Are people taking student loans really this dumb?

[TankTop5]

I feel like I entered The Twilight Zone.

Adding and taking away is mentioned on the last page of Revelations. That's the NT. It seems like you're disputing that. Are you disputing THAT? I feel like there is no way in hell you just told me I didn't reed what I red where I just red it. The phonetic spelling is there for clarity.



Understanding and knowing are a lot closer in meaning than:



and



I get that you may have meant to use the word 'everything' in your initial post but you didn't and now you claim that you did.

Neither of your assertions are true. Please don't be offended. That's not my intent but I'm not letting you make this up as you go along. I guess that's all.

That verse is widely accepted by scholars as being added to the canon of scripture, in other words not in the original text.


Knowing what the Bible says and understanding what it says are two completely different thing. True much of the statements in the Bible are plain but many “prophesies” are not, there are numerous prophesies in the Bible that when made they made no sense but as they were fulfilled it was made clear that they were stated clearly and concisely but the original recipient didn’t foresee the events surrounding the timeframe the prophesy would take place and therefore had no understanding how the events would unfold. For example, Mark 13:2 New International Version
"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.". Nobody understood that the Temple would be burned and the large amounts of gold would melt between stones, scavengers overturned every last stone looking for the melted gold, these ore historical facts and well documented but the original heaters of this prophesy had no clue what it meant.

Not sure about your statement “everything”, feel free to elaborate.

I’m also not sure what you mean by I’m making it up as I go along?

...

Here’s food for thought. There isn’t a single form of radiation we can observe, only it’s effects on matter. We can’t see light, we can only observe it’s reflection off matter and classify what we observe. The same goes with magnetic, ultra violet, infra red, radio, microwave, thermal, short wave, long wave, alpha, gamma, beta, gravity and I’m sure I’m missing others. We cannot observe any form of radiation nor do we actually know what any of it is, we can simply observe it’s interaction with matter and categorize what that interaction is. Furthermore as the phenomena we observe is affected by speeds approaching the speed of light or massive gravitational forces (near a black hole or infinitely more so as we approach the theory of the Big Bang) our classifications of what we observe break down and our understanding of the “laws” of physics break down as well and we can simply guess although our guesses are proven wrong regularly. The same is true as we observe matter and energy on the quantum scale, all of the laws of physics as we understand them break down and we have no rational explanation. So your analogy of understanding what we see or what we read is fundamentally flawed, God creating the universe in six days from my perspective compared to Gods, the six pounds on top of my or your shoulders may not be able of extrapolating the meaning of the words in the page but that in no way diminishes the validity of the statement. I’m also not trying to argue but state that by our limited understanding of the laws of the universe we may not have the potential to understand at this time. Whether it was creation or a Big Bang neither of us know but we both accept our version by Faith, who knows, the two may compliment each other beautifully but I’m not smart enough to know for sure. Einstein’s theory of relativity is amazing but how many theories did he come up with that were wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pewternhrata]

I didn't say that all student loan takers are irresponsible. Taking out $100K in loans to get a STEM degree just might pay off in a reasonable timeframe. Many physicians take loans. On the other hand, law schools these days are about $30K per year for three years, just for tuition, but the starting salaries for entry level attorneys average $50K. Talk about a bet on the future.

I think lenders have to be forced to assess the viability of a student's degree program, and perhaps take a more active role in making sure they get a degree. Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcies would IMO force the loan industry to become more responsible, or they would go bankrupt along with their loan-takers. Every time the government gives special protections for anything distortions in the economy result. In California it's something as dumb as electric cars getting free use of carpool lanes. Tax loopholes that subsidize losses. Low road use taxes that make trucking cheap, so the interstates are filled with trucks.

I agree, wasn't anything I didnt agree with on your end fully. I do like your response to bankruptcy forcing lenders to be more responsible (side note, I'm not necessarily in favor of adding more government regulations) I do see/understand that there is an abuse on both sides (lender and borrower) lenders take risks; education vs payoff is a big risk, lenders are definitely greedy as we've seen in the past and present. Future lending needs controlled, and to me, the viability as you referred, could be a good start.

 

[highfigh]

Or are these articles written just to highlight some really dumb examples?

How student debt came to define people's lives

Student loans have become a defining feature of American life. Over the past decade, these loans have made it harder for people to purchase houses, start businesses and families, save or invest.

www.cnbc.com

Two examples from the article:

A woman who got a doctorate in "naturopathic" medicine and a masters in acupuncture eight years ago, and still owes nearly $500K. We should spend tax dollars on forgiveness for this silliness?

Or the woman who earned an unspecified degree from Purdue, has $43K in education debt, and now works for a non-profit making $30K per year, or about $14/hour. I wonder how she thought she'd repay $43K on $14/hour. That's over 3,000 hours of work at her before-tax wage.

I'm still thinking the best alternative is to let these borrowers declare bankruptcy, and allow student loans to be discharged like other debts (current law says student loans transcend bankruptcy), screwing the lenders, not the taxpayers. Some of these borrowers do appear to be unbelievably stupid, but these lenders appear to be predators.

I think that a lot of the problem lies with the colleges/universities- how do they sleep, knowing that the debt piled up by students will never be paid.

Never mind, it's obvious- they were paid, so they don't need to think about the problem.

To be a bit fair to colleges and universities, it's also true that they don't receive the money from government they once did, and I fail to see how someone who gets a fluff degree can pay for their schooling when there's no demand for people with their education but those people seem too willing to settle for low-paying jobs that will never amount to a decent career. Maybe some of them expected to get their MRS degree, but it never panned out.

 

[highfigh]

Understanding and knowing are a lot closer in meaning than:

He wrote that he believes what's in the Bible, not that he knows it's true or that he understands it.

 

[KEW]

There was a period where getting a college degree was worthwhile regardless of the major. I don't know if it is still the case, but if you wanted to be a pilot for an airline, you used to need a degree...any degree. And it was also seen as a benchmark (similar to many jobs requiring a HS degree).
When I worked nuclear construction, we had two guys in different areas that had no degree, but they definitely had a knack for the mechanics of getting equipment set and aligned to minimize friction when in operation. They could have made much more if they also had a degree in engineering or even physics (or any degree), but as it was, engineering supervisors and managers worked hard to get these guys a place where their talents would be best used.
I really liked working nuclear (at least the way Ga Power Co did it in the early-mid 80's) because it was understood by all that at the end of the day, the priority was doing everything in the best (ultimately safest) way possible, and we had VP's constantly coming in for Atlanta and reiterating that we individually had the power to shut down anything that was of questionable quality along with whistle-blower options. To my knowledge, the whistle-blower stuff never happened because this was such a part of the culture that there was never reason to go behind our supervisors' back

 

[highfigh]

I know someone who was living in MKE and making money as a bartender while she was in college. One night at the bar, I found that she was incredibly pissed off and asked why. She spouted that college was BS and there claims that people will get a good job after graduating was a complete lie. When I asked about her major, she said "Drawing and painting". Rather than give her a hard time about choosing that as her choice, I asked her about the kinds of jobs she had expected to get with that degree and she didn't know, nor did the university help her figure that out. While I have to say that she was pretty headstrong, I also have to place some of the blame on her parents for not getting her to see the world as it is. Maybe she hoped to meet a husband and 'marry well', as women had dome in the past but she wasn't even getting into computer graphics, so I really blame the uni for a lot of this. I have no idea about her level of debt, but I'm pretty sure her parents are pretty well off.

While she was working as a bartender and before her tirade, she had bought a duplex in a rather rough area and started fixing it up. She also found that the immediate area had some drug houses and more crime than I would have been comfortable living with. She said that she had held a meeting with some of the other rental property owners and told them that raising rent prices would make the drug house renters leave and they would attract better people, which is what happened. Pretty good for someone who wasn't even 25 years old, eh?

After she had been venting for a while, I mentioned the fact that she seemed interested in real estate and that she might look into that- I know a lot of realtors and they make good money without necessarily having a business degree- just a good head for it. She started working for a realtor, got her license and her goals soon changed, drastically. She bought another duplex and decided that she wanted to own a whole city block. Not something she learned studying drawing and painting.

She went on to get her MBA, has created an LLC for her real estate, work for a major developer as development manager and and is now a tax analyst.

I keep hoping to see some kind of gift, but.......

 

[highfigh]

There was a period where getting a college degree was worthwhile regardless of teh major. I don't know if it is still the case, but if you wanted to be a pilot for an airline, you used to need a degree...any degree. And it was also seen as a benchmark (similar to many jobs requiring a HS degree).
When I worked nuclear construction, we had two guys in different areas that had no degree, but they definitely had a knack for the mechanics of getting equipment set and aligned to minimize friction when in operation. They could have made much more if they also had a degree in engineering or even physics (or any degree), but as it was, engineering supervisors and managers worked hard to get these guys a place where their talents would be best used.
I really liked working nuclear (at least the way Ga Power Co did it in the early-mid 80's) because it was understood by all that at the end of the day, the priority was doing everything in the best (ultimately safest) way possible, and we had VP's constantly coming in for Atlanta and reiterating that we individually had the power to shut down anything that was of questionable quality along with whistle-blower options. To my knowledge, the whistle-blower stuff never happened because this was such a part of the culture that there was no reason to go behind our supervisors' back

My dad used to tell me that a college degree taught people to think. In light of what I have seen over the decades, I guess that ship has sailed.

Did you work with people from the Kansas City office of a company called Burns & McDonnell?

 

[Alex2507]

He wrote that he believes what's in the Bible, not that he knows it's true or that he understands it.

I don’t understand what it says.

I said I don’t understand everything it says.

That's what he wrote.

I can't illustrate the difference any better.

 

[Swerd]

Wow, what a thread !

I won't comment on TankTop5's comments. They are irrelevant to the original post. Others here have done a good job at taking on his posts. As far as his religious beliefs go, this country is based on freedom of religion. That means no government, federal, state, or local, can favor or support one religion over another. That constitutional clause has been extended to allow people to freely practice whatever religion they choose – including no religion at all. I gladly defend that. But, at the same time, I will feel free to openly criticize ideas – even fervently held religious ideas – if I disagree with them.

On the subject of debt resulting from student loans, I have a much different take. Over the years, the cost of a 4-year undergraduate education, a bachelor's degree, has kept up with inflation. (I don't include the costs of law school, medical school, or other professional graduate degree programs.)

To give a time reference, I began college in 1966 and graduated in 1970. I was lucky, as my parents could pay for it. I knew plenty of others who needed financial support, scholarships, loans, and/or part-time jobs just so they could afford school. I went to a state university, University of North Carolina, as an out-of-state student, so tuition was more than for in-state students, but less than for private colleges. At the time, my father kept good records of what he paid. For 4 years, the grand sum was a bit over $13,000, or $3,250 each year.

At that time, a new car cost anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. A VW Beetle sold for $2,000, and most US made cars sold for roughly $3,000-5,000 depending on make & model. An imported car like a Mercedes or BMW sold for about $4,000. So, my college education cost the same as a new Chevy or Ford, each year. Private college costs were about equal to a new Mercedes or Cadillac each year.

In the early 2000s, I sent my two kids to college. College tuition and new car costs had kept up. A year in college was still about equal to a new car.

So, I don't buy the argument that college costs have spiraled out of control. Our economy has undergone major growth and the accompanying inflation over these years. What hasn't kept up is middle class pay.

 

[bigkrazy155]

@Swerd do you have empirical data to back up your point on inflation? It doesn't seem to be correct: https://inflationdata.com/articles/charts/college-tuition-fees-inflation/

 

[Irvrobinson]

Here’s food for thought. There isn’t a single form of radiation we can observe, only it’s effects on matter. We can’t see light, we can only observe it’s reflection off matter and classify what we observe. The same goes with magnetic, ultra violet, infra red, radio, microwave, thermal, short wave, long wave, alpha, gamma, beta, gravity and I’m sure I’m missing others. We cannot observe any form of radiation nor do we actually know what any of it is, we can simply observe it’s interaction with matter and categorize what that interaction is. Furthermore as the phenomena we observe is affected by speeds approaching the speed of light or massive gravitational forces (near a black hole or infinitely more so as we approach the theory of the Big Bang) our classifications of what we observe break down and our understanding of the “laws” of physics break down as well and we can simply guess although our guesses are proven wrong regularly. The same is true as we observe matter and energy on the quantum scale, all of the laws of physics as we understand them break down and we have no rational explanation. So your analogy of understanding what we see or what we read is fundamentally flawed, God creating the universe in six days from my perspective compared to Gods, the six pounds on top of my or your shoulders may not be able of extrapolating the meaning of the words in the page but that in no way diminishes the validity of the statement. I’m also not trying to argue but state that by our limited understanding of the laws of the universe we may not have the potential to understand at this time. Whether it was creation or a Big Bang neither of us know but we both accept our version by Faith, who knows, the two may compliment each other beautifully but I’m not smart enough to know for sure. Einstein’s theory of relativity is amazing but how many theories did he come up with that were wrong?

More like junk food for thought. The ultimate test of whether or not our understanding of physics is correct is when you can test a theory by direct observation (such as light being bent by gravity), or by building a device whose operation depends on the validity of the theory. Quantum mechanics is sufficiently well understood that many machines have been built that are proven to function and would not properly function if the theories about quantum mechanics were incorrect. The most common example is Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). It depends on electron spin being a real phenomenon to function. Quantum computers depend on entanglement, perhaps the most deviant phenomenon of all from classic physics, as does quantum cryptography. The assertion that "we have no rational explanation" is just silly. There isn't a contradiction between behaviors at very small sizes (sub-atomic particles) and those at much larger sizes. Do you know why clouds weigh more than a million pounds yet float in the air? It's not due to quantum mechanics, but it does show a real world example of how behaviors of very tiny things can be different than for much larger things.

I don't understand your question about Einstein at all. This is a guy who predicted the existence of gravity waves over 100 years ago, and you're wondering what he was wrong about? If you have to make yourself feel better though, search for "Cosmological Constant".

I do understand not accepting that the universe as we see it is simply the product of random events, some famous astrophysicists seem to wonder the same thing, but trying to discount proven physics as a means to justify completely unproven assertions of faith is invalid.

 

[Irvrobinson]

@Swerd do you have empirical data to back up your point on inflation? It doesn't seem to be correct: https://inflationdata.com/articles/charts/college-tuition-fees-inflation/

That data only goes to 2011, but here's another analysis that is more current:

Here’s how much more expensive it is for you to go to college than it was for your parents

The price of college tuition has spiked in the last 30 years.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Swerd]

@Swerd do you have empirical data to back up your point on inflation? It doesn't seem to be correct: https://inflationdata.com/articles/charts/college-tuition-fees-inflation/

College tuition costs are only one item. So are new car prices. What happens if you compare college tuition costs to new TV prices, new computer prices, or the price of gasoline? It varies widely. I understand that, and that's why I limited my comment to college tuition vs. new car prices. My previous comment holds up as a single common-sense example.

Without fully revealing how that publication you cited arrived at its average consumer price inflation data, all their methods and assumptions, summaries like that are useless. Were their methods identical to those of other economic publications in past decades? Who knows? As a result, simple comparisons may or may not be useful.

And again, as I said previously, these analyses ignore how middle class pay has declined over the decades.

They also ignore how banking deregulation, starting in the 1990s, has created guaranteed profits for college loan lenders, without bankrupcy penalties that apply for most other loans. As long as it generates profits for lenders, why would they stop lending money to people who should know better?

 

[Swerd]

That data only goes to 2011, but here's another analysis that is more current:

Here’s how much more expensive it is for you to go to college than it was for your parents

The price of college tuition has spiked in the last 30 years.

www.cnbc.com

My same argument goes for your popular press citation. Any economics student with a BA degree could easily rip it to shreds – or use to support what ever axe they have to grind.

 

[highfigh]

That's what he wrote.

I can't illustrate the difference any better.

Here's a quote that's as written-

"I’m a Christian, I believe the Bible is 100% correct, I’m also 100% convinced I don’t understand what it says. Just think, God is conveying things from a Godly perspective, I’m viewing from a human perspective and am unable to comprehend or see it from His perspective."

It's clearly not necessary to understand or know something in order to believe it.

 

[TankTop5]

Wow, what a thread !

I won't comment on TankTop5's comments. They are irrelevant to the original post. Others here have done a good job at taking on his posts. As far as his religious beliefs go, this country is based on freedom of religion. That means no government, federal, state, or local, can favor or support one religion over another. That constitutional clause has been extended to allow people to freely practice whatever religion they choose – including no religion at all. I gladly defend that. But, at the same time, I will feel free to openly criticize ideas – even fervently held religious ideas – if I disagree with them.

I think I went off on a tangent, my point was there’s a lot more room for open discussion, there’s no such thing as settled science. That is unless someone brings up a religious viewpoint, then somehow it is settle science and there is no room for discussion.

Back on topic, the real root of our current student debt problem is the nationalizing of student loans. I sold cars for 15 years, if the government nationalized auto loans and eliminated bankruptcy protections then the price of cars would go up tremendously. As it is vehicle pricing has about doubled just in my career far outpacing inflation. This in direct proportion to ultra low interest rates and subprime predatory lending.

What if student loan applications looked at high school GPA’s, entrance exams and potential income. Currently nobody cares if you can’t make more than $30k a year so long as it’s a 40 year loan and the IRS can go after your estate when you die.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[highfigh]

Wow, what a thread !

I won't comment on TankTop5's comments. They are irrelevant to the original post. Others here have done a good job at taking on his posts. As far as his religious beliefs go, this country is based on freedom of religion. That means no government, federal, state, or local, can favor or support one religion over another. That constitutional clause has been extended to allow people to freely practice whatever religion they choose – including no religion at all. I gladly defend that. But, at the same time, I will feel free to openly criticize ideas – even fervently held religious ideas – if I disagree with them.

On the subject of debt resulting from student loans, I have a much different take. Over the years, the cost of a 4-year undergraduate education, a bachelor's degree, has kept up with inflation. (I don't include the costs of law school, medical school, or other professional graduate degree programs.)

To give a time reference, I began college in 1966 and graduated in 1970. I was lucky, as my parents could pay for it. I knew plenty of others who needed financial support, scholarships, loans, and/or part-time jobs just so they could afford school. I went to a state university, University of North Carolina, as an out-of-state student, so tuition was more than for in-state students, but less than for private colleges. At the time, my father kept good records of what he paid. For 4 years, the grand sum was a bit over $13,000, or $3,250 each year.

At that time, a new car cost anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. A VW Beetle sold for $2,000, and most US made cars sold for roughly $3,000-5,000 depending on make & model. An imported car like a Mercedes or BMW sold for about $4,000. So, my college education cost the same as a new Chevy or Ford, each year. Private college costs were about equal to a new Mercedes or Cadillac each year.

In the early 2000s, I sent my two kids to college. College tuition and new car costs had kept up. A year in college was still about equal to a new car.

So, I don't buy the argument that college costs have spiraled out of control. Our economy has undergone major growth and the accompanying inflation over these years. What hasn't kept up is middle class pay.

Here's an interesting link- it shows that 20% of Harvard families pay nothing for tuition-

Affordability

For 90% of American families, Harvard is more affordable than their local state school.

college.harvard.edu

I think that more people need to look into ways to reduce the cost of college- grants, scholarships and endowments reduce the cost, but it may be that people need to be told, rather than do the work to find out for themselves.

As far as the cost not spiraling, I doubt the facilities and everything else that was offered by the schools is exactly the same now as it was in the past. I went to Milwaukee School of Engineering after high school cost $775/quarter with three quarters making up a full year- students could go during Summer if they wanted, but many worked and made money for the upcoming year. My friends from HS who were going to the local branch of a University of Wisconsin school would complain that tuition was expensive, at $330/semester. I laughed at them. UW-Milwaukee is now close to $9500/year while MSOE is charging close to $13,500/quarter. I transferred to UW-M and many of the credits from MSOE didn't transfer, even though MSOE taught the engineering aspects of my curriculum and UW-M didn't, unless someone was in graduate school. MSOE's president was old and behind the times when I was there, the ones who have come along since then have been younger, in tough and understand that fundraising is extremely important- UW- is a state-run system that accumulated over a billion dollars in money from estates & other gifts but still asked the state for more money and increased tuition on a regular basis- MSOE has improved their facilities to an incredible degree since I was there and their graduates make more than the average for people from other schools.

Blanket statements don't work for this issue, from any perspective.

 

[highfigh]

Back on topic, the real root of our current student debt problem is the nationalizing of student loans. I sold cars for 15 years, if the government nationalized auto loans and eliminated bankruptcy protections then the price of cars would go up tremendously. As it is vehicle pricing has about doubled just in my career far outpacing inflation. This in direct proportion to ultra low interest rates and subprime predatory lending.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But let's look at the reasons for the increase in the price of cars & trucks- one of the main costs is because of emission requirements, while another is in the way people have decided that they need one kind of vehicle over the others- it's just supply & demand. Most people don't need SUVs, yet they're one of the most popular segments of the market. Why does a pickup truck come with a price sticker of more than $50K? Because people will pay the price and they can lease one at a price that fits their budget but they won't have these vehicles 40 years after they sign on the dotted line, either. I don't see how vehicle cost is similar to education cost.

 

[bigkrazy155]

College tuition costs are only one item. So are new car prices. What happens if you compare college tuition costs to new TV prices, new computer prices, or the price of gasoline? It varies widely. I understand that, and that's why I limited my comment to college tuition vs. new car prices. My previous comment holds up as a single common-sense example.

Without fully revealing how that publication you cited arrived at its average consumer price inflation data, all their methods and assumptions, summaries like that are useless. Were their methods identical to those of other economic publications in past decades? Who knows? As a result, simple comparisons may or may not be useful.

And again, as I said previously, these analyses ignore how middle class pay has declined over the decades.

They also ignore how banking deregulation, starting in the 1990s, has created guaranteed profits for college loan lenders, without bankrupcy penalties that apply for most other loans. As long as it generates profits for lenders, why would they stop lending money to people who should know better?

CPI-U is the consumer price index calculated by the federal government. It is effectively the yardstick that inflation is measured against. It seems to debunk your premise. That's why I was asking if there were data that I'm missing and unaware of. I remain open to such data!

Also, all predatory lending has been solely sourced from the federal government since 2010.

 

[Irvrobinson]

On the subject of debt resulting from student loans, I have a much different take. Over the years, the cost of a 4-year undergraduate education, a bachelor's degree, has kept up with inflation. (I don't include the costs of law school, medical school, or other professional graduate degree programs.)

To give a time reference, I began college in 1966 and graduated in 1970. I was lucky, as my parents could pay for it. I knew plenty of others who needed financial support, scholarships, loans, and/or part-time jobs just so they could afford school. I went to a state university, University of North Carolina, as an out-of-state student, so tuition was more than for in-state students, but less than for private colleges. At the time, my father kept good records of what he paid. For 4 years, the grand sum was a bit over $13,000, or $3,250 each year.

At that time, a new car cost anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. A VW Beetle sold for $2,000, and most US made cars sold for roughly $3,000-5,000 depending on make & model. An imported car like a Mercedes or BMW sold for about $4,000. So, my college education cost the same as a new Chevy or Ford, each year. Private college costs were about equal to a new Mercedes or Cadillac each year.

In the early 2000s, I sent my two kids to college. College tuition and new car costs had kept up. A year in college was still about equal to a new car.

So, I don't buy the argument that college costs have spiraled out of control. Our economy has undergone major growth and the accompanying inflation over these years. What hasn't kept up is middle class pay.

I'm not buying your argument. I just looked it up, and one year of undergrad out of state tuition at UNC is now $34K. That doesn't include fees or textbooks of course. For that $34K you probably get a year of education roughly similar in quality to what you received. An average new Chevy sedan, say a Malibu, does not cost $34K, it's more like $22K, at least for the base price, but that doesn't include discounts. And the latest Malibu is a wildly better car than a 1970 Malibu. Do you think a year of undergrad education in 2019 is substantially better than a year in 1970? Personally, I doubt it.

The inflation calculations used in the two articles are using the CPI, which is a US government calculation which everyone argues over. I'm not a graduate economist (my wife is, but she's biased, because she thinks everything in the government is screwed up), and I can argue about it for hours. The point of these articles is only that tuition costs have risen faster than the Consumer Price Index. It is also true, IMO, that the jobs available to unskilled or low-skilled people have declined in number since 1970, so what a lot of people consider middle class workers have fewer opportunities open to them. Anyone can look at the number of manufacturing jobs in the US over the years has declined while the population has risen:

Even many police forces now like to see a college degree of some sort. I think you are over-simplifying the problem. The real problems, IMO, are that the US primary and secondary education systems aren't competitive or effective, that a large fraction of the population doesn't value education as much as they should, and that the US is woefully behind on skilled labor training.