We drive on the left and health care is free.

Foghorn

And tying this thread into the NCAA scandal thread - what do you Limeys think about how in the US we use our colleges as minor league sports leagues for football (American), basketball, and to some extent baseball?

JohnInCarolina

Foghorn said:

And tying this thread into the NCAA scandal thread - what do you Limeys think about how in the US we use our colleges as minor league sports leagues for football (American), basketball, and to some extent baseball?

Based on the OP, I'm guessing they'd characterize it as "very interesting."

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

da87 said:

@JohnInCarolina, I don't think anyone can disagree with that statement - academic costs have become a huge burden.  As a result, I also can't disagree with @pgprescott that there is currently a "bubble" in the cost of college/university.  I just wish I had a solution to offer that would be executable in the real world and acceptable regardless of political beliefs and party affiliation...

We directly feel the financial impact of academic costs on a daily basis as we managed to fall into the undiscussed gap group - too well off (in someone's eyes, certainly not ours!) to receive aide, or even qualify for tax deductions, and yet not well off enough (no university buildings will be named after us) to not feel the huge bite of current college costs.  Those of us who carry the full cost of a private university as a family - and yes, it was our choice, along with our kids', that they attended the best school they could get into regardless of cost - now pay over $250K per child (plus books, travel costs, and interest on loans) and all in post tax dollars.  It is a very tough decision for every parent and student and one that comes with long term financial implications for both...  Now back to the regularly scheduled debate!

It's way too expensive for almost *everyone*.  That's my point.  Even if you did qualify for financial aid, that only likely means a fraction of the costs would be covered for you.  Financial aid doesn't mean zero cost in the end.

There's this notion that there are a lot of folks out there getting "free rides", and it's just not true.  Heck, there are some people in the US who believe minority students never pay to attend college.  No wonder they end up resenting them.

What percentage of students actually pay? How many take out the loans and never repay them? 

The Govt getting involved has driven up the cost. Again, the handouts have diminished liberty and freedom for the people. No way the costs would rise if they didn’t have the govt or govt loan sharks paying the tab. They have no business at all being in this business just like the mortgage business they messed up. The taxpayer pays for the defaulted loans that were never going to be repaid from the jump. What is the tab on that yearly? Billions I assume? More examples of well intentioned morons. 

pgprescott

@JohnInCarolina How many of those people on your chart write checks out every year in the thousands or tens of thousands? It’s an accounting gimmick. The govt pays and then they don’t bother to collect and the taxpayer is screwed. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

da87 said:

@JohnInCarolina, I don't think anyone can disagree with that statement - academic costs have become a huge burden.  As a result, I also can't disagree with @pgprescott that there is currently a "bubble" in the cost of college/university.  I just wish I had a solution to offer that would be executable in the real world and acceptable regardless of political beliefs and party affiliation...

We directly feel the financial impact of academic costs on a daily basis as we managed to fall into the undiscussed gap group - too well off (in someone's eyes, certainly not ours!) to receive aide, or even qualify for tax deductions, and yet not well off enough (no university buildings will be named after us) to not feel the huge bite of current college costs.  Those of us who carry the full cost of a private university as a family - and yes, it was our choice, along with our kids', that they attended the best school they could get into regardless of cost - now pay over $250K per child (plus books, travel costs, and interest on loans) and all in post tax dollars.  It is a very tough decision for every parent and student and one that comes with long term financial implications for both...  Now back to the regularly scheduled debate!

It's way too expensive for almost *everyone*.  That's my point.  Even if you did qualify for financial aid, that only likely means a fraction of the costs would be covered for you.  Financial aid doesn't mean zero cost in the end.

There's this notion that there are a lot of folks out there getting "free rides", and it's just not true.  Heck, there are some people in the US who believe minority students never pay to attend college.  No wonder they end up resenting them.

What percentage of students actually pay? How many take out the loans and never repay them? 

The Govt getting involved has driven up the cost. Again, the handouts have diminished liberty and freedom for the people. No way the costs would rise if they didn’t have the govt or govt loan sharks paying the tab. 

Not if you believe people who've studied this issue.  It's a factor, sure, but it's not the only one or even the main driver.  But then again, what do the experts know?

Foghorn

The college sports scandal is going to drive up the cost.  If the shoe money stops flowing they'll have to make it up somewhere.

da87

Let's get back where this was fun!  @CPFC1905, thanks for the translation... I work for a British company - and this is way too true!  First time my boss said "That's not bad" after a major success I was ready to kill him! 

Eoin

Foghorn said:

It seems that US students are more likely to start college than UK students.  Although they finish college at roughly the same rates.

http://www.unit4.com/blog/2016/06/the-us-and-uk-comparing-higher-education-in-the-two-top-ranking-nations

So, it's hard to conclude that the UK policies really lead to more people getting a college education than our US system.

I also think that the student loan debt issue is overblown.  My wife and I had $350k in student loan debt when we finished.  We paid it off in 7 years.  For those years we didn't really raise our standard of living much from our student time.  Nobody deserves a 3000 sq ft house and a BMW the day they start their first real job.  

One has to plan reasonably and not take on any student loan debt that create an excessive burden.  Taking on $100k debt to get a private education and then be a public school teacher probably isn't a good plan.  

So it seems to me that if we are going to put resources into an effort to help the underprivileged have opportunities for college education we should focus on younger students and prepare them to have the skills to navigate the process and succeed when they get there.  

In the past, the UK system had a very high bar for entry and a very small % entering university. Tuition was free and a means tested maintenance grant was paid.

To expand provision without extra public money, the loan system was introduced at a low level, as a contribution. Now it is £9,500 per year fixed with a standard loan available to all. The fees are the same for all universities and courses. More expensive courses have to be subsidised by the university, although these are also the departments that tend to attract reaearch money.

Our school system means that at 18, pupils take 3 subjects and are already specialised. My 18 year old going to study maths did maths, further maths and physics in his final school year. I suppose this specialisation means fewer dropouts. I certainly found that the A level years (up to 18) were the hardest study (very intensive and a big step up from the stage up to 16), university was easier.

With a maintenance loan, most students will end up with a £45k debt.

How do 2 of you physically pay off $350k over 7 years? My daughter has a nice job in London and takes home maybe £2,000 a month after tax. There's not much room in there for paying off $25k a year of loans, or are professional jobs much better paid in the US?

The big issue here is the relevance of university. The debt makes it less worthwhile to study, for example, drama than to pay the same to study engineering. University has been sold as an aspiration, but without a marketable degree, you are just a burger flipper with a bigger debt.

The aspiration to get a degree has also starved skilled manual jobs of people, so good electricians or plumbers are not as easy to find as they used to be. These people earn good money, better than many graduates, and their jobs are hard to automate. A skilled manual trade is a good option these days.

Companies are also starting to train people while they work. It takes a little longer, but you have a job and study in your own time / on block release when needed. My son's girlfriend started her job / degree this week, getting paid from day 1. The employer pays the fees. This is popular in subjects like accounting and law, where the professional qualification is more important than the degree anyway.

JohnInCarolina

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

da87 said:

@JohnInCarolina, I don't think anyone can disagree with that statement - academic costs have become a huge burden.  As a result, I also can't disagree with @pgprescott that there is currently a "bubble" in the cost of college/university.  I just wish I had a solution to offer that would be executable in the real world and acceptable regardless of political beliefs and party affiliation...

We directly feel the financial impact of academic costs on a daily basis as we managed to fall into the undiscussed gap group - too well off (in someone's eyes, certainly not ours!) to receive aide, or even qualify for tax deductions, and yet not well off enough (no university buildings will be named after us) to not feel the huge bite of current college costs.  Those of us who carry the full cost of a private university as a family - and yes, it was our choice, along with our kids', that they attended the best school they could get into regardless of cost - now pay over $250K per child (plus books, travel costs, and interest on loans) and all in post tax dollars.  It is a very tough decision for every parent and student and one that comes with long term financial implications for both...  Now back to the regularly scheduled debate!

It's way too expensive for almost *everyone*.  That's my point.  Even if you did qualify for financial aid, that only likely means a fraction of the costs would be covered for you.  Financial aid doesn't mean zero cost in the end.

There's this notion that there are a lot of folks out there getting "free rides", and it's just not true.  Heck, there are some people in the US who believe minority students never pay to attend college.  No wonder they end up resenting them.

What percentage of students actually pay? How many take out the loans and never repay them? 

The Govt getting involved has driven up the cost. Again, the handouts have diminished liberty and freedom for the people. No way the costs would rise if they didn’t have the govt or govt loan sharks paying the tab. 

Not if you believe people who've studied this issue.  It's a factor, sure, but it's not the only one or even the main driver.  But then again, what do the experts know?

What’s the main driver then? Apparently it’s not artificial demand created by govt spending. Why do you think folks start and never finish at such a high rate? Cuz many have little or no skin in the game. No intention to repay the debt to begin with.

Any study by academia that concluded that the subsidies are responsible for the rising cost would lead to that persons demise. If the govt didn’t pay, the institution would be forced to dramatically change their models. Dramatically! First off, they wouldn’t accept high risk loans. People wouldn’t pay the high rates out of their pockets. No more cushy work hours and multitudes of staff. The entire system would collapse upon its own weight. No doubt. 

Eoin

Foghorn said:

And tying this thread into the NCAA scandal thread - what do you Limeys think about how in the US we use our colleges as minor league sports leagues for football (American), basketball, and to some extent baseball?

We just don't have college sports like you do, it's not a thing. Footballers usually leave school with few qualifications and are professional at that point. There's no college stage, no draft system. The recruitment of young 'future stars' is full of dodgy financial practice though, just like your college system seems to be. There's a lot of money sloshing around and a lot of unscrupulous people involved in sport whichever country you are in.

CPFC1905

Foghorn said:

And tying this thread into the NCAA scandal thread - what do you Limeys think about how in the US we use our colleges as minor league sports leagues for football (American), basketball, and to some extent baseball?

The position in the UK with sport is quite different. 
More people than ever are taking part in some form of leisure exercise / sport at non-competitive and amateur levels.  
There is also a far more structured approach to "academies" and youth development for sports, especially given the rise of our Olympic teams, see cycling, swimming hockey, rowing, sailing etc.
Government have a massive push on challenging obesity, given the burden it imports on the NHS, as well.
Academia has played little role in sport - other than the best pubic schools (in our terms that means fee paying, independent schools) and top Universities breeding top rugby players, cricketers and some types of athletics (track & field).     
Football (soccer) is a whole other world that defies any sense at all, and approximately just 35% of players in the Premier Leagues are English.

CPFC1905

da87 said:

Let's get back where this was fun!  @CPFC1905, thanks for the translation... I work for a British company - and this is way too true!  First time my boss said "That's not bad" after a major success I was ready to kill him! 

Watch out for the word "quite", which is equally likely to mean "extremely" as it is "negligible".    Here to help!  

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

Pete for what it's worth I think private loans are a bigger factor here.  Students and families have been willing to increasingly take out private loans to significantly supplement what they can obtain from the federal government, which really isn't a whole lot if you look into the individual caps of the various programs (Stafford, Pell, etc.).  I've heard of families taking second mortgages out, for example.

This is more of an issue with banks than the feds, it seems to me.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

Pete for what it's worth I think private loans are a bigger factor here.  Students and families have been willing to increasingly take out private loans to significantly supplement what they can obtain from the federal government, which really isn't a whole lot if you look into the individual caps of the various programs (Stafford, Pell, etc.).  I've heard of families taking second mortgages out, for example.

This is more of an issue with banks than the feds, it seems to me.

I cannot disagree more. It is not the money borrowed through equity and most certainly intended to be fully repaid which is an issue. This money would always be paid to the institution. Therefore it is a total non factor in the inflation. It is the artificial stimulus which is without consequences or with very little consequence which leads to irrational spending and dramatic inflationary consequences. It’s quite simple. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

Pete for what it's worth I think private loans are a bigger factor here.  Students and families have been willing to increasingly take out private loans to significantly supplement what they can obtain from the federal government, which really isn't a whole lot if you look into the individual caps of the various programs (Stafford, Pell, etc.).  I've heard of families taking second mortgages out, for example.

This is more of an issue with banks than the feds, it seems to me.

I cannot disagree more. It is not the money borrowed through equity and most certainly intended to be fully repaid which is an issue. This money would always be paid to the institution. Therefore it is a total non factor in the inflation. It is the artificial stimulus which is without consequences or with very little consequence which leads to irrational spending and dramatic inflationary consequences. It’s quite simple. 

It just doesn't add up.  Were increased government loans primarily responsible for rising tuition costs, we'd expect there to be some correlation between the two.  There just isn't.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

Pete for what it's worth I think private loans are a bigger factor here.  Students and families have been willing to increasingly take out private loans to significantly supplement what they can obtain from the federal government, which really isn't a whole lot if you look into the individual caps of the various programs (Stafford, Pell, etc.).  I've heard of families taking second mortgages out, for example.

This is more of an issue with banks than the feds, it seems to me.

I cannot disagree more. It is not the money borrowed through equity and most certainly intended to be fully repaid which is an issue. This money would always be paid to the institution. Therefore it is a total non factor in the inflation. It is the artificial stimulus which is without consequences or with very little consequence which leads to irrational spending and dramatic inflationary consequences. It’s quite simple. 

It just doesn't add up.  Were increased government loans primarily responsible for rising tuition costs, we'd expect there to be some correlation between the two.  There just isn't.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/correlating-federal-spending-and.html#.WdATdHpOmhA

CPFC1905

Several hours ago I did ask "do you guys know what a courgette is?"   
Anyone?

And - why is your gallon smaller than ours? 

Foghorn

"How do 2 of physically pay off $350k over 7 years? My daughter has a nice job in London and takes home maybe £2,000 a month after tax. There's not much room in there for paying off $25k a year of loans, or are professional jobs much better paid in the US?"

We're both doctors.  A big portion of our debt was for her time in medical school at Georgetown (expensive private school).  We put about 40% of our take home pay toward student loans until we paid them off.  And we live in San Antonio where the cost of living is much lower than the cost of living in London.  Average debt for students graduating from 4 year US colleges (among those that have debt) ranges from $25k to $40k.  To accumulate $350k debt for 2 people to acquire undergraduate degrees would have been 1) difficult (but not impossible) and 2) foolish.  




"The aspiration to get a degree has also starved skilled manual jobs of people, so good electricians or plumbers are not as easy to find as they used to be. These people earn good money, better than many graduates, and their jobs are hard to automate. A skilled manual trade is a good option these days."

This also seems (to me anyway) to be the case in the US.

da87

An immature marrow (now what's a marrow?).  I believe the British gallon was based on weight vs the US being an extension of other liquid measures (4 quarts equals a gallon)?

why is arrugala "rocket" in England and Europe?

lousubcap

Ours is smaller cuz we don't have to find room to print/label the introductory "Imperial" term-at least on this side of the pond.  

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

All you have to do really is trace the amount of federal dollars expended in college loans over say the past three decades.  It's basically tracked inflation, while tuition increases have not.

What is the default rate over said period? Is that possibly a factor? 

Pete for what it's worth I think private loans are a bigger factor here.  Students and families have been willing to increasingly take out private loans to significantly supplement what they can obtain from the federal government, which really isn't a whole lot if you look into the individual caps of the various programs (Stafford, Pell, etc.).  I've heard of families taking second mortgages out, for example.

This is more of an issue with banks than the feds, it seems to me.

I cannot disagree more. It is not the money borrowed through equity and most certainly intended to be fully repaid which is an issue. This money would always be paid to the institution. Therefore it is a total non factor in the inflation. It is the artificial stimulus which is without consequences or with very little consequence which leads to irrational spending and dramatic inflationary consequences. It’s quite simple. 

It just doesn't add up.  Were increased government loans primarily responsible for rising tuition costs, we'd expect there to be some correlation between the two.  There just isn't.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/correlating-federal-spending-and.html#.WdATdHpOmhA

I'm aware of the post.   You can likely find many other, non rigorous analyses.   What they neglected to account for are the significant increases in the student population attending colleges.  

CPFC1905

da87 said:

An immature marrow (now what's a marrow?).  I believe the British gallon was based on weight vs the US being an extension of other liquid measures (4 quarts equals a gallon)?

why is arrugala "rocket" in England and Europe?

Courgette = zucchini.  A marrow is similar, but a huge version.  Google giant marrow and see.

Gallon / gallon - just seems odd to me that we share the inch and then not the gallon.  Also bear in mind that is weights and measures are not displayed in meters over here, retailers get fined!  (Thanks Brussels)

da87

Are our pints the same?  Certainly seems that way in pubs...but that could be a very fuzzy recollection. Maybe after Brexit you can drop the metric system.   

CPFC1905

da87 said:

An immature marrow (now what's a marrow?).  I believe the British gallon was based on weight vs the US being an extension of other liquid measures (4 quarts equals a gallon)?

why is arrugala "rocket" in England and Europe?

Forgot the rocket part,  I have no idea at all.  

Rocket, here, is like posh lettuce and people assume that because it is not your bog-standard leaf of iceberg lettuce the whole meal or salad suddenly tastes terrific.    Actually it's just a bit more bitter, and looks suspiciously like dandelion leaves from the lawn.

BUT:  it does serve one important role as the basis of one of my favourite jokes - here we go;

Q) Why doesn't Elton John like lettuce?

A) Because he's a rocket man!

I know - hilarious, isn't it?  Honestly the seasons flash by over here with all the laughing......

Foghorn

CPFC1905 said:

Foghorn said:

And tying this thread into the NCAA scandal thread - what do you Limeys think about how in the US we use our colleges as minor league sports leagues for football (American), basketball, and to some extent baseball?

The position in the UK with sport is quite different. 
More people than ever are taking part in some form of leisure exercise / sport at non-competitive and amateur levels.  
There is also a far more structured approach to "academies" and youth development for sports, especially given the rise of our Olympic teams, see cycling, swimming hockey, rowing, sailing etc.
Government have a massive push on challenging obesity, given the burden it imports on the NHS, as well.
Academia has played little role in sport - other than the best pubic schools (in our terms that means fee paying, independent schools) and top Universities breeding top rugby players, cricketers and some types of athletics (track & field).     
Football (soccer) is a whole other world that defies any sense at all, and approximately just 35% of players in the Premier Leagues are English.

I've often thought it would be interesting to compare the two systems. 

One could follow the 100 best 16 year old soccer players in the UK and see what becomes of them.  I know most of them sign with a club around that age but the majority never see action in first division European football.  

One could also follow the 100 best 16 year old US football (American football) or basketball player who are currently forced to go to college for 3 years (football) or 1 year (basketball) and see what they're doing at age 25.  

Does making them attend college increase their preparedness for life after sports?  Does one year vs 3 years vs getting a degree make a difference?  Do English boys who get into the professional world at age 16 learn some life lessons that help them after sports are done?

To my knowledge, nobody has studied this.  And honestly, there are probably other cultural differences that are factors so it may not be appropriate to conclude that any difference seen is solely derived from the sports/education model.

da87

Seasons?  I visit multiple times a year and the best I can tell there is only rainy season, unless a sunny morning counts as a season!  

CPFC1905

da87 said:

Are our pints the same?  Certainly seems that way in pubs...but that could be a very fuzzy recollection. Maybe after Brexit you can drop the metric system.   

After Brexit?  The way things are going here, that may never happen.  Our pints   only differ on the basis that beers don't start until 4.5% proof - and they are the beginners option.

Foghorn

CPFC1905 said:

da87 said:

Are our pints the same?  Certainly seems that way in pubs...but that could be a very fuzzy recollection. Maybe after Brexit you can drop the metric system.   

After Brexit?  The way things are going here, that may never happen.  Our pints   only differ on the basis that beers don't start until 4.5% proof - and they are the beginners option.

"Proof" is 1/2 of 1%.  So I assume you mean that beers start at 4.5% alcohol content.    4.5 proof (2.25% alcohol) would be weaker than anything brewed here.