OT--UConn considering 25.5 percent tuition increase over four years

[upstater]

ok, I gotcha.
The writer seems to be confused then as well-

From: Lambeck, Linda [mailto:lclambeck@ctpost.com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:11 AM
To:
Subject: RE:

instate tuition and fees alone in FY 12 are $10,670 according to UConn...its $22,472 with room and board

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out. That she's confused. I don't believe UConn has announced what's going to be charged in 2012-2013, but if she's referencing 2011-2012, then her numbers contradict what's on the UConn website. FY 12 should refer to 2011-2012.

 

[buckley503]

I've met plenty of people at good jobs with undergrad degrees in things like art history or English. The undergrad degree isn't that important as long as you pick up some marketable skills while you're there. The fact is having a degree greatly increases your career earnings potential over someone without one.

The undergrad degree isn't that important as long as you pick up some marketable skills while you're there.

Bingo!

 

[upstater]

Please send me the links.
I do disagree. In simplistic terms my 10,600 for my freshmen year is now 15,283 adjusted for inflation. But the 2011 price is 22,472. (CPI calculators online)
I'm not sure if you are challenging student loans in bankruptcy law as well, but I'm not quite sure.

I wrote this for someone who was looking into the rise in costs. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/...universities-risen-so-rapidly?via=blog_743222

The main study I looked at was dated 1998 but the highest tuition rises have occurred in the period between 1986 and 1998, so the cost factors studied are still relevant. Health care and new technology are the only outliers since 1998. Since then, tuition increases nationally have moderated, though the Cal system has exploded from relatively low tuition to high. UConn seems to be in that category as well, but for the most part, nationally, you had huge increases over the last 25 years, moderating about a decade ago.
All I'm emphasizing here is that the rise in tuition is huge but you need to draw distinctions between costs and tuition. These are two different things. Consider, if Cal had tuition of $1,000 a decade ago, and is now charging $10,000, that a 1,000% increase, far far outpacing tuition. In real terms though, the costs at Cal were not rising at 1,000% in the period. They rose at 2%. The difference is that tuition went from a very low price to a very high price.

 

[buckley503]

The assumption being made, that everyone with a science degree is brilliant & everyone with a sports management degree is stupid, is ridiculous.

By the way, UConn has the best Kiniseology department in the country. Where do you think Sports Management comes from? You want to get rid of one of the best departments the school has?

Typical of the crowd that also loves to scream "CUT MOAR SPENDING!!!!!!!111111111ONE" on the assumption that money is being wasted without actually looking.

The "allure of college" has largely been fueled by the increasing national focus on college sports. It's all over TV. The campuses, the co-eds, the parties at the games, etc. The 90s economic boom helped, parents had the money to send their kids to school. Everyone started going to college. The bottom fell out and you had the next generation of kids standing there looking at their older brothers/sisters who went to State U, why the heck should they go to Western Tech to be an electrician?

As Oscar said to Felix, "when U assume U make and ASS out of U and ME.
If you read my post, we are lacking in science and math, that should be emphasized. Kinesiology is a science, a great major, and marketable upon graduation. So not sure of what crowd you are referring to?

 

[upstater]

As Oscar said to Felix, "when U assume U make and ASS out of U and ME.
If you read my post, we are lacking in science and math, that should be emphasized. Kinesiology is a science, a great major, and marketable upon graduation. So not sure of what crowd you are referring to?

Thomas Kuhn's book Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an interesting take on this discussion. As someone in the Humanities, obviously I am totally against this point-of-view that puts an emphasis on utility (though I can find any number of examples for the usefulness of the skills we teach), but I agree with you that this is a discussion that's happening all over the place. In Kuhn's book, however, he shows that a lot of scientific breakthroughs come from a cross-pollination between disciplines. I really wonder of you could seal off the sciences away from other disciplines and still expect positive results. There's a reason schools insist o a distribution of classes across fields.

 

[Prezidint]

There's a reason schools insist o a distribution of classes across fields.

Yes - it's to support the weak sisters in humanities.

 

[Wolferowski]

I wrote this for someone who was looking into the rise in costs. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/...universities-risen-so-rapidly?via=blog_743222

The main study I looked at was dated 1998 but the highest tuition rises have occurred in the period between 1986 and 1998, so the cost factors studied are still relevant. Health care and new technology are the only outliers since 1998. Since then, tuition increases nationally have moderated, though the Cal system has exploded from relatively low tuition to high. UConn seems to be in that category as well, but for the most part, nationally, you had huge increases over the last 25 years, moderating about a decade ago.
All I'm emphasizing here is that the rise in tuition is huge but you need to draw distinctions between costs and tuition. These are two different things. Consider, if Cal had tuition of $1,000 a decade ago, and is now charging $10,000, that a 1,000% increase, far far outpacing tuition. In real terms though, the costs at Cal were not rising at 1,000% in the period. They rose at 2%. The difference is that tuition went from a very low price to a very high price.

I wrote this for someone who was looking into the rise in costs. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/...universities-risen-so-rapidly?via=blog_743222

The main study I looked at was dated 1998 but the highest tuition rises have occurred in the period between 1986 and 1998, so the cost factors studied are still relevant. Health care and new technology are the only outliers since 1998. Since then, tuition increases nationally have moderated, though the Cal system has exploded from relatively low tuition to high. UConn seems to be in that category as well, but for the most part, nationally, you had huge increases over the last 25 years, moderating about a decade ago.
All I'm emphasizing here is that the rise in tuition is huge but you need to draw distinctions between costs and tuition. These are two different things. Consider, if Cal had tuition of $1,000 a decade ago, and is now charging $10,000, that a 1,000% increase, far far outpacing tuition. In real terms though, the costs at Cal were not rising at 1,000% in the period. They rose at 2%. The difference is that tuition went from a very low price to a very high price.

interesting, but i thinking we are just going to be on opposite sides on this. I'm agreeing to disagree.

I've read that real wages adjusted for inflation haven't risen since the mid 1990. yet tution on an absolute dollar amount have greatly outpaced inflation. (yet I do agree with you that not as much as cost)
I see your point that as a % tuition rose faster from the 80's to the 90s. But, wages adjusted for inflation increased during the same time period.
That's my real concern.

 

[upstater]

Yes - it's to support the weak sisters in humanities.

Uh, no, not really.

http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/bottom-line-shows-humanities-really-155771.aspx

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536322093520994.html#mod=most_viewed_day

But even if we were discussing unprofitable programs here, I don't accept the idea they should be cut. Take the Classics for instance. Here we have a department that's unprofitable at many universities: it usually consists of 1 or 2 or 3 professors with very few majors. Ridding a university of 3,000 years of history would cut off the sources of a lot of scholarship in all fields. You still have West Point referencing the classics in teaching military strategy, and unless you want to create an echo chamber with absolutely no deviation in how they are understood in contemporary society, you pay the price for Classics.

 

[upstater]

interesting, but i thinking we are just going to be on opposite sides on this. I'm agreeing to disagree.

I've read that real wages adjusted for inflation haven't risen since the mid 1990. yet tution on an absolute dollar amount have greatly outpaced inflation. (yet I do agree with you that not as much as cost)
I see your point that as a % tuition rose faster from the 80's to the 90s. But, wages adjusted for inflation increased during the same time period.
That's my real concern.

I never disagreed with you that tuition is rising exponentially faster than both inflation and wages. I absolutely agree with you.

I said costs are not rising faster than inflation (they are rising faster than wages, but that's another can of worms since GDP and profits are well up over middle class wages).

This is why I'm saying that focus on tuition leaves one with a skewed perception. You have to look at costs and then move backwards.

I don't think I ever argued against the idea that tuition is ridiculously high in many places.

 

[Prezidint]

I wrote this for someone who was looking into the rise in costs.

Saw this quote in your post - "The Commission has found no conclusive evidence that loans have contributed to rising costs and prices."

Needed a hell of a good belly laugh this morning. Thanks.

The notion that the screaming rise in College costs isn't in substantial part directly attributable to federally subsidized student loans is about as unsupportable as the notion that loose banking standards for home loans during the five or six years leading to the 05/06 housing bubble pop had no effect on home prices.

Maybe we should include economics 101 in all curriculum, including humanities majors.

IF you make student loans more broadly available to HS graduates, THEN the number wanting to go to college increases.

IF the demand for placement in college increases, THEN price increases.

This is so painfully fundamental that it truly would take somebody who is a lifer in the University system to not understand it.

What's that quote? It's extremely difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it?

 

[Prezidint]

Uh, no, not really.

I was kidding.
I loved my broadly liberal education in psychology. The degree was fairly worthless, but I did enjoy the education.

 

[upstater]

Saw this quote in your post - "The Commission has found no conclusive evidence that loans have contributed to rising costs and prices."

Needed a hell of a good belly laugh this morning. Thanks.

This commission came out of congress and included business people and a whole range of experts across fields and institutions, both business, colleges, public and private, etc. So, you know more than them?

The notion that the screaming rise in College costs isn't in substantial part directly attributable to federally subsidized student loans is about as unsupportable as the notion that loose banking standards for home loans during the five or six years leading to the 05/06 housing bubble pop had no effect on home prices.

You're wrong on many fronts. College costs are not rising above inflation. Tuition is. If loans are inflating the price of college, you would expect costs to rise, wouldn't you? But costs are NOT rising above inflation. Only tuition is. And, as for student loans, the max amount of a subbed loan has not risen above inflation, neither has the average amount ($20k) of total loans held by individual students with loans. The thing that has popped is the number of students taking loans AND especially the number of schools accepting them. Something like 60% of all defaulted loans currently are those taken out by students at for-profit centers like U. Phoenix, which didn't even exist 15 years ago.

IF the demand for placement in college increases, THEN price increases.

This is so painfully fundamental that it truly would take somebody who is a lifer in the University system to not understand it.

What's that quote? It's extremely difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it?

You are seemingly incapable of comprehending the difference between costs and tuition. These are not the same thing.

But you know all, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[upstater]

I was kidding.
I loved my broadly liberal education in psychology. The degree was fairly worthless, but I did enjoy the education.

Whether enjoyable or not, worthless or not, the relevant focus is whether they are profitable or not. Some humanities majors are, some aren't.

 

[Wolferowski]

Saw this quote in your post - "The Commission has found no conclusive evidence that loans have contributed to rising costs and prices."

Needed a hell of a good belly laugh this morning. Thanks.

The notion that the screaming rise in College costs isn't in substantial part directly attributable to federally subsidized student loans is about as unsupportable as the notion that loose banking standards for home loans during the five or six years leading to the 05/06 housing bubble pop had no effect on home prices.

Maybe we should include economics 101 in all curriculum, including humanities majors.

IF you make student loans more broadly available to HS graduates, THEN the number wanting to go to college increases.

IF the demand for placement in college increases, THEN price increases.

This is so painfully fundamental that it truly would take somebody who is a lifer in the University system to not understand it.

What's that quote? It's extremely difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it?

I agree!

 

[Wolferowski]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/...ket-grants-decline-as-college-tuition-spikes/

 

[upstater]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/...ket-grants-decline-as-college-tuition-spikes/

That article links to this at the Atlantic:

Obviously the number of students didn't grow by 511%. So why are education loans growing so rapidly? One reason could be availability. The government's backing lets credit to students flow very freely. And as the article from yesterday noted, universities are raising tuition aggressively since students are willing to pay more through those loans.

The government has always guaranteed student loans, so this is not new. Why would a factor that has ALWAYS been in place create a new paradigm? It hasn't. Beyond that, the government only guarantees federally subbed loans, and those are capped at 5.5k. So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

Tuition does not equal cost. People need to remember that.

 

[Prezidint]

Consider, if Cal had tuition of $1,000 a decade ago, and is now charging $10,000, that a 1,000% increase, far far outpacing tuition.

This makes zero sense. You either need more words or fewer words.

Further, you are attempting to draw a distinction between "tuition" and "costs." First, who cares? All that matters is what the kid pays in total.

If they add "activity fees" and "technology fees" and "environmental fees" and so on onto your cost of attending, what does it matter that it's not under the column "tuition"?

It's a scam, just like the rest of the system.

I get what you're going for now. Very clever.

The University wants more money. So they raise room and board and fees 25%. They don't raise tuition. So the title in the local paper reads, "Tuition rates will not be increased, but costs for students rise." Is that it? Is that the game? Is that the contorted logic the lifers are using now?

If the buildings are paid for, how do they justify raising room rates every year? Higher taxes at UConn? Are the bricks getting more expensive.

How about college text books? It costs what for a calculus book now? 200 bucks? It was 50 when I went to school.

You figuring that into your "costs" category? Unrelated to federal loans and the demand to go to school? Unrelated to the fact that University Profs directly profit from books?

That newer editions are required every year, despite the fact that Calculus hasn't changed much recently? They still teach derivation and integration, right? Limits and areas and curves and what not. Right?

It's a scam that depends on the artificial distinction between costs and tuition.

 

[Prezidint]

So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

You're completely missing the fact that this is a cultural phenomenon that has taken 50 years to develop. In 1960, about 4 million attended college. Culturally, it wasn't considered necessary to go to college unless you wanted a particular specialty, or unless you were rich and just wanted the college degree.
Today, 20 million go to college. But the population at large has only doubled. So, by the 1960 culture, we've got 5 fold greater college attendance. Why?
Simple - 1. Federal loan money. 2. Cultural shift and the delaying of growing up.
[EDIT - just one more example of how bankers control the world - Student loans are big business - the Federal Govt, translate the tax money of all Americans, guarantees the loans. Guar - en - freekin - teed. And you can't dismiss the debt in bankruptcy, so the banks have, almost, zero risk. Nice deal if you can get it.]

If you want to understand why the cost of college is so high, just look at this graph. It's very obvious. Greater demand results in greater price. Colleges raise fees, costs, tuition, whatever, because they can because the demand is there. If you want to control the price of college actively, simply remove the subsidized funding AND make all student loan debt dischargable in bankruptcy. You'd cut enrollment in half in a few years. Prices would collapse. If you want to do it passively, just wait - the U.S. govt. won't be able to afford all the subsidization welfare much longer.

 

[Wolferowski]

That article links to this at the Atlantic:

The government has always guaranteed student loans, so this is not new. Why would a factor that has ALWAYS been in place create a new paradigm? It hasn't. Beyond that, the government only guarantees federally subbed loans, and those are capped at 5.5k. So, again, the government's backing of loans does not account for the rise in tuition since the amount of gov't backed loans one can take has not risen at a fast rate in the last 25 years. In other words, this doesn't explain anything.

Tuition does not equal cost. People need to remember that.

as I stated earlier, you can't discharge student loans (public or private) in bankruptcy and this law changed in 1998.

For those who have to repay a student loan and are considering filing for bankruptcy, the question on their mind would be: does filing for bankruptcy discharge my student load? Unfortunately, student loans are usually not discharged in the case of bankruptcy. According to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy law the only time a student loan might be discharged is if it would cause the debtor “undue hardships”. The same basic rule also applies to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases.
Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

if they reverted back to laws prior to the 1990's, fewer loans would be given out from private lenders with advantageous rates. This would force all institutions to curb costs, which would curb tuition.

 

[upstater]

This makes zero sense. You either need more words or fewer words.

Further, you are attempting to draw a distinction between "tuition" and "costs." First, who cares? All that matters is what the kid pays in total.

If they add "activity fees" and "technology fees" and "environmental fees" and so on onto your cost of attending, what does it matter that it's not under the column "tuition"?

It's a scam, just like the rest of the system.

I get what you're going for now. Very clever.

The University wants more money. So they raise room and board and fees 25%. They don't raise tuition. So the title in the local paper reads, "Tuition rates will not be increased, but costs for students rise." Is that it? Is that the game? Is that the contorted logic the lifers are using now?

If the buildings are paid for, how do they justify raising room rates every year? Higher taxes at UConn? Are the bricks getting more expensive.

How about college text books? It costs what for a calculus book now? 200 bucks? It was 50 when I went to school.

You figuring that into your "costs" category? Unrelated to federal loans and the demand to go to school? Unrelated to the fact that University Profs directly profit from books?

That newer editions are required every year, despite the fact that Calculus hasn't changed much recently? They still teach derivation and integration, right? Limits and areas and curves and what not. Right?

It's a scam that depends on the artificial distinction between costs and tuition.

You totally fail at understanding economics.

If loan subsidies are allowing universities to spend more than they should, then that would fall under expenses, or costs.

But that's not happening. Only tuition is rising fast, not expenses.

This is pretty basic stuff and it's bizarre that you can't understand it.

I bet the vast majority of people on this board understand the distinction.

 

[upstater]

You're completely missing the fact that this is a cultural phenomenon that has taken 50 years to develop. In 1960, about 4 million attended college. Culturally, it wasn't considered necessary to go to college unless you wanted a particular specialty, or unless you were rich and just wanted the college degree.
Today, 20 million go to college. But the population at large has only doubled. So, by the 1960 culture, we've got 5 fold greater college attendance. Why?
Simple - 1. Federal loan money. 2. Cultural shift and the delaying of growing up.
[EDIT - just one more example of how bankers control the world - Student loans are big business - the Federal Govt, translate the tax money of all Americans, guarantees the loans. Guar - en - freekin - teed. And you can't dismiss the debt in bankruptcy, so the banks have, almost, zero risk. Nice deal if you can get it.]

If you want to understand why the cost of college is so high, just look at this graph. It's very obvious. Greater demand results in greater price. Colleges raise fees, costs, tuition, whatever, because they can because the demand is there. If you want to control the price of college actively, simply remove the subsidized funding AND make all student loan debt dischargable in bankruptcy. You'd cut enrollment in half in a few years. Prices would collapse. If you want to do it passively, just wait - the U.S. govt. won't be able to afford all the subsidization welfare much longer.

US population in 1980: 226 million.
US population in 2010: 313 million.

Population rise: 40%
College enrollment rise: 45%
Subtracting for-profit online enrollment, college enrollment rise since 1980 is: 33%.

Fewer people as a % of the population are attending bricks&mortar universities than they were three decades ago.

 

[upstater]

as I stated earlier, you can't discharge student loans (public or private) in bankruptcy and this law changed in 1998.

For those who have to repay a student loan and are considering filing for bankruptcy, the question on their mind would be: does filing for bankruptcy discharge my student load? Unfortunately, student loans are usually not discharged in the case of bankruptcy. According to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy law the only time a student loan might be discharged is if it would cause the debtor “undue hardships”. The same basic rule also applies to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy cases.
Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

if they reverted back to laws prior to the 1990's, fewer loans would be given out from private lenders with advantageous rates. This would force all institutions to curb costs, which would curb tuition.

First off, private lenders don't give out guaranteed student loans anymore. That practice is over. Only the gov't gives them out.
Second, the government has always given out those loans.

I'll say this for the umpteenth time even though it is not getting through to you for some absolutely bizarre reason: costs/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. Only tuition is.

 

[Wolferowski]

First off, private lenders don't give out guaranteed student loans anymore. That practice is over. Only the gov't gives them out.
Second, the government has always given out those loans.

I'll say this for the umpteenth time even though it is not getting through to you for some absolutely bizarre reason: costs/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. Only tuition is.

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

 

[upstater]

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

Why would you disagree with me again? Shouldn't you just be agnostic if you don't accept the 1998 study (which was a huge congressional study)?

You can only go on a case by case basis. I gave the numbers for the Cal. system which show that the costs there since the end of this study have only risen 2% a year.

But, you can just look at this article from 2010 on UConn: http://ctmirror.org/story/6401/uconn-approves-1-billion-budget-61110

If the state budget for the university is being slashed and the tuition is rising at a slower rate than the amount of slashing, that tells you something about costs/expenses, doesn't it.

It's simple math.

This article bears out the same dynamic as the 1998 study, but again the only way to do this is to look at studies of costs on a case by case basis. You can only look at what a school's budget was like in 1998 and compare it to its current budget in order to tell you whether costs are rising at above the rate of inflation. But, beyond that, increased health care and technology costs SHOULD signal that costs are rising faster than inflation. The fact that they aren't at a place like U. Cal. tells me that Cal is cutting corners elsewhere. Less financial aid is one likely place, as well as fewer full-time faculty, fewer courses offered. That's another savings.

 

[upstater]

I'm not saying they give out guaranteed loans. I'm saying there's no downside to any private giving out loans, considering they can't be defaulted on.

I've heard you say it for the umpteenth time, yet you still haven't proven that cost/expenses are not rising higher than inflation. I'm not taking a 1998 study as the word of God. Which is why I disagree with you.

By the way, the standard for discharging private debt is lot easier than discharging federal loans. There are a lot of allowances for discharging private debt that aren't available to you otherwise. If you're unemployed, it's possible to discharge private debt, but not federal loans. You just have a higher standard you have to meet than, say, trying to get out of credit card debt.

I would also say, if you're a student, look into the IBR program. You get to discharge your student debt after 10 years of making payments in relation to your income.

 

[Robertelamin]

Of course costs are rising. In the last decade they built a new chemistry building, pharmacy building, hilltop suites, charter oak suites, co-op, north parking garage, vistors center, business building, information technology building, I think a new agriculture building. They redid northwest campus, wilbur cross building, CLAS building, student union. Built two football facilities, built a computer lab on the Hartford campus and who knows what else since I graduated in 2004. Someone has to service all the new buildings. Maybe costs at other schools have dropped or remained the same but certainly not at UConn.

 

[upstater]

Of course costs are rising. In the last decade they built a new chemistry building, pharmacy building, hilltop suites, charter oak suites, co-op, north parking garage, vistors center, business building, information technology building, I think a new agriculture building. They redid northwest campus, wilbur cross building, CLAS building, student union. Built two football facilities, built a computer lab on the Hartford campus and who knows what else since I graduated in 2004. Someone has to service all the new buildings. Maybe costs at other schools have dropped or remained the same but certainly not at UConn.

I'd want to know how much was raised privately through UConn 2000, and beyond that, whether the new facilities lead to an increase in research funding.

Looking at that article about UConn that I cited above, you had a 5% cut in state outlays for UConn in 2009-2010. The UConn budget rose by 4.8%. So UConn increased tuition by 6%.

Seems to me that the tuition rise is related to the cut in state outlays, but it's impossible to know unless I was able to see the budget to determine what % of revenues comes from tuition.

Of the 4.8% increase in costs/expenditures, you have to look at research funding which increased from 210 million in 2009 to 233 in 2010. So, research funds were up 12% as the budget rose 4.8%. Since research funds accounted for about 25% of the budget, that means the increase in research funds contributed to 4% of the rising costs. Outside of research funding, the UConn budget increased by .8% for the year.

 

[Prezidint]

US population in 1980: 226 million.
US population in 2010: 313 million.
Population rise: 40%
College enrollment rise: 45%.

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible. I'll let you claim which one.
Is this what they teach you in the institutional system? To make up numbers? To make up arguments that sound good?

Let's s start with this basic math:
(313-226)/226 = 38.5% So the rise in population, using your numbers, is 38.5%, not 40%.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

That means that the increase in college students over the 30 year span, as a percent, is about double the general population increase, as a percent. So, professor, you weren't even close. You get an F, and it's going to take you an extra year to graduate.

If I had to guess, I don't think your math skills explain your post. I think you intentionally rigged the numbers because that's how you've been taught to do things as a lifer in a failing system.

I drink YOUR milkshake.

 

[Wolferowski]

By the way, the standard for discharging private debt is lot easier than discharging federal loans. There are a lot of allowances for discharging private debt that aren't available to you otherwise. If you're unemployed, it's possible to discharge private debt, but not federal loans. You just have a higher standard you have to meet than, say, trying to get out of credit card debt.

I would also say, if you're a student, look into the IBR program. You get to discharge your student debt after 10 years of making payments in relation to your income.

ya, no kidding. I brought up the fact that they changed the law because in the 70's and 80's so many students were filing right finishing school to get rid of the debt.
With govn't guaranteed loaned (which in reality nothing really is guaranteed), and private loans that have very little downside for the privates, a artificial demand is created in mkt. The GSEs did this during the housing bubble. Sallie and harder discharges on privates are doing it to the college loan mkt.

 

[Wolferowski]

You're either intentionally being deceitful or your math is terrible. I'll let you claim which one.
Is this what they teach you in the institutional system? To make up numbers? To make up arguments that sound good?

Let's s start with this basic math:
(313-226)/226 = 38.5 So the rise in population, using your numbers, is 38.5%, not 40%.

Then, using the graph I supplied, above, the college population, in millions, went from about 12 to about 20 million over that same span. (20-12)/12 is 8/12 which is 75%.

That means that the increase in college students over the 30 year span is about double the general population increase. So, professor, you weren't even close. You get an F, and it's going to take you an extra year to graduate.

If I had to guess, I don't think your math skills explain your post. I think you intentionally rigged the numbers because that's how you've been taught to do things as a lifer in a failing system.

I drink YOUR milkshake.

lol.

ya know, I originally started posting on the topic because I was saying that the author of the article doesn't know how to calculate % increase. upstater argued with me for a while about it, then eventually said he was agreeing with me she wrote it wrong. hmmm