Instead of student loan forgiveness, why can’t we have this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data shows that kids with community college degrees don’t get to 4 year degree and never make as much money.

Also, sort of opposite of PP, I want all kids to have the opportunity to spend four years somewhere, have teams to root for, and put down roots in a community they are proud of. There has to be a way at least some state schools could do this. It is not about bells and whistles but pride of place.

There are very cheap 4 year schools in most states. I would like smart poor students to have better options than Virginia State

Most of the Southern states that DCUM loves to mock do much better at this. Georgia, Florida and Alabama, just to name a few, have state programs that provide free tuition to the state flagships to kids with high gpas/test scores. I have a relative attending Georgia Tech for the cost of room and board. It’s not just a few scholarships — it’s every kid that qualifies. In Georgia, every kid with a gpa over 3.5 qualifies for a partial scholarship. It’s a good system — keep the smartest kids in state, charge moderately high tuition (non of these schools are super expensive to begin with) to in-state students who don’t qualify but are willing to pay, and charge much higher tuition to OOS kids who can’t get into their own flagships.

[Anonymous]

All these extras are a way to funnel tax dollars to developers which the politicians love since they get big fat campaign contributions in return. That's why they keep building all these pools and gyms etc etc

[Anonymous]

How close are Radford and VSU for all in costs (tuition, room, board, fees)?

I know people poo-poo Radford, but it is a pretty good price all in from what I can tell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fancy stuff isn't what made the colleges expensive--it's what colleges did to attract students in a competitive marketplace. And alum like to donate for the sports and the gyms and the like more than other things. Big costs are research libraries, research equipment, updated classroom spaces, health insurance, administration to deal with ever-increasing regulations/liabilities, support staff needed for the wider array of students going to college (lot easier to educate just UMC kids with adequate resources in the past than a greater swath of the population that attends now). US colleges are highly regarded around the world, we should recognized the public value they hold and just fund them the way we used to.

Research grants pay for research equipment and buildings. Those aren't coming out of undergrad tuition.

Research grants do not pay for buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or how about making students accountable for the amount of money they take out that is intended for actual school expenses. Lots of student loan debt is for money spent on delivery pizza, cell phones and nights out.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally hypothetical here, but…

What if all public colleges and universities had a “basic version” or “no-nonsense version” without all the fancy extras? I truly believe that higher education is a good thing, and being well-rounded and well informed as well as knowing how to think critically is important. It’s also supposed to be the great equalizer, the thing that levels the playing field. I hate how the cost of big-name schools automatically puts kids with rich parents at an advantage when choosing schools that offer more prestige and more connections and career placement opportunities. I also don’t think kids should be financially punished for going out of state. What if someone from a backwater red state wanted to move where jobs and opportunities are, or somewhere with more diversity?

Instead of these huge cost disparities, what if every prospective student had an option: expensive tuition and fees with all the bells and whistles, the fancy dining halls, the swimming pools and lounges, all the luxuries; and then a basic option that just pays for classes, simple dormitories (that have heat and a/c and meet health codes of course, but no other amenities), library access, a limited food stipend, and access to some common rooms for student-run extracurriculars? No crazy state-of-the-art facilities. What if someone just wants a rigorous education and career placement opportunities, but doesn’t want to pay for a four-year country club membership?

If I'm paying all that money for the fancy version, my kid shouldn't have to hob nob with the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trade schools are so looked down upon here. Tradespeople are seen as second class citizens already. If your child is not attending a T20 school, they are worthless.

This is of course until the AC or heat goes out!

Plumbers and General contractors do very well everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or how about making students accountable for the amount of money they take out that is intended for actual school expenses. Lots of student loan debt is for money spent on delivery pizza, cell phones and nights out.

This

You want to make students who take out a loan for education accountable for food and cell phones ?? Those are basic survival items. Maybe just install pay phones around the campus for the poors and make sure they won't allow calls to pizza delivery places. Make poor students work in the campus cafeterias cleaning trays and let them scavenger food scraps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

Because a system where poor kids can't eat in the dining hall with their rich classmates or can't use the gym (or are the schools to build two gyms) to exercise, is awful. (And if the rich kids can use the poor facilities but not vice-versa, that's pretty gross, too.)

I hate to break it to you, but that already exists. Poor kids move off campus and drop meal plans and any optional fees the second they are allowed to

Those on-campus meal plans are expensive - like restaurant take out prices. It's cheaper to cook your own meals at home. Usually poor people know how to stretch a buck. I don't think that the poors are living it up on their student loans. In many colleges, there is food insecurity among students, they even have donated food pantries at some schools.

It's so much harder to go the college now than when I was a student. I was on financial aid, had to work part-time, never had a car at school, but I had food and everything else I needed. I came out with a small amount of student loan debt at 0% which I paid off in a couple of years. I think student loan forgiveness is a great idea to level the playing field for low and moderate income students. Forgive the debt then make tuition free like other civilized countries in the world do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

Because a system where poor kids can't eat in the dining hall with their rich classmates or can't use the gym (or are the schools to build two gyms) to exercise, is awful. (And if the rich kids can use the poor facilities but not vice-versa, that's pretty gross, too.)

I hate to break it to you, but that already exists. Poor kids move off campus and drop meal plans and any optional fees the second they are allowed to

Those on-campus meal plans are expensive - like restaurant take out prices. It's cheaper to cook your own meals at home. Usually poor people know how to stretch a buck. I don't think that the poors are living it up on their student loans. In many colleges, there is food insecurity among students, they even have donated food pantries at some schools.

It's so much harder to go the college now than when I was a student. I was on financial aid, had to work part-time, never had a car at school, but I had food and everything else I needed. I came out with a small amount of student loan debt at 0% which I paid off in a couple of years. I think student loan forgiveness is a great idea to level the playing field for low and moderate income students. Forgive the debt then make tuition free like other civilized countries in the world do.

You do realize that “other civilized countries” where tuition is “free” have much lower college attendance rates than the US? And in most of those countries, the college track kids are sorted out very early and it tends to be a very unequal process in terms of income? If your kid isn’t eligible for the Ivy League or other top-ranked schools that provide generous financial aid, they wouldn’t be attending college in those “other civilized countries.” Also, once in those colleges, there is almost zero additional academic support. Sink or swim. The US has a system that is actually more open to lower-income and first gen students, not to mention late bloomers, and much of the additional cost is generated by support programs to increase the retention rates for kids that may not have been as prepared for college as their peers who went to private and top public schools. You may need to borrow money to access the US system, but it is the most accessible.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly what OP was talking about and maybe someone else brought this up but some maybe many schools to apply more of a tiered pricing model based on what students consume.

We have t wo kids at two different colleges - very different costs with respect to room and board which accounts (along with other fees - activity fees, maintenance and upkeep of grounds, etc.) At one, all kids pay the same regardless of dorm facilities so the student in the most modern dorm with A/C pays the same as the kid in the crappy dorm that is on the demolition list. At the other school, dorm costs are very individualized and there is a big variance - it can be a $3K per semester difference based on the amenities of the residence hall.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Not "is exactly" meant to type "isn't exactly"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not feasible due to how colleges/universities (even public ones) are set up right now, but I whole-heartedly agree. I would have loved an inexpensive (or free) education that just involved going to class and doing my homework, reading, some practical internship/externships, etc. You can build a social life and hobbies outside of school, I didn't need school to provide those for me, and I actually enjoyed leaving campus to do things with mixed-age groups and get out of the campus bubble.

Private colleges can of course do whatever they want, but I don't understand why public universities don't make cost-effective but high-quality learning a goal. It's one thing to spend money on labs, excellent professors, and hands-on programming. But most schools are spending enormous funds on student life and I don't understand why. 18-22 year olds are historically pretty good at finding ways to entertain themselves.

Because a system where poor kids can't eat in the dining hall with their rich classmates or can't use the gym (or are the schools to build two gyms) to exercise, is awful. (And if the rich kids can use the poor facilities but not vice-versa, that's pretty gross, too.)

I hate to break it to you, but that already exists. Poor kids move off campus and drop meal plans and any optional fees the second they are allowed to

Those on-campus meal plans are expensive - like restaurant take out prices. It's cheaper to cook your own meals at home. Usually poor people know how to stretch a buck. I don't think that the poors are living it up on their student loans. In many colleges, there is food insecurity among students, they even have donated food pantries at some schools.

It's so much harder to go the college now than when I was a student. I was on financial aid, had to work part-time, never had a car at school, but I had food and everything else I needed. I came out with a small amount of student loan debt at 0% which I paid off in a couple of years. I think student loan forgiveness is a great idea to level the playing field for low and moderate income students. Forgive the debt then make tuition free like other civilized countries in the world do.

You do realize that “other civilized countries” where tuition is “free” have much lower college attendance rates than the US? And in most of those countries, the college track kids are sorted out very early and it tends to be a very unequal process in terms of income? If your kid isn’t eligible for the Ivy League or other top-ranked schools that provide generous financial aid, they wouldn’t be attending college in those “other civilized countries.” Also, once in those colleges, there is almost zero additional academic support. Sink or swim. The US has a system that is actually more open to lower-income and first gen students, not to mention late bloomers, and much of the additional cost is generated by support programs to increase the retention rates for kids that may not have been as prepared for college as their peers who went to private and top public schools. You may need to borrow money to access the US system, but it is the most accessible.

That's not the case in all countries. In the US now, poorer kids are less well prepared than wealthier students. Then they may have to get into debt just to attend college. So they are more likely to not succeed at college, but the parting gift is a load of debt. It's sinks the students before they even get a chance to swim. If the US doesn't even out the playing field for the younger generation we may have more resentful people in red ball caps voting for politicians who promise to even out the playing field - an easier playing field like it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Some families need student loan forgiveness so that the parents can help the teens pay for college and stop the next generation from entering the cycle of debt. I paid my own. The two oldest will get the forgiveness for their loans, but the two younger will get little help from us in two years unless I get a refund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if we just go back to funding our colleges like we used to?

+1

This.