GatewayRedbirds.com

Richie Allen wrote:

BW23 wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:

BW23 wrote:Is Obama's plan for four-year universities only? Is it a one-time "grant"? What happens if they don't perform the service, or do they have to prior to receiving the grant? Are we really wanting to send more people to four-year schools?

I believe it's a one time grant for any type of college tuition. I know he mentioned specifically that most community college degrees could be covered in their entirety. I'm unaware of whether it can be applied toward trade schools and would be disappointed if it didn't. I believe the community service would come afterward and am not sure if there are measures in place to guarantee that it gets done.

Thanks. Very much a "meh" thing, for me. I'm not a fan of one-time grants. I understand it helps students gain access, but it won't help with overall student costs in the long run, particularly in the case of what they owe.

And the community service should come before they get it. Of course, most going to four-year schools are already doing 50-100 hours for certain scholarships now. Depending on what schools are eligible for this grant, it may just end up being more government money that doesn't really increase access or affect affordability.

I'd be disappointed, too, if it didn't include community colleges, private technical schools or career and technical schools. That's the areas where most jobs are.

Keep in mind, too, that colleges take into account new and higher aid when deciding on tuition increases. It's a really bad cycle right now.

I think the plan is probably directed more at kids from broken homes, very poor families, etc., that might not otherwise even have a chance at considering school. Middle class kids living in their parents suburb home, in my opinion, rarely have an excuse for not going to school if it's something they really desire.

The high sticker price is actually part of many colleges' marketing strategy. For as counterintuitive as it seems, schools have often found that raising tuition attracts more applicants because families tend to equate high price with quality. Marketers call it the Chivas Regal effect.

In 2000, for example, Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pa. boosted tuition and fees by 17.6%. The following year the school received nearly 200 more applications than the year before, and within eight years the freshman class had grown 56%.

Hendrix College in Conway, Ark. had a similar experience in 2005 when it hiked its tuition rate by 29% to $22,000. The college in effect gave back much of the increase as financial aid or merit scholarships to 99% of the students; still, it seemed that tuition was as high as at places like the University of Richmond. Since then the number of incoming freshmen has increased by nearly 40%.

Says Hendrix College president Timothy Cloyd: "We are competing with schools that charge more, so it was hard to convince people that we were as good as our rivals when we charged so much less."

BW23 wrote:The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

BW23 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

BW23 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:What I fail to understand about the university system is how quickly tuition rates are going up. I mean, it's doubled over the past 10 years, far outpacing inflation. I understand that schools need to be higher tech to keep up, but it doesn't cost *that* much more to educate an individual student now vs. 10 years ago. Especially with the escalating money coming in from NCAA sports as well.

I don't understand it either. I really don't know what enrollments have looked like at most schools, but I'd say most record pretty stable enrollments if not increases.

Maybe the universities realize that most students coming out of HS don't need to go that route and are trying to head off the eventual downturn of enrollments. Or maybe they're just greedy.

And really, in fairness, it does cost more due to less state aid being given. Take Missouri for example and look what state schools got in the 90's compared to now. Not that I'm taking a side, but it does cost more. (Did I just contradict myself?)

I'm getting off thread topic, but those rising tuition costs are crazy -especially to us with high school kids.

Though I think we do need to beef up some aid programs for tuition, I know that throwing money at colleges is not the solution. Govt gives students more aid then it seems colleges just raise tuition and it all nets down to the same. I don't think the way colleges spend money gets much scrutiny, especially state institiutions. No incentive for colleges to control their wasteful spending as long as they can market well to prospective students (not necessarily with better education but more so with fancy campuses, winning sports teams, and advertising).

also keep in mind, as the cost of college has gone thru the roof, where has the value of a college diploma gone ?

++++

Very well stated. (See, we can agree. ) I said basically the same thing about tuition going up as students receive more aid.

The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

Richie Allen wrote:

BW23 wrote:The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

I don't think it's been discussed much on this thread but I'd love to see the entire education system revamped so that kids could begin to specialize, or at least lean in a certain direction, at an earlier age than they currently do. Thirteen straight years, some of their most formative years, of very little responsibility and the same few subjects year after year after year. And I think there's enough proof that the current system is not working.

Richie Allen wrote:

BW23 wrote:The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

I don't think it's been discussed much on this thread but I'd love to see the entire education system revamped so that kids could begin to specialize, or at least lean in a certain direction, at an earlier age than they currently do. Thirteen straight years, some of their most formative years, of very little responsibility and the same few subjects year after year after year. And I think there's enough proof that the current system is not working.

BW23 wrote:Yeah, but college is affordable more from an aid standpoint for those from broken homes than for those living with parents in the 'burbs. There's much, much more aid (in terms of grants) for those. And student loans are available to all.

Now, those in higher socio-economic situations have more scholarships, but in terms of grants, those middle class kids really get very little if any.

Freed Roger wrote:Yes we can agree. We all probably have taken ourselves too seriously in this thread. And taken too seriously the importance of these candidates in our lives.

Like you, I really like the tech school and juco and any sort of college diploma that is geared towards a trade. So my question on where has the value of a college diploma gone - for these types of schools the answer is UP, IMO. A degree in Nursing - up. Education -neutral. General degrees like a BS in Business Management, marketing, or communications, the Arts, the value of the diploma itself is down. again IMO

My high schooler is an undecided about a major in college right now, but definitely wants to go away to one.... Its hard to be looking at spending $50,000++ that qualifies you for nothing. But its hard to tell a 17 year old they have to decide at this age. But if she would decide, it would make the college a lot more relevant. I wouldn't want or expect college grant money for her, but would like some access to decent college loans. And then make her pay part her way.

BW23 wrote:
The problem, or part of it, IMO, is that high schools remained focused on getting all kids prepared for "college". In this case, college is only thought of as four-year universities. There's very little room for preparing for a career with increased graduation rates, whether that's imposed on them by the school or the state. And it's a shame that schools are set up that way when in reality less than half, if not less than 2/3, will actually go on to a four-year school.

Popeye_Card wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:

BW23 wrote:The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

I don't think it's been discussed much on this thread but I'd love to see the entire education system revamped so that kids could begin to specialize, or at least lean in a certain direction, at an earlier age than they currently do. Thirteen straight years, some of their most formative years, of very little responsibility and the same few subjects year after year after year. And I think there's enough proof that the current system is not working.

How much specialization do they really need though? I knew I was heading down a engineering/science track by the beginning of high school, and I structured the classes I took around that. The only classes you could have deemed frivilous would be some history courses, foreign language, PE, health, and band. I think you still need literature and grammar courses (definately grammar). I don't think history is a bad idea. I don't think health is a bad idea. In the current global climate, I don't think foreign language is a bad idea. PE seems frivilous if you're already in sports. Band was a personal choice for me (really, an extra study hall that I got a grade for).

I guess there could be more specialization within my math courses, and maybe more of a technical writing emphasis with my english courses. I took the science courses that I knew would help more for engineering (i.e., I avoided biology).