Incoming medical students using their leverage to secure others scholarship money?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
nope, there is far to much uselessness in college for it to be paid for by the rest of society. IF you want it, you should buy it

Agree, but the universities need to compete in a free market not bolstered by govt-backed lending and the private loan industry, which has enabled them to drive up pricing to the point of unaffordability, masked the true cost by tricking naïve 18 year olds into buying something they can't afford with loan funny money, and allowed the universities to become ridiculously wasteful on unnecessary administrative staff and facilities. They have no incentive to become lean and provide a good value to their students/customers.

There is no reason a 3 credit hour freshman English class with 300 other students in it with minimum wage TAs doing all the work should cost $3,000. External forces are at play preventing the market from working this out, as it naturally otherwise would.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Agree, but the universities need to compete in a free market not bolstered by govt-backed lending, which has enabled them to drive up pricing to the point of unaffordability, masked the true cost by tricking naïve 18 year olds into buying something they can't afford with loan funny money, and allowed the universities to become ridiculously wasteful on unnecessary administrative staff and facilities. They have no incentive to become lean and provide a good value to their students/customers.

There is no reason a 3 credit hour freshman English class with 300 other students in it with minimum wage TAs doing all the work should cost $3,000. External forces are at play preventing the market from working this out, as it naturally otherwise would.
I’ve been advocating for years to get govt out of student loans and to make them dischargeable

The market will offer loans to degrees with good ROI
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The market will offer loans to degrees with good ROI

As much as I would like to believe that, I am reminded of what the deregulated financial industry did offering subprime mortgages to people who could not afford the monthly payments in 2005. While clearly not sustainable, I am sure that in the short term, private lenders will continue to offer loans to people who can't pay them back as long as there is a decent chance they can get them on a semi-manageable lifelong payment plan.

The other side is that coin is that you would naturally expect the cost of degrees with higher ROIs to go up accordingly. Right now a woman's studies degree and a quantitive finance degree from an elite private school don't really cost much different.

The solution, as with America's healthcare problem, is to remove the external forces that are artificially propping up prices. Not taxing people more to pay for the higher prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
As much as I would like to believe that, I am reminded of what the deregulated financial industry did offering subprime mortgages to people who could not afford the monthly payments in 2005. While clearly not sustainable, I am sure that in the short term, private lenders will continue to offer loans to people who can't pay them back as long as there is a decent chance they can get them on a semi-manageable lifelong payment plan.

The other side is that coin is that you would naturally expect the cost of degrees with higher ROIs to go up accordingly. Right now a woman's studies degree and a quantitive finance degree from an elite private school don't really cost much different.

The solution, as with America's healthcare problem, is to remove the external forces that are artificially propping up prices. Not taxing people more to pay for the higher prices.
The “external force” is the govt here diverting taxes to healthcare

And the subprime crap was largely related to govt pushing the notion of homeownership by pressuring banks to do business with unqualified borrowers
 
Dude, i love a good trolling but you need more subtlety for it to work
Naw. I know you’d disagree but I’m serious. If blacks are owed anything in this country it’s at least for our story to be heard. I’m past the 40 acres and a mule, that’s never going to happen.
 
I work at a University and have a large population of students assigned to me and I see vast variations in aid coverage. Some students can get enough from FAFSA at certain institutions and many can’t. It may be hard to believe, but even with aid, financing college is a barrier for a lot of students.


I think you (and some others in this thread) are confusing federal aid (FAFSA is the application for federal aid), and institutional aid (grants/scholarships that are the colleges’ money). Those who are getting “free rides” or large amounts of grants are getting institutional aid. A full Pell Grant for a 0 EFC is only about $6k per year. A freshman only gets to borrow $5500 in fed direct loans. That $12k total for a very poor student doesn’t come close to paying most state schools’ COA....which tend to be about $25k-30k+ per year.
 
n=1, but when I was in med school, my s.o. was in college at the same university (public). Her parents did not give her any money for school, but they made enough money (~$130k) that FAFSA calculated a decent parental payment. She had to drop out of school once and work at McDonald's to try and save up enough money. Paying like $100 rent to live on someone's couch and desperately try to make ends meet.

She ultimately had to drop out again and worked minimum wage for 2-3 years before going to a CC and transferring to a cheaper 4 year school all while working minimum wage.

The bottom line is that she was literally unable to afford the first (public) school even with maximum loans offered to her by the school. She could not come up with enough dollars to transfer to the school in order to stay enrolled through loans and part time jobs.

Be careful with the blanket statements.


Your story may be n=1, but it’s actually a very common story. Many if not most parents can’t or won’t pay their EFC, particularly when they have or will have a few kids to put thru college.

Once the EFC is beyond about 6000, there aren’t Pell Grants. Many if not most states, do not provide any state aid. And some only provide for low incomes.

The idea that fed aid thru FAFSA allows everyone to go to college is just ridiculous. And, most colleges do not have enough institutional aid to make themselves affordable, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think you (and some others in this thread) are confusing federal aid (FAFSA is the application for federal aid), and institutional aid (grants/scholarships that are the colleges’ money). Those who are getting “free rides” or large amounts of grants are getting institutional aid. A full Pell Grant for a 0 EFC is only about $6k per year. A freshman only gets to borrow $5500 in fed direct loans. That $12k total for a very poor student doesn’t come close to paying most state schools’ COA....which tend to be about $25k-30k+ per year.

I understand the difference :) someone referred to the aid students get from the dept of ed as “what they get from FAFSA” and I ran with the wording thinking everyone was aware that we are talking about only the fed aid students get from completing the FAFSA.

There are also state grants associated with the FAFSA that can make public schools affordable for some. This won’t help much (at all) at private universities. Institutional aid could help bridge the gap, but in my experience, almost never covers COA unless it’s an athlete. Also, Perkins loans are being phased out so that safety net for low income students is gone at some institutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There are also state grants associated with the FAFSA that can make public schools affordable for some.

Yes, there are some states that offer such. And some states (like Calif) raised their UC tuition from about $8k to $14k per year a few years back so that those who don’t qualify for Blue and Gold promise will be subsidizing those who do (UCs admitted this.). That’s a tough gig for those who are just outside of B&G who were stretching to pay the $8k plus $18k for R&B and books. So some could no longer go that route. That’s a nasty situation when you think about it. Someone earning $81k per year doesn’t get free tuition (about $14k per year), but someone who earns $79k per year does. And to rub salt on the wound, the $81k family gets to pay a higher UC rate to subsidize the one earning $79k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, there are some states that offer such. And some states (like Calif) raised their UC tuition from about $8k to $14k per year a few years back so that those who don’t qualify for Blue and Gold promise will be subsidizing those who do (UCs admitted this.). That’s a tough gig for those who are just outside of B&G who were stretching to pay the $8k plus $18k for R&B and books. So some could no longer go that route. That’s a nasty situation when you think about it. Someone earning $81k per year doesn’t get free tuition (about $14k per year), but someone who earns $79k per year does. And to rub salt on the wound, the $81k family gets to pay a higher UC rate to subsidize the one earning $79k.

Wooow.

Also, some parents refuse to help their kids with their college education. I don’t think this is right or wrong of them, but it does surprise me at times. Just yesterday I spoke with a student asking what their options are now that their parent cut them off until they reconcile. Parent already paid 9k, but balance is still 7k. Student will be unable to register for future courses and will not be able to receive transcripts to go attend a cheaper institution until the balance is paid in full. Say they drop out to work to pay that off, imagine how long it will take them to return and when they do return, how in the world will they be able to afford the next set of courses? We are in agreement that finances do hinder some students.
 
Why do the govt just assume our parents gonna help us with our education?
 
$eriously, I hate how my parent$ make over 130k a year.
IT"S THE WOR$T.

-rich boy$ on $DN
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I read an article this past week about college athletes potentially using their leverage as “superstars” to secure others scholarships to attend their college institution. In the article, it looked at Duke University for example: a great basketball program and a great school. It talked about how a superstar basketball player could possibly leverage the school by saying “hey if you give a student from my high school X amount of dollars in scholarship money to attend your school, then I will pick to play basketball at your school over others.” In a sense, this is a way of showing altruism. This would allow a very low income student the opportunity to earn a degree from a top notch school for free. Coming from a low income and rural/small town, applying this idea to the medical admissions process intrigued me. Personally, I am not a “superstar” applicant. I have one acceptance and 1 WL spot. But I just want to throw this idea out there to others who may be altruistic; could this idea possibly be implemented for the superstars of the medical admissions process? Thanks for your replies!

You call this 'altruistic', but I see it as someone trying to use their influence to gain a position for someone else who was not chosen through the same process everyone else has to go through. Sure it would be nice for this 'very low income student' you suggest, but there are thousands of people of all income levels working very hard to gain basketball scholarships. The most deserving athlete should be picked by the coaches - not through leverage.

Sure it is a possibility that a superstar recruit like Zion could have tried to do this and due to the millions of dollars he makes the school it may have worked if the school didn't need all of their recruiting spots.

Not only is this an incredibly unrealistic idea for medical schools (no medical school applicant is worth anywhere near as much as Zion is to Duke), but also it would be the opposite of what the medical school admissions process is aiming to accomplish. What we want is a fair process demonstrating the ethics that we want future physicians to embody - not a process where people are chosen or exerting leverage over other applicants or schools. If you are choosing between two equally qualified applicants and one applicant is the s.o. of an accepted student, then sure that doesn't seem like a bad idea to pick the s.o. because the s.o. is just as qualified. If they are not as qualified, then they should not get in.

Another aspect in your hypothetical scenario is how would these superstars pick their low income applicant to show their 'altruism' to? Many great applicants are not low income because it is easier to get MCAT tutoring or unpaid internships or a good GPA if you do not have to work or worry about money. People tend to socialize in spheres of people similar to them. Basketball on the other hand is an area where a superstar and a low income non-superstar are more likely to connect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why do the govt just assume our parents gonna help us with our education?
Imagine financial aid without taking into account parent's incomes... Pretty much everyone would need a full ride because most kids don't have 70k a year to pay for school. If there was an option to check a box saying 'my parents won't be paying' then everyone would want to check this box so they could get more money.

It doesn't make sense for schools to be giving need based aid to a family making 500k a year just because they don't want to pay when the schools need to save that money for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

There are plenty of families who make 100k or so who are expected to give a sizable parental contribution yet they feel like they cant because they need that money for living expenses or saving for retirement. It is unfortunate that they are put in that bind or that their kids are because the parents don't pay the expected parental contribution, but still financial aid offices need to prioritize the most disadvantaged families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If it get paid back what does it matter? My parents ain’t help me do SHIZ. And they have money. They came from poverty and made it so they say I can make it on my own aswell.
 
You call this 'altruistic', but I see it as someone trying to use their influence to gain a position for someone else who was not chosen through the same process everyone else has to go through. Sure it would be nice for this 'very low income student' you suggest, but there are thousands of people of all income levels working very hard to gain basketball scholarships. The most deserving athlete should be picked by the coaches - not through leverage.

Sure it is a possibility that a superstar recruit like Zion could have tried to do this and due to the millions of dollars he makes the school it may have worked if the school didn't need all of their recruiting spots.

Not only is this an incredibly unrealistic idea for medical schools (no medical school applicant is worth anywhere near as much as Zion is to Duke), but also it would be the opposite of what the medical school admissions process is aiming to accomplish. What we want is a fair process demonstrating the ethics that we want future physicians to embody - not a process where people are chosen or exerting leverage over other applicants or schools. If you are choosing between two equally qualified applicants and one applicant is the s.o. of an accepted student, then sure that doesn't seem like a bad idea to pick the s.o. because the s.o. is just as qualified. If they are not as qualified, then they should not get in.

Another aspect in your hypothetical scenario is how would these superstars pick their low income applicant to show their 'altruism' to? Many great applicants are not low income because it is easier to get MCAT tutoring or unpaid internships or a good GPA if you do not have to work or worry about money. People tend to socialize in spheres of people similar to them. Basketball on the other hand is an area where a superstar and a low income non-superstar are more likely to connect.
If you read the post, I clearly said a player using their superstardom to gain a person of their choosing a scholarship at the school. I never said a “basketball scholarship” or even a spot on the team. I simply meant someone like Zion being able to give a scholarship to a student who was already admitted to the school. Read and understand the post before you try to roast someone on SDN.
 
If you read the post, I clearly said a player using their superstardom to gain a person of their choosing a scholarship at the school. I never said a “basketball scholarship” or even a spot on the team. I simply meant someone like Zion being able to give a scholarship to a student who was already admitted to the school. Read and understand the post before you try to roast someone on SDN.
If this person in your hypothetical scenario already got in then they can get the scholarship they are entitled to like everyone else who needs aid. My point remains the same - this is not how medical schools or applicants should conduct themselves.
 
in america everyone can afford college with fafsa. And that's before noting that a ton of employers pay for college and community colleges are extremely cheap

That’s a cop out. It’s harder for some but it can be done if you work it hard enough


So are you now changing your position that in American, everyone can afford college with fafsa,” to “it can be done if you work hard enough.”?
 
So are you now changing your position that in American, everyone can afford college with fafsa,” to “it can be done if you work hard enough.”?
Working hard is how you afford things sometimes, how is that difficult for you to comprehend?
 
Yeah but sometime hard work isn’t enough. We all need a helping hand sometimes. “You didn’t build that by yourself”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The “external force” is the govt here diverting taxes to healthcare

And the subprime crap was largely related to govt pushing the notion of homeownership by pressuring banks to do business with unqualified borrowers

I typically agree with you, but this is what not caused the subprime housing crisis. It was due to banks making bad loans, agents being incentivized for making said loans, driving up prices in a bubble, making higher and higher loans, selling those loans off, then making bets that those loans would go into default. At the end the music stopped and somebody was left holding the bag.

There was no check in the system to stop this.

In fact, we did the exact opposite of checking them. We bailed the people who did this out rather than let normal market forces push us into the consequences the situation deserved. In other words enabling them to do this again, which they will. So yeah the govt was part of the problem, but at the end, not at the beginning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Right. Theyre here to protect us, and where was they?
 
Right. Theyre here to protect us, and where was they?

They were doing what they always do. Diverting taxpayer dollars to try and solve situations the government has no business being involved in and running up the national debt with careless fiscal policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Working hard is how you afford things sometimes, how is that difficult for you to comprehend?

Oh, it’s easy for me to understand. Just like it’s easy for me to understand that FAFSA doesn’t make college affordable for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I typically agree with you, but this is what not caused the subprime housing crisis. It was due to banks making bad loans, agents being incentivized for making said loans, driving up prices in a bubble, making higher and higher loans, selling those loans off, then making bets that those loans would go into default. At the end the music stopped and somebody was left holding the bag.

There was no check in the system to stop this.

In fact, we did the exact opposite of checking them. We bailed the people who did this out rather than let normal market forces push us into the consequences the situation deserved. In other words enabling them to do this again, which they will. So yeah the govt was part of the problem, but at the end, not at the beginning.
I certainly did not support the bailouts
 
Oh, it’s easy for me to understand. Just like it’s easy for me to understand that FAFSA doesn’t make college affordable for everyone.
It does if the work the situation hard enough. If you demand time for intramural sports it isn’t always affordable
 
If more people was involved in sports maybe suicides and violence wouldn’t be so high...
 
Y’all do know you don’t have to work for minimum wage.

I cleared land. Heck during undergrad I refereed intermurals if you wanted to add sports into the mix. We currently pay our babysitter $15/hr and she can easily get 15-20 hours a week between us and our friends. If I was to do it again, I’d do lawn service. All you really need is a lawn mower, a weed eater and a spreader and you can make $20/ hr. If I was a little handier, a handyman service would do well.

Lots of ways to get $10k-$15k a year.

If you add in 60-80 hours on the summers, you can pay for most in state schools.

No one said it was easily. But it can usually be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Y’all do know you don’t have to work for minimum wage.

I cleared land. Heck during undergrad I refereed intermurals if you wanted to add sports into the mix. We currently pay our babysitter $15/hr and she can easily get 15-20 hours a week between us and our friends. If I was to do it again, I’d do lawn service. All you really need is a lawn mower, a weed eater and a spreader and you can make $20/ hr. If I was a little handier, a handyman service would do well.

Lots of ways to get $10k-$15k a year.

If you add in 60-80 hours on the summers, you can pay for most in state schools.

No one said it was easily. But it can usually be done.


I agree that with an open mind, and/or the willingness to attend a school in a different part of the country, many high school seniors can find affordable options. There are some cheaper OOS publics that don’t charge OOS rates, and may even award some merit money if the applicants stats are decent enough.
 
It does if the work the situation hard enough. If you demand time for intramural sports it isn’t always affordable

?? Where did I say anything about time for intramural sports? (That said, all work and no play can cause some serious burnout.)

Some students live in high tuition states. It’s hard for those in PA or IL and similar to find affordable schools. If their stats are high enough, they might be able to go OOS to the few publics that don’t charge OOS rates and their tuition is low.

The struggle can be when families can’t/won’t pay their EFCs. If a student won’t get a Pell Grant or state grant, the family won’t pay its (for example) $15k EFC, the student will struggle to come up with the NET $15k-25k+ to pay for college each year.

And not everyone can work a lot of hours while in college. Some majors have afternoons tied up with labs and evenings tied up with homework/studying. Sometimes weekends are all that’s somewhat available.

And many students don’t even have cars while in college, so that can also limit their job choices.

I know that my own then-premed could only work about 12 hours per week in order to have time for demanding major, labs, projects, and studying.

I would like to see states make an honest effort to make community college attendance near-free with the added bonus that if you go that route, you’ll get a highly discounted tuition rate when you transfer for years 3 and 4 to an instate public. Imagine that! 2 years at nearly free (I think everyone should pay something, even if it’s only $20 per credit), and then transferring to the state school and have that tuition discounted to maybe $5k per year.

To help enable something like the above, the feds would have to coordinate their loan program to allow the option to “reserve” most borrowing to those last 2 years. (For example: not borrowing for the CC years, but being able to borrow $15k per year for those last 2 years).

This seems like a win win to me. Fewer loan defaults, more results.
 
?? Where did I say anything about time for intramural sports? (That said, all work and no play can cause some serious burnout.)

Some students live in high tuition states. It’s hard for those in PA or IL and similar to find affordable schools. If their stats are high enough, they might be able to go OOS to the few publics that don’t charge OOS rates and their tuition is low.

The struggle can be when families can’t/won’t pay their EFCs. If a student won’t get a Pell Grant or state grant, the family won’t pay its (for example) $15k EFC, the student will struggle to come up with the NET $15k-25k+ to pay for college each year.

And not everyone can work a lot of hours while in college. Some majors have afternoons tied up with labs and evenings tied up with homework/studying. Sometimes weekends are all that’s somewhat available.

And many students don’t even have cars while in college, so that can also limit their job choices.

I know that my own then-premed could only work about 12 hours per week in order to have time for demanding major, labs, projects, and studying.

I would like to see states make an honest effort to make community college attendance near-free with the added bonus that if you go that route, you’ll get a highly discounted tuition rate when you transfer for years 3 and 4 to an instate public. Imagine that! 2 years at nearly free (I think everyone should pay something, even if it’s only $20 per credit), and then transferring to the state school and have that tuition discounted to maybe $5k per year.

To help enable something like the above, the feds would have to coordinate their loan program to allow the option to “reserve” most borrowing to those last 2 years. (For example: not borrowing for the CC years, but being able to borrow $15k per year for those last 2 years).

This seems like a win win to me. Fewer loan defaults, more results.
Sports was a bad argument presented by someone else in the thread. I was referencing that.

If your state is too expensive, move. You can be broke anywhere

If there isn’t enough time for a full load, you take a lighter one.

This isn’t rocket science
 
Sports was a bad argument presented by someone else in the thread. I was referencing that.

If your state is too expensive, move. You can be broke anywhere

If there isn’t enough time for a full load, you take a lighter one.

This isn’t rocket science


If you’re under 24 (unmarried, not a vet, etc), then your residency for instate tuition purposes is where your parents reside. Simply moving doesn’t give you instate tuition elsewhere.

Yes, a student can always go part-time while working, and that’s what many do.
It’s not rocket science. I get that. But it’s not as simple as you think.
 
Why not eat crackers out of a bucket, live in a hovel, and work 80 hrs a week since your end goal just seems to be saving cash? There’s more to college, and to life, than that. A lot of the experience centers around having the opportunity to pursue a liberal arts education, enrich yourself with extracurriculars, and discover your future career passions and interests. With a full time job, especially of the poorly paying and dull kind available to college students, this is often not possible. There are plenty of low income students on this forum who can attest that, at least for medical school admissions, the barriers to entry are a lot more impenetrable if you’re not wealthy. This should change.

I will leave you with the fact that once again, you don’t have to jump through this many hoops in other first world countries. At Oxford and Cambridge, you’re not even allowed to have a job during the school year because they want you to be entirely devoted to your education. You seem like the same type of person to justify the current state of the American healthcare system just because it might be working for you, even though it’s bankrupting the country as a whole. I would encourage you once again to broaden your perspective, because these systems currently are dysfunctional for the vast majority of people. The measures you’re proposing (get up and move to a different state, find a job that’ll cover full tuition and living, etc etc) just don’t work on a large scale. I’m not asking for unrealistic things- just for the cost of attendance at universities to be within the financial limits of middle-class Americans, without loans. If everyone else can make it work, why can’t we?

Finally, this thread was warned by a moderator to stop going off topic. We would do well to heed that.
The suggestions do work on a large scale and college really shouldn’t be able finding yourself or extracurriculars. You are there to learn something and if you do what it takes, in america that can still happen for people because it is actually affordable if you want it enough

Of course it’s harder if you’re poor. But it can be done
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you’re under 24 (unmarried, not a vet, etc), then your residency for instate tuition purposes is where your parents reside. Simply moving doesn’t give you instate tuition elsewhere.

Yes, a student can always go part-time while working, and that’s what many do.
It’s not rocket science. I get that. But it’s not as simple as you think.
That’s very simple
 
Why do the govt just assume our parents gonna help us with our education?

In many places in the world, parents are expected to pay for their kids education and get them settled in life. Giving parents an option to not do so, kick kids out once they turn 18 etc wasn’t intended. Not to mention what high school senior has a high income anyway? Most usually live with their parents anyway
 
The suggestions do work on a large scale and college really shouldn’t be able finding yourself or extracurriculars. You are there to learn something and if you do what it takes, in america that can still happen for people because it is actually affordable if you want it enough

Of course it’s harder if you’re poor. But it can be done

You’d have a point if the VAST majority of 18 year olds graduating high school were independent functioning self-reliant adults as they were 70-80 years ago. Unfortunately that’s not true as they are for all intents and purposes still children and the function of college has shifted into the last stage of childhood development before adulthood. This is toxic for society and unfortunately progressives want to keep enabling delayed adolescence to the 30s and beyond rather than encouraging early self-reliance.
 
In many places in the world, parents are expected to pay for their kids education and get them settled in life. Giving parents an option to not do so, kick kids out once they turn 18 etc wasn’t intended. Not to mention what high school senior has a high income anyway? Most usually live with their parents anyway
If the parents have a good paying job, then yes of course your first sentence is the ideal situation. Many parents do not however - they struggle to save money for retirement and they may feel like it is better for their child to take out student loans and pay them back after college than for the parent to not save for retirement because the parents don't have as many working years left. It is unfortunate for students, but some parents simply don't have the ability to 'pay for their kids education and get them settled in life'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by it 'wasn't intended' that parents could stop supporting their children after 18 years. The government says 18 years is the age a child becomes an adult. Not sure who you're implying should decide when the appropriate age is.
 
In many places in the world, parents are expected to pay for their kids education and get them settled in life. Giving parents an option to not do so, kick kids out once they turn 18 etc wasn’t intended. Not to mention what high school senior has a high income anyway? Most usually live with their parents anyway

It wasn’t always that way. It used to be at age 17 or 18 you joined the military or went and got your union card and learned a skilled trade and were married with savings, a house, and kids by 25.

Or if you were exceptionally smart you went to college and majored in something like engineering or chemistry that would land you gainful employment.

Now literally anybody can go to college regardless of whether they can afford it or have the mental aptitude and drive, and they are coddled and tricked into pursuing non rigorous useless degrees.

There was a study that came out a few years ago that demonstrated the majority of college students were actually stupider at the end of college than st the beginning. Except of course for those in STEM fields.
 
It wasn’t always that way. It used to be at age 17 or 18 you joined the military or went and got your union card and learned a skilled trade and were married with savings, a house, and kids by 25.

Or if you were exceptionally smart you went to college and majored in something like engineering or chemistry that would land you gainful employment.

Now literally anybody can go to college regardless of whether they can afford it or have the mental aptitude and drive, and they are coddled and tricked into pursuing non rigorous useless degrees.

There was a study that came out a few years ago that demonstrated the majority of college students were actually stupider at the end of college than st the beginning. Except of course for those in STEM fields.
What do you mean by they got stupider? It would not be surprising if English majors performed worse on a math exam in comparison to their score right after they had taken 4 years of high school math. I find it hard to believe that people's IQs were really dropping because they went to college...

I agree with your first three points though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What do you mean by they got stupider? It would not be surprising if English majors performed worse on a math exam in comparison to their score right after they had taken 4 years of high school math. I find it hard to believe that people's IQs were really dropping because they went to college...

I agree with your first three points though

Not just English students not knowing math, but just being overall stupider after 4 years of hedonism and non rigorous studies.

Are college students getting dumber when it comes to civic education?

10% of college grads thought judge Judy was on the Supreme Court. This did not surprise me.
 
If the parents have a good paying job, then yes of course your first sentence is the ideal situation. Many parents do not however - they struggle to save money for retirement and they may feel like it is better for their child to take out student loans and pay them back after college than for the parent to not save for retirement because the parents don't have as many working years left. It is unfortunate for students, but some parents simply don't have the ability to 'pay for their kids education and get them settled in life'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by it 'wasn't intended' that parents could stop supporting their children after 18 years. The government says 18 years is the age a child becomes an adult. Not sure who you're implying should decide when the appropriate age is.

I should’ve specified. This could just be where I grew up but a lot of parents set their kids up for failure in life. They teach them little to no life skills like saving money, maintaining good credit etc and either expect schools to do it for them or for the kids to figure it out. One issue i see as detrimental is parents who essentially look forward to kicking out their kid once they turn 17/18. They cut them off financially (often times without warning) and coupled with a lack of understanding as to how the world works, they’re screwed over. Another detrimental thing a lot of parents do is refuse to hand over their tax info. That means the kids cant fill out the fafsa/css or whatever else they need to get aid. They can’t even get student loans so they don’t go to college. And of course there’s also those parents who can comfortably afford to pay for their kids college yet choose not to

Just because the govt says you become an adult at 18 doesn’t mean you’re magically endowed with the skills necessary to survive in the adult world. Maybe it worked back in the day when you could work a job that could give you a comfortable lifestyle with a family even with just a high school degree. While 18 is the age someone is legally considered an adult, id argue that in today’s world , it’s not until around 25/30 that people are actually starting to get settled


It wasn’t always that way. It used to be at age 17 or 18 you joined the military or went and got your union card and learned a skilled trade and were married with savings, a house, and kids by 25.

Or if you were exceptionally smart you went to college and majored in something like engineering or chemistry that would land you gainful employment.

Now literally anybody can go to college regardless of whether they can afford it or have the mental aptitude and drive, and they are coddled and tricked into pursuing non rigorous useless degrees.

There was a study that came out a few years ago that demonstrated the majority of college students were actually stupider at the end of college than st the beginning. Except of course for those in STEM fields.

I agree, but at some point the kids themselves need to take part of the blame for their lack of research when picking a major . A quick google search will tell you that nearly half of those who go to college don’t end up with a job in that field. People need to pick better career paths/majors if they’re planning on going to college.

College isn’t the only option yet many of the people I encounter don’t want to pursue any of the other ones. Trades are another great option and likely pay a lot more. Same with factory work. Everyone wants a cush 9-5 job
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
10% of college grads thought judge Judy was on the Supreme Court. This did not surprise me.

Classic example of college students who have no business being in college
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Not just English students not knowing math, but just being overall stupider after 4 years of hedonism and non rigorous studies.

Are college students getting dumber when it comes to civic education?

If you look at the questions in the study - this is not equal to getting dumber. Yes college students should know that senators are elected to 6 year terms, but government/history questions which this civic intelligence survey asked aren't the same as overall intelligence/problem solving skills. Knowing who tries the president in an impeachment for example?? That is something you learn in high school US history or government. Not shocking some college students forget that
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I should’ve specified. This could just be where I grew up but a lot of parents set their kids up for failure in life. They teach them little to no life skills like saving money, maintaining good credit etc and either expect schools to do it for them or for the kids to figure it out. One issue i see as detrimental is parents who essentially look forward to kicking out their kid once they turn 17/18. They cut them off financially (often times without warning) and coupled with a lack of understanding as to how the world works, they’re screwed over. Another detrimental thing a lot of parents do is refuse to hand over their tax info. That means the kids cant fill out the fafsa/css or whatever else they need to get aid. They can’t even get student loans so they don’t go to college. And of course there’s also those parents who can comfortably afford to pay for their kids college yet choose not to

Just because the govt says you become an adult at 18 doesn’t mean you’re magically endowed with the skills necessary to survive in the adult world. Maybe it worked back in the day when you could work a job that could give you a comfortable lifestyle with a family even with just a high school degree. While 18 is the age someone is legally considered an adult, id argue that in today’s world , it’s not until around 25/30 that people are actually starting to get settled




I agree, but at some point the kids themselves need to take part of the blame for their lack of research when picking a major . A quick google search will tell you that nearly half of those who go to college don’t end up with a job in that field. People need to pick better career paths/majors if they’re planning on going to college.

College isn’t the only option yet many of the people I encounter don’t want to pursue any of the other ones. Trades are another great option and likely pay a lot more. Same with factory work. Everyone wants a cush 9-5 job

Because the 18 year olds are now effectively still children, they lack the insight and foresight to choose a reasonable major. Instead they are susceptible to being misled and pursuaded by their advisors at college to pursue worthless “xyz studies” degrees, convinced that they are a good value and worth borrowing 6 figures for, indoctrinated that they deserve a certain wage regardless of the value of their labor, and come out expecting this wage for producing nothing of value.

An educated an insightful adult would never fall for this series of scams and lies.

The entire system pushed by the overwhelming leftist academia is predicated on keeping young people as ignorant and dependent as possible for as long as possible while indoctrinating and gaslighting then along the way.

The only parts of college campuses left with a shred of common sense about preparing students for the world are the business schools. Even the engineering schools have become infiltrated with this toxicity of progressive dependency. Luckily, even though the kids come out unprepared to take care of themselves, they have an engineering degree, and those who are willing to work get hired and industry does that teaching for them, but getting thrown into the deep end like that is painful. Boeing and Raytheon are not going to coddle you and if you can’t take care of yourself, you wash out quick.
 
If you look at the questions in the study - this is not equal to getting dumber. Yes college students should know that senators are elected to 6 year terms, but government/history questions which this survey asked aren't the same as overall intelligence/problem solving skills. Knowing who tries the president in an impeachment for example?? That is something you learn in high school US history or government. Not shocking some college students forget that

This wasn’t the original study I was referring to, just one that demonstrated an overall lack of college grads knowing things that should be the bare minimum for any American adult.

College is not technical school. You should through the process become overall more intelligent and world minded otherwise you’re not getting your money’s worth.
 
This wasn’t the original study I was referring to, just one that demonstrated an overall lack of college grads knowing things that should be the bare minimum for any American adult.

College is not technical school. You should through the process become overall more intelligent and world minded otherwise you’re not getting your money’s worth.
It would be interesting to compare it to people who didn't go to college. I would argue that students forgetting civic information after 4 years would likely be similar between people who are not in college and people who went to college (minus government majors). I get that this wasn't the exact study you meant, but I think my general point holds- I don't think college makes people dumber. I think both college students and people not in college forget information after high school. As long as college is teaching students something that will help them in life/get a good job then that is what makes it worthwhile.
 
Because the 18 year olds are now effectively still children, they lack the insight and foresight to choose a reasonable major. Instead they are susceptible to being misled and pursuaded by their advisors at college to pursue worthless “xyz studies” degrees, convinced that they are a good value and worth borrowing 6 figures for, indoctrinated that they deserve a certain wage regardless of the value of their labor, and come out expecting this wage for producing nothing of value.

An educated an insightful adult would never fall for this series of scams and lies.

The entire system pushed by the overwhelming leftist academia is predicated on keeping young people as ignorant and dependent as possible for as long as possible while indoctrinating and gaslighting then along the way.

The only parts of college campuses left with a shred of common sense about preparing students for the world are the business schools. Even the engineering schools have become infiltrated with this toxicity of progressive dependency. Luckily, even though the kids come out unprepared to take care of themselves, they have an engineering degree, and those who are willing to work get hired and industry does that teaching for them, but getting thrown into the deep end like that is painful. Boeing and Raytheon are not going to coddle you and if you can’t take care of yourself, you wash out quick.
I do agree that bad advisors and the college model are to blame but at the same time if you can’t do a 15 min google search to find out whether your degree can get you a job, then that’s also on you

The indoctrination thing is on a totally different scale. I’ve had people tell me that they’re ok going into 6 figure Debt for an English degree Cause they’re gonna make it big in a year or the US is gonna become socialist and forgive their debt or something like that. A lot of people seem to bet their future on unknowns. Kids are definetly too coddled but that’s by design
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It would be interesting to compare it to people who didn't go to college. I would argue that students forgetting civic information after 4 years would likely be similar between people who are not in college and people who went to college (minus government majors). I get that this wasn't the exact study you meant, but I think my general point holds- I don't think college makes people dumber. I think both college students and people not in college forget information after high school. As long as college is teaching students something that will help them in life/get a good job then that is what makes it worthwhile.

I’d argue that that is all basic civic knowledge that all adults should be aware of as they should be reading and engaged throughout their adult lives. While it’s true that if you don’t use it you lose it to some degree, the bigger problem is that this stuff isn’t being used and college students literally have no idea what’s going on in the world around them because they’re too focused on the party lifestyle and can only repeat a few sound bites like trump is a racist, something bad is happening in Syria, and Bernie Sanders is the best because he’s going to make college free without being able to elaborate or intelligibly comment on any of it.

This is why guys like Ben Shapiro LOVE going on college campuses and making spectacles to argue with completely uninformed kids because it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
In many places in the world, parents are expected to pay for their kids education and get them settled in life. Giving parents an option to not do so, kick kids out once they turn 18 etc wasn’t intended. Not to mention what high school senior has a high income anyway? Most usually live with their parents anyway
Yeah but this America. I know a lot of people who parents don’t help them like that. Ain’t no high school senior has a high income, but assuming that our folks gonna help ouy when they ain’t gone help us is unfair
 
Top