Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

2010-11-03 15:43:31

#51

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

cybargs stop talking out of your ASS

poseidon is going to a shitty university (rated 28 out of 100, in terms of marks) and he pays $50K A YEAR in costs

even then that's $150-200k debt, seeing as with your figure you're assuming no scholarships or bursaries or parental coverings

(enjoy not ever getting into a college because all you ever fucking do is spout bullshit)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 15:44:08

#52

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7104

Macbeth wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:

4 years of undergrad at $75k a year

$300k starting salary for a job?

cybargs it would be nice if once, just once, you came into a thread knowing just what the fuck you're talking about

i think the average graduate salary in the UK is £21-25k... with £27k debt MINIMUM at the end of a 3 year (MINIMUM) degree... that's going to take you a hell of a lot longer than your first year of work. and that's the UK, where our fees are still capped to a ('reasonable') level. just stop talking such utter shite.
enjoy paying off your college debts till you're fifty.

wtf 75k per year for undergrad?

mosts schools are well UNDER 20k PER YEAR including room and board, not to mention getting financial support from parents and grants.
Almost all the Ivy league schools cover the cost of middle class and poor students and only make the rich kids pay for it.

According to Forbes an Ivy League school is going to pay off.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000

Ivy leagues have huge endowments anyway... i remember a grant/aid somewhere where you pay only 10% of your parents annual salary. i remember a cnn news story bout an NYU stern grad living in a shithole coz hes 300k in debt and out of a job (due to recession).

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-11-03 15:44:56

#53

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7104

Uzique wrote:
cybargs stop talking out of your ASS

poseidon is going to a shitty university (rated 28 out of 100, in terms of marks) and he pays $50K A YEAR in costs

even then that's $150-200k debt, seeing as with your figure you're assuming no scholarships or bursaries or parental coverings

(enjoy not ever getting into a college because all you ever fucking do is spout bullshit)

which is why most student in his college will enjoy their debts till they're fifty.

edit: im sure most kids going to expensive colleges will have their parents covering a large portion of the costs.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-11-03 15:46:03)

2010-11-03 15:45:54

#54

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6518|North Tonawanda, NY

Macbeth wrote:
Almost all the Ivy league schools cover the cost of middle class and poor students and only make the rich kids pay for it.

According to Forbes an Ivy League school is going to pay off.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000

Sub-Ivy League schools aren't so nice. And only a little less in sticker price.

2010-11-03 15:50:46

#55

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5974

SenorToenails wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Almost all the Ivy league schools cover the cost of middle class and poor students and only make the rich kids pay for it.

According to Forbes an Ivy League school is going to pay off.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000
Sub-Ivy League schools aren't so nice. And only a little less in sticker price.

Most of those private schools work the same way Ivy's do. Aside from that, most state schools do fine also.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000

2010-11-03 15:54:20

#56

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6518|North Tonawanda, NY

Macbeth wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Almost all the Ivy league schools cover the cost of middle class and poor students and only make the rich kids pay for it.

According to Forbes an Ivy League school is going to pay off.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000
Sub-Ivy League schools aren't so nice. And only a little less in sticker price.
Most of those private schools work the same way Ivy's do. Aside from that, most state schools do fine also.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/colleg … peed=20000

Maybe? That's not my experience with the whole process though. Maybe that doesn't work with the so-called New Ivies.

2010-11-03 16:03:38

#57

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6349|Places 'n such

JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
Macbeth wrote:

Get student loans, get a part time job, major in something that you can get a job with after school. If they are private student loans, the bank will only have you do low interest only payments until a few months after you get your degree or drop out. If it's a federal student loan you don't have to make any payments until you are out of school. In both cases the interest rates are pretty low. Especially for the Federal student loans.

I don't see why people bitch and complain so much about rising school cost when, if you think about it, university cost are pretty low compared the average U.S. income levels. People are all too ready to blow money on alcohol, pot, and other shit, I don't see why the people can't burden the cost of their own education more.

If driving the cost of higher education down is a goal, the government could maybe look into cutting some stuff from state schools and maybe restricting government loans to some others.

In any case, I think too many people go to college in this country to begin with...
I dont want to end up in 30k debt as it is, let alone adding another 15k or so on top of that. Education shouldn't be something that only the rich are given.
It's not. You just have to pay for it. Why is it your right to go to college? It benefits you does it not? You can expect to earn a higher salary with a degree, why bitch about a few thousand dollars more to repay? This has nothing to do with 'only the rich will be able to afford it' because even here in the US, with our outrageous costs, even our poorest have access to a college education.

It's my right, because ive worked damn hard and done well to try to get there. I didnt get in this year because the university's were overflowing with people applying as they thought the fees were going to go up. Not to mention the competition I face from those who've attended private schools and been streamed to get A's straight out of the womb, yet another advantage for those with more money.
I could barely afford it as it was, if it goes up by another £6000 a year its going to be pretty much out of the question, and theres very few jobs going at the moment which i can get into with 3 a levels. Even if they are all A's. I struggled to get a shitty part time job last year, it's going to be impossible to get anything better without a decent degree from a good university... Which is looking less and less likely.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2010-11-03 16:08:00

#58

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7037

Your argument makes no sense. You realise that you can get a loan from the SLC to cover everything right? So you don't need a penny? Once you make 15k pa (which is going up to 25k I think?) you pay off 100 pounds a month, or something inconceivably small like that until you pay it off. With higher fees it'll just take longer to pay off. What's the problem?

EDIT: And I hate to be a dick, but you clearly haven't worked hard enough, or didn't think through a very good strategy for a safety school if you couldn't get in anywhere.

Last edited by ghettoperson (2010-11-03 16:11:15)

2010-11-03 16:16:03

#59

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6349|Places 'n such

ghettoperson wrote:
With higher fees it'll just take longer to pay off. What's the problem?

That. Is the problem. It's yet more debt to pay off, adding another £24k to it is hardly an inconsequential increase.
60k at 100 a month would only take 50 years to pay off. Provided no interest would be added. It's not just the cost that bothers me, it's the fact that the Lib Dems were voted for by a huge body of students, almost purely for the fact they promised to abolish tuition fees.

As for not working hard enough, I missed out on an A by 1% in all 3 subjects. I would have been given a place at my chosen university had one of those grades been an A, my backup choice was ABB and said they would have normally accepted me had it not been for the larger number of applicants that year (due to the threat of increased tuition fees).

Last edited by presidentsheep (2010-11-03 16:18:58)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2010-11-03 16:43:38

#60

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7037

Well they cancel your debt after a certain number of years, so if it takes that long it's a win for you. And fair enough about your grades, but that's the first I've heard of people not getting in anywhere because of number of people.

2010-11-03 16:47:32

#61

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6349|Places 'n such

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 … y-students
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8213631.stm

2 of my choices (Bristol + Birmingham) Didnt take near miss candidates this year and clearing was impossible, both due to sheer numbers.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2010-11-03 16:53:12

#62

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

president you are incredibly naive to apply to bristol with only 3 A's. i have 4A's and a B and didn't even apply there for undergraduate. bristol is one of the most over-applied and over-flowing universities in the UK... being a consistently high-ranking institution that doesn't 'seem' to have the brand appeal of oxbridge; the poor logic here is that every cautious oxbridge applicant also applies for bristol and so the place is absolutely brimming. to get into any top10 university in the UK with only 3 a-levels, you really need to be an exceptional candidate in your personal drive as well as your on-paper marks.

what subject are you hoping to do? please don't say englit because bristol in particular is the most competitive englit dept. in the country.

sympathies but, echoing ghetto (and his dickishness): if you have no back-up strategy, you're going to miss out.

i'm still principally opposed to this tuition fees business-- even though it hasn't and won't personally affect me. master's degrees are also prohibitively expensive over here and so it's a similar financial 'effect': many able candidates simply cannot take further education because of the increased costs/debt. now i know that it's unrealistic for everybody to have a complete carte blanche of academia, but it's another thing entirely when potentially brilliant academics/intellectuals/researchers cannot reach their full potential because of financial overheads. it stifles academic and research progression.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 17:59:19

#63

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:
Your argument makes no sense. You realise that you can get a loan from the SLC to cover everything right? So you don't need a penny? Once you make 15k pa (which is going up to 25k I think?) you pay off 100 pounds a month, or something inconceivably small like that until you pay it off. With higher fees it'll just take longer to pay off. What's the problem?

EDIT: And I hate to be a dick, but you clearly haven't worked hard enough, or didn't think through a very good strategy for a safety school if you couldn't get in anywhere.

I was going to say something along those lines

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-03 18:02:47

#64

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Uzique, welcome to American style Uni tuitions. As John noted, where the middle gets screwed.

2010-11-03 18:03:21

#65

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

presidentsheep wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
With higher fees it'll just take longer to pay off. What's the problem?
That. Is the problem. It's yet more debt to pay off, adding another £24k to it is hardly an inconsequential increase.
60k at 100 a month would only take 50 years to pay off. Provided no interest would be added. It's not just the cost that bothers me, it's the fact that the Lib Dems were voted for by a huge body of students, almost purely for the fact they promised to abolish tuition fees.

As for not working hard enough, I missed out on an A by 1% in all 3 subjects. I would have been given a place at my chosen university had one of those grades been an A, my backup choice was ABB and said they would have normally accepted me had it not been for the larger number of applicants that year (due to the threat of increased tuition fees).

Clearly you should be blaming your parents for not saving any money for your school rather than the state.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-03 18:06:02

#66

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Or like many here in the States, work and put yourself through college. Now, if you were a hot girl in Nevada for example, plenty of college girls working the Crazy Horse.

2010-11-03 18:06:18

#67

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

john that's so unrealistic, though. an average-sized middle-class family (i.e. 2.4 children) with an average middle-class income DOES NOT scale with educational costs. what is one supposed to do? only send one child to college? prioritize and fund only the most 'gifted' child? let the others become blue-collar workers simply because it is the 'demand of the market' or their 'fault' for not committing 75% of their salary to their children's enrichment?

it's such a retardedly narrow-minded conception that really cuts out the VAST majority of your population

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:07:19

#68

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7104

Uzique wrote:
john that's so unrealistic, though. an average-sized middle-class family (i.e. 2.4 children) with an average middle-class income DOES NOT scale with educational costs. what is one supposed to do? only send one child to college? prioritize and fund only the most 'gifted' child? let the others become blue-collar workers simply because it is the 'demand of the market' or their 'fault' for not committing 75% of their salary to their children's enrichment?

it's such a retardedly narrow-minded conception that really cuts out the VAST majority of your population

cheaper schools or state schools. state schools aren't taht bad and you can usually get a huge grant.

2010-11-03 18:07:51

#69

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
john that's so unrealistic, though. an average-sized middle-class family (i.e. 2.4 children) with an average middle-class income DOES NOT scale with educational costs. what is one supposed to do? only send one child to college? prioritize and fund only the most 'gifted' child? let the others become blue-collar workers simply because it is the 'demand of the market' or their 'fault' for not committing 75% of their salary to their children's enrichment?

it's such a retardedly narrow-minded conception that really cuts out the VAST majority of your population

I think a simpler, better suggestion is...

Don't have more kids than you can afford to send to college.

2010-11-03 18:08:27

#70

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

right so they should just settle for a shittier university with less of an 'elite' status because they can't afford it, right.

similarly fucking retarded. "our child was capable of oxford but we had to send him to de montfort because of the cost".

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:08:28

#71

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

If you are good enough to get accepted to Harvard, make sure your parents make less than $100K. You'll then most likely get a full or almost full ride.

2010-11-03 18:08:32

#72

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

Uzique wrote:
john that's so unrealistic, though. an average-sized middle-class family (i.e. 2.4 children) with an average middle-class income DOES NOT scale with educational costs. what is one supposed to do? only send one child to college? prioritize and fund only the most 'gifted' child? let the others become blue-collar workers simply because it is the 'demand of the market' or their 'fault' for not committing 75% of their salary to their children's enrichment?

it's such a retardedly narrow-minded conception that really cuts out the VAST majority of your population

Hardly. Put away 2k a year towards your kids education. On their 18th birthday, and at a modest return of 5% annual, that measly $2,000 has turned into $59,078.01. More than enough to pay for a state school.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-03 18:09:49

#73

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

Ilocano wrote:
If you are good enough to get accepted to Harvard, make sure your parents make less than $100K. You'll then most likely get a full or almost full ride.

the point is that it's so fucking arbitrary to determine a young student's opportunities and capacity because of parental income. a young person with a lot of drive, ambition and will to work/learn should not be impeded simply because of the family or circumstance they were born into; education should be about rewarding merit and potential with easy accessibility to higher levels of research and tuition. anything that obstructs that is a violation of that universal right.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:10:27

#74

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
right so they should just settle for a shittier university with less of an 'elite' status because they can't afford it, right.

similarly fucking retarded. "our child was capable of oxford but we had to send him to de montfort because of the cost".

Not really... It's just about not producing what you can't pay for. There are too many people on this planet already. The last thing I want to do is to encourage people to keep pumping out spawn to feed and teach. The Third World already overcompensates for that shit. Just import the fuckers.

2010-11-03 18:11:27

#75

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7104

Ilocano wrote:
If you are good enough to get accepted to Harvard, make sure your parents make less than $100K. You'll then most likely get a full or almost full ride.

most ivies are like that. only school that doesn't is NYU and other private schools. theres lots of state schools that have great programs. or people usually get bachelors from state then go masters in a better college.

BF2S Forums Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

Macbeth wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Board footer