[Scarlett]

Well, guess what? The number of spots for Calif residents is constantly squeezed out because of the out-of-state applicants. That happens regardless.

I don’t think it’s fair for foreigners to take the spots of residents just because they have money. UC is supported by taxpayers – which those foreigners are not.

This part about living expenses is just a side story if you want and you want to make a big deal about it. Not sure why you are up in arms. Do you think getting a student loan so one can wear latest fashion, buy an iphone, iPad, starbucks, etc is smart?

I don’t think it would pop the bubble if we limit the loans for the living expenses, ok? But it may make the kids think twice and find clever ways to cut costs.

Back to OP:
What do you think it’s going to happen in the future? What will cause the bubble to pop – or let out air slowly?

[Scarlett]

AN, it is now harder for the more poor people to attend a good college. If the college bubble popped and college costs went down then it would make it easier – smaller student loans (if needed) or smaller amounts of money needed to be saved.

I still think that teaching kids survival skills and responsibity should be forced upon them, it’s a good life lesson.

[Scarlett]

AN, it is now harder for the more poor people to attend a good college. If the college bubble popped and college costs went down then it would make it easier – smaller student loans (if needed) or smaller amounts of money needed to be saved.

I still think that teaching kids survival skills and responsibity should be forced upon them, it’s a good life lesson.

[Scarlett]

AN, it is now harder for the more poor people to attend a good college. If the college bubble popped and college costs went down then it would make it easier – smaller student loans (if needed) or smaller amounts of money needed to be saved.

I still think that teaching kids survival skills and responsibity should be forced upon them, it’s a good life lesson.

[Scarlett]

AN, it is now harder for the more poor people to attend a good college. If the college bubble popped and college costs went down then it would make it easier – smaller student loans (if needed) or smaller amounts of money needed to be saved.

I still think that teaching kids survival skills and responsibity should be forced upon them, it’s a good life lesson.

[Scarlett]

AN, it is now harder for the more poor people to attend a good college. If the college bubble popped and college costs went down then it would make it easier – smaller student loans (if needed) or smaller amounts of money needed to be saved.

I still think that teaching kids survival skills and responsibity should be forced upon them, it’s a good life lesson.

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

[quote=edna_mode]I even got a PhD afterwards in a Hard Science, thinking that no matter what, a science/engineering skill set was a) difficult enough to obtain that there would be a perennial shortage of skilled workers compared to the societal need; and b) be valued enough that compensation would remain relatively high.

Well, pharma, biotech, dot coms…all collapsing. The market for PhDs is one of the worst I have ever seen. I have some enormous number of friends who have remained stubbornly unemployed despite doing everything right. I have heard of people leaving the PhDs OFF their resumes in order to compete for entry level positions. And heaven help you if you can’t find a permanent position after your first post-doc. Or if you got a PhD in something where you can’t really get funding for the degree (most biology/chemistry/physics/math programs do provide subsistence wages, and you get the degree with no loans afterwards — one reason why I went for it). I’m frustrated because there is no limit of Big Problems for these bright, highly educated people to work on. The problem seems more to be finding competent management/organizations/funding structures to actually tackle these problems systematically with a results outlook that is somewhere between next quarter and next generation. Certainly this kind of leadership is lacking from government and most business, so who’s going to really innovate (that is, someone who isn’t Steve Jobs bring technologies to wide-scale adoption)?

There’s a bubble not just at the bachelor’s level, and not just in law school. I’m beginning to think that the MD’s had the right idea — limit the number of med schools and admissions to basically guarantee that people who complete their education will be able to pay back the loans and have a job at the end of the ordeal.[/quote]

I agree with everything you say here, Edna – my PhD is in a medical science and luckily it was basically free for me, while I managed to subsist. I’ve heard about leaving the PhD title off the resume, and perpetual postdocs and all that. Actually the PhD bubble was called many years ago, more than 10, I believe it was in “The Scientist” – not with the word bubble but basically too many PhD and too few jobs needing a PhD….

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Scarlett]

If we are talking UC, and in-state tuition, AN then I don’t think that’s *that* difficult – some ways are like those that BG has mentioned. They have to be driven, savvy, and responsible. There is a lot of discretionary money spent unwisely on living expenses and the kids need to learn how to make sacrifices, be responsible and live under their means. That’s what I meant to encourage. If they are poor, they know how already. Otherwise, they should be allowed to borrow at higher rate – to pay for that privilege. BTW, nobody is entitled to realization of full potential, or to a good college. If they are poor they are more likely to get grants and income-based aid or waivers.

[Author]

Posts