Why savvy students might start to opt out of university
This article from the UK's The Guardian reflects on many of the same issues we have talked about in class, but from the British perspective. The students there are facing many of the same questions about higher education as American students, including weighing the costs (explicit and implicit of a degree) vs. the potential benefits.
Also, as most colleges/universities are state-funded in the UK, students pay a standard fee. Approximately 2 years ago, this fee went from 3,000 L to 9,000 L per year. This increase has corresponded with a dip in the number of applications to universities.
The writer makes the point that many students may be able to take on apprenticeships to learn the skills of their future career rather than go to college. I like that this writer acknowledges that the stigma about those who do not go to college exists. I also think she is right in pointing out that this stigma may eventually disappear if college becomes less and less of the norm.
I think we tend to forget that students across the globe face similar issues to us when it comes to higher education. Rising fees, debt, and uncertain job prospects are factors that extend far beyond our own borders.
The writer closes with: "In 10 years, the question young people may face in job interviews may not be: 'Why didn't you go to university?' but: 'Why did you think it was worth it'. That might not be such a bad thing."
I'm not sure if she's right about it not being such a bad thing, but I do think she makes a point that perhaps this will actually increase the worth of a college education and force individuals to evaluate their own goals and motivations for spending years of their life earning a degree.
Monday, January 13, 2014
How The Government Could Make Public College Free For All Students - ThinkProgress.org
How The Government Could Make Public College Free For All Students
The article from this liberal website outlines its ideas about how the government could use the same amount of money it already spends in order to fully subsidize a public college education for every student in the US.
The article claims that the government spends $69 billion attempting to make college affordable, while the cost of public tuition in 2012 was $62.6 billion (for all students across the country). They claim that the government could divert all of this money into subsidizing public higher education in order to provide a free degree.
But the math seems fuzzy to me.
First, this would only cover tuition, not room and board.
Second, that $69 billion includes tax cuts, which can't necessarily be turned into cash to pay for people's tuition.
Third, institutions partially rely on out-of-state students who pay a greater amount in tuition. How would a purely-government-subsidized program handle this? Where does the state fit in?
Four, what happens to students attempting to go to private institutions? Would their federal aid be completely lost as the funds are redirected towards public tuition?
Five, how would this affect the quality of education students receive?
Also, wouldn't it create a massive conflict of interest when every single public college or university in the United States is being completely paid by the U.S. government? This seems as if it could be a major power grab by the federal government.
A commenter makes a good point that many colleges/universities may feel obligated to grant students their degrees, even if they have not done the work, like what supposedly happens in many high schools. In addition, if schools are graded on their performance in areas such as graduation rates as the article suggests (in order to "incentivize" schools to improve and compete with private colleges), this handing out of degrees could also increase.
I support attempting to make college affordable for those who work hard and are committed (note, I did not say everyone). However, I question if this free-public-education-for-all idea is a good one. Or even feasible for that matter.
What are your thoughts?
The article from this liberal website outlines its ideas about how the government could use the same amount of money it already spends in order to fully subsidize a public college education for every student in the US.
The article claims that the government spends $69 billion attempting to make college affordable, while the cost of public tuition in 2012 was $62.6 billion (for all students across the country). They claim that the government could divert all of this money into subsidizing public higher education in order to provide a free degree.
But the math seems fuzzy to me.
First, this would only cover tuition, not room and board.
Second, that $69 billion includes tax cuts, which can't necessarily be turned into cash to pay for people's tuition.
Third, institutions partially rely on out-of-state students who pay a greater amount in tuition. How would a purely-government-subsidized program handle this? Where does the state fit in?
Four, what happens to students attempting to go to private institutions? Would their federal aid be completely lost as the funds are redirected towards public tuition?
Five, how would this affect the quality of education students receive?
Also, wouldn't it create a massive conflict of interest when every single public college or university in the United States is being completely paid by the U.S. government? This seems as if it could be a major power grab by the federal government.
A commenter makes a good point that many colleges/universities may feel obligated to grant students their degrees, even if they have not done the work, like what supposedly happens in many high schools. In addition, if schools are graded on their performance in areas such as graduation rates as the article suggests (in order to "incentivize" schools to improve and compete with private colleges), this handing out of degrees could also increase.
I support attempting to make college affordable for those who work hard and are committed (note, I did not say everyone). However, I question if this free-public-education-for-all idea is a good one. Or even feasible for that matter.
What are your thoughts?
Friday, December 13, 2013
College Costs and the American Dream - Huffington Post
College Costs and the American Dream
This piece further explores what I alluded to at the end of my previous post: if the US hopes to have a strong economic future, we need to get college costs in check.
Students now are questioning whether it is worth it to spend time pursuing a post-secondary education (remember our project from the beginning of the year?).
This means that some students, and predictably more, will no longer be looking for jobs which advance our economy through innovation, but rather will take basic jobs which don't provide our nation with much potential for growth. If this becomes a large enough trend, our future will be in serious trouble.
The article has a great graph which compares the rising costs of things compared to college costs like healthcare and the CPI. Shockingly, while healthcare costs have risen by 300% since 1982 and receive a huge amount of publicity and focus, college costs have gone up 570%.
Who can blame students for giving the whole college thing a second thought?
Plus, there's this statistic: "65 percent of U.S. jobs will require some form of post secondary education by 2020."
That's almost 3/4 of the jobs in the entire nation. If individuals don't have the skills to fill these positions, where will be as a nation?
While I may explore solutions in another post, I am not completely sure what should be done to deal with the rising costs and the insane debt students are taking on. I just hope it's a problem we will seriously address as a nation as soon as possible.
What do you guys think? Is this a serious and far-reaching issue? Or is this just a trend that won't have much of an effect?
This piece further explores what I alluded to at the end of my previous post: if the US hopes to have a strong economic future, we need to get college costs in check.
Students now are questioning whether it is worth it to spend time pursuing a post-secondary education (remember our project from the beginning of the year?).
This means that some students, and predictably more, will no longer be looking for jobs which advance our economy through innovation, but rather will take basic jobs which don't provide our nation with much potential for growth. If this becomes a large enough trend, our future will be in serious trouble.
The article has a great graph which compares the rising costs of things compared to college costs like healthcare and the CPI. Shockingly, while healthcare costs have risen by 300% since 1982 and receive a huge amount of publicity and focus, college costs have gone up 570%.
Who can blame students for giving the whole college thing a second thought?
Plus, there's this statistic: "65 percent of U.S. jobs will require some form of post secondary education by 2020."
That's almost 3/4 of the jobs in the entire nation. If individuals don't have the skills to fill these positions, where will be as a nation?
While I may explore solutions in another post, I am not completely sure what should be done to deal with the rising costs and the insane debt students are taking on. I just hope it's a problem we will seriously address as a nation as soon as possible.
What do you guys think? Is this a serious and far-reaching issue? Or is this just a trend that won't have much of an effect?
How Much Did College Costs Increase After Recession? - The Wall Street Journal
How Much Did College Costs Increase After Recession?
The article overviews a report released by the Dept. of Education which examine how much college costs have risen since the Recession. Generally, the costs have increased for both public and private schools. However, it's interesting to note that while the net cost of a public education increased by an average of $1,100 from 2007/08 to 2011/12, the average increase in the net cost of a private education during the same time period was only $200 (when adjusted for inflation).
However, the truly troubling statistic in the article is that 50% of the nation's colleges and universities are not making enough money in revenue to counter rising inflation. And so the question is, how will this affect the students?
Basically, there are only a few possibilities:
A) Institutions charge more, which hurts the student by costing them more out-of-pocket or increasing their student loan debts (which has nationally topped $1 trillion...)
B) Institutions cut costs by decreasing quality or the amount of services offered, which also hurts students, depending on what is cut.
There are other hypothetical ways which colleges could try to fight inflation. Perhaps schools would stop having school-sponsored housing? Maybe smaller colleges would join together in an effort to cut costs?
Whatever they decide to do, someone is going to lose out, whether the students, the institution, or the professors. The rising cost of a college education isn't just something that matters to college students. It will be an issue that greatly affects the economic health of our entire nation for many years to come.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
U.S. factories rebound, but Europe, China falter - 7 News (Australia) (originally from Reuters)
U.S. factories rebound, but Europe, China falter
Speaking of future predictions....
It looks like some numbers came out today indicating that Chinese export demand is slowing down, though still growing. In addition, China is on track to post it's lowest growth rate in 23 years, according to the article.
So why is this important?
These numbers are starting to indicate to the world (and to China) that perhaps the armor is not without its cracks. It wouldn't be too crazy to guess that China knew about these numbers a few days ago, which inspired some of the action taken at the forum on economic reform.
This is by no means a harbinger of doom. Rather, numbers like these simply increase the volume of the little voice inside economists' heads that keeps trying to whisper, "But what if...?"
Ah yes, "if." The least beloved uncertainty in the English language.
So to make things interesting, my little blogger voice is asking "What would happen if China simply collapsed, right this second?"
To answer briefly, the effects would be completely devastating. The sheer amount of foreign investments that would be lost would be staggering, not to mention the disruption in the trade which is crucial to both the US and China's economy. I believe that at this point, we are so interconnected that anything faster than a slow motion decrease in activity from China could greatly threaten our economic recovery.
These numbers aren't necessarily worrying anyone yet, but they do point to the potential for stagnation.
What do you guys think? Is stagnation a legitimate problem that could hurt China? Or if you're feeling more creative, what would happen if China simply collapsed?
Speaking of future predictions....
It looks like some numbers came out today indicating that Chinese export demand is slowing down, though still growing. In addition, China is on track to post it's lowest growth rate in 23 years, according to the article.
So why is this important?
These numbers are starting to indicate to the world (and to China) that perhaps the armor is not without its cracks. It wouldn't be too crazy to guess that China knew about these numbers a few days ago, which inspired some of the action taken at the forum on economic reform.
This is by no means a harbinger of doom. Rather, numbers like these simply increase the volume of the little voice inside economists' heads that keeps trying to whisper, "But what if...?"
Ah yes, "if." The least beloved uncertainty in the English language.
So to make things interesting, my little blogger voice is asking "What would happen if China simply collapsed, right this second?"
To answer briefly, the effects would be completely devastating. The sheer amount of foreign investments that would be lost would be staggering, not to mention the disruption in the trade which is crucial to both the US and China's economy. I believe that at this point, we are so interconnected that anything faster than a slow motion decrease in activity from China could greatly threaten our economic recovery.
These numbers aren't necessarily worrying anyone yet, but they do point to the potential for stagnation.
What do you guys think? Is stagnation a legitimate problem that could hurt China? Or if you're feeling more creative, what would happen if China simply collapsed?
Monday, November 18, 2013
China’s economic reforms: What you need to know - CNBC
China’s economic reforms: What you need to know
The article outlines 5 of the major reforms made by China last week at their economic summit. The changes are being interpreted by analysts as being very substantial.
One of my previous posts said that China was facing many issues, which is still true. However, I think we should be worried by some of the reforms because of their likelihood of greatly enhancing China's economic position.
Basically the reforms are designed to gradually encourage increased private investment and economic activity. The reforms also fix problems with welfare and land owning while supposedly helping to modernize and liberalize the labor force.
When reading about the reforms, I can see how the plan would help China. We shouldn't forget that China is the second-largest economy and has the greatest number of people. Gradually transforming this population into a consumption-based society will generate great wealth for individuals as well as the government (which undoubtedly will continue taking percentages of profit from State-owned enterprises).
Another striking fact is the appearance of political unity. Because of their strict censoring, we would have no idea if different factions in China have different ideas or oppose certain aspects of the reforms. It is just such a marked difference from the globally-broadcast squabbles of the US government. I obviously don't want censorship, but I wish there was some magic way to keep our secrets and disagreements... secret.
Part of me fears the seemingly inevitable future in which China surpasses us as the greatest economy. Yet another part of me questions how long things can last for them. With so many people, and such tight control (no matter how gradually you loosen it), it begs the question if things will eventually burst, and if so, what the result of that will be.
What do you guys think? Is this tendency towards reform indicative of a future where China outpaces the US? Or do you think something is bound to go wrong? Post your thoughts below.
The article outlines 5 of the major reforms made by China last week at their economic summit. The changes are being interpreted by analysts as being very substantial.
One of my previous posts said that China was facing many issues, which is still true. However, I think we should be worried by some of the reforms because of their likelihood of greatly enhancing China's economic position.
Basically the reforms are designed to gradually encourage increased private investment and economic activity. The reforms also fix problems with welfare and land owning while supposedly helping to modernize and liberalize the labor force.
When reading about the reforms, I can see how the plan would help China. We shouldn't forget that China is the second-largest economy and has the greatest number of people. Gradually transforming this population into a consumption-based society will generate great wealth for individuals as well as the government (which undoubtedly will continue taking percentages of profit from State-owned enterprises).
Another striking fact is the appearance of political unity. Because of their strict censoring, we would have no idea if different factions in China have different ideas or oppose certain aspects of the reforms. It is just such a marked difference from the globally-broadcast squabbles of the US government. I obviously don't want censorship, but I wish there was some magic way to keep our secrets and disagreements... secret.
Part of me fears the seemingly inevitable future in which China surpasses us as the greatest economy. Yet another part of me questions how long things can last for them. With so many people, and such tight control (no matter how gradually you loosen it), it begs the question if things will eventually burst, and if so, what the result of that will be.
What do you guys think? Is this tendency towards reform indicative of a future where China outpaces the US? Or do you think something is bound to go wrong? Post your thoughts below.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
US Trade Deficit Widens Slightly to $38.8 Billion - ABC News
US Trade Deficit Widens Slightly to $38.8 Billion
This article is great for a very to-the-point analysis of how our trade deficit with China is doing, and for providing many specific figures.
A trade deficit is when a nation (like the US) is importing more from a certain country (like China) than it is exporting to that same country.
Trade deficits can be harmful because they can give one side an advantage over the other. This is because the nation that is importing is left very vulnerable. For example, if we suddenly could not trade with China, we would be hurt more because we are more dependent on them than they are on us.
While the article discusses how the gap actually widened a bit in August (though only by $0.2 billion), the overall deficit is down 10.8% from last year's. This is a great sign because it indicates that American companies are making more money on their exports to China.
Personally, I think we can do even better. I believe that one way to curb the growing power of China is to slowly close the trade deficit. That way, either by increasing their dependence or decreasing ours (preferable), we will be protected if things go badly. Plus, increased mutual dependence can increase the likelihood of stability in our relations.
However, trade deficits aren't always a bad thing. As a consumer nation, having a trade deficit simply reflects the nature of our current economy which focuses on the sale of goods and services rather than the production of them. Trade deficits with certain regions also may imply we are maximizing efficiency by focusing on regions in which we can make the greatest profit.
What do you think? Should we always try to eliminate trade deficits? Do you think closing the trade gap with China is important? Thoughts appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)