What would happen if the gov't ...

[Murphy101]

I would not be going back to school this fall.

 

I'm torn about the whole is a guaranteed nondischargable loan aid or not.

 

Otoh, yes, it is because there is no way the student would ever qualify for that loan. The only reason they are getting the loan at all is because they need the "aid".

 

Otoh, I don't think telling poor people the answer to their povert is go into debt. I don't think that is very aiding at all to their situation and I will not be accepting any student loans this time around. I have deep abiding regret for the few loans I accepted 20 years ago. At best it just trades one period of suffering for another. Either suffer while attending school with less funds available or suffer for 15+ years with less funds available as you pay back the money you lived off of in school.

 

And that's not even getting into the entire issue of not making enough to justify the degree.

 

I think there could be many benefits to a college system that does not include government funding. In fact, I would prefer it.

 

I think it would drive the costs down and frankly, I think many of the schools should close and should be more selective. This could also open them up to being more flexible as well. With govt money comes govt strings. Without govt money, they would have to make some hard choices about priorities. That is not all bad.

 

For now, the grants are the only reason I bothered to apply. So far, without paying Any tuition, just the fees and books, I have paid $1200 for 2 sons to take 2 classes each. No grants other than the tuition waiver for dual enrollment. Tuition would have brought the total to $1700. So 4 classes for 1 semester at a community college here is approx. $1700. There is no way I can afford that. But I am hoping my grants will cover the full expenses or at least 75% of them. We are going into debt to pay for our 2 boys classes as it is. No way we can go into deeper debt.

 

So without all that other stuff falling out and adjusting, just no govt aid dropped? I would not have wasted my time applying. Not because I'm not interested, but because we don't have the money.

[Crimson Wife]

What kind of professors are you talking about? There are very few for whom this description is accurate.

Many professors are paid rather poorly, especially in the humanities.

For professors in the sciences and in engineering, salaries at the universities are far below the salaries those people could make with their skills if they went into industry.

 

My parents have a number of friends who are college professors and they are making big bucks. I don't know the precise amounts but it's enough to support a pretty luxurious lifestyle (fancy houses in expensive suburbs of Boston, luxury vehicles, exotic travel, etc.) Their kids got 4 years' free tuition (some at their parent's employer only but others at any college within a particular consortium).

 

I just looked up the average salary for University of California professors and it's $149.1k. That's a lot of money for a school funded by taxpayers.

[Murphy101]

I'm torn on professor pay as well.

 

The best ones often become the best by working in private industry or in university research and they usually have to have a doctorate to be a professor and spend some time at being a professor before getting an opportunity for tenure. If we want the best to be teaching and passing their knowledge to the next generation, and the best has to go through all that to be a professor - that's not going to be cheap. Something being done with taxpayer money does not mean it should be done cheaply.

 

Otoh, $150 is dang good salary compared to the average citizen. So professors whining about how they only make $150k is not going to be met wi much sympathy in this economy or by the thousands of people worried about paying into a degree that may never payback.

 

I don't really care if they make $150 tho. I would need far more individual details to determine if that is too much than it is likely we can delve into on this thread.:)

[Caroline]

My parents have a number of friends who are college professors and they are making big bucks. I don't know the precise amounts but it's enough to support a pretty luxurious lifestyle (fancy houses in expensive suburbs of Boston, luxury vehicles, exotic travel, etc.) Their kids got 4 years' free tuition (some at their parent's employer only but others at any college within a particular consortium).

 

I just looked up the average salary for University of California professors and it's $149.1k. That's a lot of money for a school funded by taxpayers.

 

How much of that is taxpayer money, and how much of that is research money? GA Tech professors can make a lot of money. However, the vast majority of that money is from research grants from industry. Kennesaw State profs make less money, unless they are doing major research for a company.

[thefragile7393]

I couldn't afford to go. Period.

[msk]

I just looked up the average salary for University of California professors and it's $149.1k. That's a lot of money for a school funded by taxpayers.

 

I'm trying to get a full-time academic job right now, and in my field, it would be akin to winning the lottery. Competition is incredible. The salary and benefits situation you describe really only applies to the very top-of-the-heap people late in their careers. Those people by and large really would earn more in the private sector-- they'd be CEOs, not bus drivers, so their salaries need to be compared accordingly. Universities that want to hire the very top researchers in their fields have to pay them well in order to attract them.

 

The U of C system is very highly ranked in terms of job desirability, even while CA's budget situation continues to implode. For most schools (especially public) the salaries are much less, and most professors are assistant or associate rather than full professors (and have lower salaries). CSU system profs make about half what UofC ones do, if I recall correctly (which isn't all that spectacular in many parts of CA). Here's an article with some more perspective (on both sides) on this situation: http://chronicle.com/article/faculty-salaries-barely-budge-2012/131432

 

One thing that always seems to get lost in these debates is the fact that the vast majority of people teaching "just" two classes are working *way* more than the hours they spend in the classroom. Regentrude mentioned this earlier. Course prep, grading, meeting with and mentoring students and guiding their research, administrative duties, and the prof's research (which feeds directly into teaching and student mentoring) that's often expected to be a huge portion of their job are taking a LOT of time. Yes, there are things that make academia a "cushy" job in some ways (intellectual satisfaction, an office with a door on it more often than in many jobs), but short working hours (at least during the 9 months you're paid to work) are definitely not one of them, at least in the three college/university settings in which I've worked.

 

Everyone I know who's left academia cites wanting 9-to-5 working hours and less job pressure as their main or only reason for doing so. (They usually mention earning more money and getting to choose the region they'll live in second and third.)

[Audrey]

I believe result would be, eventually, schools getting more affordable. The higher education bubble needs to pop.

 

:iagree:especially with the bolded.

[fraidycat]

I haven't read any of the other replies, but my some of my immediate thoughts are:

 

Pros:

 

Young people wouldn't start "life" tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

 

Degrees wouldn't be required to file papers (or name any other mundane task my 9 year old is capable of) for minimum wage or barely above.

 

Useless classes "for a well-rounded education" wouldn't be required for a degree. You would actually take classes that you need for the field you want to work in (more like tech school).

 

Cons:

 

It'd take some major restructuring to re-employ at lot of the people who would be out of jobs.

[msk]

Useless classes "for a well-rounded education" wouldn't be required for a degree. You would actually take classes that you need for the field you want to work in (more like tech school).

 

Those "well rounded" classes ARE actually useful for some people. While I agree that people who want a piece of paper in order to get a real job should not be required to take them (and are quite unlikely to benefit from them if the piece of paper is truly all that they want), expanding one's mind by learning new things is nothing to be sneezed at. Isn't that what all this classical education stuff is supposed to be about? Why is that stuff important in K-12, but not in college?

 

I would love it if technical degrees were the only requirement for many jobs, as that's all a lot of them really require. But to me, technical degrees are absolutely not a replacement for the experience traditionally meant by "college." I hope that experience is always available for those who truly want and can benefit from it. Blurring the line between these two different types of programs does nothing but harm to both of them, and to the students in them.

 

I teach community college courses in a field none of my students will ever work in. We focus on critical thinking and (to some extent) writing in the context of my subject area. Do they need to know this in order to read X-rays or fix cars? No. Will this make their lives more interesting? Will it give them tools to appreciate and compare arguments and interpretations about things they hear on TV or read in a magazine? I hope so. Students who truly aren't interested in anything they won't use at work tomorrow will get nothing out of my classes, and I wish they didn't have to take them. I like to think that students who are in college to expand their intellectual horizons are getting something meaningful from them, though, and I'd hate to see that opportunity disappear just because they can't pay for Harvard.

[Crimson Wife]

One thing that always seems to get lost in these debates is the fact that the vast majority of people teaching "just" two classes are working *way* more than the hours they spend in the classroom. Regentrude mentioned this earlier. Course prep, grading, meeting with and mentoring students and guiding their research, administrative duties, and the prof's research (which feeds directly into teaching and student mentoring) that's often expected to be a huge portion of their job are taking a LOT of time. Yes, there are things that make academia a "cushy" job in some ways (intellectual satisfaction, an office with a door on it more often than in many jobs), but short working hours (at least during the 9 months you're paid to work) are definitely not one of them, at least in the three college/university settings in which I've worked.

 

The grunt work (esp. the bolded) is farmed out to the prof's grad students, who are paid at not much more than minimum wage. My DH was one of those grunts back when he was in grad school. He also wrote the prof's journal articles for him, in exchange for having his name included as a co-author. His boss just read over the articles, made a few minor changes, and slapped his name on my DH's writing :glare:

 

Pretty cushy gig if you can get it...

[regentrude]

The grunt work (esp. the bolded) is farmed out to the prof's grad students, who are paid at not much more than minimum wage. My DH was one of those grunts back when he was in grad school. He also wrote the prof's journal articles for him, in exchange for having his name included as a co-author. His boss just read over the articles, made a few minor changes, and slapped his name on my DH's writing :glare:

 

Pretty cushy gig if you can get it...

 

I am sorry your DH had this experience. This does not correlate with the experience I had, neither as a graduate student and postdoc myself, nor is it what I observe among my colleagues.

There are plenty of professors who do all the work themselves. In our department, nobody delegates lecture prep or administrative duties to a graduate student. (The grad students are being paid their salary to grade or to teach labs.) In fact, in most cases, having grad students adds significantly to the work load; with a particularly good grad student, you might break even and save as much time as you invest teaching and supervising him (and helping him edit his attempt at a publication manuscript to get it into an acceptable form), but that is rare.

Edited July 26, 2012 by regentrude

[msk]

I am sorry your DH had this experience. This does not correlate with the experience I had, neither as a graduate student and postdoc myself, nor is it what I observe among my colleagues.

There are plenty of professors who do all the work themselves. In our department, nobody delegates lecture prep or administrative duties to a graduate student. (The grad students are being paid their salary to grade or to teach labs.) In fact, in most cases, having grad students adds significantly to the work load; with a particularly good grad student, you might break even and save as much time as you invest teaching and supervising him (and helping him edit his attempt at a publication manuscript to get it into an acceptable form), but that is rare.

 

:iagree:This has been my experience as well. I'm especially interested in this conversation as Crimson Wife and I went to the same undergrad university. For me, it was life-changing and totally worth the price my family paid (and yes my parents agree BTW), but I'm guessing she feels differently about her experience. It did seem like an awfully nice place to work, but the faculty there were incredibly lucky and in no way represent a "normal" faculty situation. Plus except for *one* guy, the faculty I got to know well there definitely worked their tails off!

[jallison25]

My parents have a number of friends who are college professors and they are making big bucks. I don't know the precise amounts but it's enough to support a pretty luxurious lifestyle (fancy houses in expensive suburbs of Boston, luxury vehicles, exotic travel, etc.) Their kids got 4 years' free tuition (some at their parent's employer only but others at any college within a particular consortium).

 

I just looked up the average salary for University of California professors and it's $149.1k. That's a lot of money for a school funded by taxpayers.

 

my dad is a school psychology professor at our local college and makes less than many of his first year students going out to work int he local school districts. I know many of the people he works with. NOne of them are making "big' bucks. Yes, i did get free tution, but not all professors have kids so this is more of a perk vs should be counted towards their salary

[mommymilkies]

I am sorry your DH had this experience. This does not correlate with the experience I had, neither as a graduate student and postdoc myself, nor is it what I observe among my colleagues.

There are plenty of professors who do all the work themselves. In our department, nobody delegates lecture prep or administrative duties to a graduate student. (The grad students are being paid their salary to grade or to teach labs.) In fact, in most cases, having grad students adds significantly to the work load; with a particularly good grad student, you might break even and save as much time as you invest teaching and supervising him (and helping him edit his attempt at a publication manuscript to get it into an acceptable form), but that is rare.

:iagree:

 

my dad is a school psychology professor at our local college and makes less than many of his first year students going out to work int he local school districts. I know many of the people he works with. NOne of them are making "big' bucks. Yes, i did get free tution, but not all professors have kids so this is more of a perk vs should be counted towards their salary

 

:iagree: I have never met anyone in higher ed besides Deans who make that much money. Ever. Not saying it doesn't happen, but from Crimson Wife's testimony, I think we should move to California! Maybe then we'll get a living wage! Because it's NOT like that here, nor Upstate NY, NC, OH, KY, or here. Maybe at private Universities, but nowhere I've ever been to!

[Crimson Wife]

:iagree:This has been my experience as well. I'm especially interested in this conversation as Crimson Wife and I went to the same undergrad university. For me, it was life-changing and totally worth the price my family paid (and yes my parents agree BTW), but I'm guessing she feels differently about her experience. It did seem like an awfully nice place to work, but the faculty there were incredibly lucky and in no way represent a "normal" faculty situation. Plus except for *one* guy, the faculty I got to know well there definitely worked their tails off!

 

I enjoyed my undergrad experience but feel that it didn't offer that high a quality education. Lots of very large lecture classes and the teaching was very hit-or-miss. The main benefits to attendance for me were the piece of paper I received at the end and the social connections I made, most especially meeting my DH.

 

The story about my DH as a grad student doing the unglamorous parts of his boss' job for him took place at another "name brand" university. My user name gives the clue as to where. ;)

[ThisIsTheDay]

I just looked up the average salary for University of California professors and it's $149.1k. That's a lot of money for a school funded by taxpayers.

 

We have a relative who is a professor at a Massachusetts state university. I just looked up his salary: It's a bit over $150K.

[Haiku]

Those "well rounded" classes ARE actually useful for some people. While I agree that people who want a piece of paper in order to get a real job should not be required to take them (and are quite unlikely to benefit from them if the piece of paper is truly all that they want), expanding one's mind by learning new things is nothing to be sneezed at. Isn't that what all this classical education stuff is supposed to be about? Why is that stuff important in K-12, but not in college?

 

K-12 is free. College isn't.

 

I'd like to see differing options in higher ed. I'd like there to be the opportunity to take just the classes you need for your occupation, and for those who want (and can afford) it, you can get a liberal arts degree ... and have these two programs offered at the same school.

 

In order to graduate from college in my field at my alma mater, you have to take 120 hours of credits. Sixty of them are relevant to the degree. Sixty are to give you a well-rounded education. Wow, college costs could be cut in half just by not requiring people to study the non-essentials. As much as I love to learn, do I want to spend $42,000 dollars (half the cost of a degree at my alma mater these days) learning things that won't be marketable?

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that costs at my alma mater have gone up more than 150% in 16 years, yet real wages have stagnated and fallen. Getting a liberal arts degree these days is a luxury and not necessarily a wise financial investment. Education for education's sake sounds noble, but crippling debt is not noble.

 

Tara

[OrganicAnn]

I just heard a discussion on the radio about the cost of college. The person was from Moody's. He said that the reason college was so much more expensive was the cut in funding by state governments.

 

I remember when I went to a private college I got a state scholarship and every year they cut it. I was lucky that every year the college increase their scholarships to me to offset the cut in the state scholarship. You don't hear much about state scholarships these days, but they used to be very common if you went to an in-state school (both public or private).

[regentrude]

I just heard a discussion on the radio about the cost of college. The person was from Moody's. He said that the reason college was so much more expensive was the cut in funding by state governments.

 

 

That is definitely one contributing factor.

Here are some specific numbers from the school where I teach:

 

In 2001, state funding made up 41% of the university budget.

In 2011, state funding was only 23% of the budget, which represents a 41% cut.

During the same time, enrollment has increased by 54%.

7% more full-time faculty have been hired to deal with this increase in student numbers.

 

Bottom line: 54% more students are educated with 41% less state funding.

Where else can the money come from if not from increased tuition?

 

We have cut degree programs and dean positions, have hiring freezes, travel restrictions... Yes, we still have cookies before the department colloquium, paid from donations by the faculty...

[FaithManor]

That is definitely one contributing factor.

Here are some specific numbers from the school where I teach:

 

In 2001, state funding made up 41% of the university budget.

In 2011, state funding was only 23% of the budget, which represents a 41% cut.

During the same time, enrollment has increased by 54%.

7% more full-time faculty have been hired to deal with this increase in student numbers.

 

Bottom line: 54% more students are educated with 41% less state funding.

Where else can the money come from if not from increased tuition?

 

We have cut degree programs and dean positions, have hiring freezes, travel restrictions... Yes, we still have cookies before the department colloquium, paid from donations by the faculty...

 

 

Spot on! There are record numbers of students applying to American colleges and universities. The dorms and lecture halls are full. Something has to give and that something costs more money. Wealthy alumni tend to get in line for exciting projects like sports stadiums, music halls, theaters, and libraries named after them but tell them you need money for a lowly lecture hall, increased parking spaces, new sidewalks, hiring faculty, bringing in more support staff, etc. well then, that's just not exciting enough for donating gobs of money!

 

Faith

[InterestingCase]

I just heard a discussion on the radio about the cost of college. The person was from Moody's. He said that the reason college was so much more expensive was the cut in funding by state governments.

 

I remember when I went to a private college I got a state scholarship and every year they cut it. I was lucky that every year the college increase their scholarships to me to offset the cut in the state scholarship. You don't hear much about state scholarships these days, but they used to be very common if you went to an in-state school (both public or private).

 

:iagree:

 

In Oregon, one university receives 8.5 % funding from the state and the others 14 and 18%. A little over 20 years ago, the support was near or above 40%.

[mirth]

stopped giving out financial aid for college? Would college costs come down because they wouldn't have any students otherwise, or would it just be that only the mega-rich could attend?

 

 

Well, so far the trend is that as the rise in cost of college tuition dwarfs the aid provided by all sources, gov't included, student debt increases out the wazoo. So I think the result is that in the OP's scenario, only the mega-rich could attend debt-free. There will always be young people willing to sign away their future earnings or parents' retirement for a the diploma. Enough anyway, to keep those tuition rates looming as high and higher as they are now for the foreseeable future.

Edited July 27, 2012 by mirth

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

K-12 is free. College isn't.

 

I'd like to see differing options in higher ed. I'd like there to be the opportunity to take just the classes you need for your occupation, and for those who want (and can afford) it, you can get a liberal arts degree ... and have these two programs offered at the same school.

 

In order to graduate from college in my field at my alma mater, you have to take 120 hours of credits. Sixty of them are relevant to the degree. Sixty are to give you a well-rounded education. Wow, college costs could be cut in half just by not requiring people to study the non-essentials. As much as I love to learn, do I want to spend $42,000 dollars (half the cost of a degree at my alma mater these days) learning things that won't be marketable?

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that costs at my alma mater have gone up more than 150% in 16 years, yet real wages have stagnated and fallen. Getting a liberal arts degree these days is a luxury and not necessarily a wise financial investment. Education for education's sake sounds noble, but crippling debt is not noble.

 

Tara

I agree that crippling debt is not noble. OTOH I think that if the US values education then we should make it affordable because right now it is a crisis IMHO. I think it is a travesty that only the "haves" will soon be able to attend college.

 

I also think college is not the be all and end all. I think that trade school should be a viable and respectable option. I think college for all is misguided in the sense that not every student is suited for or wants college. I do think that college should be affordable for those who are capable though. I do not think every degree is worthwhile but OTOH I think a liberal arts founding in at least some classes is beneficial. Perhaps if many high schools and elementary and middle schools did their job better than much of the liberal arts foundation can be laid prior to college or trade school.

[mommymilkies]

The university dh and I went to is having problems getting enough science students. It appears enrollment is waaaaay down in chemistry-and they have a good science program. A lot of people are going into fields they think are safe right now-health and education. But they really aren't. That's where most places we know are cutting!

[msk]

I enjoyed my undergrad experience but feel that it didn't offer that high a quality education. Lots of very large lecture classes and the teaching was very hit-or-miss. The main benefits to attendance for me were the piece of paper I received at the end and the social connections I made, most especially meeting my DH.

 

The story about my DH as a grad student doing the unglamorous parts of his boss' job for him took place at another "name brand" university. My user name gives the clue as to where. ;)

 

That makes sense-- I got lucky in my major I guess. After my first year, I never had a class in my major with more than 20 students, and I got to know my professors really well through research projects, movie nights, fieldwork, and all kinds of other opportunities that seemed to be everywhere there. I had those stereotypical late-night philosophical discussions people say don't really happen in college on a pretty regular basis with my friends and dorm-mates. Compared to the places I've been since, the other undergrads around me were so interested and so driven they seem like another species, and the education undergrads receive in the state U and community college where I teach is very different for that reason.

 

If I'm guessing the crimson correctly, unfortunately they are notorious for treating "underlings" of various stripes poorly in my field, too-- the expression "brain drain" comes to mind. On the other hand, it gives a darned impressive piece of paper!

[msk]

K-12 is free. College isn't.

 

I'd like to see differing options in higher ed. I'd like there to be the opportunity to take just the classes you need for your occupation, and for those who want (and can afford) it, you can get a liberal arts degree ... and have these two programs offered at the same school.

Tara

 

Homeschooling is NOT free though, if you count the wages the teaching parent is giving up over 13+ years.

 

The two-program situation you describe is very, very common in community colleges where I live. I am not sure many 4-year colleges would go for it, though. Why should they, when plenty of vocational programs exist elsewhere? It's the fact that many employers look for a Bachelor's degree when their employees don't actually need one that's the problem, I think.

[creekland]

I had those stereotypical late-night philosophical discussions people say don't really happen in college on a pretty regular basis with my friends and dorm-mates. Compared to the places I've been since, the other undergrads around me were so interested and so driven they seem like another species, and the education undergrads receive in the state U and community college where I teach is very different for that reason.

 

 

Middle son noticed the difference when he visited campuses and talked with students. It's why he chose the place he liked even though he would have preferred a warmer climate. He felt right at home with the kids he stayed with who were talking about research, books they'd read in school, APs they had taken - and what they thought about them - current developments in various fields and such things vs how great the sports teams were, current events in Hollywood, how to find easy profs, and how nice the new gym was, etc.

 

I'm glad his first choice proved affordable to us via a combo of scholarships and need-based aid.

[tex-mex]

Oh, ok. In our state there is an agreement that ALL credits from CC transfer to state universities, and we have just standardized all higher ed schools so that they are all on semesters now, so anything from a CC will transfer as exactly the same credit one would get at a state university. So transferring of credits is not an issue here.

 

Tara

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Here in TX, they have the same reciprocity agreement with community colleges -- all credits transfer to a "sister" (state) college like Texas Tech, A&M, UNT, UT Austin, etc.

 

My alma mater is a private college. I was pleased to see their endowment grow to the point over the years. They made a decision last year to cut the athletics budget for $1 million to have the budget be balanced for the 2012-2013 year. It did mean many athletes got their scholarships cut and coaches could not recruit incoming freshman. HTH

[tex-mex]

Spot on! There are record numbers of students applying to American colleges and universities. The dorms and lecture halls are full. Something has to give and that something costs more money. Wealthy alumni tend to get in line for exciting projects like sports stadiums, music halls, theaters, and libraries named after them but tell them you need money for a lowly lecture hall, increased parking spaces, new sidewalks, hiring faculty, bringing in more support staff, etc. well then, that's just not exciting enough for donating gobs of money!

 

Faith

My alma mater has its largest number of incoming freshman this Fall. They have to make decisions about parking (incoming freshman cannot own a car on campus due to lack of parking spots), dorm space (ages 21 and over are being allowed to live off campus... a rare event), and classroom space.