Look out: Politicians have plans to "help" on affordability

[srru86]

Star Ledger
NJ lawmakers unveil 20-bill package to overhaul college costs, accountability

No money of course. Lots of limitations on what colleges can do. Of course some might be good for college students, but know the real reason is to continue to deflect attention away from the on-going disinvestment of public higher education.
This post was edited on 3/21 10:30 AM by srru86

 

[RU-ROCS]

Sad news indeed.

 

[derleider]

If you look at the 20 bills its a mix of
1) Heres a problem - lets form a committee or gets some reports on the issue (A2800, A2803, A2804, A2805, A2808, A2812, A2815, A2816). We can ignore those as make work - a little extra work for the school, but not really an issue.

Some of it is relatively sensible

Someone should be developing free online text books. Given that schools use fees as a way to get around tuition freezes it makes sense to audit those fees. And given that schools are running up huge debt, its probably sensible that someone should track it - especially at the other state schools, which have an even larger state role in their governance. Schools should be held to some standards on graduation rate. A state income tax deduction for student loan interest isn't really a college matter.

A scholarship program for community colleges is a good idea. Allowing for easy transfer from a four year to a two year (for people who drop out and then go back) again is probably good policy.

There are a few things that are meddling in a more substantial way.

1. Making every school require only 120 credits for a bachelors. I don't think this is a huge deal - but it shouldnt be the states business.

2. Making schools charge less for dual enrollment high school students. This is meddling - but as a policy choice its probably the right move. You should encourage studets to get as many credits out of the way as possible.

3. Eliminating mandatory dining plans for students living on campus. This is a no brainer - its meddling - but its a scam by the schools. Let students have the choice. No one is going to starve because they didn't overpay for food. This basically means that schools will need to come up with some other source of revenue to fund dining hall expansion.

4. The big one is the tuition freeze. This is nonsense - costs continue to increase - often because of state mandated regulations and benefits ad the state contribution in real and often nominal dollars continues to go down. Schools get around it by increasing fees anyway.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Originally posted by derleider:

3. Eliminating mandatory dining plans for students living on campus. This is a no brainer - its meddling - but its a scam by the schools. Let students have the choice. No one is going to starve because they didn't overpay for food. This basically means that schools will need to come up with some other source of revenue to fund dining hall expansion.

I don't recall this being the case when I was in school - when did they start requiring this?

 

[derleider]

Well at least since 1998. If you live in a dorm (i.e had a room not equipped with a stove and sink) you needed a meal plan.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by DJ Spanky:

Originally posted by derleider:

3. Eliminating mandatory dining plans for students living on campus. This is a no brainer - its meddling - but its a scam by the schools. Let students have the choice. No one is going to starve because they didn't overpay for food. This basically means that schools will need to come up with some other source of revenue to fund dining hall expansion.

I don't recall this being the case when I was in school - when did they start requiring this?

I know such a plan was in place when I started at my non-RU NJ public college, 2003. Presume it was there for some time before.

 

[srru86]

Daily Targum
Rutgers responds to education affordability

"McAnuff said Rutgers stands alone in the Association of American Universities as the only one that commits 10 percent of entering slots to low-income students."

I'm guessing some of our public NJ counterparts can't say that. Yes, I'm looking at you Trenton State/The College of New Jersey.

 

[rufancoe00]

"1. Making every school require only 120 credits for a bachelors. I don't think this is a huge deal - but it shouldnt be the states business."

When i was at RU, the college of engineering required approx. 135 credits depending on major. Of that we were able to take 4 non engineering/math/science electives on top of expos. that's it. 15 total credits of non STEM related work. a 120 credit cap for a BS in engineering would have the effect of either having no humanities to round out your studies OR would water down a BS in engineering from a New Jersey State institution.

Either way it is unacceptable IMO

 

[retired711]

Your point is a good one, rufancoe00, but I wonder how long it takes the average engineering student to finish that degree, and thus how long the student needs aid. The problem is worse because my impression is that there are a lot of required courses in engineering, and our underfunded administration may not offer them regularly. So there's something to be said on both sides.

 

[rufancoe00]

if you are on top of your schedule from year one engineering can easily be done in 4 years. I only had to take 2 courses over the summer, one due to dropping it and retaking it. But it does require you to stick to the laid out schedule.

In reality, I think engineering should be a 5 year degree where at lease one semester is devoted to non STEM course work. We engineers do not get the opportunity to take various humanities. As I said above, i was able to take 4 courses that were not required in 4 years of college. I would have loved to take more history courses or explore other subjects such as poly sci, music etc.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by rufancoe00:
if you are on top of your schedule from year one engineering can easily be done in 4 years. I only had to take 2 courses over the summer, one due to dropping it and retaking it. But it does require you to stick to the laid out schedule.

In reality, I think engineering should be a 5 year degree where at lease one semester is devoted to non STEM course work. We engineers do not get the opportunity to take various humanities. As I said above, i was able to take 4 courses that were not required in 4 years of college. I would have loved to take more history courses or explore other subjects such as poly sci, music etc.

As a non-engineer who has worked professionally with a lot of engineers, I would also appreciate it if engineers were able to take other courses to become more well-rounded.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by rufancoe00:
if you are on top of your schedule from year one engineering can easily be done in 4 years. I only had to take 2 courses over the summer, one due to dropping it and retaking it. But it does require you to stick to the laid out schedule.

In reality, I think engineering should be a 5 year degree where at lease one semester is devoted to non STEM course work. We engineers do not get the opportunity to take various humanities. As I said above, i was able to take 4 courses that were not required in 4 years of college. I would have loved to take more history courses or explore other subjects such as poly sci, music etc.

As a non-engineer who has worked professionally with a lot of engineers, I would also appreciate it if engineers were able to take other courses to become more well-rounded.

It also wouldn't hurt to somehow introduce liberal arts undergraduates to what engineers do. That would make liberal arts undergraduates more well-rounded in a world full of engineering.

 

[NorthernKnight]

Originally posted by srru86:
Star Ledger
NJ lawmakers unveil 20-bill package to overhaul college costs, accountability

No money of course. Lots of limitations on what colleges can do. Of course some might be good for college students, but know the real reason is to continue to deflect attention away from the on-going disinvestment of public higher education.

This post was edited on 3/21 10:30 AM by srru86

If the USA wanted to really get a handle on college costs, pass a hard limit on total student loans for undergraduate education at $40,000 and let capitalism do the rest.

The out of control nuclear arms race of college costs is directly a result of the free candy being handed out.

 

[retired711]

I don't think anyone thinks of a loan that must be paid back as "free candy."

 

[NorthernKnight]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't think anyone thinks of a loan that must be paid back as "free candy."

Well, they actually have with the artifically high rates (way beyond the students debt service capacity) and the "pay what you can model" with debt forgiveness at 25 years. But that's not what I was getting at with the term "free candy"....I was getting at the easy access without any recognition of the future trap students are entering into. It looks a lot like "free candy"...because everyone is doing it and who care about the future...


why is the cost of higher education escalating at the rate it is?

answer: an arms race to build the newest and the best to attract students

How do students and families afford this?

answer: unbridled student loan debt without regard to whether it can ever be paid back

Are people making smart choices about education when payback on their degree is taked into consideration?

answer: not really. Nobody is connecting the dots between "sign on the dotted line for this student loan" and the repayment requirements after school versus the earning capacity of the student after graduating from that school and major.

conclusion: student loans have become the "free candy" propelling the educational arms race.


solutions:

1) rein in student loan accesibility which will make students more selective in looking for value

2) put more $$$ into state schools and junior colleges

3) let supply and demand break the "keep up with the Joneses" syndrome

4) start steering towards a model that balances opportnity with capabilities with ecpense of education with returns from education. Somehwere between the German model and out model


Our current model isn't sustainable and will collapse within 10 years.

 

[retired711]

Here's a critique of the bills and a proposal that New Jersey adopt Oregon's approach.

"N.J should try Oregon's tuition plan"

 

[NorthernKnight]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Here's a critique of the bills and a proposal that New Jersey adopt Oregon's approach.

Looks like college tuition and student loans will start getting swept into the wealth gap/income inequality buzz...


My local sunday paper ran this syndicated article under the headline:

Feeling the Wealth Gap Widen



"Feeling the Welath Gap Widen"

 

[NotInRHouse]

I'm a big fan of the new Tennessee plan to make community college free in the state. That would be a game changer IMO on student loans and accessibility to higher ed.

 

[NorthernKnight]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I'm a big fan of the new Tennessee plan to make community college free in the state. That would be a game changer IMO on student loans and accessibility to higher ed.

+1

Next step is to put a hard limit of $60k on undergrauate student loan debt and link it to the Federal Government COLA, reining in the private college student loan fueled nuclear arms race and driving student back to state schools.

 

[NotInRHouse]

That would likely not happen as it will have a very negative effect on private education. Religious leaders will go nuts. It might even impact some public schools.

We need to get public schools down first, and say, hey, (for example) you could go to a NJ CC for two years and then have only two years debt from RU (approx 40k with room and board).

You also have to take grad school into account.

 

[derleider]

As always the answer is probably somewhat in between

The state is giving RU the same now as it did in 1989 - the $259 million the state gave (ex fringe benefits) in 1989 is the same as $136 million today.

And that ignoring the fact that Rutgers is about a third bigger (before UMDNJ joined).

So in 1989 the state was contributing about $6890 per FTE equivalent student. Now it is about $5000. But again, due to inflation that $5000 is worth about $2600 in 1989.

SO on a per student basis the state is paying basically 35-40% of what it was 25 years ago. That also ignoring that the state used to have more frequent bond measures - in fact this one a few years ago was the first one in 25 years. Thats money to the school that doesn't show up on the budget line but is very very real.

To ignore that and say - oh its cheap student loans that are the problem is nonsense.

The overall reduction of opportunity is another issue. Field after field has become saturated, as students move from one area to the next looking for something that will pay the bills. But globalization and technology are killing them one by one. Thats obviously not a problem that can be fixed in this sphere - but instead should shape how we view the process of getting a college degree.

Yes - there are some people who stupidly take our massive student loans to go to expensive schools in fields in which they will never make back their money. But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of the people who pay lots of money to go to relatively bad private schools are people who's parents have plenty of money in general. The poor and lower middle class aren't the ones paying $30,000 a year in tuition to go to Wilkes University.

Where the poor and lower middle class get screwed is private for profit diploma mills - which is about students loans - but the solution is to regulate the colleges to ensure that they are graduating people and not allow them to have student loan money if they aren't.

 

[retired711]

Couldn't a student already go the combined CC/Rutgers route? The problem with it is that many community college courses are not really the equivalent of Rutgers courses.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Couldn't a student already go the combined CC/Rutgers route? The problem with it is that many community college courses are not really the equivalent of Rutgers courses.

That is true for some courses but not all. I would imagine you could get away with certain liberal arts disciplines for the 100 and 200 level.

And does anybody know if it's still on the books in NJ that if you get your AA at a CC you're guaranteed a spot at one of the state colleges (RU included)?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Couldn't a student already go the combined CC/Rutgers route? The problem with it is that many community college courses are not really the equivalent of Rutgers courses.

That is true for some courses but not all. I would imagine you could get away with certain liberal arts disciplines for the 100 and 200 level.

And does anybody know if it's still on the books in NJ that if you get your AA at a CC you're guaranteed a spot at one of the state colleges (RU included)?

Yes- I'm pretty sure it is. But only the best students get into RU and TCNJ from CC.

The CC issue solves two problems; first it lessens the overall debt load (like in the example I cited, it would be a 40k savings).

The second is not everyone is qualified for a 4 year degree. But an associates degree for free will help put a lot of the bogus for profit schools out of business,and encourage more people to get an education, and will provide more people for needed jobs, especially in the lower rungs of medicine.

And I think Der is right- I think a lot of the people going to private colleges are doing it on their rich parents' dime. I mean, are there really students in NJ that aren't able to get into any NJ state school?

I think the bigger problems are 1) even public school is too much and 2) grad school is required for a lot of jobs and that is way too expensive.

 

[retired711]

I don't understand why we're talking about the CC/state college route as an alternative when students can already save money by doing that.

Faculty at New Brunswick have complained bitterly to me about the poor state of the preparation of CC students who transfer. I have especially heard this in STEM fields, but I have also heard it from faculty in other disciplines. Unfortunately, our *brilliant*state legislature has made it impossible for Rutgers or the state colleges to lay down criteria for which courses do and do not qualify. This is partly, to be fair, Rutgers' fault. Rutgers should have done what the University of California and California State University (the second-tier system) have long done; specify in advance which courses it will take. That means if you are a community college student in California, you know in advance what will or will not get credit. Instead, Rutgers did things in its typically sloppy fashion.

So there's really a downside to going the CC/state college-Rutgers route; you'll run a risk of taking courses that are in no sense the equivalent of four-year college courses.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Well- you have to pay for it. This would make the cost difference more significant. And with it being free, you could spread your time out further if you have a job or other obligations without the tuition constantly increasing.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't understand why we're talking about the CC/state college route as an alternative when students can already save money by doing that.

Faculty at New Brunswick have complained bitterly to me about the poor state of the preparation of CC students who transfer. I have especially heard this in STEM fields, but I have also heard it from faculty in other disciplines. Unfortunately, our *brilliant*state legislature has made it impossible for Rutgers or the state colleges to lay down criteria for which courses do and do not qualify. This is partly, to be fair, Rutgers' fault. Rutgers should have done what the University of California and California State University (the second-tier system) have long done; specify in advance which courses it will take. That means if you are a community college student in California, you know in advance what will or will not get credit. Instead, Rutgers did things in its typically sloppy fashion.

So there's really a downside to going the CC/state college-Rutgers route; you'll run a risk of taking courses that are in no sense the equivalent of four-year college courses.

Agree about it partially being Rutgers fault.

But what is to stop the University from "fixing it" on their own and laying it out (like Califronia does) for the prospective transfer student from a NJ CC or state college?

And yes NIRH, I always assumed that was the case with only the best getting into TCNJ and RU. Which seems more than fair to me.



.
This post was edited on 4/7 10:01 PM by e5fdny

 

[jcg878]

Originally posted by derleider:
As always the answer is probably somewhat in between

The state is giving RU the same now as it did in 1989 - the $259 million the state gave (ex fringe benefits) in 1989 is the same as $136 million today.

And that ignoring the fact that Rutgers is about a third bigger (before UMDNJ joined).

So in 1989 the state was contributing about $6890 per FTE equivalent student. Now it is about $5000. But again, due to inflation that $5000 is worth about $2600 in 1989.

SO on a per student basis the state is paying basically 35-40% of what it was 25 years ago. That also ignoring that the state used to have more frequent bond measures - in fact this one a few years ago was the first one in 25 years. Thats money to the school that doesn't show up on the budget line but is very very real.

To ignore that and say - oh its cheap student loans that are the problem is nonsense.

The overall reduction of opportunity is another issue. Field after field has become saturated, as students move from one area to the next looking for something that will pay the bills. But globalization and technology are killing them one by one. Thats obviously not a problem that can be fixed in this sphere - but instead should shape how we view the process of getting a college degree.

Yes - there are some people who stupidly take our massive student loans to go to expensive schools in fields in which they will never make back their money. But I'm gonna go out on a limb and say most of the people who pay lots of money to go to relatively bad private schools are people who's parents have plenty of money in general. The poor and lower middle class aren't the ones paying $30,000 a year in tuition to go to Wilkes University.

Where the poor and lower middle class get screwed is private for profit diploma mills - which is about students loans - but the solution is to regulate the colleges to ensure that they are graduating people and not allow them to have student loan money if they aren't.

Very well-stated.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't understand why we're talking about the CC/state college route as an alternative when students can already save money by doing that.

Faculty at New Brunswick have complained bitterly to me about the poor state of the preparation of CC students who transfer. I have especially heard this in STEM fields, but I have also heard it from faculty in other disciplines. Unfortunately, our *brilliant*state legislature has made it impossible for Rutgers or the state colleges to lay down criteria for which courses do and do not qualify. This is partly, to be fair, Rutgers' fault. Rutgers should have done what the University of California and California State University (the second-tier system) have long done; specify in advance which courses it will take. That means if you are a community college student in California, you know in advance what will or will not get credit. Instead, Rutgers did things in its typically sloppy fashion.

So there's really a downside to going the CC/state college-Rutgers route; you'll run a risk of taking courses that are in no sense the equivalent of four-year college courses.

Agree about it partially being Rutgers fault.

But what is to stop the University from "fixing it" on their own and laying it out (like Califronia does) for the prospective transfer student from a NJ CC or state college?

And yes NIRH, I always assumed that was the case with only the best getting into TCNJ and RU. Which seems more than fair to me.



.
This post was edited on 4/7 10:01 PM by e5fdny

State law established in the past few years that Rutgers and the state colleges give full credit to community college courses. That's what stops Rutgers.

 

[rufancoe00]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I don't understand why we're talking about the CC/state college route as an alternative when students can already save money by doing that.

Faculty at New Brunswick have complained bitterly to me about the poor state of the preparation of CC students who transfer. I have especially heard this in STEM fields, but I have also heard it from faculty in other disciplines. Unfortunately, our *brilliant*state legislature has made it impossible for Rutgers or the state colleges to lay down criteria for which courses do and do not qualify. This is partly, to be fair, Rutgers' fault. Rutgers should have done what the University of California and California State University (the second-tier system) have long done; specify in advance which courses it will take. That means if you are a community college student in California, you know in advance what will or will not get credit. Instead, Rutgers did things in its typically sloppy fashion.

So there's really a downside to going the CC/state college-Rutgers route; you'll run a risk of taking courses that are in no sense the equivalent of four-year college courses.

Agree about it partially being Rutgers fault.

But what is to stop the University from "fixing it" on their own and laying it out (like Califronia does) for the prospective transfer student from a NJ CC or state college?

And yes NIRH, I always assumed that was the case with only the best getting into TCNJ and RU. Which seems more than fair to me.



.
This post was edited on 4/7 10:01 PM by e5fdny

State law established in the past few years that Rutgers and the state colleges give full credit to community college courses. That's what stops Rutgers.

They can give full credit, but do they fill the requirements?

As an engineering grad, i can see how it would be hard for a CC transfer to come in. However when I was at RU from 1996-2000 I had quite a few friends transfer in from Brookedale CC and Burlington CCC and they did as well as the students that were at RU from the beginning. Those schools in particular had a track for students that wanted to transfer into Engineering at Rutgers. I know for a fact that if I had gone to Mercer CCC (my home CC) I would have not been prepared for Rutgers engineering as they did not have a track for it.

The whole public education system in New Jersey needs alot of fixing, but the politicians keep screwing it up. As Der stated, they fund less per year causing students to carry a heavier and heavier burden for a public education. They demand that RU take in 90% In state students, when not enough highly qualified NJ students want to even come here. We do not have enough tracks at the CC level to prepare students for the transition to a four year institution.

 

[retired711]

Rufancoe, I am not certain about the answer to your first question, but I believe the answer is yes.

I am not surprised that the community colleges vary in the preparation they give for Rutgers or other four-year institutions. There is not believed to be a difference in junior-year GPAs between four year students and transfers, but these statistics are not adjusted to reflect possible differences in the courses being taken. That is, transfers may tend to avoid the hardest courses because they are not prepared for such courses.

Rutgers-Camden offers a two-year pre-engineering program. I have no idea how well students there do when they transfer to New Brunswick for upper-level courses.

 

[rufancoe00]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Rufancoe, I am not certain about the answer to your first question, but I believe the answer is yes.

I am not surprised that the community colleges vary in the preparation they give for Rutgers or other four-year institutions. There is not believed to be a difference in junior-year GPAs between four year students and transfers, but these statistics are not adjusted to reflect possible differences in the courses being taken. That is, transfers may tend to avoid the hardest courses because they are not prepared for such courses.

Rutgers-Camden offers a two-year pre-engineering program. I have no idea how well students there do when they transfer to New Brunswick for upper-level courses.

Never met a RU-C transfer in the College of Engineering while I was there, BUT I would assume that since they have a defined track it would probably set the student up for success. Physics is physics, calculus is calculus. If you are taking the required courses and work hard in them you will learn. Also, by the time they transfer in they are juniors and within a specified engineering major. 90% of your first two years is just background courses to prepare you for the discipline of engineering.

From my personal experience, Rutgers needs to take a look at some of this freshman courses. I took Chem for Engineers 1 and 2, thankfully I had a good chem teacher in H.S. and a good prof. teaching Chem 1 Lecture. These 400 person lectures are brutal. Also, many courses such as Statics (engineering mechanics) are given as more of a weed out course. Material is not explained well and if you don't get it tough sh*t. As a structural engineer, I can't believe how tough that course was, and how easy it should have been given proper instruction. IMO, that's the difference between RU and a school like Stevens. The early courses are probably taught better at them, giving the majority of students a better grasp.


sorry, for being a little off topic here, combined thoughts in this and the General Chem thread....



This post was edited on 4/8 3:19 PM by rufancoe00

 

[retired711]

This is pure anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is *not* data, but I have been told that Chemistry people hold non-majors in contempt. Chem TAs especially enjoy torturing pre-med students taking organic chemistry. The Chemistry folks think that the outsiders have no real understanding of the field, and are unwilling to apply themselves to learn what they need to learn. I don't know if this goes on in other STEM departments. I myself am in absolute ignorance; I had the sense to know that I would not do well in college chemistry. (Heck, I barely survived high school chemistry!) I know that Avogado's law is important, but have no idea what it is. I do know what the periodic table is, and so consider myself learned in the field.

 

[srru86]

Cryan tries to make his case.

Star Ledger
Our obligation to NJ's young minds: Opinion

"Universities should carry the responsibility to budget for a student's tenure, not the other way around."

Certainly the Legislature has no responsibility to budget for public education as they have abdicated that responsibility by slashing funding since the 1990s.

"We must also examine our colleges' fees and debt, and find out why costs have spiraled out of control."

Plenty of studies have shown the primary cause has been disinvestment in public higher ed.

"Higher education institutions should be held to a higher standard"

I would put the esteem with which the public holds higher education up against politicians any day.

"We have an obligation to them, and the thousands every year who leave with debt but no degree, to look at every possible option to decrease the financial burden and increase college completion."

Well, everything but the government returning funding levels for public higher ed back to what they were just a few years ago.



This post was edited on 4/9 9:09 AM by srru86