Re: Ed: some differences between Romney and Obama

[idic5]

<p>something for all voters to think about...
NewsDaily:</a> Obama, Romney spar over private-sector's role in education</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

Romney hit back by noting that Obama, a Democrat, has not been able to rein in the soaring cost of tuition.

</p>

<p>Can someone explain to me what the federal government’s role is in state university tuition? </p>

<p>I don’t foresee this thread lasting long.</p>

<p>Fwiw, I have a huge issue with tax dollars being used as vouchers to send kids to religious schools. It doesn’t sit right with me. I also have a huge problem with Pell Grants being cut at all. That’s the only life line low income kids have. There are far more things that need to be cut before Pell is touched. That’s about my only comment to avoid going political.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

[One of the candidates] seeks to encourage - with federal subsidies, when necessary - robust participation from the private sector in teaching American kids and training workers. He would use public dollars to enroll more children in private schools; keep federal aid flowing to private, for-profit colleges; and pay private banks to take over part of the federal student loan program.

</p>

<p>Even now, there’s a great inequality among public schools in rich versus poor neighborhoods. If our educational system becomes explicitly for-profit, that gap is only going to widen, fast. Of course, “robust participation from the private sector” would hugely benefit a few people at the top of educational corporations, so this idea is consistent with the candidate’s views on just about everything else.</p>

[Youdon_tsay]

<p>I’ll jump in before this closes! No problem with charters, but I have huge problem giving money to private schools, religious or not, when those schools don’t have to jump through the same hoops as public schools.</p>

[emilybee]

<p>Anyone who cares about the future of our education system should definitely take the time to understand the positions of the two candidates for President and their respective party’s position on this issue. I will leave it at that.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Can someone explain to me what the federal government’s role is in state university tuition?

Federal programs increasing access to student loans could make the demand for higher education less price elastic, allowing state universities to increase tuition. That argument assumes that state universities will participate in the costly academic arms race at the expense of accessibility to state residents (an assumption that appears to have been valid in many states, but one that has the potential to obscure the importance of state-level policy).</p>

<p>To the extent that this discussion involves proposals related to school and college funding, I don’t think it falls outside of the TOS. We’re right on the edge, though.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

Federal programs increasing access to student loans could make the demand for higher education less price elastic, allowing state universities to increase tuition.

</p>

<p>Isn’t this just speculation? Even if we were to cut out all government loans, do we really think schools would drop their tuition by 5500 or whatnot? I don’t. Not for a second.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>

@noimagination

Federal programs increasing access to student loans could make the demand for higher education less price elastic, allowing state universities to increase tuition.

</p>

<p>The real issue here is that state governments have continually reduced their funding of public higher education, forcing university administrators to rely on increased tuition in order to pay the bills. That tuition money isn’t “new money” - it’s merely filling the void of what’s been taken away.</p>

[b_r_um]

<p>

Federal programs increasing access to student loans could make the demand for higher education less price elastic, allowing state universities to increase tuition.

Isn’t this just speculation? Even if we were to cut out all government loans, do we really think schools would drop their tuition by 5500 or whatnot? I don’t. Not for a second.

That’s basic economics. If you take away external sources of funding (e.g. cut grants and limit access to loans), consumers will have to bear more of the immediate cost of an education themselves. Assuming limited resources, consumers will become more price-sensitive. </p>

<p>Of course that doesn’t mean that sticker-price tuition will drop by $5,500. That’s just silly.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Isn’t this just speculation? Even if we were to cut out all government loans, do we really think schools would drop their tuition by 5500 or whatnot? I don’t. Not for a second.

Would there still be sufficient student demand at the current price level?</p>

<p>Edit:

The real issue here is that state governments have continually reduced their funding of public higher education, forcing university administrators to rely on increased tuition in order to pay the bills. That tuition money isn’t “new money” - it’s merely filling the void of what’s been taken away.

<a href=“http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/04/does_tuition_go_up_because_state_funding_goes_down.html[/url]”>http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/04/does_tuition_go_up_because_state_funding_goes_down.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Thoughts?</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>

@noimagination

Would there still be sufficient student demand at the current price level?

</p>

<p>Would the inability to find financing preclude lower-income students from pursuing higher education, negating the public policy goals of public universities in the first place?</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

Of course that doesn’t mean that sticker-price tuition will drop by $5,500. That’s just silly.

</p>

<p>Right. That’s my point. What does Romney think that Obama should have done to control tuition costs? I really don’t think cutting aid and such would have done anything to drop tuition. </p>

<p>

Would there still be sufficient student demand at the current price level?

</p>

<p>I seriously doubt anyone has any way of knowing that. And I really don’t think students’ futures should be guinea pigged to find out whether or not it would drop tuition or not.</p>

[b_r_um]

<p>

Right. That’s my point. What does Romney think that Obama should have done to control tuition costs? I really don’t think cutting aid and such would have done anything to drop tuition.

I do think that cutting public aid would force more colleges to keep “net tuition” (sticker price minus institutional discounts) in check. That’s not the same as an immediate $5,500 tuition drop.</p>

[Wolverine86]

<p>College costs have skyrocketed over the course of several Presidential terms, with both parties controlling the White House and both parties controlling Congress in various combinations at different times. You can’t lay the blame for the costs at the feet of either party alone…they’re both to blame. The one constant? The totally bloated, completely useless and ineffective DoEd. I’m not in favor of messing with Pell grants, but I’ll support any candidate that will make DoEd Dead.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

I do think that cutting public aid would force more colleges to keep “net tuition” (sticker price minus institutional discounts) in check.

</p>

<p>And screw over every low income kid who wants to get an education. They are NOT going to cut tuition down to any reasonable level for those who are at the lowest of the low in the income bracket.</p>