Scott Arellano just wants to kick balls

https://www.gofundme.com/scottarellano?rcid=c5e8c220a0ce47e0a135c835cf1c3e10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My name is Scott Arellano and I have 1-2 more years to follow my dreams of playing professional football, whether that be in Canada or the United States. I am a husband and father of two amazing children, Brooklyn(5) and Kyler(2).





For the last few years I have been the punter at Brigham Young University. Through hard work, mental and physical training, and attention to detail, I became one of the top punters in college football. With all my success at the college level, I failed to make it to the NFL. I refuse to let that experience discourage me because I still feel there is more for me to achieve.



...

Good luck to Scott on getting another shot at pro play.

I wish him luck--and see that he has already hit the amount he estimated he would need. It is great that the BYU community supports their own in endeavors like this.



At the same time I think it is kind of weird to ask people for $2300 to go to kicking camps and travel to events (here comes the rain of down votes I'm sure) to chase a dream. If I was in that situation I don't think I would ask for money but find a way to cover that investment a different way. But that's just me.

I'm with you, Fido, so any downvotes for that can come to me too. I'd never ask anyone for money to chase that kind of dream.

Fido wrote:
I wish him luck--and see that he has already hit the amount he estimated he would need. It is great that the BYU community supports their own in endeavors like this.



At the same time I think it is kind of weird to ask people for $2300 to go to kicking camps and travel to events (here comes the rain of down votes I'm sure) to chase a dream. If I was in that situation I don't think I would ask for money but find a way to cover that investment a different way. But that's just me.

I would be too proud to ask the public for money to chase my dreams. After my time at BYU I borrowed money from my rich auntie Sallie Mae to go to graduate school. But he was willing to put his pride aside, and it seems like there are people willing to give it so - good for him.

It's a different generation now that has fewer qualms about asking others to pay for their wants. There's thousands of kids on GoFundMe asking for money for cars.



Even worse, at any given time you'll see 20+ LDS (allegedly) kids on there asking for donations to fund their missions.



That said, I am okay with Arellano's use of GoFundMe for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pursue a fleeting goal, and for folks that use it for legitimate charitable and emergency situations.

I have a dream of retiring and doing nothing but whatever I feel like doing...as well as serving a mission or two with my wife. Unfortunately, I am taking to old school way of going about it, so I have 19 and a half years to go. But mine is not as time sensitive as Arrellano's is...well, at least as far as I know. :bug:



I could just see my gofundme ad. "For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be retired. In high school, when they asked what you want to do in the future, my response was...be retired. Since there are no reality TV shows that will pay me to do whatever I feel like doing...and I would want my privacy anyway, the only reasonable choice left is to rely on all of you to put forth just a little of your money, $10 or $20 thousand dollars to allow me to retire now and fulfill my lifelong dream. Once I hit $2 million dollars, its so long to life as a federal government employee for me..."

GoFundMe is going to ruin Disney movies. Instead of watching movies like Rudy where a kid works hard, overcomes the odds and achieves their goal, we'll be subjected to movies about kids that needed 5k so they asked the internet for money.



Maybe I am doing something wrong.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Gunk wrote:
GoFundMe is going to ruin Disney movies. Instead of watching movies like Rudy where a kid works hard, overcomes the odds and achieves their goal, we'll be subjected to movies about kids that needed 5k so they asked the internet for money.



Maybe I am doing something wrong.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That's the problem with this generation. Ask the internet for money without thinking that a real flesh and blood person has to give it.

I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans or federal government jobs.



It's amazing how everyone thinks their way is the more moral way.

jvquarterback wrote:
I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans.

I'm not sure I get this - do you keep your money in a government-backed bank account?

ABYUFAN wrote:

I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans.

I'm not sure I get this - do you keep your money in a government-backed bank account?

I think he/she is referring to student loans, which are government backed and drive the cost of tuition sky high.

Brayden Green wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans.

I'm not sure I get this - do you keep your money in a government-backed bank account?

I think he/she is referring to student loans, which are government backed and drive the cost of tuition sky high.

How do student loans drive the cost of tuition sky high?

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans.

I'm not sure I get this - do you keep your money in a government-backed bank account?

I think he/she is referring to student loans, which are government backed and drive the cost of tuition sky high.

How do student loans drive the cost of tuition sky high?

It's basic economics, really. Supply and Demand. When demand is high and supply is low, the price of goods gets driven up.



Government guaranteed loans (which are easy to get, even if you are an 18 year old kid with absolutely no credit, no job, or any kind of collateral whatsoever) are driving up the cost of tuition. It was very easy to see, and conservative economists have been warning about it for decades. The government doesn't care about racking up debt. Back when student loans where private, kids could get declined if they weren't good candidates. Less customers means that you have to lower the cost. If you have more customers than seats available, you drive it up.

Earlier this summer, a team from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Brigham Young University released the latest paper suggesting that, indeed, the man was right. Looking at both public and private nonprofit colleges during the mid-2000s, they found that schools raised tuition by 55 cents for each $1 increase in Pell grants their undergraduates received, and by 60 to 70 cents for each extra dollar of subsidized student loans. Some schools seemed more eager than others to raise their prices when the government made more aid available, the worst offenders being private colleges with high tuition and high admission rates—what you might call schools for unexceptional rich kids.



Why would this happen? As the Roosevelt Institute's Mike Konczal points out, the answer is a little less obvious than you might assume—in a world of rational econo-bots, people aren't supposed to willingly pay more for an investment, such as a college degree, just because they can get a loan for it.* But the reality is that there are still lots of 18-year-olds who will pay more or less whatever it takes to attend the college of their choice so long as they can find the cash. By letting students borrow more, the government may just be inviting schools to raise tuition, knowing kids simply respond by taking on extra debt.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/08/student_loans_drive_up_college_costs_what_should_we_do_about_it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-09/why-is-college-tuition-rising-blame-student-loans-fed-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brayden Green wrote:

Brayden Green wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I'd rather have someone ask for the money than take it via government backed loans.

I'm not sure I get this - do you keep your money in a government-backed bank account?

I think he/she is referring to student loans, which are government backed and drive the cost of tuition sky high.

How do student loans drive the cost of tuition sky high?

It's basic economics, really. Supply and Demand. When demand is high and supply is low, the price of goods gets driven up.



Government guaranteed loans (which are easy to get, even if you are an 18 year old kid with absolutely no credit, no job, or any kind of collateral whatsoever) are driving up the cost of tuition. It was very easy to see, and conservative economists have been warning about it for decades. The government doesn't care about racking up debt. Back when student loans where private, kids could get declined if they weren't good candidates. Less customers means that you have to lower the cost. If you have more customers than seats available, you drive it up.

Earlier this summer, a team from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Brigham Young University released the latest paper suggesting that, indeed, the man was right. Looking at both public and private nonprofit colleges during the mid-2000s, they found that schools raised tuition by 55 cents for each $1 increase in Pell grants their undergraduates received, and by 60 to 70 cents for each extra dollar of subsidized student loans. Some schools seemed more eager than others to raise their prices when the government made more aid available, the worst offenders being private colleges with high tuition and high admission rates—what you might call schools for unexceptional rich kids.



Why would this happen? As the Roosevelt Institute's Mike Konczal points out, the answer is a little less obvious than you might assume—in a world of rational econo-bots, people aren't supposed to willingly pay more for an investment, such as a college degree, just because they can get a loan for it.* But the reality is that there are still lots of 18-year-olds who will pay more or less whatever it takes to attend the college of their choice so long as they can find the cash. By letting students borrow more, the government may just be inviting schools to raise tuition, knowing kids simply respond by taking on extra debt.



http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/08/student_loans_drive_up_college_costs_what_should_we_do_about_it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-09/why-is-college-tuition-rising-blame-student-loans-fed-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I graduated from BYU in 1995 I was paying $1,225 a year in tuition. I believe that that translates to $1,935.00 in inflation alone today. However today BYU's tuition is $2,575.00.



So because the federal government makes it possible for more people to go to school, you believe that the roughly $600 difference in a semester of tuition is attributed to that? (and only that?)



And is $600.00 a semester really "sky high"? - that's like $150.00 a month. Most people pay about that for a cell phone plan.

I think BYU has done an exceptional job at keeping tuition affordable so that current and former students like me could afford a great undergraduate degree without student loans.

Which is why BYU is given awards yearly for affordable tuition. Other schools, not so much. Did you look at Yale, Mizzou, Kansas, UCLA, U of U, USC, UVU, Oregon, UNLV, SDSU during that time period?



Of course you didn't. Because the sample size of a private, religious-funded-subsidization model is enough information to go on.



/facepalm



EDIT: This sounded jerkish. It was more TIC. Sorry.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So if I understand the argument, it is that if the federal government stopped backing loans, this would reduce demand for a college education, because fewer people see a college education as obtainable, which would then cause tuition to fall because falling demand leads to lower prices if the supply stays the same--that is what the economists are saying, yes? It makes some sense, but at what cost? Obviously it would lead to fewer college students, unless the economists are contending that the drop in student loans would drop tuition essentially on a one to one basis, meaning the cost to students would not change one bit. But if that is true, doesn't it mean that demand does not change and so prices would still stay high? In any event, what is the acceptable cost to society of few college graduates? These are thorny issues. All I know is that for several members of my family they would not have been able to avail themselves of higher education without student loans backed by the federal government. There was no other way to fund the education and it was not at some fancy pants Ivy league school. One final thought: if this is true maybe we can get Fannie and Freddie to quit backing mortgage loans. This should lead to fewer house loans which will cause house prices to go down and then maybe more of us can afford one!

Brayden Green wrote:
Which is why BYU is given awards yearly for affordable tuition. Other schools, not so much. Did you look at Yale, Mizzou, Kansas, UCLA, U of U, USC, UVU, Oregon, UNLV, SDSU during that time period?



Of course you didn't. Because the sample size of a private, religious-funded-subsidization model is enough information to go on.



/facepalm



EDIT: This sounded jerkish. It was more TIC. Sorry.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Honestly I only looked at BYU because that is all I really care about. I paid tuition all my my lonesome when attending there in 1995, and I will again be paying tuition when my son goes there in September. Hopefully I only pay two generations of tuition to BYU.



I feel bad that because I took out a student loan to pay for graduate school that now I am partially responsible the sky high cost of education to millions of other Americans

I'm a bad bad man

ABYUFAN wrote:

Which is why BYU is given awards yearly for affordable tuition. Other schools, not so much. Did you look at Yale, Mizzou, Kansas, UCLA, U of U, USC, UVU, Oregon, UNLV, SDSU during that time period?



Of course you didn't. Because the sample size of a private, religious-funded-subsidization model is enough information to go on.



/facepalm



EDIT: This sounded jerkish. It was more TIC. Sorry.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Honestly I only looked at BYU because that is all I really care about. I paid tuition all my my lonesome when attending there in 1995, and I will again be paying tuition when my son goes there in September. Hopefully I only pay two generations of tuition to BYU.



I feel bad that because I took out a student loan to pay for graduate school that now I am partially responsible the sky high cost of education to millions of other Americans

I'm a bad bad man

Anyone that has a license plate that says ABYUFAN can't be all that bad, imo ;)

BoiseBYU wrote:
So if I understand the argument, it is that if the federal government stopped backing loans, this would reduce demand for a college education, because fewer people see a college education as obtainable, which would then cause tuition to fall because falling demand leads to lower prices if the supply stays the same--that is what the economists are saying, yes? It makes some sense, but at what cost? Obviously it would lead to fewer college students, unless the economists are contending that the drop in student loans would drop tuition essentially on a one to one basis, meaning the cost to students would not change one bit. But if that is true, doesn't it mean that demand does not change and so prices would still stay high? In any event, what is the acceptable cost to society of few college graduates? These are thorny issues. All I know is that for several members of my family they would not have been able to avail themselves of higher education without student loans backed by the federal government. There was no other way to fund the education and it was not at some fancy pants Ivy league school. One final thought: if this is true maybe we can get Fannie and Freddie to quit backing mortgage loans. This should lead to fewer house loans which will cause house prices to go down and then maybe more of us can afford one!

The discussion about the relevance of a college education to the mass public is a good one. Maybe not for this thread. Suffice it to say that the answer is basically "yes" to all of your questions. If more people got turned away schools would have to lower their prices as a result, then maybe we could go back to the days of working a part-time job and paying for school. As it stands now, there is almost no possible way for a college student to do that. And it wouldn't be a bad thing if not everyone got into massive amounts of debt when a percentage aren't even going to finish college anyways. And then there is the topic of the diminishing return of a college degree, and what value it actually holds for the average person graduating in 2016. Anyways, that would be a fun topic to discuss in the lounge.