what do you think about the way college tuitions keep increasing out of control

[umair127]

Tuition & Fees isn't real. It's a sticker price. Most private schools have "discount rates" in the 40% range. They use financial aid as a bargaining ship to get better students and improve their ranking. Only the international students an kids who barely get admitted pay the full freight.

The article posted above about the government exaggerating the cost of college from the NYT is pretty spot on.

[zolace]

on one hand, making it hard for borrowers to avoid paying back the loan is a good move to curb the student loan bubble. but at the same time the government didn't put any similar constraint on the lenders.
it is understandable that once you've obtained an education, unlike a house or a car, they can't foreclose or repossess it. so you need to pay them that money back. but what about the lenders? they ultimately approve and directly benefit from any investments, yet there's virtually no risk for them in case the student loan investment turns out to be bad.

Above 95% of all student loans are government loans or government guaranteed loans. Truly private loans are a very small part of the market; so I am not sure I understand your argument.

[noviapriani]

Tuition & Fees isn't real. It's a sticker price. Most private schools have "discount rates" in the 40% range. They use financial aid as a bargaining ship to get better students and improve their ranking. Only the international students an kids who barely get admitted pay the full freight.

The article posted above about the government exaggerating the cost of college from the NYT is pretty spot on.

Many of my friends work in higher ed in some way...professors, coaches, office work, etc.

If a college costs $45k and you get 30% off, it's still overpriced at $30k.

[zolace]

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

[noviapriani]

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

Corporations can get a discharge through chapter 11, but they have to effectively liquidate all of their property to do it. Whereas an individual in a chapter 11 just has to devote disposable income to a plan in order to get a discharge.

As for the debts comparison, I think you are actually agreeing with me, but again, I am having trouble understanding you.

[zolace]

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

Corporations can get a discharge through chapter 11, but they have to effectively liquidate all of their property to do it. Whereas an individual in a chapter 11 just has to devote disposable income to a plan in order to get a discharge.

As for the debts comparison, I think you are actually agreeing with me, but again, I am having trouble understanding you.

The point at hand is that you can't tell the difference between analogy and synonymity. So if were to use the car analogy in reference to the economy, you would argue that the economy doesn't use internal combustion engines.

[umair127]

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

Corporations can get a discharge through chapter 11, but they have to effectively liquidate all of their property to do it. Whereas an individual in a chapter 11 just has to devote disposable income to a plan in order to get a discharge.

As for the debts comparison, I think you are actually agreeing with me, but again, I am having trouble understanding you.

The point at hand is that you can't tell the difference between analogy and synonymity. So if were to use the car analogy in reference to the economy, you would argue that the economy doesn't use internal combustion engines.

Reductio ad absurdum?

There is simply no comparing student loan debt and alimony or child support, which can only ever be consumer debts, with corporate debt such as bond, note or trade debt. Besides the fact that corporations cannot have those types of debt, there are also very clear public policy reasons why the debts are either nondischargeable or subject to a higher burden of proof for discharge. A better analogy (since you seem to only be capable of reason by comparison) would be employee wages or benefits, which receive one of the highest priorities in a corporate bankruptcy for obvious public policy reasons. Since priority and nondischargeability are two sides of the same coin--payment of priority debts being a precondition to discharge in a corporate bankruptcy--there really is no distinction.

[zolace]

Corporations are specifically designed be liability shields. That's the primary reason they exist as a legal institution.


But like I said, you're missing the point. The point being made here was that people can normally file for bankruptcy (just like a corporation), but student loan debt is immune from bankruptcy (which is why I compared it to child support).

Corporations are liability shields and the sky is blue. How does that keep the corporation, in se, from paying its debts?

As for bankruptcy, student loan debt is not immune (child support is though), it is just subject to a higher standard for discharge. Regardless, corporations do not owe child support or student loans, so there is no point to get because it's a pointless comparison. It is much harder and more expensive, though, for a corporation to get a discharge in bankruptcy than it is for an individual.

Oh oh but corporations pay more to get a discharge -- oh but corporations are also discharging 82 times more money.

Wait so you're telling me that you compared individual bankruptcy to corporate bankruptcy to illustrate that individuals can't get rid of certain kinds of debt? Well why would that matter? Corporations don't have those kinds of debt, so your point is moot

Corporations can get a discharge through chapter 11, but they have to effectively liquidate all of their property to do it. Whereas an individual in a chapter 11 just has to devote disposable income to a plan in order to get a discharge.

As for the debts comparison, I think you are actually agreeing with me, but again, I am having trouble understanding you.

The point at hand is that you can't tell the difference between analogy and synonymity. So if were to use the car analogy in reference to the economy, you would argue that the economy doesn't use internal combustion engines.

Reductio ad absurdum?

There is simply no comparing student loan debt and alimony or child support, which can only ever be consumer debts, with corporate debt such as bond, note or trade debt. Besides the fact that corporations cannot have those types of debt, there are also very clear public policy reasons why the debts are either nondischargeable or subject to a higher burden of proof for discharge. A better analogy (since you seem to only be capable of reason by comparison) would be employee wages or benefits, which receive one of the highest priorities in a corporate bankruptcy for obvious public policy reasons. Since priority and nondischargeability are two sides of the same coin--payment of priority debts being a precondition to discharge in a corporate bankruptcy--there really is no distinction.

Except that discharge of priority debts is not a required precondition to corporate bankruptcy. You're tap dancing around the simple fact that in corporate bankruptcy, 'priority' is determined by active petitioning and even then, it's far from unheard of for even something as sacrosanct as employee benefits to be unloaded onto the public, or simply abandoned altogether.

This option is not available for individuals, as there are not personal equivalents to dissolution and reincorporation, outside of death or fleeing the country.

[sana8410]

My state contributes less than 7% to the budget of the University of Oregon. 30 years ago it was 30%.

[zolace]

My state contributes less than 7% to the budget of the University of Oregon. 30 years ago it was 30%.

That's a number, but is that a cause? Did the proportion the state contributes to the University's budget decrease because of cuts in contributions or because the budget drastically increased while the contribution, adjusted for inflation, held relatively constant?

[noviapriani]

I am not sure what you mean by "discharge of priority debts is not a required precondition to corporate bankruptcy." I think you are confusing two opposites. A discharged debt is debt that goes away forever, without full payment. By contrast, a priority debt MUST be paid for a corporation to get a discharge. This is unlike an individual bankruptcy, where individuals can get a discharge without paying some priority debts.

Priority of employee wages and benefits is not determined by active petitioning--it's right there in the law. A corporation simply cannot get a discharge without paying them.

As for dissolution and reincorporation, sure, that's an option, but it does not give the company a discharge. Nor is it easy or automatic--in most states it takes years. Moreover, the new corporation cannot have the same assets or business as the old corporation without assuming its liabilities.

[sana8410]

My state contributes less than 7% to the budget of the University of Oregon. 30 years ago it was 30%.

That's a number, but is that a cause? Did the proportion the state contributes to the University's budget decrease because of cuts in contributions or because the budget drastically increased while the contribution, adjusted for inflation, held relatively constant?

It's because the state has been continually cutting funding to the institution .My state has more people and less funding per capital for education of all forms.

[Spendulus]

The real question is why tuition and costs go up so much.

Government subsidies in the form of student aid programs.

From 2009: The Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education.

I haven't checked but I highly doubt that number has decreased in the last few years. In fact, I would bet the opposite.

There are parallels between increases in medical care costs and college costs.  Both are due to governmental meddling in the free market, creating a managed market with social goals. 

It'd be interesting to know the extent of increased costs due to government requirements on universities for various programs and issues... but that wouldn't be the whole story.  There's also the palatial gyms, gourmet food and other niceties which seem to be taken for the norm in the university environment.

[TaunSew]

Ivy league tuition is going up because of the competition to get in and it is the preferred destination for rich families to send their children (thus they'll sign the dotted line no matter if the tuition is $3K or $100K per semester).

Contrary to belief - even education is affordable in the US.  If you are a state resident then most states in the US have subsidized universities for people born in the state and the tuition costs rival countries like Britain / Canada or are even cheaper.

As well there's always the option to do your first two years at a community college near home to cut down on living expenses. 

[Spendulus]

Ivy league tuition is going up because of the competition to get in and it is the preferred destination for rich families to send their children (thus they'll sign the dotted line no matter if the tuition is $3K or $100K per semester).

Contrary to belief - even education is affordable in the US. ....

No.

The difference is that pre 1985, a person could work and put themselves through college with minimal debt.

Now, it's massive debt.  And that's debt owed to the US Government.  And they like that.  First, rig the situation where you need college, then rig the prices where you need debt, then print money and supply the debt.

Beats trying to sell Tbills.  Certainly a nice income producer along with Tbills.  Big difference in income, though.

[TaunSew]

Ivy league tuition is going up because of the competition to get in and it is the preferred destination for rich families to send their children (thus they'll sign the dotted line no matter if the tuition is $3K or $100K per semester).

Contrary to belief - even education is affordable in the US. ....

No.

The difference is that pre 1985, a person could work and put themselves through college with minimal debt.

Now, it's massive debt.  And that's debt owed to the US Government.  And they like that.  First, rig the situation where you need college, then rig the prices where you need debt, then print money and supply the debt.

Beats trying to sell Tbills.  Certainly a nice income producer along with Tbills.  Big difference in income, though.

I just explained to you something called in state tuition (which is heavily subsidized and even near-free in certain US states).  $200 textbooks aren't landing people into debt, either.  It's the interest payments from the student loans people take to cover the COL.

Pre-1985 the reason people back then didn't take loans was because summer jobs (after adjusting for inflation) paid way more than today.  We saw the deindustrialization of the United States in the 1990s which removed a lot of those good paying summer jobs

[noviapriani]

In-state tuition and fees at the University of Oregon are less than $10,000 per year and more than half of the student body receives aid grants, averaging about $7,000 per year. I don't see how that's a problem.

[Rigon]

The outcome for higher Ed is the much higher chance to land a job in a higher pay bracket than you (probably) could with just a high school diploma.

[BitCoinNutJob]

At this point in time paying tons and getting in debt for a qualification is a bad decision imo.  The internet has changed everything - education is free.  Importantly, the trend of employers employing people biased on diverse recruitment strategies and non mainstream recognizable qualifications must be hugely on the up no?  

If you want to work in public sector then yeah maybe you have to go usual route still

[zolace]

The outcome for higher Ed is the much higher chance to land a job in a higher pay bracket than you (probably) could with just a high school diploma.

Unless it's for some degree that nobody cares about. Maybe those people are considered for Starbucks management roles more often?