Walmart to Help Associates Get College Degrees

[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.