|
Post by brother on Dec 18, 2022 22:44:50 GMT -6
So, do you believe that if the state of Alabama eliminated all support for JSU that tuition would go down? Not now. Like a giant house of cards it'd collapse, but this fragile structure was and is caused by this same govt dependence. More so the federal money than the state. I think without a doubt the explosion of federal dollars has driven the cost of education beyond reason. To the point that most will question whether it was worth it. When I started my education tuition was 350 a semester and about 100 for books. When I entered grad school it was 1000 a semester and about 250 to 300 for books. 87-95 How much is it now? We must be about the same age because that was my tuition also. However, we had a larger percentage of the budget funded by federal and state than we do now. You can't claim that government money is the cause of the tuition increase if we had a greater percentage of government money then. Government money is not the problem but runaway costs definitely are. I am forever grateful that I got an education at JSU. It kept me out of a lifetime in the pipe shops. I do agree though that the cost of a college degree has risen to the point that it is questionable that it is worth it now.
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Dec 18, 2022 23:21:55 GMT -6
I'd proffer a guess that 80-90% of those attending JSU and every other state college receives Pell grants and student loans all govt funding of an ever increasing amount, beginning at least when I got there.
That is a education system almost entirely funded by govt funds. Causing runaway costs. There is no pressure to control costs when all that is needed is to raise tuition and the govt will pay.
20 years ago my father in law needed a wheelchair which medicare would pay for one. It costed 11k back then. You literally could buy a small truck for that. Why? Because the govt would pay it. This is what govt money does. Whenever they are paying the price goes up. After all it's free money. A few years back obama wanted to subsidize health insurance. I was paying 400 per month for a decent BCBS policy that same policy now is 1200 per month. That 14,400 a year from 4800. Thank you Obamacare. It wasn't run away cost it was runaway govt money. History bears it out. Add govt dollars and cost runs away.
|
|
|
Post by gemofthehills on Dec 19, 2022 7:57:38 GMT -6
"Cost" is the key word. The cost under government education would not necessarily be lower just the payments come in many different directions. Under the current system several are paying who will never attend higher ed.
Never been to involved in private ed so its hard to speak to that subject. Normally competition makes the cost come down but some things gain perceived value with a higher cost so who know which structure would work best for a private business. BSC is an example privates are not always the best model and Im sure we can find a public which would show its not always the best model.
Slim is right in most operations the management costs are the ones which get out of line the most often.
Publics have to work with the issue of BOT who are appointed by the Gov in Alabama. Normally chosen because of donations not ability, which can lead to having leadership who arent capable or have a deep understanding of the institution.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Dec 19, 2022 11:03:46 GMT -6
The answer to the skyrocketing cost of attending a (public, state-funded) college is NOT to eliminate state funding. (Reduced state funding is part of what got us into this mess. I'll elaborate below.)
The answer is to put caps on grants and federally subsidized loans.
This is NOT what most people want to hear. "I would never have been able to attend college without grants and subsidized loans! My child would never have been able to attend either!"
You're preaching to the choir, man. Trust me.
And contrary to how this is often framed, this is not -- or should not -- be political. I'm politically to the right of many of you, if not most of you. I'm far to the right of the GOPe, to the point that I don't usually claim to be "Republican".
I say that only to point out that Del Marsh and people like him in the state government are the problem. Years ago, during a proration debate, Marsh himself said the available money should all go to K-JUCO, since higher ed students "can get loans and grants".
Yes, Mr. Marsh. Thank you for explaining the problem.
Alabama (and many other states) have been riding the federal grants and loans like it's free money, cutting funds to colleges and letting "students" make up the difference. Want to pay your administrators $300,000 annually? No problem! Just pay them! We'll just raise tuition! No worries about students who can't afford it -- "they can get loans and grants!"
Now... imagine Alabama attempted to cut the cord and be, I dunno, financially responsible. What happens then?
Money's tight. We have to cut back on some programs. Higher ed faculty will need to go without raises and possibly some other core benefits. Hey, it happens.
But that's NOT what would happen. Those faculty and administrators would simply move to another state which was still handing out free money. "I can get paid $100K more by moving to North Carolina! Later, losers!"
The genie is out of the bottle. Pandora's box has been opened.
Insert whatever other tired metaphor you'd like to use.
This isn't getting fixed unless it happens on a federal level, and that, my Gamecock friends, is not going to happen. It'd be political suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Dec 19, 2022 11:12:34 GMT -6
One more quick note: This impacts private colleges as much as public ones, since they're competing for the same pool of students, faculty, and administrators, not to mention pulling from the same slush fund of Pell Grants and federal loans.
The only colleges exempt from this are private, unaccredited schools, which cannot take part in most federal programs. These schools rapidly deteriorate into "diploma mills" since they cannot balance good facilities and faculty with affordable tuition. Most go under within 10 years, only to be replaced by another equally sketchy school. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by brother on Dec 19, 2022 18:13:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Dec 19, 2022 23:24:01 GMT -6
Waste of money.
I notice they need 150 to 200 million by 2026? And there is 1 faculty member per 10 students and 1 employee per 5 students. Now that's service.
|
|
|
Post by gemofthehills on Dec 20, 2022 6:11:43 GMT -6
Lets not take it any further down the political lines. Dont want to stop any discussion and it been civil and not very political.
|
|
|
Post by Cleburneslim on Dec 20, 2022 6:45:03 GMT -6
Like all politicians (both sides of the isle). I'm sure they figured out how to get the grease.
|
|
|
Post by Whup Em All on Dec 20, 2022 10:56:30 GMT -6
Like all politicians (both sides of the isle). I'm sure they figured out how to get the grease. This. All. Damn. Day. Long.
|
|
Powdered Soap
New Member
That's MR Soap to you, Sir/Ma'am.
Posts: 47
|
Post by Powdered Soap on Dec 27, 2022 9:39:59 GMT -6
The answer to the skyrocketing cost of attending a (public, state-funded) college is NOT to eliminate state funding. (Reduced state funding is part of what got us into this mess. I'll elaborate below.) The answer is to put caps on grants and federally subsidized loans. This. Easy government money has resulted in outrageously inflated costs in defense, housing, education, spaceflight and healthcare sectors. Probably others areas too, if I thought about it some more. Both of the main political affiliations in the USA share fault for this.
|
|