Claims she went to college for $50 a semester and then suggests that the Government is what made things cheaper?
You can guess exactly how many people believed her and how many suggested something about her claiming to be Native American.
But assuming it is true (I went to college in the 80s for around $400/semester) then her suggestion is that the cost of higher education has gone up because of a lack of government involvement. Most of the comments seem to suggest that people believe the opposite. But lets start with the claim itself. Are we really spending less on higher education in 2023 than we were back with college was affordable? That claim is dubious
According to the Urban Institute the amount of money spent on higher education by the Government has increased by 189% in inflation adjusted dollars. How does that reconcile with the idea that the problem is not enough Government spending. It certainly seems like the more we spend, the higher the cost of an education. More to the point, when we see the massive amounts of money that are currently being spend on things like DEI and other non-education related expenses, well someone has to pay for that. Once again, when the focus is on pretty much everything other than learning and you are not making decisions based on your bottom line, well then someone has to pay for that. If it is not the stockholders (like we see with AB or Target) then it has to be the consumer. That is what is happening today in college. $10,000 of your tuition is used to teach you a skill, the other $40,000 is to pay for all the rest of the nonsense that the liberals running these schools believes is important.
On the same idea... can anyone tell me why you can to go a state college for $15,000 a year, but an Ivy league costs $150,000 a year? What costs are really involved that create such massive differences in the cost of higher education? Is it really the fact that every professor makes ten times more?
We have a problem with the cost of higher education. The first step to a real solution would be to probe that problem and find what we in the software business refer to as a "root cause" of the issue. This would require someone to take a hard look at the P&L and the expenses these colleges are running on. What is truly costing these students this sort of money? Of course, I am pretty certain that there are many people who are simply uninterested in that root cause. Better to throw more money at the problem, without actually fixing anything.
At the end of the day, the free market system would balance this out. When Microsoft decides to hire just as many people from state colleges as they do from Ivy leagues because they want to teach them their own way anyways (as companies are starting to do), then suddenly it will seem silly to pay the extra money to go to Harvard. Only those who can truly afford to overpay for that Ivy league school for the "prestige" of the degree will do so, and those people will be fewer and farther in-between than those just looking for the best education to get the best jobs. I would be curious to see what the actual difference in salaries are for people within the same industries that went to different colleges? I suspect that the degree only carried them so far. Eventually it is the skill and abilities and job performance that separates people.
A viral image said Warren "was paid $400,000 to teach one class."
Warren earned more than $400,000 for her work as a Harvard Law School professor in 2010 and 2011. Across those two years, she taught two classes, not one. She also left Harvard during the 2010-2011 academic year to advise the government.
Plus, her $400,000 salary would have reflected not only her work in the classroom, but also her reputation, her contributions to Harvard as a researcher and her many years at the university.
We rate this statement Half True.
Well this is from PolitiFact so who knows, plus that was 15 years ago so you need to adjust it up for inflation
But I suspect that is part…