25 years old and deep in debt

[Berkut]

So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:

1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.

This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.

The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.

Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.

This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.

The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.

[PDH]

All I know is that I teach one course a semester and also work full time for the university (thus getting benefits, etc. from them).  Those other adjuncts are doing it wrong.

[alfred russel]

So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:

1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.

This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.

The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.

Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.

This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.

The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.

Go back and read my post. I said the cost of teachers was not the source of the problem, and you tell me I'm wrong because the source of the problem is something other than the cost of teachers. 

[DGuller]

Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.

This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.

I don't think it's that basic, and I think you're getting the economics of it wrong.  If increases in subsidies are responsible for higher college costs, then student debt levels wouldn't be increasing.  They would be decreasing.  Students would be taking their share in subsidies.

[Berkut]

Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.

This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.

I don't think it's that basic, and I think you're getting the economics of it wrong.  If increases in subsidies are responsible for higher college costs, then student debt levels wouldn't be increasing.  They would be decreasing.  Students would be taking their share in subsidies.

The government guaranteeing loans is a subsidy - I am not talking about just grants.

[Berkut]

So, it seems to me like this kind went something like this:

1. Traditionally, classes at universities and colleges are taught by full pr part time professors who are employees of the school in question.
2. In some cases, it was seen as desirable to have classes taught by non-employees, for a variety of good reasons - a way to get outside experts involved, or visiting faculty from other schools. But this was seen as desirable not as a way of saving money, but as a way of having a more diverse pool of potential instructors. But overall, the vast majority of classes are taught by traditional full time professors/instructors.
3. Schools realize that the per course cost of an adjunct is a tiny fraction of what it costs to have a full time professor teach the class, so more and more and more classes are not just being allowed to be taught by an adjunct, but rather they MUST be taught by an adjunct, because the school isn't going to hire enough actual full time employees to teach their classes - instead, they just offer the classes as adjunct.

This results in a situation where there simply is not as many actual full time positions available as one would expect, since schools will just decide that paying an adjunct to teach the class is so much cheaper than paying an employee. And now it is getting to the point where actually teaching a lot of classes has become the job of "mercenaries" who go about form school to school looking for what work they can scrape up, rather than actual faculty with an investment in the school itself (and the schools investment in them). This seems, to me, to be a pretty terrible model as it is being used.

The flip side is that college costs are exploding and have been for some time. That isn't because of direct teaching costs of course, but if you remove a source of discount teachers the problem is only going to get worse.

Incorrect. The cost of college has been exploding because the government has been subsidising, hence schools are spending more and more effort to suck in those sweet pell dollars and guaranteed loan money.

This is supply and demand at it's most basic. Costs are going up because the pool of money available to college students is going up, and schools want to get all they can.

The fact that salaries for teaching staff has NOT gone up suggests exactly the opposite of your conclusion. If nothing else, it would be better if all that extra money being sucked in went to better salaries for staff rather than ever more elaborate and fancy facilities.

Go back and read my post. I said the cost of teachers was not the source of the problem, and you tell me I'm wrong because the source of the problem is something other than the cost of teachers. 

No, I am telling you that the reason that the cost of higher education is going up so fast is because the pool of available money for it has gone up and hence colleges are icnreasing their costs so they can get more of it - therefore, the limiting factor is not costs, so increasing faculty salaries won't have a significant effect.

Right now, the consumer has this practically unlimited pool of money to tap into to go to college. The colleges, nominally mostly not for profit, want as much of that money as they can get, so they increase spending on fancy new buildings, stadiums, labs, all the "bling" that attracts more students, because students are mostly kind of stupid and make choices on what they can see, rather than on whether or not the college hires the best instructors and pays them well.

That is what is driving costs. Increasing faculty salaries would not make college more expensive, it would just make colleges spend their giant piles of federal cash differently.

[Ed Anger]

All I know is that I teach one course a semester and also work full time for the university (thus getting benefits, etc. from them).  Those other adjuncts are doing it wrong.

Young people make me sick. They don't pay me enough for two classes.

[grumbler]

No, I am telling you that the reason that the cost of higher education is going up so fast is because the pool of available money for it has gone up and hence colleges are icnreasing their costs so they can get more of it - therefore, the limiting factor is not costs, so increasing faculty salaries won't have a significant effect.

Right now, the consumer has this practically unlimited pool of money to tap into to go to college. The colleges, nominally mostly not for profit, want as much of that money as they can get, so they increase spending on fancy new buildings, stadiums, labs, all the "bling" that attracts more students, because students are mostly kind of stupid and make choices on what they can see, rather than on whether or not the college hires the best instructors and pays them well.

That is what is driving costs. Increasing faculty salaries would not make college more expensive, it would just make colleges spend their giant piles of federal cash differently.

I am, missing the incentive for "colleges" (whatever that means in terms of decision-makers) to simply "want as much of that money as they can get."  Is this colleges decision-maker just some kind of kleptomaniac that wants to get money for the sake of money?  Since most of these colleges guys are non-profit (as you note), they can't be trying to increase profit, so what good do they gain from simply having more money?

The answer, I think, is that you have the priorities of college decision-makers exactly reversed.  They aren't increasing facilities so they can soak up more money, they are soaking up more money in order to increase facilities.  The real fact of the matter is that the number of students reaching college age is going down, so competition for the best of those students is increasing.  At the same time, you have more and more students basing their college decisions on scores in the various "best colleges" compendia on the web, and so schools are changing their spending patterns to maximize their scores on those.  That mostly means technology and facilities (especially sports facilities).  Faculty quality rarely comes into play, so faculty salaries have grown much more slowly than overall spending.

I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education.  The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education.  The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.

Well, yeah. The pool of available money comes in the form of debt.

[grumbler]

I don't believe that there has been any significant increase in the "the pool of available money for" college education.  The increasing spending for university education is coming from debt, not from a larger pool of available money.

Well, yeah. The pool of available money comes in the form of debt.

  Money that must be borrowed is the opposite of "available money."

[Eddie Teach]

Money that can be used is available.

[Ideologue]

Semantic discussions are so much fun.  I have no idea why we haven't had a new member other than celedhring in like ten years.

That said, grumbler has a semi-intelligible point, in that the grotesque decadence of colleges is driven in part by competition with other colleges and in part by megalomaniacal empire building on the part of administrators.

That said, the fact is that the government's student loan policy fuels this destruction of wealth.

[grumbler]

Semantic discussions are so much fun.  I have no idea why we haven't had a new member other than celedhring in like ten years.

That said, grumbler has a semi-intelligible point, in that the grotesque decadence of colleges is driven in part by competition with other colleges and in part by megalomaniacal empire building on the part of administrators.

That said, the fact is that the government's student loan policy fuels this destruction of wealth.

I agree that the ready availability of loans fuels the problem, but those loans have been available for decades.  The growth in education costs haven't tracked with loan availability - in fact, Federal loan terms have gotten worse as costs have grown.

[grumbler]

Money that can be used is available.

Then there has been, since 1965, a practically infinite amount of "money available."  That doesn't explain the more recent vast increase in tuition costs.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think there's a single cause, but the increased demand which has been enabled by student loans is almost certainly part of it.