Rutgers among state universities with declining economic diversity

[retired711]

See this column in the New York Times. Decreasing economic diversity is happening at many schools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

 

[e5fdny]

See this column in the New York Times. Decreasing economic diversity is happening at many schools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Some comments at the bottom are better than the article.

 

[retired711]

Some comments at the bottom are better than the article.

I found the comments very varied. Which ones did you particularly like?

 

[e5fdny]

I found the comments very varied. Which ones did you particularly like?

The ones I agreed with of course. ;)

Certainly not the "free college for all NOW!" crowd.

 

[retired711]

I'm in the middle. I think public institutions ought to provide free two post-secondary years, whether in college or some kind of vocational training. We're at a point in our society in which a high school education is not enough to be a useful member of the work force. As part of that two years, we need to teach young people how to learn, because they will need to re-train throughout their working careers. The days of forty years on the assembly-line are gone forever.

 

[e5fdny]

You can get those two years while at a community college or a vocational type school and by having some sort of job to help pay for it. Those two options I agree should be much more affordable than a regular four year institution.

I don't think though what you suggest should be Rutgers responsibility. At least not at the NB campus.

 

[srru86]

OT: A Boston program to increase access. Boston Globe
Boston Bridge aims to provide free college for some students
Not clear if it would be much more impactful than the Rutgers Future Scholars program.

 

[NotInRHouse]

NJ should do what NY has done. Tuition should be free for families making under 125k at RU and all state schools.

 

[retired711]

You can get those two years while at a community college or a vocational type school and by having some sort of job to help pay for it. Those two options I agree should be much more affordable than a regular four year institution.

I don't think though what you suggest should be Rutgers responsibility. At least not at the NB campus.

High school kids don't have to have jobs to pay tuition, and "`13th and 14th" graders shouldn't have to either. The public interest in getting young people to take those two extra years is equally strong as in providing free public high school.

Rutgers' participation would be to not charge tuition to students in their first two years. Obviously, this would require that NJ make a far greater contribution to RU's expenses than it does. I don't contemplate that Rutgers would provide anything other than what it is already providing. The bulk of vocational/technical training should be done by community colleges and the like.

 

[e5fdny]

NJ should do what NY has done. Tuition should be free for families making under 125k at RU and all state schools.

High school kids don't have to have jobs to pay tuition, and "`13th and 14th" graders shouldn't have to either. The public interest in getting young people to take those two extra years is equally strong as in providing free public high school.

Rutgers' participation would be to not charge tuition to students in their first two years. Obviously, this would require that NJ make a far greater contribution to RU's expenses than it does. I don't contemplate that Rutgers would provide anything other than what it is already providing. The bulk of vocational/technical training should be done by community colleges and the like.

Nothing is free.

It's just that somebody else gets stuck with the check.

 

[rufancoe00]

if you want to save the money, spend 2 years at CC then transfer. The states barely support 4 year public institutions as it is

 

[MoobyCow]

Affordability is a difficult question. Obviously someone is paying the bills, but that goes for K through 12 as well, and society has determined that providing that level education to everyone is worth the cost. Given the changes in the economy and how many jobs are only available to those with a college degree, I can see the argument for paying for college. Certainly there are other countries who manage to pay for these things.

Having said that, so many people aren't suited for college and wouldn't get much out of it... What society looks like as more and more jobs get automated away and education becomes more necessary to make your way in the world is a big question mark. The cost of higher ed can't keep getting going up in cost more quickly than inflation forever.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Nothing is free.

It's just that somebody else gets stuck with the check.

Yes, it's called civilized society. The Western world has generally come to the conclusion that if we all pay taxes we can have essential services- like roads, police, firemen, etc

Higher education has become essential. Those with only a HS degree have increasingly poor life outcomes. I'd rather pay for their college at 18 than their welfare from 20 till they die.

 

[e5fdny]

Yes, it's called civilized society. The Western world has generally come to the conclusion that if we all pay taxes we can have essential services- like roads, police, firemen, etc

Higher education has become essential. Those with only a HS degree have increasingly poor life outcomes. I'd rather pay for their college at 18 than their welfare from 20 till they die.

Then you and @camdenlawprof can send those checks to me before I go to my tax guy. ;)

 

[NotInRHouse]

Then you and @camdenlawprof can send those checks to me before I go to my tax guy. ;)

Better yet, we can legalize weed in NJ, use it for free tuition at state Us, and everyone wins!

 

[BoroKnight]

It's funny -- every time one of those studies comes out about the "happiest" countries, all the Scandinavian countries are right at the top of the list. And in those countries everyone is taxed at a much higher rate than we are, and in return citizens know that their health care and education through college is paid for.

I guess the stress of high taxes is nothing compared to the stress of saving for college and having catastrophic health costs.

Can we move toward that? Of course. Everyone else does. But so many people in this country get hung up on labels ("socialized medicine" -- as if a health care law partially written by insurance companies is somehow socialism) that trying to ease those burdens on chronically stressed-out Americans is almost a lost cause. Spend a few years -- and it will take years -- moving on "Medicare for everybody" before trying to tackle free college -- or other post-secondary education.

 

[retired711]

Then you and @camdenlawprof can send those checks to me before I go to my tax guy. ;)

Surely you understand the point; you're an intelligent guy. We levy taxes to pay for items if we feel their benefit of the items exceeds their costs. I'm suggesting that a free public two years past high school has now become essential just as our grandparents' generation decided that it was esential to give kids ready access to free high school. You can disagree or not with that point, but you're just evading the question when you talk about how "nothing is free." Of course nothing is free, and no one has suggested it is. The question is: is it worth paying for just as, say, police protection is worth paying for.

 

[retired711]

It's funny -- every time one of those studies comes out about the "happiest" countries, all the Scandinavian countries are right at the top of the list. And in those countries everyone is taxed at a much higher rate than we are, and in return citizens know that their health care and education through college is paid for.

I guess the stress of high taxes is nothing compared to the stress of saving for college and having catastrophic health costs.

Can we move toward that? Of course. Everyone else does. But so many people in this country get hung up on labels ("socialized medicine" -- as if a health care law partially written by insurance companies is somehow socialism) that trying to ease those burdens on chronically stressed-out Americans is almost a lost cause. Spend a few years -- and it will take years -- moving on "Medicare for everybody" before trying to tackle free college -- or other post-secondary education.

Not to surprise everyone, but I have qualms about medicare for all. I worry about the effects it will have on medical innovation. It would be a shame if every advance in health care has to wait for governmental approval. If we had done that with computers, we'd probably all be using IBM XT's and debating going beyond 256 K of memory.

 

[e5fdny]

Surely you understand the point; you're an intelligent guy. We levy taxes to pay for items if we feel their benefit of the items exceeds their costs. I'm suggesting that a free public two years past high school has now become essential just as our grandparents' generation decided that it was esential to give kids ready access to free high school. You can disagree or not with that point, but you're just evading the question when you talk about how "nothing is free." Of course nothing is free, and no one has suggested it is. The question is: is it worth paying for just as, say, police protection is worth paying for.

My concern is what we're going to call the next "essential" thing so the huddled masses can get ahead and not fall behind....

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

It's funny -- every time one of those studies comes out about the "happiest" countries, all the Scandinavian countries are right at the top of the list. And in those countries everyone is taxed at a much higher rate than we are, and in return citizens know that their health care and education through college is paid for.

I guess the stress of high taxes is nothing compared to the stress of saving for college and having catastrophic health costs.

Can we move toward that? Of course. Everyone else does. But so many people in this country get hung up on labels ("socialized medicine" -- as if a health care law partially written by insurance companies is somehow socialism) that trying to ease those burdens on chronically stressed-out Americans is almost a lost cause. Spend a few years -- and it will take years -- moving on "Medicare for everybody" before trying to tackle free college -- or other post-secondary education.

Nonsense. The liberal policies of Scandinavia could never be duplicated in the US. Not even close. All of Scandinavia is like 25mm people.

On top of that, their liberal utopia is mostly a facade. Outside of Norway, which is basically operating like a socialist Saudi Arabia, they have major economic problems which will come to a head sooner or later.

The notion of moving a country as large and diverse as the US toward socialist policies will never work. The costs of adequately providing for 300mm people will be unattainable. They are basically unattainable now, and that is in a system that encourages innovation and wealth. If you remove the incentives to overachieve, the entire tax base will erode and we would turn into the Soviet Union. Shitty medicine and education for all...

 

[retired711]

My concern is what we're going to call the next "essential" thing so the huddled masses can get ahead and not fall behind....

Clever picture! Of course we can't give everybody everything. But under your argument, we could never provide any benefit because then someone will demand some other benefit. Better, I think, to say, "you've got to make your case that providing you a benefit really enriches society."

 

[NotInRHouse]

Nonsense. The liberal policies of Scandinavia could never be duplicated in the US. Not even close. All of Scandinavia is like 25mm people.

On top of that, their liberal utopia is mostly a facade. Outside of Norway, which is basically operating like a socialist Saudi Arabia, they have major economic problems which will come to a head sooner or later.

The notion of moving a country as large and diverse as the US toward socialist policies will never work. The costs of adequately providing for 300mm people will be unattainable. They are basically unattainable now, and that is in a system that encourages innovation and wealth. If you remove the incentives to overachieve, the entire tax base will erode and we would turn into the Soviet Union. Shitty medicine and education for all...

Canada is larger than the continental US, has a higher percentage of foreign born citizens, and has a province where some 40% of people voted to secede in the 90s that speaks French. Australia another big country with a higher percentage of foreign born citizens.

Have the states administer it. The size of the country is a pathetic excuse to justify people dying from poverty.

 

[NotInRHouse]

My concern is what we're going to call the next "essential" thing so the huddled masses can get ahead and not fall behind....

Has not really worked that way in Europe, Canada and Australia. They basically just agreed free healthcare and reasonable or free education are a goal across the board. Maybe a few places have free internet but we have that in the US too.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Not to surprise everyone, but I have qualms about medicare for all. I worry about the effects it will have on medical innovation. It would be a shame if every advance in health care has to wait for governmental approval. If we had done that with computers, we'd probably all be using IBM XT's and debating going beyond 256 K of memory.

America is now trying to adopt cancer treatments from Cuba. Cuba! I'm not really worried about the effect on innovation. I also think the right wing tall tales about waiting for care are laughable. You have governments in Israel, Australia, and the UK that have been run by conservatives for quite some time now and they never suggested switching to our system. In fact it's considered a major insult in every other Western country to suggest a conservative politician favors American style healthcare. In talking to people from abroad, they love their systems and think ours is crap.

 

[retired711]

I know of an American woman who moved to Israel, and was told by Israeli doctors that her cancer would not be treated because "you have no dependents." That was thirty years ago -- I wonder if it's changed. I also know that the U.K, at least, will not pay for at least one cancer-fighting procedure that has long been adopted in the U.S.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I know of an American woman who moved to Israel, and was told by Israeli doctors that her cancer would not be treated because "you have no dependents." That was thirty years ago -- I wonder if it's changed. I also know that the U.K, at least, will not pay for at least one cancer-fighting procedure that has long been adopted in the U.S.

The US has also not fully adopted cancer treatment from Cuba. Israel has definitely gotten wealthier in the past 30 years so my guess is that has changed.

 

[Caliknight]

This is good news. Rutgers always seemed over-represented by lower income students.

The more wealthy the families of the students, the more wealthy the school. The more wealthy the school, the higher ranked it will ultimately be. Hope this trend continues.

A great question is how is a state like NJ with such high taxes not funding their state school better? Unusual for a blue state, no?

 

[retired711]

The US has also not fully adopted cancer treatment from Cuba. Israel has definitely gotten wealthier in the past 30 years so my guess is that has changed.

The Cuban treatment is being tested in the United States. It appears to be, like many cancer medications, effective only temporarily until the cancer finds a way around it. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cuban-lung-cancer-drug-giving-u-s-patients-hope/

 

[NotInRHouse]

The Cuban treatment is being tested in the United States. It appears to be, like many cancer medications, effective only temporarily until the cancer finds a way around it. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cuban-lung-cancer-drug-giving-u-s-patients-hope/

I know we are testing. I think any extra time for these folks is great.

 

[retired711]

This is good news. Rutgers always seemed over-represented by lower income students.

The more wealthy the families of the students, the more wealthy the school. The more wealthy the school, the higher ranked it will ultimately be. Hope this trend continues.

A great question is how is a state like NJ with such high taxes not funding their state school better? Unusual for a blue state, no?

I wonder whether economic diversity at UCLA and Cal (to take two examples in your state) is less than at Rutgers. I rather doubt it. The historically low tuition in the UC system -- at a time when the system was becoming world-class -- helped many kids graduate who were the first in their family to go to college.

Northeastern states, blue or not, are traditionally cheap in funding public higher education. This is because state universities have played less of a role there than in states like California with relatively few private institutions.

 

[e5fdny]

I wonder whether economic diversity at UCLA and Cal (to take two examples in your state) is less than at Rutgers. I rather doubt it. The historically low tuition in the UC system -- at a time when the system was becoming world-class -- helped many kids graduate who were the first in their family to go to college.

Northeastern states, blue or not, are traditionally cheap in funding public higher education. This is because state universities have played less of a role there than in states like California with relatively few private institutions.

Would you include the Cal State schools too in this?

 

[retired711]

Would you include the Cal State schools too in this?

Not if we're doing a comparison between Rutgers and top-tier state institutions, and that's the relevant comparison to respond to Caliknight's point.

 

[e5fdny]

Not if we're doing a comparison between Rutgers and top-tier state institutions, and that's the relevant comparison to respond to Caliknight's point.

Gotcha.

So the Cal States of the world are more like a Montclair/Stockton/Rowan?

 

[retired711]

Gotcha.

So the Cal States of the world are more like a Montclair/Stockton/Rowan?

Yes, I think that's the better analogy.

 

[RU MAN]

Gotcha.

So the Cal States of the world are more like a Montclair/Stockton/Rowan?

Yes. They're not in the same league as the UC schools, and Rutgers competes very favorably with every UC school except for Berkeley and UCLA. The only non-UC school that's also terrific is Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo.

 

[Knight Shift]

I'm in the middle. I think public institutions ought to provide free two post-secondary years, whether in college or some kind of vocational training. We're at a point in our society in which a high school education is not enough to be a useful member of the work force. As part of that two years, we need to teach young people how to learn, because they will need to re-train throughout their working careers. The days of forty years on the assembly-line are gone forever.

Disagree. More below.

Yes, it's called civilized society. The Western world has generally come to the conclusion that if we all pay taxes we can have essential services- like roads, police, firemen, etc

Higher education has become essential. Those with only a HS degree have increasingly poor life outcomes. I'd rather pay for their college at 18 than their welfare from 20 till they die.

Police, firemen and road workers don't need a higher education--while it will help for advancement--this is still true at FDNY, am I correct @e5fdny ? Your statement that those with only HS degrees have increasingly poor life outcomes is unfounded. You have anything to back this up?

Affordability is a difficult question. Obviously someone is paying the bills, but that goes for K through 12 as well, and society has determined that providing that level education to everyone is worth the cost. Given the changes in the economy and how many jobs are only available to those with a college degree, I can see the argument for paying for college. Certainly there are other countries who manage to pay for these things.

Having said that, so many people aren't suited for college and wouldn't get much out of it... What society looks like as more and more jobs get automated away and education becomes more necessary to make your way in the world is a big question mark. The cost of higher ed can't keep getting going up in cost more quickly than inflation forever.

Agree.

There will always be jobs for public works workers in local, county, and state government, construction work from roads, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, roofers, laborers, etc.

I can count family members, friends and colleagues in the volunteer fire service without a college education who have great life outcomes. They would never make it through even 1 or 2 years of college and have no desire to go. Some own their own businesses.

 

[Knight Shift]

The ones I agreed with of course. ;)

Certainly not the "free college for all NOW!" crowd.

My concern is what we're going to call the next "essential" thing so the huddled masses can get ahead and not fall behind....

I agree.
From the NYT Story:

“It’s pretty bad,” Gabriel Schneider, an editor of The Triton student newspaper on the San Diego campus, told me. Single dormitory rooms have been turned into doubles and even triples. Libraries and other common spaces are packed. The university tried to convert an art gallery into a classroom, only to back down after an uproar.

On the Davis campus, near Sacramento, the crowding has particularly harmed less affluent students, because apartment rents have jumped. “The housing shortage in Davis is just horrible,” said Scott Dresser, a fourth-year student. Some students are now commuting from Woodland, 10 miles away, said Eli Flesch, another fourth-year student.
---
Oh, the injustice!!! How will they survive!
I worked 30-35 hours per week after my Pell Grants were but by Graham-Rudman. In Richardson Apartments, they had 5 students in 2 bedroom apartments. How did I survive crammed into a room sized for two people on a top bunk bed? I moved into a closet and made do.
Some of these kids need to learn that you need to give a little (or give up a little) to get a little. Does anybody remember hard work and sacrifice?

 

[retired711]

Disagree. More below.



Police, firemen and road workers don't need a higher education--while it will help for advancement--this is still true at FDNY, am I correct @e5fdny ? Your statement that those with only HS degrees have increasingly poor life outcomes is unfounded. You have anything to back this up?



Agree.

There will always be jobs for public works workers in local, county, and state government, construction work from roads, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, roofers, laborers, etc.

I can count family members, friends and colleagues in the volunteer fire service without a college education who have great life outcomes. They would never make it through even 1 or 2 years of college and have no desire to go. Some own their own businesses.

Those with just a high school education are doing worse than a generation before. That is well documented. At the same time, businesses complain that they cannot find workers for medium-skilled jobs. I wasn't suggesting they all go to college -- that's not what's needed. What is needed is for high school graduates to acquire the skills they need for today's economy. Some can acquire these through apprenticeship programs such as those for plumbers -- of which there's a shortage, by the way -- but for many others there is no equivalent to apprenticeship programs. Post-secondary education is needed for these young people.

BTW, there is no doubt that someone entering a public protection job is much better off in terms of future prospects if he or she has post-high school education. There are some departments that won't even hire you unless you have two years of community college.

 

[NotInRHouse]

@Knight Shift

To piggy back on what Camden said, have you not seen the countless studies showing that those who don't go to college make less over their lifetimes?

Also, like Camden said, not every has to college, but most will need some education beyond HS, even if it is a technical or 2 year degree or some kind of training program. HS is not enough for most skilled positions.

In NJ anyway, state troopers need a college degree and I believe many if not all local PDs require a two year degree. I know two FDNY members, both have college degrees. Not sure what the requirement is though.

Things are different today. How many people under 35 you know without a college degrees doing well?

 

[Knight Shift]

@Knight Shift

To piggy back on what Camden said, have you not seen the countless studies showing that those who don't go to college make less over their lifetimes?

Also, like Camden said, not every has to college, but most will need some education beyond HS, even if it is a technical or 2 year degree or some kind of training program. HS is not enough for most skilled positions.

In NJ anyway, state troopers need a college degree and I believe many if not all local PDs require a two year degree. I know two FDNY members, both have college degrees. Not sure what the requirement is though.

Things are different today. How many people under 35 you know without a college degrees doing well?

I guess it depends on what "doing well" means. Do many of them have a decent place to live, a relatively new car and they seem happy.

The premise that "everybody has to go to college" (I know you guys qualified it) is part of the problem. Too many young people are going to college and majoring in something useless that does not provide any knowledge or skills useful in the real world. On top of that, they are piling up lots of debt for a useless degree. Making college free solves the latter issue, but does nothing about getting a useless degree.