Wealth Redistribution

[mcsluggo]

....

It really is supply and demand. Lets say we currently turn out 100 graduates a year. If we provide free education, then University becomes a place to kill time and collect money. A certain percentage would try to take advantage but a certain percentage would just go to collect benefits. At the end of the process, lets say we double the amount of graduates and now we have 200 available for the work force. The amount of slots available for those degrees will not increase. The result will be a number of graduates working at Micky Ds and a low wage for those who get hired because why would you increase a salary if you can leverage the graduate by hiring somebody who is desperate enough to accept the lower wage? All it can do is hurt IMO.

you have an interesting view of economics...

First... at any give time there are X jobs appropriate for college grads? really? and where does X come from? was it handed down from god? or did the US have to apply to the "UN high command on white collar employment" for our allotment of "good jobs"? because I have to tell you... it seems like the US has been stealing from the X-endowments of Haiti and Indonesia... those countries must be PISSED.

Second, Schools would still have competitive enrollment, wouldn't they? High Schools are required to educate everyone in their district... colleges, on the other hand, are allowed to establish their standards, as a way of building their "brand". As long as those brands are valuable to the school, there will incentive to maintain thee standards. THere will still be competion.

[ABQCOWBOY]

you have an interesting view of economics...

First... at any give time there are X jobs appropriate for college grads? really? and where does X come from? was it handed down from god? or did the US have to apply to the "UN high command on white collar employment" for our allotment of "good jobs"? because I have to tell you... it seems like the US has been stealing from the X-endowments of Haiti and Indonesia... those countries must be PISSED.

Second, Schools would still have competitive enrollment, wouldn't they? High Schools are required to educate everyone in their district... colleges, on the other hand, are allowed to establish their standards, as a way of building their "brand". As long as those brands are valuable to the school, there will incentive to maintain thee standards. THere will still be competion.

I don't account for the number of jobs. The variable X is set by industry. However, the rules of supply and demand do apply. If you double the number of College Grads, lets say, available in the job market, the supply is obviously increased. The larger the pool available from which to hire, the more leverage any given company has. This same principle applies to Day Laborers as well. It doesn't have to be College Grads. If I'm looking for people to work and I have 20 guys out front, I can afford to offer minimum because 3 or 4 of those guys will take it. However, If I have 2 guys show up and I need 4, I'm going to hire at a decent wage and ask if they know anybody else who is interested in a job. That's how it works.

As for University Standards and competition, well, no. Standards and competition are directly related to profits and enrollments. If the Government starts paying for education, then they are also going to have a large say in what standards are set and how high. The goal will not be to maintain a certain standard. The goal for the Government will be to make the standards as fair for the least qualified individuals as possible and the goals for the Universities will be to capture as much enrollment as possible. If the goal were other, these schools would not accept Federal Funding and just maintain their standards and acceptance levels. However, that means that enrollement likely suffers unless they are, in fact, Harvard or Yale, etc. I don't see it happening. Even today, money drives higher education, not the deep seated desire to mold young minds.

[mcsluggo]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

on the s&d for college grads... in the short run if you double the number of electrical engineeers in dulles airport corridor, the wage for newly minted EE grads will drop. IN the long run very different dynamics will take over, as more firms focus on those skills, and attract investment that focuses on those skillls... and the DC-dulles corridor becomes an electrical engineering hub... bla bla bla...

you seem to be taking the position that the piece of paper (the degree) is what the workers are bringing to the table... in which case if you double the amout, then YES the "value" is cut in half (just like firing up the printing press for greenbacks).

However, if we assume that there is acutal VALUE behind the degrees, then the knowledge is a complimentary good. There are far fewer elecrical engineers (per capita) in Ghana than in the US, and yet Ghanain engineers flock to the US, and not vice-versa. (Or less cartoonish.. there are far more EEs in the SF bay area than in Indiana, but EEs move from Indiana to the bay area much more than the other way).

As far as standards go.... In the UK, where they have TRIED the experiment of paying for everyone's college degrees... it would appear that STANDARDS isn't the problem (nobody would claim that Oxford and Cambridge and LSE etc... aren't prestigious). In the case of the UK I see two (related) problems. First there isn't enough SUPPLY of college degrees (not enough people end up getting degrees there) and the the people that DO are heavily skewed towards the upper and upper middle classes. Since the country pays for college... this means that the whole population (including the poor) largely end up subsidizing the rich to go to school. Scholarships that are more limited could be targeted better than that, I believe.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

:rotflmao:

I do like how Lkb snuck Princeton into a "Princeton and Harvard" phrasing though. He clearly has experience at this.

A lot of the Ivies and other private schools moved towards "no-loan" policies in the last few years as they made big money in their endowments. Notice that Lkb didn't say "Pomona and Harvard students don't get loans anymore."

More than seventy schools have begun offering no-loans packages. Some of the colleges eliminating loans from the financial aid packages of all needy undergraduate students included: Princeton University, Davidson College, Amherst College, Harvard University, Pomona College, Swarthmore College, Haverford College, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, Bowdoin College, Stanford University, Wellesley College, Columbia University, Claremont McKenna College and Vanderbilt University.

http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2010/02/22/falling-endowments-to-eliminate-no-loan-aid-packages/

A few schools are starting to cut back on those programs though, like Dartmouth and Williams recently. With the economy hurting, college tuition is probably only going to get more expensive.

Princeton's endowment is embarrassingly large - or at least it was when I last got an alumni magazine discussing it. It's a pretty small college, and it has an endowment larger than the GDP of some mid-sized nations.

I did hear something cool at the last alumni event but have been unable to verify it. They apparently built a new science building using the funds from a patent that the school partially owns with a professor.

[Prosperity]

Wait, is Princeton like a nickname for Rutgers or something? never heard of it before

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

When the US gives out that $15 Trillion stimulus package that whats-his-name advocated, maybe they can also forgive all student loans.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Wait, is Princeton like a nickname for Rutgers or something? never heard of it before

Don't act like you don't know about our College Basketball Invitational-invited basketball team.

Oh, JTIII. Why did thou forsake me?

[Prosperity]

Don't act like you don't know about our College Basketball Invitational-invited basketball team.

Oh' date=' JTIII. Why did thou forsake me?[/quote']

so is that the NIT or NCAA tournament, or is it something that local Jersey schools do?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

so is that the NIT or NCAA tournament, or is it something that local Jersey schools do?

It's the Poor Man's NIT. It's a tournament for teams not good enough to get an NIT invite.

Hey. We beat UCLA in the tourney my senior year.

[Prosperity]

I'll watch them play VCU, if they make it that far

[ABQCOWBOY]

for what it is worth... I am actually against the idea of the USG just directly paying for college (so we agree). But I disagree with your logic.

on the s&d for college grads... in the short run if you double the number of electrical engineeers in dulles airport corridor, the wage for newly minted EE grads will drop. IN the long run very different dynamics will take over, as more firms focus on those skills, and attract investment that focuses on those skillls... and the DC-dulles corridor becomes an electrical engineering hub... bla bla bla...

you seem to be taking the position that the piece of paper (the degree) is what the workers are bringing to the table... in which case if you double the amout, then YES the "value" is cut in half (just like firing up the printing press for greenbacks).

However, if we assume that there is acutal VALUE behind the degrees, then the knowledge is a complimentary good. There are far fewer elecrical engineers (per capita) in Ghana than in the US, and yet Ghanain engineers flock to the US, and not vice-versa. (Or less cartoonish.. there are far more EEs in the SF bay area than in Indiana, but EEs move from Indiana to the bay area much more than the other way).

As far as standards go.... In the UK, where they have TRIED the experiment of paying for everyone's college degrees... it would appear that STANDARDS isn't the problem (nobody would claim that Oxford and Cambridge and LSE etc... aren't prestigious). In the case of the UK I see two (related) problems. First there isn't enough SUPPLY of college degrees (not enough people end up getting degrees there) and the the people that DO are heavily skewed towards the upper and upper middle classes. Since the country pays for college... this means that the whole population (including the poor) largely end up subsidizing the rich to go to school. Scholarships that are more limited could be targeted better than that, I believe.

I view this in much the same way I view my own life experiences. People value what they pay for. If it's free, a reciprocal value is attached. You example of "Electrical Engineering" IMO, is not A-typical of how it might work. In the case of a degree, such as Engineering, the work that must be put into that degree is not neglligable. To gain a degree such as that, you have to put in the work and so, regardless of where you get that skill, it will not devalue. However, all degrees are not as highly specialized or valued. In fact, I would say that most are not ( a point that was made earlier). In areas less demanding, I see supply and demand principles taking precedents. I mean, for things such as Engineering or Medical etc., those people are going to get their education regardless because the ability necessary to accomplish those educational endeavors are already present. Those are probably not the typical example of who would be taking advantage of the educational assistance. Certainly some would but as a whole, I would expect that the trend would be in other areas. For lessor degrees, I think it only serves to create more problems.

As far as what I believe graduates would bring to the table, well, I guess your correct in your assumption. It really gets back to how Government does things. I would expect Government to create an environment where it's more paper then value. The standards would not be held so the education would not be as good IMO. Really, this is probably where you and I kind of part ways because it seems as if you feel opposite in this regard. I just think that Higher Education is "Higher" because not everybody can attain it. Everybody has the opportunity but not everybody can do it.

I see no reason to make it so difficult that those who are not able to afford it have no means by which to attain it but I also don't see any reason to provide it to every individual just because they are breathing. All that creates, IMO, is a black hole from which taxpayer money can disappear. If a person wants education, then they should work for it. Higher Ed, IMO, is something that should be attained and their should be a price associated. That, to me, is how the "Higher" part of Higher Education is maintained.