The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

Why can't it be both?

Because fuck people that want to make everything about their personal struggle rather than addressing the fundamental issues that cause them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd say that erecting a barrier to higher education is a fundamental issue.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There's no barrier, we have record numbers of PhDs and college education has never been worth less. Any chucklefuck willing to slave away counting cells and running Western blots can find a PhD at some mediocre state college.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's no barrier

There would be. That's kind of the point.

 

[Nate Skalman]

And so the right continues the war on higher education:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16612288/gop-tax-bill-graduate-students



Tuition at BU is closer to $50,000. Gonna put a damper on future PhDs if this bullshit passes.

I don't think politicians on almost any political platform really weigh the severity of loss of STEM programs being that their personal education usually centered around civil service degrees. I'm a Science major (applied science) and watched a huge shift of funding into vocational programs instead of STEM programs, nursing being a huge program on the west coast. It sounds kinda nutty but STEM programs usually work AGAINST politicians, shifting money away from political "causes"...look in the phone book, the attorney section is huge lol. Liberal arts programs are also the biggest degree field (on the west coast), and Oregon has also proven that a staunchly liberal controlled state legislature ALSO does not value STEM programs (lowest graduation rates in the nation lol). I had to put my 17 yo son in private school to escape 3 years of mentally stagnating in "liberal" public schools...and we spend $12+ MILLION per MONTH on cleaning up bum-camp garbage and needles in downtown alone here- they should use that money to avoid taxing waivers.

 

[Einherjar86]

Really? I've read that STEM programs typically get the majority of funding.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There would be. That's kind of the point.

Good, there should be, though there won't. Colleges love their graduate slave labor; if they are at risk of losing students, they will either reduce tuitions, reduce boarding costs, increase waivers, or pay them a little bit more. The students that are too useless to be worth keeping are already draining public funds for no purpose beyond ostensibly bettering themselves. They can either get loans to cover their piece of paper that entitles them to a better job, or they can fuck off and go some place else.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good, there should be, though there won't. Colleges love their graduate slave labor; if they are at risk of losing students, they will either reduce tuitions, reduce boarding costs, increase waivers, or pay them a little bit more.

This impacts grad students. The loss of grad students won't outweigh the profit of undergrad tuitions. Also, most grad students don't live in university housing. Increasing waivers won't do anything, since the waivers are what's being taxed.

More pay would be great.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Really? I've read that STEM programs typically get the majority of funding.

I can only speak for the west coast, and my point was that surely there's some wasteful spending that could remedy the issue

 

[Nate Skalman]

It's like gas prices -bitch all you want but they know that "line" of: ridiculous, but you'll still spend it...vs. your too broke to get to work

 

[Nate Skalman]

Job demand almost reflects what's going on anyway...in the future everyone will have a part-time, minimum wage job at a Glomco mall store, and science will only be for superficial, self-indulgent shit like designer drugs etc. The future sucks...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This impacts grad students. The loss of grad students won't outweigh the profit of undergrad tuitions.

Based on? No one gets a PhD to make money in the short-term, they get it for the money they hope to make after. While there are obvious limits to that, a couple thousand bucks a year is nothing. I don't know what undergrad tuition has to do with this.

Also, most grad students don't live in university housing.

They can start if they have to.

Increasing waivers won't do anything, since the waivers are what's being taxed.

I was assuming that not all tuition waivers are 100%, though tbh the majority of them probably are. Fair enough.

More pay would be great.

Free money usually is.

 

[CiG]

My theory is these people are just malcontents using any various outlets for excuses -reinforced by perceived threats of "doom", or negative life infringements constantly by the TV screen. Midlife crisis' (any age crisis, really) are a rising problem with men...just watch commercials- middle aged product marketing is subconsciously fear based- hair loss, sexual appeal (looks), financial success, viagra...all aimed at attacking looks and desirability with men. I believe this is how men more often deal with "social rejection"...by a hail-Mary of violence and blaming society, instead of seeking mental help. Lacking in any of these "areas" above is somewhat viewed through a lens of demasculation and shame. Welfare and state assistance is also demasculating what would usually be a mentally healthy, working man (IMO). Just a thought...

Something about this strikes me as off-base, given the shit mental health of men right now, there should be a lot more violence happening if you're correct.

Unless of course suicide = a hail-Mary of violence?
Committing suicide is inherently a rejection of laying blame on others, unless they take out a few people before they take themselves out.

I think you're definitely on to something though.

 

[Einherjar86]

Based on? No one gets a PhD to make money in the short-term, they get it for the money they hope to make after. While there are obvious limits to that, a couple thousand bucks a year is nothing. I don't know what undergrad tuition has to do with this.

I was responding to your suggestion that if colleges are at risk of losing students, then they might lower tuition rates. Unless it's a terminal MA, grad students don't pay tuition; and even in the case of master's degrees, some students get waivers.

I realize that grad students don't go into a program for the immediate earnings. That would be ludicrous. What I'm saying is that the tax plan won't affect undergraduate enrollment because the majority of undergrads don't enjoy tuition waivers. They pay for tuition, so the tax on waivers won't make any difference to them.

Now, colleges might see a drop in graduate enrollment, but this drop wouldn't convince colleges to lower their tuition rates simply to make it easier for grad students to attend, because that means that all undergrads are now paying less too (and undergraduates far outnumber grad students at most colleges). This simply doesn't make financial sense given the current business model of the American academy.

The only thing this does cost colleges is the reputation of producing future scholars.

They can start if they have to.

Why would they? The point is that it's already more expensive than alternatives. If universities lowered housing costs enough to be competitive, they'll still have to compete with complexes that offer more space and more amenities, which likely means building new units.

I was assuming that not all tuition waivers are 100%, though tbh the majority of them probably are. Fair enough.

The majority are, yes.

Free money usually is.

But you already said, it's not free! It's slave labor.

Grad students view their role as one intended to realize a future career, but also as one of responsibility to their university. It's often shitty pay and difficult work (whether lab work, teaching, TA-ing, department grunt work, etc.), but it means you get to earn your graduate degree without having to pay for classes. It's a trade-off.

The new tax plan undoes this agreement, basically making it unrealistic for the majority of future grad students to afford their degree.

 

[Dak]

I'm confused Ein. I thought you believed those naturally better off shouldn't have a problem paying a few extra dollars to help those less well off.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm confused Dak. Are grad supposed to be the "well off" ones in this scenario?

 

[Dak]

I'm confused Dak. Are grad supposed to be the "well off" ones in this scenario?

Obviously we are. Someone in graduate school possesses many privileges that those not in graduate school do not have. Being in graduate school demonstrates having a higher than average intelligence (at least slightly), an undergraduate degree, and low time preferences. These are things that predict significantly better quality of life than those without them. The less fortunate can't help themselves, I've read it right here multiple times. So it's up to people like you and me to start looking out and forking out. It'd only be our fair share; our civic duty; our ethical obligation.

 

[Einherjar86]

Obviously we are. Someone in graduate school possesses many privileges that those not in graduate school do not have. Being in graduate school demonstrates having a higher than average intelligence (at least slightly), an undergraduate degree, and low time preferences. These are things that predict significantly better quality of life than those without them. The less fortunate can't help themselves, I've read it right here multiple times. So it's up to people like you and me to start looking out and forking out. It'd only be our fair share; our civic duty; our ethical obligation.

It's too bad you have to rely on a patronizing tone more than you rely on rational thought.

Graduate students aren't economically privileged, although their families might be. But most (I won't say all, because I can't prove that) graduate students pursuing a PhD are financially independent. They're not getting weekly checks from their parents. They're getting by on what they earn, either by being thrifty or by working part-time jobs. Grad students pay what their fair share in taxation and are happy to do it. Getting taxed on tuition waivers that don't translate into any money in the bank account isn't an economically intelligent move.

If the GOP tax code were to pass, then it would effectively make it impossible for PhDs to earn a living wage, meaning it would dissuade future grad students. In which case there will be less waivers for the GOP to tax, meaning less money going to "those less well off."

I think you know whom I mean when I'm talking about "ethical obligations" or however you want to paraphrase my comments. I'm not talking about grad students making $25,000 a year. I'm talking about businesses, and primarily incorporated entities if not internationals.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I was responding to your suggestion that if colleges are at risk of losing students, then they might lower tuition rates. Unless it's a terminal MA, grad students don't pay tuition; and even in the case of master's degrees, some students get waivers.

I realize that grad students don't go into a program for the immediate earnings. That would be ludicrous. What I'm saying is that the tax plan won't affect undergraduate enrollment because the majority of undergrads don't enjoy tuition waivers. They pay for tuition, so the tax on waivers won't make any difference to them.

Now, colleges might see a drop in graduate enrollment, but this drop wouldn't convince colleges to lower their tuition rates simply to make it easier for grad students to attend, because that means that all undergrads are now paying less too (and undergraduates far outnumber grad students at most colleges). This simply doesn't make financial sense given the current business model of the American academy.

The only thing this does cost colleges is the reputation of producing future scholars.

That's the illusion. The colleges charge ridiculously high amounts of tuition but then pay it "themselves" knowing they have a bottomless pit of public funds/endowments to scoop from. The government is for the most part anti-competitive; they choose an arbitrary budget of money to spend, and by law that money must be spent according to how the people down the chain request it. If the University of Fuckall says it has X graduate students, each of whom will need to pay for credits valued (by the university administration) at $Y-thousand dollars a semester, they'll manage to get that money from some mixture of federal and state funds assuming they're accredited. In an open market place, would a 3 credit-hour, 15 week lecture attended by 10 graduate students really require 10*$5000 to support? Unless we're talking about the Ivy League (where it makes no difference because everyone is wealthy), there's no way to justify those prices.

To elaborate on my pharma analogy, when hospitals charge $1000 for an Advil and a talk with the doctor, is that the free-market value? Nope. There is an assumption that most people will have some kind of insurance plan caught in a web of various groups which muddy the true value of the Advil. The $1000 isn't the cost of manufacturing, distribution, and an hour of the doctor's wages. It's simply the maximum rate they can charge at which most people will buy, because the government budget is bottomless. It becomes even more egregious when pharmaceutical companies explicitly buy monopolies for the purpose of raping the tax payer. People like to treat Martin Shkreli as if he was condemning people that needed that anti-parasitic drug to death, but in reality "all he did" was rob the tax payer via various health insurance scams, because the individual co-pay was still a tiny fraction.

Why would they? The point is that it's already more expensive than alternatives. If universities lowered housing costs enough to be competitive, they'll still have to compete with complexes that offer more space and more amenities, which likely means building new units.

At least where I live, the dorms are cheaper than most rent outside of campus (ghetto aside of course). It could mean sacrificing space and amenities, sure. Is that enough to make or break becoming a PhD student? Kinda doubt it.

But you already said, it's not free! It's slave labor.

Grad students view their role as one intended to realize a future career, but also as one of responsibility to their university. It's often shitty pay and difficult work (whether lab work, teaching, TA-ing, department grunt work, etc.), but it means you get to earn your graduate degree without having to pay for classes. It's a trade-off.

The new tax plan undoes this agreement, basically making it unrealistic for the majority of future grad students to afford their degree.

In my personal experience at a lower-ranked state college, most PhD students are just BA/BS or MS holders that couldn't find a job, so they continue plugging away with marginal living. I'm sure at the best colleges you find people wide-eyed idealists thinking they're saving the world and viewing their indentured servitude as a noble sacrifice towards the pursuit of improving The World's Knowledge(tm), but for the most part it boils down to rational (in a market sense) actors following the path that seems most likely to improve their standard of living. If the tax bill passes, it simply forces an entrenched administration and tenured faculty to reevaluate their own lives and whether they can continue hogging the money for themselves (and fancy new buildings that are hardly necessary). Worst case scenario, PhD students quit en masse and professors rake in the same amount of money despite far less research being accomplished. In that case, my original point still stands; it's the government-supported imbalance of market powers at the root of the problem. "Best" case scenario, the federal government just funnels their increased tax revenues right back into the colleges to pay for students. In execution, it will probably be a mix of both.

 

[Dak]

It's too bad you have to rely on a patronizing tone more than you rely on rational thought.

Graduate students aren't economically privileged, although their families might be. But most (I won't say all, because I can't prove that) graduate students pursuing a PhD are financially independent. .......... Grad students pay what their fair share in taxation and are happy to do it.

Can you prove grad students are happy to pay any share above "$0" in income taxes? Since the general "pay and benefits" even with waivers is around poverty level I doubt Grad Students would consider owing a "fair share". I guess we're both not engaging in the most rational of thoughts at times.

Getting taxed on tuition waivers that don't translate into any money in the bank account isn't an economically intelligent move.

If the GOP tax code were to pass, then it would effectively make it impossible for PhDs to earn a living wage, meaning it would dissuade future grad students. In which case there will be less waivers for the GOP to tax, meaning less money going to "those less well off."

HBB has pretty thoroughly assessed the actual nature of the scam of higher ed tuition and fees, but nevertheless, tuition waivers are part of a compensatory package. That the department doesn't first hand you the money to give to the university doesn't change that. I do agree that it's a poor way of generating revenue, in part because of the depression of future PhDs, and the likelihood of reduced tuitions to tax. There's a similar issue with Pigovian taxes.

I think you know whom I mean when I'm talking about "ethical obligations" or however you want to paraphrase my comments. I'm not talking about grad students making $25,000 a year. I'm talking about businesses, and primarily incorporated entities if not internationals.

I just notice a general tendency in people to be very pro or anti certain things, as long as it's only applied to others. Like Republican farmers defending farm subsidies, or Democrats in Cali being upset when taxes they voted for in a referendum hit their wallet. Progressive graduate students (which is most of them outside of STEM degrees) being mad about additional income taxes seems like another case of special pleading. Very pro tax & spend, as long as the taxes are on others and the spending is on them.