[beanmaestro]

There’s definitely a huge dichotomy between the $50-90/sqft costs you cite and what actually gets charged for rebuilds. Apparently, after last year’s fires in Santa Barbara, rebuilding cost $300/sqft. And that was true even when folks were only insured to $200/sqft.

The mortgage broker we used (who claims to own several rental properties, and probably has good contacts in the industry) told us he paid about $300, so it doesn’t seem to just have been the chumps.

[beanmaestro]

There’s definitely a huge dichotomy between the $50-90/sqft costs you cite and what actually gets charged for rebuilds. Apparently, after last year’s fires in Santa Barbara, rebuilding cost $300/sqft. And that was true even when folks were only insured to $200/sqft.

The mortgage broker we used (who claims to own several rental properties, and probably has good contacts in the industry) told us he paid about $300, so it doesn’t seem to just have been the chumps.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=Fletch]So anyone want to take a stab at the exact mechanism that pops the education bubble? How does tuition go from being high… to not.
[/quote]

I have a different perspective since I went to Cornell, and my mom once worked for Princeton’s financial aid office. A lot a top-tier schools have guaranteed grant aid beyond the calculated family contribution & maximum student loans. So for every dollar tuition goes up, 60% of the students get an extra $1 of grant aid, and 40% of the students pay $1. Hence, if the U wants an extra $1 per student, they have to raise tuition by $2.50. After a few years, only 33% can pay, so you have to raise tuition $3.33 to net $1. Long term, tuition accelerates up because fewer are paying the bill each year.

Now, a lot of mid-level (GWU?) and public schools don’t guarantee grants above ability to pay, but they’ve seen reduced state funding over the last decade or two, and have been ramping up tuition accordingly. And they’re selling the same product as the elite schools, so they can justify their own tuition increases by comparion.

How do you fix it? Unless eduction funding goes up (unlikely), the only option seems to be a reduction in services. Internet-based classes certainly provide a lower-cost option, or you could see larger classes & fewer profs. The UC protests this fall were funny that way: No layoffs! No tuition increases! Guys, pick one.

The Spanish model is the extreme case of low-cost eduction: Free tuition, but all they provide is huge lecture classes with no required attendance, homework, or papers (though you usually get a recommended books and problems list) and one test that determines whether you pass or fail for the year. In engineering, fail rates run well over 50% and retaking classes 2-3 times is normal. However, you have 7 years to pass all of your required classes; not sure if you can pay tuition after that.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=Fletch]So anyone want to take a stab at the exact mechanism that pops the education bubble? How does tuition go from being high… to not.
[/quote]

I have a different perspective since I went to Cornell, and my mom once worked for Princeton’s financial aid office. A lot a top-tier schools have guaranteed grant aid beyond the calculated family contribution & maximum student loans. So for every dollar tuition goes up, 60% of the students get an extra $1 of grant aid, and 40% of the students pay $1. Hence, if the U wants an extra $1 per student, they have to raise tuition by $2.50. After a few years, only 33% can pay, so you have to raise tuition $3.33 to net $1. Long term, tuition accelerates up because fewer are paying the bill each year.

Now, a lot of mid-level (GWU?) and public schools don’t guarantee grants above ability to pay, but they’ve seen reduced state funding over the last decade or two, and have been ramping up tuition accordingly. And they’re selling the same product as the elite schools, so they can justify their own tuition increases by comparion.

How do you fix it? Unless eduction funding goes up (unlikely), the only option seems to be a reduction in services. Internet-based classes certainly provide a lower-cost option, or you could see larger classes & fewer profs. The UC protests this fall were funny that way: No layoffs! No tuition increases! Guys, pick one.

The Spanish model is the extreme case of low-cost eduction: Free tuition, but all they provide is huge lecture classes with no required attendance, homework, or papers (though you usually get a recommended books and problems list) and one test that determines whether you pass or fail for the year. In engineering, fail rates run well over 50% and retaking classes 2-3 times is normal. However, you have 7 years to pass all of your required classes; not sure if you can pay tuition after that.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=Fletch]So anyone want to take a stab at the exact mechanism that pops the education bubble? How does tuition go from being high… to not.
[/quote]

I have a different perspective since I went to Cornell, and my mom once worked for Princeton’s financial aid office. A lot a top-tier schools have guaranteed grant aid beyond the calculated family contribution & maximum student loans. So for every dollar tuition goes up, 60% of the students get an extra $1 of grant aid, and 40% of the students pay $1. Hence, if the U wants an extra $1 per student, they have to raise tuition by $2.50. After a few years, only 33% can pay, so you have to raise tuition $3.33 to net $1. Long term, tuition accelerates up because fewer are paying the bill each year.

Now, a lot of mid-level (GWU?) and public schools don’t guarantee grants above ability to pay, but they’ve seen reduced state funding over the last decade or two, and have been ramping up tuition accordingly. And they’re selling the same product as the elite schools, so they can justify their own tuition increases by comparion.

How do you fix it? Unless eduction funding goes up (unlikely), the only option seems to be a reduction in services. Internet-based classes certainly provide a lower-cost option, or you could see larger classes & fewer profs. The UC protests this fall were funny that way: No layoffs! No tuition increases! Guys, pick one.

The Spanish model is the extreme case of low-cost eduction: Free tuition, but all they provide is huge lecture classes with no required attendance, homework, or papers (though you usually get a recommended books and problems list) and one test that determines whether you pass or fail for the year. In engineering, fail rates run well over 50% and retaking classes 2-3 times is normal. However, you have 7 years to pass all of your required classes; not sure if you can pay tuition after that.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=Fletch]So anyone want to take a stab at the exact mechanism that pops the education bubble? How does tuition go from being high… to not.
[/quote]

I have a different perspective since I went to Cornell, and my mom once worked for Princeton’s financial aid office. A lot a top-tier schools have guaranteed grant aid beyond the calculated family contribution & maximum student loans. So for every dollar tuition goes up, 60% of the students get an extra $1 of grant aid, and 40% of the students pay $1. Hence, if the U wants an extra $1 per student, they have to raise tuition by $2.50. After a few years, only 33% can pay, so you have to raise tuition $3.33 to net $1. Long term, tuition accelerates up because fewer are paying the bill each year.

Now, a lot of mid-level (GWU?) and public schools don’t guarantee grants above ability to pay, but they’ve seen reduced state funding over the last decade or two, and have been ramping up tuition accordingly. And they’re selling the same product as the elite schools, so they can justify their own tuition increases by comparion.

How do you fix it? Unless eduction funding goes up (unlikely), the only option seems to be a reduction in services. Internet-based classes certainly provide a lower-cost option, or you could see larger classes & fewer profs. The UC protests this fall were funny that way: No layoffs! No tuition increases! Guys, pick one.

The Spanish model is the extreme case of low-cost eduction: Free tuition, but all they provide is huge lecture classes with no required attendance, homework, or papers (though you usually get a recommended books and problems list) and one test that determines whether you pass or fail for the year. In engineering, fail rates run well over 50% and retaking classes 2-3 times is normal. However, you have 7 years to pass all of your required classes; not sure if you can pay tuition after that.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=Fletch]So anyone want to take a stab at the exact mechanism that pops the education bubble? How does tuition go from being high… to not.
[/quote]

I have a different perspective since I went to Cornell, and my mom once worked for Princeton’s financial aid office. A lot a top-tier schools have guaranteed grant aid beyond the calculated family contribution & maximum student loans. So for every dollar tuition goes up, 60% of the students get an extra $1 of grant aid, and 40% of the students pay $1. Hence, if the U wants an extra $1 per student, they have to raise tuition by $2.50. After a few years, only 33% can pay, so you have to raise tuition $3.33 to net $1. Long term, tuition accelerates up because fewer are paying the bill each year.

Now, a lot of mid-level (GWU?) and public schools don’t guarantee grants above ability to pay, but they’ve seen reduced state funding over the last decade or two, and have been ramping up tuition accordingly. And they’re selling the same product as the elite schools, so they can justify their own tuition increases by comparion.

How do you fix it? Unless eduction funding goes up (unlikely), the only option seems to be a reduction in services. Internet-based classes certainly provide a lower-cost option, or you could see larger classes & fewer profs. The UC protests this fall were funny that way: No layoffs! No tuition increases! Guys, pick one.

The Spanish model is the extreme case of low-cost eduction: Free tuition, but all they provide is huge lecture classes with no required attendance, homework, or papers (though you usually get a recommended books and problems list) and one test that determines whether you pass or fail for the year. In engineering, fail rates run well over 50% and retaking classes 2-3 times is normal. However, you have 7 years to pass all of your required classes; not sure if you can pay tuition after that.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]I don’t know, I wouldn’t want my kid to be gambling on those odds thinking she was one of those “gifted ones”.
[/quote]

It’s way beyond being “gifted.” Anyone with Bill Gates’ level of success got VERY VERY lucky at multiple points along the path. There are plenty of folks with Bill Gates’ intellect and drive, but we don’t read about them. Because they didn’t have Bill Gates’ luck.[/quote]

I disagree, so let me play some devil’s advocate:

Bill Gates had the drive and intellect to be an entrepeneur, and you really don’t need a college degree for that (in some fields). There are lots of successful entrepeneurs out there, not just the 1% most gifted. And you don’t have to found Microsoft to have a good career working for yourself.

The catch is that few 18-to-22 year olds have the drive, confidence, and initial capital to start a business. Worse, the skills to do it aren’t being taught in high school, because of the attitude that “college is for that.” I think we’d do well to let high-initiative kids take a year off before college, and let them use some of their college money trying to start a business, organization, or whatever.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]I don’t know, I wouldn’t want my kid to be gambling on those odds thinking she was one of those “gifted ones”.
[/quote]

It’s way beyond being “gifted.” Anyone with Bill Gates’ level of success got VERY VERY lucky at multiple points along the path. There are plenty of folks with Bill Gates’ intellect and drive, but we don’t read about them. Because they didn’t have Bill Gates’ luck.[/quote]

I disagree, so let me play some devil’s advocate:

Bill Gates had the drive and intellect to be an entrepeneur, and you really don’t need a college degree for that (in some fields). There are lots of successful entrepeneurs out there, not just the 1% most gifted. And you don’t have to found Microsoft to have a good career working for yourself.

The catch is that few 18-to-22 year olds have the drive, confidence, and initial capital to start a business. Worse, the skills to do it aren’t being taught in high school, because of the attitude that “college is for that.” I think we’d do well to let high-initiative kids take a year off before college, and let them use some of their college money trying to start a business, organization, or whatever.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]I don’t know, I wouldn’t want my kid to be gambling on those odds thinking she was one of those “gifted ones”.
[/quote]

It’s way beyond being “gifted.” Anyone with Bill Gates’ level of success got VERY VERY lucky at multiple points along the path. There are plenty of folks with Bill Gates’ intellect and drive, but we don’t read about them. Because they didn’t have Bill Gates’ luck.[/quote]

I disagree, so let me play some devil’s advocate:

Bill Gates had the drive and intellect to be an entrepeneur, and you really don’t need a college degree for that (in some fields). There are lots of successful entrepeneurs out there, not just the 1% most gifted. And you don’t have to found Microsoft to have a good career working for yourself.

The catch is that few 18-to-22 year olds have the drive, confidence, and initial capital to start a business. Worse, the skills to do it aren’t being taught in high school, because of the attitude that “college is for that.” I think we’d do well to let high-initiative kids take a year off before college, and let them use some of their college money trying to start a business, organization, or whatever.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]I don’t know, I wouldn’t want my kid to be gambling on those odds thinking she was one of those “gifted ones”.
[/quote]

It’s way beyond being “gifted.” Anyone with Bill Gates’ level of success got VERY VERY lucky at multiple points along the path. There are plenty of folks with Bill Gates’ intellect and drive, but we don’t read about them. Because they didn’t have Bill Gates’ luck.[/quote]

I disagree, so let me play some devil’s advocate:

Bill Gates had the drive and intellect to be an entrepeneur, and you really don’t need a college degree for that (in some fields). There are lots of successful entrepeneurs out there, not just the 1% most gifted. And you don’t have to found Microsoft to have a good career working for yourself.

The catch is that few 18-to-22 year olds have the drive, confidence, and initial capital to start a business. Worse, the skills to do it aren’t being taught in high school, because of the attitude that “college is for that.” I think we’d do well to let high-initiative kids take a year off before college, and let them use some of their college money trying to start a business, organization, or whatever.

[beanmaestro]

[quote=davelj][quote=flu]I don’t know, I wouldn’t want my kid to be gambling on those odds thinking she was one of those “gifted ones”.
[/quote]

It’s way beyond being “gifted.” Anyone with Bill Gates’ level of success got VERY VERY lucky at multiple points along the path. There are plenty of folks with Bill Gates’ intellect and drive, but we don’t read about them. Because they didn’t have Bill Gates’ luck.[/quote]

I disagree, so let me play some devil’s advocate:

Bill Gates had the drive and intellect to be an entrepeneur, and you really don’t need a college degree for that (in some fields). There are lots of successful entrepeneurs out there, not just the 1% most gifted. And you don’t have to found Microsoft to have a good career working for yourself.

The catch is that few 18-to-22 year olds have the drive, confidence, and initial capital to start a business. Worse, the skills to do it aren’t being taught in high school, because of the attitude that “college is for that.” I think we’d do well to let high-initiative kids take a year off before college, and let them use some of their college money trying to start a business, organization, or whatever.

[beanmaestro]

My wife’s not reading piggington anymore, so…

She made it clear that she didn’t want a diamond, and would rather shop with me for an engagement ring, so I proposed without one. We went down to the nearest mall and ended up with a $160 ring with a tanzanite stone. We also bought her the runner-up ring, an $80 ring with a sapphire.

Her wedding band is a gold filigree design that cost $99, and that’s all she wears these days. Mine cost waaay more, since we had it custom made to match the pattern on hers.

She definitely *did* want the engagement ring, but she definitely didn’t want me to make us poor buying it.

[beanmaestro]

My wife’s not reading piggington anymore, so…

She made it clear that she didn’t want a diamond, and would rather shop with me for an engagement ring, so I proposed without one. We went down to the nearest mall and ended up with a $160 ring with a tanzanite stone. We also bought her the runner-up ring, an $80 ring with a sapphire.

Her wedding band is a gold filigree design that cost $99, and that’s all she wears these days. Mine cost waaay more, since we had it custom made to match the pattern on hers.

She definitely *did* want the engagement ring, but she definitely didn’t want me to make us poor buying it.

[beanmaestro]

My wife’s not reading piggington anymore, so…

She made it clear that she didn’t want a diamond, and would rather shop with me for an engagement ring, so I proposed without one. We went down to the nearest mall and ended up with a $160 ring with a tanzanite stone. We also bought her the runner-up ring, an $80 ring with a sapphire.

Her wedding band is a gold filigree design that cost $99, and that’s all she wears these days. Mine cost waaay more, since we had it custom made to match the pattern on hers.

She definitely *did* want the engagement ring, but she definitely didn’t want me to make us poor buying it.

[Author]

Posts