Education payments being based on income.

[austrianecon]

Sorry Austrian but tuition free = debt free. There is no language in the bill that mentions rent free or other costs are free. I know this because I helped the people who wrote the bill.

Here is the link for the bill:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3400.dir/hb3472.a.pdf

SORRY BUT NO MENTION OF ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF TUITION OR FEES.

Tuition free isn't debt free. Tuition is about $9,000 of the $24,000 cost to go to University at Oregon State University. $15,000 would go to student borrowing.

Read Section 1 again: The pilot program shall be designed to replace the current system of charging students tuition and fees for enrollment at public institutions of higher education.
Part 3, A) Allow students who are residents of this state, as definedby the institution, and who qualify for admission to the institution to enroll in the institution without paying tuition or fees.

Housing at a University is a FEE and falls under it contractually. But you would know this if you ever spend more then a few semesters at University in which you had to live on campus. :lol:

Come 2015 after they do the commission and the pilot program you will find I am 100% correct.. I can wait for you to tell me I am right then as it always works that way.

 

[molten_dragon]

I like this idea:

"Oregon's legislature is moving ahead with a plan to enable students to attend state schools with no money down. In return, under one proposal, the students would agree to pay into a special fund 3% of their salaries annually for 24 years."

"Using 2010 census data not adjusted for inflation, Mr. Gettel estimates students would pay an average of about $800 back into the program the first year after graduation. As their incomes grow, that would increase to about $2,000 in year 20, by which time they would have paid off the cost of their educations."

Oregon Is Doing Free Higher Education the Right Way | Demos

I think it's a bad idea since it's more encouragement to get a useless degree that doesn't offer you a chance for good employment.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Tuition free isn't debt free. Tuition is about $9,000 of the $24,000 cost to go to University at Oregon State University. $15,000 would go to student borrowing.

Read Section 1 again: The pilot program shall be designed to replace the current system of charging students tuition and fees for enrollment at public institutions of higher education.
Part 3, A) Allow students who are residents of this state, as definedby the institution, and who qualify for admission to the institution to enroll in the institution without paying tuition or fees.

Housing at a University is a FEE and falls under it contractually. But you would know this if you ever spend more then a few semesters at University in which you had to live on campus. :lol:

Come 2015 after they do the commission and the pilot program you will find I am 100% correct.. I can wait for you to tell me I am right then as it always works that way.

That is not what a fee is, it doesn't invclude rent and other costs. I just enrolled in school and I had fees, outside of tuition that cost about $200. You are being obtuse now and refusing to admit a mistake.

 

[a351]

I'd assume the program would run a deficit of some size in the short term, given the present health of the job market for college graduates and young people in general. Any analysis on how this will shape up in terms of revenue change from present policy?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

With schools now reliant on future incomes of their graduates it would force them (market wise) to gear their teaching towards skills with job openings and high income potential. Colleges under this law would become more efficient at filling our nations job openings.

 

[imagep]

Tuition free isn't debt free. Tuition is about $9,000 of the $24,000 cost to go to University at Oregon State University. $15,000 would go to student borrowing.

Or from family contributions, scholarships, grants, work study, etc.

 

[imagep]

I think it's a bad idea since it's more encouragement to get a useless degree that doesn't offer you a chance for good employment.

Every major has a chance of good employment. Many employers require a degree for certain positions, but no particular major. I've never met a college grad who went his entire life unemployed due to not being able to find a job. What may end up being a bigger issue is those who graduate from college, immediately get married, have children and decided to be house moms/dads. I have an acquaintance who graduated from an expensive private school, 12 years ago, but who has never worked.

 

[fmw]

I think it's a bad idea since it's more encouragement to get a useless degree that doesn't offer you a chance for good employment.

So you want to discourage people from getting a higher education because you think it useless? You think it destroys any chance for good employment? You are in a tiny minority in that opinion.

 

[a351]

With schools now reliant on future incomes of their graduates it would force them (market wise) to gear their teaching towards skills with job openings and high income potential. Colleges under this law would become more efficient at filling our nations job openings.

Hopefully, yes. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a sliding payment scale proposed for various degrees and their earning potential, although in current conditions, it may unfortunately serve to discourage the pursuit of higher paying majors in the short term.

 

[imagep]

Hopefully, yes. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a sliding payment scale proposed for various degrees and their earning potential, although in current conditions, it may unfortunately serve to discourage the pursuit of higher paying majors in the short term.

I doubt it. People who go into a major in the pursuit of money are going to go into that major regardless of 3%. Ninety seven percent of $100k is still a lot better than ninety seven percent of $50k or even 100% of $25k.

However, if colleges are going to get funded by a percentage of their students income, then it does seem that they would guide (or push) students into the highest paying majors, maybe even restricting the number of students that can go into majors with poor job outlooks, or providing larger scholarships (to cover books/room/board) for students majoring in higher demand fields.

 

[austrianecon]

That is not what a fee is, it doesn't invclude rent and other costs. I just enrolled in school and I had fees, outside of tuition that cost about $200. You are being obtuse now and refusing to admit a mistake.

Stop being daft. Let me actually paint the picture for you that you are MISSING. You are a 17/18 year old graduating high school student from Portland and you were accepted to Oregon State University main campus. For you to go to OSU you HAVE to pay for Room and Board or you don't get to go. It's an all or nothing deal.

 

[austrianecon]

Or from family contributions, scholarships, grants, work study, etc.

How about you actually read what I wrote instead of beating the wrong drum over and over?

You are gonna have an increase in demand so the price is gonna go up and a lack of work study, grant and scholarship money (this also mean taking money from other college students around the US who'd tuition isn't covered). So you are only left with 2 options in reality, Student loans and family contributions. Now if the point is to educate all and not just a few, subsidizes will have to be paid out to poor and middle class students as most families really can't afford providing money in this manner or they'd have to take student loans. So you are gonna pay 3% of your salary for 24 years and principle plus interest on student loans.

To help you understand even more clearly.. the cost to attend Oregon State University is $21,500. Only $7,600 is covered (according to JP). That leaves $13,900 to make up just to attend a 4 year school for 1 year. If you family (of 4) makes less then $30,000 a year and only one child is attending college, your total coverage would be $8,000 (grants, work study and scholarship). That still leaves $5,000 to pay for. That's $20,000 in net debt when you graduate as a family of 4 can't pay out of pocket $5,000 a year. Hell, a family of 3 couldn't do that.

How does that make it more affordable, free or anything close to it? Especially when the purpose is to bring down the net cost of attending college in Oregon. The numbers without assumed room and board coverage is just $4,000 less of the current avg debt Oregon of $24,616 debt per graduate? That's only a net reduction of $1,000 per year. Ohhhh.. really makes college affordable.

 

[molten_dragon]

Every major has a chance of good employment.

Not every major has the same chance of good employment.

Many employers require a degree for certain positions, but no particular major.

This is part of the problem too. Companies are requiring degrees for jobs that really don't need them.

I've never met a college grad who went his entire life unemployed due to not being able to find a job.

I've never met someone like that either. Of course I've never met a person who didn't go to college who went his entire life unemployed due to not being able to find a job either. And I've met a lot of college graduates who went to college, took on lots of debt, and then graduated and could only find a job that someone with no college degree could do just as easily, without the debt. And mostly, that happened because those people got degrees that weren't useful in the real world, and weren't in demand by employers.

 

[molten_dragon]

So you want to discourage people from getting a higher education because you think it useless?

No, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. I don't want to discourage people from getting a higher education. I want to discourage people from getting a degree in a field that isn't in demand by employers, and won't up their chances of getting a good job when they graduate.

You think it destroys any chance for good employment?

No, I don't think college hurts your chances of getting good employment. I think that in some cases, it doesn't meaningfully improve them, which makes it a huge waste of money.

 

[fmw]

No, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. I don't want to discourage people from getting a higher education. I want to discourage people from getting a degree in a field that isn't in demand by employers, and won't up their chances of getting a good job when they graduate.



No, I don't think college hurts your chances of getting good employment. I think that in some cases, it doesn't meaningfully improve them, which makes it a huge waste of money.

I understood you perfectly. I don't agree at all.

 

[imagep]

How about you actually read what I wrote instead of beating the wrong drum over and over?

You are gonna have an increase in demand so the price is gonna go up and a lack of work study, grant and scholarship money (this also mean taking money from other college students around the US who'd tuition isn't covered). So you are only left with 2 options in reality, Student loans and family contributions. Now if the point is to educate all and not just a few, subsidizes will have to be paid out to poor and middle class students as most families really can't afford providing money in this manner or they'd have to take student loans. So you are gonna pay 3% of your salary for 24 years and principle plus interest on student loans.

To help you understand even more clearly.. the cost to attend Oregon State University is $21,500. Only $7,600 is covered (according to JP). That leaves $13,900 to make up just to attend a 4 year school for 1 year. If you family (of 4) makes less then $30,000 a year and only one child is attending college, your total coverage would be $8,000 (grants, work study and scholarship). That still leaves $5,000 to pay for. That's $20,000 in net debt when you graduate as a family of 4 can't pay out of pocket $5,000 a year. Hell, a family of 3 couldn't do that.

How does that make it more affordable, free or anything close to it? Especially when the purpose is to bring down the net cost of attending college in Oregon. The numbers without assumed room and board coverage is just $4,000 less of the current avg debt Oregon of $24,616 debt per graduate? That's only a net reduction of $1,000 per year. Ohhhh.. really makes college affordable.

It doesn't make it free, thats for sure. Thats part of the reason that I support the idea. Higher education shouldn't be free. Those who obtain it get rewarded with higher incomes (generally), that the reward. Under this plan, everyone who expends state resources to get an education pays for his own education - one way or another.

Personally I am against government need based grants for anything. We don't need more welfare, we need less of it. yes, it may still be difficult for a low income family to send a child to college, but who ever said that it should be easy?

You have made your point that some of the wording in the article may be misleading. This plan isn't a cure-all, and shouldn't be presented as one. It's just an option that may help some students be able to afford college, without their families having to take on additional financial burdens (the cost burden of college is placed more on the backs of the student himself). Thats what I like about the plan - it is self help, instead of taxpayer supported welfare.

Although its not a magic solution, it's a step in the right direction. Again, I find it utterly amazing that any libertarian would argue that college should be totally free.

 

[gavinfielder]

Personally I am against government need based grants for anything. We don't need more welfare, we need less of it. yes, it may still be difficult for a low income family to send a child to college, but who ever said that it should be easy?

It shouldn't be easy in an academic way. It sure as hell should be easy in a financial way.

Unless you think leaving increasingly large numbers of people go without a college education would be good for the economy.

 

[imagep]

Not every major has the same chance of good employment.

No, but I never said that life was either easy or fair. People make of their education whatever they chose to. Some people get "useless" liberal arts degrees and end up making a great deal of money, others get valuable STEM degrees and end up being trashmen.

A friend of my stopped by my business for a visit last week, I already knew from facebook that her daughter received a big scholarship from the most prestigious private college in our state, so I congratulated her. I was actually a little jealous because my kid had also applied and was accepted to that college, it was his "reach" college, and they offered him a $60,000 scholarship (over 4 years), but her daughter's scholarship was worth twice that. I simply couldn't justify spending that kind of money for my kid, who just wanted to be a high school band director, with a starting salary of $32.5k in our area.

I asked her what her daughters major was going to be, she said "womens studies". My first reaction was to be really pissed that she was blowing this opportunity with a "worthless degree". the mom went on to explain that her daughter has no clue what type of career she wants, but that she has every expectation of going to graduate school, and that any degree was acceptable for most graduate programs, she went on to explain that her daughter had absolutely no interest in STEM majors or business. At that point, I realized that her major made perfect sense. The biggest claim to fame that this college has is that it has the highest percent of alumni who end up completing grad school, at something like 96% which is even a higher percent than the Ivy League colleges. I can picture this kid becoming a college professor at age 26, probably teaching political science or history or some other liberal arts type subject, although I really can't imagine her doing any other job.



This is part of the problem too. Companies are requiring degrees for jobs that really don't need them.



I've never met someone like that either. Of course I've never met a person who didn't go to college who went his entire life unemployed due to not being able to find a job either. And I've met a lot of college graduates who went to college, took on lots of debt, and then graduated and could only find a job that someone with no college degree could do just as easily, without the debt. And mostly, that happened because those people got degrees that weren't useful in the real world, and weren't in demand by employers.[/QUOTE]

 

[imagep]

It shouldn't be easy in an academic way. It sure as hell should be easy in a financial way.

Unless you think leaving increasingly large numbers of people go without a college education would be good for the economy.

I'm a huge supporter of education, but I am also a realist. Not everyone needs a college degree, not everyone is cut out for higher education, and not every job requires a college degree. it's something that should be earned, academically and financially. I think that education is the biggest "equalizer" in our society, and our public education system, including public colleges, is probably the number one reason that we have stayed in the top portion of the worldwide pack for the last 70+ years.

A college education should be available to everyone who academically merits it, and even with the system that we already have, 100% of people who academically merit college (plus a lot that don't) have the opportunity. Tell me about most any person who desires a college education but thinks they can't afford one, and I can provide a list of ways to acquire that college education, despite of their personal financial situation. It might not be at an expensive private school, and it might not even be at their states flagship university, but a college degree that has value to some employer never-the-less.

The program proposed in the OP just makes it a little easier on their families by shifting the cost burden more onto the student and less onto the taxpayer and the families themselves. it makes perfect sense, even if it is not free. People tend to only value what was difficult to acquire. College degrees should be something of value.

 

[molten_dragon]

No, but I never said that life was either easy or fair. People make of their education whatever they chose to. Some people get "useless" liberal arts degrees and end up making a great deal of money, others get valuable STEM degrees and end up being trashmen.

The thing is, the whole purpose of subsidized loans is because we've decided as a country that we want people to go to college, and the low interest rates are supposed to encourage that. That's already led to a lot of people going to college who probably really didn't need to.

Going a step further and saying "You don't actually have to pay the loan amount back, just pay us 3% of your salary, no matter what that may be, for the next 25 years, and everything will be forgiven" actively discourages kids from paying attention to their employment prospects when they graduate. Now there's even less risk in getting a useless degree. As a country (or a state if that's the entity doing it) I don't think that's something that should be encouraged. Too many kids in high school look at college as the goal. They want to go to college, they spend a ton of time applying for college and hoping to get into college, and deciding what they want to major in. A lot of them don't think beyond college to "I'm going to go to work for the next 45 years" and plan college as a step towards a career.

I shouldn't really talk about useless degrees, because it isn't really the degrees that are useless. Because there are people who get degrees in English literature, or communications, or history, or psychology, etc and do it because they have a plan, and they need that degree to do what they want in life. But those people are vastly outnumbered by the hordes of kids who get those degrees because they're easy, and they don't interfere as much with ****ing and drinking time.

 

[imagep]

Stop being daft. Let me actually paint the picture for you that you are MISSING. You are a 17/18 year old graduating high school student from Portland and you were accepted to Oregon State University main campus. For you to go to OSU you HAVE to pay for Room and Board or you don't get to go. It's an all or nothing deal.

And whats the problem with that? Surely you aren't one of those idiots who think that everyone should go to college and get a free ride?

 

[austrianecon]

It doesn't make it free, thats for sure. Thats part of the reason that I support the idea. Higher education shouldn't be free. Those who obtain it get rewarded with higher incomes (generally), that the reward. Under this plan, everyone who expends state resources to get an education pays for his own education - one way or another.

Personally I am against government need based grants for anything. We don't need more welfare, we need less of it. yes, it may still be difficult for a low income family to send a child to college, but who ever said that it should be easy?

You have made your point that some of the wording in the article may be misleading. This plan isn't a cure-all, and shouldn't be presented as one. It's just an option that may help some students be able to afford college, without their families having to take on additional financial burdens (the cost burden of college is placed more on the backs of the student himself). Thats what I like about the plan - it is self help, instead of taxpayer supported welfare.

Although its not a magic solution, it's a step in the right direction. Again, I find it utterly amazing that any libertarian would argue that college should be totally free.

The point of the law is to make it EASIER to go to college.

I am not arguing it should be free. I am pointing out it's not free (even the tuition side of it). It still leaves a debt burden and the whole point of the law is retarded especially when the point of the law is to reduce the debt burden. This goes back to what I've said many times on this forum. You either do an all or nothing. Half assing laws or ideas leads us in to problems that require more fixing them with more laws.

This is gonna screw up supply and demand of other aid programs. It's gonna screw up cost benefit analysis for a student (or families). It's gonna encourage someone to settle to avoid paying higher tuition costs in the future, you know turning down a $100,000 or more job because in reality you'll be paying more for your education then someone you went to school with. Education has to be a flat cost for all (residency rate and out of state rate) or you discourage high end jobs. When you discourage high end jobs you discourage higher income tax receipts and that snow balls into other problems.

Which is why it has to be an all or nothing system which is all I am saying.

 

[austrianecon]

And whats the problem with that? Surely you aren't one of those idiots who think that everyone should go to college and get a free ride?

Read above..

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Stop being daft. Let me actually paint the picture for you that you are MISSING. You are a 17/18 year old graduating high school student from Portland and you were accepted to Oregon State University main campus. For you to go to OSU you HAVE to pay for Room and Board or you don't get to go. It's an all or nothing deal.

NO ONE claimed it was free. The OP said it was based on income. So your argument has changed from it covering rent, which was proven wrong, to now arguing about it not being free, which no one argued it was.

 

[imagep]

The point of the law is to make it EASIER to go to college.

I am not arguing it should be free. I am pointing out it's not free (even the tuition side of it). It still leaves a debt burden and the whole point of the law is retarded especially when the point of the law is to reduce the debt burden. This goes back to what I've said many times on this forum. You either do an all or nothing. Half assing laws or ideas leads us in to problems that require more fixing them with more laws.

This is gonna screw up supply and demand of other aid programs. It's gonna screw up cost benefit analysis for a student (or families). It's gonna encourage someone to settle to avoid paying higher tuition costs in the future, you know turning down a $100,000 or more job because in reality you'll be paying more for your education then someone you went to school with. Education has to be a flat cost for all (residency rate and out of state rate) or you discourage high end jobs. When you discourage high end jobs you discourage higher income tax receipts and that snow balls into other problems.

Which is why it has to be an all or nothing system which is all I am saying.

NOTHING has to be "all or nothing". Thats rediculous. but again, I get your point that it shouldn't be advertised as if families had to make no contributions or that it guaranteed anyone to be debt free.