WSJ article on student debt

[member]

<p>

**College is a complex product and it’s a different product for every person. It’s also a product that changes while you consume it. Finance is about valuation. It’s a complex area the people get degrees and advanced degrees in. Do you think that it is simple? Here’s a question for you: what do you think a share of AAPL is worth? What will it be worth in four years?
**

I dont see it as complex, you are paying for a service, the price is set at the market max, just like everything else. As for apple, my own probably analysis says it will be worth around $212 in 4.5-5 years</p>

<p>

Or change their model.</p>

<p>The problem is that we live in a macro-world; not a micro-world. The behavior of a small group may result in no change in the larger group with which prices are set.

</p>

<p>Thats fine, there will be and are today schools which accommodate to the smaller groups. This is nothing a informed consumer could not solve. </p>

<p>

Regarding the Frontline statistic that 95% of 2008 college graduates are not working in the field of their major: could you quantify that statistic and describe the methodology used? I wasn’t able to find a reference to that statistic.

</p>

<p>I have no idea, I guess we could email frontline and ask. Frontline has liberal bias, so I assumed you would just accept it as is. I think they put together a fine show, I trust the statistics.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>I dont see it as complex, you are paying for a service, the price is set at the
market max, just like everything else. </p>

<br>

<p>The sticker price may be set but everything is negotiable. Ever haggle at an asian or middle-east market?</p>

<br>

<p>As for apple, my own probably analysis says it will be worth around $212 in 4.5-5 years</p>

<br>

<p>That’s pretty pessimistic. I guess you don’t follow the chip markets.</p>

<br>

<p>I have no idea, I guess we could email frontline and ask.</p>

<br>

<p>You put forth the statistic so you bear the burden of proof in providing a citation.</p>

<br>

<p>Frontline has liberal bias, so I assumed you would just accept it as is.</p>

<br>

<p>I do scientific research. When something doesn’t sound right, I look to base documents. Your number doesn’t sound anywhere near right.</p>

<br>

<p>I think they put together a fine show, I trust the statistics.</p>

<br>

<p>Naivete. You don’t even know what the statistics are for and what they measure.</p>

[member]

<p>

You put forth the statistic so you bear the burden of proof in providing a citation.

What world do you live in, ever been in court? Its true until you disprove it.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>What world do you live in, ever been in court? Its true until you disprove it. </p>

<br>

<p>Please take an intro course in logic. Or read Irving Copi’s book.</p>

<p>From Wikipedia:</p>

<p>The Fallacy of Demanding Negative Proof</p>

<p>Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this.” Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven (see negative proof).</p>