President Obama Is Looking To Extend The School Year

I don't watch FoxNews so I have never seen them. But I find it difficult to believe that there are many people (if any) who want there to be no government spending on police, fire, the military, etc. which is what they would need to be doing to believe that "any and all" government spending is a waste of money.

But even tossing that aside (though at best its hyperbole), the statement in the linked op-ed piece was that over the past 30 years, our politics have been dominated by such folks. That is 100% absolutely and totally false. Over the past 30 years, government spending on all levels has skyrocketed. Debt levels are at all time highs. Record deficits. What would spending, deficit and debt levels be if politics were not "dominated" by such folks over the past 30 years?

If anything, our politics over the past 30-40 years has been dominated by the notion that the government can fix more and more problems and that there is no end to how much money we can spend (short of how fast we can print it). Historically, that statement is much more correct than the op-ed statement. As a fiscal conservative, its clear that fiscal responsibility (and that says nothing about abolishing any and all government spending) has no place at the table in politics (its not even in the room or building where the discussions take place).

You're really reading into it too much, and I think the piece is speaking in generalities, not an absolute.

So if he used absolute terms when he is looking to speak in generalities, what terms would he use to speak in absolutes? What what does he use general terms to speak about?

BTW, what is your view of the ultimate conclusion of the piece: that the federal government needs to spend more post-secondary education?

My take-away is that reducing investment in education---at all levels---is precisely the wrong thing to be doing when you are demonstrably already losing your competitive advantage. That's an important point to make when most Americans seem to assume (incorrectly) that our educational system is the envy of the world.

The issue of who should (and shouldn't) pay for it isn't one of proscription, but rather a question of statutory ability. Most states are constitutionally unable to run deficits, yet all states are faced with a significant drop in their revenues in the current economic climate. This puts pressure on educational funding, and the op-ed piece argues that cutting it further is the moral equivalent of eating your seed corn.

What the professor said. You're damn right the feds should spend more on education in general.

I think the other part that is easy to gloss over in that article is the question of access in higher education.

I've had a number of students over the years who were extremely talented, but came from situations where it's just not possible to come up with the $100K it takes for a state resident to spend four years here. (Nonresidents spend about twice that.) Many of these students work, but when you're a full-time student, there's only so many hours you have left before it really starts to impact your performance in your classes.

As sources of funding for these students dries up, we squander that talent. That's certainly bad for them, but it's also bad for the rest of us.

Just as a quick example in Ohio, here at Mount Union the (state) aid incoming freshmen students are receiving dropped 62% from last year alone.

I wasn't responding to the op-ed piece and the reaction to it to get into a debate on college education. Though I do think that our current policies with respect to post-secondary education are very short sighted. Problem that I see isn't the lack of government funding that others here see as the problem but that college isn't the answer for large numbers of folks. A lot of folks just are not meant to go to college and will get little, if anything, out of it. When they graduate, they are no more employable than when they started though they have a lot of debt. We should be encouraging people to look at vocational/trade training instead. We should also consider the impact that our policies have on tuition costs. Increased demand and increased subsidies will further increase tuition inflation. At this point, the cost of 4-years at a public college is approaching 2 times the average income in the US with no end in sight for the escalation. Add to that the fact that a lot of kids take more than 4 years to graduate and you are left wondering who can afford college (its beyond the issue of folks with limited financial means)? The government can continue to subsidize but that will only make the problem worse.

But my point with respect to the op-ed piece itself and the reaction to it is that I suspect that for many people, the issue of whether things are being viewed as black/white or right/wrong is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, I do not see much of a difference between what he said with respect to government spending (essentially that if you do not support government spending on everything, you believe any and all government spending is a waste) and what right wingers said with respect to people who didn't support the Iraq war (that they are unpatriotic, un-American, don't support the troops, etc.). The only difference is against which party the statement is being used. I suspect that many folks who agree with the ultimate message either won't object to the black/white view of life or won't even see the issue at all. So the positive change in politics that so many see isn't that we don't view the world in black/white issues any more its just that now we agree with the folks painting the world in black/white issues.

Why is the cost of college education increasing 3 or 4 times the rate of the cost of living? I believe that with education, like just about everything else, we should be looking at getting value for the money spent. All too often, it seems like we're told only to increase the amount spent without asking why, where, or what for? And anyone who does question it is raked over the coals.

Now I doubt anybody here (or anywhere else) employed in the field of higher education would agree to pay freezes or pay cuts. Especially when many of the families paying tuition have seen pay cuts and job losses. But you'd probably be prepared to offer a lengthy explanation of why that wouldn't matter in the larger scheme of things anyway.

RatherGoodBear said:

Now I doubt anybody here (or anywhere else) employed in the field of higher education would agree to pay freezes or pay cuts. Especially when many of the families paying tuition have seen pay cuts and job losses. But you'd probably be prepared to offer a lengthy explanation of why that wouldn't matter in the larger scheme of things anyway.

Interesting accusation, RGB. We are currently engaged in a salary and hiring freeze.

RGB -- Its clear to me that you view any and all government spending as a waste of taxpayer dollars and have probably held that view for the past 30 years. :) Spending more money is always the answer. If you throw a bunch of money at a given problem and that doesn't fix it, you didn't throw enough at it so you need to spend more. And borrowed money is the best for solving problems. There is nothing like spending money you don't have to fix all the ills of the world. ;)

RatherGoodBear said:
I believe that with education, like just about everything else, we should be looking at getting value for the money spent.

I just didn't want to be the first to say it. :)

Seems like too many people think the answer is to just keep throwing more and more money at it.

Also, the parallels with health care are interesting. The compete difference in how we handle/focus on/approach the two is even more interesting.

Remember in the 50's that it took just the man of the house to go out and work to support the family? Then in the 70's, it took both the husbnd and the wife to work to support the family.

Then it got to the point where people had to morgage there homes to survive.

What's going on?

One word....greed.

Remember back in the 50's, companies would share the profits with there employies, and still make buttloads of money. Now, it's only about how much money we can make mentality.

Large corporations are making 800 times more profit now, than what they were making 50 years ago. Meanwhile wages have remained flat unless you a top executive(then you get a huge bonus).

Government is the biggest offender though. They are pissing money away like it's nothing. Doing things that don't need to be done. A bridge to nowhere, studies on ketchup...we all know the stories.

I live in michigan, and this state has some of the biggest government scandles ever. Just look at what the ex mayor of detroit did(and still is doing). There was just a big report on the local abc station about how state legislators get $1000 cash per month allowance. This is on top of there 100-grand per year pay. They do not have to keep any record of how they spend this cash. The govener gets 5 times that per month. Here is the story here... http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/investigators/story/WILSON-Lawmakers-Spend-As-They-Please/pMXEEcrREUWnwMMcdZnspA.cspx

Meanwhile, they just cut state funding for school children down by over $100 per child.

Go figure....

So what is your solution? Do you want more government intervention in markets like with had with housing? Do you want government to regulate the amount of profits that any given company can make? Should government dictate what people can make at all levels (beyond the minimum wage)?

And I remember when moms started working in the 70s. It was when Ford or US Steel laid dad off from work for a while and mom worked temporarily to make up the difference. When dad got called back to work, mom stopped working. Then a couple of families looked at the money mom was making and decided it would be great to have it even when dad was working. So mom kept working though still parttime. And they got another TV or another car, maybe a bigger house or took a vacation. Then mom started working fulltime and there was even more money. Then it became pretty much the norm (or at least a lot more common).

And I know several families today who make about the average income with just dad working. They live in houses that are under 1500 square feet, have one car detached garages and one bathroom. Unlike the 50s family, they use clothes dryers (rather than clothes lines), have a computer (maybe with dialup access) and two cars (a couple families live on public transit lines and only have one car though none of them have cars newer than about 7 years old and certainly not ones with leather, DVDs, V-8s, Sat radio, etc. and definitely not a new vehicle every 2-3 years). Most don't have central air (though most have at least one window a/c unit they use on the extremely hot summer days). Few have more than one TV (and though its not black & white like many were in the 50s, its also not a 50" flatscreen). So it can still be done still today. Its just that between the choice of living like that with only one wage earner and living with all of the stuff the Joneses have and two income earners, most people today pick the to have all the stuff.

Interesting accusation, RGB. We are currently engaged in a salary and hiring freeze.

University of California faculty are taking a 10% cut via furlough this year. Michigan only gets 7% of its total annual budget from the state, so even a 10% cut in state funding is pretty easy to absorb---it translates to only a 0.7% cut in our operating budget---else we'd be in the same boat. In effect, Michigan has the financial model of a private school, but charges differential tuition to state residents. About 1/3 of our student body is out-of-state, and we charge them private-school money to attend. This offsets our (still quite high) in-state costs.

I believe that with education, like just about everything else, we should be looking at getting value for the money spent.

The data on this is clear. The money one invests in a high-quality college education is well more than repaid in future earnings. There is a ton of value here---so much so that even borrowing at conventional rates to pay for college is a smart idea financially.

We should be encouraging people to look at vocational/trade training instead.

To what end? These sectors are shedding jobs faster than almost any other---and have been for quite a while. There once was a time when you could graduate from high school, spend some time apprenticing in a union shop or similar setting to work your way up the seniority ladder, and live a very comfortable middle class life. It's not come to a complete end yet, but it is getting harder, and the opportunities more scarce, every year.

Many of my family members are in the skilled trades, and every single one of them will tell you that you're a complete idiot if that's your plan as soon-to-be high school graduate. There is too much downward wage pressure in these fields, because there are already too many people chasing too few jobs, and your suggestion only makes that worse. In manufacturing, the downward wage pressure is also coming from abroad, where people will do the same work for so much less money that it's less expensive to make it there and ship it here than it is to pay someone in the US a living wage.

GoBucks89 said:
So it can still be done still today. Its just that between the choice of living like that with only one wage earner and living with all of the stuff the Joneses have and two income earners, most people today pick the to have all the stuff.

Yeah, I'm also of the belief that expectations have changed more than anything.

That's not to say some things haven't changed to make it harder, but...

Vocational/trade jobs are not limited to manufacturing. We have shifted away from manufacturing to service jobs in our economy. We should be looking to better prepare kids for those jobs rather than just seeking to educate them in college for education's sake. And there are jobs that typically require a college degree to get the certificate (or at least get into the program to get the certificate) that really do not require a college degree. And there are large numbers of folks with degrees who get jobs for which a degree (much less the one they received) means little if anything to the job itself. And the manufacturing skill jobs here at this point are more computer oriented than old style skill oriented. Training for those jobs is needed as well.

And I grew up in a city where the biggest choice you had to make coming out of high school was whether to work at Ford or US Steel. And no matter what the choice, you were going to live a pretty good life. Those days have been gone now for a while. But I do not see the answer to the problem of those jobs being gone as everyone (or even most people) should go to college.

And I expect the returns on college degrees to decline. It just becomes a numbers game looking at who historically went to college and who goes now. In the past, typically it was the more motivated/driven people and smarter folks who went to college. Those folks were likely to do better no matter what they did. College wasn't as much the cause as many would like to make it out to be. Now we send less motivated and less smart kids to college simply because many believe they need to be there.

There should also be more direction in terms of guidance in selecting majors and colleges. With some degrees, where you go matters little (if at all). So going to expensive schools won't be worth it in terms of economics. And to the extent the government is subsidizes any of the costs, the economics should play a big role. And there are a lot of degrees that will provide almost no benefits in terms of getting a job. A lot of kids are told that because the factory job isn't an option like it was for their parents, they need to go to college with no guidance as to what they should go to college for. They often times select degrees which provide little if any employable skills and there are disillusioned when they cannot find a job after graduation (but still have loans to repay). And often the only option is grad school. More money.

Service jobs require a couple of hours of training and you're good for life. You can't be serious. It seems to me that the only one asserting that everyone should go to college is you. The point stands that it's getting prohibitively expensive for people who want to go.

What you study in college doesn't matter. I've worked with kids who didn't go to college, or have associates degrees and think that was useful for them, and all were not well rounded enough to meet my expectations compared to those with a four-year degree in anything. Unless you're planning to go to grad school, what you study doesn't matter.

Jeff said:
Service jobs require a couple of hours of training and you're good for life. You can't be serious.

***What are you talking about? The medical, insurance, banking, computer (other than component manufacturing which we don't do in this country), and electronics/vehicle/aircraft maintenance/repair industries are all service industries. Much of the skylines in any large American city represent service industries. Even many of the jobs inside manufacturing industries are service jobs. The notion that you can train everyone in a couple of hours to do those jobs and they will be good for life is beyond ludicrous.

It seems to me that the only one asserting that everyone should go to college is you.

***Actually I have said just the opposite. But anyway. President Obama has said that everyone should commit to at least one year in community college, 4 year college, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But as Mr. Noble indicated above only an idiot would go for vocational training or an apprenticeship so clearly the president was referring to college, right? And Obama has also said that we need to put a college education within the reach of every American (not just those who qualify or should be there). But lets forget that as its distracting from the discussion (and to the extent I caused that, I apologize). I would think that everyone will agree that over the past 25 years or so, we have recommeded that more and more Americans should attend college (with no regard to whether they would be better off doing something else -- its just now part of the kneejerk reaction of what we think kids should do after high school).

The point stands that it's getting prohibitively expensive for people who want to go.

***That is true with respect to a lot of things but you don't see cries for government funding of those other things. And we never seem to ask why the cost of college has risen at a rate so much higher than inflation. What role does increased demand and increased government subsidies have to do with that increase? And do you think that increasing the demand and subsidies further will do anything to slow the rapid cost increase? And as costs continue to rise faster than inflation, won't college be pushed out of reach from families who today can afford it furthering the need for more subsidies? Seems like a spiral to me.

But wait, we have the government's magic pixie dust which they will use to bring healthcare costs down while providing care to more people (increasing demand), covering all-preexisting conditions (increasing costs) and still allowing people to pick their doctors with no price controls or rationing. I am sure they will have some of that pixie dust left over to bring college costs down.

What you study in college doesn't matter.

***I agree unless you learn a marketable skill in college (which relatively few college students do today).

I've worked with kids who didn't go to college, or have associates degrees and think that was useful for them, and all were not well rounded enough to meet my expectations compared to those with a four-year degree in anything.

***There are a lot of things that would make kids more well rounded. Going to summer camp, visits to Disney and months spend in foreign countries would make kids more well rounded. Should we pay for those too?

Unless you're planning to go to grad school, what you study doesn't matter.

***Being well rounded is great absent budgetary problems. But we have significant budgetary problems. And if well roundedness is our goal and what is studied is totally irrelevant absent grad school, shouldn't we look for less expensive ways of obtaining well roundedness?

Repairing electronic devices is certainly not a service career. And as for insurance, hello, worked with the .com on the end. The wife trains call center monkeys for a major bank. These are not trades. You train what they need you for, and if you leave, the amount of useful skills that go with you are next to nothing. The educational requirements are low because the expectations are low.

I don't know what the president said, and I don't care that much. I wasn't responding to him.

I'm pretty sure people have asked why the cost of college has continued to go up, and one of the reasons is that there isn't as much money to pay for it. The states and feds aren't doing as much as they used to. Ohio State is now up to $17k for tuition, room and board. How does an inner-city welfare kid pay for that? Back in the day, you could get federal and state grants to cover at least half of that and borrow the rest. That's just not the case anymore.

Your pixie dust nonsense is intended to provoke, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

No one suggests paying for kids to go to Disneyland to make them more well rounded. Again, what's your point? Is Disneyland just like living on campus?

You aren't listening to me. The experience of living on campus and studying anything rounds you out better than not doing those things. I doubled in journalism and radio/TV. Half of the software engineers I've ever worked with studied other non-related things. That they didn't pursue computer science doesn't matter. I like to think of college as real world pretend, kinda like prom is a warm up for your wedding, as they say. I'd much rather have someone who had to learn four years of college responsibilities than some kid who commuted from mom's basement to get an associates degree in basket weaving.