ElCount
03-03-2009, 07:39 PM
“Students are paying more, and a greater share of the costs, but are arguably getting less,” said Jane Wellman, the executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability, which drafted the study.
Private banks loaning so much money to students is going to implode in its own way, and soon enough we'll need a student loan bailout. Actually we've already had several de-facto bailouts already for example the 'liquidity' funds infusion of a year back, and there are more proposals coming. if you mean a bailout of students and families, much less probable. There is way too much insider lobbying so that's unlikely to happen until an economic implosion makes it imperative. Unfortunately there are quite a few similarities between the student loan situation and the mortgage collapse. For years colleges have sold the same fantasy money/gravy train promise as did the mortgage brokers. To enrich themselves they advised those that trusted them: Borrow, borrow, borrow. As a consequence many of their "clients" are now facing life-long debt that by law can never be expunged.
And it's one of the factors which has been instrumental in the origin of the students paying for more and getting less paradigm. When colleges could exist, or were perceived as institutions of service, there were reasonable compromises which were made as far as facilities, and surroundings. In short, trophy buildings were not needed because both academe and students viewed their time there as a form of sacrifice. Faculty knew that tweed jacket gentility paid a little less than commerce, but was rewarded in status for being the transmitters of cultural heritage. Students went to college knowing it may be in sparse dorms, but the years there were intended for later benefit.
However once the flow of consequence free money (for academe) began to flow the concept of college as a form of service to society simply could not be maintained. Ethically how could it with the knowledge that what once was available by proving one had the ability, now required that same ability be bought by borrowed money? And that this money had then been deviously engineered to be the font from which academe had to draw to sustain itself? And once these conditions occurred academe became like any other falsehood, bastions were soon erected as rationales.
Essentially the promise which had begun with the GI bill and the educational grant programs of the sixties had a tragically short lifespan. It died from turning what was once considered above such considerations as systemic financial gain, into something so close to the debt culture as to be morally indistinguishable from a pawn shop or rent to own.
Perhaps that's why more students will be considering attending college in other countries, if they can reach those places. And it's haplessly ironic that other countries, be it places like Germany, Ireland, Canada, or even in the 2nd and 3rd world they still can conceptually consider higher education as a form of social service-whilst here in the US still one of the most affluent countries on earth...we can no longer do so...
Concerning students paying more and getting less, in large measure that's a trend which can be tracked back to the 80's when US educational policy moved towards loan paradigm rather than providing meaningful amounts of direct financial support or direct student support such as Pells and other like aid. Essentially transferring the cost of higher education onto students and their families has caused a condition of ethical disconnect amongst many administrators in higher education. Basically direct support such as grants tends to produce a ethical environment in which costs are more carefully watched. More or less because these resources are obviously tax generated and its politically very inexpedient for colleges to be wasting money when the resources are provided by such means-both legislative bodies and the general population tend to be very concerned about improper expenses within those parameters. But once the model went to loans administrators became less likely to watch the costs, or even carefully allocate resources, because the consequences were one more step removed from the source.
And the whole situation is made worse by many state schools lacking proper overall funding because then there is a need to make economic alliances with the financial sector. And there obviously both parties have a vested interest in making sure costs escalate and services are reduced (or are provided in glitzy fashions which have more to do with marketing than meeting actual student needs). Once this condition developed higher education became no different than marketing any other consumer product. Although if it was compared to a consumer product what students and families often get is a chrome plated Yugo at Mercedes Benz prices...
Part of this disconnect is that college resembles health care in which there is a third-party payer. Unfortunately, with college that third party is a loan that must be repaid by the student. For most students, that gap loan isn't quite real - signing up to pay $6K isn't much different than $16K or even $26K, since all the pain is in the future. And unfortunate that some in academe hold the perception that if the student signs up for 16k or 26k or more it's all the better.
Because the consequences of this kind of act can be transferred to the students and families in their not too distant future, it frees academe from having to ethically reconcile what this type of a system has done to peoples lives. Yes, of course there are ethical people on faculty and student services who do comment, or try to advise students with an intent which serves the students and families best interests.
But systemically academe lost its moral coordinates long ago insofar as the cost to benefit balance, and accordingly also lost the essential moral responsibility and comprehension that academe's potential adverse effect on a student's life and that of their family isn't canceled when the student gets a piece of paper and gets to wear some outdated medieval clothing.
As a result of this abrogation of responsibility and ethical disconnect academe may lose its status as a entity which serves and betters society and students and families often lose the promise of bettering their lives. The only people who have really benefited from the situation are a group which never should have been allowed to push their way into academe in the first place.
Problem is that they are there, and the effects of their interests and agenda have been a seminal factor in the escalation of costs, and the reduction of the credibility of academe. And they may have come much closer to wrecking academe than many realize. If they do succeed in doing so, they'll go home with billions and this country will lose an essential component of its future well being.
Private banks loaning so much money to students is going to implode in its own way, and soon enough we'll need a student loan bailout. Actually we've already had several de-facto bailouts already for example the 'liquidity' funds infusion of a year back, and there are more proposals coming. if you mean a bailout of students and families, much less probable. There is way too much insider lobbying so that's unlikely to happen until an economic implosion makes it imperative. Unfortunately there are quite a few similarities between the student loan situation and the mortgage collapse. For years colleges have sold the same fantasy money/gravy train promise as did the mortgage brokers. To enrich themselves they advised those that trusted them: Borrow, borrow, borrow. As a consequence many of their "clients" are now facing life-long debt that by law can never be expunged.
And it's one of the factors which has been instrumental in the origin of the students paying for more and getting less paradigm. When colleges could exist, or were perceived as institutions of service, there were reasonable compromises which were made as far as facilities, and surroundings. In short, trophy buildings were not needed because both academe and students viewed their time there as a form of sacrifice. Faculty knew that tweed jacket gentility paid a little less than commerce, but was rewarded in status for being the transmitters of cultural heritage. Students went to college knowing it may be in sparse dorms, but the years there were intended for later benefit.
However once the flow of consequence free money (for academe) began to flow the concept of college as a form of service to society simply could not be maintained. Ethically how could it with the knowledge that what once was available by proving one had the ability, now required that same ability be bought by borrowed money? And that this money had then been deviously engineered to be the font from which academe had to draw to sustain itself? And once these conditions occurred academe became like any other falsehood, bastions were soon erected as rationales.
Essentially the promise which had begun with the GI bill and the educational grant programs of the sixties had a tragically short lifespan. It died from turning what was once considered above such considerations as systemic financial gain, into something so close to the debt culture as to be morally indistinguishable from a pawn shop or rent to own.
Perhaps that's why more students will be considering attending college in other countries, if they can reach those places. And it's haplessly ironic that other countries, be it places like Germany, Ireland, Canada, or even in the 2nd and 3rd world they still can conceptually consider higher education as a form of social service-whilst here in the US still one of the most affluent countries on earth...we can no longer do so...
Concerning students paying more and getting less, in large measure that's a trend which can be tracked back to the 80's when US educational policy moved towards loan paradigm rather than providing meaningful amounts of direct financial support or direct student support such as Pells and other like aid. Essentially transferring the cost of higher education onto students and their families has caused a condition of ethical disconnect amongst many administrators in higher education. Basically direct support such as grants tends to produce a ethical environment in which costs are more carefully watched. More or less because these resources are obviously tax generated and its politically very inexpedient for colleges to be wasting money when the resources are provided by such means-both legislative bodies and the general population tend to be very concerned about improper expenses within those parameters. But once the model went to loans administrators became less likely to watch the costs, or even carefully allocate resources, because the consequences were one more step removed from the source.
And the whole situation is made worse by many state schools lacking proper overall funding because then there is a need to make economic alliances with the financial sector. And there obviously both parties have a vested interest in making sure costs escalate and services are reduced (or are provided in glitzy fashions which have more to do with marketing than meeting actual student needs). Once this condition developed higher education became no different than marketing any other consumer product. Although if it was compared to a consumer product what students and families often get is a chrome plated Yugo at Mercedes Benz prices...
Part of this disconnect is that college resembles health care in which there is a third-party payer. Unfortunately, with college that third party is a loan that must be repaid by the student. For most students, that gap loan isn't quite real - signing up to pay $6K isn't much different than $16K or even $26K, since all the pain is in the future. And unfortunate that some in academe hold the perception that if the student signs up for 16k or 26k or more it's all the better.
Because the consequences of this kind of act can be transferred to the students and families in their not too distant future, it frees academe from having to ethically reconcile what this type of a system has done to peoples lives. Yes, of course there are ethical people on faculty and student services who do comment, or try to advise students with an intent which serves the students and families best interests.
But systemically academe lost its moral coordinates long ago insofar as the cost to benefit balance, and accordingly also lost the essential moral responsibility and comprehension that academe's potential adverse effect on a student's life and that of their family isn't canceled when the student gets a piece of paper and gets to wear some outdated medieval clothing.
As a result of this abrogation of responsibility and ethical disconnect academe may lose its status as a entity which serves and betters society and students and families often lose the promise of bettering their lives. The only people who have really benefited from the situation are a group which never should have been allowed to push their way into academe in the first place.
Problem is that they are there, and the effects of their interests and agenda have been a seminal factor in the escalation of costs, and the reduction of the credibility of academe. And they may have come much closer to wrecking academe than many realize. If they do succeed in doing so, they'll go home with billions and this country will lose an essential component of its future well being.