Timeline for Why has the time spent studying declined so sharply in the United States over the the past few decades?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2016 at 21:49 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | @TT_ I'm no budgeting expert but it seems to me that we could sacrifice a few billion-dollar tanks and jets to help the future of our country (students/young adults) instead of trying to militaristically preserve its current state. Of course there's a lot of politics in the budget but seriously, the U.S. has its priorities backward. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 21:45 | comment | added | TT_ stands with Russia | +1 for "...it seems to me that cutting our $600 billion military budget by $50 billion to add to our currently $70 billion education budget would immediately solve a lot of problems..." - and not only in education! | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 21:26 | comment | added | Drew | Such bickering about giving students low-interest loans and griping about paying taxes! In the rest of the developed world, higher education, at all levels, is essentially free. For everyone. And by "free" I do mean, yes, that the people as a whole pay for it, through taxes. (And the rest of the developed world does not have a New Guilded Age tax system skewed in favor of the wealthy.) America is short-sighted when it comes to educating its people, just as it is for so much else. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 20:06 | comment | added | reirab | I would note that 'America' can't really be generalized quite this far. In my state, the qualifications to get scholarships that cover nearly all of tuition are absurdly low. When I was in undergrad (2004-2008,) the qualifications to get a (state-funded) scholarship that paid 3/4 of tuition were the same as the qualifications for admission at the state university I attended. This (predictably) resulted in tons of people going to university to party for a year on the state's dime and then flunking out. About 40% of students were gone before the 2nd year. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 19:31 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | @DoubleDouble I think we can all agree that the public education system needs some work in general. The best we can do is raise the pertinent concerns (as I have in my answer) and make them visible to the people who have the power to make changes (e.g. federal and state officials, university administrators, famous economists, researchers, etc.) If nobody knows the struggle and there's no research to back it up, nothing will change. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 18:45 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | I suppose another outlook could be, "why do so many people attempt college and fail? - which drives up the cost for everyone who attempts" - Which could be creating a source of pressure, from society, for college to be "more easily achievable", so more people can graduate, so that it "costs less" - (because after graduating they can pay back their loans), but in actuality, making it "more achievable" means people can be paid less after graduation - because the degree means less and there are more people with them. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | DoubleDouble |
@ToddWilcox Just because private loans (which make money) decide to have 20% interest (as an exaggeration) doesn't mean the difference is money the government is "giving" you - the government could just be "breaking even" rather than "earning" money, with the interest rate covering the people who are unable to pay their loans (though I know that is not true - we are getting some amount or taxes wouldn't be there). You make a good point that the students do get something - but I do think it's less than (private loans) - (federal loans)
|
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 18:04 | comment | added | Alexander Woo | @James - Most public universities are already taking in so little money that they are forced to provide a substandard education. There is no way to lower tuition fees without either raising direct government aid to universities (which raises taxes just as much as financial aid to students) or doing as European universities (which are even more severely underfunded) do and failing half the students. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 17:56 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @ChrisCirefice I assumed you were talking about Federal loans, which have a favorable interest rate. If your total interest is really $15,000 over ten years, then you are probably looking at a rate of between 6% and 7%. At the federal rate of 4.66%, your total interest would be about $10,000. That $5,000 difference is what I meant you would be "getting", although of course you're actually not losing it. But with a federal loan you would be getting value of the education and the ability to finance it for $5,000 less than "normal", which from a certain point of view is the government giving $5k. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 17:48 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | @ToddWilcox Add that up over 4 years for a typical college student, 6 years in my case because I have 2 majors and a minor, and you have a huge sum of debt. Now, add the interest over a typical 10-year repayment and it's at $40k in principal but about $15,000 in interest. So no, it's not "a little bit of something for nothing". It's bad economics putting a huge financial burden on young adults who need college in order to get a decent salary, and who now have to work to minimize the penalties they have to pay for doing so. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 17:42 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @ChrisCirefice While the $10,500 is a loan, the interest rate is low enough that in the grand scheme of economics and financial management, you are getting a little bit of something for nothing. But even from that point of view, what you're getting is far less than $10,500. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 17:32 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | I had (basically) the same experience during my tuition. To go off what @James said, increased loan amounts would not have made me work less. So long as I was passing my classes, I would have put all my other time into working still - so I have less debt when I am finished. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 16:48 | history | edited | Chris Cirefice | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Additional information regarding financial aid and budgeting
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 15:41 | comment | added | Chris Cirefice | @James Thank you, and valid point - the financial aid is obviously helpful, but the tax money you (and I) pay could be better spent toward education, reducing tuition costs and eliminating the need for such a large sum of financial aid. And, I guess I'm not an economist so it's probably more complicated that that - but, the $10,500 out of the $12,000 I mentioned is purely loans. I'm borrowing from the federal government, not receiving actual aid. That's just the maximum I can borrow per year, otherwise I would borrow $18,000 and not work so I could focus on school :) | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 15:08 | comment | added | James | Chris, I am impressed with your full time studies while working 30-40 hours per week. Your story gives me hope for the future. However, I don't like your attitude towards the $12,000 per year in aid. I'm in the phase of life where I'm paying quite a bit of taxes. Part of that is going into grants and high-risk loans provided to students. You might want to remove the "zero financial support" from your first sentence. Instead of implying that financial aid should be raised, perhaps you should campaign for lower tuition fees. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 2:16 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | Even though this is anecdotal, and the original statistic in the question seems poorly supported, I wouldn't be surprised if this were quite common. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 9:12 | history | answered | Chris Cirefice | CC BY-SA 3.0 |