Bennett Hypothesis: Financial Aid Increases Tuition

[sanantone]

The main question one must ask; why can StraighterLine charge $60 for a course that the college will charge $700 for the same course?  It is because SL doesn't have access to the same FAFSA that the colleges have and therefore the free market determines their prices.  If FAFSA would be available for SL courses the prices would go up.

This is a bad comparison. Straighterline is an unaccredited, online business that does not employ full-time instructors. For some of their courses, they contract with companies that have freelancers. 

SL doesn't even come close to having the same expenses as a college does. They don't have to fund a campus, accreditation, and the things to maintain accreditation. 

But while we're at it, why does SL charge $160 for a course you can get for free through Saylor, Khan Academy, or YouTube? Why does SL charge anything at all? They should harness the power of the wind and the sun for electricity and ask all their employees to become volunteers.

---

More people started attending college when financial aid became available. So, you're saying that the solution is to give fewer people the chance to attend college?

That's probably the core of where you and I disagree.  You and I disagree on what it means to have a "chance to attend college."   You assume funding is wrapped in the chance, whereas I do not. Having a chance to attend is separate and apart from paying for the thing you have a chance to pursue.

Are you suggesting that elimination of aid would NOT result in people having to forgo college?

It would definitely eliminate the ones that shouldn’t be there, like the ones who get PELL and give it a shot for a semester. The ones that do want to be there will figure it out especially as the prices drop when there is no more FAFSA.

You guys are a trip. Most of the people on this forum would never get into a highly-selective college and be awarded a full-ride scholarship. Some of you need to humble yourselves.

---

More people started attending college when financial aid became available. So, you're saying that the solution is to give fewer people the chance to attend college?

That's probably the core of where you and I disagree.  You and I disagree on what it means to have a "chance to attend college."   You assume funding is wrapped in the chance, whereas I do not. Having a chance to attend is separate and apart from paying for the thing you have a chance to pursue.

Are you suggesting that elimination of aid would NOT result in people having to forgo college? That there's no correlation?

I am saying that having a chance to go attend college is separate and apart from how someone pays for college.

---

... Once you take the federal government out, and the market takes over, things WILL change, and probably for the better.

No doubt, since access to college was so universal before aid came along.  

There are 1200 open enrollment community colleges in this country that EVERYONE can attend.  Walk in and sign up.  Access is already in place.  

If I walked into any community college in my state, I could register for 30 credits per year and I would get a $4000 Pell Refund for each and every year that I attended.  I could even earn a second associate and stretch it out a few years.  Each state will differ, but every state has open enrollment community college, and you don't even have to have graduated high school to start.   We don't have an access problem.

So, you're admitting that the Pell Grant makes college accessible. I agree. Many people couldn't afford college before the Pell Grant.

---

... Once you take the federal government out, and the market takes over, things WILL change, and probably for the better.

No doubt, since access to college was so universal before aid came along.  

Some people live in a universe of alternative facts. In that universe, millions of the poor paid their way through college in 1950 while making 95 cents an hour.

---

More people started attending college when financial aid became available. So, you're saying that the solution is to give fewer people the chance to attend college?

That's probably the core of where you and I disagree.  You and I disagree on what it means to have a "chance to attend college."   You assume funding is wrapped in the chance, whereas I do not. Having a chance to attend is separate and apart from paying for the thing you have a chance to pursue.

Are you suggesting that elimination of aid would NOT result in people having to forgo college? That there's no correlation?

CHANCE means you're accepted into the school.  If you're not accepted into a school, then you don't have the chance to go there right now.

Aid, on the other hand, can possibly make it more affordable to go to a place.  That has nothing to do with the chance to go there.

Yes, if aid were to go away, then people actually going to school would take a nosedive.  But if they'd been accepted, then they had the chance to go, they just couldn't find the WAY to go there.

BTW, I don't think this would be the worst thing in the world!  I think there would be other ways for people to go to school.  I'm not sure what it would look like, but I'm willing to bet there would still be ways, and that the number of ways would grow in a pretty short amount of time (a few years).

Once you take the federal government out, and the market takes over, things WILL change, and probably for the better.

We already know how many people finished college before financial aid. The statistics are out there. 

Of course, some believe that the poor should be limited to blue collar jobs and not have the opportunity to work their way up the socioeconomic ladder. Once you stop immigration, you'll need to get your wage slaves from somewhere.