We drive on the left and health care is free.

CPFC1905

Foghorn said:

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.

Soccernomics is a book about football from the Moneyball chap, and it's a good read on this subject (more or less).    

However, football over here is a merciless and mercenary business.  Kids below 10 are signed to academies associated to professional teams and even at 14 are effectively bought and sold for six figure values.  There is zero interest in their "future".  

Because the Premier Leagues is awash with money, local players of any talent are bulk signed at 10 or 12 then hot-housed,  then 95% are discarded at 17/18 years old.     In parallel the much weaker European leagues (German, French, Spanish and especially Belgian) draft in many more from Africa and sell them to the English teams at eye-watering profit.

Average players in the Premier League cost £15 - 20m, with salaries around £3m a year.  That is average; star players now start at £40 and £6m a year salary.

Football here is about instant success, with endless funds and no regard for the future.

To note : this is the Premier League - the three other professional leagues have nothing like that funds and we operate promotion and relegation.
My team (Crystal Palace) are currently having the worst start in history to a Premier League season.  If they get relegated, income drips off a cliff and the players have sale clauses for that eventuality.

It is quite simply bonkers.

CPFC1905

Foghorn said:

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.

Yes, the first one.   
Not sure of your time zone, but it's 11.30 here and the wine bottle in front of me is empty

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

Foghorn

I've read soccernomics. Simon Kuper's analysis and research are indeed similar to that of Michael Lewis. Unlike 99.99% of Americans I know a lot about European football - at least since 2006 when I started following it after that year's World Cup.   I didn't grow up with it, so compared to you Brits it's probably fair to say it is more in my head than my heart.  

I've been to the last two World Cups. I was in the stands in Rustenburg when Robert Green fumbled Clint Dempsey's shot into the net in 2010. 

So, I have a good understanding of the European first divisions.  But I'm pretty clueless on how your youth system and lower divisions work. Except to know that lower division teams occasionally pull some upsets in the FA Cup (or Copa Del Rey or whatever).  And that relegation and promotion is a beautiful thing that will unfortunately never happen in the US. 

CPFC1905

Foghorn said:

I've read soccernomics. Simon Kuper's analysis and research are indeed similar to that of Michael Lewis. Unlike 99.99% of Americans I know a lot about European football - at least since 2006 when I started following it after that year's World Cup.   I didn't grow up with it, so compared to you Brits it's probably fair to say it is more in my head than my heart.  

I've been to the last two World Cups. I was in the stands in Rustenburg when Robert Green fumbled Clint Dempsey's shot into the net in 2010. 

So, I have a good understanding of the European first divisions.  But I'm pretty clueless on how your youth system and lower divisions work. Except to know that lower division teams occasionally pull some upsets in the FA Cup (or Copa Del Rey or whatever).  And that relegation and promotion is a beautiful thing that will unfortunately never happen in the US. 

Senior football is organised as a pyramid, whereby the teams in the lowest division (league) can ultimately progress to the Premier League. A good case study for that would be AFC Wimbledon.  
In principle it is wholly meritocratic, but given the prevailing capitalist context - the teams with the most cash, stay on top.
Another case study might be Blackburn Rovers in the 90's, when Sir Jack Walker's millions transformed a team completely.   The blueprint for Abramovich at Chelsea.

A key difference is of course the lack of a draft system and therefore - as I understand it, the central or controlled distribution of talent.

Foghorn

Yeah.  I love that. Leceister City are a great example.  I think it gives a totally different outlook to the lower divisions than what we have, for example, with minor league baseball. 

Fans of 2nd division English football teams feel like they might be watching a team that will be in the Premier League next season.  It makes you want to support the team that much more. Fans of minor league baseball teams know that they are truly watching minor league baseball.  There may be a future major league player on the field but that's it. 

CPFC1905

Foghorn said:

Yeah.  I love that. Leceister City are a great example.  I think it gives a totally different outlook to the lower divisions than what we have, for example, with minor league baseball. 

Fans of 2nd division English football teams feel like they might be watching a team that will be in the Premier League next season.  It makes you want to support the team that much more. Fans of minor league baseball teams know that they are truly watching minor league baseball.  There may be a future major league player on the field but that's it. 

Second tier football is brutal.  46 games in the season, then the play-offs, the "final" of which is known as the £200 million game.

Another case study might be Leeds United.  They did well one season at the top and then mortgaged 10 years of potential revenue no the basis of European football (i.e. staying near the very top of the Premier League and qualifying for the very lucrative Champions League).  The team under-performed and accrued massive debt and more or less folded in to a hollow shell of it's former self.  They are resurgent now though. 

lousubcap

Another factor here is the great disparity in the facilities.  Any major league baseball stadium is at least one to two orders of magnitude better (at least in terms of revenue generation) than the lower tier affiliate.  Economics rule the day.  

Foghorn

Yep. That's why I really respect how Arsenal run their club in a fiscally responsible manner while staying in the Champions League for so many years (until this year).  

CPFC1905

lousubcap said:

Another factor here is the great disparity in the facilities.  Any major league baseball stadium is at least one to two orders of magnitude better (at least in terms of revenue generation) than the lower tier affiliate.  Economics rule the day.  

That is an issue here, Man U can hold 80,000 at Old Trafford but many clubs are seeking to redevelop their grounds in to bigger stadiums with many more facilities.  However, these are universally despised as soulless product outlets and are the antithesis of the proper football experience.
Fortunately my hapless bunch have one of the most evocative grounds in the league.  It is too small, very old-fashioned, virtually impossible to reach because it is buried in a remote London suburb - but is terrific because of all that.  It gets very noisy!  Profit is virtually nil on match-days, we survive on sponsorship money from TV rights.

Legume

Universities need to do a better job of getting kids out in four years.  This helps minimize debt and opens up spots for more kids to attend.  I also think there can be too much parental and social pressure to attend a 'name' school for many kids.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok



Have a few more beers Pete.  Or... Google some more.  Surely your arguments will improve.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok

The point is there is a clear link between federal govt spending and the inflation of tuition. I don’t even understand why you need to think about such things they are obvious and make total sense. The amount per student may be capped, but the overall spending is correlated. Also the lack of enforcement on the debt collection has become very public in the last eight years leading to even more irresponsible behavior. Good grief man. Can you not see it? 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok

The point is there is a clear link between federal govt spending and the inflation of tuition. I don’t even understand why you need to think about such things they are obvious and make total sense. The amount per student may be capped, but the overall spending is correlated. Also the lack of enforcement on the debt collection has become very public in the last eight years leading to even more irresponsible behavior. Good grief man. Can you not see it? 

I'm sure it all seems very clear and simple to you, yes.  Here's one of the more comprehensive studies that was done a few years ago.  Let me know when you finish reading it. - sorry it's not a blog post or an article in Forbes:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ncher.us/resource/collection/1CFB07FA-74C6-4F0A-8E79-3ADB2C453546/R43692.pdf

DMW

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok

The point is there is a clear link between federal govt spending and the inflation of tuition. I don’t even understand why you need to think about such things they are obvious and make total sense. The amount per student may be capped, but the overall spending is correlated. Also the lack of enforcement on the debt collection has become very public in the last eight years leading to even more irresponsible behavior. Good grief man. Can you not see it? 

I'm sure it all seems very clear and simple to you, yes.  Here's one of the more comprehensive studies that was done a few years ago.  Let me know when you finish reading it. - sorry it's not a blog post or an article in Forbes:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ncher.us/resource/collection/1CFB07FA-74C6-4F0A-8E79-3ADB2C453546/R43692.pdf

A 46 page PDF research paper on a Saturday night? Expectations are high...

JohnInCarolina

DMW said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok

The point is there is a clear link between federal govt spending and the inflation of tuition. I don’t even understand why you need to think about such things they are obvious and make total sense. The amount per student may be capped, but the overall spending is correlated. Also the lack of enforcement on the debt collection has become very public in the last eight years leading to even more irresponsible behavior. Good grief man. Can you not see it? 

I'm sure it all seems very clear and simple to you, yes.  Here's one of the more comprehensive studies that was done a few years ago.  Let me know when you finish reading it. - sorry it's not a blog post or an article in Forbes:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ncher.us/resource/collection/1CFB07FA-74C6-4F0A-8E79-3ADB2C453546/R43692.pdf

A 46 page PDF research paper on a Saturday night? Expectations are high...

Yeah jokes about the moon landing are probably more appropriate right now, but... yanno...

JohnInCarolina

I'll just end with observing that if you want to argue that increasing government spending on student loans is the *main* driver of rising tuition costs, you have to focus on the per student spending, as colleges and universities have generally kept their enrollments flat or increased them over the same period.  Increasing enrollment is one means of generating increased inflows without increasing price, and some universities have tried to do just that.

DMW

JohnInCarolina said:

I'll just end with observing that if you want to argue that increasing government spending on student loans is the *main* driver of rising tuition costs, you have to focus on the per student spending, as colleges and universities have generally kept their enrollments flat or increased them over the same period.  Increasing enrollment is one means of generating increased inflows without increasing price, and some universities have tried to do just that.

Yep, it's a supply and demand issue. Why "everyone" needs to go to a 4 year university is still a mystery to me. There should be many routes to a successful life and career, some, not all, of which include a 4 year degree. 

JohnInCarolina

DMW said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I'll just end with observing that if you want to argue that increasing government spending on student loans is the *main* driver of rising tuition costs, you have to focus on the per student spending, as colleges and universities have generally kept their enrollments flat or increased them over the same period.  Increasing enrollment is one means of generating increased inflows without increasing price, and some universities have tried to do just that.

Yep, it's a supply and demand issue. Why "everyone" needs to go to a 4 year university is still a mystery to me. There should be many routes to a successful life and career, some, not all, of which include a 4 year degree. 

Exactly.  And from the demand side, it's definitely true that the increased number of students out there seeking to go to college (relative to the number of slots) has been one of the factors putting upward pressure on price.  It just doesn't have much to do with government loans, as that's been nearly constant on a per student basis.  You can basically discount it and focus on the growth of the difference, or the price without government assistance.

Eoin

Foghorn said:

"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.

Doctor explains the debt / earnings. Doctors earn good money here too.

CPFC1905

It’s the morning after the night before,  it all got a bit stats heavy last night, so here’s a glimpse of Sunday’s over here;

Sunday football - enjoyed across this fair kingdom and without which Accident and Emergency departments would be deserted;

The peril of UK roads (this is a very unusual image - captured from the front).  Legions of Sunday Drivers emerge from their bungalows and warden assisted living compounds to clog the roads all day.  Driving low powered mid-range hatchbacks at least 10 years old that are highly polished and still on original tyres (fifth set of brakes though - and third clutch), sporting a tartan rug on the back seat and incapable of traveling above 60% of the speed limit on all roads.

Highlight of the day

Just to note,  while I type this I am enjoying a bacon sandwich (and mug of tea, obviously), made from unsmoked back bacon cooked last night on my BGE.   I chucked a pound of the good stuff on after my cook, just for fun and by-jingo - its the stuff of legend.

Eoin

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.   

Although imperial measurements are still used a lot by older people, my kids have no idea about imperial measurements and no interest in them. Industry is fully metric, the only relic is that some standard material sizes are metric equivalents of old imperial sizes. We were taught both 35 years ago (I have most conversions in my head) just because of the crossover, but I don't think a 30 year old engineer here would have a clue about imperial.

Foghorn

So, Arsenal, Everton, and Liverpool for the wins today?  Or will there be an upset?

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

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.  

Maybe this one?http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/report-federal-aid-rising-tuition/

i could do do this in perpetuity 

You could, and you'd still be wrong lol

See if you can find evidence for the moon landing being a hoax while you're at it why don't you?

When faced with the facts John chooses to stick out his tongue and slobber rather than engage in what is obviously a losing argument for him. A true giant of academia.  

Ok

The point is there is a clear link between federal govt spending and the inflation of tuition. I don’t even understand why you need to think about such things they are obvious and make total sense. The amount per student may be capped, but the overall spending is correlated. Also the lack of enforcement on the debt collection has become very public in the last eight years leading to even more irresponsible behavior. Good grief man. Can you not see it? 

I'm sure it all seems very clear and simple to you, yes.  Here's one of the more comprehensive studies that was done a few years ago.  Let me know when you finish reading it. - sorry it's not a blog post or an article in Forbes:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ncher.us/resource/collection/1CFB07FA-74C6-4F0A-8E79-3ADB2C453546/R43692.pdf

It says right on page 2 they totally disregard the link I so strongly made because nine other studies have already made the link. You have a paper that’s goal is to try and find reasons other than the obvious one done by folks commissioned to do just that. Wow! You must have real guilt issues! Bunk! 

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

DMW said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I'll just end with observing that if you want to argue that increasing government spending on student loans is the *main* driver of rising tuition costs, you have to focus on the per student spending, as colleges and universities have generally kept their enrollments flat or increased them over the same period.  Increasing enrollment is one means of generating increased inflows without increasing price, and some universities have tried to do just that.

Yep, it's a supply and demand issue. Why "everyone" needs to go to a 4 year university is still a mystery to me. There should be many routes to a successful life and career, some, not all, of which include a 4 year degree. 

Exactly.  And from the demand side, it's definitely true that the increased number of students out there seeking to go to college (relative to the number of slots) has been one of the factors putting upward pressure on price.  It just doesn't have much to do with government loans, as that's been nearly constant on a per student basis.  You can basically discount it and focus on the growth of the difference, or the price without government assistance.

Exactly wrong.

 If I gave everyone in your town a voucher from the govt for 5k to eat at a restaurant, what do suppose would happen to the prices at the restaurants? Do you think the increased prices that are sure to follow would be a result of the out of towners that spend their money or the result of the vouchers which almost guarantee a revenue stream without consequences. The consumer has to less closely check their budget. They will order more freely. You argue that we should disregard the voucher customers and focus on the ones who are paying without a voucher. Even though anyone can track the direct correlation between handing out the voucher ( artificial increase in demand) and the rise in prices. Is the fact that I cap the voucher at 5k really a diminishing factor? Huh?

thetrim

What about unearned lifelong tenured professors.  That certainly doesn't help control prices. 

pgprescott

thetrim said:

What about unearned lifelong tenured professors.  That certainly doesn't help control prices. 

The reason academia so strongly rejects the obvious link between Federal Government spending and cost increases is because their entire system would collapse and collapse quickly. The whole thing is just a govt transfer of money from the taxpayer to the academics. Lots of guys would be out looking for work off college campuses if the federal funds were removed. 

Eoin

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.  ....

Maybe to clarify for those over the pond.

Brexit was a vote organised by the PM of the time (Cameron) who needed to give something to the Right of his own party (aka 'the bastards' as named by former PM Major) to stop them from stabbing him in the back.

In a moment of blinding inspiration, following the successful heading off of the jock rebellion using the same tactic, he opted for a simple IN - OUT vote. The all or nothing option being 'guaranteed' to produce the correct result.

Without any clearly defined meaning of OUT (or in fact IN), politicians of both sides indulged in make believe outcomes. Both sides focussed on OUT. For INNERS, OUT meant economic catatrophe. For OUTERS it meant sovereignty, immigration control, more cash for the NHS and a bright future trading with New Zealand.

A short sharp election campaign, helpfully called so as to waste some of the none too generous 2 year negotiating period for exit from the EU, backfired badly and left no one party with a majority in parliament.

Also, neither major party has a clearly defined policy on Brexit, because everyone interprets the 'will of the people' or 'Brexit means Brexit' to mean what they want it to mean.

So now our Government is negotiating to agree an outcome that (probably) needs to be passed by Parliament, although, in the spirit of returning sovereignty to Parliament, they have tried their best to avoid the deal actually being voted on.  As alluded to by @CPFC1905, it seems highly unlikely that any deal will be acceptable to enough MPs to get passed through Parliament.  What happens then is anybody's guess, we are all in the dark and we suspect that the people negotiating our departure are in the dark as well.