Somewhat related - when I was in college (2000-2004) a number of my peers applied for and received Food Stamps. We were attending a school that ran about $40,000/yr for room/board/all the necessaries. Very few of them came from familes other than middle/upper-middle/upper class families, but they felt bad asking their parents for even more assistance with school related costs, since most parents were already shelling out for tuition, rent, and other expenses. And since the Food Stamps were accessible, why not apply? The university food generally made every one sick anyway, and the food plans were stupid expensive compared to shopping at Walmart and other low-cost groceries.
It is disgusting how hobbled students are by crushing financial obligations related to, when it comes down to it, the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next.
> It is disgusting how hobbled students are by crushing financial obligations related to, when it comes down to it, the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next.
When you frame it in these terms, it's really quite troubling. Our generation actually _needs_ future generations to accept the knowledge or it effectively disappears.
> Our generation actually _needs_ future generations to accept the knowledge or it effectively disappears.
Also consider that prior generations built these universities for us, a major advance for society. What have we built to advance the education of the next generation?
Food Stamps are based on your actual income, so if parents are writing checks directly to the university there is no real way for the State to check this.
Food pantries in multiple new multi-million dollar facilities with twice the number of administrators as 30 years ago. I just can't put my finger on how they could save money instead of trying to get more taxpayer funds to pay for these.
Taxpayer funding has been cut significantly, which according to at least one study correlates strongly with the increase in tuition costs.
Do you have evidence that the number of administrators indeed increased [EDIT: as much as you say, and that what the admins do isn't valuable] and that it significantly affects tuition?
I'm tired of this easy, baseless claim, in every field, that people don't need to pay taxes and contribute to society, they can have a magical free ride by cutting mythical waste. In fact, say some, we don't even need many colleges; these kids can just be plumbers.
Meanwhile, the #1 determinant of college attendance is not academic ability or achievement, but parental wealth. College attendance dropped ~200,000 last year; the country is going backward.
Thanks to the government intervention with what is sold as 'free education/free money', but it is actually making education more expensive.
If you want poor people to get education, empower them. You can start doing so by NOT making it even less affordable by handing out free money.
If you hand out free money the education market will take notice and prices do increase.
Imagine if you suddenly had someone offering to pay for your food everywhere. You should expect your food to become more expensive if suppliers take notice of it. This is what happens to the education market.
Also, the suppliers start with lots of misalocation just because there is a lack of signals about what is most important. For example, they might spend loads of money on sports just because there would be money left over if they didn't, etc.
What does this mean exactly? Government has funded universities for generations, and tuition was lower when there was more funding. At least one study I saw found that funding cuts were the main cause of tuition increase.
This argument is used to try to defund every welfare program, but I have yet to see any economic evidence that it's true. Is there any?
> they might spend loads of money on sports just because there would be money left over if they didn't, etc.
They might, but anything is possible. Is there any evidence of it or is this pure speculation?
Sports, for example, is generally seen as excellent marketing for the university, increasing alumni engagement, awareness (TV networks pay the university to put the school's name on national TV for hours, rather than vice-versa for 30 seconds), and donations and applications follow.
> staff heard that some students were skipping meals in order to afford textbooks
!!!
If you're a freshman in college, please check out my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0992001005/noBSguide It's super affordable and it will get you through MECHANICS and CALCULUS without too much suffering.
I'm not surprised. Hell, even if tuition fees are free, college is still really expensive. The poverty line for a single person in the US is about $1k a month, for a 3y bachelor and 2y Master's program, without (average inevitable) delays, you're spending $50-60k just to live an ordinary life like you would've if you hadn't gone to school, only your ability to work is severely diminished.
For example, in Europe I'm expected to get 60 study credits a year at 28 hours invested per credit. Given the academic year is about 42 weeks or so here, I'm looking at a 42 hour workweek. I either study less than the system we all made up tells me I'm supposed to study and get a job, or get a job regardless and burn out, fail classes, get delayed and exacerbate my predicament, or I don't work much and borrow a big portion of that $50-60k. And this is in a situation where tuition fees are free.
Sometimes we forget that studying can be (and is at least supposed to be on paper) a full-time job equivalent in time invested, for year's on end, without remuneration but instead, costs. Some of us need a food pantry even if tuition fees were 'negative' $5k a year.
What we find is that some students spend much of their college time working, taking easy courses just to get the paper while spending their time earning money to stay afloat. And that just makes the whole 'certification inflation' problem even worse.
> The poverty line for a single person in the US is about $1k a month, for a 3y bachelor and 2y Master's program, without (average inevitable) delays, you're spending $50-60k just to live an ordinary life like you would've if you hadn't gone to school, only your ability to work is severely diminished.
That's the poverty lone for a single person household; i.e., living alone and not sharing housing, utility, and other costs. Many people of college age, whether in college or not, do not live that way. (Also, a bachelor's degree is a 4-year baseline.)
It is disgusting how hobbled students are by crushing financial obligations related to, when it comes down to it, the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next.
edit: grammar