I'm not a "UConn back to the BE" guy, but . . .

[upstater]

It’s almost as easy as starting your own TV network with no investors, content or expertise.

People have organized far more complicated protests. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

[whaler11]

People have organized far more complicated protests. Shouldn't be too hard.

Yeah protests for things people care about.

Hey you - sports fan. 50 cents of your cable bill is going someplace you don’t like - so smash your TV and stop watching sports.

Shouldn’t be too hard to get people to stop watching cable TV because a few marginal cents of their bill go someplace.

If this is so easy for you - you are in the wrong line of work because you’d be rich beyond your wildest beliefs if this is ‘easy’ for you to accomplish.

 

[upstater]

Yeah protests for things people care about.

Hey you - sports fan. 50 cents of your cable bill is going someplace you don’t like - so smash your TV and stop watching sports.

Shouldn’t be too hard to get people to stop watching cable TV because a few marginal cents of their bill go someplace.

If this is so easy for you - you are in the wrong line of work because you’d be rich beyond your wildest beliefs if this is ‘easy’ for you to accomplish.

I'm talking about the 500,000 UConn fans in the state, probably 100k of whom pay for cable.

 

[huskyrob1]

Gonzaga has. Memphis? Not so much.

Memphis has survived in a non P5 conference for years, and then some. Questioning that is almost as bad as claiming Boise Idaho is just as far from Texas as Storrs is. Memphis basketball.........

NCAA Tournament runner-up
1973, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1973, 1985*, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1973, 1985*, 1992, 2006, 2007, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1973, 1982*, 1983*, 1984*, 1985*, 1992, 1995, 2006, 2007, 2008*, 2009
NCAA Tournament appearances
1955, 1956, 1962, 1973, 1976, 1982*, 1983*, 1984*, 1985*, 1986*, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008*, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

 

[David 76]

BS. The only thing that has allowed college education to get to where it is is the Fed grants, Fed subsidies, and Fed rule that student

You seem to have some real class issues. Just how many middle America kids should have a college education? Why is it not a waste for rich kids to attend college? And how are poorer kids attending college without the loans and subsidies you think are a problem?

 

[whaler11]

I'm talking about the 500,000 UConn fans in the state, probably 100k of whom pay for cable.

LOL 500,000 fans who are going to take an action. 5k show up at games.

 

[upstater]

LOL 500,000 fans who are going to take an action. 5k show up at games.

That's your demographic, your target audience. Jeez.

 

[upstater]

Memphis has survived in a non P5 conference for years, and then some. Questioning that is almost as bad as claiming Boise Idaho is just as far from Texas as Storrs is. Memphis basketball....

NCAA Tournament runner-up
1973, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Final Four
1973, 1985*, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Elite Eight
1973, 1985*, 1992, 2006, 2007, 2008*
NCAA Tournament Sweet Sixteen
1973, 1982*, 1983*, 1984*, 1985*, 1992, 1995, 2006, 2007, 2008*, 2009
NCAA Tournament appearances
1955, 1956, 1962, 1973, 1976, 1982*, 1983*, 1984*, 1985*, 1986*, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008*, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

I mean I could list even more success for UConn. The point is, how is Memphis doing in the same conference as UConn?

 

[Travelman6]

You're a lifer. I've been reading your posts for almost a decade. You work in SUNY admin or something, and you have for a long time. "It's difficult to get a man to understand something that his job depends upon him not understanding."
In 1985, when I went to UConn, if you wanted to learn about genetics you could buy a few books, read them, read primary literature, and the like. But whatever you didn't understand - say endonuclease specificity - you had to fight to figure out. You'd be in the Dewey Decimal cards trying to find an answer. Laborious. New information was hard to come by. Research only appeared in journals.
In 2018, you fire up youtube, there's a 3D video describing endonuclease activity. There are numerous written descriptions. Message boards. Any unclear aspect can usually be resolved. For many classes that my kids have with poor teachers (calculus this year), they simply go online and find some youtube videos, which have worked wonderfully. Why even bother going to the poor teacher to get some poor 1 on 1 teaching?

Point is, the future is obvious. Most people can self-teach with the materials out there.
Provide the materials, create tests/exams to get certified, and let people get their certification in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the price.
By the way - newest and best college scam - every book comes with an internet "access code," which is burned by the first purchaser. Effectively kill the used book market.
Dying model.

I like the points you make. You have a strong argument. Simply saying you are deluded is not an argument and kind of proves your point. If he is deluded (which he is not) show it.

 

[8893]

BS. The only thing that has allowed college education to get to where it is is the Fed grants, Fed subsidies, and Fed rule that student loan debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If your average 18 year old (or his/her parents) had to plunk down 30k a year to pursue a degree in (----- studies, sociology, psychology, journalism, art, history, and any one of dozens of other non-job producing majors), they would just make the rational decision to not go to college for oversold degrees.
If your average bank wasn't guaranteed a judgment against non-payors, with their loans subject to chapter 7 discharge, they wouldn't go near financing those pursuits.

Go on in delusion. It's clear you don't know at all what you're talking about.

Well it's a bit misguided, but there is some truth to @MadDogRevival 's beef. But he should have the same beef with anything the government incentivizes then. Why is there so much corn syrup and other corn-based products in so many American foods and other items? Because the government subsidizes the hell out of corn, which, ironically, is probably the biggest cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country. Why did the last financial collapse occur? In large part because of the collapse of the housing market that was bogged down with worthless mortgages that were extended because the government wanted to expand home ownership.

To that last point, like the college loan borrowers, the people taking out the mortgages also share a lot of the blame imo. Just because someone is willing to loan you money doesn't mean you should take it; and if you do, you have to be prepared to pay it back. I remember when we bought the house in which we presently live, more than 14 years ago. I had a Hubbard clause because I needed to sell our other house in order to buy the new one. The seller called the Hubbard clause a few days after accepting our bid and I was amazed that the bank allowed me to remove it, too, which would have meant I was on the hook for two mortgages if my other house didn't sell (it did, but there is no way in hell I should have been carrying two mortgages).

I still think that the government should incentivize home ownership and college education, but that doesn't mean that you should buy either a house or a degree you can't afford. There are a lot of low-cost college options.

 

[upstater]

Well it's a bit misguided, but there is some truth to @MadDogRevival 's beef. But he should have the same beef with anything the government incentivizes then. Why is there so much corn syrup and other corn-based products in so many American foods and other items? Because the government subsidizes the hell out of corn, which, ironically, is probably the biggest cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country. Why did the last financial collapse occur? In large part because of the collapse of the housing market that was bogged down with worthless mortgages that were extended because the government wanted to expand home ownership.

To that last point, like the college loan borrowers, the people taking out the mortgages also share a lot of the blame imo. Just because someone is willing to loan you money doesn't mean you should take it; and if you do, you have to be prepared to pay it back. I remember when we bought the house in which we presently live, more than 14 years ago. I had a Hubbard clause because I needed to sell our other house in order to buy the new one. The seller called the Hubbard clause a few days after accepting our bid and I was amazed that the bank allowed me to remove it, too, which would have meant I was on the hook for two mortgages if my other house didn't sell (it did, but there is no way in hell I should have been carrying two mortgages).

I still think that the government should incentivize home ownership and college education, but that doesn't mean that you should buy either a house or a degree you can't afford. There are a lot of low-cost college options.

He's saying that the rise in college costs goes together with the rise in student loans. But the argument doesn't track when you break down the numbers. The first thing is that federal loans are capped at $5.5k. The rise in that cap has been small. It used to be $3k in the 198os. So when you graduate now, you owe approximately $20-25k. Which is indeed the average for a college student. Compared to 30 years ago when people getting the max loan ended up owing $12k, the rise is 100% (normal inflation for 30 years), but can't account for the inflation of tuition (for a private school like Boston U. which was $15k 30 years ago, it's about $50k now -- just guessing -- so clearly the rise in gov't loans isn't the factor). For state schools, tuitions are averaging a more reasonable $8k nationwide.

 

[8893]

He's saying that the rise in college costs goes together with the rise in student loans. But the argument doesn't track when you break down the numbers. The first thing is that federal loans are capped at $5.5k. The rise in that cap has been small. It used to be $3k in the 198os. So when you graduate now, you owe approximately $20-25k. Which is indeed the average for a college student. Compared to 30 years ago when people getting the max loan ended up owing $12k, the rise is 100% (normal inflation for 30 years), but can't account for the inflation of tuition (for a private school like Boston U. which was $15k 30 years ago, it's about $50k now -- just guessing -- so clearly the rise in gov't loans isn't the factor). For state schools, tuitions are averaging a more reasonable $8k nationwide.

He also alluded to the federal grants and subsidies, which are provided to the schools and then given to needy students as part of their financial aid package. We don't get a dime under FAFSA but plenty of people do. I think the problem is the lack of federal oversight telling the schools what they can and can't do with the money, and when you go visiting these schools it is essentially like an arms race with their competitions against each other for the things that help them sell the school, like cushy new dorms and fitness centers.

And then there are the ultimate killers, the private college loans.

 

[MadDogRevival]

He's saying that the rise in college costs goes together with the rise in student loans. But the argument doesn't track . . . federal loans are capped at $5.5k.

1. It's not an argument. It's an economic foundational principle - the easier you make it to buy loans to purchase something, the greater will be the cost increase on that something. It's the exact reason that the housing bubble occurred - they lowered the Fed rate to close to zero, making real estate loans drop to 4-5%, and they dropped borrower standards. Result? Lots of borrowers and bidders, and house prices exploded.
Put in a Federal program that gives out interest free loans to any adult borrower with a FICO over 400 for up to 60,000 as long as it is spent on a Ford, and the price of Fords will double in a month. Simple.

2. Never mind federal loans. The killer is private loans. I had a client last year with 50,000 in debt on an original 20,000 loan. Not exaggerating. 19% interest rate or some obscene thing. Working at Walmart making 12 an hour. I won that one on a preliminary objection because most of the law firms that chase this money don't have a paper trail back to the original loan. She was little, however, and very difficult to see from the ivory towers of academia.

 

[upstater]

1. It's not an argument. It's an economic foundational principle - the easier you make it to buy loans to purchase something, the greater will be the cost increase on that something. It's the exact reason that the housing bubble occurred - they lowered the Fed rate to close to zero, making real estate loans drop to 4-5%, and they dropped borrower standards. Result? Lots of borrowers and bidders, and house prices exploded.
Put in a Federal program that gives out interest free loans to any adult borrower with a FICO over 400 for up to 60,000 as long as it is spent on a Ford, and the price of Fords will double in a month. Simple.

2. Never mind federal loans. The killer is private loans. I had a client last year with 50,000 in debt on an original 20,000 loan. Not exaggerating. 19% interest rate or some obscene thing. Working at Walmart making 12 an hour. I won that one on a preliminary objection because most of the law firms that chase this money don't have a paper trail back to the original loan. She was little, however, and very difficult to see from the ivory towers of academia.

The vast majority of borrowers do not take those private loans. Most of the borrowers who do go to professional schools.

But before defining the interplay as a racket, realize that we track job prospects for grads, and when we see that the stats are not tracking with what they did in the past, we make adjustments. This isn't a Trump U. scam. For instance, our law school just cut seats because the quality of candidates dropped. This mean the law budget will drop. The same dynamic occurs with fully-funded students (i.e. tuition remission + stipend). Because the academic market is bad, we can't justify letting in more than a few PhDs. We're reduced by 66%, and although that's not lost income (because we pay them) it is lost labor, because those students are cheap labor, and now we'll have to hire others to teach those classes. Schools adjust like this all the time.

I was citing an economic factor to you earlier. There have been dozens of studies done on this issue. The increase in loans can only inflate the increase in tuition by a like amount, and there is little correlation here.

 

[upstater]

He also alluded to the federal grants and subsidies, which are provided to the schools and then given to needy students as part of their financial aid package. We don't get a dime under FAFSA but plenty of people do. I think the problem is the lack of federal oversight telling the schools what they can and can't do with the money, and when you go visiting these schools it is essentially like an arms race with their competitions against each other for the things that help them sell the school, like cushy new dorms and fitness centers.

And then there are the ultimate killers, the private college loans.

We've been slashing federal grants for 2 decades now. If there was correlation, shouldn't tuition have come down?

There have been lots of studies done on this. I would recommend looking at expenditures instead of tuition. Tuition is not the actual cost. Tuition can be higher than expenditure per student (at many privates) but most often it is lower (due to research grants and endowments and state subsidies, etc.). Are expenditures rising exponentially? If not, then this whole conversation is just noise.

 

[MadDogRevival]

He is not set for life programming as a 24yo. Might be ok for a while, but everything changes all the time. AI gains could obsolete humans ever programming commercially.

Well, that's certainly interesting and something I've thought about, but it seems to me that we're a very long way off from being able to say, "computer, write a script that does x, y, and z" and it all goes according to plan.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Just how many middle America kids should have a college education?

Don't know, but I'd like the value of the degree to dictate the answer. Subsidies and a mispercetion of the value of a lot of the degrees offered substantially drive the number, which is a shame.

Why is it not a waste for rich kids to attend college?

For many it is. No distinction there, other than, I suppose, it's less painful to get a low value degree if your mom and dad paid for it and you walk out with no debt.

And how are poorer kids attending college without the loans and subsidies you think are a problem?

I think that the fundamental concept of college is outdated and fatally flawed for most majors. I don't believe that most jobs that college grads end up working require 4 years of college. A very good proportion don't require 2 years of college.
I think what drives college attendance, as I've noted, is a misguided societal perception of the value of a degree.

But to your point.

Certification needs to change in this country. It is. Slowly, at first, but the direction is clear.
Do you want to be a firefighter? Okay. You come in, you take the civil service test about firefighting, and the people with the highest scores get the job (minus some obligatory score meddling to favor particular folks - in my town, you get bump ups for military service, and so on), and they don't ask where you got the knowledge.
That's the basic model that should be used for almost every job out there. Take us lawyers for example. It's a protectionist system. You've gotta get a 4 year degree then a 3 year degree after high school. 7 years. To be a lawyer? Lol. Law school costs 80-150 k. When you're done, and you pass from an "accredited" school, are you a lawyer? Nope. You've gotta pass the bar exam.
What it should be is this: anybody can take the bar exam. If you pass, and you meet other basic criteria (no criminal record, over a certain age), you're a lawyer.
Everything I learned in law school I could have easily learned on my own, and for a handful of classes my professors were so bad that my time spent in their classes and studying for their exams would have been better spent simply reading law books.
Law school and the branding process are fundamentally control protocols to enrich law schools and lawyers. If you moved to implement my suggestion, lawyers, law school administrators, and law professors would all wail in unison at the horrors that would be unleashed. What would really happen is that the cost of a lawyer to probate your will or represent you for a 1st DUI or draft a deed would plummet, as smart, motivated 20 year olds got their JDs and competed with the institutionalized "serial billers", as I call them.
The silliness that law school teaches you to "think" like a lawyer is condescending and self-serving.
Based on that, it should be obvious that my system would dis-advantage the born-rich and help poor, motivated kids by allowing them to bypass the college process, which was set up by the wealthy and which operates significantly for the benefit of the wealthy.

 

[intlzncster]

Well, that's certainly interesting and something I've thought about, but it seems to me that we're a very long way off from being able to say, "computer, write a script that does x, y, and z" and it all goes according to plan.

I think you are underestimating the rate of technological change. The rate is increasing, not decreasing. If it represents a growth function, it's going exponential. However, it's true that we don't know what it will look like in the future.

 

[8893]

The silliness that law school teaches you to "think" like a lawyer is condescending and self-serving.

Disagree very strongly with this.

 

[Towney007]

I think the Big East is likely where UConn ends up because they're going to be forced to take a gamble on one or the other really soon, and if that's the case - then they're going to bet on basketball before their football program every day and then twice on Sunday.

Sure - there's declining private school enrollment is real and a thing, but Temple's a private school. Tulane is a private school. SMU is a private school. The American will get hit just as hard as the Big East would hypothetically. You also have a lot of things happening of the perfect storm variety in and around college football, that waiting around for that is just as risky, if not more so. I agree with the sentiment that UConn waits around for the next round of TV negotiations first, but I have a feeling that rights negotiations are going to be a big disappointment for every conference, P5's included.

But if the hoops program is still languishing, if football isn't turning around quickly - they're going to bolt for the Big East. They're open to us joining and even if they're on more of a timer, it's still a massive bump in revenue from what they're getting now. And then football can MAC it, or whatever. Or maybe the AAC just doesn't have any leverage and instead lets us stick around in football like they do with Navy...

But decision time is coming, and looks like it's coming sooner rather than later. The fact that neither men's hoops or football can put one foot in front of the other isn't helping. If we're winning right now, you're just looking at a totally different situation. But we're not. So it's really down to which less desireable situation we want to be in, really.

 

[huskymedic]

Sure - there's declining private school enrollment is real and a thing, but Temple's a private school. Tulane is a private school. SMU is a private school. The American will get hit just as hard as the Big East would hypothetically

Temple is a public school...

 

[MadDogRevival]

Disagree very strongly with this.

Totally respect that, but, for me, the "thinking like a lawyer" part is mostly hardwired in the people I have met. The people who sucked at it as a 1L still sucked at graduation. Had one polysci major who got a C+ on the 1st contracts exam. Was outraged. I noted that he missed the biggest issue, which was the buyer was underage and the contract was voidable based on that. He responded with, "well, maybe, but there were plenty of other things wrong with that contract." 4 times to pass bar. Ended up a govt. lawyer.
LSATS are an IQ test, for the most part. Hardest score to change of all the tests I used to tutor (SAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc). Great lawyers are born more than made.
Law school can bring the "issue spotting" out of you, but there are plenty of ways to learn it without spending 100,000 grand and having a professor socratic method you.

 

[David 76]

Your learning concept for the future is interesting. I don't think it is assured or as soon as you think.
But I do agree that college is not for everybody and that the escalation of its cost is out of control. But I would be careful to protect those that need financial assistance in any changes.
College has been the best way for the poor/working class kids to rise out of their economic situation. Is that no longer true?

 

[CardiffGiant]

How much longer do we have to suffer UConn in the AAC?

This thread looks to be the right place for the latest DiMauro article. The issue seems to be reaching a boiling point. It has been debated to death but when donors start talking about pulling $ when the university needs it most, b-ball leaving the AAC becomes a real discussion.

 

[JMick]

How much longer do we have to suffer UConn in the AAC?

This thread looks to be the right place for the latest DiMauro article.

woof. losing donors over the conference situation would make everything 100x worse