<p>Go with the classical studedt strike it is more logical that is why it is classis</p>
<p>That is why they are not responsible for student loans</p>
<p>How about we ween out federal aid for students so this college bubble pops already and prices are not artificially jacked up.</p>
<p>^^Good idea. Then we can return to the good old days, when only the rich went to college.</p>
<p>The problem isn’t gorgeous new buildings or laundry facilities that alert you when your load is done. The problem is parents who will bow to pressure and pay to send their students to schools they can’t afford.</p>
<p>My youngest is currently at a school with all the bells and whistles. BUT, he also was awarded substantial merit aid, which made this pricey private affordable for us. Without the slew of scholarships he earned, our son knew he would not be attending this particular school. We explained our position very clearly when he decided to apply. Made him apply to affordable likely/safeties along with the big ticket schools.</p>
<p>Everybody doesn’t have the means to buy a Ferrari or fly first class to Paris for the weekend or live in a mansion in a fashionable zip code, and people accept this as not being the end of the world. </p>
<p>Colleges have done two brilliant things - convince the public that every college should be targeted by every member of society, and convince those with the purse strings that everyone have easy access to the money. Imagine if houses were sold “need blind” with the full pays paying a premium and the others getting a subsidy and easy loans - the housing prices will skyrocket. This is precisely what’s happened in the college education marketplace. There is no incentive to control costs, and this will only happen if money is tighter. </p>
<p>If colleges were forced to take the risk themselves or do the subsidizing of some students through others, this situation will be eased, and there’ll be colleges at various pricing levels just like most other goods/services in society.</p>
<p>But would the overall effect on the economy be detrimental, if people from middle and lower income families could not afford postsecondary education at all, resulting in their potential talents being lost to the economy and society? That would be like the pre-1950s situation; indeed, the great growth in the US economy and middle class from 1950 to 1970 may well have had to do with the increase in bachelor’s degree attainment from about 10% to 30%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was probably more due to the industrial advantage enjoyed by the US after WWII and the lack of foreign competition, circumstances that no longer apply. One could argue that mass college-going was a consequence, not a cause, of postwar economic growth. </p>
<p>I think many students’ talents are already being lost and misdirected because of the misguided emphasis on college for all. As a society we need to re-valorize the trades. There should be no shame or stigma attached to not going to college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, if there were no GI Bill or expansion of state universities and community colleges in that era, and bachelor’s degree attainment remained at 10%, mainly for those born into wealthy families, would the economy be as productive as it actually is? Even the amount that private colleges cost in the 1950s (adjusted for inflation, the equivalent of $16,000 to $20,000 per year today) would be unaffordable to a large percentage of families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The good (i.e. skilled) jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree do require their own post-secondary education (community college, specialized trade schools, job training in military service, apprenticeships, and/or self-education).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True but these routes do not generally require the equivalent of four years of full-time study and 100K or more. We do a remarkably unimaginative and half-hearted job of encouraging high school students to think of alternatives to college. As long as the college-or-bust mentality prevails and the government encourages it, we will have masses of the ill-prepared and unmotivated start college, limp along for a few semesters, acquire a lot of non-dischargeable debt, and drop out worse off than when they started.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe this is just the College Confidential bubble that assumes that everyone is being pushed to a four year school after high school graduation, but most high school graduates do not immediately go on to four year schools aiming for bachelor’s degrees.</p>
<p>When I went to high school, about a third of graduates went on to four year schools. Another half went on to community college. This was probably about average (both then and now) over all high schools.</p>
<p>Now, due to rise in socioeconomic status of the area around the high school (significantly wealthier, with a presumably much higher percentage of parents with bachelor’s degrees), about two thirds go on to four year schools, with most of the rest going on to community college (perhaps some intending to transfer to a four year school, but probably many intending to finish with a vocational education or associates degree), and the high school still offers “vocational track” courses for those not intending to go on to a four year college. In other words, despite the demographics of the area now, going to a four year school after high school graduation is nowhere close to universal.</p>