Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

By making loans readily available.

I mean... just look at this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-50-most-expensive-us-colleges/8/

How is any of that sustainable w/o Uncle Sam keeping the $$$ spigot open?

its odd, in a supply demand economy,

one would think that the cost of a degree would go down as more people paid tuition, and more people were crammed into each class room.

what we have seen is an increase in graduates, and increase in class sizes, an increase in tuition, and a decrease in the value of the degrees.

I would agree, the government is to blame, all forms of credit have had their regulation destroyed, and the rules changed to benifit a very small group of people....

the simple answer, is that the system is rediculously corrupt and self serving to a very small # of people.

Because colleges know that someone will pay that? Let's be real, people needing government student loans are probably not the ones going to $55,000+ colleges. FAFSA just doesn't cover that much.

They actually have a calculator to show how much money you can get. Just for fun, I estimated a fresh from high school kid, both parents totalling $150,000 a year. (Middle class). Loan amount was $5,500 a semester.

You want the culprit? Look to the banks (as usual) lending money to students they know will never be able to repay them. They were, after all, the ones that lobbied hardest to get student loans in the "chase you to your grave" category.

Yeah... the school I graduated from (University of Missouri - St. Louis)...

Is a state school that NOW costs an average of 10 grand per year. That's before books, fees and room/board.

Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

toilet paper?


I mean, in the end, no one *has* to bite into the poop sandwich that is our current post 2ndary system...

makes me gladder and gladder every year that I dropped out of university, despite good grades, and went to more practical, and cheaper, schools.

school of hard knocks is still the best, and still the cheapest!

 easysauce wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

toilet paper?


I mean, in the end, no one *has* to bite into the poop sandwich that is our current post 2ndary system...

makes me gladder and gladder every year that I dropped out of university, despite good grades, and went to more practical, and cheaper, schools.

school of hard knocks is still the best, and still the cheapest!

In principle, I agree with you. In reality, there are so many people job hunting with degrees that not having a degree can easily be argued as a setback.

That said, I'm still with Mike Rowe that we should be pushing trade schools as hard as colleges. There's a reason it costs $150 just to have a plumber come to your house.

 whembly wrote:

Is a state school that NOW costs an average of 10 grand per year. That's before books, fees and room/board.

Yep, for instance, a bloke I just played rugby against last weekend was a "phenominal" scrum half out in Idaho. He went to all the U-19 tournaments and was heavily recruited, but needed a scholarship to attend school and play rugby. So, he finally gets an offer from one school up here in Washington. They offer to pay his tuition and books, but he has to cover dorms. It's not until he's a week into his first block of classes that they tell him it's 5k per TERM for student housing in the dorms. So he heads home. Another year goes by, and he gets seen again, this time by Life University, who offers him a FULL RIDE. So now, he's able to get an "education" (really, Life only pretty much has one program: chiropractor) and play rugby, without incurring debt.



Seriously, how is communal housing like college dorms, worth $5,000 in a middle of nowhere town? Especially when you figure most terms are 2-3 months long.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

And you would be wrong. I selected text books that I'd used at another institution for similar courses because they are better than the ones that the school was using, and the school ordered those text books for my classes. Syllabus is 100% my design, as is the text book selection.

And if the school were not willing or able to order them you would have had to make do. Meaning you were limited by availability, even if you didn't realize it. This happens all the time, even to people that openly call themselves professors.

Not that it matters, because anyone worth their salt doesn't buy books in college. After all the internet, libraries, and lectures exist.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

There is no "professor" for this course - it's just me.

Then you are the professor (you don't need a doctorate to be a professor) but, like other professors, your textbook selections are limited.

 streamdragon wrote:
Because colleges know that someone will pay that? Let's be real, people needing government student loans are probably not the ones going to $55,000+ colleges. FAFSA just doesn't cover that much.

Very few people pay full tuition at those institutions. The institution generally covers a large portion of the tuition on their own.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

I've always seen people refer to the person teaching a college level course at a college as professor. The definition when I looked it up just said "scholarly teacher" as well as "teacher", so not sure why you are getting your panties in a bunch over it, unless the class you are teaching is "Panty Bunching 101".

Also pretending you are the only person who has ever had a job teaching at a college is a bit silly. Getting angry about it is even sillier.

Feel free to interchange college and university freely.

"Professor" is the generic form of address for anyone teaching at my College. There is even a little section in the standards of student behavior(proper terms of address for your teacher)

 Ahtman wrote:
I've always seen people refer to the person teaching a college level course at a college as professor. The definition when I looked it up just said "scholarly teacher" as well as "teacher", so not sure why you are getting your panties in a bunch over it, unless the class you are teaching is "Panty Bunching 101".

Also pretending you are the only person who has ever had a job teaching at a college is a bit silly. Getting angry about it is even sillier.

Feel free to interchange college and university freely.

Is this antagonistic reply going to require a mod edit, or should we expect hypocrisy? Not really sure what the problem is - if someone is wrong, I expect him to say "I'm wrong." Calling someone on posting absurd replies isn't being impolite - it's merely a response to frustrating density.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Professor" is the generic form of address for anyone teaching at my College. There is even a little section in the standards of student behavior(proper terms of address for your teacher)

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[ Calling someone on posting absurd replies isn't being impolite -

It is if you do it in a way that is impolite.

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

Clearly this is not universally the case, as Nuggz has pointed out.

I know from previous co-workers that, even if you have a doctorate, you won't be called "Doctor" in Mexico unless you are a "heal people" type of doctor (so an MD, or whatever additional letters you can get with the MD)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

Are you gaking me?

By making student loans completely non-dischargable in 2003 and then becoming one of the largest lenders......

And then telling everyone they need to go to college?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How did the government create this problem then?

Are you gaking me?

By making student loans completely non-dischargable in 2003 and then becoming one of the largest lenders......

And then telling everyone they need to go to college?

There weren't any changes made to student loans in 2003 - it happened much earlier, 1976. The change I assume you are referring to is the protection granted to private loans, which previously were dischargeable, and that was in 2005.

I'm not sure "the government" told anyone they needed to go to college, let alone everyone.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Here "professor" refers to a tenure track faculty member. We have plenty of instructors who are not faculty members.

Research and visiting Professors are not on the tenure track, and in the latter case are not faculty. But they are still Professors.

"Professor" is an amorphous term even if we confine ourselves to the capitalized meaning, which I've only just now used.

Clearly this is not universally the case, as Nuggz has pointed out.

Except that the original statement wasn't about how it used in that one location, but a trenchant "this is never how it is used" sort of display, which is not accurate. Later it was changed to "well we never do it in this one particular institution". I also really doubt it is nearly as intractable as he is presenting even there, unless it is somewhere that is incredibly cloistered.

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

You qualify for low-end jobs like being a manager at a fast food restaurant. The problem is that it has become the default for anyone from a family making over a certain amount of money to go to college if at all possible. It doesn't matter if you have any practical use for the degree, you're supposed to do it because that's just what you do. And people will assume that if you don't get a college degree of some kind it means you're the kind of hopeless idiot that couldn't even meet the bare minimum academic standards at a low-tier school. So unless you choose a practical science/engineering/law/etc major you pretty much just pick something you're interested in studying for a few years and hope for the best once you graduate.

The focus should really be "everybody should pursue career training" after high school and not "everybody should go to college". "Career training" would include college for many people, but it might help keep our society from continuing to marginalize the traditional trades.

Nobody should have a plan of "I will just work at McDs after high school", but "I'm going to get my certification and licensing in HVAC technology" shouldn't be any less of a goal than "I'm going to college".

 streamdragon wrote:
Goodness, going back over that list I think what is most startling is the number of liberal arts colleges on that list. What do you even do with a liberal arts degree?

A degree from a liberal arts college is not the same thing as a liberal arts degree. Liberal arts colleges generally grant B.A.s and B.S.s in whatever your chosen major(s) happen to be. Occasionally that major is "liberal arts", but that doesn't happen often because, as you've recognized, they don't lead anywhere.

 d-usa wrote:
The focus should really be "everybody should pursue career training" after high school and not "everybody should go to college". "Career training" would include college for many people, but it might help keep our society from continuing to marginalize the traditional trades.

That is the focus. I went to college and chose my topics of study because I wanted to be a lawyer. I didn't end up as a lawyer, though I may yet, but my focus was always on my career and earning money. Same for almost everyone I knew in high school.

People ignore the trades because, lets be honest, they suck on a physical level. And spending your life plying a trade doesn't leave you many places to go when your back, knees, or shoulders start to give out.

 Ouze wrote:


There weren't any changes made to student loans in 2003 - it happened much earlier, 1976. The change I assume you are referring to is the protection granted to private loans, which previously were dischargeable, and that was in 2005.

I'm not sure "the government" told anyone they needed to go to college, let alone everyone.

You're right. It was 2005. I mistyped.

The legislation in 76' only got the ball rolling. The nail was effectively put in the coffin in 2005. You could still get loans discharged.

And I disagree on the 2nd part.

There is a heavy push in High School to get their kids to go to college. Schools are incentivized to produce college freshmen as it makes them look good and get more funding.

You always see signs in schools pushing for college. No signs saying Welders/Plumbers/Construction Workers/etc... make a bunch of money.

 d-usa wrote:

Nobody should have a plan of "I will just work at McDs after high school", but "I'm going to get my certification and licensing in HVAC technology" shouldn't be any less of a goal than "I'm going to college".

Exactly.

The problem is reaching those kids because lots of them (and their parents) either don't know anything about the trades or have a misunderstanding of the benefits in learning one.

 dogma wrote:

People ignore the trades because, lets be honest, they suck on a physical level. And spending your life plying a trade doesn't leave you many places to go when your back, knees, or shoulders start to give out.

Lots of people would take the physicality of a trade over sitting behind a desk all day, myself included. I've done both, and a good day in the latter sucks harder than my worse day in the former.

Not all trades are physically challenging exercises that degrade your body though, and even within those trades there are plenty of specialties that aren't physically demanding either (my trade is one of the better examples of this). But yeah, being a concrete worker or a rodbuster your entire life can ruin your body, but taking care of yourself (both at home and at work) can help offset most of the damage done.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Lots of people would take the physicality of a trade over sitting behind a desk all day, myself included. I've done both, and a good day in the latter sucks harder than my worse day in the former.

Sure, so would I, in fact that's a large part of why I spend so much time in the gym and play rugby. But I'm a fit 28 year old, and neither of those tasks are necessary for me to continue earning money. By comparison a person who spends their life plumbing will have significant issues when their body starts to go and their experience doesn't transfer to a more sedentary position.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Not all trades are physically challenging exercises that degrade your body though, and even within those trades there are plenty of specialties that aren't physically demanding either (my trade is one of the better examples of this).

What is your trade, and what do you consider to be physically demanding?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

But yeah, being a concrete worker or a rodbuster your entire life can ruin your body, but taking care of yourself (both at home and at work) can help offset most of the damage done.

Help offset, but not eliminate. Wear and tear occur regardless of attempts to mitigate them, and if you work in a field which requires you to be physically robust, then you're going to run into problems down the line.

Scooty's a pipefitter.

My dad was a roofer his whole life, and it's a physically demanding trade, fraught with injuries and no health insurance. Looking back at how he went, I definitely am glad I went into IT.

 dogma wrote:
What is your trade, and what do you consider to be physically demanding?

I'm a steamfitter.

Most construction jobs are physically demanding, but what I am trying to explain is this: trade work =/= excessive physicality

Within nearly all trades are varying levels of physically demanding work but people often don't realize that because of the stereotype that trade skills carry today: dimwitted macho guys that only know how to bang on things with hammers or turn wrenches. While those people certainly exist, modern trades require much more than that. A chiller mechanic in my local doesn't really need those skills as working on a 500 ton centrifugal chiller doesn't call for it, they do a lot of their work on a computer. Even your run of the mill residential HVAC mechanic spends most of their time not busting their ass since a vast majority of the work they perform is troubleshooting and electrical repair, neither of which are physically demanding. Changing out an air handler or a condenser can be tough, but with the prevalence of tools designed to make that job easier today, it's pretty easy. Electricians are the same, and so are plumbers, and sheet metal workers, and sprinklerfitters, and so on. Remember, gakky jobs in the trades still exist, but they are much more diverse than that.

Sure, so would I, in fact that's a large part of why I spend so much time in the gym and play rugby. But I'm a fit 28 year old, and neither of those tasks are necessary for me to continue earning money. By comparison a person who spends their life plumbing will have significant issues when their body starts to go and their experience doesn't transfer to a more sedentary position.

Help offset, but not eliminate. Wear and tear occur regardless of attempts to mitigate them, and if you work in a field which requires you to be physically robust, then you're going to run into problems down the line.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I know lots of old plumbers and steamfitters and plenty of them are in poor shape. However, it is important to remember that they didn't practice the same work habits that we are taught now. The times have very much changed.

For instance, after my grandfather left the Navy when WWII ended (he was a Seabee), he became a plumber for Local 5 in Washington, DC. In those days, tubs were cast iron and put in place by hand and your pipes were cut with a cold chisel and all joints were lead and oakum. It was hard job and his body paid the price (however, he did go run the largest plumbing company in the Metro area later in his life). When my dad and his brothers came up, it wasn't quite as punishing as it was for their father, but they didn't have the conveniences that I have enjoyed in my career; my father drilled holes in concrete by hand with a star bit, there were no band saws for cutting material, and rod for hangers was hand threaded out of rolling stock. Knee pads, safety glasses, and other now-common PPE was hardly seen. In other words, it sucked pretty hard.

We've learned lessons from the men and women that came before us when it comes to what we should and shouldn't do on the jobsite. Things are mechanized today like no other time before, and combined with the better work practices that are taught now, most people won't end up like the old school guys did.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I know lots of old plumbers and steamfitters and plenty of them are in poor shape. However, it is important to remember that they didn't practice the same work habits that we are taught now. The times have very much changed.

If you want to advance trade education, that is the message that should be sent. As it stands you get people like Mike Rowe patting people who do dirty jobs on the head, which doesn't motivate anyone to pursue any trade as it often reinforces the notion that trade work sucks.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Within nearly all trades are varying levels of physically demanding work but people often don't realize that because of the stereotype that trade skills carry today: dimwitted macho guys that only know how to bang on things with hammers or turn wrenches. While those people certainly exist, modern trades require much more than that.

I think it has more to do with a lack of knowledge of the trade, and a lack of knowledge regarding what a trade is.

 dogma wrote:

If you want to advance trade education, that is the message that should be sent. As it stands you get people like Mike Rowe patting people who do dirty jobs on the head, which doesn't motivate anyone to pursue any trade as it often reinforces the notion that trade work sucks.

Yes, and if you go back and read some of the input I've had on this thread, you'll see that I do/did exactly that. I'm part of a high school outreach in Loudoun County that puts on a "Trade Night" for high school kids and their parents to inform them on what the trades are really about and what you can accomplish by learning one. I've also visited other schools in other counties to get the message out that the modern tradesmen isn't the old stereotype people think it is. On top of being a general foreman for the largest contractor in the DC area, I was also a teacher at our apprentice school where I taught first year apprentices the basics of our trade. Unfortunately, I had to leave after five years of teaching because I took a job that conflicted with teaching.

I think it has more to do with a lack of knowledge of the trade, and a lack of knowledge regarding what a trade is.

That is part of it yes, but plenty of people still see tradesmen as the stereotype I described, especially in more affluent areas. It definitely doesn't help that they have no knowledge about trades either, so when you combine that with the stereotype, it's easy to see why people don't get excited about learning a trade skill.

When you say "plumber," people think of either a scruffy looking fat guy face-down in a toilet with his butt crack hanging out of his jeans or Mario. Hell, I've seen more than one person in the OT expressing the sentiment of "join a trade because you aren't smart enough for college."