posted
Looks like jacked up monthly pay, a housing allowance, and some kind of gov't/college partnership to pay your tuition.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any GI Bill which fails to dispense somewhat close to minimum wage to pay for 4years of fulltime college/etc education for servicemen and ex-servicemen who served during a time of war is insufficient. Any GI Bill which fails to provide perpetual free medical&psychological care for all servicemen and ex-servicemen who served in a war zone is insufficient.
Now to read Webb's proposal...
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm okay with raising benefits to make sure that school really is affordable. What with rising college costs, it seems only fair that the benefits also rise to meet it. Though to be honest, I'd much rather there be a bill to reduce the cost of college, rather than a bill raising payouts for college. It just makes it harder for low income students to go to college without serving in the military, which almost looks like they are being forced to if they want to have any hope of paying for higher education. But so long as we tie the promise of a four year education to military service, it only seems fair that it actually be paid for.
I'm less certain about the housing part of it. I'd need to see the details, but if the living expenses part is really that extravagent, then I don't support that part.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. That "DoD official", whether DubyaAdministration toady or Pentagon martinet, is being quite honest in expressing his hatred for the idea that regular soldiers ought to have the same opportunities that he did. After all, the only thing he has to prove to himself of his superiority to working grunts is his suit and similar apparel*.
* Which is why civilian-grade Humvees were shipped into Iraq to replace the armored Humvees being sent back to the States during the early part of the Occupation: Heaven forbid some combat troop think that his life is as important as a stateside desk jockey's right to feel important.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current GI bill is definitely inadequate compensation for a servicemember to gain a college education, especially when that is such a large draw for many people in their late-teens and early twenties to join the service.
The rate of BAH for a Married E-5 in my homestate of Ma, is around 1500 a month! My girlfriend who attends a state school In Ma pays $5,565 yearly to live in a Dorm Room, and I know that you can Rent a pretty nice apartment for around $1200-$1400 ($1400 being on the high end of merely a nice apartment) near a state school without having to actually hunt. If my understanding of how the new GI bill would work is correct this definitely seems extravegant to me.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it means we have a chance that more of those coming home will emerge from their military service as college graduates with bright prospects rather than bitter individuals with scars and nightmares, I'm for it. The returning veterans deserve better, and God knows money has been squandered on far more wasteful and foolish things in the last five years, with less to show for it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Isn't that a separate issue from college tuition and related costs? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that military families shouldn't be penalized for family size, or that family size should be affected by your pay/housing allowance. I'm just wondering how that'd change housing allowances for college students on the GI Bill. I guess my feeling would be that there'd need to be different levels of housing allowances depending on your situation maybe, but I don't know what they'd be, but I don't think a single man or woman getting out would need nearly the same amount as a parent with a couple kids. But then at the same time I wonder if they should get extra money when they get out of the military and into college or if the spouse should get a job to help cover the remaining costs, just like any other family would have to. I'm not sure about that one. But I do think that a flat $1,500 a month, if that's what it is, for housing is too much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a flat $1500 a month, BAH is dependant upon the living cost of your area but higher ranks get more housing allowance and those with dependants get even higher allowances. If a servicemember actually does have dependants or a spouse they may need the extra money but a blanket rate of a married E-5 would be extravegant for a single servicemember.
I suppose they can't really do a case-by-case benefiet system with the GI bill though, so that rate of allowance should pretty much take care of everyone.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: if the spouse should get a job to help cover the remaining costs, just like any other family would have to.
This is a real problem for military families, for several reasons: 1) For families stationed overseas, the spouse may not even speak the language of the country they are in, making it hard to find employment. 2) The military is often not a 9-5 job. For some families, the spouse in the military can come home and watch the kids for a few hours, while the other spouse heads for their part time job, but if one spouse is gone for several-month deployments, then the childcare costs quickly outweigh the benefits of a job. 3) Military families move around a lot, even stateside, and military spouses don't get to establish their career in any one place, because they have to move before they can get settled. Many employers are hesitant to train someone who may be gone in 6 months or a year.
The government (well, some of them) understand that when you're in the military, your whole family serves their country. That's why there are special provisions for military families.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hank, From what I can tell, Lyr was talking about the spouse of a servicemember going to college, to whom those problems don't really apply.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the question of retention, from what was said, the full 4 year package is only available after 36 months of active duty service.
From my quick search, Marines in Iraq serve 7 month tours. Most other units serve 12 months (although that has been extended during the surge). The suggested downtime from a tour is 12 months.
I could be totally off here, but it looks like you'd generally be in for at least 6 years and serve 3 tours of duty to receive the full benefits. At that length of time, I think recruiting is a more important consideration than retention.
---
I'd also expect the DoD, if their plan of making the college payments transferrable goes through, to unleash a PR campaign trying to convince spouses and children to ask for them, thus depriving the service member of an attractive alternative to military service.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that definitely changes my impression of the bill. I was conflating active duty with being on a tour of duty. I'd have to see some numbers before I could really form an opinion now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hank, From what I can tell, Lyr was talking about the spouse of a servicemember going to college, to whom those problems don't really apply.
Thanks, that's what I meant.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though to be honest, I'd much rather there be a bill to reduce the cost of college
Never going to happen. And thank goodness -- college costs are very complex, and trying to legislate them down is a horrible idea.
Try convincing students/parents that more expensive schools are not automatically better (studies show that the easiest way for a school to increase both number and quality of applicants is to raise tuition in the neighborhood of 10-20%). Or get the magazines that rate colleges to change how they do it, so raising tuition (and internal aid) doesn't raise a school's score.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even that doesn't help when the "value" schools start to cost now what the big state schools costed five and ten years ago. I wanted to go to MSU but couldn't afford it when I started school (ages ago), and I ended up at a local, but still very good university that cost less than half as much as MSU did then. The cost at my school has skyrocketed since they, despite getting excellent reviews for their programs, some of which are ranked ahead of MSU and U of M.
I didn't specify that legislation would somehow cap or limit what a university would be able to charge for college (if that's what you assumed I meant), I left it open ended specifically because I don't know all the complexities involved and I don't know which solutions would work best. It could even mean more grant money, or no interest loans for everyone, I don't know, but the costs are out of control.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more grant money available, and the more below-market interest loans, the higher tuition will get. Now, it shouldn't be enough to offset the benefits of the grants or the loans to those who get them, but it will increase the costs for people unable to receive the grants or loans.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read reams of analysis, but none of the suggestions I have seen are realistic.
One of the problems is that, like medical costs, the issue is comparative. Many other costs are not going up as much only because so many things are done partly or entirely by computers. But a computer cannot teach a class, and online classes have limited uses and don't really take all that much less instructor time. I saw a good analysis of that aspect a while back . . .
Grant money has to come from somewhere. Congress has only just increased Pell (and not all that much) for the first two years in a long time. Zero-interest loans are unlikely, even if we shift entirely from FFELP to Direct Loans (which is a bad idea, and something the current infrastructure absolutely cannot handle). The current low-interest loans are expensive enough.
Don't get me wrong. I would be thrilled if Congress increased Pell, increased Stafford maximums, and for good measure killed the horrible new TEACH "grants" and the ridiculously resource-intensive ACG and SMART Grants and just used that money to fund the Pell and Stafford increases.
It just seems unlikely.
And don't even get me started on my state's governor and the horrible things he's doing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is costing more though? When I think about what it actually costs to have a university, I mean there're buildings, upkeep and maintenance to keep them running, maybe some construction to rennovate or build new things, and professor salaries. What has changed about those costs that has made tuition jump by double digit percentages in the last half decade every year (at least, that's how it is in Michigan)?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What is costing more though? When I think about what it actually costs to have a university, I mean there're buildings, upkeep and maintenance to keep them running, maybe some construction to rennovate or build new things, and professor salaries. What has changed about those costs that has made tuition jump by double digit percentages in the last half decade every year (at least, that's how it is in Michigan)?
Necessary construction. (Many schools are building, retrofitting for earthquakes or other issues, fixing old or outdated buildings.)
Students expect a lot more "value added" items -- new computers, broadband internet, cutting-edge labs, smart classrooms, etc.
Subsidizing internal aid. Many states have cut back on subsidizing state schools by huge percentages. So have quite a few private scholarship sources.
More non-traditional students, ESL students, students with special needs. They need support systems, and those cost money.
Last but not least, Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has made federal financial aid more convoluted and complex every year. Schools therefore need more personnel in their financial aid, compliance, research, and legal offices.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should say, those who cannot or do not receive the grants or loans.
And rivka has the cause right. If the cost is cheaper for students, quantity demanded will go up. Since the cost for the schools does not go down, in order to meet the higher quantity demanded, they charge more per person.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Necessary construction. (Many schools are building, retrofitting for earthquakes or other issues, fixing old or outdated buildings.)
Under Construction, Like Always?
Yup. I believe there was one quarter in my senior year that I did not have to detour around construction to get to any of my classes. And the library had just been fully reopened.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I'm all for 100% socialized medicine in the US, I think that all service personnel should get that benefit.
Since I'm also for 100% free education, I agree that all service people should have their education paid for as well.
As an incentive to recruitment, having those benefits accrue to military personnel when the rest of society does not get them is probably a good idea -- if our goal is to increase recruitment.
It basically means that more people who can't find another way to fund their education or healthcare (or whatever other benefits are in the overall package) will find this option attractive.
Of course, there are those who would join no matter what. But the question isn't whether those folks would join anyway, but how many other folks who would otherwise just join the stateside labor pool will be convinced by this package that they should join the military.
Ultimately, I think it's preying on the economically disadvantaged, but I also believe that people who join the military get a raw deal now and we should support efforts to improve it. Subsidized health care, subsidized education, all sorts of Socialistic ideas like those. I'm for all of them! And, seriously, let's make sure those systems work, and work well, so we can use them to model programs for the rest of the people in the US.
I learned recently that enlistees have to pay for their own uniforms (except the 1st one -- or was it one-per-year? I forget). I think that's appalling. If you are expected to put your life on the line, the least we can do is make sure it doesn't cost you money to do so. That's insane.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I should say, those who cannot or do not receive the grants or loans.
And rivka has the cause right. If the cost is cheaper for students, quantity demanded will go up. Since the cost for the schools does not go down, in order to meet the higher quantity demanded, they charge more per person.
Isn't that a basic supply and demand argument?
How does that work when the number of students that can be taught is FIXED? I've always thought that supply/demand had something to do with, you know, supply. In this case the supply, the number of slots for students, doesn't go up or down based on demand.
Raising ACADEMIC standards as a result, now that makes sense, but cost wise? That has nothing to do with demand, it's just a money grab.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: O-1 housing in San Diego is over 2k a month without a spouse. Nice.
Yeah, and renting in a decent part of San Diego that will just about pay for a decent 1-bedroom and maybe cover your utilities.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Unlimited? No. Completely fixed? Also no.
Alright, but there's a fixed limit isn't there? At point at which they don't have any more availability? Obviously there is, or else everyone that wants to go to Harvard and could afford it WOULD go to Harvard.
I think you hit on the biggest reasons, one that I'd forgotten, earlier, when you were talking about state funding dropping for state schools. In Michigan especially funds are being slashed left and right for state schools, which is probably one of the biggest reasons for tuition increases. My tax dollars hard at work.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Unlimited? No. Completely fixed? Also no.
Alright, but there's a fixed limit isn't there? At point at which they don't have any more availability? Obviously there is, or else everyone that wants to go to Harvard and could afford it WOULD go to Harvard.
As long as the number (and it needn't be the number at every school, just some) is flexible, it will respond to greater demand.
And there are plenty of schools that would happily increase their incoming class by 5-10% in any given year. Some would take lots more.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I learned recently that enlistees have to pay for their own uniforms (except the 1st one -- or was it one-per-year? I forget). I think that's appalling. If you are expected to put your life on the line, the least we can do is make sure it doesn't cost you money to do so. That's insane."
That's wrong. The navy, at least, gives men an initial 1200 for clothes and about 450 annually.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my brother was in the Marines, they provided his basic fatigues and his regular uniform. If he wanted to buy a dress uniform and the saber or what not extra, he'd have to pay for it by himself, which he did, but it did nothing to impair his ability to be dressed for his job or do his job.
rivka, I'll take that as a yes. But every school is different I guess.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The number of students is fixed? Strange, as most of the large and academically prestigious schools increase their freshman class size annually. They build new buildings, find new ways to fit students in old buildings, and guarantee housing to fewer upperclassmen (who find it in the community).
Also, quantity demanded can mean the resources available to students, too. Hiring more prestigious professors is a way to increase one's 'supply of education'.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the most experienced players in the financial aid field, who owns and runs finaid.com (and several other sites) says:
quote:I disagree with the contention that increasing loan limits will yield higher tuition. Tuition increases regardless of the amount of federal student aid. Limiting federal student aid forces students to borrow from non-federal sources and also limits access to higher education.
Aggregate limits on the Stafford loan have remained unchanged since 1992 and there were four years of no increase in the maximum Pell Grant, yet tuition continued to increase at the usual pace. The main concern is that for-profit institutions might increase tuition in uncontrolled fashion. After all, mean per-capita education debt at for-profit institutions is 30% (4-year) to 50% (2-year) higher than at non-profit institutions. But keep in mind that the 90-10 rule prevents for-profit colleges from increasing tuition too much. Also, increasing federal loan limits will shift borrowing from private to federal loans, making it more difficult for for-profit colleges to comply with the 90-10 rule.
posted
I think he is misunderstanding. I don't think that increases in financial aid are the only, or even the primary, reason for increases in tuition.
But they will lead to increased tuition, and nothing he mentioned is evidence otherwise. In particular, it isn't only gov't aid; the increased availability of credit to students and parents through various private education loans probably contributed fairly significantly (again, not necessarily the primary cause) to increases in tuition over the past decade or so.
The interplay with the 90-10 rule would be interesting to analyze; I wonder what the distribution of non-federal funding is for schools, particularly covariance with school size.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russell, he was not responding to you. The quote is from another discussion; I should have indicated that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
