Will tuition continue to rise?

[Aestheticbrah]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I have an old guide to dental school from 2010 and boy have the tuition sky rocketed for the private schools! I was wondering if this trend is going to continue because the max line of credit we can get for education in Canada is 200k and we can get an 80k loan from the Ontario government. But if tuition continues to rise say from 60k a year to 80k a year, will some of us have to drop out or something? The future looks bleak...

 

[Zbtb7]

IMHO tuition will rise as long as there are students willing to pay them to become dentists.

 

[Aestheticbrah]

IMHO tuition will rise as long as there are students willing to pay them to become dentists.

Yeah but if they rise anywhere near they have risen in the past 4 years then there could be alot of people in D2 or D3 unable to finish their education because of lack of funds so the current cost has to be close to the cap. I mean we financially prepared for the estimated costs they currently gave us.

 

[Zbtb7]

Don't Canadians need to show their ability to pay for all 4 years the first year?

 

[UltimateHombre]

IMHO tuition will rise as long as there are students willing to pay them to become dentists.

Not quite right...

The tuition will continue to rise as long as student loans are backed by the federal government.

If the student loan sector was privatized, there is no way banks would be lending that kind of money... the schools are charging more, because they know that the fed will always be flipping the bill.

The government has no business being involved in student loans.

 

[NDPitch]

Not quite right...

The tuition will continue to rise as long as student loans are backed by the federal government.

If the student loan sector was privatized, there is no way banks would be lending that kind of money... the schools are charging more, because they know that the fed will always be flipping the bill.

The government has no business being involved in student loans.

This. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[suarez 7]

Not quite right...

The tuition will continue to rise as long as student loans are backed by the federal government.

If the student loan sector was privatized, there is no way banks would be lending that kind of money... the schools are charging more, because they know that the fed will always be flipping the bill.

The government has no business being involved in student loans.

Correct.
The banks should be giving loans, and under tight regulations by the government.

Obama feels that every kid should be put into college but that's one of the worst things you can do. If he knew what he was doing, he would reinstitutionalize trade schools back into public high schools, and get more American teens involved in trade jobs which pay very well, in demand, and don't involve debt. They can start working fulltime at age 18, make money, pay taxes, more money for government, more money in the economy... Win, win situation.

 

[doc toothache]

Does the "government" put a tomahawk to the loaner's head to sign the dotted line?

 

[jpark1800]

i think you meant the borrower's head but this is correct. blaming the government for everything is becoming a new fetish.

well the government does dole out lots of federal loans to students, using my taxpayer money, which does drive up college tuition.

I don't think its fair for prez odumbo to take my money, give it to some random joe blo.w (who may not even deserve the financial aid) and then the college, (which knows that the govt is giving joe money), raises its tuition, thus causing me to pay more in tuition. This is what you call (in the words of Prez Odumbo): "Robin Hood in reverse."

But I agree students have no right to complain about being in $50K+ debt because they wanted to pursue a degree in Ethnic Ugandan Studies or Literature of Modern Art

 

[suarez 7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmN68KJ5if4

this was also stated much earlier in a sotu address but i cant seem to find it.

He doesn't really talk about building it back into public high schools. Most teens would not go out of their way to go to a vocational/trade school, but if they have close access in their schools then they are more likely to pursue such careers. The problem in most high schools is that kids are taught that they need to go to a 4 year university, and the ones who are not cut out for it are destined to work at McDonald's or retail. If, instead, those kids who don't want to go to college have technical skills they adopted in high school such as plumbing, electric, culinary, healthcare then those teens would be better off.

 

[Stacker]

http://www.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/documents/img-727190336-0001.pdf

 

[doc toothache]

i think you meant the borrower's head but this is correct. blaming the government for everything is becoming a new fetish.

A minor detail, but both lender and borrower do need to sign the dotted line.

well the government does dole out lots of federal loans to students, using my taxpayer money, which does drive up college tuition. I don't think its fair for prez odumbo to take my money, give it to some random joe blo.w (who may not even deserve the financial aid) and then the college, (which knows that the govt is giving joe money), raises its tuition, thus causing me to pay more in tuition. This is what you call (in the words of Prez Odumbo): "Robin Hood in reverse."

But I agree students have no right to complain about being in $50K+ debt because they wanted to pursue a degree in Ethnic Ugandan Studies or Literature of Modern Art

Although a commonly misused expression, once a check , cash, mo or a cc payment is handed over to a second party, it is no longer "your money". A loan appears to be confused with free money; at 6.8%, it is hardly a good deal. Interesting concept: the right to complain about a debt is a function of the degree one is awarded.

 

[jpark1800]

Its not as much of a drain on tax revenue as you make it out to be because 1) its a loan, and needs to be repaid (not a sunk cost) and 2) the govt. actually makes additional revenue from the interest, so the govt actually has more money than they started with to spend on programs you deem to be more valuable than education. How much guaranteed govt loans is actually contributing to the rise of tuition is debatable; just know there are many other contributing factors.

p.s. calling him "Prez Odumbo" does nothing to help your credibility...

i don't care how much of a drain it is on tax revenue. it is still a drain on tax revenue and it is taking taxpayer dollars. Why should the government be allowed to take my money so that it can make even more money, off the backs of poor students?

and yes the loans aren't the only thing contributing to the rise of tuition, but it is a major part. greedy school administrators, professors with big pension plans, workers benefits, etc are also contributing factors.

p.s why was is that using derogatory language to describe Bush was the intelligent, and saintly thing to do, but criticizing Barry is just all of a sudden off grounds. Obama was a poor student with mediocre grades. That is a proven fact.

 

[doc toothache]

yeah but in this case the lender IS the government...

Errr... and...? You might want to consider why the gvt became the lender.

 

[Stacker]

Errr... and...? You might want to consider why the gvt became the lender.

 

[finchy86]

p.s. calling him "Prez Odumbo" does nothing to help your credibility...

IMO it only helped his credibility. Come on, every president is called names and someone always thinks they are stupid. Calling someone a name has nothing to do with credibility, maybe respect and professionalism, but not credibility.

 

[cwoodds]

Errr... and...? You might want to consider why the gvt became the lender.

Please enlighten us.

Here is my theory. I believe the government became the lender due to the same statist impulses that compels it to get involved in all other areas that the government of a free people has no business being involved in. People in academia believe that they are the smartest people on the planet, and as such should wield the greatest wealth and greatest power. Unfortunately, the market doesn't agree. There are not enough private lenders willing to finance the exhorbitant increases in higher education costs at ridiculously low interest rates. So instead of coming up with ways to make college more affordable, they turned to government to provide an endless supply of cheap money. Instead of allowing market forces to drive innovation and cost benefits, they turned to a government all too willing to exert its power and influence. What follows is one more way to redistribute wealth, from those that create it to those who think they deserve it, and who can use the government to extort it for them.

 

[jpark1800]

Please enlighten us.

Here is my theory. I believe the government became the lender due to the same statist impulses that compels it to get involved in all other areas that the government of a free people has no business being involved in. People in academia believe that they are the smartest people on the planet, and as such should wield the greatest wealth and greatest power. Unfortunately, the market doesn't agree. There are not enough private lenders willing to finance the exhorbitant increases in higher education costs at ridiculously low interest rates. So instead of coming up with ways to make college more affordable, they turned to government to provide an endless supply of cheap money. Instead of allowing market forces to drive innovation and cost benefits, they turned to a government all too willing to exert its power and influence. What follows is one more way to redistribute wealth, from those that create it to those who think they deserve it, and who can use the government to extort it for them.

Wow. I dont know how you came up with this. But you absolutely nailed it. 👍👍 This is ENTIRELY true. Barry and 1/32nd Native American Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the academic profs are nothin but a sac of lies. They just want to fatten their own wallets and reputations.

 

[doc toothache]

Please enlighten us. Here is my theory.

If enlightenment is what you are seeking, you may may need to get better acquainted with Mr. Google and you can start with toxic loans.

 

[cwoodds]

If enlightenment is what you are seeking, you may may need to get better acquainted with Mr. Google and you can start with toxic loans.

I'm not sure what the term 'toxic loan' has to do with the skyrocketing cost of tuition, except that a student loan is, according to the definition, a toxic loan. If this is what you mean, that since it is a toxic loan only the government can back it, then it's typical of government causing a problem and then coming in with a 'solution' that, of course, calls for more government intervention.

 

[doc toothache]

I'm not sure what the term 'toxic loan' has to do with the skyrocketing cost of tuition, except that a student loan is, according to the definition, a toxic loan. If this is what you mean, that since it is a toxic loan only the government can back it, then it's typical of government causing a problem and then coming in with a 'solution' that, of course, calls for more government intervention.

We appear to have brick walls in the x, y and z axis.
In case of an acceptance and need for spending money while in ds, you can avoid the gvt conspiracy and borrow money from a private institution.

 

[NDPitch]

Please enlighten us.

Here is my theory. I believe the government became the lender due to the same statist impulses that compels it to get involved in all other areas that the government of a free people has no business being involved in. People in academia believe that they are the smartest people on the planet, and as such should wield the greatest wealth and greatest power. Unfortunately, the market doesn't agree. There are not enough private lenders willing to finance the exhorbitant increases in higher education costs at ridiculously low interest rates. So instead of coming up with ways to make college more affordable, they turned to government to provide an endless supply of cheap money. Instead of allowing market forces to drive innovation and cost benefits, they turned to a government all too willing to exert its power and influence. What follows is one more way to redistribute wealth, from those that create it to those who think they deserve it, and who can use the government to extort it for them.

This.