Tuition prices have steadily increased with no jumps matching any of the changes matching changes in student loans and grants for both public and private schools. I find it quite funny that you mocked students attending non-state schools with higher than average job placement rates and pay rates and then argue against competitive private schools. Perhaps you would like students to attend schools like Corinthian?
there still is no tuition crisis
Crisis is definitely a weasel word. But call it what you will, inflation adjusted costs doubling is definitely problematic.
Why is that a relevant statistic?
How much more basic can you get than a statistic than students are carrying more debt than before? You could even just have the statistic be for four year schools and eliminate the med school or post docs. The point would remain the same, debts are increasing. Your first article even points to this indirectly by saying that they have increased by current low interest rates and longer payment schemes are keeping the monthly payment the same. We also know that payrates have stagnated and decreased.
Don't argue ad hominem, look at the facts.
That was my entire point. Only selective facts were given.
in the Brookings study: when you look at the statistics
My point is that they don't include all the statistics. Here is a page with only the numbers and no commentary. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
Adjusted for inflation, average tuition costs have gone up %230 since 1981. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/d... Fill in whatever politics you want around the numbers, but at least be honest with the numbers you are using.
No event or small chains of events can ever be proof or unproof of what the climate is or whether it's changing. The whole point of climate is that it's over a long time. So evidence of what happened requires long time scales. But that doesn't mean you can't have predictive models. Evaluating models with data sets is key. But if you think that you can prove or disprove a model with only one data point, you are going to have a bad time. If you want clean proofs, stick with pure math. Inconclusive data and blurred lines are the trademark of applied sciences. Especially ones with many variables.
This is not news. It shouldn't even be a talking point. This is only in the headlines because of how unfortunately politicized this topic has become.
It's pretty common shorthand for not equal to.
I see on slashdot all the time about going back to doing honest detective work where you find out who is really causing trouble in the neighborhood rather throwing out a monitoring dragnet or throwing absurd punishments rather than trying to aim for reforming the person. I have a hard time complaining about this as long as there is monitoring that data is fair and collected/retained in an appropriate manner.
Why wouldn't you put additional resources to stopping an Al Capone over some kid who got caught as a rumrunner. Sounds like they are trying to apply common sense with collected data.
I know at my work monitoring the systems has yielded some cost savings. Somethings make more sense at an industrial scale and a lot of the tools were there before the IoT fad. I also know that the consumer products will improve and there will be some good ones. Maybe a furnace that lets you know before it fails. Or in college I would have liked to know, if all the washers were in use before hauling my laundry there. But this is no where near as big of a game changer as the internet.
Don't get me wrong there are definite use cases, even if some have small audiences. But I think the suggestion that this is as big of a game changer as the internet is silly. Way back in the 90's when the internet was getting started even then people recognized the usefulness. Being able to have messages sent instantly and be able to give information on topics. No one is nearly as excited to have their remote tell them their lawn mower needs it's oil changed and that they burnt their poptart. Let alone be left in the dark for the night because their light bulb got a virus.