David:
The Democratic front-runner announced that she will make higher education more affordable, by changing loans to grants (which allows forgiveness of the debt without payment), and taxing the rich to pay for the bill. Unfortunately, pumping more government cash into higher education is what has led to the astronomical costs in the first place.
As a college professor, what are your thoughts on this deal, and how will it impact you?
Doug:
First, nothing that the government does will have an impact on my job. I will continue to teach and have students---we have an endowment that could last for many years or decades even without students; and I have tenure. So, the outcome will not affect me. Maybe the next generation of professors, but not me.
Second, I agree that there are some colleges that do cost an "astronomical" amount. But there are many colleges (state colleges and community colleges) that are quite affordable.
There is a bit of competition in this open marketplace that does serve to balance what you get for what you pay for. For example, if you only have ineffective teachers (because you can't pay them enough, they are over-worked, or not properly trained, etc.) then few would want to go to your school. Or if you cost way too much (because faculty cost too much, or not enough students, etc.), and most students can't afford it (regardless of financial aid) then you are in trouble too.
So, just like healthcare, there are issues in getting quality service, for a low prices, for everyone. Unlike healthcare, teachers make a lot less than healthcare workers.
But I do agree with Clinton that education is of prime importance to our country. We may, at some point, need an Obamacare-like program for higher education.
David:
Be careful what you wish for.
But you didn't actually answer the question, and some of your comments illustrate why this deal is a bad one. If you make the money for college easier to obtain, with the ability to just write it off without repayment, at taxpayer expense, the costs are likely to rise even further. That's really been a key problem with healthcare. When no one has a care what anything costs, and insurance covers the bills, costs go up. A Lot. And it will run up our debt, which is bad for us all, in the end.
Education is of prime importance, but many have started to question whether higher education is important enough to justify the costs. Are we getting enough bang for the many bucks we are spending?
Doug:
I don't know who those "many" are that are questioning higher education. If I wanted to destroy another country, I would dismantle its higher education system. Are you a terrorist?
Higher education is not about "bang for the buck." It is about creating a thriving, thinking populace.
Healthcare and education should be easy to obtain. The key to both issues is to make sure that everyone cares about what it costs.
David:
"It's not about the bang for the buck, and yet everyone should care about what it costs." You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, there.
Doug:
"Bang for the buck" has certain implications, like that poets, artists, or researchers might not be "valuable." Everyone caring for the costs just means that the price of creating a thriving, thinking public should be reasonable. Usually, some system of checks and balances can be used to balance these two sides of the equation. But, it is a compromise.
David:
Perhaps you may want to talk to someone like Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University. He froze tuition for the past two years, and has it frozen for the next two as well. A great many education administrators recognize that when a student can't make enough in their working career to cover the cost of their education, there is a problem.
Doug:
Agreed! But what to do about it? Dismantle higher education, or find ways to distribute the costs?
David:
How about just making it cost less? That's the approach the government is taking with healthcare: require hospitals and healthcare professionals to offer the same services, but you only get paid 2/3 as much. How do you think higher education would react to that?
The Democratic front-runner announced that she will make higher education more affordable, by changing loans to grants (which allows forgiveness of the debt without payment), and taxing the rich to pay for the bill. Unfortunately, pumping more government cash into higher education is what has led to the astronomical costs in the first place.
As a college professor, what are your thoughts on this deal, and how will it impact you?
Doug:
First, nothing that the government does will have an impact on my job. I will continue to teach and have students---we have an endowment that could last for many years or decades even without students; and I have tenure. So, the outcome will not affect me. Maybe the next generation of professors, but not me.
Second, I agree that there are some colleges that do cost an "astronomical" amount. But there are many colleges (state colleges and community colleges) that are quite affordable.
There is a bit of competition in this open marketplace that does serve to balance what you get for what you pay for. For example, if you only have ineffective teachers (because you can't pay them enough, they are over-worked, or not properly trained, etc.) then few would want to go to your school. Or if you cost way too much (because faculty cost too much, or not enough students, etc.), and most students can't afford it (regardless of financial aid) then you are in trouble too.
So, just like healthcare, there are issues in getting quality service, for a low prices, for everyone. Unlike healthcare, teachers make a lot less than healthcare workers.
But I do agree with Clinton that education is of prime importance to our country. We may, at some point, need an Obamacare-like program for higher education.
David:
Be careful what you wish for.
But you didn't actually answer the question, and some of your comments illustrate why this deal is a bad one. If you make the money for college easier to obtain, with the ability to just write it off without repayment, at taxpayer expense, the costs are likely to rise even further. That's really been a key problem with healthcare. When no one has a care what anything costs, and insurance covers the bills, costs go up. A Lot. And it will run up our debt, which is bad for us all, in the end.
Education is of prime importance, but many have started to question whether higher education is important enough to justify the costs. Are we getting enough bang for the many bucks we are spending?
Doug:
I don't know who those "many" are that are questioning higher education. If I wanted to destroy another country, I would dismantle its higher education system. Are you a terrorist?
Higher education is not about "bang for the buck." It is about creating a thriving, thinking populace.
Healthcare and education should be easy to obtain. The key to both issues is to make sure that everyone cares about what it costs.
David:
"It's not about the bang for the buck, and yet everyone should care about what it costs." You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, there.
Doug:
"Bang for the buck" has certain implications, like that poets, artists, or researchers might not be "valuable." Everyone caring for the costs just means that the price of creating a thriving, thinking public should be reasonable. Usually, some system of checks and balances can be used to balance these two sides of the equation. But, it is a compromise.
David:
Perhaps you may want to talk to someone like Mitch Daniels, President of Purdue University. He froze tuition for the past two years, and has it frozen for the next two as well. A great many education administrators recognize that when a student can't make enough in their working career to cover the cost of their education, there is a problem.
Doug:
Agreed! But what to do about it? Dismantle higher education, or find ways to distribute the costs?
David:
How about just making it cost less? That's the approach the government is taking with healthcare: require hospitals and healthcare professionals to offer the same services, but you only get paid 2/3 as much. How do you think higher education would react to that?
Doug:
It is a bit difficult to compare higher education costs to healthcare costs, at least directly. I guess this is because we can't let people die, yet we have no problem letting people live without higher education. So, there is a cost that we all have to pay to keep people alive, and the government gets involved in what those costs should be.
David:
Or perhaps mandate colleges and universities follow "best practices" on what college courses actually lead to gainful employment, and eliminate all the rest (like the course offering, "How to watch television").
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities
Doug:
All of those courses sound quite interesting, but I understand why someone who isn't involved in the academic world could see those as being worthless. We teachers often couch hard ideas in easy-to-understand scenarios. That way, students will actually sign up to take a course. You may not realize this, but if no students sign up, a class is cancelled, and the faculty member is usually reassigned to teach something else. "How to watch television" sounds like a "critical thinking" course. The colleges offering those courses are some of the best institutions in the world.
You might think that you (as an outsider) know better than these institutions on what would lead a student to gainful employment. The students taking these courses at these institutions are not just getting jobs, but creating industries. Even Steve Jobs said that "Technology alone is not enough."
David:
Why would Hillary make a major speech about this issue if no one was questioning the cost of higher education? (and I might add she has only made 2 major speeches in the past two months.) Why would she be talking about making major changes to the whole student loan program if it was not an issue?
Doug:
Oh, it is a very important issue! I just said that it won't affect me one way or another as a professor. As a parent of college-going children, this can have a large impact.
David:
By the way, destroying another country by dismantling it's higher education system seems like a Rube Goldberg way of accomplishing the task.
Doug:
A Rube Goldberg way is the best kind of way: fun to watch, insidious, and effective! You understand terrorism better than I thought.
David:
Actually, now that you mention it, most government programs are very Rube-Goldbergish in the way they try to accomplish things. That's why they are so ineffective, and why they cost so much more than similar programs in the private sector. It's also a sure fire way to add about a dozen extra bureaucrats to the mix, when one would have fouled things up plenty on his own. Insidious, yes. Fun and effective…..not so much.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities
Doug:
All of those courses sound quite interesting, but I understand why someone who isn't involved in the academic world could see those as being worthless. We teachers often couch hard ideas in easy-to-understand scenarios. That way, students will actually sign up to take a course. You may not realize this, but if no students sign up, a class is cancelled, and the faculty member is usually reassigned to teach something else. "How to watch television" sounds like a "critical thinking" course. The colleges offering those courses are some of the best institutions in the world.
You might think that you (as an outsider) know better than these institutions on what would lead a student to gainful employment. The students taking these courses at these institutions are not just getting jobs, but creating industries. Even Steve Jobs said that "Technology alone is not enough."
David:
Why would Hillary make a major speech about this issue if no one was questioning the cost of higher education? (and I might add she has only made 2 major speeches in the past two months.) Why would she be talking about making major changes to the whole student loan program if it was not an issue?
Doug:
Oh, it is a very important issue! I just said that it won't affect me one way or another as a professor. As a parent of college-going children, this can have a large impact.
David:
By the way, destroying another country by dismantling it's higher education system seems like a Rube Goldberg way of accomplishing the task.
Doug:
A Rube Goldberg way is the best kind of way: fun to watch, insidious, and effective! You understand terrorism better than I thought.
David:
Actually, now that you mention it, most government programs are very Rube-Goldbergish in the way they try to accomplish things. That's why they are so ineffective, and why they cost so much more than similar programs in the private sector. It's also a sure fire way to add about a dozen extra bureaucrats to the mix, when one would have fouled things up plenty on his own. Insidious, yes. Fun and effective…..not so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!