Wake County Superintendent Tony Tata and three school board members are heading to Pittsburgh this weekend to see what education lessons they can learn from the Steel City.
The Wake school contingent is among a group of local elected officials, government officials, business people and community leaders who are participating in this year's Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce Inter-City Visit and Leadership Conference. The group will meet with different Pittsburgh leaders to see how the city has transformed itself.
On the education side, the part of the trip that will most likely be relevant is a discussion about The Pittsburgh Promise Program. Students who graduate from Pittsburgh Public Schools or local charter high schools with at least a 2.5 GPA and 90 percent attendance record receive up to $40,000 in college scholarships for in-state schools.
The students don't have to compete to get the money. They'll receive it as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. The amount is dependent upon how long they've attended schools in Pittsburgh with those who've been there since kindergaren getting the most money.
The scholarship program relies on donations, something that would likely have to be repeated if implemented here in Wake.
The Pittsburgh Public Schools are considered one of the more successful examples of districts run by graduates of the Broad Superintendents Academy. The current superintendent and her predecessor are Broad graduates, just like Tata..
In addition to Tata, school board chairman Kevin Hill, school board member Susan Evans and school board member Christine Kushner are scheduled to go on the trip. The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce is footing the costs for Tata and the school board members.
The Wake school group will skip Tuesday's discussion about fracking to make it back in time for the school board meeting.
UPDATE/CORRECTION
The Chamber is paying the costs for the managers, such as Tata and Wake County Manager David Cooke. For elected officials, the Chamber is offering a $999 per person government rate instead of the regular $2,150 per person charge.
The Chamber provided three scholarships for each government body, which in this case covered the costs for the three school board members. Some bodies like the Raleigh City Council are sending more than three people so some are covered by the scholarships and others are paying the government rate.
Comments
very Broad district
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 21:08 — snordonethey have had an equity committee for a few years and seem to be dealing with their reality (i.e. not trying to hide it):
I know this is going to be
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 20:41 — shearertwI know this is going to be very, very unpopular but these programs are generally horrible ideas. All they ultimately accomplish is (1) driving up the cost of tuition and (2) watering down the college curriculum by sending a bunch of people to college who don't belong there. If you're going to offer scholarships, make them competitive.
Must say I'm a little surprised
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 12:33 — nmoskalI haven't looked into other promise programs, but the Pittsburgh program is funded through business investors, not-for-profit foundations and private charitable trusts. The one is Kalamazoo is funded by "a small group of VERY NICE people." I'm a little surprised that you would take issue with what are primarily private donations made of the donors own free will being used as they see fit (including establishment of the eligibility criteria).
The point of the programs is as much about community investment/reinvestment as anything else. That is why the criteria include residence within the community and attendence and graduation from a high school within the community. In other words they are using the existence of these scholarships to draw people into their communities and districts. Other goals include increasing student motivation and increasing the long-term education level within the community, which is expected to have a positive long-term impact on the community. In Kalamazoo, in the six years of the program 90% of students eligible for the program have entered college, which is above the national average, especially for a high-poverty district and 85% of those who attended a four-year college have graduated or are still attending.
The one area where KPS has experienced that there is an issue is the students who attend community college where 2/3 have dropped out, so they are working on implementation of better preparation and supports for that student group (many are first-generation college attendees).
As far as watering down criteria - there is a study that showed that colleges do water down the admission criteria for certain kids - the wealthy (to be clear wealthy meant of the level where the parents could make significant donations, not just cover tuition).
I'm glad that its private
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 08:11 — shearertwI'm glad that its private money....that's the best thing about it. Hopefully, they're paying close attention to how the set elgibility. If they were even smarter about it, they'd restrict the types of majors you could select in you second and third years and set strict criteria for GPA while in school. But its their money so they can do what they wish. Just not sure I'd put my money there. That 2/3 drop out issue is a pretty big issue....begs the question of whether or not the public schools are really getting kids ready for college or not. Sure, they come out "looking" qualified, but are they really?
My biggest problem was the line that said "they don't have to compete for the money, just meet elgibility requirements". Why not have them compete for it? How about an interview or something? Perhaps then 2/3's of the money spent on those that drop out could go to someone that could use it. I'd rather give someone who's going to graduate and use their degree to get a job and do something positive for the community and pay their full tuition than give 6 people 1/6 of their tuition and have only 2 of them graduate. Perhaps they could adjust their elgibility requirements to make it a little more selective, but again, its their money.
"there is a study" - citation please? There's a study that says just about anything you want! I'm not sure what your problem with wealthy people is, afterall, isn't that private money? The number of people that make "significant donations" just to get their kids in college is extremely small....not worth losing sleep over. Anyway, I wasn't referring to watering down admission criteria, I was referring to watering down what it takes to get a 4 year degree.
In addition to the desire to keep students in school and paying tuition, colleges are also watering down the material because kids show up unprepared for the most basic college math and english courses. That's an extension of the failure of our public schools, of course.
Set criteria based on the program goals
Tue, 04/24/2012 - 00:13 — nmoskalIt just depends on what the intent is of the program. For KPS program, students must maintain a 2.0 GPA in college to keep the scholarship money coming their way. EVERYONE that gets in to one of the participating colleges gets the scholarship (as long as they attended KPS for all 4 year of HS) and it is set-up to go in perpetuity. The percent of tuition covered by the scholarship depends on how long the student attended KPS from 65% for 4 years to 100% for K-12. Therefore, there isn't an issue of this student would have had a higher percent covered if the other student hadn't gotten any scholarship money.
The 2/3 dropout only applies to the community college (i.e. like Wake Tech) students, which represent about 1/4 of those eligible for the program. Of the 3/4 that went to 4-year colleges (i.e. like UNC system schools) 85% graduated or are still attending college. They (being the people of the community) are working on solutions not just within the public schools, but also within the community (Geoffrey Canada Whatever It Takes types of things).
I don't have "a problem with wealthy people" - some of my favorite people are quite wealthy. I think the small group of donors for the KPS program are obviously rather wealthy (would have to be to fund what they are doing in perpetuity) and I think they, whoever they are, are swell. Depending on how people define it, some would say I'm in the realm of wealthy. However, I'm also not blind to the fact that being wealthy does come with certain advantages or an absence of certain disadvantages. My wealthy friends would be the first to say the same. Maybe that is because we've lived in various financial circumstances ourselves, so have "seen it from both sides" so to speak.
I can't find the exact cititation and I agree that one can find studies that say just about anything. I did a google search on the general subject based on my misunderstanding of what you were trying say about watering down and ran across it, but can't find that particular one again. Here are a couple sites with similar info:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/04/the-price-.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104576148300569701940.html
I will say that it jives with what I witnessed in college.
"Wealth" is supposed to
Tue, 04/24/2012 - 08:48 — shearertw"Wealth" is supposed to bring certain advantages/less disadvantages....that's part of the drive the fuels so much productivity that occurs in capitalism. I've seen it from both sides myself including a couple of years where I lived on <$10K per year (with zero government assistance or help from anyone else).
We've all seen wealthy kids in college who shouldn't have been there wasting their parents money....where are those kids now?
I don't know the specific details regarding this program so perhaps its a net good thing...My overall point is that the university system in this country is stealing money from all of us right now. The only cost rising faster than healthcare (and perhaps gasoline) is college tuition. The reason for that is the flood of federal and state money being dumped into the system. Obama will be here today telling us all how we have to support subsidized student loans to the cost of over $6B in tax payer dollars each year. All that money does is lower the interest rate on SL from 6.8 to 3.4%. The colleges then raise tuition by at least as much as the students "save" on interest with that 3.4% interest subsidy. As a result, the students actually end up owing more on the total balance of their loans when they graduate because of the artificially elevated tuition. It's like accepting 0% financing when you purchase a car vs buying the care for a lower price (i.e. taking the rebate). It’s a total boondoggle aimed at funneling tax payer money to the university system. Currently, Americans owe approximately $1 Trillion in student loan debt...a debt they can never file bankruptcy on no matter what. That's hurting this country, that's hurting the job market, that's an anchor on our economy. It's no surprise the Dems lead the charge on this because it goes to support their liberal college professor buddies who overwhelmingly vote for them. It's shameful. College tuition is not worth the cost these days. If we'd stop with the student loan boondoggle, I'd be happy to support charities such as the one described here.
So...
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 07:25 — Bob_SconceMy understanding of the program is that the kids still need to apply and be accepted to colleges -- there's no shu-in; only money to help pay for it.
As to driving up the cost of college.... That's a good point -- there is good evidence that the wide availability of federal student loans has served to drive up the costs of college, as colleges invest in new facilities and goodies to compete for new students. I don't know how much of an effect the 26,000 students in the Pittsburgh system would have.
It's a tough nut to crack: there's a net economic loss when students who are capable of going to college don't. (Presuming that they go and major in something useful. The world does not need more Barristas with philosophy degrees.)
I get that, but that assumes
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 08:23 — shearertwI get that, but that assumes colleges and universities are setting the bar high enough through their acceptance criteria....and I don't believe that's the case any longer. Sure, Duke or perhaps even UNC-CH do, but many of the others have too much pressure to accept students and take their money.
Setting the bar high enough
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 16:06 — Solon77Such a worldly comment, referencing Duke and Carolina. Do you think ther are just a few others that have high standards, Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Brown, Syracuse..... I would mention Yale, but they accpeted Bush so I guess you are right on that one. Getting into a good 4 year school is a bit more than showing up with a bag of money and saying let me in.
Giving two local examples
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 07:50 — shearertwGiving two local examples everyone can relate to is not akin to excluding the many, many others that exist. You forgot Stanford for example...Sometimes I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
FYI-getting in to some 4 yr schools is not much more than a pulse and some money.
...
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 20:50 — SideburnsYeah, you're right. That is probably very, very unpopular. And it begs the question...
Who "belongs" in college?
That's a very good
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 21:26 — shearertwThat's a very good question. Of course anyone who qualifies and decides to go to go college and is accepted by the college certainly has every right to be there. That doesn't necessarily, however, make it the wisest choice.
Over the past several decades, colleges and university have dramatically expanded the numbers of people they will accept and lowered the bar for those individuals as well. Why have they done this? Money. Their actions have been supported by the "everybody needs to go to college" crowd and subsidized by the passing out of low cost student loans, government grants, etc which only end up driving UP the cost of tuition. In order to keep these people (who are'nt really there to get a substantial degree that leads to a job) in college for 4 years, colleges starting creating the non-sense degree majors you can now find at most major universities. Of course, these degrees do not lead to any qualifications for employment and you end up with watered down degrees and a US job market relying on other countries to fill the technical jobs which are in high demand.
When one decides to go to college, they should factor in what the cost of that degree is and what they will do with in when they graduate. When you're not paying for that degree, you don't account for that cost in the same way. Some may decide that getting a four year degree in Gay and Lesbian studies is just not worth 60K and perhaps they should work towards a nursing degree or perhaps a 2 year degree in computer science or something that leads to employment. When you haven't really earned a scholarship with your brains in a competitive sense and someone else is paying the bill for college, it tends to become a 4 year vacation ending in a worthless degree and unemployment.
When you make something "free", that's ultimately what it will be worth...
Money
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 23:00 — Solon77or Free Enterprise/Capitalism. After all private companies are driving the demand. I think you mentioned in a different post that before long you will need a 4 year degree to work at McDonalds.
Twenty years ago needs based government grants covered 60% of the cost of going to school. Today it basically covers books.As far as low cost loans, compared to credit cards yes but not compared to say mortgage rates. Students and parents are financing this with either retirement savings or high interest loans. As far as driving up the cost of tuition, in theory the higher the volume of students, the lower the cost per student. Tuition is set by the free market, again another principal of capitalism.
With regards to the useless gay-lesbian degrees, SDSU adding a degree program in response to market demand.
San Diego State University announced today that it will become the first college on the West Coast to offer a degree in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies.
The California State University Chancellor's Office approved the program last week, according to SDSU. It will begin accepting students next spring.
"Students are realizing that having a minor or major in LGBT studies is a huge asset in getting them into medical school, law school or even the corporate sector,'' said Esther Rothblum, a women's studies professor who serves as the LGBT studies academic adviser.
"It really shows that they have a level of expertise that a lot of places want,'' Rothblum said. "Most places really like it if their employees have an understanding of diversity.''
BTW - I do not agree with the Pittsburgh promise program. Either you earn a scholarship or you fund education yourself. I also believe corporations are creating a lot of extra cost in their structure by demanding 4 year degrees for positions where a certificate or two year degree program would do.
With regards to your comment on someone else footing the bill - would this not apply to wealthy families as well. Are you saying that wealthy kids would view their free ride as a 4 year vacation ?
(No subject)
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 00:30 — shearertwAnd finally....
Since 2008, annual spending on the Pell Grant program has more than doubled, to nearly $40 billion, and with the Obama administration and Congress, the maximum grant has jumped from $4,731 to $5,550 (and is scheduled to rise again to $5,635 in fiscal year 2013).
The even more interesting part is that every year the Pell Grant money increases, the average tuition increases by a little more (outpacing even the rise in healthcare cost, also driven by government spending by the way). Don't worry, those government subsidized easy to get student loans are there to cover the rest of your cost. Of course, you won't have a degree that you can earn a living with and you'll owe student loans for years to come. The only winners in this situation are the universities and their crops of liberal professors leaching off the tax payers.
Healthcare costs
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 17:02 — Solon77Healthcare costs driven by government spending. I guess you would prefer a system where the old people just go off into the woods and die.
Seriously - all of the other industrial countries have government managed healthcare. Their costs are lower and life expectancy is equal or greater than the US. Reason for high healthcare costs - see the article in today's paper.
For real
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 16:23 — Solon77So now you are saying that tuition rates are set based on the increase in the Pell Grant ? That is a good one. I am sure Duke and Harvard are monitoring this closely when planning the next tuition increase.
So let's look at the annual cost of education. UNC-CH is $20k per year. A student whose family earns $20k per year is eligible for the $5,550 max. The entering freshamn is eligible for a $3,500 subsidizd loan. The total loan and grant package comes to $9,000 per year or 45% of the total cost of education. This is hardly a fee ride and without an academic scholarship is still out of reach. The poor student who does not have the grades to be awarded a scholarship is probably opting for a low cost two year school, local community or technical college.
BTW - just in case you are thinking we need more private for profit education, this is the area that has the highest rate of abuse and fraud.
A must read for you...
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 23:57 — shearertwOverview
www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies
The Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1
In the next section, we explore the origins of federal subsidies for higher education and its rapid growth since the 1960s. Following that we focus on the harmful effects of higher education subsidies. Those effects include education cost inflation, increased regulatory control of colleges and universities, and huge fraud and waste in student aid programs.
(No subject)
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 23:51 — shearertwCorrelating Federal Spending and College Tuition
politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/correlating-federal-spending-and.html
As Higher Education Costs
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 23:34 — shearertwAs Higher Education Costs Soar, the Answer is Not More Government Spending
Posted on March 28, 2012 by Adam Schwiebert
buckeyeinstitute.org/the-liberty-wall/2012/03/28/as-higher-education-costs-soar-the-answer-is-not-more-government-spending/
It’s a widely held belief that higher education is the ticket to economic prosperity. And by in large, that’s correct. As educational attainment increases, so too does income.
Naturally, government has looked for ways to promote higher education, most commonly through direct aid to universities and subsidies to students. But as government spending for higher education has grown, tuition costs have only grown faster, burying students and families under mountains of debt. Everyone agrees that it’s an unsustainable path.
But contrary to popular opinion, lowering the cost of a college education does not begin with more government spending. Government subsidies for higher education treat the symptoms of rising education costs without solving the underlying problem.
For example, from 2000 to 2010, federal spending on higher education nearly tripled from $64 billion to $170 billion (in 2010 dollars). While enrollment grew dramatically, graduation rates remained relatively unchanged and student loan debt nearly doubled to $1 trillion.
The story is the same for government spending and high school graduation rates. From 1970 to present day, per pupil spending on K-12 education has roughly tripled (controlling for inflation) but graduation rates still remain unchanged at around 70 percent.
The ability to attain easy financing through government loans has made higher education more accessible, but the end goal of those students receiving their degree free from the weight of crushing debt has proved more challenging.
In Ohio, only 29.5 percent of students enrolled in four-year bachelor’s degree programs graduate in four years. Even after eight years, only 63.7 percent of enrollees ever receive their degree. These select students who receive their diploma must then face student loans that now average over $25,000. The prospects for those who fail to graduate are low, as they must repay their student loans without the increased earning power that a college degree provides.
The solutions to higher education finance are multifaceted.
Governor Kasich has put forward several proposals regarding higher education reform that are worth considering. These proposals include three-year bachelor’s degrees, more in-classroom teaching time for professors, the loosening of university regulations, and establishing charter universities. Time will tell how effective these reforms will be, if enacted. Judging by the status quo, it’s at least worthwhile to begin a conversation on real reforms.
Additionally, emphasis must be placed on the opportunities provided by associate’s degrees and trade certifications. In today’s economy, there is significant demand for individuals with skills in these select fields. Two-year degrees and certification programs are a lower-cost, but frequently overlooked option for those seeking steady, well paying employment.
While making higher education more affordable is complex, what we do know is that simply shoveling more money at the problem will not bring down costs. Continuously increasing government support only facilitates tuition increases by precluding the necessary debates over university spending and administrative policies. The evidence has shown that greater government spending on education does not create greater outcomes; therefore, why should be do more of the same?
In the words of Milton Friedman, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” The current strategy of greater government spending, while good intentioned, will not provide the widely available, low-cost higher education that is necessary for a prosperous and economically vibrant society.
Cool
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 16:54 — Solon77Students can't graduate in 8 years so the solution is to have a 3.5 year program ! Understand why students are not graduating and put actions around that. If one plans their schedule and works hard you can already graduate in 3.5 years.
Reduce public support for education to improve graduation rates - with the recent cuts in funding of the state university systm, we should see graduation rates skyrocket.
Emphasis on Assocaite Degrees and Trade Certificates - agree
Increasing government support only facilitates tuition increases - Interesting theory. First government subsidies in forms of grants and low interest loans only funds a fraction of the cost of the cost of attendance. The measly $150 increase in the Pell grant for a fraction of the students that qualify is not driving the decision of education trustees to increase the cost of attendance by $1,000 + a year across the baord for all students. It would be like saying pharmacutical companies plan their drug price increases around when social security cola's take effect. Please tell me their is a little more analystical data behind the claim than the rhetoric of Governor Kasich.
So...
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 18:28 — Bob_SconceI have a friend who graduated from NC State in 7 years. Why did it take him so long? Basically, because it was cheap -- he could afford to change his major twice. If you look at private colleges, you see far more students graduating on-time -- why? Because they bear a greater portion of the cost of education.
When the person choosing isn't also the same person paying, the market is corrupted with "purchasers" over-consuming and sellers under-concerned about competing on price. I'm not going to claim that the effect of a $150 Pell Grant is significant, but the cumulative effect of public college financing is huge.
[Note: that doesn't mean that public financing should be ended. Just pointing out how it distorts the market.]
Nonsense.... Companies are
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 23:22 — shearertwNonsense....
Companies are not driving the demand....they are responding to the "new norm". When nearly everyone has a college degree, how else are they supposed to differentiate? Tax payes are funding that attitude and it would certainly change if we stopped. Corporations are free to hire whoever they wish...it's their money. Smart ones, however, will learn over time that they can do themselves a favor by hiring people from 2 year degrees, etc.
The government, state and federal, are dumping billions of dollars in to higher education. The federal government has taken over student loans, cutting student loan interest rates to around 3% at a cost of $6 billion per year alone. You simply do not understand economics....more students doesn't mean lower cost per student. More students only increases demand which drives up the cost. The government subsidies is the pressure that drives the increase in tuition cost. As long as the govenment is dumping money into it, that IS NOT THE FREE MARKET. When will you finally understand that most basic concept?
Yes, wealthy children who haven't earned their 4 year degree will often waster their parent's money with a 4-6 year vacation in college. That, however, is up to their parents who are footing the bill. It's criminal when someone wastes the money of others, particularly tax payer dollars, on a 4 year vacation.
New norm
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 00:08 — Solon77You have it backwards. Companies are creating the need for basic workers to have a 4 year degree and colleges and universities are responding to the need. If tomorrow businesses reduce the education requirement of the most basic jobs then you will see a dramatic shift in our education system and the amount of $ being spent by individuals and tax $. There are coworkers in my department with 15+ years of experience and for them to move up one grade (which they are fully qualified for except the education requirement) they need a 4 year degree and if they were able to advance a grade on their experience without going back to school they would do it. Businesses set the requirements for the jobs, not the government.
Student loan interest rates at 3.4% for subsidized loans. The government borrows money at 2% and lends it out at 3.4%, sounds like a profit to me. Assuming all of the doctors and lawyers pay back their student loans.
BTW - the max subsidized loan (subsidized is debatable) is $23k. This covers one year at Carolina for an in state student.
I've got it backwards? As
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 08:33 — shearertwI've got it backwards?
As far as driving up the cost of tuition, in theory the higher the volume of students, the lower the cost per student.
In theory, you just reversed the laws of supply and demand in economics. Students aren't the supply, they are the demand. Higher education is the supply. So higher volume of demand (i.e. students) drives up the cost of the "supply" (i.e. higher education).
As for employers requiring higher degrees. Of course. They are hiring the most qualified people from the pool of applicants. We're pumping out scores of people with 4 year degrees, therefore, the supply of those people is high. That reduces their value, hence, companies can afford to hire them at a lower cost. Because we've subsidized those 4 year degrees, the real cost of those people isn't being paid for by the companies. However, given the watering down of the 4-year degree, perhaps companies are paying the true value of the degree.....Given you're having issue understanding even the most basic principals of economics (supply and demand), I'm sure this last paragraph is totally confusing so I'll stop now...
Still backwards
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:13 — Solon77Simple example - 5 years ago a flat screen TV was $1,000. Consumer demand drove a higher need of supply and prices are now $200. From a public education perspective, as it is non profit and the tuition and fees should reflect the cost of providing that education, tuition and fees should be declining. A professor is paid a fixed amount whether they teach 10 students or 100 students. The more students a professor can teach the lower the cost per student. Until capacity is exceeded and a fixed investment is needed, tuition and education costs should be declining with an increase in supply of students. Some hard questions need to be asked of our public education system on why the cost per student is increasing at 7-8 % a year.
Private institutions on the other hand will keep raising their tuition and fees until they cannot fill the open seats with qualified applicants.
With regards to corporations, they are part of the problem. Again, they are setting the job specifications and they are in the drivers seat of setting the demand. Companies today are setting the tone of saying you can't get anywhere unless you have a 4 year degree. So why are companies doing this ? It is simple. Many offer tuition reimbursement. If companies can get more people in the door with a 4 year degree, then there are fewer people taking advantage of tuition reimbursements and the cost to the company is lower. Corporations then have effectively shifted another benefit cost back to the individual and taxpayer.
All I can say is, please
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 14:28 — shearertwAll I can say is, please sign up and audit an economics class at a Wake Tech or NC State or something. Prices did not come down because demand went up. Prices dropped when patents expired and more lower cost suppliers entered the market. As prices dropped, more and more people could afford them which expanded the customer base. Now, imagine what would happen to the price of flat screen TVs if the government offered a $1000 tax credit or just sent everyone a check for $1000 to go an buy a flat screen TV? Do you think the prices of the TVs will drop? Lower cost educational institutions are certainly entering the education market but that's only because the government is feeding the market with a bunch of tax payer dollars. If that money dried up, do you not believe demand would go down and hence the cost of education?
Finally, when the class size increases from 10 to 100 students, do you not believe the quality of education is effected in any way? Of course it does. Since the quality is not as good, the cost per student comes down. But what about the students that are looking for that HQ education? They're still there and in need of lower classes sizes to the can become engineers and scientist and drs or whatever. Those 100 or 200 student classes are for the freshman or people who probably should consider spending their money at tech school.
If that money dried up
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 23:49 — Solon77The view of lower demand = lower cost/price and higher demand = higher cost/price is an overly simplistic view. The supply/demand model is a curve and not linear as you are suggesting. That said
If that money dried up, do you not believe demand would go down and hence the cost of education?
The maximum Federal Financial Aid for a student coming from a family making less than $20,000 a year is a $4,000 Pell Grant and a $3,500 Stafford Subsidized loan. The cost of going to an in state public school is between $15,000 - $20,000 per year. Over the 4 years this equates to $60,000- $80,000 cost of attendance less grants of $16,000 + $5,000 value of subsidized interest = $21,000 of aid, leaving $39,000 - $59,000 for the student/parent to fund. I would hardly call this a free ride. Outright grants are becoming a small piece of the financial aid package with the shift towards loans. So do I believe the federal grants and loans are resulting in an increase in the cost of education ? No, that is not the driver of rising education costs. In a not for profit public institution one way to achieve the lowest cost per student is to enroll as many students as possible within the capacity of the institution and leverage the fixed costs as much as possible. Fixed costs would include Professor and facility capacity. This is where your view of lower demand = lower cost breaks down. The cost per student is much higher when there is 15 students to a class versus say 25/30. While you are looking to blame Obama and the liberals for the rising costs of education, the reality is educations costs have been rising exponentially well before Obama's time and it has nothing to do with federal subsidies.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/24/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm
I don't think so....
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 13:04 — Bob_SconceThe solution there would be to not offer tuition reimbursement. And, I think you're overstating the extent to which tuition reimbursement is made available by employers.
I think the reason that corporations generally want people with degrees is because the jobs generally require people with degrees. It would be foolish to have that requirement if it weren't necessary, since people with college degrees are generally more expensive than those without.
The fact is that many of the jobs previously available to people without college degrees have been automated away or sent overseas. Factories that used to employ hundreds of semi-skilled workers now employ far fewer, but better educated, workers. See this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/8844/
Coming from different sides
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 17:06 — Solon77You are coming at it from a technical side and I agree a degree is important. I am coming at from an administrative side, someone entering payables transactions, an admin supporting a field sales organization, a customer service/order person, a credit and collections person. At least in my company these are all positions that now require a 4 year degree.
Well...
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 18:04 — Bob_SconceSome of those people clearly should have at least an associates'. Many of those jobs have gotten more complicated over the last 20 years. If you're doing collections, for example, you'd better be familiar with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Professional Education
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 00:03 — Solon77There is an abundance of professional education and certificate programs available that are more relevant to a position than a general associates or a 4 year degree.
Yeah...
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 18:33 — Bob_SconceSo, there's also the 'signalling' ability of a degree. If you go to college, you're telling potential employers "Hey. I'm smart. I can do this job, I'll be interesting to have around and I may be able to be promoted in the future." There's the opposite concern that people without college degrees are, well, screw-ups. That's partially just elitism, but also part truth -- as more people go to college, the fewer who are left signal something about themselves also.
The government likes to play
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 00:40 — shearertwThe government likes to play all kinds of tricks with interest rates....The bottom line is the federal government spent $9 billion on subsidized student loans just last year.
The flood of education money is driving the demand for education, along with the college degree for everyone crowd. There is no doubt that companies have responded to this new norm, afterall, the people setting those policies usually have the 4 year degree! Of course they want it to mean something. Companies have no problem finding low cost workers with 4 year degrees...further establishing the point that these degrees are worthless. The only people really getting value for their degrees are the technical and professional degrees.
What came first - chicken or the egg
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:28 — Solon77So what came first, the chicken or the egg ? My parents did not go to college. They had what were decent middle class jobs, where a HS diploma could land a decent job and support a family of 4. So why did my siblings and I go to college ? Because my father was laid off and had a very difficult time finding a job because employers were requiring a college education. He eventually found one, but it was a clear sign to us kids that we needed a college education. We didn't just decide to get a college education because we got a nice brochure in the mail or the government said you can go to school for free. Far from it.
Remind me to tell the kids
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:38 — DrActualFactualRemind me to tell the kids to start skipping school so they can miss at least 10% of the time and let that GPA slip from the high 4.75/5.00+ down to 2.5 so we can get that $40,000 so I don't have to shell out the money. To think folks on here post that WCPSS suffers from low expectations for our students--and that was before any $$$promises. So go ahead and party thru HS and let somebody else pay your bills..got it. What is wrong with expecting students to show up 100% of the time except for an occasional sick day (and actually pay attention and learn the subject matter)? WCPSS should do what Univ. of So Cal does and take the brightest kids early as Freshmen (skip 12th grade and basically do it in college). This would help with HS overcrowding and not having to build more of the most expensive campuses. It would also help keep the smartest kids from being bored out of their mind and make room for teachers to concentrate on the rest of the kids as the population is thinned out a bit.
I'm pretty sure the requirement is AT LEAST not equal to
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:52 — nmoskalPretty sure the 2.5 and 90% are the minimum required with those exceeding the minimum also qualifying. Those with a 2.4 or lower GPA or less than 90% attendence would not qualify.
2.5 strikes me as pretty
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 15:24 — DrActualFactual2.5 strikes me as pretty low. We have such a high number of students going to college I can't imagine that the money collected would go very far spread evenly across all the eligible kids.
Wouldn't get too hung up on the 2.5
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 18:44 — nmoskalThat happens to be one of Pittsburgh's parameters. Different promise programs have different parameters. Kzoo has no GPA parameters. Theirs are acceptance to one of the eligible colleges, attend at least all fours years of HS and graduate from KPS, and live in the KPS district boundaries (MI has open choice). To retain the scholarship have to maintain 2.0 in college. I think over 80% of their students qualify. Minimum scholarship is 65% of tuition, sliding scale up to 100% depending on # of yrs attended KPS. If a promise program were to get started here, set the parameters based on this area's situation, needs and goals of the program. One thing to keep in mind is that KPS and PPS are city, not county, districts and their SES demographics and historical achievement results are more similar to residents of SE Raleigh than Wake County as a whole.
So....
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:41 — Bob_SconceIn PA, schools generally have a 4 point system. NC is the only place that I've seen with the 6-point system.
Not really
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 15:35 — Solon77Pittsburgh has a 5 pt scale and a 10pt grading system versus a 6pt scale and 7pt grading system for wcpss.
So...
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 16:11 — Bob_SconceI knew about the 10 point system -- I think it's preferable. In WCPSS, I see lots of teachers giving out silly extra credit to boost kids' grades to make up for the harder scale. (The science extra credit was an example -- a drawing? Really?)
As for the 4.0 v. 5.0 scale, that's not my recollection, and I went to school in a PGH suburb. (but not in that school district) Possible it's changed since then, but I haven't found any evidence online.
Grade Scale
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 22:17 — Solon77The unweighted scale is 4.0 just like wcpss. Just like wcpss bonus points are added for honors and ap courses.
http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/14322058101450367/lib/14322058101450367/PITTSBURGH%20ALLDERDICE%20SCHOOL%20PROFILE.pdf
As far as extra credit, no matter what the scale or district there is extra credit. There are no standards in this regard. Pittsburgh has another little feature as a safety net. The minimum score one can receive on an exam is 50%.
Source of info?
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 16:00 — nmoskalWhen I look on the Pittsburgh Public schools site it says students with 3.00 to 3.49 are placed on honor roll and 3.50 to 4.00 are on high honor roll. No mention of being able to get more than 4.00.
So, the NC legislature got
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:49 — DrActualFactualSo, the NC legislature got rid of the approx. $1700 grant to each student that went to NC universities--now everyone else will donate money....highly improbable. This week Obama will come begging to get the interest rates lowered for college loans.
Who pays the balance for the
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:24 — loriacWho pays the balance for the trip after the government rate of $999/person?
The Chamber is picking up
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:59 — KeungHui (author)The Chamber is picking up all the school district costs. In the case of the Raleigh City Council, the Chamber is picking up the costs for three of the people. Two council members are paying out of their own pockets. Two other council members are being paid for by the city. Only one Wake County commissioner is going so the Chamber is paying Portman's costs.
An interesting contrast
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 13:20 — stoopsI am not sure how much Tata et al will learn from a school district that has been bleeding students for decades. Indeed, young professionals are leaving the Rust Belt and moving to the Bible Belt. I did.
Sounds similar to the Kalamazoo Promise
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 09:34 — nmoskalNice to see they are checking out a promise type program. It's not the first time the word promise has come up. I'll be interested to see the local reaction this time.