Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[polly_mer]

The widespread neglect of K-12 education was one of the "many, many other things" that I had in mind.  Also various cultural and economic factors, which I won't get into here.

That's nice. 

The lack of a college degree is still not failure for most people, especially those who weren't already firmly middle class and actively participating in the part of society where a college degree is considered standard, but there's no expectation to be employed in any capacity related to that degree.  The possession of the degree indicates a certain shared experience, not education.  There is a substantial research on higher ed outcomes that indicates people who started on base in life can do pretty much anything they like for their college years (as long as it's not actually prosecuted and convicted as criminal) and still be fine.

Those who are accustomed to some other good life like the skilled trades who spend their time going the apprentice/journeyman/master route don't miss out on a college education.  Indeed, in many places where the regional comprehensive is underfunded, many of the people in the region would be better served with apprenticeships that start in middle/high school instead of wasting time in college before dropping out.

Urban poverty is its own thing, but one practical action that shows promise in pilot programs is to set up a mechanism by which people who want to try a new life can move to a place with much less poverty and thereby acquire a more useful personal network that will be more helpful in getting one of the jobs that isn't advertised.

If the goal is to set people up for success in life, then part of the solution is to spend the resources we have in ways that will benefit people instead of insisting that there's one path to success (e.g., formal schooling done by people who love formal schooling that may not have anything to do with the life one wants to live) and being harsh about those who can't/won't/don't succeed on that path.  Education only works to the extent that people participate in their own education and then want to do whatever that education best prepares them to do.

Basic literacy is important; many of the other parts of school imposed on a community by the outsiders isn't important and that's one reason that K-12 schools fail when the only place one encounters "absolutely important skills and knowledge" is in the classroom.  When none of the adults know the material and it's clear that only teachers know the material, then the proficient critical thinker will conclude that the teachers are misinformed or lying about how important those skills and knowledge are.

In addition, many of the jobs that are becoming hard to fill in the US are the ones that are best learned through the apprenticeship route.  Forcing people who would be good at those jobs to do something else for several years (grades 6-12) before being allowed to leave a system that doesn't suit them means we're even shorter on people who want to do those jobs and would be good at those jobs than we have to be.  That is setting people up for failure through bad choices made for school funding.

[wellfleet]

They had separate programs in English as a Second Language and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.  What's the difference between ESL and TESOL?  I'm curious.

At Concordia, it looks like the ESL program is designed for folks already teaching in the public schools who want to add to their certifications. The TESOL program seems to be aimed at people who want to teach English outside of public K-12, including to adults (I have a bunch of friends in this line of work, and they often teach abroad).

[apl68]

They had separate programs in English as a Second Language and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.  What's the difference between ESL and TESOL?  I'm curious.

At Concordia, it looks like the ESL program is designed for folks already teaching in the public schools who want to add to their certifications. The TESOL program seems to be aimed at people who want to teach English outside of public K-12, including to adults (I have a bunch of friends in this line of work, and they often teach abroad).

I can see making a distinction between these two sets of students.  So what difference does it make in terms of how the students are taught?  Are ESL classes couched in education-major jargon or something?

[Stockmann]

Because the Boomers, who got the best of everything,  pulled up the ladders after they got it.  They have largely doubled down on this behavior,  even as their  grandchildren approach adulthood.   Sorry about not.coming to visit you in the old folks home, grandma,  I'm off to work my third job.

I think the statistics probably show that boomers have invested a lot in their own children and grandchildren. The reason a lot of 30 year olds live at home is that they have all kinds of stuff at home that their boomer parents didn't have growing up. Boomers didn't expect to be making six figure salaries a few months into the first job which would be rewarding and allow work-life balance while making the world a better place. They just expected to have to find something to pay the rent.

Objectively, it was vastly easier for the boomers to fly the nest. Cheap houses, cheap college, plenty of jobs with a living wage, health insurance, a pension, etc.  In the present circumstances, lookin g for work-life balance, etc is probably more realistic than the things the boomers took for granted, like job security.

[dismalist]

Private debt aside, we boomers have left a crushing national debt to our children, not even counting the coming Social Security shortfall.

So, what have future generations ever done for me?

[marshwiggle]

Private debt aside, we boomers have left a crushing national debt to our children, not even counting the coming Social Security shortfall.

Governments have gone into debt for centuries. If you read books from pretty much any period in history, the writers indicate how "times are tough now" and they will get better "someday" so borrowing now is OK since it will get paid off when times are good.

It's extremely rare to see any government anywhere say "Times are pretty good now, so we're going to pay down debt instead of reducing taxes or increasing program spending." Voters are self-interested enough to not support that.

[Parasaurolophus]

Private debt aside, we boomers have left a crushing national debt to our children, not even counting the coming Social Security shortfall.

So, what have future generations ever done for me?

The US's national debt is irrelevant. It's in US dollars, which means the US can always pay it. But it's also not actually a debt (the money isn't owed to the Federal Reserve or anything like that, nor is it owed to China in Yuan, or in gold bullion, or anything of the sort). Similarly, there is no real Social Security shortfall; it's purely an artifact of the way the SS budget has to be construed. Funding it is trivially easy, if Congress wants to do it.

Governments have gone into debt for centuries. If you read books from pretty much any period in history, the writers indicate how "times are tough now" and they will get better "someday" so borrowing now is OK since it will get paid off when times are good.

The "debt" (which is not a debt) is always already being paid off as US treasuries mature and are retired.

[dismalist]

It's in US dollars, which means the US can always pay it.

Yup, inflate it away. No problem.

Governments have gone into debt for centuries.

And have either serviced it, or defaulted, for centuries. Ya gotta keep paying interest.

Too much wishful thinking, I think.

[Parasaurolophus]

Yup, inflate it away. No problem.

The economists among us can weigh in and correct me, but my understanding is that that's not what creates inflation, at least not for currency-issuing entities. Inflation is generated by not having enough real resources available to supply demand (this is demand-pull inflation, which you can control with taxation; there's also cost-push). In other words, it's not money creation (on its own) that causes inflation, it's creating and distributing too much money when you're at full employment.

But anyway, the US's 'debt' is a good thing--everyone wants to buy up US Treasuries because they pay interest. They're central platforms in retirement accounts, investment portfolios, international trade, etc. You could erase it all in a flash if you wanted to, but that would leave everyone in a pretty bad way. Nobody actually wants that, or thinks it would be a good situation (see: what happened when Australia decided to start retiring too many bonds). So don't worry about the debt--worry about where those resources are being (mis)directed instead.

[dismalist]

So don't worry about the debt--worry about where those resources are being (mis)directed instead.

That's a good way of putting it: Worry not about me paying off the debt, worry about you paying off the debt!

To remember, it's not about paying off the debt at all; it's about servicing the debt. That means more taxes. That means we can disagree over who pays them. If our disagreements do not come to an agreement on taxes, debt service will be cancelled by inflation. There is no other way. Not so much of a problem for those with real assets, like houses, or claims to real assets, like stocks. Good for you if you have a 401k or other alphabet soup in stocks, not bonds. The rest will suffer.

Anyway, this debt service and this debt is to be paid or wiped out by inflation. Future generations will do the paying.

There is no free lunch.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm taking us too far afield, but:

To remember, it's not about paying off the debt at all; it's about servicing the debt. That means more taxes.

What's being paid is just interest on Treasuries. The Federal Reserve can always do that (and unless you do something stupid like return to the gold standard or adopt some other currency, it will always be able to do it). Taxes don't come into it at all.

It's really nothing like credit card debt, or the kinds of debts we're familiar with. It's not like China or Japan have a stash of US dollars and they mail them over when you need some. Calling it 'debt' is a real misnomer.

[dismalist]

I'm taking us too far afield, but:

To remember, it's not about paying off the debt at all; it's about servicing the debt. That means more taxes.

What's being paid is just interest on Treasuries. The Federal Reserve can always do that (and unless you do something stupid like return to the gold standard or adopt some other currency, it will always be able to do it). Taxes don't come into it at all.

It's really nothing like credit card debt, or the kinds of debts we're familiar with. It's not like China or Japan have a stash of US dollars and they mail them over when you need some. Calling it 'debt' is a real misnomer.

Borrow from the FED to pay the interest. Money supply grows. That's what borrowing from the FED means. Unless people wish to hold the extra money, we get inflation. Why should they wish to hold the extra money?

None of this is new or strange.

[kaysixteen]

Explain to me,  marshy, how it is that those boomers, who did get their starts in life vastly more easily than their grandkids have it today, really  invested much in them,.certainly relative to what their wwii gen parents invested in them?  Buying kids lots of gizmos doesn't count.

[little bongo]

Speaking of the smaller branch campuses, Indiana University of Pennsylvania is in the NYT today for their mission of educating the poor and yet having had a bad financial decade even before Covid hit including a 30% decline in enrollment: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/us/college-coronavirus-tuition.html

A pretty fair-minded article, except for the shot about the Steinways. That was actually a necessary (and actually quite well-managed) expense for the Music Department.

[marshwiggle]

Explain to me,  marshy, how it is that those boomers, who did get their starts in life vastly more easily than their grandkids have it today, really  invested much in them,.certainly relative to what their wwii gen parents invested in them?  Buying kids lots of gizmos doesn't count.

Using some of my own experiences as an example; I was the first generation to go to university. I took out a student loan in first year. None of my kids had to take out any loans, all graduated without debt, and were involved in many more extracurricular activities all through school then even existed in my generation. I'm sure lots of boomers on here could attest to similar circumstances.

Where post-secondary education costs have risen much faster than inflation, it's because all kinds of boomer parents would pay it to give their kids the best experience possible. The problem is that low income families, who couldn't contribute as much, can only finance that kind of education by taking on loads of debt.

If covid has the effect of making a lotof people realize that a lot of the expense of in-person instruction is unnecessary, then that could create a much-needed correction to how much people are willing to pay, which institutions would have to respond to. (The big-name, highly selective places will always be able to skim enough students from the 1% to thrive, but further down the food chain places will focus more on the education they provide than the expensive "experience", and the smart ones will do really well in consequence.)