No, they arn't.


Sticker pricse are higher and state schools are passing more of the real costs on to the student because the state doesn't pay for it any more. Real costs have not changed all that dramatically.

BS. They're the costs before someone ends up stepping in to grant charity or subsidy. And, they're based on cherry-picking a few institutions out of the universe of the whole.

So again... who in the left-o-sphere has concocted this bizarre perversion of fact? I've seen it hoisted (and rightfully shot to holy hell) a lot this month in various places.

 

-----signature-----

Debt is higher, on average, in adjusted dollars, per graduate than ever before.

Potential earnings, on average, in adjusted dollars, are declining.

 

-----signature-----

Yuki, President Obama says you're RONG

 

-----signature-----

There may be a small cost imposed on lenders if this change was made. It would pale in comparison to the massive handout the current legislation has provided private lenders since it was enacted.


Since the financial bailouts happened, dont you have to support continuous future bailouts since contracts and expectations will price that in? That is the favored policy right now...and as long as banks have active contracts or continue to use financial instruments with this valuable policy baked into the price, you must continue to support bailouts in the future.


Or is this a case where you make an exception to being "against punishing or bailing out those who went into these arrangements voluntarily IN THE PAST who have active contracts now."?

You might be surprised.. Just last week I read a story about ivy league student loan default. It's much bigger than you might think.

 

-----signature-----

I didn't realize Independent Moderates asked what Obama thought and then parroted him.


30 years ago if you couldn't pay the 20k real cost for a 4 real private college and you couldn't get a charity scholarship you couldn't go. These days you can choose to rack up debt. 30 years ago a state school would have only passed on about 20% of the real cost to its students, because 80% was funded by the state. These days the state school will pass on 50-80% instead. 30 years ago there were no for profit online diploma mills, so that wasn't even an option. Now if you are dumb you can rack up debt via that route.


Cost increases themselves are relatively modest. Only modestly higher than inflation.


Real costs are not up much. Average debt is up because people can now go to college whether or not they can afford to pay the real costs and because state schools have had funding cuts so they pass on more and more of the real cost to the student.


Average debt going up by X doesn't mean real costs are up to match. This is just basic math and reasoning.

People are confusing 'cost' and 'tuition (cost to the student)' here. Tuition represents only part of the total cost of education.


The data does seem to support Yuki's point. Education costs are rising slowly, tuition costs are rising rapidly.

I racked up about 2x the loans that my brother did. Both of us only accrued debt for the last 2 years of our 4-year degrees. I went about 10 years later than he did.

You're pretty far out of touch on this topic, Yuki. Maybe you're a trust fund kid whose parents paid your way through law school, or maybe you earned enough merit scholarships that you didn't bury yourself in debt. Whatever it was, I'm kinda surprised you're so far off the mark when you're pretty freshly out of college yourself.

 

-----signature-----

And Harvard is your illustrative example of this, right Yuki? That's the one you gave earlier itt.

I know what argument you THINK you're making about 'price' vs 'cost'. But again, I've seen this debunked a couple times already so I already know where you're screwing up Yuki.

Ponder it. I've already given you too many bread crumbs. I guess I'm feeling magnanimous today.

 

-----signature-----