MinWhisky

May 6th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^

I graduated from UofM in 1966 with no student debt.  Worked long, hard hours in the summers and made enough to pay for my room, board, and tuition.  Lived a "Spartan"-like life on campus during my scchool years.  Typical attire was white blue jeans and a sweatshirt.  Did not go out for dinners and partying was pretty limited. " Cheap" dates were the norm.  No spring vacation trips.  And I didn't feel deprived.  I felt I was very fortunate. 

The main campus was pretty basic as well.  Unlike now, there was not much in the way of frills and sparkle.  I've been amazed at the high end construction and life style that's gone on in more recent times.   

Didn't ask for and didn't receive any "guidance" from faculty and/or school administrators.  I expected to have to think for myself and do it on my own. 

No sympathy from me for many of today's students who over extend themselves on loans and major in "soft" subjects that have little practical value to most employers. 

They had other choices - maybe not glamorous but economically smarter:

  • Go to a community college for a couple of years
  • Go to school part-time while working full time     

Probably unfair, but my image many of UofM students today is that they are spoiled; i.e. they are privileged and feel entitled.       

Joined: 10/17/2011

MGoPoints: 1262

LSA Superstar

May 6th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^

If you could make $55,000 dollars during nights/summers to pay for college today, you shouldn't be going to college - just do that other magic job you found forever. Congrqtulations for your success - I'm not be8ng facetious. But your model doesn't work because (1) work is harder to get and (2) school is exponentially more expensive.

Joined: 10/03/2009

MGoPoints: 3323

LSA Superstar

May 6th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^

If you could make $55,000 dollars during nights/summers to pay for college today, you shouldn't be going to college - just do that other magic job you found forever. Congrqtulations for your success - I'm not be8ng facetious. But your model doesn't work because (1) work is harder to get and (2) school is exponentially more expensive.

Joined: 10/03/2009

MGoPoints: 3323

Trolling

May 6th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^

I apologize for all those students who, after living their entire life being told by their parents, teachers, and couselors to "follow their passion" and "pursue what makes them happy", didn't decide to instead immediately enroll in computer-science, engineering and economics programs once they entered college.  

Joined: 02/22/2012

MGoPoints: 1528

oriental andrew

May 6th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^

After doing some more reading, I'm fully on the "financial aid subsidizing higher education spending" bandwagon. Sensible and rational and factually-grounded rebuttals to the Campo article:

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2015/04/07/financial-aid-is-the-real-r…

Second, it is argued that state legislatures have reduced apropriations for colleges, forcing them to raise fees. As Paul Campos argued recently in the New York Times, this argument is tenuous on factual grounds (universities get more inflation-adjusted appropriations than in, say, 1975, but college tuition fees are much higher), and ignores the fact that private schools that don’t get a dime of state money have raised their fees aggressively, as well.

It is very unlikely, then, the the rise in tuition fees will stop without some reform of federal student financial aid programs. Those programs are working very poorly. They are not achieving their main goal of increasing the proportion of college graduates from the bottom quartile of the income distribution (it is now about 10%, compared with 12% in 1970, when loan programs were in their infancy).

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 56047