Higher Education Bubble

WeMadeIt's picture
Rank: Orangutan | 312

I'm writing a paper on what has been called the higher education bubble. Students are taking on more debt as colleges increase tuition while the value of degree is not rising proportionally. A proposed solution to this is to make loans less accessible which will decrease the demand for college. My question is how can lending standards be improved while not restricting access to college at the same time?

Comments (57)

Dec 14, 2015

The problem is that degrees are considered a minimum in today's society.

Generally speaking, the demand for education is fairly inelastic. Decreasing accessibility to loans is unlikely to reduce the number of students pursuing higher education.

    • 1
Dec 23, 2015
Trenttyy:

The problem is that degrees are considered a minimum in today's society.

Generally speaking, the demand for education is fairly inelastic. Decreasing accessibility to loans is unlikely to reduce the number of students pursuing higher education.

It's extremely elastic. People only go to college because they believe that they need it to get a job. There's also a significant awareness gap. It's a lot easier to get a job paying over 70k/yr with the right trade skills than it is to make that much with your typical unranked liberal arts degree.

Dec 23, 2015
Bigass_Spider:

It's extremely elastic. People only go to college because they believe that they need it to get a job. There's also a significant awareness gap. It's a lot easier to get a job paying over 70k/yr with the right trade skills than it is to make that much with your typical unranked liberal arts degree.

Although your statement about trade skills is true, people also believe that going to college gets you a job paying over 70k/year. In the case where degrees have extreme elasticity, a small rise in tuition prices will dampen demand - which we are seeing is not the case, as the demand for degrees still remain strong despite rising tuition fees.

Dec 15, 2015

So you want to make loans less accessible while also NOT making college less accessible? Those two things literally go hand in hand.

You could push for more grants to take the place of loans, but you won't be solving the problem of increasing prices; you'll only be lessening student debt (at the expense of government debt). If you want prices to come down, you have two options: Have less people go to college (doesn't seem to be what you want) or have schools quit raising their prices.

To achieve the latter, you'd have to give them an incentive. They aren't going to voluntarily makes less money, even if they COULD start using endowment money to ease price pressure (that's a completely separate topic). It could be a government mandate incentive (no more than x% increase per year, or no more federal/state funding) or incentive brought about by public pressure or education disruption. Both of the latter measures are occurring, the question is whether or not they will be effective enough to make the majority of students notice or care.

Dec 15, 2015

Oh ok makes sense student loans are the only factor behind college attendance ...because cutting college costs and increasing federal grants doesn't have anything to do with the accessibility of college lol. Stay in ur lane

Dec 15, 2015

What about the students who can afford higher education?
-Some earn enough before Grad school
-Some have rich families who can easily pay for grad school

Although a separate issue but still a part percentage of your topic.

Dec 15, 2015

Introduce competition into the market place, so stop guaranteeing a profit on student loans. Right now, colleges can raise costs with impunity because students can just borrow more to cover the difference and lenders have a guarantee they won't lose money.

Best Response
Dec 15, 2015

This has been discussed some before and I liked the idea of privatized lending where the underwriting of the loans is based on highschool gpa's, which university they go to, which courework they choose to pursue, and then continuing to maintain (much like a scholarship requirement). I think this is already happening but it would be a good way to put a bottleneck on demand.

    • 3
Dec 15, 2015

So people from disadvantaged backgrounds (bad schools) should get unfavorable loan conditions? Favorable loan conditions can be obtained by taking fluff classes?

Those are poor metrics that would just make loans another series of academic admissions. Take away the guarantee lenders will make a profit and limit interest rates... The market will do the rest.

Dec 21, 2015
undefined:

Introduce competition into the market place, so stop guaranteeing a profit on student loans. Right now, colleges can raise costs with impunity because students can just borrow more to cover the difference and lenders have a guarantee they won't lose money.

This. Right now universities are competing on experience (i.e. nice dorms, rec centers, etc...) to attract Freshmen as opposed to price and job placements. Which isn't something most 18 year old kids are thinking about when they are evaluating schools. Once you make money the competitive factor for both cost of attendance and post-grad salary, schools will be forced to compete on a more realistic field.

Another issue is the amount of people in risky degree programs, from both reputable and sh!tty schools, that will more often than not lead to nowhere. How many poli sci majors from South Dakota State become politicians/lawyers/embassy officials? How many journalism/film/etc majors make it in their intended field from Eastern Carolina Univ? Sure there are a few exceptions and theres nothing wrong with pursuing your dreams but students need to be practical and have backups. Otherwise they end up making $35k a year renting cars out at Enterprise. Not exactly a great ROI nor fun.

Take away guaranteed funding for student loans and start stripping underperforming universities of whatever State and Federal money they receive. Start incentivizing STEM majors at all schools. Maybe make, for example, film majors pay more in tuition?

    • 1
Dec 15, 2015

I think you have to be very careful here because you can end up with very totalitarian solutions. Such as: restricting majors, restricting schools, restricting time. (My solution literally involves all of this, but it can be done in more negative way) The best thing to do is probably to say something like we(the fed) will pay x amount(and no more no matter where he is going) for a kid to go to school. Maybe you even pay more for better majors(or less for shitty majors) so that schools have an incentive to push kids into those majors. I would say the fed should also limit to which schools it will give loans for. We as taxpayers don't need to fund your U of Phoenix degree that no one will recognize. So probably need a rating system or a real accreditation system. Obviously, we don't want brohanmigos in college for ten years so we are going to need some way to limit the time. Probably have the school estimate how long it should take upon entering(sometimes it is estimated at 5 before you even start) and then maybe give a year to two years of flexibility on that. Finally, maybe have an appellate process to allow people to overcome any biases this system might create. One that is actually helpful unlike the one that is used now.

Dec 15, 2015

Wait. So you're saying restricting John Doe from majoring in feminist and GLBT studies at a small private college costing $60,000/year is a bad thing?

Obviously an extreme example, but I know too many kids at my ultra-affordable state school that are going to rack up close to $100k in debt for a liberal arts major and a sub 3.0 GPA. In what world, should people be telling these kids that's a good idea?

I also know a lot of kids in the finance and comp sci programs that have great GPAs and are going to kill it. The average grads of finance make $65 and CS $80 first year excluding sign and bonus. This is in the Midwest too.

People need to stop viewing college as learning, because for the majority of Americans that don't have parents that can pay for them to mess around, a college degree is a ticket to a job to pay back their loans, create stability, and increase future opportunities.

    • 2
Dec 15, 2015

This is a sad, close-minded view that you have. Sorry not everyone like you is a CS/Finance robot that gets a hard on from excel sheets. The undergrad experience is about exploring interests and developing a broad knowledge, not having a narrow focus such as you suggested. Liberal arts majors from top schools consistently land banking internships. Get real

    • 1
    • 6
Dec 15, 2015

Great thoughts, guys. Thanks!

Dec 15, 2015

Good thoughts @anonymousbro

    • 1
Dec 15, 2015

Maybe we should start with the proper premise--that a good, value-adding college degree is already accessible to virtually anyone in America.

I know the Commonwealth of Virginia is in the upper echelon of state university systems, but take it as an example--for an in-state student to attend Northern Virginia Community College, considered to be one of best community colleges in America, it costs $171.25 per credit hour (excluding text books). For 2 full years of college, therefore, it costs $10,275 to attend NOVA. There is a guaranteed admissions agreement with nearly every college/university in Virginia, including UVA, Virginia Tech, and the College of William & Mary. At UVA it costs $13,490/year (excluding text books). For tuition, a Virginian can obtain an excellent education for $37,255. Add on $25,000 in living expenses/other for 2 years away from home and you're talking about $62,225 for 4 years of college. Get a part-time and summer job while you're in college and graduate with, say, $40,000 in debt. Retire your debt in 5 years ($8,000/year) when you obtain gainful employment.

I just laid out an affordable college plan for all residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the poorest people in Virginia. The problem is, too many middle class people want to go to Georgetown and get a degree in international relations, or they take 6 years to graduate, or they go to a crappy school with poor economic prospects for graduates. The reality is, there is a college loan bubble because people make bad choices, and the federal government has incentivized making bad choices by offering nearly unlimited money. With so many young people making bad choices and the federal government subsidizing those choices, tuition has risen in the exact same way that the law of supply and demand says it will.

Edit: even the federal tax code incentivizes student debt! Instead of there being a tax write-off for student loan principal payments, the federal government grants a tax write-off for qualified student loan interest payments! It's like the whole system is loaded to ensure death by debt!

Dec 15, 2015
undefined:

Maybe we should start with the proper premise--that a good, value-adding college degree is already accessible to virtually anyone in America.

I know the Commonwealth of Virginia is on the upper echelons of state university systems, but take it as an example--for an in-state student to attend Northern Virginia Community College, considered to be one of best community colleges in America, it costs $171.25 per credit hour (excluding text books). For 2 full years of college, therefore, it costs $10,275 to attend NOVA. There is a guaranteed admissions agreement with nearly every college/university in Virginia, including UVA, Virginia Tech, and the College of William & Mary. At UVA it costs $13,490/year (excluding text books). For tuition, a Virginian can obtain an excellent education for $37,255. Add on $25,000 in living expenses/other for 2 years away from home and you're talking about $62,225 for 4 years of college. Get a part-time and summer job while you're in college and graduate with, say, $40,000 in debt. Retire your debt in 5 years ($8,000/year) when you obtain gainful employment.

I just laid out an affordable college plan for all residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the poorest people in Virginia. The problem is, too many middle class people want to go to Georgetown and get a degree in international relations, or they take 6 years to graduate, or they go to a crappy school with poor economic prospects for graduates. The reality is, there is a college loan bubble because people make bad choices, and the federal government has incentivized making bad choices by offering nearly unlimited money. With so many young people making bad choices and the federal government subsidizing those choices, tuition rises in the exact same way that the law of supply and demand says it will.

Edit: even the federal tax code incentivizes student debt! Instead of there being a tax write-off for student loan principal payments, the federal government grants a tax write-off for qualified student loan interest payments! It's like the whole system is loaded to ensure death by debt!

This guy is spot on, bravo Mr. VT

Dec 21, 2015

death by debt? Sounds about right, +1SB

Dec 16, 2015

How do reduce the amount of debt being taken on by colleges? You reduce the population attending college. It's really going to take that in order to achieve any reduction in costs. Look at it this way, if you were a business that sold product X. Because product X was considered so critical to the economy the government decided to step in and be a guarantor of all loans the population took out in order to buy product X. You would have to be a complete idiot not to raise the prices. You have an inelastic demand. Its a situation that is better than a monopoly. The only thing that is really different in this case is that you would have a perfect business environment because of zero competition. While there is competition in the world of college education they still have zero incentive to lower prices. When you couple that with pricing realities that come along with government education loans that essentially force colleges to raise their prices you end up in an environment where the very people (government) who tried to fix the problem before it got out of hand have done nothing but accelerate the collapse. I for one am not really worried about the collapse. Maybe accelerating it was a good thing maybe it isn't who knows.

The question should be how do we limit the population for consumers of higher education not how do we continue to expand it more cheaply.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Dec 18, 2015

Wow, I'll just come here if I ever need help on my homework.

Thanks, WSO.

Dec 21, 2015

I don't think you should restrict lending based on major. I would be curious to see if there have been studies tying lending to academic performance, and if it's advantageous at all.

my solution would be to simply remove the option to major in a lot of the less productive fields, making them only allowed as a minor or a co-major, except for schools like RISD or art institutes. an easy example is art history, the only relevant jobs are museum related or teaching art history. don't allow kids at Michigan to major in that, they're going nowhere. if it's a passion of theirs, they'll minor in it.

but what about fields like history that have uses? I think there are fields like this: history, polisci, philosophy, english, and so on that do have uses but only when coupled with something else. here's where a co major mandate or a "track" comes in. all 4 of those are good for pre-law track, but alone are mostly worthless. they're also good if you want to go into education (and the world ALWAYS needs more good teachers), so allow history, but only if you co major in law or education (as an example), or double major in a more technical degree (pre med, engineering, finance, for example)

I do not want colleges to start becoming technical degree factories and essentially 4 year vocational schools, deterring kids away from the basic fundamentals of a well rounded education. I firmly believe this because it is important for people to be able to decipher others' writing, learn the lessons of history, have a basic understanding of the natural sciences, and all of that. I also think there is value in attending college, you get so many experiences that are unique to that point in your life that will help you grow as a person, and you get a good trial run at being an adult. at the same time, I believe that 18 year old kids need a polite "nudge" in the right direction, because even though all of the data are at their disposal, we still have kids getting worthless degrees.

I also think that certain things just should not be college degrees at all, major or minor, and the culprits are not just liberal arts, but technical schools as well. for example, there is a 4 year degree in golf management, there are 4 year degrees in turf management, degrees in library studies, fermentation technology, and so on. NONE of those need to be 4 year degrees subsidized by taxpayers, and that is where vocational school comes in. you can learn to landscape and cut grass in 2 years with some on the job training and maybe a vocational certificate, you do not need to go to Georgia Tech for that. you can learn to be a sommelier at a sommelier school, you do not need to waste 4 years of tuition at Cornell for that. in that sense, you could argue there's a bubble, but I think the problem is choice.

more choice is not always a good thing, as many marketing research studies have shown (the most specific example is among 401k plans and default contribution/investment options). given too much choice, people can actually make decisions that are counterproductive, like majoring in library studies. I don't know that universities need a default major for kids, but I do know that if you continue to offer majors that land careers paying <$30k out of college with tuition at $20k/year, we will continue to see the problems we're seeing.

    • 2
Dec 21, 2015
undefined:

I don't think you should restrict lending based on major. I would be curious to see if there have been studies tying lending to academic performance, and if it's advantageous at all.

my solution would be to simply remove the option to major in a lot of the less productive fields, making them only allowed as a minor or a co-major, except for schools like RISD or art institutes. an easy example is art history, the only relevant jobs are museum related or teaching art history. don't allow kids at Michigan to major in that, they're going nowhere. if it's a passion of theirs, they'll minor in it.

but what about fields like history that have uses? I think there are fields like this: history, polisci, philosophy, english, and so on that do have uses but only when coupled with something else. here's where a co major mandate or a "track" comes in. all 4 of those are good for pre-law track, but alone are mostly worthless. they're also good if you want to go into education (and the world ALWAYS needs more good teachers), so allow history, but only if you co major in law or education (as an example), or double major in a more technical degree (pre med, engineering, finance, for example)

I do not want colleges to start becoming technical degree factories and essentially 4 year vocational schools, deterring kids away from the basic fundamentals of a well rounded education. I firmly believe this because it is important for people to be able to decipher others' writing, learn the lessons of history, have a basic understanding of the natural sciences, and all of that. I also think there is value in attending college, you get so many experiences that are unique to that point in your life that will help you grow as a person, and you get a good trial run at being an adult. at the same time, I believe that 18 year old kids need a polite "nudge" in the right direction, because even though all of the data are at their disposal, we still have kids getting worthless degrees.

I also think that certain things just should not be college degrees at all, major or minor, and the culprits are not just liberal arts, but technical schools as well. for example, there is a 4 year degree in golf management, there are 4 year degrees in turf management, degrees in library studies, fermentation technology, and so on. NONE of those need to be 4 year degrees subsidized by taxpayers, and that is where vocational school comes in. you can learn to landscape and cut grass in 2 years with some on the job training and maybe a vocational certificate, you do not need to go to Georgia Tech for that. you can learn to be a sommelier at a sommelier school, you do not need to waste 4 years of tuition at Cornell for that. in that sense, you could argue there's a bubble, but I think the problem is choice.

more choice is not always a good thing, as many marketing research studies have shown (the most specific example is among 401k plans and default contribution/investment options). given too much choice, people can actually make decisions that are counterproductive, like majoring in library studies. I don't know that universities need a default major for kids, but I do know that if you continue to offer majors that land careers paying <$30k out of college with tuition at $20k/year, we will continue to see the problems we're seeing.

Totally agree. I know of a couple guys from HS golf who went to the golf academies of san diego and scottsdale that you see on the golf channel. They have the same job they would have if they had just started working at a golf course. Granted, most golfers are from upper-middle class homes so maybe it isn't that big of a deal, but golf courses often have apprenticeships that make people get their PGA instruction and course management license.

    • 1
Dec 21, 2015
undefined:

I don't think you should restrict lending based on major. I would be curious to see if there have been studies tying lending to academic performance, and if it's advantageous at all.

my solution would be to simply remove the option to major in a lot of the less productive fields, making them only allowed as a minor or a co-major, except for schools like RISD or art institutes. an easy example is art history, the only relevant jobs are museum related or teaching art history. don't allow kids at Michigan to major in that, they're going nowhere. if it's a passion of theirs, they'll minor in it.

but what about fields like history that have uses? I think there are fields like this: history, polisci, philosophy, english, and so on that do have uses but only when coupled with something else. here's where a co major mandate or a "track" comes in. all 4 of those are good for pre-law track, but alone are mostly worthless. they're also good if you want to go into education (and the world ALWAYS needs more good teachers), so allow history, but only if you co major in law or education (as an example), or double major in a more technical degree (pre med, engineering, finance, for example)

I do not want colleges to start becoming technical degree factories and essentially 4 year vocational schools, deterring kids away from the basic fundamentals of a well rounded education. I firmly believe this because it is important for people to be able to decipher others' writing, learn the lessons of history, have a basic understanding of the natural sciences, and all of that. I also think there is value in attending college, you get so many experiences that are unique to that point in your life that will help you grow as a person, and you get a good trial run at being an adult. at the same time, I believe that 18 year old kids need a polite "nudge" in the right direction, because even though all of the data are at their disposal, we still have kids getting worthless degrees.

I also think that certain things just should not be college degrees at all, major or minor, and the culprits are not just liberal arts, but technical schools as well. for example, there is a 4 year degree in golf management, there are 4 year degrees in turf management, degrees in library studies, fermentation technology, and so on. NONE of those need to be 4 year degrees subsidized by taxpayers, and that is where vocational school comes in. you can learn to landscape and cut grass in 2 years with some on the job training and maybe a vocational certificate, you do not need to go to Georgia Tech for that. you can learn to be a sommelier at a sommelier school, you do not need to waste 4 years of tuition at Cornell for that. in that sense, you could argue there's a bubble, but I think the problem is choice.

more choice is not always a good thing, as many marketing research studies have shown (the most specific example is among 401k plans and default contribution/investment options). given too much choice, people can actually make decisions that are counterproductive, like majoring in library studies. I don't know that universities need a default major for kids, but I do know that if you continue to offer majors that land careers paying <$30k out of college with tuition at $20k/year, we will continue to see the problems we're seeing.

Interesting that you say, "I do not want colleges to start becoming technical degree factories and essentially 4 year vocational schools, deterring kids away from the basic fundamentals of a well rounded education." I think your plan is much more averse to the less-productive majors, because it would entirely eliminate them from being an option. I think that kids should definitely have the option to choose art-history if they want, because it's a free country (and there would literally be NO way to mandate the elimination of majors). Also, the kids getting paid through by their parents should be able to choose to waste their money however they want.

I think that my method would allow kids to study whatever they want and get rid of most of the student debt that ends up crushing kids, and yours only only solves the debt problem and forces students to study something that they don't want to.

    • 1
Dec 21, 2015

I'm about fixing problems, not pleasing everyone (namely art history majors)

for whatever it's worth, I know a plan like mine would never get implemented, but it would fix the issue at hand, even if a few people get pissed off in the process.

    • 2
Dec 21, 2015

Online education. A personalized degree program would be great.

schmooze or lose

    • 1
Dec 21, 2015

There really should be a quality online program. Maybe hire HYPS profs to create online classes for complete programs and give them royalties per student enrolled in the class?

Dec 22, 2015
undefined:

There really should be a quality online program. Maybe hire HYPS profs to create online classes for complete programs and give them royalties per student enrolled in the class?

We kind of have this already (Harvard's distance program; MOOCs with certificates). The problem is, you need cultural acceptance.

Dec 21, 2015

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I admit I haven't had the time to read through all the posts here) but isn't the fact that the US government is involved in lending the cause for student loans spiraling out of control? This combined with the transformation of colleges to one's that look like resorts also a factor?

If I'm a school that has a large demand for admission and I know students will do whatever to get in and have access to government sponsored student loans what's stopping me from jacking tuition up by X%? We even saw this with schools that were established as tuition-free such as Cooper Union which charged tuition for the first time in its history AFAIK.

On another topic with students choosing to privatize their loans with startups like SoFi is there an opportunity to short student loans? Any CDS contracts available for SLABs?

Dec 21, 2015

Easy access to student lending isn't the problem. It's not the same as a credit crises stimulant. The issue is the cost burden of tuition and it's exponential growth rate relative to inflation and wage growth. The solution is going to come from balancing wage growth and job opportunities with the necessity for college education.

Aside from all the good points preceding my own comments, which I wont rehash, why not consider reforming social security to fund education reform. In my opinion, the problem and solution look like this:

Inability to afford college --> increased probability of poverty --> reliance on social security

where as it should be:

ability to afford college --> better job & decreased probability of poverty --> decreased reliance on social security

With this thought process, the system can self-correct so that a higher percentage of people are earning more financial wealth throughout their careers, and therefore the need for social security benefits in retirement are reduced. If, for example, benefits INTO social security were reduced in the future, and those payments were then reinvested into education reform (i.e. subsidizing the cost of college, textbooks, living, etc), more people could afford a college degree and therefore a high paying job. Could this benefit (higher wage income, innovation as a country) outweigh the benefits of social security?

This is purely hypothetical at this point (obviously) and is used to moreso demonstrate the misguided solutions presented by some (restricting access to college to resolve student loan crises) and look for a better solution. Inductive reasoning cannot support the thesis stated in the post in my opinion. If you believe the student loan crises is driven by over burdensome student loan payments and insufficient wealth generated to repay these loans, then attack the source: the income-generation ability of those who attended college: education reform.

Edit: Add in the 'requirements' many listed above (minimum HS GPA, SAT Scores) as qualifiers to this program. Also, I think it would be interesting to see a progressive 'credit' system such that hard sciences (math, business, engineering, etc) increase your "LTV" whereas higher risk (of default) majors (basket-weaving) reduce eligibility to get funding from this "program" -- more interesting would be creating credits from a fixed pool on an annual basis (like carbon credits) that schools can compete for and use as they deem fit (I can see this heading towards affirmative action, so I'll quit here...)

    • 1
Dec 21, 2015
undefined:

<

p>Easy access to student lending isn't the problem. It's not the same as a credit crises stimulant. The issue is the cost burden of tuition and it's exponential growth rate relative to inflation and wage growth. The solution is going to come from balancing wage growth and job opportunities with the necessity for college education.

Agreed that tuition is crushing the pace of inflation, so the question is why? Look at when federal student lending started to explode? The early 1970s. Easy access to credit has coincided exactly with the ballooning of college expenses. It's probably not the only reason, but it's a critical reason for tuition inflation. The law of supply and demand is an immutable law--it cannot be conquered.

Dec 21, 2015

It's absolutely a driver, however it's been exacerbated by the differences in growth rates in the cost of college and wage growth. Add to this the fact that people tend to stay in school or return to school when the economy hits recession (and monetary policy lowers rates), it 'compounds' the issue if hiring doesn't pick up when the economy recovers, and now you have a multiple of recent grads without jobs...it's a vicious cycle that will, as you stated, always be 'true' - therefore there needs to be an option/program to help curve some of the extreme outcomes. It may border on socialism, but education reform/assistance via subsidies or expanded scholarship opportunities is well worth it in my opinion. Just trying to take a more creative path to resolution here.

    • 1
Dec 22, 2015

One Interesting solution I heard proposed was to make schools offer student loans in lieu of some portion of tuition. The catch was that the student loans would be absolved/closed 20 (or some other number) years after graduation. This gives the school a real incentive to make their students employable and not charge excess tuition. You could still allow for wage garnishment in the case the students stop paying so the students have an incentive to work as well and not just default immediately on loan payments.

Dec 22, 2015

The main problem is the colleges themselves with their spending totally out of control (Over the top campuses, college sports, etc.). School should be the lowest capital expenditure institution around, as the Irish proved with schools in hedges.

Here are my proposals:

-mandate extreme spartan austerity, sell as much real estate and other items as possible to attempt to recoup past excesses. Cut all fat amongst administration, sports etc. Lower cost of tuition

-"college degree is the new high school degree" because elementary and high schools suck. Fix them (primarily curriculum and management)

-student loans only allowed to fund a certain percentage of costs for private schools based on efficiency of schools, including requiring draw downs of endowments over a medium term period

    • 1
Dec 22, 2015

On a different note I have found the protests going on very amusing. The students are protesting for a wide variety of things but they all seem to be protesting for lower tuition. Yet their other demands usually call for increasing the budget of a set of areas in the schools that the students deem necessary. The math doesn't work out. Lower incomes and higher expenses always works out well.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Dec 22, 2015
Dec 22, 2015

Just remembered a documentary I watched a while back while writing a very similar paper in undergrad, "The Ivory Tower". Check it out - it will nearly write your paper for you.

    • 1
Dec 24, 2015
Comment
    • 1