hinten: It is really easy to understand and follows the same concept that we jsut experienced with housing:

Make lots and lots of easy money available to lots of Americans. Easy money is coming from commercial and government backed and guaranteed sources. Easy money and the promise that the value of the item purchased can only go up and is a 'solid investment'. Easy money and increasing demands keep increasing the prices. Bubble bursts because of unsustainable source of financing and because people come to realize that item is actually not worth as much.
Buyers get screwed and blamed for having purchased into the bubble. Some bankers get screwed and a good amount of bankers make out like bandits mainly because the government has to step in and bail them out.

2005 Housing market = 2012 education market

Concur, but at least you can't sell the degree for a higher amount than you paid for it; the upwards pressure on the price isn't fueled by speculation like housing was.

AmazinTim: Can we please re-elect Obama so that we get another 4 years of Biden? This guy is better than Bush.

Biden has nothing on Mitt Romney in the gaffe department. If gaffes-per-year is your metric, vote for Mitt.

The tail eating the head!

SilentStrider: Diogenes: SilentStrider: AmazinTim: Can we please re-elect Obama so that we get another 4 years of Biden? This guy is better than Bush.

Well he's certainly more fun then Cheney.

Four more years of not getting shot in the face.

Thats what she said.

you sir, owe me a new keyboard......made me think of Hillary

More people go to college due to government subsidies, which is probably good for the nation, but this leads to higher tuition costs, which is probably bad. The trick is to find the proper balance. Of course, perhaps subsidies allow some to go to college who would be better off attending a technical school but what's wrong with an educated populace? At least Biden, unlike some former VPs, s trying to address the concern in a thoughtful manner showing that there is no easy answer.

your average maint. man: SilentStrider: Diogenes: SilentStrider: AmazinTim: Can we please re-elect Obama so that we get another 4 years of Biden? This guy is better than Bush.

Well he's certainly more fun then Cheney.

Four more years of not getting shot in the face.

Thats what she said.

you sir, owe me a new keyboard......made me think of Hillary

you sir, owe me a new brain after the scrubbing necessary to remove that mental image.

qorkfiend: Concur, but at least you can't sell the degree for a higher amount than you paid for it; the upwards pressure on the price isn't fueled by speculation like housing was.

You also can't bankrupt your way out of it. The only way to delete student loan debt is death or an event that leaves you unable to pay it - disabilities and chronic conditions which make work difficult or impossible.

To pay for future lawsuits related to football concussions?

That didn't happen because Biden or Obama are too stupid to understand that a subsidy would have that kind of side effect.

That's the thing that too many people on the right and the left don't understand. Politicians on both sides don't do these things because they're dumb. They do them because they don't care. And in the end they may as well not care because it doesn't matter. Job performance has very nearly nothing to do with getting or keeping office.

What was actually said (for people who actually read):


Student: Good morning Mr. Vice President. I was wondering how do you feel about the idea that government subsidies and interference with the free market, for example, by artificially increasing availability of student loans is at least partially responsible for rising tuition costs. And now we're facing a possible student loan bubble and subsequent collapse just as we're coming out of the housing crisis.

Vice President Joe Biden: Well, say the first part of your question again about how we're artificially creating what?

Student: By manipulating variables in the free market and giving out government subsidies that maybe is partially responsible for rising tuition costs.

Biden: By the way, government subsidies have impacted upon rising tuition costs. It's a conundrum here. But if we went the rate your view of the free market route what we would have done is we would have not of done that. We would not have increased pell grants, for example. And there would be 9 million fewer students in college today.

And there would be hundreds of thousands and millions of students who would not be in college who don't get Pell grants because there was no ability for them to borrow money through Perkins loans and/or have the tax deduction.

So you are right, in a pure free-market the college tuition would have to be lower because there would be fewer people going to school, they wouldn't have as much coming in. But the end result is we would probably have -- we go for the better part, half a generation, of going 16th in the world maybe down to 20th in the world.

Mr_Fabulous: what we would have done is we would have not of done that

I like Joe Biden, mostly for these kind of gems.

Tuition has gone up because in the recession, states started running deficits and to make up for it, they cut funding to the Universities.

holyfarkinshiat this is not hard.

lennavan: Tuition has gone up because in the recession, states started running deficits and to make up for it, they cut funding to the Universities.

holyfarkinshiat this is not hard.

I don't think that the effect of widespread access to government-backed credit can be overlooked, though; it makes fiscal maneuvers like that possible.

Biden makes a good point but makes it in a terribly convoluted and incomprehensible way. If you hand out money for college, it increases demand and thus the price. If you don't hand out money for college, prices stay low but you have an uneducated workforce. It's a paradox, really; you can have cheaper college or you can have lots of people going to college but not both, at least as long as Americans think college means living four years on campus at Drunk U.

Talondel: EvilEgg: That and the for profit schools.

Remove the for profit schools and tuition at not for profit and state run schools is still outstripping the cost of anything save health care costs. But sure, blame the for profit schools if that makes you feel better.

socialized education

you are part of the problem.

that sort of crap is what messed up healthcare costs...

runwiz: More people go to college due to government subsidies, which is probably good for the nation, but this leads to higher tuition costs, which is probably bad. The trick is to find the proper balance. Of course, perhaps subsidies allow some to go to college who would be better off attending a technical school but what's wrong with an educated populace? At least Biden, unlike some former VPs, s trying to address the concern in a thoughtful manner showing that there is no easy answer.

One downside of insisting everyone get a bachelor degree at the very least is that companies are free to demand all their mailroom entry level workers have a degree in mail-technology. Even if they don't need it, why not? You can be more demanding if there are lots of people trying to get that job that all have degrees.

Well what's so bad about that? You still have a degree right? Well yeah you do but you also likely have massive debt to get an education you don't really need for that job. Plus the 4 years you could have been working and gaining experience.

So really we'd probably be better off with fewer people going to college and shunting more off towards on the job training or technical schools.

I disagree that government subsidization of tuition has led to the dramatic increase in college costs of late. The biggest factor, quite simply, is the tremendous disparity between college costs and the increase in earnings experienced by college graduates. I don't know the exact numbers, but the average cost for a Bachelor's degree across the entire country is somewhere around $100,000. In contrast, the Census Bureau says the lifetime increase in earnings from getting a Bachelor's degree over having just a high school diploma is almost $1 million. That's a huge amount of value that colleges are missing out on. They're just trying to get their share of the pie.

watson.t.hamster: runwiz: More people go to college due to government subsidies, which is probably good for the nation, but this leads to higher tuition costs, which is probably bad. The trick is to find the proper balance. Of course, perhaps subsidies allow some to go to college who would be better off attending a technical school but what's wrong with an educated populace? At least Biden, unlike some former VPs, s trying to address the concern in a thoughtful manner showing that there is no easy answer.

One downside of insisting everyone get a bachelor degree at the very least is that companies are free to demand all their mailroom entry level workers have a degree in mail-technology. Even if they don't need it, why not? You can be more demanding if there are lots of people trying to get that job that all have degrees.

Well what's so bad about that? You still have a degree right? Well yeah you do but you also likely have massive debt to get an education you don't really need for that job. Plus the 4 years you could have been working and gaining experience.

So really we'd probably be better off with fewer people going to college and shunting more off towards on the job training or technical schools.

Sure, but how are we going to make that happen? Choice is a major part of it; why would anyone voluntarily shunt themselves towards what are largely perceived as lower-paying jobs?

watson.t.hamster: So really we'd probably be better off with fewer people going to college and shunting more off towards on the job training or technical schools.

Not only that, but you should subsidize only the degree fields where demand is highest. Take a look at the "green jobs" that O-Bomb is constantly prattling on about. There's not enough qualified workers to take on the jobs so they have to hire from overseas. There's no reason for that; the government could easily fix it by offering aid for people who study in those particular engineering degree programmes. But no, we piss money away so people can get degrees in Women's Studies and Culture of Indo-Carribean Tribes from 1300 to 1684.

Shaggy_C: watson.t.hamster: So really we'd probably be better off with fewer people going to college and shunting more off towards on the job training or technical schools.

Not only that, but you should subsidize only the degree fields where demand is highest. Take a look at the "green jobs" that O-Bomb is constantly prattling on about. There's not enough qualified workers to take on the jobs so they have to hire from overseas. There's no reason for that; the government could easily fix it by offering aid for people who study in those particular engineering degree programmes. But no, we piss money away so people can get degrees in Women's Studies and Culture of Indo-Carribean Tribes from 1300 to 1684.

I think these ideas would probably be effective, but without a great deal more centralized control over the education system, how are we going to make them work? Do we want the government deciding which degrees are "useful"? Do we put yearly quotas on the number of people allowed to major in certain fields? Is there some sort of aptitude test so people can know which degrees they're fit for and qualify for government assistance with?

lennavan: Tuition has gone up because in the recession, states started running deficits and to make up for it, they cut funding to the Universities.

holyfarkinshiat this is not hard.

I think drastic college inflation was an issue talked about prior to 07-08. Has anyone seen any info on if any of the infrastructure most colleges have been doing lately plays on the tuition increase. I know my alma mater has done several multimillion dollar projects the last 6 years but the 8 years I was there back in the late 90's had nothing.

A possible solution:

Charge three times more for sociology programs than engineering programs.


I'm no Biden fan, but what he said is true.

qorkfiend: Choice is a major part of it; why would anyone voluntarily shunt themselves towards what are largely perceived as lower-paying jobs?

If I had it to do all over again, I would have picked something that couldn't be outsourced to China. There's always that.

qorkfiend: I think these ideas would probably be effective, but without a great deal more centralized control over the education system, how are we going to make them work? Do we want the government deciding which degrees are "useful"? Do we put yearly quotas on the number of people allowed to major in certain fields? Is there some sort of aptitude test so people can know which degrees they're fit for and qualify for government assistance with?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing; you could just provide a 'bare bones' federal loan that ensures that those without means can afford a college education if they really want it. You just give preferential loans to people in particular degree fields. The states already do this now in things like education, where they'll forgive your undergraduate student debt if you get a master's degree in teaching. Of course people are going to think this is a 'government takeover of higher education' but I'd rather we target our handouts rather than throwing money to the wind and letting moran liberal arts students piss away the public treasury so they can spend four years partying. We don't have the luxury of limitless budgets any more.

paygun: qorkfiend: Choice is a major part of it; why would anyone voluntarily shunt themselves towards what are largely perceived as lower-paying jobs?

If I had it to do all over again, I would have picked something that couldn't be outsourced to China. There's always that.

Indeed there is. How can we predict accurately in our late teens what the labor market will look like in 10 years? 20? 30?

Shaggy_C: But no, we piss money away so people can get degrees in Women's Studies and Culture of Indo-Carribean Tribes from 1300 to 1684.

Hey, they're still in college so that counts as a good result. You're getting all wrapped up in results when you should be focusing on metrics. Get with the program.

qorkfiend:
Sure, but how are we going to make that happen? Choice is a major part of it; why would anyone voluntarily shunt themselves towards what are largely perceived as lower-paying jobs?

Just make less money available. Particularly for degrees that are in lower demand.

People would still be free to go, there will just be less money available for people.

The reason so many have degrees is partially that we make it artificially cheap to go. Subsidize something and you get more of it.

Shaggy_C: We don't have the luxury of limitless budgets any more.

okay now I know you're a racist

qorkfiend: I think these ideas would probably be effective, but without a great deal more centralized control over the education system, how are we going to make them work? Do we want the government deciding which degrees are "useful"? Do we put yearly quotas on the number of people allowed to major in certain fields? Is there some sort of aptitude test so people can know which degrees they're fit for and qualify for government assistance with?

Do a regular survey of businesses. See what degrees are needed and in what numbers. Roughly obviously but you can get a good estimate of how many petroleum engineers we'll need entering the job force every year to cover growth and retirement.

Make that number of loans to a reasonable amount for anyone who goes in to those fields. Offer reduced interest rates for those who actually graduate with that degree. For the rest it's a regular loan.

There is a valid argument to be made that federal subsidies can lead to an increase in tuition.

All Universities are interested in charging as much as the market will bear. And with Federal Dollars (and easy student loans of course), raising the overall level of "what students can afford", the overall level of tuition continues to rise. The market can bear more if a portion is being subsidized by tax dollars.

A smarter move would be to subsidize specific areas the country wants to increase the workforce in (for instance environmental science, energy industry engineering, education, etc.) that way the rising tide of tuition subsidies will not have as universal of an effect and the country will benefit overall from a better workforce.

Of course, you will never get certain segments of the liberal base to accept that funding should go for degrees in electrical engineering instead of degrees in African American Studies or Poetry.

lennavan: Tuition has gone up because in the recession, states started running deficits and to make up for it, they cut funding to the Universities.

holyfarkinshiat this is not hard.

The 2008 recession is responsible for tuition growth the 30 tears preceding?

Shaggy_C: qorkfiend: I think these ideas would probably be effective, but without a great deal more centralized control over the education system, how are we going to make them work? Do we want the government deciding which degrees are "useful"? Do we put yearly quotas on the number of people allowed to major in certain fields? Is there some sort of aptitude test so people can know which degrees they're fit for and qualify for government assistance with?

It doesn't have to be all or nothing; you could just provide a 'bare bones' federal loan that ensures that those without means can afford a college education if they really want it. You just give preferential loans to people in particular degree fields. The states already do this now in things like education, where they'll forgive your undergraduate student debt if you get a master's degree in teaching. Of course people are going to think this is a 'government takeover of higher education' but I'd rather we target our handouts rather than throwing money to the wind and letting moran liberal arts students piss away the public treasury so they can spend four years partying. We don't have the luxury of limitless budgets any more.

Basically, but who decides which degree programs get the preferential loans?

I had thought the education degree deal was that you had to work in teaching for a few years after graduating, not just get the masters'. I do know the Feds do similar things for other types of degrees. The NSA and computer science/mathematics leaps to mind; they pay for your degree, and you work for them during summers and for 5 years after you graduate.

thomps: the real inflation has come from public schools who are forced to confront huge reductions in public funding.

lennavan: Tuition has gone up because in the recession, states started running deficits and to make up for it, they cut funding to the Universities.

holyfarkinshiat this is not hard.

Maybe recently, but historically, education costs have risen at 2x inflation, consistently.

Serious Black: I disagree that government subsidization of tuition has led to the dramatic increase in college costs of late. The biggest factor, quite simply, is the tremendous disparity between college costs and the increase in earnings experienced by college graduates. I don't know the exact numbers, but the average cost for a Bachelor's degree across the entire country is somewhere around $100,000. In contrast, the Census Bureau says the lifetime increase in earnings from getting a Bachelor's degree over having just a high school diploma is almost $1 million. That's a huge amount of value that colleges are missing out on. They're just trying to get their share of the pie.

Per the College Board, the average public university student acquires $20k worth of debt for their Bachelor's. $26k for private university. $25-35k for for-profit. Only 10% of Bachelor's recipients have more than $45k in debt. Now, this isn't "cost", but most people I know finance their way through college.

Ultimately, it's not so much the cost but the break even point that matters. The average graduate breaks even on their college cost at around the 11 year mark today. With education inflation normally at double the rate of regular inflation and wage growth flat over the past 20 years, that will grow longer with each passing year.

Pretty sure Obama said he would only expand government grants and loans to colleges which agree not to raise tuition accordingly. But don't let that get in the way of the snark.

qorkfiend: Basically, but who decides which degree programs get the preferential loans?

Base it on need. It would be easy enough for the BLS to tell you what fields are going to be most desperate for new workers in the 5 year horizon. Seems like it would be right up their alley...

BojanglesPaladin: Of course, you will never get certain segments of the liberal base to accept that funding should go for degrees in electrical engineering instead of degrees in African American Studies or Poetry.

Got to love third way politics. Republicans hate it because Socialism. Liberals hate it because it doesn't give equal credence to every idiotic degree program out there. Makes it seem like the right way to go if you ask me.

bhcompy: Per the College Board, the average public university student acquires $20k worth of debt for their Bachelor's. $26k for private university. $25-35k for for-profit. Only 10% of Bachelor's recipients have more than $45k in debt. Now, this isn't "cost", but most people I know finance their way through college.

This is tuition alone. Most people rack up "100K" in student debt by ALSO borrowing money for books, fees, housing, and miscelaneous "other" expenses during their college years.

(or that trip to Europe to burn off the last of the loan money, or that downpayment on the new car, etc.)

Some are more careful than others, but it is not enough to look only at tuition costs. there are a lot of other legitimate costs involved in attending university).

watson.t.hamster: qorkfiend: I think these ideas would probably be effective, but without a great deal more centralized control over the education system, how are we going to make them work? Do we want the government deciding which degrees are "useful"? Do we put yearly quotas on the number of people allowed to major in certain fields? Is there some sort of aptitude test so people can know which degrees they're fit for and qualify for government assistance with?

Do a regular survey of businesses. See what degrees are needed and in what numbers. Roughly obviously but you can get a good estimate of how many petroleum engineers we'll need entering the job force every year to cover growth and retirement.

Make that number of loans to a reasonable amount for anyone who goes in to those fields. Offer reduced interest rates for those who actually graduate with that degree. For the rest it's a regular loan.

There's some fields that don't easily lend themselves to that sort of neat compartmentalization, though, and there may be many different degree fields that could qualify someone for a job. Petroleum engineer could be materials science, geology, mechanical or industrial engineering, depending on the applicant's strengths and weaknesses and the particular need of the company at that time.

You could try and address the problem from the other side; something like "Hire someone with a federally financed degree and there are no employer payroll taxes for that employee".

Shaggy_C: Base it on need. It would be easy enough for the BLS to tell you what fields are going to be most desperate for new workers in the 5 year horizon. Seems like it would be right up their alley...

I like this idea. If the government is going to be paying the bills on education, it should be paying for education that pays off in ways that makes our money back.