Attraction to Washington State has never been greater

[M-I-Coug]

Not sure how to express this, but if you presently live in King County, you'll most likely agree that living in the Seattle areas is not pleasant anymore, mainly due to (the Jeff Bezos, and Microsoft) traffic.

With all the major employers, (call it "the Seattle Gold Rush"), such as Amazon, (100,000 employees in downtown Seattle), Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Facebook, (Apple has a secret office in Bellevue, and secretly hiring IT like crazy), Costco, REI, Weyerhaeuser, University of Washington, Expedia, etc....all of these employers are bringing in thousands of new people, (mainly IT) each month. Not to mention the unregulated medical industry. All of these companies creates thousands of more demand and jobs indirectly. As a result, Seattle, then San Francisco is the largest growth market in the United States. Both real estate and traffic. Yep....we're #1.

Until the Sound Transit light rail is complete, who would want to go to the U-Dub, with such a stressed out daily commute, unless you live on campus, or seek a specialty major like Dentistry or Fishing?

As a result of the serious congestion, the appeal to go to a real genuine college town, a major university where folks aren't next to the university sleeping under freeways, and heroin roaming everywhere, (the heroine epidemic is everywhere, including Pullman), the appeal for Washington State University, Pullman campus, hasn't been any stronger than today. Ever.

What was once looked upon as a cow town, with a college out in the middle of nowhere, the appeal is now hotter that ever.

Anyone want to add to this? BTW, opening up a Medical School in Spokane certainly gives a boost. Can anyone else see this forthcoming booming trend?

 

[CPtheCoug]

Not sure how to express this, but if you presently live in King County, you'll most likely agree that living in the Seattle areas is not pleasant anymore, mainly due to (the Jeff Bezos, and Microsoft) traffic.

With all the major employers, (call it "the Seattle Gold Rush"), such as Amazon, (100,000 employees in downtown Seattle), Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Facebook, (Apple has a secret office in Bellevue, and secretly hiring IT like crazy), Costco, REI, Weyerhaeuser, University of Washington, Expedia, etc....all of these employers are bringing in thousands of new people, (mainly IT) each month. Not to mention the unregulated medical industry. All of these companies creates thousands of more demand and jobs indirectly. As a result, Seattle, then San Francisco is the largest growth market in the United States. Both real estate and traffic. Yep....we're #1.

Until the Sound Transit light rail is complete, who would want to go to the U-Dub, with such a stressed out daily commute, unless you live on campus, or seek a specialty major like Dentistry or Fishing?

As a result of the serious congestion, the appeal to go to a real genuine college town, a major university where folks aren't next to the university sleeping under freeways, and heroin roaming everywhere, (the heroine epidemic is everywhere, including Pullman), the appeal for Washington State University, Pullman campus, hasn't been any stronger than today. Ever.

What was once looked upon as a cow town, with a college out in the middle of nowhere, the appeal is now hotter that ever.

Anyone want to add to this? BTW, opening up a Medical School in Spokane certainly gives a boost. Can anyone else see this forthcoming booming trend?

Interesting points. My impression is historically things like this have been cyclical. In the sense that (Seattle for example) Seattle is the super duper great place to live and works as-is. Large companies move in bringing in thousands of new high paid employees... Now Seattle is an EXCITING place to live, lots of new construction and new people and golly gosh everything is so fun/new.

Then that excitement fades.... Traffic is stupid crazy, construction tears up traditional communities (subjective I know), the influx of new people are culturally different from what you are use to (not necessarily in the immigrant sense, but maybe just individuals from other cities in America), and rents/home prices sky rocket.

After awhile people just can't stand it anymore! They start moving out of the cities to more affordable towns and/or opportunities in less cut throat areas.

I know a dozen or so people who grew up in the Seattle area, but have since moved to Spokane and the tri-cities area in the last two years. If that trend continues and grows I can imagine there will be "bleeding" into the palouse area.

When I say bleed I'm talking money/influence/tourism?/new wsu fans/additional enrollment at wsu/etc...

 

[chipdouglas]

You might be 100% right, but it's not clear that Seattle becoming less attractive to commuters automatically means salad days ahead for WSU enrollment and storm clouds for prospective Huskies. As for the Bezos thing, you could say the same thing about NYC, LA or CHI, but clearly, having traffic and jobs has not cratered demand to attend Columbia, UCLA or Northwestern.

We are personally enjoying the boom and maybe looking to buy back home. Haven't decided whether to use as a residence or rental income - depends on the crackpot city council's next move. In any case, looking forward to Pullman being the sleepy cow town we all remember it as, and being able to go to the Snake on an August afternoon and have it all to ourselves.

 

[M-I-Coug]

One of my points I forgot to mention. Strictly referring to Juniors or Seniors in High School that have grown up in King County.

If you're going off to college, and then work, (the rest of your lives, let's say in Seattle), why would you desire to go to school in Seattle? I get that the UW has programs that are unique and exclusive, and you need a 3.8, or 3.9 plus tons of community service in high school to get admitted.

But for this topic, UW, (to me) does not look appealing. Now if you grow up in Spokane, that's different, but remember, I'm strictly referring to King County. I'm saying that Washington State stands out, as a place to "get away" from the 4 million people.

You have the rest of your life to live in or around the city. Why not get out? Will there be record demand for enrollment for the next 6 years, (until the entire Sound Transit Light Rail is complete)?

Remember, once Light Rail is done, as a UW student, you can blow from Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Lynnwood, or Redmond right into Husky Stadium...on the train. That's pretty cool. Until then, it's major, major, major traffic, (unless you're living on campus).

I guess my point is....there will be a huge increase in demand. WSU is in for some record application numbers, and Washington State will be more popular than ever.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Kids don't care about traffic if they are walking distance from campus, and as freshmen they will be in a dorm. Sure, it gets worse as they move off campus, but most kids don't think about that. Adults are another story, and UW will have to pay better as time passes to keep faculty. "prestige" doesn't pay the bills. And assistant coaches for any sport get more and more expensive as housing and commuting become worse. Both Cal and UCLA can give you chapter and verse on that. Parents will like it, so that will help push students a bit…but again, kids don't care about traffic if they are within walking distance.

The appeal of a true college town is likely to grow. And the livability of Seattle has steadily eroded over the past few decades. The "boom" in student growth at Wazzu will benefit from both, but it will benefit even more from population growth in WA. Depending upon who you believe, WA's % population growth will outstrip the USA as a whole for at least the next decade. There is room at WSU for dorms and apartments. Not so much at Montlake.

 

[95coug]

One of my points I forgot to mention. Strictly referring to Juniors or Seniors in High School that have grown up in King County.

If you're going off to college, and then work, (the rest of your lives, let's say in Seattle), why would you desire to go to school in Seattle? I get that the UW has programs that are unique and exclusive, and you need a 3.8, or 3.9 plus tons of community service in high school to get admitted.

But for this topic, UW, (to me) does not look appealing. Now if you grow up in Spokane, that's different, but remember, I'm strictly referring to King County. I'm saying that Washington State stands out, as a place to "get away" from the 4 million people.

You have the rest of your life to live in or around the city. Why not get out? Will there be record demand for enrollment for the next 6 years, (until the entire Sound Transit Light Rail is complete)?

Remember, once Light Rail is done, as a UW student, you can blow from Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Lynnwood, or Redmond right into Husky Stadium...on the train. That's pretty cool. Until then, it's major, major, major traffic, (unless you're living on campus).

I guess my point is....there will be a huge increase in demand. WSU is in for some record application numbers, and Washington State will be more popular than ever.

I see a couple of flaws in your logic. First, as someone else said, HS students aren't commuters, they don't have a real feel for what traffic is like. And, especially as underclassmen, they can often schedule classes to avoid the worst traffic anyway. But, the bigger flaw I see is that if you grew up in King County, Pullman is so far away and so far from anything that I don't see it being that big a draw. Unless you're a legacy, or REALLY hate living in King County, Pullman is too backwoods. Honestly, I think CWU is better positioned to benefit from this, they're close enough that if someone really wanted to they could drive back to SEattle every weekend - or even on say, Tuesday.

WSU gets record application numbers almost every year. But the classes are capped at approximately the same size, which means our acceptance criteria are generally trending upward also. They still lag behind UW's, but gone are the days where a 3.0 is good enough to get you in (average now is 3.3, with an 1110 SAT). You're "assured" admission if you have a 3.5 and apply before January.

Here's another little tidbit that a lot of people don't consider - WSU (and UW) don't want a lot of applications from in state, because of the way educational economics work. An in-state student pays less, and the state subsidy doesn't make up the difference. Out of state (and international) students pay the full bill. Students with a lot of federal financial aid (especially out of state students) are even better, because they pay full freight as long as the student is enrolled. The university's bottom line would be better if they could admit no Washington state residents. Conversely, the university would be bankrupt in a year if they accepted only in-state students.

It's tough math for admissions offices, and the legislature's decision to reduce tuition at state schools makes it even harder. But what that decision really did was further reduce the number of Washington state HS students the Washington universities can afford to admit.

 

[M-I-Coug]

I see a couple of flaws in your logic. First, as someone else said, HS students aren't commuters, they don't have a real feel for what traffic is like. And, especially as underclassmen, they can often schedule classes to avoid the worst traffic anyway. But, the bigger flaw I see is that if you grew up in King County, Pullman is so far away and so far from anything that I don't see it being that big a draw. Unless you're a legacy, or REALLY hate living in King County, Pullman is too backwoods. Honestly, I think CWU is better positioned to benefit from this, they're close enough that if someone really wanted to they could drive back to SEattle every weekend - or even on say, Tuesday.

WSU gets record application numbers almost every year. But the classes are capped at approximately the same size, which means our acceptance criteria are generally trending upward also. They still lag behind UW's, but gone are the days where a 3.0 is good enough to get you in (average now is 3.3, with an 1110 SAT). You're "assured" admission if you have a 3.5 and apply before January.

Here's another little tidbit that a lot of people don't consider - WSU (and UW) don't want a lot of applications from in state, because of the way educational economics work. An in-state student pays less, and the state subsidy doesn't make up the difference. Out of state (and international) students pay the full bill. Students with a lot of federal financial aid (especially out of state students) are even better, because they pay full freight as long as the student is enrolled. The university's bottom line would be better if they could admit no Washington state residents. Conversely, the university would be bankrupt in a year if they accepted only in-state students.

It's tough math for admissions offices, and the legislature's decision to reduce tuition at state schools makes it even harder. But what that decision really did was further reduce the number of Washington state HS students the Washington universities can afford to admit.

You bring up some good points. This is why I see so many students "going out of state". I have been informed, on several occasions, that their out of state tuition, with grants and scholarships, end up costing about the same as in-state tuition. Regarding CWU......Western up in Bellingham seems to fit the niche of students who don't want the 300 miles, but seek to be closer in from Seattle, as Bellingham appeals to this group, as does Ellensburg. I've often found that students who do choose WWU or CWU don't really care about attending college football games, or the Pac-12.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

95coug speaks the truth! WSU doesn't really want more in-state students on campus. They need the extra income from out-of-state students to make ends meet and they have very tight restrictions on who can receive in-state tuition. As an alum who moved to another state, my kids will not attend WSU because they have no program in place to encourage alumni to send their kids back to WSU for their education. My daughter would love to go to WSU but there is no reason for us (and her) to pay $40,000+ per year for her to attend Washington State when she can go to the other WSU (Wichita State) for $11,000 her first year and for about $18,000 per year thereafter (at home in year one and in an apartment her last three years).

WSU prefers the short term cash of a different out-of-state student over the development of a legacy kid and I can't blame them for doing it, even if I wish it were otherwise.

 

[M-I-Coug]

I'd like to see 60 Minutes do a piece on this. Interesting. Seems like Public Universities are becoming like a business. All about the bottom line...which makes perfect sense, but....they have to remember that they report to Olympia, not to shareholders.

 

[Coug95man2]

I'd like to see 60 Minutes do a piece on this. Interesting. Seems like Public Universities are becoming like a business. All about the bottom line...which makes perfect sense, but....they have to remember that they report to Olympia, not to shareholders.

What's the difference?

 

[M-I-Coug]

What's the difference?

Take a look at Insurance companies. Stock based companies report to Shareholders. Mutual base companies (because they're private, not public) tend to first please their policyholders. So stock based companies first tend to please the shareholders, then it's policy holders, in that order.

For example, you make a homeowner's claim on water damage for the basement of your home. Mutual based companies will pay out more, and provide a much better experience, while stock based companies won't pay out as high, because they have to please their shareholders.

If state universities are acting like profit centers, (i.e: BECU and Swedish Medical), then it's just another business, focussing on profits. If schools report to Olympia, while not trying to focussing on profits, then they've maintained their roots, which is providing a strong education without operating like a profit center.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

One of my points I forgot to mention. Strictly referring to Juniors or Seniors in High School that have grown up in King County.

If you're going off to college, and then work, (the rest of your lives, let's say in Seattle), why would you desire to go to school in Seattle? I get that the UW has programs that are unique and exclusive, and you need a 3.8, or 3.9 plus tons of community service in high school to get admitted.

But for this topic, UW, (to me) does not look appealing. Now if you grow up in Spokane, that's different, but remember, I'm strictly referring to King County. I'm saying that Washington State stands out, as a place to "get away" from the 4 million people.

You have the rest of your life to live in or around the city. Why not get out? Will there be record demand for enrollment for the next 6 years, (until the entire Sound Transit Light Rail is complete)?

Remember, once Light Rail is done, as a UW student, you can blow from Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Lynnwood, or Redmond right into Husky Stadium...on the train. That's pretty cool. Until then, it's major, major, major traffic, (unless you're living on campus).

I guess my point is....there will be a huge increase in demand. WSU is in for some record application numbers, and Washington State will be more popular than ever.

"You have the rest of your life to live in or around the city. Why not get out?"

This has been one of my primary arguments. Let's face it...unfortunately most of us will live in/close to a major metro area after graduation. Why not try a true college town when one is young? One will never will get another chance...

 

[Coug95man2]

Take a look at Insurance companies. Stock based companies report to Shareholders. Mutual base companies (because they're private, not public) tend to first please their policyholders. So stock based companies first tend to please the shareholders, then it's policy holders, in that order.

For example, you make a homeowner's claim on water damage for the basement of your home. Mutual based companies will pay out more, and provide a much better experience, while stock based companies won't pay out as high, because they have to please their shareholders.

If state universities are acting like profit centers, (i.e: BECU and Swedish Medical), then it's just another business, focussing on profits. If schools report to Olympia, while not trying to focussing on profits, then they've maintained their roots, which is providing a strong education without operating like a profit center.

Missing my sarcastic point. Right now, the budget is in such shambles, the state government is HAVING (or should be, IMHO) acting like share holders. They have to account for every penny, they have to maintain a budget (which they are NOT doing). They aren't looking at the budget as something that has to be controlled.

Yes, I get it that they are different forms. They are able to ride debt in a different way than private. No, they shouldn't be profit centers (completely agree), but they shouldn't be black holes of finance, either. But they've pushed that concept so far, it's becoming untenable. So many things in the budget are those "black holes". Politicians have promised so much crap, the debt on just about every level, is out of control. And at the same time, no one wants to raise taxes. Would have helped to just say this in the first place.

Sorry for my sarcastic joke... bad form.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

I think the biggest threat- and it applies to all universities- is the fact that costs have become so high vs the benefits, there is no real need for most students to spend much of their time on-campus to get a degree.

It'll be an interesting transformation, but its only a matter of time before major disruption happens to the universities and their "business model" of educating students.

Getting a bachelor's degree should cost more than several hundred dollars (and pricing will reflect the university that grants the degree even more).

 

[Coug95man2]

I think the biggest threat- and it applies to all universities- is the fact that costs have become so high vs the benefits, there is no real need for most students to spend much of their time on-campus to get a degree.

It'll be an interesting transformation, but its only a matter of time before major disruption happens to the universities and their "business model" of educating students.

Getting a bachelor's degree should cost more than several hundred dollars (and pricing will reflect the university that grants the degree even more).

My daughter did the "running start" program. Basically she got her 2 year degree while in high school. I didn't have to pay 1 cent in actual tuition. Lab fee's, admin fee's, stuff like that... but tuition?! Nope. So there was 2 years of education my daughter got, that we didn't pay those professors. We didn't pay for the maintenance of the school. We didn't pay jack... And to the cost point... no she didn't necessarily take an inventory without paying... The profs were already there, as an example... But what it DID do was insure my daughter only payed for 2 years at the state school, instead of 4. Literally cut the money out of my pocket by half. Awesome for us but probably not the best model for these Universities. And every high school has literally hundreds of students that do this.

AND these programs/high schools, for better or for worse, encourage students to utilize the community colleges INSTEAD of state universities...

 

[95coug]

My daughter did the "running start" program. Basically she got her 2 year degree while in high school. I didn't have to pay 1 cent in actual tuition. Lab fee's, admin fee's, stuff like that... but tuition?! Nope. So there was 2 years of education my daughter got, that we didn't pay those professors. We didn't pay for the maintenance of the school. We didn't pay jack... And to the cost point... no she didn't necessarily take an inventory without paying... The profs were already there, as an example... But what it DID do was insure my daughter only payed for 2 years at the state school, instead of 4. Literally cut the money out of my pocket by half. Awesome for us but probably not the best model for these Universities. And every high school has literally hundreds of students that do this.

AND these programs/high schools, for better or for worse, encourage students to utilize the community colleges INSTEAD of state universities...

Like you say, Running Start is great for the students, not so much for the campus. And here's why: Running Start students pay no tuition, and the student's school district pays the campus a maximum of about $6,600 per year (for a student enrolled full-time in college classes). This is compared to WSU in-state tuition of not quite $11,000/year. And, reality is that most students aren't enrolled full time, and the per-credit compensation is even lower. The campus is compensated at less than 50% for most Running Start students. But...that student takes up the same amount of space and requires the same amount of instructional time as a student who is paying full tuition. So, while it's true that the professors are already there, the way the rules are set up (at least in Washington), the Running Start kids must be treated as regular students. They can't be displaced by a regular, full-tuition student - so they can (and do) take seats in classes that regular students would take, and the campus must sell them that seat for less money.

At the same time, the state has stopped subsidizing tuition for in-state students at the rate they used to, telling all of the state schools that they need to find ways to raise operating funds on their own (be self-supporting, run more like a business). And then, the state said they have to decrease tuition. What the state has done is create an environment where the state schools have no choice other than to increase the number of out-of-state students - it's the only way they can raise the operating capital they need.

In this environment, there's really only one reason a campus gets involved with Running Start - to pad their enrollment numbers. The one good thing about RS students is that since they are treated like regular students, they are also counted as regular students. So they get included in the enrollment numbers, and the campus gets to claim that they're growing, or that they need capital funds for new construction because they have too many students for the existing facilities (and then they can add more full-tuition students). In the short run, RS is a loser for most campuses, but if they can manipulate the enrollment numbers, they could be a long-term positive.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Kids don't care about traffic if they are walking distance from campus, and as freshmen they will be in a dorm. Sure, it gets worse as they move off campus, but most kids don't think about that. Adults are another story, and UW will have to pay better as time passes to keep faculty. "prestige" doesn't pay the bills. And assistant coaches for any sport get more and more expensive as housing and commuting become worse. Both Cal and UCLA can give you chapter and verse on that. Parents will like it, so that will help push students a bit…but again, kids don't care about traffic if they are within walking distance.

The appeal of a true college town is likely to grow. And the livability of Seattle has steadily eroded over the past few decades. The "boom" in student growth at Wazzu will benefit from both, but it will benefit even more from population growth in WA. Depending upon who you believe, WA's % population growth will outstrip the USA as a whole for at least the next decade. There is room at WSU for dorms and apartments. Not so much at Montlake.

I never knew a lot of UW students that lived in Federal Way or Issaquah and had to battle the daily commute to get to school.

The OP is reaching.

 

[chipdouglas]

I'd like to see 60 Minutes do a piece on this. Interesting. Seems like Public Universities are becoming like a business. All about the bottom line...which makes perfect sense, but....they have to remember that they report to Olympia, not to shareholders.

I think they became a business a long time ago (10-15 years). You could dig up the links, but I recall reading about the fantastic impact the football program had on Oregon's overall applications... they get state money, requiring them to accept a certain % of in-staters, but they sat atop a gold mine of lucrative out-of-state applications, so they were petitioning the State to give back some money in exchange to take a higher % of out-of-state kids.

Overhead costs at universities have also swelled, and it seems the "secondary" resources now well outnumber the essentials around which the college was founded. Gotta feed the beast.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

I think they became a business a long time ago (10-15 years). You could dig up the links, but I recall reading about the fantastic impact the football program had on Oregon's overall applications... they get state money, requiring them to accept a certain % of in-staters, but they sat atop a gold mine of lucrative out-of-state applications, so they were petitioning the State to give back some money in exchange to take a higher % of out-of-state kids.

Overhead costs at universities have also swelled, and it seems the "secondary" resources now well outnumber the essentials around which the college was founded. Gotta feed the beast.

The understatement of the month. How many VPs of Diversity, etc. who are making $300K/year does WSU have now? It's criminal.

 

[M-I-Coug]

The understatement of the month. How many VPs of Diversity, etc. who are making $300K/year does WSU have now? It's criminal.

So true. As is with all the other (large) not-for-profits in our country.

 

[kayak15]

The understatement of the month. How many VPs of Diversity, etc. who are making $300K/year does WSU have now? It's criminal.

The same thought occurred to me as I followed the Barber case. A position like that requires someone with common sense, some intelligence and an unbiased outlook. Does WSU need to offer such a large salary to attract a suitable person? Are we paying the faculty that level of compensation for positions that require a greater degree of knowledge? The tail is wagging the dog here.

 

[SCglory]

I think they became a business a long time ago (10-15 years). You could dig up the links, but I recall reading about the fantastic impact the football program had on Oregon's overall applications... they get state money, requiring them to accept a certain % of in-staters, but they sat atop a gold mine of lucrative out-of-state applications, so they were petitioning the State to give back some money in exchange to take a higher % of out-of-state kids.

Overhead costs at universities have also swelled, and it seems the "secondary" resources now well outnumber the essentials around which the college was founded. Gotta feed the beast.

All out of state students know the drill. AS soon as you move to Corvallis, Eugene, Pullman, etc. begin the process to become a resident. No reason to pay out of state tuition for more than 1 year.

 

[kayak15]

The OP has raised some interesting points and gotten me thinking. The replies have been thoughtful and also stirred my little grey cells.

A couple of my thoughts regarding this:

While it is indeed true that, at least in our minds, Pullman is more attractive than Montlake, this primarily applies to adults with some life experience. That is, the parents, not the prospective student. Students residing beyond commuter distance are going to be living in dorms or apartments close to the campus. They would not be affected by traffic problems. Those living and being raised in a large metro area will regard disorderly and chaotic commutes as normal and just another aspect of life.

Happen cites the advantage of living in a college town as opposed to a large city during one's collegiate years as most will end up in a large city during their adult working lives. True, but again this can be seen more clearly by the parents. How many 16-17-18 year old kids are thinking five or ten years down the road? A long term outlook comes with maturity not youth. Again, the parents will see this but probably have little appeal or influence on their children.

The appeal of a college town experience as opposed to an urban one is going to be appreciated by the parents, not the prospective student. If WSU is going to take advantage of this, they need to address this issue to the parents, not their children. Wazzu's lackluster record of marketing raises it ugly head here and is of little consolation to me.

The discussion of finances has been of interest to me but one highly important element has been omitted. During the recent presidential election, Bernie Sanders proposed tuition free college for everyone. An idea that was quickly copied by Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party. I can only view this as a disaster if implemented. Consider the state of Washington. How many private colleges and universities would close their doors soon after passage of this proposal? Given a choice of no tuition or a private school's tuition, how many families would opt for the latter? Some but not a lot. Many would have no choice. And everyone would be paying for the state tuition whether they took advantage of it or not. Would the Catholic Church reduce its presence to two or only one school from the current three in the state? How would UPS, Seattle Pacific and the others be able to exist in this scenario? Not well I suspect. This closure of many if not most of the private schools would throw their students onto the state institutions. These students are currently being educated with little or no cost to the state and that would disappear. I view this as far more than a remote hypothetical possibility. Unless The Donald gets his head out of his ass and starts behaving in a more presidential and mature manner then our next president will be a Democrat. Currently, Warren and Sanders are the two most likely candidates and free tuition would be almost a certainty. If this comes to fruition we will regard our present monetary difficulty as "the good old days".

A side note: I am by no means a black helicopter conspiracy type of believer but the increase in governmental control of universities does not please me at all.

 

[CPtheCoug]

The OP has raised some interesting points and gotten me thinking. The replies have been thoughtful and also stirred my little grey cells.

A couple of my thoughts regarding this:

While it is indeed true that, at least in our minds, Pullman is more attractive than Montlake, this primarily applies to adults with some life experience. That is, the parents, not the prospective student. Students residing beyond commuter distance are going to be living in dorms or apartments close to the campus. They would not be affected by traffic problems. Those living and being raised in a large metro area will regard disorderly and chaotic commutes as normal and just another aspect of life.

Happen cites the advantage of living in a college town as opposed to a large city during one's collegiate years as most will end up in a large city during their adult working lives. True, but again this can be seen more clearly by the parents. How many 16-17-18 year old kids are thinking five or ten years down the road? A long term outlook comes with maturity not youth. Again, the parents will see this but probably have little appeal or influence on their children.

The appeal of a college town experience as opposed to an urban one is going to be appreciated by the parents, not the prospective student. If WSU is going to take advantage of this, they need to address this issue to the parents, not their children. Wazzu's lackluster record of marketing raises it ugly head here and is of little consolation to me.

The discussion of finances has been of interest to me but one highly important element has been omitted. During the recent presidential election, Bernie Sanders proposed tuition free college for everyone. An idea that was quickly copied by Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party. I can only view this as a disaster if implemented. Consider the state of Washington. How many private colleges and universities would close their doors soon after passage of this proposal? Given a choice of no tuition or a private school's tuition, how many families would opt for the latter? Some but not a lot. Many would have no choice. And everyone would be paying for the state tuition whether they took advantage of it or not. Would the Catholic Church reduce its presence to two or only one school from the current three in the state? How would UPS, Seattle Pacific and the others be able to exist in this scenario? Not well I suspect. This closure of many if not most of the private schools would throw their students onto the state institutions. These students are currently being educated with little or no cost to the state and that would disappear. I view this as far more than a remote hypothetical possibility. Unless The Donald gets his head out of his ass and starts behaving in a more presidential and mature manner then our next president will be a Democrat. Currently, Warren and Sanders are the two most likely candidates and free tuition would be almost a certainty. If this comes to fruition we will regard our present monetary difficulty as "the good old days".

A side note: I am by no means a black helicopter conspiracy type of believer but the increase in governmental control of universities does not please me at all.

Pertaining to the 'what would happen to the Catholic/Private colleges' notion I would say they would be fine. Obviously financial difficulty would follow the first few years but I believe things would eventually balance themselves out.

There would be capacity issues at the state schools, and I do believe there are still large swaths of the populist who would prefer private schools due to the perception that their child will receive a much better education.

Nothing is free, we would all be paying for it. It sucks cause I have Nov 2021 circled on my calendar as my last student loan payment date. If the whole free college for everyone BS is ever initiated, my taxes will go up and in one way or another I still be paying for student debt... Ugh...

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

The OP has raised some interesting points and gotten me thinking. The replies have been thoughtful and also stirred my little grey cells.

A couple of my thoughts regarding this:

While it is indeed true that, at least in our minds, Pullman is more attractive than Montlake, this primarily applies to adults with some life experience. That is, the parents, not the prospective student. Students residing beyond commuter distance are going to be living in dorms or apartments close to the campus. They would not be affected by traffic problems. Those living and being raised in a large metro area will regard disorderly and chaotic commutes as normal and just another aspect of life.

Happen cites the advantage of living in a college town as opposed to a large city during one's collegiate years as most will end up in a large city during their adult working lives. True, but again this can be seen more clearly by the parents. How many 16-17-18 year old kids are thinking five or ten years down the road? A long term outlook comes with maturity not youth. Again, the parents will see this but probably have little appeal or influence on their children.

The appeal of a college town experience as opposed to an urban one is going to be appreciated by the parents, not the prospective student. If WSU is going to take advantage of this, they need to address this issue to the parents, not their children. Wazzu's lackluster record of marketing raises it ugly head here and is of little consolation to me.

The discussion of finances has been of interest to me but one highly important element has been omitted. During the recent presidential election, Bernie Sanders proposed tuition free college for everyone. An idea that was quickly copied by Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party. I can only view this as a disaster if implemented. Consider the state of Washington. How many private colleges and universities would close their doors soon after passage of this proposal? Given a choice of no tuition or a private school's tuition, how many families would opt for the latter? Some but not a lot. Many would have no choice. And everyone would be paying for the state tuition whether they took advantage of it or not. Would the Catholic Church reduce its presence to two or only one school from the current three in the state? How would UPS, Seattle Pacific and the others be able to exist in this scenario? Not well I suspect. This closure of many if not most of the private schools would throw their students onto the state institutions. These students are currently being educated with little or no cost to the state and that would disappear. I view this as far more than a remote hypothetical possibility. Unless The Donald gets his head out of his ass and starts behaving in a more presidential and mature manner then our next president will be a Democrat. Currently, Warren and Sanders are the two most likely candidates and free tuition would be almost a certainty. If this comes to fruition we will regard our present monetary difficulty as "the good old days".

A side note: I am by no means a black helicopter conspiracy type of believer but the increase in governmental control of universities does not please me at all.

Excellent points...as usual.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Pertaining to the 'what would happen to the Catholic/Private colleges' notion I would say they would be gone. Obviously financial difficulty would follow the first few years but I believe things would eventually balance themselves out.

There would be capacity issues at the state schools, and I do believe there are still large swaths of the populist who would prefer private schools due to the perception that their child will receive a much better education.

Nothing is free, we would all be paying for it. It sucks cause I have Nov 2021 circled on my calendar as my last student loan payment date. If the whole free college for everyone BS is ever initiated, my taxes will go up and in one way or another I still be paying for student debt... Ugh...

Yes, it's hardly fair for those who paid tens of thousands of their hard-earned dollars for college (their own or their child's) and then see education offered for "free" by the government. What a travesty.

 

[Coug95man2]

Yes, it's hardly fair for those who paid tens of thousands of their hard-earned dollars for college (their own or their child's) and then see education offered for "free" by the government. What a travesty.

While I agree this kinda smacks of jealousy, I think the kernel of truth still lies inside. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked so incredibly hard to earn the ability to go to college. For it to all the sudden be given away for free, extends the concept that "working hard" for something isn't needed.
I get the concept that education allows so many the ability to get out of poverty. THAT I'm not against. But there are so many paths, right now. Yes loans are a legit pathway. Not the best but millions upon millions have gone down that road. But if someone is in poverty, the paths for grants and scholarships are immeasurable. Why aren't those avenues pursued?

But financially? I'm sorry, it makes no sense.

AND lets think of that kind of structure! It funnels the educational process. What used to be a time to question authority and expand your horizons will all of the sudden become the opposite. Every school will be a state school, with STRONG ties to the federal government. Smaller, private schools that challenge a certain thought will be gone within 5-10 years. OR... the cost will be so high, there might be 10 in the whole nation and it will become a place where only the richest of the richest will be able to afford... And they'll be demonized for it. We should be expanding schools, IMHO. This concept that Sanders promoted will only shrink school possibilities.

 

[BiggsCoug]

The OP has raised some interesting points and gotten me thinking. The replies have been thoughtful and also stirred my little grey cells.

A couple of my thoughts regarding this:

While it is indeed true that, at least in our minds, Pullman is more attractive than Montlake, this primarily applies to adults with some life experience. That is, the parents, not the prospective student. Students residing beyond commuter distance are going to be living in dorms or apartments close to the campus. They would not be affected by traffic problems. Those living and being raised in a large metro area will regard disorderly and chaotic commutes as normal and just another aspect of life.

Happen cites the advantage of living in a college town as opposed to a large city during one's collegiate years as most will end up in a large city during their adult working lives. True, but again this can be seen more clearly by the parents. How many 16-17-18 year old kids are thinking five or ten years down the road? A long term outlook comes with maturity not youth. Again, the parents will see this but probably have little appeal or influence on their children.

The appeal of a college town experience as opposed to an urban one is going to be appreciated by the parents, not the prospective student. If WSU is going to take advantage of this, they need to address this issue to the parents, not their children. Wazzu's lackluster record of marketing raises it ugly head here and is of little consolation to me.

The discussion of finances has been of interest to me but one highly important element has been omitted. During the recent presidential election, Bernie Sanders proposed tuition free college for everyone. An idea that was quickly copied by Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party. I can only view this as a disaster if implemented. Consider the state of Washington. How many private colleges and universities would close their doors soon after passage of this proposal? Given a choice of no tuition or a private school's tuition, how many families would opt for the latter? Some but not a lot. Many would have no choice. And everyone would be paying for the state tuition whether they took advantage of it or not. Would the Catholic Church reduce its presence to two or only one school from the current three in the state? How would UPS, Seattle Pacific and the others be able to exist in this scenario? Not well I suspect. This closure of many if not most of the private schools would throw their students onto the state institutions. These students are currently being educated with little or no cost to the state and that would disappear. I view this as far more than a remote hypothetical possibility. Unless The Donald gets his head out of his ass and starts behaving in a more presidential and mature manner then our next president will be a Democrat. Currently, Warren and Sanders are the two most likely candidates and free tuition would be almost a certainty. If this comes to fruition we will regard our present monetary difficulty as "the good old days".

A side note: I am by no means a black helicopter conspiracy type of believer but the increase in governmental control of universities does not please me at all.

I have no issue with free college education at the community college level, IF the students are producing. No free education for kids that don't get good grades. Your azz has to pay. First semester is on the taxpayer. Produce good grades, get more free education. Screw it up, write the check. Our country needs citizens to be as smart, educated and have the best critical thinking skills possible. All others dig ditches.

In regards to the taxpayers paying for it, yes. Pay for it. You either write a check to educate your community further or you live with idiots. I will pay my fair share so I don't have to live with the CougEd's of the world.

 

[425cougfan]

While I agree this kinda smacks of jealousy, I think the kernel of truth still lies inside. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked so incredibly hard to earn the ability to go to college. For it to all the sudden be given away for free, extends the concept that "working hard" for something isn't needed.
I get the concept that education allows so many the ability to get out of poverty. THAT I'm not against. But there are so many paths, right now. Yes loans are a legit pathway. Not the best but millions upon millions have gone down that road. But if someone is in poverty, the paths for grants and scholarships are immeasurable. Why aren't those avenues pursued?

But financially? I'm sorry, it makes no sense.

AND lets think of that kind of structure! It funnels the educational process. What used to be a time to question authority and expand your horizons will all of the sudden become the opposite. Every school will be a state school, with STRONG ties to the federal government. Smaller, private schools that challenge a certain thought will be gone within 5-10 years. OR... the cost will be so high, there might be 10 in the whole nation and it will become a place where only the richest of the richest will be able to afford... And they'll be demonized for it. We should be expanding schools, IMHO. This concept that Sanders promoted will only shrink school possibilities.

This whole thing likely will never really happen anyway, but why would private schools have to raise their tuition if public colleges become free? Unless public colleges massively increase in size, you still have only roughly the same number of people attending in the "free college" world that attend them under the current model, no?

I'd also expect "free" to eventually go by the wayside like so many other things, with a bunch of "use fees," exorbitant fees for labs, books, housing, food, parking passes, or whatever, much like how our "$30 car tabs" went away very quickly. They might even be so blatant as to charge those "with means," which they'd probably define in the same ridiculous ways they try to now for financial aid purposes, while allowing the truly poor to attend for free. That's pretty much already the way it is at many schools.

Even if public schools really were "free" for a period of time, I'd think it would not have much of an effect on private college enrollment. There would be a push to increase the size of the free public colleges, but otherwise, I don't think much would change. If anything, it might actually *increase* private college enrollment due to, in essence, making college even more like extended high school than it already is ... college would become a job requirement even to a greater extent than it is now, making it a must-attend for students, whether they can get into the "free" colleges or not.

One of the more substantive changes, I think, would be a greater push for diversity and other factors in the admissions process at the free colleges. Just imagine if they didn't do that and not enough students in certain groups were admitted to the "free" schools, with their only alternatives being the private schools! That would never be allowed, obviously, so there would be a massive push on that front, even more than we already see.

If anything, I think a world in which public schools were free and private schools were not would give state schools much greater ability to be selective. I'm sure they wouldn't be as selective as they could be, with diversity and other concerns playing a role (potentially a huge one), but if you think it's competitive to get in a place like Berkeley now, imagine if it was free. This could have a huge benefit for WSU, actually, by giving it the ability to step up its student quality (as measured by grades, standardized test scores, and other traditional metrics of applicant quality) even more than it has in the past 20 years or so.

 

[Coug95man2]

This whole thing likely will never really happen anyway, but why would private schools have to raise their tuition if public colleges become free? Unless public colleges massively increase in size, you still have only roughly the same number of people attending in the "free college" world that attend them under the current model, no?

I'd also expect "free" to eventually go by the wayside like so many other things, with a bunch of "use fees," exorbitant fees for labs, books, housing, food, parking passes, or whatever, much like how our "$30 car tabs" went away very quickly. They might even be so blatant as to charge those "with means," which they'd probably define in the same ridiculous ways they try to now for financial aid purposes, while allowing the truly poor to attend for free. That's pretty much already the way it is at many schools.

Even if public schools really were "free" for a period of time, I'd think it would not have much of an effect on private college enrollment. There would be a push to increase the size of the free public colleges, but otherwise, I don't think much would change. If anything, it might actually *increase* private college enrollment due to, in essence, making college even more like extended high school than it already is ... college would become a job requirement even to a greater extent than it is now, making it a must-attend for students, whether they can get into the "free" colleges or not.

One of the more substantive changes, I think, would be a greater push for diversity and other factors in the admissions process at the free colleges. Just imagine if they didn't do that and not enough students in certain groups were admitted to the "free" schools, with their only alternatives being the private schools! That would never be allowed, obviously, so there would be a massive push on that front, even more than we already see.

If anything, I think a world in which public schools were free and private schools were not would give state schools much greater ability to be selective. I'm sure they wouldn't be as selective as they could be, with diversity and other concerns playing a role (potentially a huge one), but if you think it's competitive to get in a place like Berkeley now, imagine if it was free. This could have a huge benefit for WSU, actually, by giving it the ability to step up its student quality (as measured by grades, standardized test scores, and other traditional metrics of applicant quality) even more than it has in the past 20 years or so.

I guess I was pointing to 3 points in my post:
1. Why go down this road? The excuse is to help those in poverty. But that's currently covered. So I don't know why this drastic change would be needed. Other than people like the idea of "free shit". But as you point out, most likely for those with "means", it won't be free, at all. So again... why go down this road?
2. Financially, it doesn't measure up. Period.
3. Which is the majority of your response. Your first premise, which is foundation for much of the rest of your premise... University population would stay, basically, the same. I would argue emphatically against that. Just the basic concept of it being free... Hell, I'd start taking more classes.

But also you say that diversity would remain, if not extend. I just don't see that. And I'd use the current K-12 as an example. There is no way you can tell me that there is diversity in the knowledge base or what they teach, in our public schools. 75% of the time, the teachers HAVE to teach to the test. All the mandated testing. It is mandated by the fed grants given to the states, which then mandate the teaching to the test.. Um, I mean curriculum. College/Universities would, in my opinion, be an extension of that concept. Our society, our government, is very much into the concept of "cookie cutter". "It's efficient", remember.

You question why private schools would diminish. Basic supply and demand. Lets base the concept that the "free college" would be for state schools, not community colleges. This concept would be based on the fact federal nominees for President were advocating for it. Thus, state schools, where federal dollars are more influential. In Spokane, we have Gonzaga, Whitworth, Spokane Falls C.C. (connected to the other C.C.), Eastern WA State and WSU. If you could go to Eastern instead of any of the other schools... you'd pay $30,000? Instead of "free"? You think Whitworth would survive even a 10% slide in attendance? Or over on the West side... You think the likes of Seattle University, Antioch University of Seattle, City U, Green River College, etc. would survive a 10% slide in attendance? What about 20%? If you believe they'd survive, I'd disagree. UW giving away school while someone would have to pay for Green River College coarses? And this is why they'd raise prices. Gonzaga would probably survive. Maybe Seattles Film Institute or Seattle University of Law. But they'd HAVE to jack up their prices in order to survive. It would also become marketing. If they jack prices up, the more wealthy would want to go there, like Gonzaga. It makes in "exclusive". Hence their only survival. Wealthy will get private schools, be demonized for it, and everyone else will get a cookie cutter education... Just like our public K-12 schools now.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

To this valuable point...

"There is no way you can tell me that there is diversity in the knowledge base or what they teach, in our public schools. 75% of the time, the teachers HAVE to teach to the test."

The most important aspect of our mind is human creativity and critical thinking skills. That is an advantage that our education system has traditionally had over others for years (as opposed to rote learning). To the extent that has been suppressed or not encouraged in the system (for example, teaching to the test), this is a bad thing. I'd choose for my kids to attend any schools that foster creativity and critical thinking skills above all.

I'm diverging a bit from the main point though. The cost of educating kids should be decreasing, not increasing, just like the cost of almost every other good and service in the marketplace in the past 35 years. The government has- once again- made it impossible to happen and "free" education will not be more efficient and more consumer-driven. It will be weighed down with bureaucracy and lack of innovation, and we'll all pay a huge price for it.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I guess I was pointing to 3 points in my post:
1. Why go down this road? The excuse is to help those in poverty. But that's currently covered. So I don't know why this drastic change would be needed. Other than people like the idea of "free shit". But as you point out, most likely for those with "means", it won't be free, at all. So again... why go down this road?
2. Financially, it doesn't measure up. Period.
3. Which is the majority of your response. Your first premise, which is foundation for much of the rest of your premise... University population would stay, basically, the same. I would argue emphatically against that. Just the basic concept of it being free... Hell, I'd start taking more classes.

But also you say that diversity would remain, if not extend. I just don't see that. And I'd use the current K-12 as an example. There is no way you can tell me that there is diversity in the knowledge base or what they teach, in our public schools. 75% of the time, the teachers HAVE to teach to the test. All the mandated testing. It is mandated by the fed grants given to the states, which then mandate the teaching to the test.. Um, I mean curriculum. College/Universities would, in my opinion, be an extension of that concept. Our society, our government, is very much into the concept of "cookie cutter". "It's efficient", remember.

You question why private schools would diminish. Basic supply and demand. Lets base the concept that the "free college" would be for state schools, not community colleges. This concept would be based on the fact federal nominees for President were advocating for it. Thus, state schools, where federal dollars are more influential. In Spokane, we have Gonzaga, Whitworth, Spokane Falls C.C. (connected to the other C.C.), Eastern WA State and WSU. If you could go to Eastern instead of any of the other schools... you'd pay $30,000? Instead of "free"? You think Whitworth would survive even a 10% slide in attendance? Or over on the West side... You think the likes of Seattle University, Antioch University of Seattle, City U, Green River College, etc. would survive a 10% slide in attendance? What about 20%? If you believe they'd survive, I'd disagree. UW giving away school while someone would have to pay for Green River College coarses? And this is why they'd raise prices. Gonzaga would probably survive. Maybe Seattles Film Institute or Seattle University of Law. But they'd HAVE to jack up their prices in order to survive. It would also become marketing. If they jack prices up, the more wealthy would want to go there, like Gonzaga. It makes in "exclusive". Hence their only survival. Wealthy will get private schools, be demonized for it, and everyone else will get a cookie cutter education... Just like our public K-12 schools now.

I think the issue is with blue collar Americans, not with the wealthy that can afford tuition or the poor that get government aid.

As the cost has risen, either aid or incomes have not kept pace. If you do bite the bullet and take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, now you're buried in debt. Good luck!

I don't know that private universities would suffer. Those with means or desires to go to those schools still would. Whitworth, for example, isn't the school for everyone. But it is THE school for enough students out there to make it go.

If you can figure out exactly what consumers are looking for and why they buy, you'd be the richest man in the world.

 

[425cougfan]

I guess I was pointing to 3 points in my post:
1. Why go down this road? The excuse is to help those in poverty. But that's currently covered. So I don't know why this drastic change would be needed. Other than people like the idea of "free shit". But as you point out, most likely for those with "means", it won't be free, at all. So again... why go down this road?
2. Financially, it doesn't measure up. Period.
3. Which is the majority of your response. Your first premise, which is foundation for much of the rest of your premise... University population would stay, basically, the same. I would argue emphatically against that. Just the basic concept of it being free... Hell, I'd start taking more classes.

But also you say that diversity would remain, if not extend. I just don't see that. And I'd use the current K-12 as an example. There is no way you can tell me that there is diversity in the knowledge base or what they teach, in our public schools. 75% of the time, the teachers HAVE to teach to the test. All the mandated testing. It is mandated by the fed grants given to the states, which then mandate the teaching to the test.. Um, I mean curriculum. College/Universities would, in my opinion, be an extension of that concept. Our society, our government, is very much into the concept of "cookie cutter". "It's efficient", remember.

You question why private schools would diminish. Basic supply and demand. Lets base the concept that the "free college" would be for state schools, not community colleges. This concept would be based on the fact federal nominees for President were advocating for it. Thus, state schools, where federal dollars are more influential. In Spokane, we have Gonzaga, Whitworth, Spokane Falls C.C. (connected to the other C.C.), Eastern WA State and WSU. If you could go to Eastern instead of any of the other schools... you'd pay $30,000? Instead of "free"? You think Whitworth would survive even a 10% slide in attendance? Or over on the West side... You think the likes of Seattle University, Antioch University of Seattle, City U, Green River College, etc. would survive a 10% slide in attendance? What about 20%? If you believe they'd survive, I'd disagree. UW giving away school while someone would have to pay for Green River College coarses? And this is why they'd raise prices. Gonzaga would probably survive. Maybe Seattles Film Institute or Seattle University of Law. But they'd HAVE to jack up their prices in order to survive. It would also become marketing. If they jack prices up, the more wealthy would want to go there, like Gonzaga. It makes in "exclusive". Hence their only survival. Wealthy will get private schools, be demonized for it, and everyone else will get a cookie cutter education... Just like our public K-12 schools now.

For avoidance of confusion, we agree on your first and second points. We shouldn't go down this road and the need for college to be attainable already is there. For the poor or those in the "right" groups, it's already free. For those with any means at all, you can get all the loans you need (whether or not it's a good investment). It probably would be about the same in the "free college" scenario.

Re the third point, by "diversity," I don't mean actual diversity of thought or teaching approaches. I just mean letting in the "right" groups as defined by things like race and sexual orientation. Again, I don't agree with it -- I think to the extent there are special admissions programs, those should be based on socioeconomics (like they are in other countries), not race, since I think the poor white kid in Aberdeen who grinds his way to a 3.5 GPA deserves a shot as much as Will Smith's kid does if attaining the same result -- but that's not the way things work now and, as I said, I can absolutely guarantee that if any "free college" scenario were to arise, it would have to have the "right" groups getting the "right" proportion of the free slots in colleges or there would be all kinds of consequences.

As to your points about state schools vs. community colleges, most community colleges are, in fact, state schools, so that whole line of reasoning doesn't hold water.

Leaving that aside, my point is that I see things shaking out like this in a "free state schools" world:

- More competitive admissions for all state schools, especially the "elite" ones
- Pressure to fill the "free" slots with the "right" people
- College becoming even more ubiquitous, and more of a de facto job requirement, than it is now
- Pressure to grow the "free" colleges, but there still not being enough space for everyone, and those who don't get admitted, or who are convinced that private colleges are "better," still going that route

I just don't see much harm to private schools in this scenario. Again, I'm against the "free college" BS for a ton of reasons. Just saying that I don't see those consequences you're describing coming to pass for private schools other than at the bottom of the barrel (for-profit colleges, etc.). Just boil it down like this: you're going to have at least the same amount of kids going to college in the future who go now in "free college" world (and likely even more), right? So if they don't get into the suddenly more competitive state schools, their choices are either to (a) not go to college or (b) go to a private college. Consequently, I don't see this calamity befalling private schools that you describe. Again, I'm not in favor of this scenario coming to pass, nor do I think it really will happen.

 

[Coug95man2]

I think the issue is with blue collar Americans, not with the wealthy that can afford tuition or the poor that get government aid.

As the cost has risen, either aid or incomes have not kept pace. If you do bite the bullet and take out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, now you're buried in debt. Good luck!

I don't know that private universities would suffer. Those with means or desires to go to those schools still would. Whitworth, for example, isn't the school for everyone. But it is THE school for enough students out there to make it go.

If you can figure out exactly what consumers are looking for and why they buy, you'd be the richest man in the world.

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/
Gonna blather on a bit here... Just FYI... 2014 article above and a couple things, as I recall, have changed but it's still a valid point. See, it's still a free country and if they want to get a degree in basket weaving, they can.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a gap in what everyone is getting their degree's in, and how many positions there are in those areas. It's their decision to go to a University for some degree. Example: Massive number of degrees are going to "business", as the article above shows. It's literally the most popular degree in the nation... While that's general enough to probably fill a wide gap of positions, I believe many will be "waiting in line" to get that dream job. While they wait in line, they'll work at McD's and struggle mightily to make ends meet.

And believe it or not... a HISTORY degree is the 10th most popular degree in the nation. WHO THE HELL pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree with only a very small pool of jobs... History teachers/professors?! Freakin' History degrees. 1 million kids looking for the 100 teaching jobs that came open... And like the article above so awesomely displays... It states that it helps with jobs in other markets... MEANING... you have to go get another degree... Smart...

So to me, a lot of the population that are complaining about this issue, have a beef to a certain extent. It's that they can't find a good job that justifies the work with their loans. The larger problem still lies in their own choices. Example: No one realizes they have to market THEMSELVES... Where is the pool small so they can be the big fish? Instead, they all jump into the biggest freakin' pool they can find.

I have quite a few friends in the "trades" world. One guy is part owner in an electrical business that, 5-7 years ago was VERY local. Spokane area. Within those 5 or so years, they've expanded from just the Spokane area, to all of Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Northern CA, and Utah. They literally have offices there. They go abroad even further, but that's where they have offices. And they can't find respectable workers. NO ONE wants to earn $50 an hour... That doesn't even include prevailing or overtime or... anything. I have other friends that are willing to hire in other trades but no one has ANY experience and if if some kid/grunt says they are willing to work their way up, they quite the job before getting into tradesmen! Everyone wants that cush job, sitting on their ass's in some cubical, in front of a computer.

I love WSU. I got my degree there and all. Not trying to sway anyone reading this from NOT going there. But man... Community Colleges have some serious, serious opportunities that no one is willing to take. The REAL blue collar jobs... no one is taking.

 

[Coug95man2]

For avoidance of confusion, we agree on your first and second points. We shouldn't go down this road and the need for college to be attainable already is there. For the poor or those in the "right" groups, it's already free. For those with any means at all, you can get all the loans you need (whether or not it's a good investment). It probably would be about the same in the "free college" scenario.

Re the third point, by "diversity," I don't mean actual diversity of thought or teaching approaches. I just mean letting in the "right" groups as defined by things like race and sexual orientation. Again, I don't agree with it -- I think to the extent there are special admissions programs, those should be based on socioeconomics (like they are in other countries), not race, since I think the poor white kid in Aberdeen who grinds his way to a 3.5 GPA deserves a shot as much as Will Smith's kid does if attaining the same result -- but that's not the way things work now and, as I said, I can absolutely guarantee that if any "free college" scenario were to arise, it would have to have the "right" groups getting the "right" proportion of the free slots in colleges or there would be all kinds of consequences.

As to your points about state schools vs. community colleges, most community colleges are, in fact, state schools, so that whole line of reasoning doesn't hold water.

Leaving that aside, my point is that I see things shaking out like this in a "free state schools" world:

- More competitive admissions for all state schools, especially the "elite" ones
- Pressure to fill the "free" slots with the "right" people
- College becoming even more ubiquitous, and more of a de facto job requirement, than it is now
- Pressure to grow the "free" colleges, but there still not being enough space for everyone, and those who don't get admitted, or who are convinced that private colleges are "better," still going that route

I just don't see much harm to private schools in this scenario. Again, I'm against the "free college" BS for a ton of reasons. Just saying that I don't see those consequences you're describing coming to pass for private schools other than at the bottom of the barrel (for-profit colleges, etc.). Just boil it down like this: you're going to have at least the same amount of kids going to college in the future who go now in "free college" world (and likely even more), right? So if they don't get into the suddenly more competitive state schools, their choices are either to (a) not go to college or (b) go to a private college. Consequently, I don't see this calamity befalling private schools that you describe. Again, I'm not in favor of this scenario coming to pass, nor do I think it really will happen.

Like your post. We agree on more, than what we disagree. Only disagree on the private school impact.

I have a friend that is admin at Spokane Falls...I'll have to ask about how much revenue they get from the feds... If anything, more knowledge to bounce around in my head...

 

[425cougfan]

Like your post. We agree on more, than what we disagree. Only disagree on the private school impact.

I have a friend that is admin at Spokane Falls...I'll have to ask about how much revenue they get from the feds... If anything, more knowledge to bounce around in my head...

Cool ... yeah, we're on the same page. Could be on the private school thing, too ... I'm open to the numbers. No time to really get into it now, but we also are with respect to the trades and community colleges having an opportunity. I'm the paradigmatic "lots of post-secondary education and sits behind a desk" guy (went to college and law school), but given lots of things I've seen, I'm not sure I'll recommend anything like that for my kids. If I have more time, I'll get into it a bit later.

 

[BiggsCoug]

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/
Gonna blather on a bit here... Just FYI... 2014 article above and a couple things, as I recall, have changed but it's still a valid point. See, it's still a free country and if they want to get a degree in basket weaving, they can.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a gap in what everyone is getting their degree's in, and how many positions there are in those areas. It's their decision to go to a University for some degree. Example: Massive number of degrees are going to "business", as the article above shows. It's literally the most popular degree in the nation... While that's general enough to probably fill a wide gap of positions, I believe many will be "waiting in line" to get that dream job. While they wait in line, they'll work at McD's and struggle mightily to make ends meet.

And believe it or not... a HISTORY degree is the 10th most popular degree in the nation. WHO THE HELL pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree with only a very small pool of jobs... History teachers/professors?! Freakin' History degrees. 1 million kids looking for the 100 teaching jobs that came open... And like the article above so awesomely displays... It states that it helps with jobs in other markets... MEANING... you have to go get another degree... Smart...

So to me, a lot of the population that are complaining about this issue, have a beef to a certain extent. It's that they can't find a good job that justifies the work with their loans. The larger problem still lies in their own choices. Example: No one realizes they have to market THEMSELVES... Where is the pool small so they can be the big fish? Instead, they all jump into the biggest freakin' pool they can find.

I have quite a few friends in the "trades" world. One guy is part owner in an electrical business that, 5-7 years ago was VERY local. Spokane area. Within those 5 or so years, they've expanded from just the Spokane area, to all of Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Northern CA, and Utah. They literally have offices there. They go abroad even further, but that's where they have offices. And they can't find respectable workers. NO ONE wants to earn $50 an hour... That doesn't even include prevailing or overtime or... anything. I have other friends that are willing to hire in other trades but no one has ANY experience and if if some kid/grunt says they are willing to work their way up, they quite the job before getting into tradesmen! Everyone wants that cush job, sitting on their ass's in some cubical, in front of a computer.

I love WSU. I got my degree there and all. Not trying to sway anyone reading this from NOT going there. But man... Community Colleges have some serious, serious opportunities that no one is willing to take. The REAL blue collar jobs... no one is taking.

Colleges do a poor job of educating their customers on how they'll pay for their loans once they've left.

Customers are not educated very well on what happens next. You've graduated, now what?!

If they were smart, they're not smart, but if they were... They'd be making a sales pitch to customers on what their job search or life looks like once they've left WSU. They'd show families the finished product, ie successful alums that have transitioned from WSU to the real world.

The harsh reality is that it is getting much more difficult to be a blue collar worker making $50,000 per year up and down the I-5 corridor. WSU needs to educate its customers on what paths to take while in college so the education they pay for is put to its best use.

 

[Coug95man2]

Colleges do a poor job of educating their customers on how they'll pay for their loans once they've left.

Customers are not educated very well on what happens next. You've graduated, now what?!

If they were smart, they're not smart, but if they were... They'd be making a sales pitch to customers on what their job search or life looks like once they've left WSU. They'd show families the finished product, ie successful alums that have transitioned from WSU to the real world.

The harsh reality is that it is getting much more difficult to be a blue collar worker making $50,000 per year up and down the I-5 corridor. WSU needs to educate its customers on what paths to take while in college so the education they pay for is put to its best use.

Well.... Here's my reaction. You're putting the weight of responsibility on the colleges/universities when I believe it's the individuals responsibility. We are a society of "Follow Your Passion". There's enough success stories out there for people to grasp on and cling to that concept. But so many fail at this concept, as well! That pendulum is swinging due to balance of open jobs and those applying to a very slim portion of markets. And my example right now, everyones passion is to insure no dirt gets under their fingernails and they take showers in the morning, not in the evening. Computer programers in Silicon Valley, Accountants for multimillion dollar clients, gamers (and getting paid), etc. etc.. THAT is what everyones passion is.

No one is willing to find a good, solid job and BECOME passionate about that. A bit of the tail wagging the dog, in our world right now, at least in my opinion.

And that's these individual's choice. But I'm not going to force them to change, either. And nor are you. So now, everyone is trying to figure out how to force the other side of this coin... And we are debating free tuition so they can continue to get degrees in crap fields, they won't find a job, they'll go back to college to get a different degree in their new found "passion" and so on. We are already, to a certain extent, in this situation now. Lots of "professional students" out there.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Well.... Here's my reaction. You're putting the weight of responsibility on the colleges/universities when I believe it's the individuals responsibility. We are a society of "Follow Your Passion". There's enough success stories out there for people to grasp on and cling to that concept. But so many fail at this concept, as well! That pendulum is swinging due to balance of open jobs and those applying to a very slim portion of markets. And my example right now, everyones passion is to insure no dirt gets under their fingernails and they take showers in the morning, not in the evening. Computer programers in Silicon Valley, Accountants for multimillion dollar clients, gamers (and getting paid), etc. etc.. THAT is what everyones passion is.

No one is willing to find a good, solid job and BECOME passionate about that. A bit of the tail wagging the dog, in our world right now, at least in my opinion.

And that's these individual's choice. But I'm not going to force them to change, either. And nor are you. So now, everyone is trying to figure out how to force the other side of this coin... And we are debating free tuition so they can continue to get degrees in crap fields, they won't find a job, they'll go back to college to get a different degree in their new found "passion" and so on. We are already, to a certain extent, in this situation now. Lots of "professional students" out there.

They're following the money and what's most visible. Im not surprised it's in the tech industry.

Perry Tech in Yakima is an excellent school with an excellent reputation. When was the last time you turned on the TV and saw their stock value or CEO or saw 100,000 of their employees making 6 figures or more???

 

[SCglory]

http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/
Gonna blather on a bit here... Just FYI... 2014 article above and a couple things, as I recall, have changed but it's still a valid point. See, it's still a free country and if they want to get a degree in basket weaving, they can.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a gap in what everyone is getting their degree's in, and how many positions there are in those areas. It's their decision to go to a University for some degree. Example: Massive number of degrees are going to "business", as the article above shows. It's literally the most popular degree in the nation... While that's general enough to probably fill a wide gap of positions, I believe many will be "waiting in line" to get that dream job. While they wait in line, they'll work at McD's and struggle mightily to make ends meet.

And believe it or not... a HISTORY degree is the 10th most popular degree in the nation. WHO THE HELL pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree with only a very small pool of jobs... History teachers/professors?! Freakin' History degrees. 1 million kids looking for the 100 teaching jobs that came open... And like the article above so awesomely displays... It states that it helps with jobs in other markets... MEANING... you have to go get another degree... Smart...

So to me, a lot of the population that are complaining about this issue, have a beef to a certain extent. It's that they can't find a good job that justifies the work with their loans. The larger problem still lies in their own choices. Example: No one realizes they have to market THEMSELVES... Where is the pool small so they can be the big fish? Instead, they all jump into the biggest freakin' pool they can find.

I have quite a few friends in the "trades" world. One guy is part owner in an electrical business that, 5-7 years ago was VERY local. Spokane area. Within those 5 or so years, they've expanded from just the Spokane area, to all of Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Northern CA, and Utah. They literally have offices there. They go abroad even further, but that's where they have offices. And they can't find respectable workers. NO ONE wants to earn $50 an hour... That doesn't even include prevailing or overtime or... anything. I have other friends that are willing to hire in other trades but no one has ANY experience and if if some kid/grunt says they are willing to work their way up, they quite the job before getting into tradesmen! Everyone wants that cush job, sitting on their ass's in some cubical, in front of a computer.

I love WSU. I got my degree there and all. Not trying to sway anyone reading this from NOT going there. But man... Community Colleges have some serious, serious opportunities that no one is willing to take. The REAL blue collar jobs... no one is taking.

You're missing the point, 95. You are assuming that a degree in X means a job in X. Except for a few technical and licensed BS/BA degrees that is not the case. Stats are clear on this. Liberal arts degrees are just that, education in the liberal arts. Whitman College's slogan: "A Whitman degree does not get you your first job, it gets you your first promotion" is the right way to see it. So you are simply wrong if you think that all/most history students aim for being a history prof, etc. They are used to get into law school, get into journalism, etc.

And to the original poster's point: it would be a lot more sound if he LIVED in Pullman! His post was driven by nostalgia, a drive that I happen to share. But be real. Jobs are not found in Whitman County. MI-Coug lives and works in the urban Pugetopolis that he decries. But that's where the jobs are. 95% of the posters here live a hell of a lot closer to Montlake than they do to wazzu. Fact of life