More Validation Of Suyts Space!!! College Education!!! ….. They’re Almost There!!! And A Suyts Flashback!


So, last February the pinhead-in-Chief proposed a student loan forgiveness scheme.  And, in response, I wrote yet another piece as to why giving away money to random children is bad for the children, the colleges, and the general populace ….. I’ll excerpt from it in a minute. 

Today, we see this …..

Fed research: Student aid mostly raises the price of college tuition

Increasing federal student aid leads colleges to raise tuitions, offsetting the benefit to students, according to new research published by economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The new analysis finds that the majority of an increase in subsidized student loans or grants translates to higher tuitions, and that at least in the short run, added loans do not boost enrollment.

“[W]hile one would expect a student aid expansion to benefit recipients, the subsidized loan expansion could have been to their detriment, on net, because of the sizable and offsetting tuition effect,” write David Lucca and Karen Shen of the New York Fed and Taylor Nadauld of Brigham Young University.

The study is evidence in favor of the so-called “Bennett Hypothesis,” formulated by Reagan Department of Education Secretary William Bennett, that increases in government student aid allow universities to “blithely” increase tuition without losing students. It is one of the few such data points in the ongoing debate over federal policy and the $1.1 trillion plus in aggregate U.S. student debt that has accumulated as tuitions have soared.

The researchers find specifically that a dollar of added Pell Grants or an added dollar of subsidized direct loans translate to 55 cents and 65 cents in higher tuition, respectively. ….

Not only did tuitions rise when Congress increased aid availability, but for-profit colleges saw their stocks jump, the researchers found. ….

…. A 2012 paper by George Washington University economist Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Harvard economist Claudia Goldin found that greater student aid mostly translated to tuition hikes at for-profit schools. A 2013 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by four economists found that added federal student aid could cause some schools to reduce institutional aid.

I don’t understand why there has to be academic research to find what people already intuitively know, or should know, if they had even a decent High School education. 

While I haven’t read the study yet, so I don’t know if these things were addressed, but, I would suppose that the rest (a dollar of added Pell Grants or an added dollar of subsidized direct loans translate to 55 cents and 65 cents in higher tuition, respectively) …. that leaves 45 cents and 35 cents from the dollar, respectively …. the rest was split between the rise in book costs, rents, dorm charges, etc …..

To reassert, any increase in student aid doesn’t go to the student, it goes directly to the colleges and the staff.  All done on the backs of the US taxpayer. 

But, there’s more to it than just this, which is horrible enough.  In February, I wrote this …

Moronic BS From The Feds And Fox News —- Student Loan Forgiveness!!!!

… Essentially, the colleges have access to the full faith and credit of the US.  Colleges, through student grants and loans have access to unlimited capital provided by the US government.  All they have to do in order to gain more capital is to raise their costs. ——- what’s going to happen, do you imagine?

So, the Fed researchers are catching on, finally!  Nice to know the Fed will eventually study basic economics. 

But, as I said, there’s more to the story, here.  I wrote this back then and I believe it bears repeating ….

But, even this, doesn’t fully describe the problems we have here.  But, it is, in great part, the cause of a greater problem —- that is, the education of people who have no mental capacity to advantage themselves towards the education they’re supposed to have gained. 

Because we’ve given the universities and colleges unlimited access to our money, they’ve lowered their standards to accepting …. well, everyone. Your grades in high school are of no relevance as to whether or not you’re accepted towards advanced education.  Sure, there are some colleges who would not accept people with very poor grades, but, for every one that doesn’t , there are many more who do.  You’re aptitude tests make no difference, either.  That is to say, the ACT and/or the SAT scores have no bearing on your PELL grant, or, your student loan, and, I’ve known several people who enrolled in college and never took the silly tests. 

In other words, the colleges will take you as long has you have the means (money) to pay for their courses.  And, you have the money to pay for the courses, all you have to do is take out a loan ….. backed by the federal government.  Imbecile, or a genius, it doesn’t matter, Uncle Sam has your back …… well, towards being debt ridden and possessing a useless education, anyway.   But, now, forget about the debt!!!!!  The taxpayers got it!!!!

Oh, yeh, as an added benefit, we convince imbeciles they’re worth a lot more than what they really are, and cause some businesses to advocate open borders so we can have illegals doing jobs while our precious imbecilic Johnnys and Janes are borrowing money, that us tax payers will pay back, so they can go to college, to learn about basket weaving, all the while, still being unable to grasp the words of the term paper they hired to get written so they could graduate …….

As stated, I can’t take full credit for the notion that increasing student aid doesn’t do anything but increase the cost of higher education.  William Bennett was the first to fully articulate the notion to the press, but, there were millions of other Americans, even back then, who fully understood this notion, just like most Suyts readers knew it without me having to tell them. 

But, it is nice to see validation. 

Now, if we could just get them to think through to the next step, and understand not only are we not helping the students, but, we’re harming them, this nation, and the quality of higher education itself. 

This is why we have all of the absolutely useless courses of study, today.  It’s free money for everyone!!!  Why do the hard stuff to compete and offer a genuine education when we can offer basket weaving?  Oh, sure, colleges still offer the hard classes so people can get real degrees, but, that’s not where the money is at.  Those are for the minority of people. 


Where is your focus going to be?  People of average intelligence outnumber the people of higher intelligence 2-1.  Where’s the money?  You double your money by focusing on the average rather than the exceptional …..

That is what our student aid is doing for America. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I believe there should be aid available for the exceptional children of modest means, though, perhaps, the aid could come in a different manner than what it does today.  But, there’s absolutely no justification for granting, or even worse, loaning a person with an IQ of <100 towards an advanced education.  We know it will come to no fruition, and only impoverish either the child, or the taxpayer. 

This entry was posted in Economics, Education. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to More Validation Of Suyts Space!!! College Education!!! ….. They’re Almost There!!! And A Suyts Flashback!

  1. DirkH says:

    “The study is evidence in favor of the so-called “Bennett Hypothesis,” formulated by Reagan Department of Education Secretary William Bennett, that increases in government student aid allow universities to “blithely” increase tuition without losing students.”

    Well, if they weren’t stage one thinkers to begin with, they wouldn’t be leftists.

    (In another funny study in Germany, scientists have found out that after birth of a child, women tend to take on the role of childcaring! Well shoot me! Now they’re pondering what to do about it. Because, it’s oppressive.)

    • suyts says:


      I almost asked for a link …. but, no, I can only handle so much in one day, and I work for some very stupid people, so I was past my limit before I started to post.

      • DirkH says:

        Nevermind. They will continue to amuse us til the dough runs out. Which might just happen sooner rather than later.

        But, another thought. These are Fed researchers? They don’t have the slightest talent for some game theoretical thinking? Or any modicum of common sense?

        You know what that means for their economic models? They really are completely in the dark about the consequences of their actions.

  2. leftinflagstaff says:

    Yep. Debt is never forgiven. Someone else pays more to compensate. Forgiveness is just redistribution.

  3. Latitude says:

    Reminds me of when Carter decided that we were not giving people on benefits enough money..
    …so he raised it

    It almost immediately went broke because so many people quit their jobs…and went on benefits

  4. gator69 says:

    Gee, I wonder why we used to tie college scholarships to academic performance?

  5. DirkH says:

    This must be peak Krugman. Says implicitly Greece is where it is because of its conservative economics. Salon had an absynth and a Quaaludes too many and applauds.

    • gator69 says:

      Krugman is the worst kind of leftist…

      Facts are stubborn. Paul Krugman, a renowned economist turned New York Times columnist, is more flexible. But he has a lot to say about budget deficit facts.

      “These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.
      Yet they aren’t facts.”

      And yet, back in 2003 Krugman was “terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.”

      The fiscal 2003 deficit was about $377 billion, or 3.4% of GDP. Krugman worried “that the 10-year deficit will be at least $3 trillion” and about “the future liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.”
      Cut to the present. The deficit hit $1.4 trillion in 2009, or 9.9% of GDP. It’s expected to climb to $1.6 trillion in 2010, part of an $8.5 trillion shortfall over a decade. With baby boomers now starting to retire, the liabilities of Social Security and Medicare aren’t much in the future anymore. But now Krugman claims, “The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.”

      He counsels us that “there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade.”

      In 2003, Krugman lived in Panic City: “The accident — the fiscal train wreck — is already under way.” He worried that when “the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises.” So why won’t the current deficit drive interest rates up? Krugman doesn’t explain. But a key difference, of course, is that now there is a stimulus package — i.e., government spending — to defend. As Krugman said in an earlier column, “What we need right now is more government spending…. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.”
      In 2003, though, there was a tax cut that needed defeating, so “big permanent tax cuts (were) completely crazy” and we had to worry about how a deficit-induced “train wreck (would) play itself out.”

      He’s following an iron law of modern liberalism: Liberals only care about budget deficits insofar as they are useful in defeating tax cuts. When it comes time to unleash government spending, deficits can be largely ignored. (Conservatives often take the opposite stance).

      Near the end of Friday’s column, Krugman surveyed the political landscape and declared that “the hypocrisy is breathtaking.” Indeed.

      A leftist who abandons principles, logic, facts, and all credibility for the temporary “win”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s