Troubles at Mizzou

[SpoonDog]

18 hours ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Actually in my family we paid for it out our pockets as we went.  Or the companies we worked for paid for it.  I'm paying for my daughters now.  At least the portion she didn't get as a scholarship.

Absolutely!  No one's arguing with that. When the state met its financial obligations to fund higher education, you could pay tuition and expenses out of pocket. As the state has failed to meet its financial obligations to fund higher education, students have to rely on family members, scholarships, and student loans. 

[Flysmallie]

3 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

 students have to rely on family members, scholarships, and student loans. 

That's how I did it. It's how my wife did it. It's how my oldest daughter did it. It's how my middle daughter is currently doing it. I see nothing wrong with paying for your own education. Where we have made mistakes is pressuring every kid into believing that they need a degree from a university. Tne you get kids going to school that have no idea why they are there or what they want to be. Anybody that runs up a 100K bill for education wasn't intelligent enough to be in college in the first place. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

38 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

Absolutely!  No one's arguing with that. When the state met its financial obligations to fund higher education, you could pay tuition and expenses out of pocket. As the state has failed to meet its financial obligations to fund higher education, students have to rely on family members, scholarships, and student loans. 

Hey Spoondog,

Clearly this is more important to you than it is to me.  I wish you well.

SIO3

[Smalliebigs]

3 hours ago, dblades said:

Not necessarily, I know a guy that owes a massive student loan debt, in the 100's of thousands. Rather than get a job in his field where he'd have to make payments, he works a low level job making less money but gets to keep it all.

sorry but, I don't buy that one......you still owe on the loans, you may get to defer the loan out in some cases. You still owe on the loans.....that sounds like a fishing story to me

[jpb2187]

26 minutes ago, Smalliebigs said:

sorry but, I don't buy that one......you still owe on the loans, you may get to defer the loan out in some cases. You still owe on the loans.....that sounds like a fishing story to me

IBR... Income based repayment on federal Loans. Have an auto-forgiveness feature built in for all loans after 25 years. But, the forgiven amount is treated as taxable income when forgiven. The period lowers to 10 years if taking a job in public service. 

Theoretically, you can rack up a huge loan balance, do state social work and and have the balance forgiven after 10 years since you make peanuts. Reminds me a of one of my sisters friends who did undergrad at Loyola U Chicago and then got a Masters of Social Work at Wash U. I don't even want to know what her loan total is. Makes no sense to me why you would pay $30K+ a year to learn to do social work and then make jack shoot when you get out. 

Also, seems real "socially aware" to run up a big balance on a loan to get the taxpayers to foot the bill when forgiven... instead of fed monies that could be spent helping people who need the money, they're used to pay off your dumb@zz decision. 

[Flysmallie]

If only education would get the same support as college sports. 

[SpoonDog]

At least at Mizzou, sports revenue is typically higher than expenditures, or at least breaks even.  That's not the case at lots of universities, which sometimes have to subsidize athletics programs to a staggering degree.  Then again, a couple losing seasons can swing freshman enrollment pretty significantly.  As long as students are deciding a school based on the football team, universities will keep making those athletic programs a priority. 

[Flysmallie]

I'm not just talking the schools. There is a lot of money made off of college sports. Money that the schools nor the athletes are entitled to. It's the reason I'm not a college sports fan. 

[SpoonDog]

2 hours ago, Flysmallie said:

That's how I did it. It's how my wife did it. It's how my oldest daughter did it. It's how my middle daughter is currently doing it. I see nothing wrong with paying for your own education. Where we have made mistakes is pressuring every kid into believing that they need a degree from a university. Tne you get kids going to school that have no idea why they are there or what they want to be. Anybody that runs up a 100K bill for education wasn't intelligent enough to be in college in the first place. 

I don't know how else to say this- if you went to school before 2000, whatever you and your wife's tuition was, it was subsidized by the state.  Today that subsidy is a fraction of what it was.  Today's students aren't asking for more resources, but rather the same resources their parents had.  If that's an unreasonable expectation, your generation shouldn't have set it as the benchmark.  Why shouldn't today's students have the same advantages your parents conferred to you?

I'm glad your kids can make college work on minimum wage, without assistance from parents or scholarships or student loans.  Not everyone is that lucky.  I worked through college, had scholarships, but a lot of the funding came from the death benefits of a loved one.  One of my employees graduated with a 2.7 GPA because his parents were poor and he had to work a 40 hr/week on top of classes to afford a public university.  On paper he shouldn't have his position, but because of his experience and his work ethic he's an exceptional employee. 

But you're drawing a relationship between intelligence and wealth that doesn't actually exist, our current executive covfefe that in spades.  Taking out a 50K or 100K loan doesn't mean you're unintelligent or unmotivated, and every student I've met who's had to go that route has been absolutely terrified at the prospect of failure.  All it means is you need to take out a 50K or a 100K loan in order to afford college. If anything it means you're extraordinarily motivated: you're pinning your entire future on graduating, and I've had students whose families have literally bet the farm in order to keep their kids in school.  It shouldn't have to be that way. 

Ten times out of ten I'd rather hire an intelligent person from a poor background (like my current employee) than a dumb person from a wealthy background.  When you price college beyond the means of poor folks, you lose that option.  The American Dream is predicated on the idea that you can begin at a low station in life and work your way up, the current education system doesn't accomplish that.  I fully, 100% agree not everyone is cut out for college.  But everyone should have the opportunity to go to college.  Ten times out of ten I'd rather have the roofer who can't cut it take a semester or two of classes, then the roofer who's a brilliant chemist miss out entirely.  To me, the latter's the greater loss.

To me the barrier shouldn't be the price tag, it should be merit- who's the smartest and who's worked the hardest.  As an educational institution, to me universities should be merit-based, not wealth-based.  But that'll be decided by society.  And if we're gonna pick the latter over the former, we ought to be honest about it. 

[SpoonDog]

2 hours ago, Flysmallie said:

I'm not just talking the schools. There is a lot of money made off of college sports. Money that the schools nor the athletes are entitled to. It's the reason I'm not a college sports fan. 

I absolutely agree.  I dreaded teaching student athletes until I had to, and realized how much work they're putting in.  It's not unusual for a student athlete to be spending 60-80 hours a week in training and practice, outside of courses and studying.  Many times they're the first person in their family to be in college, and if they aren't above a 2.7, 3.0, whatever- it can all be pulled out from under them.