Walmart to Help Associates Get College Degrees

[dfrecore]

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I guess I'm not understanding where it's up to the private sector to fix this problem.  This is a problem that cannot be fixed by anyone other than the government getting out of the student loan business, and then schools having to make tuition reasonably priced.  And, students (and their parents) refusing to participate in the madness, by choosing schools they can afford, including CC if they need to.  If every student said "I refuse to take out a loan," colleges would be hurting VERY badly for students, and would HAVE to do something to entice them in - which could ONLY be lower costs.

But with government (and taxpayers) underwriting degrees for people who choose "the college experience" and schools spending ridiculous amounts of money on things nobody needs, there is no way for the private sector to combat the problem.  They just can't.  The more money that is thrown at this problem, the more colleges spend!!

I never said that it was the responsibility of the private sector. I simply said that the private sector is not going to come up with a solution. 

The dramatic rise in tuition is actually correlated with reduced state funding during the recessions. It's not correlated with the availability of federal student loans. There was also correlation with the rising popularity of for-profit colleges and the increase in student loan defaults. If all the for-profit colleges went out of business, that would take care of a large portion of defaults. Community colleges are also responsible for a disproportionate share of defaults even though they're the cheapest schools around. 

On average, for-profit colleges are cheaper than private, nonprofit colleges. CCs are relatively dirt cheap. Now, why would these two types of colleges have the highest student loan default rates. What do they have in common? Well, I can tell you what they have in common. 

They serve many students who are not academically prepared for college. They have high dropout rates, so students don't have degrees to get a job that can cover student loan payments. Their students are more likely to rely on financial aid, not only for tuition and fees, but for living expenses. Their students also tend to have more personal and family issues due the fact that many are minorities and others who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 

I showed you data before to back up all these points, but it's more politically advantageous to blame the government for everything. The only thing I blame the government for is giving billions of dollars to shady, for-profit colleges that take advantage of the poor, first generation college students, minorities, and disabled veterans. Most of these for-profit colleges wouldn't survive without government money because their students can't afford to pay anything. Unless a for-profit company is a government contractor, then it shouldn't be getting 90% of its revenue from the government.

While I think it's stupid to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the college experience, the bulk of student loan defaults are NOT coming from traditional college students. They are coming from people who commute to CCs and who take night and/or online classes at for-profit colleges.

Of course, there are several countries that are able to provide free or low-cost post-secondary education to their citizens without this financial aid mess. Sometimes, it's cheaper to cut out the middleman.

I blame the government, and the schools themselves.  AND, I don't care who defaults more, there are still millions upon millions of students with high student loan balances from regular non-profit schools - state colleges.

Yes, the for-profits are bad business as well, and again, the government sucks at figuring out who the bad guys are and pulling money from them.  That would solve a ton of the problems (again, a government problem).

As for nonprofit private schools - MANY of those give out so much in scholarships and grants that people are going for about the same amount as it costs to go to state schools  I have friends who have kids in those kinds of schools, who are paying vastly less than "rack rate" for tuition and room/board.  Those schools are absolutely throwing money at kids to come there.  So "cheap" is only comparing what's posted on their websites, if you look at what students are actually paying, it's a LOT lot less than that.

And I've read plenty that says that tuition increases ARE correlated to federal aid:

Several recent studies have found evidence that other federal student aid programs drive of tuition increases. A 2015 study found that a dollar of subsidized (non-PLUS) student loans increases published tuition by 58 cents at a typical college, with larger effects once reductions in institutional financial aid are taken into account. An NBER paperissued last year concluded that changes to federal student loans are more than sufficient to explain tuition increases at private nonprofit colleges.

And

If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase. In 1978, subsidies became available to a greatly expanded number of students. In 1980, college tuitions began rising year after year at a rate that exceeded inflation. Federal student aid policies do not cause college price inflation, but there is little doubt that they help make it possible.


Oh yeah, and your complaint that correlation is tied to state government subsidizing less - a GOVERNMENT problem.

I'm not sure why you're letting the federal government off the hook, then blame the state governments, and say it's not the government, but it is.  I don't care whether it's state or federal, it's the government that is a large portion of the problem.  If the federal government would have stayed out of the student loan business, and left things alone, I think we would have been much better off.  We were certainly better off before 1978 when they jumped in to "help."  Once you take things out of the hands of local (state and below) government, things tend to spiral out of control.  States feel like they don't need to be the ones to deal with the problems once the feds jump in.

So you are right, the state governments not paying for what they probably should, is a problem.  And I am right, the federal government jumps in where they shouldn't (loans) and DON'T come in where they should (for-profits).  And now the whole thing is a hot mess, and not getting any better.

[sanantone]

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I guess I'm not understanding where it's up to the private sector to fix this problem.  This is a problem that cannot be fixed by anyone other than the government getting out of the student loan business, and then schools having to make tuition reasonably priced.  And, students (and their parents) refusing to participate in the madness, by choosing schools they can afford, including CC if they need to.  If every student said "I refuse to take out a loan," colleges would be hurting VERY badly for students, and would HAVE to do something to entice them in - which could ONLY be lower costs.

But with government (and taxpayers) underwriting degrees for people who choose "the college experience" and schools spending ridiculous amounts of money on things nobody needs, there is no way for the private sector to combat the problem.  They just can't.  The more money that is thrown at this problem, the more colleges spend!!

I never said that it was the responsibility of the private sector. I simply said that the private sector is not going to come up with a solution. 

The dramatic rise in tuition is actually correlated with reduced state funding during the recessions. It's not correlated with the availability of federal student loans. There was also correlation with the rising popularity of for-profit colleges and the increase in student loan defaults. If all the for-profit colleges went out of business, that would take care of a large portion of defaults. Community colleges are also responsible for a disproportionate share of defaults even though they're the cheapest schools around. 

On average, for-profit colleges are cheaper than private, nonprofit colleges. CCs are relatively dirt cheap. Now, why would these two types of colleges have the highest student loan default rates. What do they have in common? Well, I can tell you what they have in common. 

They serve many students who are not academically prepared for college. They have high dropout rates, so students don't have degrees to get a job that can cover student loan payments. Their students are more likely to rely on financial aid, not only for tuition and fees, but for living expenses. Their students also tend to have more personal and family issues due the fact that many are minorities and others who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 

I showed you data before to back up all these points, but it's more politically advantageous to blame the government for everything. The only thing I blame the government for is giving billions of dollars to shady, for-profit colleges that take advantage of the poor, first generation college students, minorities, and disabled veterans. Most of these for-profit colleges wouldn't survive without government money because their students can't afford to pay anything. Unless a for-profit company is a government contractor, then it shouldn't be getting 90% of its revenue from the government.

While I think it's stupid to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the college experience, the bulk of student loan defaults are NOT coming from traditional college students. They are coming from people who commute to CCs and who take night and/or online classes at for-profit colleges.

Of course, there are several countries that are able to provide free or low-cost post-secondary education to their citizens without this financial aid mess. Sometimes, it's cheaper to cut out the middleman.

I blame the government, and the schools themselves.  AND, I don't care who defaults more, there are still millions upon millions of students with high student loan balances from regular non-profit schools - state colleges.

Yes, the for-profits are bad business as well, and again, the government sucks at figuring out who the bad guys are and pulling money from them.  That would solve a ton of the problems (again, a government problem).

As for nonprofit private schools - MANY of those give out so much in scholarships and grants that people are going for about the same amount as it costs to go to state schools  I have friends who have kids in those kinds of schools, who are paying vastly less than "rack rate" for tuition and room/board.  Those schools are absolutely throwing money at kids to come there.  So "cheap" is only comparing what's posted on their websites, if you look at what students are actually paying, it's a LOT lot less than that.

And I've read plenty that says that tuition increases ARE correlated to federal aid:

Several recent studies have found evidence that other federal student aid programs drive of tuition increases. A 2015 study found that a dollar of subsidized (non-PLUS) student loans increases published tuition by 58 cents at a typical college, with larger effects once reductions in institutional financial aid are taken into account. An NBER paperissued last year concluded that changes to federal student loans are more than sufficient to explain tuition increases at private nonprofit colleges.

And

If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase. In 1978, subsidies became available to a greatly expanded number of students. In 1980, college tuitions began rising year after year at a rate that exceeded inflation. Federal student aid policies do not cause college price inflation, but there is little doubt that they help make it possible.


Oh yeah, and your complaint that correlation is tied to state government subsidizing less - a GOVERNMENT problem.

I'm not sure why you're letting the federal government off the hook, then blame the state governments, and say it's not the government, but it is.  I don't care whether it's state or federal, it's the government that is a large portion of the problem.  If the federal government would have stayed out of the student loan business, and left things alone, I think we would have been much better off.  We were certainly better off before 1978 when they jumped in to "help."  Once you take things out of the hands of local (state and below) government, things tend to spiral out of control.  States feel like they don't need to be the ones to deal with the problems once the feds jump in.

So you are right, the state governments not paying for what they probably should, is a problem.  And I am right, the federal government jumps in where they shouldn't (loans) and DON'T come in where they should (for-profits).  And now the whole thing is a hot mess, and not getting any better.

I read that study. The correlation was most pronounced among for-profit and private, nonprofit universities. I looked at several studies, and public, 4-year institutional seem to be most affected by decreases in state funding. 

Actually, what I said is that the U.S. government is the problem. There are other governments that don't have this problem because they fully and directly fund their schools. The U.S. overcomplicates things.

There is no consensus on whether or not there is a causal relationship between increased aid and increased tuition. Not only are there different studies that come to different conclusions, but there are even contradictory findings within studies. Therefore, the Bennett Hypothesis has yet to be proven. However, most of the correlation evidence points to for-profit colleges being the most sensitive to increases in financial aid. For-profit college students also graduate with more debt than public school students. 

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/r...g-tuition/

In that link above, there is a link to a research article that looked at several studies testing the Bennett Hypothesis. 

There are many variables to consider. Private, nonprofit schools tend to attract wealthier students who don't qualify for need-based aid. One study that I believe I shared here before compared 2-year for-profits and community colleges since their students are similar. Obviously, for-profit college students have more debt, but the most important finding was that for-profit college students did worse in the job market.

---

Before financial aid was available, the majority couldn't afford college. I don't know how a combination of killing unions that increased wages for blue collar jobs and keeping poor people from attending college would make us better off.

---

Interestingly enough, you argue about how private schools can be cheaper, but you linked to a research article that shows that they're more likely than public institutions to increase tuition in response to increased financial aid. 

Since your chief complaint is how much public universities charge, how is that related to your argument that financial aid increases tuition? The correlation is with private and for-profit colleges.

---

Wrong link. Here's the correct one.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...c-colleges

---

Regarding the Federal Reserve report you linked to, even one of the co-authors admitted that it's hard to conclude whether the Pell Grant and unsubsidized loans affect tuition.

It's interesting how the anti-government folks advocate for using the military to pay for tuition. That money also comes from taxpayers.

[alexf.1990]

I read that study. The correlation was most pronounced among for-profit and private, nonprofit universities. I looked at several studies, and public, 4-year institutional seem to be most affected by decreases in state funding. 

Actually, what I said is that the U.S. government is the problem. There are other governments that don't have this problem because they fully and directly fund their schools. The U.S. overcomplicates things.

There is no consensus on whether or not there is a causal relationship between increased aid and increased tuition. Not only are there different studies that come to different conclusions, but there are even contradictory findings within studies. Therefore, the Bennett Hypothesis has yet to be proven. However, most of the correlation evidence points to for-profit colleges being the most sensitive to increases in financial aid. For-profit college students also graduate with more debt than public school students. 

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/r...g-tuition/

In that link above, there is a link to a research article that looked at several studies testing the Bennett Hypothesis. 

There are many variables to consider. Private, nonprofit schools tend to attract wealthier students who don't qualify for need-based aid. One study that I believe I shared here before compared 2-year for-profits and community colleges since their students are similar. Obviously, for-profit college students have more debt, but the most important finding was that for-profit college students did worse in the job market.

---

Before financial aid was available, the majority couldn't afford college. I don't know how a combination of killing unions that increased wages for blue collar jobs and keeping poor people from attending college would make us better off.

---

Interestingly enough, you argue about how private schools can be cheaper, but you linked to a research article that shows that they're more likely than public institutions to increase tuition in response to increased financial aid. 

Since your chief complaint is how much public universities charge, how is that related to your argument that financial aid increases tuition? The correlation is with private and for-profit colleges.

---

Wrong link. Here's the correct one.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...c-colleges

---

Regarding the Federal Reserve report you linked to, even one of the co-authors admitted that it's hard to conclude whether the Pell Grant and unsubsidized loans affect tuition.

It's interesting how the anti-government folks advocate for using the military to pay for tuition. That money also comes from taxpayers.

Doesn't looking at just tuition rates oversimplify things? The largest cost of college is the opportunity cost of not working. I suspect a large portion of student loans go towards living expenses in order to cover this cost. Indiscriminately giving loans to every student at rates significantly below market rates seems to incentivize student to take on the opportunity cost of attending college, regardless of the dubious benefits involved in some degrees. This incentive seems to have created a surplus of college graduates (at least in some fields), which dilutes the value of college education in the labor pool. Another serious issue with being so indiscriminate with loans and aid is the rising default rates on these loans, and the number of students who take on the loans and never graduate. In my mind, there is certainly a very real cost to pushing people into college who otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps increasing merit scholarships, or subsidizing loans based on merit would be a better solution? There should also be a better mechanism to steer students into majors (or even trades) that are in demand.

I guess what I'm getting at is the balance that needs to be struck between your earlier point that not everyone wants or needs to attend college (which I agree with) and the proliferation of aid and subsidized loans to incentize people to attend college.

[allvia]

I think it is a great thing that Walmart is offering.  It has the potential to be better than many corporate tuition reimbursement programs; most limit the AOS, so that is not different than Walmart limiting their offerings.  It is good for Walmart if the employees move up within the company due to their education, and still a win for an employee who decides to leave once it is completed.  A potential employer will only see a bachelor degree from Brandman University, Bellevue University or University of FL (all RA schools) on the resume. They won't look at it as a Walmart "bargain priced" degree - I would be surprised if most employers would even be aware that Walmart had anything to do with making it happen.  Plenty of traditional college students work at Walmart (or other retailers) while going to school.  Plus, many low/lower income students still don't receive enough in financial aid to cover the costs of college, this does allow them a path they might not have otherwise.

[MNomadic]

I didn't mean it seriously when I said, "Walmart sponsored BSBA."
I understand that an accredited degree is an accredited degree and no one cares how it was paid for(as long as it legally paid for, of course.)

[allvia]

I didn't mean it seriously when I said, "Walmart sponsored BSBA."
I understand that an accredited degree is an accredited degree and no one cares how it was paid for(as long as it legally paid for, of course.)

Honestly, it wasn't specifically directed at your post.  You're the 'knowledge hero' that shared it in the first place - and like you I had a moment that said 'hmm, maybe I should get a PT job at Walmart'. (that TESU residency waiver stings)

[sanantone]

I read that study. The correlation was most pronounced among for-profit and private, nonprofit universities. I looked at several studies, and public, 4-year institutional seem to be most affected by decreases in state funding. 

Actually, what I said is that the U.S. government is the problem. There are other governments that don't have this problem because they fully and directly fund their schools. The U.S. overcomplicates things.

There is no consensus on whether or not there is a causal relationship between increased aid and increased tuition. Not only are there different studies that come to different conclusions, but there are even contradictory findings within studies. Therefore, the Bennett Hypothesis has yet to be proven. However, most of the correlation evidence points to for-profit colleges being the most sensitive to increases in financial aid. For-profit college students also graduate with more debt than public school students. 

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/20/r...g-tuition/

In that link above, there is a link to a research article that looked at several studies testing the Bennett Hypothesis. 

There are many variables to consider. Private, nonprofit schools tend to attract wealthier students who don't qualify for need-based aid. One study that I believe I shared here before compared 2-year for-profits and community colleges since their students are similar. Obviously, for-profit college students have more debt, but the most important finding was that for-profit college students did worse in the job market.

---

Before financial aid was available, the majority couldn't afford college. I don't know how a combination of killing unions that increased wages for blue collar jobs and keeping poor people from attending college would make us better off.

---

Interestingly enough, you argue about how private schools can be cheaper, but you linked to a research article that shows that they're more likely than public institutions to increase tuition in response to increased financial aid. 

Since your chief complaint is how much public universities charge, how is that related to your argument that financial aid increases tuition? The correlation is with private and for-profit colleges.

---

Wrong link. Here's the correct one.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/...c-colleges

---

Regarding the Federal Reserve report you linked to, even one of the co-authors admitted that it's hard to conclude whether the Pell Grant and unsubsidized loans affect tuition.

It's interesting how the anti-government folks advocate for using the military to pay for tuition. That money also comes from taxpayers.

Doesn't looking at just tuition rates oversimplify things? The largest cost of college is the opportunity cost of not working. I suspect a large portion of student loans go towards living expenses in order to cover this cost. Indiscriminately giving loans to every student at rates significantly below market rates seems to incentivize student to take on the opportunity cost of attending college, regardless of the dubious benefits involved in some degrees. This incentive seems to have created a surplus of college graduates (at least in some fields), which dilutes the value of college education in the labor pool. Another serious issue with being so indiscriminate with loans and aid is the rising default rates on these loans, and the number of students who take on the loans and never graduate. In my mind, there is certainly a very real cost to pushing people into college who otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps increasing merit scholarships, or subsidizing loans based on merit would be a better solution? There should also be a better mechanism to steer students into majors (or even trades) that are in demand.

I guess what I'm getting at is the balance that needs to be struck between your earlier point that not everyone wants or needs to attend college (which I agree with) and the proliferation of aid and subsidized loans to incentize people to attend college.

You mean that loans give people the option to choose not to work? That is true. Earlier this year or last year, I was watching the news, and they discussed how much student loan money goes to things other than tuition, fees, and books. Most current college students take out more aid than needed in order to cover living expenses. A rather large percentage use some of that money for Spring Break. You CAN work and go to school. Or, you can stay home instead of paying $11,000 per year for 100 sqft.

---

I think it is a great thing that Walmart is offering.  It has the potential to be better than many corporate tuition reimbursement programs; most limit the AOS, so that is not different than Walmart limiting their offerings.  It is good for Walmart if the employees move up within the company due to their education, and still a win for an employee who decides to leave once it is completed.  A potential employer will only see a bachelor degree from Brandman University, Bellevue University or University of FL (all RA schools) on the resume. They won't look at it as a Walmart "bargain priced" degree - I would be surprised if most employers would even be aware that Walmart had anything to do with making it happen.  Plenty of traditional college students work at Walmart (or other retailers) while going to school.  Plus, many low/lower income students still don't receive enough in financial aid to cover the costs of college, this does allow them a path they might not have otherwise.

No one argued against most of your points. I know that plenty of traditional college students work in retail. That means that they are not looking to complete an online business program at Bellevue. Being 18-24 and attending school on campus is what makes them traditional.

[natshar]

I've now read the whole thread. Ugh. I edited it and it messed up my reply. Oh well.

---

https://www.tesu.edu/walmart/degree-programs