devaluation.  By your reasoning there are an order of magnitude more engineering students graduating versus 30 years ago.  This is absolutely not the case.

post #9 of 45

Silhouette man is pretty dead on, the problem is we have too many people already on the gravy train to add more.  We cover the military expense for multiple nations, not just our own.  We've got a huge number of people on welfare and other forms of government aide.  Our government is the single largest employer in the country.  We spend more money in aide to other countries than anyone else and we are the first to deploy resources to other countries when the need arises.  All this comes out of "our" taxpayer pockets.

 

State schools are still very reasonably priced, but one has to have the grades to be accepted into the better ones.

 

As for private universities, they are a luxury that one shouldn't consider if they can't afford them.  If you can only afford a Chevy but extend yourself to buy a Mercedes, don't whine about it when the bill comes in. 

 

The country is still run by the principles of supply and demand,  If there weren't enough students applying to these luxury universities and willing to pay their ridiculous tuitions they'd either have to lower their prices or close down.

post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

You are incorrect.  The result of trickle economics is there is much less Federal and State support of colleges and universities than there was a generation ago.  After WWII, the US GI bill made college affordable for the average student.  For several decades, money went to support our university system and therefore tuition was kept low relative to the average wage.  This began to dry up in the 1980's went trickle down started.  We've dropped our support for higher education.

 

As for devaluation.  By your reasoning there are an order of magnitude more engineering students graduating versus 30 years ago.  This is absolutely not the case.

 

 

No there is an order of magnitude MORE people with college degrees. This has effected all of society by which now jobs that would normally be available for those with out college degree, now require them. A lot of people are shut out unless they go to college. 

 

You understand right that the GI bill was just for those who served in the military. Not those who didn't serve and still sought after a college education. That is a small portion of spending really. 

 

The only graph I can find shows back to 1962 were in 2008 dollar figures federal spending on education only reached about 3 billion dollars annually. This was pretty stable from 1962 till 1966. Then in increased to a peak of about 20 billion dollars in 1972, and stayed about level at about 17 billion a year from 1972 till 1993. Then it dropped a bit, to about 10 billion per year, during Clinton's terms. Then its skyrocketed up to nearly 55 billion per year by 2006. 

 

So in what way was the past generations money spent on college ever more than it is currently today? When it actuality the magnitude of which money is spent on college education is nearly 16 times as much as it was in 2006 as it was back in 1962. 

 

So you got to ask, what is causing this rice in college tuition. It it is the massive influx of students into the system. Previous generations ago, a lot of people with highschool diplomas entered the workforce, while others went to college. Now its primarily all highschool students going to college. Its pretty simple economics. There is a HIGH demand for college degrees. There is basically and unlimited supply of students compared to number of colleges. This is why you see a lot of online degrees, and tech schools opening up to fill the void of students who don't get into colleges. As well as a push for community colleges as well. Sinclair Community College in Dayton is one of the largest employers in the City right now. 

 

So you got to ask what causes this influx. One it's teachers and parents saying, "YOU NEED A COLLEGE DEGREE". What else, the MASSIVE influx in student loans by states and federal government to cover the costs. This has allowed those who previously wouldn't be able to get a college degree to do so. This has created a very LARGE demand for a college degree. 

 

If you look at a simple demand versus supply chart

 

 

If supply stays the same, and if you increase demand. Then the price goes up. Basically college degrees cost goes up. Basically until the colleges get too expensive to level out the effect for the demand, they can keep increasing costs. But the government doesn't want to shut anyone out, so they keep writing checks and increasing the amount of money they are willing to offer as loans. Its a perpetual price increasing cycle. 

post #11 of 45

BTW, thanks for keeping this a friendly discussion.  Sometimes politics can get heated.  I respect your opinion.

 

So by your math, OSU had only 4400 undergrads in 1980, 1/10th of what there is today?  My Chem E class was 45 in 1982.  It is 450 now (not even close)?  If degrees are so diluted why do CEOs make 20X more than they did in 1980 while new grad Chem Es are only making 2X?  Wouldn't the pool of qualified candidates for CEO be diluted too with all those extra business school graduates?  The math is a bit off with regards to supply and demand.  The population of the US has gone from 226MM to 330MM since 1980, a 46% increase.  I would expect the actual number of graduates to increase just because of the population increase.

 

Per the article below, we are struggling with the amount of college educated people in our work force.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-college-graduates-on-the-rise/

 

(MoneyWatch) The number of young Americans who have earned a college degreehas increased, if only ever so slightly.

According to U.S. Census data, 39.3 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 had earned a post-secondary degree in 2010. That adds up to 5.9 million people. A year earlier, 38.8 percent of people in this age group possessed an associate, bachelor's, or graduate degree. The half percentage-point increase represents an extra 100,000 or so college graduates.

At this rate, the Obama administration's ambitious goal of having the U.S. lead the world in percentage of college graduates in 2020 appears less feasible. According to a 2010 College Board report, the U.S. ranks 12th among 36 developed countries in its share of adults ages 25 to 34 with a college degree. 

In the 1980s, the U.S. was the undisputed leader in terms of having a college-educated workforce.

One significant impediment to producing more college grads is the cost of public universities and colleges, the institutions of higher learning attended by the vast majority of Americans. During the past year, according to the federal Department of Education, 40 states have shrunk their financial support for higher education. And over the most recent two years, four-year state universities have hiked tuition by an average of 15 percent.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will discuss these figures and college affordability on Friday at the annual conference of the National Governors Association.

"We've made some progress, but the combination of deep state budget cuts and rising tuition prices is pushing an affordable college education out of reach for middle-class families," Duncan said in prepared remarks.

There was a report on NPR just the other day about Government support declining for our college system.  The GI bill was for only military, but the effect spread to support for all over the 1950 - 1970s.

post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

BTW, thanks for keeping this a friendly discussion.  Sometimes politics can get heated.  I respect your opinion.

 

So by your math, OSU had only 4400 undergrads in 1980, 1/10th of what there is today?  My Chem E class was 45 in 1982.  It is 450 now (not even close)?  If degrees are so diluted why do CEOs make 20X more than they did in 1980 while new grad Chem Es are only making 2X?  Wouldn't the pool of qualified candidates for CEO be diluted too with all those extra business school graduates?  The math is a bit off with regards to supply and demand.  The population of the US has gone from 226MM to 330MM since 1980, a 46% increase.  I would expect the actual number of graduates to increase just because of the population increase.

 

Per the article below, we are struggling with the amount of college educated people in our work force.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-college-graduates-on-the-rise/

 

(MoneyWatch) The number of young Americans who have earned a college degreehas increased, if only ever so slightly.

According to U.S. Census data, 39.3 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 had earned a post-secondary degree in 2010. That adds up to 5.9 million people. A year earlier, 38.8 percent of people in this age group possessed an associate, bachelor's, or graduate degree. The half percentage-point increase represents an extra 100,000 or so college graduates.

At this rate, the Obama administration's ambitious goal of having the U.S. lead the world in percentage of college graduates in 2020 appears less feasible. According to a 2010 College Board report, the U.S. ranks 12th among 36 developed countries in its share of adults ages 25 to 34 with a college degree. 

In the 1980s, the U.S. was the undisputed leader in terms of having a college-educated workforce.

One significant impediment to producing more college grads is the cost of public universities and colleges, the institutions of higher learning attended by the vast majority of Americans. During the past year, according to the federal Department of Education, 40 states have shrunk their financial support for higher education. And over the most recent two years, four-year state universities have hiked tuition by an average of 15 percent.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will discuss these figures and college affordability on Friday at the annual conference of the National Governors Association.

"We've made some progress, but the combination of deep state budget cuts and rising tuition prices is pushing an affordable college education out of reach for middle-class families," Duncan said in prepared remarks.

There was a report on NPR just the other day about Government support declining for our college system.  The GI bill was for only military, but the effect spread to support for all over the 1950 - 1970s.

 

 

Nope, never did math on undergraduates. You are taking one school, I am talking to totality of highschool students who end up going to college to get bachelor degrees rather than just entering the workforce. My math was purely on how much the federal government spent on education. I doubt the whole of the job sector cars what OSU does, compared to what the totality of the college system is. Meaning, unless you go to a very prestigious school, all that matters is, "Hey I have a bachelors degree". Which is fine, but the issue still is that there are too many bachelor degrees out there, that the market is saturated with people with college degrees. Heck there are people who have college degrees NOT able to find jobs in the degrees in which they got them. They are forced to work in other sectors, or at very low paying entry level jobs. I have a friend who has a degree in political science and he is working as a personal fitness instructor. Now he's going back to school AGAIN to go into human resources. Another one of my friends has a degree in Meteorology. He works for First Energy. I have another friend who has a degree similar to political science. She is working for a steel company. 

 

There is no denying the fact that there is actually too many people out there with college degrees, and people working jobs with degrees not even pertaining to that job. Actually I would prefer to see a lot of the degrees get scrapped, some of them are just play stupid in practicality, but hey, why not draw in more students so they can get that check from the Federal Government on that student loan. 

 

Should the number of graduates increase with population in a proportional manor. No, why should it? Should students be demanded to go to college just because the population increased. What if no more colleges were created, and now there are too many students for college openings, so there could actually be a cap created as well, hypothetically. 

 

Ok, I can agree that if states cut direct spending to their public institutions than cost will rise as well. Also cost will rise from just an overall increase in the Federal Government giving more money directly to the students and giving more people opportunity. I think we were talking about two separate things, that both probably contribute to the same effect, rising higher education costs. 

post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

BTW, thanks for keeping this a friendly discussion.  Sometimes politics can get heated.  I respect your opinion.

 

So by your math, OSU had only 4400 undergrads in 1980, 1/10th of what there is today?  My Chem E class was 45 in 1982.  It is 450 now (not even close)?  If degrees are so diluted why do CEOs make 20X more than they did in 1980 while new grad Chem Es are only making 2X?  Wouldn't the pool of qualified candidates for CEO be diluted too with all those extra business school graduates?  The math is a bit off with regards to supply and demand.  The population of the US has gone from 226MM to 330MM since 1980, a 46% increase.  I would expect the actual number of graduates to increase just because of the population increase.

 

Per the article below, we are struggling with the amount of college educated people in our work force.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-college-graduates-on-the-rise/

 

(MoneyWatch) The number of young Americans who have earned a college degreehas increased, if only ever so slightly.

According to U.S. Census data, 39.3 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 had earned a post-secondary degree in 2010. That adds up to 5.9 million people. A year earlier, 38.8 percent of people in this age group possessed an associate, bachelor's, or graduate degree. The half percentage-point increase represents an extra 100,000 or so college graduates.

At this rate, the Obama administration's ambitious goal of having the U.S. lead the world in percentage of college graduates in 2020 appears less feasible. According to a 2010 College Board report, the U.S. ranks 12th among 36 developed countries in its share of adults ages 25 to 34 with a college degree. 

In the 1980s, the U.S. was the undisputed leader in terms of having a college-educated workforce.

One significant impediment to producing more college grads is the cost of public universities and colleges, the institutions of higher learning attended by the vast majority of Americans. During the past year, according to the federal Department of Education, 40 states have shrunk their financial support for higher education. And over the most recent two years, four-year state universities have hiked tuition by an average of 15 percent.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will discuss these figures and college affordability on Friday at the annual conference of the National Governors Association.

"We've made some progress, but the combination of deep state budget cuts and rising tuition prices is pushing an affordable college education out of reach for middle-class families," Duncan said in prepared remarks.

There was a report on NPR just the other day about Government support declining for our college system.  The GI bill was for only military, but the effect spread to support for all over the 1950 - 1970s.

The reason is there are less CEO's than chemical engineers,  CEO's that have a proven track record are like movie stars and athletes, they get to name their price.  CEO's have less job security than Chem E's and a smaller job pool to find a new job.  GE probably has 100,000's engineers working for them but only one CEO.  When the business struggles financially the CEO is usually blamed in public companies, sure there may be layoffs that affect the Chem E too but look at the average tenure for a CEO versus a Chem E.

 

To set the record straight, I don't think anyone is worth $20M a year but the media attacks the CEO's in business for the money they make yet but overlook the athletes and actors who make even more.

post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

The reason is there are less CEO's than chemical engineers,  CEO's that have a proven track record are like movie stars and athletes, they get to name their price.  CEO's have less job security than Chem E's and a smaller job pool to find a new job.  GE probably has 100,000's engineers working for them but only one CEO.  When the business struggles financially the CEO is usually blamed in public companies, sure there may be layoffs that affect the Chem E too but look at the average tenure for a CEO versus a Chem E.

 

To set the record straight, I don't think anyone is worth $20M a year but the media attacks the CEO's in business for the money they make yet but overlook the athletes and actors who make even more.

 

 

Well athletes are their own economic bubble. Think about it this way. If people are willing to pay to watch athletes at the current prices. Then that money has to be distributed somewhere right. Since athletes are a small percentage of the population. NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is only about 1700 NFL players. Add in 32 owners, maybe 1000 more people associated with the NFL and the owners. Your looking at 3000 people who get to split a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not the players fault they make that much, its pretty much all of us who watch the games at the price the NFL sets. Basically we are willing to buy the tickets, the merchandise, and spend money on TV subscriptions. 

 

People complain, "Oh how can they make so much", well look in the mirror. You are buy goods and services at a price. If you don't want them making that much, don't buy their stuff. Don't support a sports team. 

post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

 

Well athletes are their own economic bubble. Think about it this way. If people are willing to pay to watch athletes at the current prices. Then that money has to be distributed somewhere right. Since athletes are a small percentage of the population. NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is only about 1700 NFL players. Add in 32 owners, maybe 1000 more people associated with the NFL and the owners. Your looking at 3000 people who get to split a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not the players fault they make that much, its pretty much all of us who watch the games at the price the NFL sets. Basically we are willing to buy the tickets, the merchandise, and spend money on TV subscriptions.

 

People complain, "Oh how can they make so much", well look in the mirror. You are buy goods and services at a price. If you don't want them making that much, don't buy their stuff. Don't support a sports team.

I agree, I was just pointing out how CEO's are portrayed as greedy villains for the money they make while actors and athletes are praised.  CEO's run billion dollar businesses and have equal or greater pressure to perform in their jobs as actors and athletes.

post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I agree, I was just pointing out how CEO's are portrayed as greedy villains for the money they make while actors and athletes are praised.  CEO's run billion dollar businesses and have equal or greater pressure to perform in their jobs as actors and athletes.

I don't begrudge athletes, entertainers and CEO for making their money.  I do feel CEO are grossly overpaid for the amount they really contribute to a companies success. I am not taking about founder CEO or president who created the idea (i.e. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.). I am taking about the raider CEO or the golden boy guy we read about all the time.  They come in with a "vision".  They stay for a couple of  years with minimal improvement and get rewarded whether or not the stock goes up.  The companies I have worked in (Fortune 500) have had this experience.  One guy made $250MM in cash and stock for selling the company.  He was here 3 years.  Stock went up 3% after the sale, big whoop.  Another guy lost 40% on the stock price in his two years and left with $18MM payout for being asked to leave.  Ridiculous.

 

These types are a dime a dozen and get the big pay check because they are on boards with others of the same type.

post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

I don't begrudge athletes, entertainers and CEO for making their money.  I do feel CEO are grossly overpaid for the amount they really contribute to a companies success. I am not taking about founder CEO or president who created the idea (i.e. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.). I am taking about the raider CEO or the golden boy guy we read about all the time.  They come in with a "vision".  They stay for a couple of  years with minimal improvement and get rewarded whether or not the stock goes up.  The companies I have worked in (Fortune 500) have had this experience.  One guy made $250MM in cash and stock for selling the company.  He was here 3 years.  Stock went up 3% after the sale, big whoop.  Another guy lost 40% on the stock price in his two years and left with $18MM payout for being asked to leave.  Ridiculous.

 

These types are a dime a dozen and get the big pay check because they are on boards with others of the same type.

 

 

Some guys are that good, but its few and far between really. 

post #18 of 45

As someone with just over $300,000 in student loan debt, I agree with the Silhouette man. So would my wife, but she only has about $250,000 in student loan debt.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Education in the U.S.