2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Izulde]

Here's the problem with making college strictly a skills to employability endeavor: It results in people who are less flexible, empathetic, and adaptable. The whole reason we have a liberal arts, broad spectrum basis for college with gen ed requirements (also reflected to a lesser degree in high school - no pun intended) is 1) to provide a universal baseline of cultural knowledge and 2) what will be most important to employers - different ways of thinking. How you approach solving a math problem, for example, is completely different from how you go about analyzing literature. And don't even get me started on the importance of writing skills. I see every day people who are employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills.

Yes, there's too many people in college who shouldn't be. Yes, we should be advocating for trade schools/vocational training as an alternate educational pathway.

But if anything, we need to get all the corporatists out of higher education administration and get things back to personal growth and discovery. In earlier times, students didn't need to work nearly as much to pay the tuition (if they needed to work at all). This left them the free time to genuinely immerse themselves in their education, rather than the hurried, harried time crunch they have today that results in less optimal outcomes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

The idea in Georgia is that if you show signs of average academic ability, money should not be the factor that prevents you from having a college education. As an educator in this system, wasting time, money, and space is equal opportunity. There have been plenty of self-paying rich kids squeak through with 2.2s as well, only they can afford to keep throwing money at the problem until they do get that BS. Considering what the idiots in GA would likely do with the excess money if they ended the Hope, I'd rather the money go to fund kids with any potential rather than Kemp's friends.

Except that average academic ability here ain't saying much. And "average" is too low a bar for college afaic.

End (well, really, scale back) Hope, spread the money around, reduce the burden on taxpayers.

(And fuck Kemp, I've encountered that clown personally enough to know he's an empty suit, and an unbearably obnoxious one at that. And he might be the least obnoxious member of his family. Had the Ds run almost anyone else - or if she'd have been able to avoid going full nutjob - they'd have won the seat and I could have sat out that race entirely with no qualms)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I've been following along this thread somewhat when I poke my head in here and this really makes alot of sense.

What this country really needs is to rethink the entire education system. We need to spend money on education at the high school level - we need to teach high school kids about money. We need to help kids understand the responsibility of debt and when it is good and when it is not. We need to teach them about budgets and taxes and interest and credit cards and the stock market. We need to expose them to the trades and stop pretending that everyone has to go to college. Not everyone is cut out to be an engineer or a doctor or things like that where you obviously need specialized training and study. Our whole system is setting up kids to fail and be strapped down with these debts.

Really, what is the benefit of taking 100k worth of student loans to live on a college campus and get a degree in general studies and why should that be anyone else's responsibility to cover? The whole concept of college is broken. The purpose of college should be to learn skills for the field you want to go into yet everyone is forced to take and pay for classes that don't interest them and have absolutely nothing to do with their field. College should be a financial investment in a defined and specialized track. It should be intensive training in the field you have chosen that prepares you in less than four years (in most cases) to be qualified to get a job in that field. If I need to hire an accountant I don't care whether they've read anything by Socrates - what matters is that they understand finance, taxes, math and business. You would take fewer classes, have less debt and can start paying it off sooner because hopefully you are now trained and able to get a job in the field you want. I bet you could even get major corporations to help subsidize these costs because it sure as hell would be cheaper for some university to be a two year farm system for Google than it would be for them to have to search through endless resumes and then still have to train people.

You want an "experience" or to "find yourself"? It's called life. Find a job, any job, and find a couple buddies to share an apartment with. You can do that and at the very least make ends meet or sock a few bucks away instead of taking out tens of thousands of dollars of debt to do it. Maybe you can even work your way into a career where a company will pay to train you further. You want to argue about politics - join FOFC or Twitter - it's free. You love literature? Take a course in it around your working hours - that's something you could do your entire life to broaden your education and knowledge.

College has to stop being a one size fits none money pit and if that were to happen I bet things would adjust. How smart would it be for a college to offer specialized degree tracks with specific pricing based on what they could earn in that field? And how many better candidates might we get in certain fields? Teaching for example - everyone knows teachers aren't getting rich. How many people might have wanted to go into that field but didn't knowing they would be saddled with debt they couldn't get out from so they went on to do something else. Make the teaching degree cost much less than the engineering degree.

Like Warhammer said the old "get a degree any degree" thing is dead - it's time for some real change. Every other industry is being disrupted - it's time someone does it with college.

But statistics say current college students will change careers far more often than past generations. How does a narrow education prepare them for that reality?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Here's the problem with making college strictly a skills to employability endeavor: It results in people who are less flexible, empathetic, and adaptable. The whole reason we have a liberal arts, broad spectrum basis for college with gen ed requirements (also reflected to a lesser degree in high school - no pun intended) is 1) to provide a universal baseline of cultural knowledge and 2) what will be most important to employers - different ways of thinking. How you approach solving a math problem, for example, is completely different from how you go about analyzing literature. And don't even get me started on the importance of writing skills. I see every day people who are employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills.

Right. I know people who basically went though basic accounting degrees without having to go through other requirements. They will do the Excel and math stuff, but when something looks off, they'll just completely ignore it. And when you ask why they ignored something they should have looked more deeply at, they'll shrug and say that's what the math said. There is this one company that filed a financial report with the state that showed a deficit that was $500,000 more than what it actually was - how does that one get through without anyone questioning it and wondering why that number was so off (turned out to be an error when transferring systems from Sage to QuickBooks)?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Radii

Look at the healthcare comparison. No one says that if you can’t afford healthcare you deserve to die. But millions will say that if you can’t afford healthcare that not our problem.

I think it's interesting that when you talk about Health Care, one of the first things people bring up are trying to reduce the costs. IE, how can it cost X-thousand for a prescription drug or why does a certain procedure cost tens of thousands. Yet, when we talk about college, few people say "the first thing we need to do is reduce costs".

You can forgive debt all you want, but in 10 years you will be right back where we are now. We can all subsidize the exorbitant tuition costs, but again we aren't really solving anything. To me, the solution is to focus on ways people can have affordable college. Make state schools cheaper for in-state kids. You can offset some of that cost by increasing out-of-state tuition and lower cost by not hiring as expensive faculty for state schools. Maybe have more state subsidies that help in-state kids - some on merit and others on financial need (but only if you go in state). This sets up a 3-tiered system:
1. Private school/out of state - People who are OK paying a ton for tuition, work hard to get a bunch of scholarships or have a skill/talent (ie sports) that helps pay for school.
2. State schools - Not as exclusive or expensive as Private, but give a college experience. If you stay in state, your costs are significantly reduced to where many people can afford it. If you go out of state, you get closer to group 1.
3. Community college/JC/trade schools - even less expensive options for people who don't want to pay for a 4-year degree or desire to learn a trade. You can also go to CC for 1-2 years and then transfer to your state school to save money.

There isn't a whole lot people can do to influence private tuition, but state school tuition is run by the state. We should demand that these costs be reduced to the point to where in-state tuition for public schools are affordable. Maybe that means state schools will fall down the "best US universities" list if they cut some costs on faculty/grant generation, but I think that is a fair price to pay for making college more affordable. But I don't think it's fair to blame a 18-year old kid who went to his or her state school, ran up a bunch of loan debt and then got an education or history degree (and struggled to pay off the debt). Kids and parents need choices to where someone could say "Hey, my kid is an average student and not looking at a lucrative career path. Let's send him to a cheaper state school to figure things out". Right now, your choice is CC/JC/no college or having 60-100K in student debt.

[ISiddiqui]

Tbf, there are plenty of people who have talked about reducing state University tuition. The Obama Administration wanted to make community colleges free.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe that means state schools will fall down the "best US universities" list

And devalue the degree from said institution(s), making their output even less employable.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Tbf, there are plenty of people who have talked about reducing state University tuition. The Obama Administration wanted to make community colleges free.

I can't think of any plan out there that takes steps to drastically reduce in-state tuition. There certainly isn't one by a political candidate. No one in this entire discussion has brought it up. IMO, this is most feasible and least expensive way to make college more affordable - yet it is rarely discussed in a way that leads to options/solutions. Making community colleges free as a "college solution" is like making birth control pills free as a health care solution. That's the lowest expense out there.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And devalue the degree from said institution(s), making their output even less employable.

No one looks at schools for college degrees when hiring (outside of some really high end private school). If University of Georgia drops 50 spots because of this change, it won't impact anyone. It's not like an employer is going to say "Well, we really liked you, but your degree is from Georgia. Instead, we are going to take this person we didn't like as much, but went to Santa Clara - which ranked about 50 spots higher".

[JPhillips]

You can't make college more affordable in states where they've cut government funding by half or more.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I can't think of any plan out there that takes steps to drastically reduce in-state tuition. There certainly isn't one by a political candidate. No one in this entire discussion has brought it up. IMO, this is most feasible and least expensive way to make college more affordable - yet it is rarely discussed in a way that leads to options/solutions. Making community colleges free as a "college solution" is like making birth control pills free as a health care solution. That's the lowest expense out there.

I'm a little bit confused by this. Senators Sanders and Warren are proposing to make public colleges free. What do you think we've been talking about?

Are you suggesting some other not making public colleges free but lowering in state tuition ideas?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

No one looks at schools for college degrees when hiring (outside of some really high end private school).

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

(And I was thinking about a shift of those schools in general back down toward the vicinity of Directional State. The gap between 25-75 may not be so big at the moment ... but what happens when 30 drops to 80s standards and then ends up at 120 cause not everybody slacked off? )

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm a little bit confused by this. Senators Sanders and Warren are proposing to make public colleges free. What do you think we've been talking about?

Are you suggesting some other not making public colleges free but lowering in state tuition ideas?

Yes, I think making public colleges free is going too far (and too expensive). Then, there's no reason not to go to college and you would have a ton of people with no interest in graduating just partying for free and wasting everyone's time and money.

A more reasonable plan would be to setup some federal subsidies, but also a cost plan for state universities that helps keep state tuition below a certain level (say $10K per year) for in-state students. Combine that with more academic scholarships for using in-state and I think we could have a system where people didn't have to go into 60+K debt just to go to 4 years of college. Now, you wouldn't be able to go to a private school and would have to choose one of your in-state schools, but I think that's a fair expectation if you want a cheaper option.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yes, I think making public colleges free is going too far (and too expensive). Then, there's no reason not to go to college and you would have a ton of people with no interest in graduating just partying for free and wasting everyone's time and money.

A more reasonable plan would be to setup some federal subsidies, but also a cost plan for state universities that helps keep state tuition below a certain level (say $10K per year) for in-state students. Combine that with more academic scholarships for using in-state and I think we could have a system where people didn't have to go into 60+K debt just to go to 4 years of college. Now, you wouldn't be able to go to a private school and would have to choose one of your in-state schools, but I think that's a fair expectation if you want a cheaper option.

I agree there needs to be a plan to address cost in addition to (just) forgiveness/relief.

I also agree with your first paragraph, when something is "free" it's not as valued. Not sure what "affordable" is, maybe tie it to state average/mean salary etc.

In-state UGA is approx $30K. In-state for a GA Tier 2 university that my daughter is looking at is $20K. With Hope scholarship, that comes down to $16-$17K a year for a not-so-primo college education.

I would be concerned that the 1 or 2 "primo" state universities may be diluted with less revenue (e.g. top professors will go where the money & funding are, top students will go with them etc.).

Regardless, state university list prices need to be brought back to reality.

With that said ... I don't think everyone needs to go to 4 year college. I do think everyone should be encourage and provided means to go to a 4 year college, 2 year vocational school, trade school, join the military etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

that helps keep state tuition below a certain level say ($10K per year) for in-state students.

Obviously this will vary considerably from state to state and school to school but, as one example, UGA tuition isn't far over that as it is ($12,080 is the current published figure). And only crossed the $10k mark in the past few years.

And out of state tuition is already almost triple that figure ($31k and change)

Thing is, tuition accounts for less than half the cost for a year.

Over $15k a year is residence, meal plan, books, misc expenses, etc.

So $60k (the figure you mentioned) for four years is _without a dime of tuition_ factored in.

Simply because of your location, I pulled up Univ. of Arizona to compare. Very similar numbers there as well.

$12,600/yr for tuition for the next freshman class, which is less than half the estimated cost of an academic year with the various other costs included. And out-of-state tuition there is already triple the in-state rate as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In-state UGA is approx $30K.

See my post that cross-posted though. That's not tuition, that's total cost of attendance.

Over half the costs (somewhere to live, something to eat, etc) exist whether the person is in college or not.

[JPhillips]

Here in NY there aren't enough spots currently in the public universities. Pushing everyone to them won't work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here in NY there aren't enough spots currently in the public universities. Pushing everyone to them won't work.

Umm ... is the distinction you're making (but I'm not intially inferring here) between "universities" vs "community colleges"?


SUNY chief targets declining enrollment - News - recordonline.com - Middletown, NY

Otherwise, you've got the head of SUNY worried publicly about steadily declining enrollment.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I'm talking about four year colleges. They currently turn away applicants. They don't have space for all the college students in NY.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The whole reason we have a liberal arts, broad spectrum basis for college with gen ed requirements (also reflected to a lesser degree in high school - no pun intended) is 1) to provide a universal baseline of cultural knowledge and 2) what will be most important to employers - different ways of thinking. How you approach solving a math problem, for example, is completely different from how you go about analyzing literature. And don't even get me started on the importance of writing skills. I see every day people who are employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills.

To me this is what high school is for and like I said these are the sort of basic life skills that kids need to be learning there. I realize this is NOT being done at the elementary or high school level to anywhere near a satisfactory degree
(as a student at U of M I was shocked by the number of students who somehow managed to get into a highly rated university yet could not write a paragraph) but there's where you should fix the problem.

Why are we good with just assuming the first 12 years of a kid's education can serve as glorified day care but college (and tens of thousands of somebody's dollars) can fix the issue? We already have a system to provide free education in this country and its not very good - we really think making college free is going to solve anything? If the reason the elementary and high school education system is failing is that there's not enough money to support that where on earth are we getting the money to "do it right" for college and why can't we just take a fraction of that additional needed money and make our elementary and high school systems what they need to be?

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But statistics say current college students will change careers far more often than past generations. How does a narrow education prepare them for that reality?

I would assume you would change the same way you do now - go back and get another degree. It's not like that one semester of philosophy class from fifteen years ago is what allows you to make the jump from teacher to computer programmer or something and if taking on thousands of dollars more of debt isn't going to work out for you then you just stick with the field you are in if possible. Either way I don't see how you are worse off having to pay less to start with and not having to fork over thousand of dollars for college credit hours that had nothing to do with your prior or any other future career you intend on having.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

To me this is what high school is for and like I said these are the sort of basic life skills that kids need to be learning there. I realize this is NOT being done at the elementary or high school level to anywhere near a satisfactory degree
(as a student at U of M I was shocked by the number of students who somehow managed to get into a highly rated university yet could not write a paragraph) but there's where you should fix the problem.

Why are we good with just assuming the first 12 years of a kid's education can serve as glorified day care but college (and tens of thousands of somebody's dollars) can fix the issue? We already have a system to provide free education in this country and its not very good - we really think making college free is going to solve anything? If the reason the elementary and high school education system is failing is that there's not enough money to support that where on earth are we getting the money to "do it right" for college and why can't we just take a fraction of that additional needed money and make our elementary and high school systems what they need to be?

The High School and public schools you describe don't match anything I'm familiar with. My daughter graduated HS with more than a full year of college credits. She hasn't had a B since elementary school and only finished in the top 6-7% of her class despite all the dual credit classes. My son was not as competitive with his GPA but still had a semester + in college credits and did very well on the SATs.

Maybe you live in a shitty school district but that is by no means universal. The High Schools were I live (North Dallas 'burbs) are highly competitive and quite intense.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

The High School and public schools you describe don't match anything I'm familiar with. My daughter graduated HS with more than a full year of college credits. She hasn't had a B since elementary school and only finished in the top 6-7% of her class despite all the dual credit classes. My son was not as competitive with his GPA but still had a semester + in college credits and did very well on the SATs.

Maybe you live in a shitty school district but that is by no means universal. The High Schools were I live (North Dallas 'burbs) are highly competitive and quite intense.

Of course there are better public school districts like the ones your kids went through but if they were all like that we wouldn't have people that Izulde refers to as "employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills."

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Izulde

How you approach solving a math problem, for example, is completely different from how you go about analyzing literature. And don't even get me started on the importance of writing skills. I see every day people who are employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills.

Yes, there's too many people in college who shouldn't be. Yes, we should be advocating for trade schools/vocational training as an alternate educational pathway.

But if anything, we need to get all the corporatists out of higher education administration and get things back to personal growth and discovery. In earlier times, students didn't need to work nearly as much to pay the tuition (if they needed to work at all). This left them the free time to genuinely immerse themselves in their education, rather than the hurried, harried time crunch they have today that results in less optimal outcomes.

And just to follow up I'm not suggesting we should eliminate these things from college - like I said I think it would be great if somehow the current college system was turned upside down and someone who wanted to really pursue the finer points of literature or art or something could do so because of their own choice and at a MUCH more affordable rate than getting that engineering degree. A rate that allowed people to pursue those interests without a debt load that in some cases becomes impossible to pay because there's such little opportunity to earn large amounts of money with that kind of degree.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Of course there are better public school districts like the ones your kids went through but if they were all like that we wouldn't have people that Izulde refers to as "employed in a professional role that lack fundamental literacy and critical thinking skills."

Yeah, I have no idea what Izulde is talking about either. I struggle a lot more with Boomers in these areas than I do the current crop of kids coming out of college.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I would assume you would change the same way you do now - go back and get another degree. It's not like that one semester of philosophy class from fifteen years ago is what allows you to make the jump from teacher to computer programmer or something and if taking on thousands of dollars more of debt isn't going to work out for you then you just stick with the field you are in if possible. Either way I don't see how you are worse off having to pay less to start with and not having to fork over thousand of dollars for college credit hours that had nothing to do with your prior or any other future career you intend on having.

There are plenty of careers that don't require going back to school. A good gen ed program should be teaching skills, writing, speaking, collaborating, finding information, problem solving, etc. Content, to me, is secondary to learning those skills. But, you still have to have some content to be able to teach those skills, and some areas work better than others for different skills. You can write in a math class, but it fits better in other areas. The same goes for problem solving. Content should be much to skills being taught.

If the gen ed is well constructed, it's essential to educate and train students for the world they are entering.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yes, I think making public colleges free is going too far (and too expensive). Then, there's no reason not to go to college and you would have a ton of people with no interest in graduating just partying for free and wasting everyone's time and money.

A more reasonable plan would be to setup some federal subsidies, but also a cost plan for state universities that helps keep state tuition below a certain level (say $10K per year) for in-state students. Combine that with more academic scholarships for using in-state and I think we could have a system where people didn't have to go into 60+K debt just to go to 4 years of college. Now, you wouldn't be able to go to a private school and would have to choose one of your in-state schools, but I think that's a fair expectation if you want a cheaper option.

Well that's probably what it would end up being if you started from Biden's plan to make public colleges free. After all the negotiations you'd end up with increased federal subsidies and some attempts to keep state tuition low. It's all a negotiation in the end and you generally want to start with something a little higher than what you would be happy getting.

[NobodyHere]

Well Bernie is not winning Florida

#BREAKING VIDEO 1986@BernieSanders talking about his excitement watching Castro´s revolution murdering the "ugly rich people" and feeling sick watching President Kennedy speaking out against Communism in Cubapic.twitter.com/jJa5MIx6xP

— BidenFront(Text Join to 30330) (@Biden_Front) January 28, 2020

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Why are we good with just assuming the first 12 years of a kid's education can serve as glorified day care but college (and tens of thousands of somebody's dollars) can fix the issue?

Because that's the scam that's been sold. Tell a lie long enough and often enough, a fair portion of the populace will believe it.

If the reason the elementary and high school education system is failing is that there's not enough money to support that

And that's the even bigger scam.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing is, tuition accounts for less than half the cost for a year.

Over $15k a year is residence, meal plan, books, misc expenses, etc.

So $60k (the figure you mentioned) for four years is _without a dime of tuition_ factored in.

Simply because of your location, I pulled up Univ. of Arizona to compare. Very similar numbers there as well.

$12,600/yr for tuition for the next freshman class, which is less than half the estimated cost of an academic year with the various other costs included. And out-of-state tuition there is already triple the in-state rate as well.

I think this is a good point. But, you have ways to cover that non-tuition $15K. You can get roomates or get a job. Whether you go to college or not, you will have to pay for a place to live. On-campus housing is usually cheaper than just renting on the outside. I think you could swing 1K a month for your portion of rent, food and expenses with roommate(s). At that point, if you could get a job making $500 a month, that $15K drops in half. To me, the tough expense to justify is 15+K a year for tuition and books as an in-state student. If you can knock that down to 8K, you really only need about $40-50K in loans without scholarships. And, if you earn a scholarship or work more, you could easily get by with a 25-30K student loan tab at the end.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well that's probably what it would end up being if you started from Biden's plan to make public colleges free. After all the negotiations you'd end up with increased federal subsidies and some attempts to keep state tuition low. It's all a negotiation in the end and you generally want to start with something a little higher than what you would be happy getting.

I get that, but you are losing the argument if you make tuition free. I think there are many sensible people (myself included) who would be OK using tax money to help subsidize in-state tuition, provided you also had a plan in place to reduce the costs that cause tuition to rise. It seems like most democratic candidates really don't care if tuition starts at 10K or 25K - they want to take from the rich to pay for it. A better approach would be to combine some federal subsidies with a plan to keep the total tuition cost under 15-20K a student for in-state (ie, subsidy pays 10K a student). Just giving these universities a blank check for subsidizing tuition could have it balloon up to 20-30K a year per in-state student without any real recourse. We just keep pumping in tax dollars to offset it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

A better approach would be to combine some federal subsidies with a plan to keep the total tuition cost under 15-20K a student for in-state (ie, subsidy pays 10K a student). Just giving these universities a blank check for subsidizing tuition could have it balloon up to 20-30K a year per in-state student without any real recourse. We just keep pumping in tax dollars to offset it.

Any plan to pay for public university amounts would probably have some upper limits on state tuition if you accept fed funds, like how Medicare works. Of course you couldn't FORCE states to lower tuition. You'd have to incentivize it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think this is a good point. But, you have ways to cover that non-tuition $15K. You can get roomates or get a job. Whether you go to college or not, you will have to pay for a place to live. On-campus housing is usually cheaper than just renting on the outside. I think you could swing 1K a month for your portion of rent, food and expenses with roommate(s). At that point, if you could get a job making $500 a month, that $15K drops in half. To me, the tough expense to justify is 15+K a year for tuition and books as an in-state student. If you can knock that down to 8K, you really only need about $40-50K in loans without scholarships. And, if you earn a scholarship or work more, you could easily get by with a 25-30K student loan tab at the end.

re: housing costs on vs off campus -- varies. Last two years off campus (townhouse, 4 total people) have been cheaper by a couple thousand a year than on campus was. That's going to vary a lot I imagine, due to both the on campus situation case by case as well as the off campus availability case by case.

re: $1k/month. fwiw, that seems awfully low vs reality, at least for decent sized schools. Using Ole Miss again, it's roughly $500/month for meal plan (common for at least freshmen), plus a min. of $500/month for off-campus housing (about $750/month for on-campus). And the meal plans aren't all-inclusive, you still eat weekends on your own dime typically. So that figure is passed before literally ANY "expenses". Parking permit alone is about $50/month.

re: $15k vs $8k ... Again, just using real figures close to me (with the full YMMV caveat) ... It's already $12k for UGA and $6500 for Univ. of West Georgia and about $5500 for Univ of North Georgia. Congrats, problem solved I guess

Here's the thing: too often "student loan debt" is being euphemistically used to encompass all the costs associated with not only tuition but also ordinary living expenses, as well as choices made that escalate the cost. It also fails to account for the trend of "four year degrees" approaching six years to complete AND the failure of 1/3rd to one half to complete even after six years. That failure, in turn, denies the supposed benefit of higher wages for degreed individuals, hindering their ability to repay the debt they voluntarily incurred.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And the meal plans aren't all-inclusive, you still eat weekends on your own dime typically. So that figure is passed before literally ANY "expenses".

Freely admitting things may have changed in the last 20 years, but the meal plan I had at Mizzou covered all 7 days. Might be that weekend meals are on a higher 'tier', then or now?

I didn't have discretionary income as a freshman, but I definitely ate the same stuff on weekends as I did during the school week.

Maybe differs by university, also?

[cuervo72]

Yeah, it differs. At Hopkins we had meal plan options. I forget exactly what they were, but it was something like 10 (lunch/dinner weekdays), 14 (lunch/dinner all week) or 19 (b/l/d weekdays, l/d weekends) meals. Purdue I want to say we are doing 13 -- like the second choice above but they don't serve dinner on Sundays (they want to funnel kids to church organizations which provide food and, well, try to recruit).

Out of state tuition is appx $28k, with something like $12k more for room and board. Schools also figure in "travel" in their calculations but don't actually collect for it (but it figures into loans, etc.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Freely admitting things may have changed in the last 20 years, but the meal plan I had at Mizzou covered all 7 days. Might be that weekend meals are on a higher 'tier', then or now?

I didn't have discretionary income as a freshman, but I definitely ate the same stuff on weekends as I did during the school week.

Maybe differs by university, also?

Definitely varies case by case.

The 7 day vs 5 day thing IS a specific situation that we dealt with, and that skewed my phrasing. Greek students (roughly 1/3rd of Ole Miss) are required to participate in a different meal plan than the general population. And that's 5 days, not 7 (cause few, if any, greek houses there serve meals on the weekend).

(Yes, the university found a way to get their grubby paws on money that they really shouldn't have to touch, insinuating themselves as a pass through between greek organizations & their members.)

General population has the option of a 5 day OR 7 day plan, with the local nomenclature of "Plus 1" being added for use of the various franchises located on campus (here in Athens it's "Bulldog Bucks" which can be used at both on campus AND off campus locations of participating chains).

But campus dining locations there are closed on holidays, limited on weekends, (and virtually impossible to use on game days for example), etc etc, so a true "every day" is still stretching reality to some extent.

Overall it's a lot like figuring out which Disney Dining plan is right for you, and I suspect that's true in the majority of places.

[Edward64]

Bloomberg is gaining some momentum.

Morning Consult: The 2020 U.S. Election

Bloomberg Pulls Closer to Warren Nationwide, Grows Support With Black Voters

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg grew his nationwide support another 2 percentage points in the latest poll, bringing him to 12% just behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s 14%. The billionaire has doubled his support among Democratic primary voters over the past month, and though he initially struggled with black voters, he has more than doubled support with them as well.

[ISiddiqui]

His rise has been meteoric.

At this point I think folks like Buttigieg and Klobuchar have no path to the nomination - Bloomberg took all the voters they were trying to court.

[JPhillips]

It may end up being impossible to buy the nomination, but Bloomberg is putting up a good try. If he stays in through the convention he could make it so that no candidate has a majority of delegates. Without Bloomberg, one of Biden, Sanders or Warren would seal the nomination, but with Bloomberg, I'm less sure of that.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

His rise has been meteoric.

At this point I think folks like Buttigieg and Klobuchar have no path to the nomination - Bloomberg took all the voters they were trying to court.

He's certainly looking to solidify the middle and left center folks. His platform, the fact that he's got a lot of similar credentials that trump ran on, and doesn't carry the baggage that Sanders/Warren do, add in massively deep pockets, and yes, he's a completely legitimate threat to take the nomination. He's someone moderates have been clamoring for.

[ISiddiqui]

I doubt he can get the nomination, but he could be a 'kingmaker' if no one gets the necessary amount of delegates.

[Edward64]

If he doesn't get the nomination, I don't see him giving support to Sanders or Warren so maybe a Biden-Bloomberg ticket?

Bloomberg's rise sets off alarms on the left - POLITICO

Progressive allies of Elizabeth Warren have approached the Democratic National Committee to lobby for an unusual cause: including billionaire Mike Bloomberg in upcoming presidential primary debates.
:
:
Bloomberg has risen steadily in national polls, surpassing Pete Buttigieg and nearly doubling Amy Klobuchar’s standing. On Monday, Bloomberg eclipsed Klobuchar in congressional endorsements, with many of the supporters arguing he’s uniquely positioned to beat Trump in the swing states Democrats need to recapture the White House.
:
:
Bloomberg has dispatched top aides to appeal to the DNC for a change in the rules that would allow him to participate, three sources familiar with the effort said. It’s unclear whether that would happen anytime soon. But the sources were confident the DNC will ultimately agree, so much so that Bloomberg has been participating in debate prep at his midtown Manhattan headquarters.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm pretty sure Warren allies want him on stage, so that he can be challenged on his positions. As of right now, Bloomberg can just spend on ads and rise in the polls, but if he stumbles in a debate that may arrest his rise.

I still think Biden picks Klobuchar as his running mate.

[bob]

So the Iowa caucus is on Monday. Prediction time.

1. Who do you think wins in Iowa?
2. Who do you think wins the Democratic nomination?
3. Who do you think wins the presidential election?

I'll submit my later today. Still thinking.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bob

So the Iowa caucus is on Monday. Prediction time.

1. Who do you think wins in Iowa?
2. Who do you think wins the Democratic nomination?
3. Who do you think wins the presidential election?

I'll submit my later today. Still thinking.

Can I add:
4. Who do you most want to win the Democratic nomination?


1. So, tough to call. I think it might be Biden. If they went off the initial votes, then Sanders would be the likely winner. But when they break out of the groups of nonviable candidates, I think Biden probably gains the most votes as long as Warren is above or close to above the 15 mark.
2. Again, likely Biden. I will say it is going to be real interesting when we get to the Super Tuesday states where Bloomberg is putting his energy. Can he peel enough Biden supporters to hurt Biden? Will that put Sanders in the drivers seat? I think Biden will win with a plurality, not a majority. Sanders will also be in it till the end.
3. Trump. I think that severe voter suppression in the key battleground states has him winning about the same number of electoral votes, while losing the popular vote by an even higher number. Further, I think there is a good chance the house flips back. I see a long dark winter coming.
4. Yang. I think he brings the optimism and excitement we need to heal as a country. The fact is, he is just to good a guy to win.

[JPhillips]

There is no healing the country as long as the GOP sees any Dem admin as illegitimate. This version of the GOP has to be burned to the ground before there's any real bipartisanship.

[bob]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There is no healing the country as long as the GOP sees any Dem admin as illegitimate.

Couldn't you say that goes both ways?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

The High School and public schools you describe don't match anything I'm familiar with. My daughter graduated HS with more than a full year of college credits. She hasn't had a B since elementary school and only finished in the top 6-7% of her class despite all the dual credit classes. My son was not as competitive with his GPA but still had a semester + in college credits and did very well on the SATs.

Maybe you live in a shitty school district but that is by no means universal. The High Schools were I live (North Dallas 'burbs) are highly competitive and quite intense.

I think the point is many people have the same story, but these kids do not know basic skills they should know going into college.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Couldn't you say that goes both ways?

Nowhere near the same.

The Dems didn't argue the President was literally above the law. The Dems didn't refuse to seat any GOP nominee for the Supreme Court. The Dems didn't work with foreign governments to undermine the election. The Dems aren't working to keep GOP groups from voting. The Dems aren't going around pushing secessionist ideas in states run by Dems. The Dems aren't changing the laws to limit governor powers when Dems win elections.

Nasty politics exist everywhere, but only the GOP is working throughout the country to make it impossible for Dems to wield power.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nowhere near the same.

The Dems didn't argue the President was literally above the law. The Dems didn't refuse to seat any GOP nominee for the Supreme Court. The Dems didn't work with foreign governments to undermine the election. The Dems aren't working to keep GOP groups from voting. The Dems aren't going around pushing secessionist ideas in states run by Dems. The Dems aren't changing the laws to limit governor powers when Dems win elections.

Nasty politics exist everywhere, but only the GOP is working throughout the country to make it impossible for Dems to wield power.

Let's not forget Michigan when the GOP tried to limit the powers of the governor when a Democrat got elected, or when they effectively vetoed a voter ballot initiative. Or when they POISONED a city's drinking water and tried to hide it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bob

So the Iowa caucus is on Monday. Prediction time.

1. Who do you think wins in Iowa?
2. Who do you think wins the Democratic nomination?
3. Who do you think wins the presidential election?

I'll submit my later today. Still thinking.

4. Who do you most want to win the Democratic nomination?

1. Biden
2. Biden
3. Tough one. I'll say Trump unless the economy/markets tank but hoping for Biden
4. Biden

Biden because he most apt to bring politics back to pre-Trump. Sanders and Warren scare me with their massive changes. I wouldn't mind a younger VP and use the Biden Presidency as a transition back to normalcy period.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Arles

I can't think of any plan out there that takes steps to drastically reduce in-state tuition. There certainly isn't one by a political candidate. No one in this entire discussion has brought it up. IMO, this is most feasible and least expensive way to make college more affordable - yet it is rarely discussed in a way that leads to options/solutions. Making community colleges free as a "college solution" is like making birth control pills free as a health care solution. That's the lowest expense out there.


No one looks at schools for college degrees when hiring (outside of some really high end private school). If University of Georgia drops 50 spots because of this change, it won't impact anyone. It's not like an employer is going to say "Well, we really liked you, but your degree is from Georgia. Instead, we are going to take this person we didn't like as much, but went to Santa Clara - which ranked about 50 spots higher".

Yeah I interview and hire people all the time in my CISO role and what college the person went to does not matter all that much.