First a disclaimer, this is a very liberal source, so I'm not willing to trust the apparent quotations of Santorum, but I also don't think they're beyond the pale. Also, while this was published a couple days ago, Santorum's actual response is from 2008. Its the same speech in which he claimed Obama had to right to call himself a Christian that has been making the rounds. I just thought that it might be fun to dig into it a little more.
Santorum wrote:
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.
Should we have a thread on all the crazy things Santorum has said? Because it would a fun thread.
Meanwhile, I kind of like the idea of the Democratic Party as Woodstock, but not because of the entirely crazy reasons Santorum was gibbering about (seriously, has an American been as obsessed with sex since Anthony Comstock?), but because it was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
sebster wrote:Should we have a thread on all the crazy things Santorum has said? Because it would a fun thread.
He's one of the only politicians in history that I have no problems with smearing.
And by "smearing" I mean "actively campaigning against without being paid."
sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, I kind of like the idea of the Democratic Party as Woodstock, but not because of the entirely crazy reasons Santorum was gibbering about (seriously, has an American been as obsessed with sex since Anthony Comstock?), but because it was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
I was directed to this link by a friend, who prefaced it by saying "Wait, when the hell was this orgy, and why in God's name wasn't I invited?"
That said, I do think his assessment of Obama's decision to affiliate himself with TUCC was grounded in political ambition, but I'm not sure that means he wasn't a Christian beforehand.
Also, fun fact, I've met Jeremiah Wright (same denomination as my dad), and he's a crazy bastard.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Because the decline of American power is a moral decline, because people just don't believe in America anymore, because it's become a filthy, degenerate place, I mean have you seen what the gays do to each other? I mean, in the butt. So vote for Santorum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I was directed to this link by a friend, who prefaced it by saying "Wait, when the hell was this orgy, and why in God's name wasn't I invited?"
That said, I do think his assessment of Obama's decision to affiliate himself with TUCC was grounded in political ambition, but I'm not sure that means he wasn't a Christian beforehand.
Well yeah, no problem with that. You don't get to be president at, what 47 (48? maybe) without having immense political ambition. Especially if you haven't got the financial and political connections that come from being born into a moneyed family.
Also, fun fact, I've met Jeremiah Wright (same denomination as my dad), and he's a crazy bastard.
That means we've got Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Creedence Clearwater, Grateful Dead, Sly and the Family Stone, Blood Sweat and Tears and several other goodies! WOO! PARTY!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'll have to find a way to use "the Abortion Culture" in casual conversation.
dogma wrote:First a disclaimer, this is a very liberal source, so I'm not willing to trust the apparent quotations of Santorum, but I also don't think they're beyond the pale. Also, while this was published a couple days ago, Santorum's actual response is from 2008. Its the same speech in which he claimed Obama had to right to call himself a Christian that has been making the rounds. I just thought that it might be fun to dig into it a little more.
Santorum wrote:
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Agreed on that, whats so wrong with exploring your sexuality? Im sorry, but if I have to be some prude in bed, and have the same ol missionary position sex, and take extra care not to enjoy it, then what the feth is the point? Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Agreed on that, whats so wrong with exploring your sexuality? Im sorry, but if I have to be some prude in bed, and have the same ol missionary position sex, and take extra care not to enjoy it, then what the feth is the point? Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
If I didn't enjoy it how the hell could I actually father children?
These neo-nasty fundaMENTAList christian types are the people that give you guys such a bad name over here. It is a shame that they manage to get so far in your political system and get so much press over here.
They get in the press, because its good press TBH. How many people would want to watch the news if it were boring? Now how many people would want to watch the news, if they were talking about a fruit cake that thinks sex is BAD! See, instant ratings lol.
Also you can father a kid and not enjoy it. I personally havnt, but it can happen
KingCracker wrote: Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Google Santorum's wife sometime and read about her back history before she met Rick.
I'm no fan of Rick, but I'm kinda glad that his wife hasn't been completely dragged through the mud over that stuff. Still, it really makes you wonder about that family, doesn't it? And considering I have it on some authority that Rick wasn't always so conservative, it almost makes me wonder if she's partially to blame for Rick's apparent insanity.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
sebster wrote:
...but because "Woodstock" was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
I still do not understand how a man would reach climax or even maintain tumesence without enjoying the act. Viagra only facilitates arousal it doesn't start it.
You can hate yourself all you want after the act but the act itself must by definition be enjoyable to some degree for the man.
If your the female partner is not enjoying the act then it is in my mind rape in minor degree because force, coersion or compensation is being used.
So, is it official? Has Santorum actually come out as anti-freedom?
Sonophos wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
Yes, for both males and females.
Surely a cup of tea would be preferrable to such an activity. It's what I have done on those rare occasions when the mood has not been correct.
There's lots of things people can do voluntarily without enjoying it. The other day, my wife was watching some terrible romantic comedy. I voluntarily watched it with her, but I didn't enjoy the experience.
biccat wrote:
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Depends on the principle you hold most strongly.
If material concerns are paramount, then its very easy to argue either that commercial freedom should be restricted, or that it shouldn't be. As always, freedom doesn't mean much.
biccat wrote:
He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
Seaward wrote:Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
That's not correct.
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
As far as I'm concerned, Romney and Gingrich are the only two viable options. Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
That doesn't mean Santorum isn't a better option than Obama.
Seaward wrote:Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
That's not correct.
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
As far as I'm concerned, Romney and Gingrich are the only two viable options. Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
That doesn't mean Santorum isn't a better option than Obama.
So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.
What isn't? That Santorum isn't a right-wing candidate?
The only way you pull that off is via a no true scotsman which is, obviously, not a road you want to walk down.
biccat wrote:
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
Yeah, but they're different. The negative adds against Gingrich were very much about revealing things Gingrich didn't want revealed, Santorum pretty much owns up to everything people will try to call him out on. Of course, the discrepancy in terms of funds favors Romney, but you can't write Santorum off as another Gingrich because they're very different.
biccat wrote:
Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
There's a solid argument that Paul is the best option for the GOP, given that they have an uphill battle, and his image will likely focus attention on economics over social matters.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.
These neo-nasty fundaMENTAList christian types are the people that give you guys such a bad name over here. It is a shame that they manage to get so far in your political system and get so much press over here.
And it wasn't very fair to pick guys like Santorum out as representative of America when they were just a crazy fringe, but this guy is a presidential frontrunner. Something weird really is going on over there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whitedragon wrote:Marry me!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonophos wrote:I still do not understand how a man would reach climax or even maintain tumesence without enjoying the act. Viagra only facilitates arousal it doesn't start it.
You can hate yourself all you want after the act but the act itself must by definition be enjoyable to some degree for the man.
If your the female partner is not enjoying the act then it is in my mind rape in minor degree because force, coersion or compensation is being used.
You'd can be turned on by the prospect of good sex, then get something which is most definitely not that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.
If biccat doesn't personally like someone, he deems them leftwing. You might point that's a ridiculous way of thinking about politics, but then as rebuttal I'd point out biccat.
Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.
Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick
Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.
Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick
I think that, once either pizza or sex become bad, they are no longer pizza or sex.
The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.
Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
That's what prostitution is for one of the parties involved.
Clue: it's not the person paying for it.
Paying a prostitute is minor rape. If you cared about the woman you would give her the money and wouldn't expect anything in return.
Only in moral terms, and even then it's debatable. In the eyes of the law, it's consentual, though illegal (I think) for other reasons. Also, if someone uses a prostitute, it's not the woman they care about, clearly.
Personally, I see it as the devolution of something that should be more special into a simple good, to be traded. Not nice at all.
Yes. There's a saying 'bad sex is like bad pizza, it's still pretty good'. But I think it's only said by people who've never had genuinely bad sex, or genuinely bad pizza.
Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick
I think that, once either pizza or sex become bad, they are no longer pizza or sex.
The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.
Yea, Ive heard those folk eat that gak by the boat load. The worst pizza Ive personally ever had was supposed to be a hamburger pizza, which sounds good on the surface. But the company that made it, did a terribly bad job at it, and it tasted so fuggin gross we had them send the driver back and give us a different pizza, and take that pile of junk back
KingCracker wrote:Stop making sense to me Sebster, I dont like it. But I agree, Ive had both terrible sex, and terrible pizza. I can say that neither is still considered good. When I have to call a pizza place and say "Youve got to take this pile of dog gak back, I want my money back" its obviously not good pizza still. Too bad that prostitute wouldnt give me a refund. I said caress, not kick
And despite knowing there's bad sex and bad pizza, and being able to spot both a mile away, I've never turned it down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The only truly awful "pizza" I've had was in Sydney. Why there was Vegemite on it, I'll never know.
sebster wrote:
Seriously? I think someone was fething with you.
Possibly, the last time I was in Sydney I was 11.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote:
Yea, Ive heard those folk eat that gak by the boat load. The worst pizza Ive personally ever had was supposed to be a hamburger pizza, which sounds good on the surface. But the company that made it, did a terribly bad job at it, and it tasted so fuggin gross we had them send the driver back and give us a different pizza, and take that pile of junk back
I tend to stay away from the novelty pizzas (pizzas that have traditionally non-pizza ingredients) because they're hit or miss. That said, I love me a taco pizza, or a BBQ chicken pizza. Breakfast pizza can be good, but it has to have the eggs cracked directly on the cheese, and then baked off; not cooked before hand.
I even had a damn good potato pizza once.
But my absolute favorite pizza come from this Neapolitan place in St. Paul, MN. Super thin crust, prosciutto, basil, olive oil, sea salt, no sauce: glorious.
Seaward wrote:So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.
I don't see how your comment follows in any way from mine. If you do want to discuss this, cool, start a new thread.
Santorum's latest comment: "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob."
There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.
Yet another reason I have a problem with Santorum.
biccat wrote:
There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.
Did Obama ever actually say that he wants all Americans to go to college?
I mean, I'm not saying that he didn't, its just that I only remember him giving speeches about having the opportunity to obtain some kind of higher education.
biccat wrote:
There's a point to be made here - it's not necessary, or even desirable, for everyone to go to college - but Santorum is making it by appealing to anti-intellectualism and attacking higher education.
Did Obama ever actually say that he wants all Americans to go to college?
I mean, I'm not saying that he didn't, its just that I only remember him giving speeches about having the opportunity to obtain some kind of higher education.
I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.
He did actually say that and yes its elitist. A lot of kids would be much better served with a quality skilled vocational training/journeyman program. (Germany I am looking in your direction...)
Frazzled wrote:A lot of kids would be much better served with a quality skilled vocational training/journeyman program. (Germany I am looking in your direction...)
What works in Germany will not necessarily work in other places. THe UK has been trying to get it to work in the UK for a while now, it hasn't because of cultural differences.
I don't think Obama actually meant anything wrong with that, but that everyone should have opportunity. Its an amazingly Libertarian viewpoint for Obama...
For the record I feel like Marv in the electric chair. The warden et al are the Presidential candidates in this election. After their spiel (the juice) I spit out a lot of blood going (paraphrase) "thats the best you got?!"
Melissia wrote:I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.
Well, Santorum said "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college." I think that is a reasonable extrapolation from Obama's desire to reduce the expense of college and make it affordable for everyone. Basically, Obama sees college as a good thing and wants everyone to have access to this good thing, regardless of their wealth, income, or family.
Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.
biccat wrote:[Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.
Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.
People who then say "too bad" should have tghe joy of a welfare Christmas for a year or two. Then they can talk.
I won't say more for personal reasons and I would quickly get banned (and rightfully).
biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges.
Without subsidizing, the local public colleges would have been about four to five times more expensive (the Texas government subsidises public colleges to reduce their prices), I wouldn't have had FAFSA support, and I wouldn't be able to transfer my credits (again, the Texas government legally ensures many classes will transfer). And if you suggest the government pull out of college education entirely, then there would be no public colleges to begin with, only private ones.
This would cut down the number of students by a remarkable amount, including myself-- I'd be stuck in a dead-end job more likely than not without education, the BEST I could hope for is to assist my father and eventually replace him when he retires, and even then without an education in mechanics, electronics, and so on I'd be hard pressed to replace him anyway (he has about fifty years of experience after all).
Melissia wrote:Without subsidizing, the local public colleges would have been about four to five times more expensive (the Texas government subsidises public colleges to reduce their prices)
For or five times more expensive for you. How much is your neighbors the Texas government contributing?
Melissia wrote:This would cut down the number of students by a remarkable amount
You say this as if it is a bad thing.
I figure when I went to school at least 50% of the students had no business being there. You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources. Yet college degrees are a prerequisite for these and many other occupations.
Frazzled wrote:Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.
I couldn't when I went to college. I got private loans (which I'm still repaying). My parents were able to help some, but it wasn't easy for them.
A $100,000 handout from the government would have been nice, in hindsight.
Frazzled wrote:Unless of course you couldn't afford to go to college in the first place without that support.
I couldn't when I went to college. I got private loans (which I'm still repaying). My parents were able to help some, but it wasn't easy for them.
A $100,000 handout from the government would have been nice, in hindsight.
You had parents that were able to help. I didn't.
Were those private loans via Pell Grant? Without government guarantee or parents on the hook no bank will privately fund you.
Melissia wrote:I don't believe he did... the opportunity yes, though.
Well, Santorum said "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college." I think that is a reasonable extrapolation from Obama's desire to reduce the expense of college and make it affordable for everyone.
Wanting X to be universally accessible doesn't indicate that X is universally desirable.
This hearkens back to what you said about the distinction between being pro-choice, and actually aborting a fetus.
And, of course, we further run into what "college" actually is. Only 4-years? 4-years and 2-years? 4-years, 2-years, and certs?
biccat wrote:For or five times more expensive for you
And everyone else that tried to go to them.
As for the Texas government, it had the foresignt to set up a fund that earns proceeds from land sales. Look up the Public University Fund while I'm in class.
biccat wrote:You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources.
You don't need a college degree to do anything aside from scientific research. Even that doesn't need a college degree, it's more that the degree itself is just training until you get to the level of being qualified for research.
What a college degree DOES do, however, is indicate to a prospective employer that you have certain knowledge and skills associated with the degree, thus making you more desireable.
Frazzled wrote:You had parents that were able to help. I didn't.
I'm not sure, but I doubt a few pizzas a month would have made all that much difference in your educational career.
Frazzled wrote:Were those private loans via Pell Grant? Without government guarantee or parents on the hook no bank will privately fund you.
No Pell Grants, because federal grants are income limited. This year you start to lose eligibility around $30,000/year. Apparently after that you can afford it on your own.
You're right, private guarantors did require parents to cosign student loans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:As for the Texas government, it had the foresignt to set up a fund that earns proceeds from land sales. Look up the Public University Fund while I'm in class.
I'm not sure you see the point I'm making.
Colleges are expensive. Passing the bill to the taxpayer government doesn't mean they suddenly have fewer expenses.
Melissia wrote:You don't need a college degree to do anything aside from scientific research. Even that doesn't need a college degree, it's more that the degree itself is just training until you get to the level of being qualified for research.
Yep. Although I would expand that to any STEM degree. There may be some other, non-STEM, degrees that include a job-training component, but they're certainly rare.
biccat wrote:
I couldn't when I went to college. I got private loans (which I'm still repaying). My parents were able to help some, but it wasn't easy for them.
A $100,000 handout from the government would have been nice, in hindsight.
I couldn't either, and I also took out private loans...but I also took out government loans, and probably wouldn't have gone to the school I went to without them.
I also know people that never would have been able to go to school at all without government assistance.
Handouts are nice, but pretending the majority of state associated student loans are handouts is just willful ignorance.
biccat wrote:You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources. Yet college degrees are a prerequisite for these and many other occupations.
You don't need a college degree to do anything. If you spend some time in a library, at least any decent library, you can accomplish anything you can via formal education.
Degrees are rubber stamps, they have always been rubber stamps.
I'll even go out and say that Karl Rove, who holds no degree, is one of the single best examples of my profession. A degree was a good choice for me because I wasn't connected to the industry I wanted to be a part of.
Frazzled wrote:You had parents that were able to help. I didn't.
I'm not sure, but I doubt a few pizzas a month would have made all that much difference in your educational career.
Frazzled wrote:Were those private loans via Pell Grant? Without government guarantee or parents on the hook no bank will privately fund you.
No Pell Grants, because federal grants are income limited. This year you start to lose eligibility around $30,000/year. Apparently after that you can afford it on your own.
You're right, private guarantors did require parents to cosign student loans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:As for the Texas government, it had the foresignt to set up a fund that earns proceeds from land sales. Look up the Public University Fund while I'm in class.
I'm not sure you see the point I'm making.
Colleges are expensive. Passing the bill to the taxpayer government doesn't mean they suddenly have fewer expenses.
Melissia wrote:You don't need a college degree to do anything aside from scientific research. Even that doesn't need a college degree, it's more that the degree itself is just training until you get to the level of being qualified for research.
Yep. Although I would expand that to any STEM degree. There may be some other, non-STEM, degrees that include a job-training component, but they're certainly rare.
Again if you don't have parents that can cosign a loan or a govenment guarantee all that other nonsense is, well nonsense.
You think the difference is a few pizzas? You haven't paid for the raw price of college recently have you
I'd better stop talking about the college thing as its a very personal and very emotional issue for me.
I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending, every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability. Same to same for vocational/skilled journeyman training. We're not ing India here (and no insult meant to India just their old higher education system).
Frazzled wrote:
I'd better stop talking about the college thing as its a very personal and very emotional issue for me.
I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending, every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability. Same to same for vocational/skilled journeyman training. We're not ing India here (and no insult meant to India just their old higher education system).
Bold is mine, as it's the important bit.
Incidentally, Frazzled, have I ever told you how much I'm being impressed by you recently? It's quite a lot.
Frazzled wrote: I'd better stop talking about the college thing as its a very personal and very emotional issue for me. I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending, every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability. Same to same for vocational/skilled journeyman training. We're not ing India here (and no insult meant to India just their old higher education system).
Bold is mine, as it's the important bit. Incidentally, Frazzled, have I ever told you how much I'm being impressed by you recently? It's quite a lot.
Well personally I think the parties have forgotten the "opportunity part" of the the American mantra.
I'm actually a very mellow and compassionate person.*
Frazzled wrote:I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending, every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability. Same to same for vocational/skilled journeyman training. We're not ing India here (and no insult meant to India just their old higher education system).
I generally agree. But given that college is a very valuable commodity people who get it should be asked to pay for it themselves. If the value of a college degree over an individuals working lifetime is $1 million and the true cost of the education is $100k, shouldn't the recipient be asked to pay for a substantial portion of that initial outlay?
The "intellectual ability" argument is a tricky part. Obtaining a college degree in underwater basket weaving takes far less intellectual firepower than obtaining a degree in electrical engineering or physics. You might be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have the intellectual ability to get some college degree.. Even assuming we subside college as a public good, I don't see why someone aspiring to get a degree in puppetry is as equally deserving as someone who wants a degree in organic chemistry.
biccat wrote:I generally agree. But given that college is a very valuable commodity people who get it should be asked to pay for it themselves. If the value of a college degree over an individuals working lifetime is $1 million and the true cost of the education is $100k, shouldn't the recipient be asked to pay for a substantial portion of that initial outlay?
School loans currently exceed 1 trillion dollars. The total amount has more than doubled in the past five years, and now exceeds credit card debt in terms of what America owes.
Believe me, people are paying it back. And then some. The problem is actually the colleges, not the students. Colleges are gaming the system and not giving a gak about students to get quick money.
The way private colleges abuse US military veterans is shocking.
Frazzled wrote:I don't know what planet you're on but its not small.
Reason: so qualified poor kids can go and not carjack your ass maybe?
Small relative to the actual cost.
Poor kids should get a free scholarship to avoid carjacking people (well, the qualified ones, presumably it's OK for unqualified kids to continue to carjack)? If I threaten to carjack someone, will the state pay off my student loans?
biccat wrote:
Poor kids should get a free scholarship to avoid carjacking people (well, the qualified ones, presumably it's OK for unqualified kids to continue to carjack)? If I threaten to carjack someone, will the state pay off my student loans?
Let's put it this way-- America's 18.2 million college students, and a (larger) number of recent graduates (Where recent equals "in the last ten years"), currently owe more money to student loan agencies than ALL of America's 308.7 million people owe in terms of credit card debt.
America's students pay very large amounts of money to go to school. Not all of these schools are worth a damn.
Frazzled wrote:I don't know what planet you're on but its not small.
Reason: so qualified poor kids can go and not carjack your ass maybe?
Small relative to the actual cost.
Poor kids should get a free scholarship to avoid carjacking people (well, the qualified ones, presumably it's OK for unqualified kids to continue to carjack)? If I threaten to carjack someone, will the state pay off my student loans?
Sorry, fat white guys don't get their loans repaid under the "please don't kill me!" scholarship program. * *If you're not a fat white guy, then please fill out these forms in triplicate and have them notarized by your nearest probation officer.
Wait, now you're arguing free scholarships? Frazzled confused!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote: Small relative to the actual cost.
And?
biccat wrote: Poor kids should get a free scholarship to avoid carjacking people (well, the qualified ones, presumably it's OK for unqualified kids to continue to carjack)? If I threaten to carjack someone, will the state pay off my student loans?
Yes. Welcome to pragmatism.
And this is why one should never be a Ron Paul level Libertarian.
If I read biccat's point correctly, it's that one of the reasons college is expensive for the students that really belong there are competing for seats with students that are just looking to kill team before getting a job.
Essentially, college is the new high school. And all of the problems associated with high school have appeared.
If it was harder for all students attend college, only those with strong desire to do so would.
Go into any low level university, or any juco or community college: you'll find people that have little to no hope of repaying loans. It's just as true of people earning English PhDs to be sure.
The problem, as always, is how do you determine who "deserves" college, without simply resorting to standardized checks and their parent's money?
College degress are paper, just like currency. Print too much, and it becomes less valuable. However, unless you happen to have something of intrinsic value (skills or gold), you still need it.
Melissia wrote:Let's put it this way-- America's 18.2 million college students, and a (larger) number of recent graduates (Where recent equals "in the last ten years"), currently owe more money to student loan agencies than ALL of America's 308.7 million people owe in terms of credit card debt.
America's students pay very large amounts of money to go to school. Not all of these schools are worth a damn.
Universities are saying that the benefit of a 4-year degree is $1 million. I don't think that's correct. But even if it's 10% of that ($100,000), you're paying less than you're getting.
Y'know my sister might be going to harvard when i asked about how she wil pay for it she said
"They will Help me if i get in"
"Ahh, Y'know they mea 'Direct you to the loan office' right"
My dad still think they will pay for it all.
College is expensive. Here at comminty college it can cost 1000$ a semester in fees. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE!!!!
And i still can speel right.
Polonius wrote:If it was harder for all students attend college, only those with strong desire to do so would.
More likely, only those who already have money anyway.
That'll always be a factor, to be sure.
I think that general loans are a way to pour money into a "problem", that only creates new/interesting problems.
As you've pointed out, schools are simply grabbing students, giving them loan documents, and funding themselves entirely on government dollars. We're not subsidizing education, we're subsidizing the educational industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know my sister might be going to harvard when i asked about how she wil pay for it she said
"They will Help me if i get in"
"Ahh, Y'know they mea 'Direct you to the loan office' right"
My dad still think they will pay for it all.
College is expensive. Here at comminty college it can cost 1000$ a semester in fees. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE!!!!
And i still can speel right.
A harvard degree doesn't cost that much more than any other private school degree, and is incredibly more marketable.
If you can't spell in college, than while I agree you could use more education, I'm not sure it needs to be at the collegiate level.
Which of course is part of the problem: our eagerness to send everybody to college means students that had trouble at the high school level basically spend years and thousands of dollars learning what they should have learned prior to graduating.
biccat wrote:But even if it's 10% of that ($100,000), you're paying less than you're getting.
Going with the 18.2 million students, who owe collectively more than 1 trillion dollars:
1,000,000,000,000 / 18,200,000 = each one owes on average ~$55,000 (rounded off). This is a bit higher than it actually is, but not by much (it's in the fourty thousands). For private loans, the average interest rate of 10.79% which is adjustable by the company, while for federal student aid loans, it is a fixed rate of 6.8%.
In order to ensure that your debt doesn't increase every year, you have to at least pay interest off every year, which for private loans equals paying about ~$6000 a year, quite a hefty amount that one would often be pretty lucky making (Especially for teachers...). Paying this consistently on time for thirty years nets a total of $181,005. Paying more than the interest rate would lessen this amount exponentially, but that is also harder and harder the higher you go up unless you lucked out with a really excellent job. Paying less than this would increase what you owe.
Thankfully not all of the loans are private. But even if all of that $55k is federal loans, that's still $3,740 a year, which again over thirty years is $112,200.
But you know what, even ignoring all of the math, the premise of your statement is off. Of COURSE you get more than you pay for. It's called investment. A good investment SHOULD render you more than you paid for.
@all: Even when attacking arguments rather than persons, it's still preferable to avoid inflammatory adjectives such as "stupid," at least if you actually want people to read what you're saying for comprehension rather than just infuriating them. If you're just trying to infuriate them then you are by default in violation of Rule Number One. I will be monitoring this thread and encourage you all to continue this discussion with that in mind. Thanks.
Manchu wrote:@all: Even when attacking arguments rather than persons, it's still preferable to avoid inflammatory adjectives such as "stupid," at least if you actually want people to read what you're saying for comprehension rather than just infuriating them. If you're just trying to infuriate them then you are by default in violation of Rule Number One. I will be monitoring this thread and encourage you all to continue this discussion with that in mind. Thanks.
Yea don't off Manchu! And what is that avatar anyway????
If you mean my avatar, it's from an upcoming fan film called Judge Minty -- which I think you'd really like, actually. ~Manchu
The counter argument is that investing in college educated workers is just as wise for government as investing in primary education. Or roads and defense for that matter.
I'd prefer if the spending has narrower in focus. We should help kids that want to go to college, have the chops to go to college, but can't afford to go. At whatever level they want/can handle: university to trade school.
But... I know too many people with essentially worthless degrees to wring my hands about how not enough people go to college.
Polonius wrote:But... I know too many people with essentially worthless degrees to wring my hands about how not enough people go to college.
Or, in my case, met so many people who had no interest at all in education while in college.
I was one of them. And ended up with a pretty worthless degree!
It was only later that I got a useful education in law school.
My brother makes a great living with his paramedic's license. he never even finished the associates degree. Dude hate's school.
Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.
My undergraduate degrees are in history and East Asian studies. I don't know how worthwhile most employers consider that. Like you, my job is premised on my JD/bar membership. I find that most of my ability to reflect upon and appreciate my life, however, comes from having taken my undergraduate education very seriously. (And law school would certainly have been impossible without some kind of undergraduate degree.) By contrast, law school was just a hope and a prayer that I might one day pay the bills.
I'm not familiar with what's out there for people looking to enter a trade. Does the military still do a lot of that? With no chance of going to college, my own father joined the Marine Corps and learned a bit about electronics vis a vis teletype communications repair. It was a start, at least. Most of the training he's had over the years has been provided by employers.
Manchu wrote:I'm not familiar with what's out there for people looking to enter a trade. Does the military still do a lot of that? With no chance of going to college, my own father joined the Marine Corps and learned a bit about electronics vis a vis teletype communications repair. It was a start, at least. Most of the training he's had over the years has been provided by employers.
Unless you can do a six mile log run, the military's probably not interested in you at the moment. Trimming personnel with the drawing down of Afghanistan and Iraq and all that.
Actually, I think his argument seesm to be that Obama wants everybody to go to college so they can be brainwashed into the liberal ideology, or soemthing like that.
I'm sure he'll say that his point was that he was trying to tell working class people that there is nothing wrong with trade work. He just did so in a way that plays on fears of the liberal ivory tower.
Polonius wrote:Actually, I think his argument seesm to be that Obama wants everybody to go to college so they can be brainwashed into the liberal ideology, or soemthing like that.
I'm sure he'll say that his point was that he was trying to tell working class people that there is nothing wrong with trade work. He just did so in a way that plays on fears of the liberal ivory tower.
i think his point is:
" Hey fellow zealots/nut-cases/racists/homophobes: Keep your kids isolated and stupid so they don't realize what a horrible life you have created around them".
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know my sister might be going to harvard when i asked about how she wil pay for it she said
"They will Help me if i get in"
"Ahh, Y'know they mea 'Direct you to the loan office' right"
My dad still think they will pay for it all.
College is expensive. Here at comminty college it can cost 1000$ a semester in fees. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE!!!!
And i still can speel right.
A harvard degree doesn't cost that much more than any other private school degree, and is incredibly more marketable.
If you can't spell in college, than while I agree you could use more education, I'm not sure it needs to be at the collegiate level.
Which of course is part of the problem: our eagerness to send everybody to college means students that had trouble at the high school level basically spend years and thousands of dollars learning what they should have learned prior to graduating.
We live in cali, a country away. It wll be alot more then tuition they have to pay.
And the Joke about Spelling was a joke.
But yeah, I learned this. College isnt for everyone. Everyone should have the opprotunity. But its not for everyone. Unless you are willing to sacrifice alot for college you wont make it through much.
Polonius wrote:I think painting him, and his followers, with that broad of a brush makes you guilty of the same sins you accuse him of.
?
He makes regular public statements steeped in homophobia, racist overtones, fear mongering, and various forms of tinfoil hat worthy conspiracey theories.
Then people he is speaking to clap amd high five, etc.
It is all part of the public record.
Some how am I painting him with a broad brush exactly?
hotsauceman1 wrote:We live in cali, a country away. It wll be alot more then tuition they have to pay.
And the Joke about Spelling was a joke.
But yeah, I learned this. College isnt for everyone. Everyone should have the opprotunity. But its not for everyone. Unless you are willing to sacrifice alot for college you wont make it through much.
Harvard provides free tuition for students whose families make under a certain income level. $60,000/year or something like that. They've got a huge endowment, they're quite generous.
Lots of people get told that they should go to college, or non-college careers are disparaged, so people go to college, rack up lots of debt, and end up with nothing to show for it.
Maybe this. We have a more flexible HS system that can allow more students to find their interests rather then letting College be that time. Rather then crank out the same student after student that HS does now.
Also im trying to make a downside to going there. IT makes me feel better about my "Choices"
Polonius wrote:I think painting him, and his followers, with that broad of a brush makes you guilty of the same sins you accuse him of.
?
He makes regular public statements steeped in homophobia, racist overtones, fear mongering, and various forms of tinfoil hat worthy conspiracey theories.
Then people he is speaking to clap amd high five, etc.
It is all part of the public record.
Some how am I painting him with a broad brush exactly?
I don't know enough about his record to debate particulars, but I know that he's the first viable, truly "values" based conservative since the elder Bush. Not everybody that supports a candidate supports every decision. Obama has kept open Gitmo, making him arguably a war criminal. I support him, and plan on voting for him.
Not all people that are values voters are the raving bigots they are made out to be.
And attacking him, and his supporters, based on the most salacious and nastiest stuff is to almost concede the debate that, well, they're wrong on most of their values.
biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.
The state shouldn't recognise the benefit to society as a whole of skilled, professional persons? And after recognising that externality, provide some funding to increase numbers over and above what a pure user pays system might deliver?
And the cost of tertiary education in the US is completely mad despite it being almost completely private. Over here, where around 2/3 of funding is direct Federal Government funding, and only a portion of the rest comes from the students themselves, we still have costs per student around half of yours, for the same standard of education.
Bear in mind, up until Christmas last year I was a management accountant for a university, and I've never seen a place more openly hostile to efficiency and cost saving. The idea that universities in the US cost twice as much per student blows my mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I figure when I went to school at least 50% of the students had no business being there. You don't need a college degree to design websites, program, or work in human resources. Yet college degrees are a prerequisite for these and many other occupations.
I agree with you here completely. This idea has crept in that more university educated people means a better economy, which is a worthwhile idea but only up to a point. Keep expanding and you quickly get people into university who have no place being there, and what's worse is that to get them there you have to offer courses that are much better off taught through vocational schools.
University should be for high end degrees. And then the focus should be on making sure that it is the very best who attend, and not the children of the sufficiently rich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Colleges are expensive. Passing the bill to the taxpayer government doesn't mean they suddenly have fewer expenses.
Sure, but it changes who can attend. Instead of being the smartest among those with parents who are rich enough to help their kids attend, it becomes simply the absolute smartest kids who attend.
If you want a meritocratic society, that's nothing but a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:A very simple question: does something get cheaper when someone else pays for it?
The college has an operating expense. That expense will be met either by government money or by student tuition payments.
Obviously having government pay for it doesn't mean it becomes free, it just changes who pays for it.
The very simple and obvious point is that it is often better to change who pays for something. In this case it opens up education to talented people from all backgrounds. It means that the next generation of doctors, lawyers and engineers are chosen from among the brightest minds in society, not just the brightest minds who had parents who could afford college for their kid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I'll just leave it that, although I think ther'es waste and abuse in college on a level equivalent to military spending
Absolutely.
every American citizen should have the opportunity to go to university if they have the intellectual ability.
Absolutely.
In addition to agreeing with your post, I'd just like to point out how much the first point is tied to the second. A major part of making college accessible to everyone who is good enough is to bring the costs down. And the cost of college education in the US is completely out of whack with international standards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I generally agree. But given that college is a very valuable commodity people who get it should be asked to pay for it themselves. If the value of a college degree over an individuals working lifetime is $1 million and the true cost of the education is $100k, shouldn't the recipient be asked to pay for a substantial portion of that initial outlay?
Sure, the guy who completes his engineering degree can expect significant personal benefits. But then society also benefits from having a skilled and capable engineer. So it becomes a case of each party paying some portion of the cost.
But more importantly, outside of medicine and engineering doctorates, the average cost of a college degree should be nowhere near $100,000.
The "intellectual ability" argument is a tricky part. Obtaining a college degree in underwater basket weaving takes far less intellectual firepower than obtaining a degree in electrical engineering or physics. You might be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have the intellectual ability to get some college degree.. Even assuming we subside college as a public good, I don't see why someone aspiring to get a degree in puppetry is as equally deserving as someone who wants a degree in organic chemistry.
Which is the other issue, stopping the expansion of college degrees for things that really don't need college facilities to teach. Basically, if the course doesn't rely on lecturers who are also active researchers in their field, then it almost certainly doesn't need to be taught at university.
So nursing, marketing, administration... all these things can really be taught as well, for less, at vocational schools.
biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.
And after recognising that externality, provide some funding to increase numbers over and above what a pure user pays system might deliver?
To bring the issue back on to Santorum, is anyone else having fun watching the Dutch reaction to Santorum's completely stupid lies about euthenasia in the Netherlands? Faced with completely ridiculous claims from Santorum that euthanasia accounted for 5% of all deaths in the Netherlands (it's 2%), and that old old people wearing 'please don't euthanise me bracelets' (there are no provisions at all for forced euthanasia - that is as illegal in the Netherlands as it is in the US), the reactions have varied, from detailed rebuttal, to anger that someone is telling lies about their country to puzzlement that anyone would claim something so stupid.
Having not followed US politics, I can see the Dutch just don't get it. They don't understand this is what movement conservativism is, and that no matter how clear and how forceful they refute Santorum's claims, the lies won't die. People want to believe there is an evil, secular world out there that kills off the elderly, and so they will believe it, reality be damned.
biccat wrote:Nope.
Think that pretty much covers it.
So you just choose to ignore economics. Okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.
I think the default, of having kids go straight from secondary to tertiary education, with maybe a year off to feth around overseas, causes a lot of that. People have been getting told information for 12 years already, they're over it. Let people go out, work for a while, and come back to university when they're ready.
In some cases I think some work experience should be needed before taking on certain courses. You can spend three years learning to be a nurse, and after all that time you go out and find out that all the stuff about drug dosages and the like takes a second fiddle to cleaning bedpans. So you quit, and there's three years wasted.
Not all people that are values voters are the raving bigots they are made out to be.
If you stand in a room and cheer for a guy and vote for a guy and give money to a guy that is an out and out hate mongering, lying, racist, homophobe, tinfoil hat wearing nutbag, then YES in effect you are , because you are helping to perpetuate his relevance and validating his disgusting behavior.
I question anybody who can ignore or give a pass to such qualities in any person, much less endorse them...
biccat wrote:
And of course you know that the "minimum" Federal loan payment is calculated on a 10 year basis.
Its variable. By default its calculated on a 10 year basis, but its fairly easy to modify your payment plan.
biccat wrote:
Lots of people get told that they should go to college, or non-college careers are disparaged, so people go to college, rack up lots of debt, and end up with nothing to show for it.
Additionally, many careers that don't necessarily require a college degree, often require a college degree.
And, ultimately, this goes beyond college and extends into higher education in general. Certifications are just as guilty.
We, as a society, love our rubber stamps.
Polonius wrote:
Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.
And, further, that we place to great an emphasis on an education, and less of an emphasis on the abilities of an individual.
I've probably spent more time in the academy than most, and I'll be the first to say that whatever qualification you might hold has next to no bearing on your ability to do anything.
I'm actually a big fan of the idea of employers using some kind of competency test in the course of hiring, rather than looking at academic credentials; sort of like the ASVAB.
biccat wrote:Personally, I think the government has no business subsidizing colleges. It makes the already high expense of college even higher while reducing the value of a college degree.
I'm not sure I see how. Granting funds to any given institution doesn't necessarily impact the impetus for that institution to control costs or, as I assume you're primarily concerned with state funded scholarships and loans, change the nature of admissions process.
If a massive, private entity started giving out scholarships and loans in the manner of the state, would you claim it was increasing the cost of higher education.
While Santorum did say he’s not sure if his statistic about 62 percent of young people attending college still holds true, TPM notes that studies have consistently found his assertion to be incorrect:
A study published 2007 in the journal Social Forces — which PBS reports that Santorum’s claim is based on, although his spokesman didn’t respond to TPM’s request for confirmation — finds that Americans who don’t go to college experience a steeper decline in their religiosity than those who do.
“Contrary to our own and others’ expectations, however, young adults who never enrolled in college are presently the least religious young Americans,” the journal concluded, noting that “64 percent of those currently enrolled in a traditional four-year institution have curbed their attendance habits. Yet, 76 percent of those who never enrolled in college report a decline in religious service attendance.”
Of course, as the article points out, this isn't definitive evidence that Santorum is wrong to claim, broadly, that higher education reduces the tendency to believe in God. It does, however, demonstrate that to nail down a specific percentage of people that lose faith in the course of attending a university is very difficult, and that, perhaps, using statistics regarding church attendance is not the way to go.
That said, I suspect a survey of Christian students who believe in God prior to college would serve Rick's purposes. Time for me to go looking for one.
It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.
At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?
Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.
At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?
Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.
My point is twofold:
1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.
2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).
Given the available data, education does not seem to terribly influence the young, rather it seems that young people simply don't like going to church, and that education (past a BA/BS) tends to dissuade people from believing in God.
biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.
Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.
At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?
Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.
My point is twofold:
1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.
2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).
Given the available data, education does not seem to terribly influence the young, rather it seems that young people simply don't like going to church, and that education (past a BA/BS) tends to dissuade people from believing in God.
I'd agree with those. I was trying to say that its likely that religiousity is correlated to socio economic status, with the very poor having surprisingly little faith. So, those that go to college start with more faith than those who don't. I don't know if college hurts faith. I'd doubt it's due to the horrible secular influence of professors, but I doubt that helps. I'm having a similar discussion on my facebook, and my current theory aligns with yours: young people don't like going to church, and like having casual sex. These two things make active faith tough.
I also wonder, with regards to ideology changing, if that's related to how concrete your values are? I mean, if you are raised with one, set, specific form of religion and values, nearly any different message challenges those. But if you have a more nuanced and ecumenical sense, it's easier to reject and work with new viewpoints.
And, as always, the more one believes the Bible to be literally true, the more conflict one will have with opposing views.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.
An oversupply would dictate a decrease in price.
If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.
the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.
Polonius wrote:I'm having a similar discussion on my facebook, and my current theory aligns with yours: young people don't like going to church, and like having casual sex. These two things make active faith tough.
At least Christian faith. I know many people that enjoy the communal spirituality of religion, but don't want to be accosted for their bar hookups.
That's part of why some Protestant denominations (UCC, UCDC, etc.) have softened their stances on premarital sex.
Polonius wrote:
I also wonder, with regards to ideology changing, if that's related to how concrete your values are? I mean, if you are raised with one, set, specific form of religion and values, nearly any different message challenges those. But if you have a more nuanced and ecumenical sense, it's easier to reject and work with new viewpoints.
From personal experience, at least, that follows. My old man is UCC, and his education of me regarding religion included classics, Augustine, the Qur'an, etc.
It was always "Believe what you want." not "This is true."
Polonius wrote:
If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.
the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.
True, I admittedly did not read biccat's post in that way.
But, then we're faced with two problems:
1) Deliberately leaving many people uneducated.
2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.
Does the English BA pull down the earning potential of the CSBS?
sebster wrote:To bring the issue back on to Santorum, is anyone else having fun watching the Dutch reaction to Santorum's completely stupid lies about euthenasia in the Netherlands? Faced with completely ridiculous claims from Santorum that euthanasia accounted for 5% of all deaths in the Netherlands (it's 2%), and that old old people wearing 'please don't euthanise me bracelets' (there are no provisions at all for forced euthanasia - that is as illegal in the Netherlands as it is in the US), the reactions have varied, from detailed rebuttal, to anger that someone is telling lies about their country to puzzlement that anyone would claim something so stupid.
Having not followed US politics, I can see the Dutch just don't get it. They don't understand this is what movement conservativism is, and that no matter how clear and how forceful they refute Santorum's claims, the lies won't die. People want to believe there is an evil, secular world out there that kills off the elderly, and so they will believe it, reality be damned.
biccat wrote:Nope.
Think that pretty much covers it.
So you just choose to ignore economics. Okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Our poblem right now isn't that not enough people have access to higher education. It's that few students wisely choose their course of study, and too many simply drift through.
I think the default, of having kids go straight from secondary to tertiary education, with maybe a year off to feth around overseas, causes a lot of that. People have been getting told information for 12 years already, they're over it. Let people go out, work for a while, and come back to university when they're ready.
In some cases I think some work experience should be needed before taking on certain courses. You can spend three years learning to be a nurse, and after all that time you go out and find out that all the stuff about drug dosages and the like takes a second fiddle to cleaning bedpans. So you quit, and there's three years wasted.
I am sure the Dutch give a gak about Santorum. Inversely I am sure Santorum gives a gak about the Dutch.
The two degrees have different value, to the student, the potential employee, potential employers, and the economy/nation as a whole. The only entity to whom it has the same value is the institution! (and sometimes parents)
Which is why I'd not oppose restricting government aid to those programs which include valuable skills. Or at least general aid.
Maybe offer "gifted" aid, where students that show aptitude in arts, literature, whatever can borrow to follow their dreams. Restrict general aid (available to all) to programs that offer at least some vocational value.
A classical education is great, and prepares a mind for many things. But not everybody needs that kind of preperation.
biccat wrote:
I think that an oversupply is a problem.
An oversupply would dictate a decrease in price.
If the oversupply is in educated people, I think we've seen that.
the earning power of a BA/BA is similar to a high school diploma from 50 years ago.
Yes, this.
It seemed pretty clear when I posted it, I suppose you could see it another way.
dogma wrote:But, then we're faced with two problems:
1) Deliberately leaving many people uneducated.
2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.
Does the English BA pull down the earning potential of the CSBS?
1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?
1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.
biccat wrote:
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
In a complex society, there is a niche education need to teach others how to play an instrument, and hell, someone research to see if orchestras and bands require a person to have a college degree in some musical field before they are even allowed to apply for a job within said musical band.
biccat wrote: 1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
In a complex society, there is a niche education need to teach others how to play an instrument, and hell, someone research to see if orchestras and bands require a person to have a college degree in some musical field before they are even allowed to apply for a job within said musical band.
There's nothing wrong, IMO, with a person studying music, or even music theory.
The question is, should the government subsidize that education? And what is the effect on both students and colleges when money is freely available for students to engage in studies that they might have little chance of using professionally?
Reducing the barrier to education increases demand. Increased demand will result in increased supply, especially when it's relativley simple to expand/add institutions. The net result is increased supply of educated people.
However, the educations recieved respond, not always to market pressures of what's valuable, but irrational (in a technical sense) matters of taste.
Fundamentally, I think we can all agree that giving 18 year olds a blank check and telling them to study what they want might not be the wisest use of money.
50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe I'm hypocritical. While I went to undergrad on scholarship, I paid for law school on government loans, which I've since consolidated with the department of education.
Of course, I now work for the Federal Government, so hopefully my education is valuable to them...
Polonius wrote:There's nothing wrong, IMO, with a person studying music, or even music theory.
The question is, should the government subsidize that education?
Depends on how socialized the government is. If they feel there are need for jazz teachers and jazz musicians, they'll go out of their way to fund their education. Public opinion I guess will lean across political and cultural lines on that one.
Polonius wrote:And what is the effect on both students and colleges when money is freely available for students to engage in studies that they might have little chance of using professionally?
As we've see, increasing the amount of money is akin to the current crisis in overinflating the cost of healthcare- a government backed system has led to overcharging and created a system wherein the payer suffers while the organization that collects the money benefits. As for professional use of a diploma, it becomes necessary to assess the society and see where the strongest needs are and whether a college degree is needed. Fundamentally, we don't look at societal needs like that, and ergo many students are going to find themselves in a frustrating conundrum where they have a degree, but nowhere to go and a large debt they are forced to pay off because they cannot discharge that debt. It will lead to frustration and a realization that their dream job would never materialize. As for colleges, they get richer but become the focal point for anger at their increasing tuition costs.
Polonius wrote:Reducing the barrier to education increases demand. Increased demand will result in increased supply, especially when it's relativley simple to expand/add institutions. The net result is increased supply of educated people.
However, the educations received respond, not always to market pressures of what's valuable, but irrational (in a technical sense) matters of taste.
In our society, I completely agree. Of course, we're not a socialist communist society that tells an 18 year old commune worker to go to Moscow to get an electrical engineering degree because we told you to. And in our society (again using that term). we'll probably never realize that we need to funnel our citizens into productive fields of work that we need rather than what we want. Of course, we have most of our needs met anyway, and I think the incompatible educations for the modern world are only going to increase.
Polonius wrote:Fundamentally, I think we can all agree that giving 18 year olds a blank check and telling them to study what they want might not be the wisest use of money.
50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.
50 years ago, we precluded students for other reasons as well.
But institutions have become a money making venture in the last several decades, so that is hardly a surprise either.
Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.
At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?
Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.
My point is twofold:
1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.
2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).
I haad a crisis of faith in college, I know many that do. And me and them come out with a better understanding of both god, religion and our place n the world.
biccat wrote:1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?
It is, but it simply doesn't do enough any more. We can alleviate this problem by either encouraging more people to attend college or give more time to primary education by making it year round or extending the school day.
biccat wrote:1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?
Absolutely. Having more education leads to more refined communication and problem solving skills. And, even in jobs that don't require the knowledge gained in education, having an educated workforce is advantageous.
biccat wrote:1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
Quite a bit. Music theory is actually very close to some mathematics. And, by studying it, you not only increase your creative ability, but your logic and reasoning ability. True, the exact skills you learn aren't necessarily going to be useful (unless you go into music), but by studying it, you refine your brain.
biccat wrote:2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.
I disagree with that idea that increasing the number of Bachelor degrees makes each individual one devalued. Economics of scale play an important part in this equation.
By having a population that is significantly more educated, the population would be more productive overall, which would benefit the economy as a whole. And, as the population gets better educated, you'll have less people reliant on social programs, allowing a decrease in taxes which leads to an even larger growth in the economy. This makes each individual job more and more valuable.
So, increasing the prevalence of BA/BS degrees increases the value of an individual degree.
Grakmar wrote:It is, but it simply doesn't do enough any more. We can alleviate this problem by either encouraging more people to attend college or give more time to primary education by making it year round or extending the school day.
Is the problem that schools have become less efficient, or that the volume of information students need to learn today is so much greater than say 50 years ago? I think the former.
Grakmar wrote:Absolutely. Having more education leads to more refined communication and problem solving skills. And, even in jobs that don't require the knowledge gained in education, having an educated workforce is advantageous.
Even if it is adventageous, what is the return on investment for having a janitor with a bachelors degree?
If education is important in itself, then why do people with degrees make so much more than people who almost complete a degree? The obvious answer is that degrees aren't valuable themselves, but that they are used by employers as signalling devices. An employer reasons that a person with Degree X has qualities Y and Z that are valuable.
Grakmar wrote:
biccat wrote:1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
Quite a bit. Music theory is actually very close to some mathematics. And, by studying it, you not only increase your creative ability, but your logic and reasoning ability. True, the exact skills you learn aren't necessarily going to be useful (unless you go into music), but by studying it, you refine your brain.
There's value in a degree that isn't useful? I suppose that depends on how you define value.
Grakmar wrote:I disagree with that idea that increasing the number of Bachelor degrees makes each individual one devalued. Economics of scale play an important part in this equation.
By having a population that is significantly more educated, the population would be more productive overall, which would benefit the economy as a whole.
I disagree with your second comment. In fact, it's a comment that isn't verifiable one way or the other.
Grakmar wrote:And, as the population gets better educated, you'll have less people reliant on social programs, allowing a decrease in taxes which leads to an even larger growth in the economy.
This only follows if better educated people are more likely to get jobs. Statistically, that's correct, but I don't think there's a causal relationship.
biccat wrote:
1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?
To a degree. But I was under the impression that in the context of this thread "educated" essentially meant "educated to a collegiate standard."
biccat wrote:
1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?
To a degree. Information is valuable, though how valuable will depend on the nature of the information. Similarly, there is a degree of value to all modes of thought (which are the ultimate product of education), but the actual value will depend on the specific mode of thought.
biccat wrote:
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?
An education in the knowledge of Jazz music. Exactly what it says on the tin.
biccat wrote:
2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.
No, I'm suggesting that it places a greater emphasis on the specific nature of the degree. Having a BA in English is not like having a BS in Computer Science.
Long gone are the days when having a BA/BS is sufficient for employers, you need to have the rightBA/BS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I haad a crisis of faith in college, I know many that do. And me and them come out with a better understanding of both god, religion and our place n the world.
I imagine that most people in their late teens or early 20s have crises of faith. Its around that time you start to develop actual independence, and move beyond the "Yeah, whatever my parents are." phase of existence.
Also, lets be honest, church is boring, and, at that age, Sundays are best spent recovering from Saturday night.
biccat wrote:
1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?
To a degree. But I was under the impression that in the context of this thread "educated" essentially meant "educated to a collegiate standard."
What's a collegiate standard then?
Allegedly, the purpose of a K-12 education is to provide for an educated populace. Anything we absolutely need to know should be contained in those 13 years. Anything we learn in college is, therefore, unnecessary. Especially given that college degrees are not subject to a required curriculum.
dogma wrote:No, I'm suggesting that it places a greater emphasis on the specific nature of the degree. Having a BA in English is not like having a BS in Computer Science.
Long gone are the days when having a BA/BS is sufficient for employers, you need to have the rightBA/BS.
When was simply having a BA/BS sufficient for any employer? Even when I talk to law students, the first thing I ask is what was their undergraduate degree.
If the specific degree didn't matter before, why would it matter now?
dogma wrote:2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.
A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.
But then again, the transfer center could be biased.
That's not the experience I've gotten. I've got a BS in Physics, but no one ever seems to care if it's a BA or a BS. Different schools all have different standards for the difference between the two, so it's not really a good sorting tool unless the person is familiar with the college.
The difference between the classes (for the one I'm looking t) is the difference between general college physics for science majors, and engineering level physics. The Chemistry for a BS was something like two semesters more advanced than the on in the BA. At least, I think it is, I'd have to check once I get back from class.
Ok lets get back to talking about what brought this college thing on.
Why is he a Snob for wanting poeple to go to college?
And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.
Also BYU is fairly conservative.
I think, NO. I KNOW santrum wants a world full of uneducated religiious fanatics that do nothing but pray and if he get elected im moving out of here first chance i get.
A second grade student, and a professor are both, broadly, educated.
biccat wrote:
Allegedly, the purpose of a K-12 education is to provide for an educated populace. Anything we absolutely need to know should be contained in those 13 years. Anything we learn in college is, therefore, unnecessary. Especially given that college degrees are not subject to a required curriculum.
Sure, I'll buy that, but you have to recognize that the necessity of knowledge is contingent upon what we want people to learn. No one needs to know anything, but we generally want people to be functional citizens (again, highly ambiguous) and so teach them things we believe will make them functional citizens; thereby defining what people need to learn.
I suppose I've really just answered my own question, and will say that, from a general perspective, to be educated is to have the knowledge one needs to be a functional citizen. And sure, most everything we need to know in order to be a functional citizen is contained K-12, but being a functional citizen doesn't make someone a functional lawyer, doctor, professor, etc.
biccat wrote:
When was simply having a BA/BS sufficient for any employer? Even when I talk to law students, the first thing I ask is what was their undergraduate degree.
If the specific degree didn't matter before, why would it matter now?
There are more of them, and there has been a great degree of speciation in the academy over the last 20-30 years.
As an example, my old man studied political science in undergrad, and his first job out of college was at an accounting firm. If I tried to apply for the same job today, based only on a political science BA, I would have no chance.
I suppose, though, that I made my original point poorly. There were obviously technical requirements regarding degrees, and employers, in the past. I'm arguing that the requirements are now more specific than they were before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.
But then again, the transfer center could be biased.
The difference between a BA and a BS is ambiguous at the best of times.
Though, yeah, generally employers in the sciences like to see BS more than they like to see BA; though that's changing as the classification gets more and more unreliable.
My advice to my graduating students was "Always include 'selected coursework' in your resume."
A second grade student, and a professor are both, broadly, educated.
I get the broader philosophical point you're making. But really, if I (i.e. the taxpayer) am expected to pay for something, it's nice to know what I'm getting for the money.
Does that mean everyone takes Calculus and has a basic understanding of interpretive dance? Or is it just "stay in school for 4 years and get a degree in something?" We can reasonably discuss the benefits of the former; the latter is rhetoric.
dogma wrote:I suppose I've really just answered my own question, and will say that, from a general perspective, to be educated is to have the knowledge one needs to be a functional citizen. And sure, most everything we need to know in order to be a functional citizen is contained K-12, but being a functional citizen doesn't make someone a functional lawyer, doctor, professor, etc.
Sounds like you would accept the idea that college is really more about specialized training than it is a general intangible benefit.
dogma wrote:As an example, my old man studied political science in undergrad, and his first job out of college was at an accounting firm. If I tried to apply for the same job today, based only on a political science BA, I would have no chance.
I suppose, though, that I made my original point poorly. There were obviously technical requirements regarding degrees, and employers, in the past. I'm arguing that the requirements are now more specific than they were before.
I see.
I don't think that the requirements are more specific, I think the problem is that more people are educated. Back when your dad graduated there probably weren't enough accounting graduates to fill the needs of the industry. A political science BA doesn't inherently disqualify you from an accounting job, you're disqualified because there are so many other specialized applicants (accounting majors).
This specialization is generally a good thing (and tends to occur when there's a large market), but it supports my original point: a college degree is worth less today because of the abundance of graduates.
Melissia wrote:A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.
But then again, the transfer center could be biased.
The real issue is, It is a lot easier and less costly for someone in HR to sort out resumes based on degree/no degree/specific degree than it is to actually interview a bunch of people to find the best fit.
Businesses are simply trying to shift HR and training costs from their balance sheets onto the Governments. I don't blame the business community, the essence of good business is to get someone else to pay for your risk.
Perhaps instead of simply accepting this transfer of costs, the government should push back a bit?
biccat wrote:
I get the broader philosophical point you're making. But really, if I (i.e. the taxpayer) am expected to pay for something, it's nice to know what I'm getting for the money.
Does that mean everyone takes Calculus and has a basic understanding of interpretive dance? Or is it just "stay in school for 4 years and get a degree in something?" We can reasonably discuss the benefits of the former; the latter is rhetoric.
I broadly agree that there is too much emphasis on the 4 year degree in America. Its simply that I don't place the onus of blame on the higher education system. I think the problem is primarily cultural, and that it extends beyond any rational self-interest that universities might have regarding their funding.
I also understand the idea that you want to know what you're paying for but funding for higher education isn't quite the same thing as funding for K-12. It isn't entirely tax payer dependent, certainly speaking in terms of federal taxes. You get to know whee your money is going, but you don't get to know quite as much as you do with K-12, and you have less control over it.
biccat wrote:
Sounds like you would accept the idea that college is really more about specialized training than it is a general intangible benefit.
I would include the type of socialization one receives at the collegiate level in "specialized training".
hotsauceman1 wrote:And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.
Wait, are you suggesting that UC Berkeley isn't a liberal college?
hotsauceman1 wrote:And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.
Wait, are you suggesting that UC Berkeley isn't a liberal college?
No, Im simply stating that they cant indoctrinate people. People are there to learn. and if they learn the truth at college, well good for them.
biccat wrote:Apparently you're using a different version of economics than I am.
As the other thread demonstrated, I'm using a version that understands what neo-classical economics are, while you're using a version that doesn't.
I think that an oversupply is a problem. You, apparently, consider it a positive, so much so that the government should encourage an oversupply.
That's not economics.
Except, of course, my suggestion simply didn't mention increasing supply at all. You failed to read what I wrote, yet again, and instead just made up some nonsense in your own head.
I said that there was a benefit to society in having highly skilled professionals. Achieving this doesn't mean opening up more and more college places, it can simply mean being more selective in who attends college. That is, government funding a scheme to make college affordable for anyone with the sufficient talent, without increasing the number of spaces available in colleges. Which would, logically, increase the talent of those attending (as it shifts the requirements from capability & have parents that can pay to simply capability), and thereby improve the quality of graduates, and thereby improve the quality of the next generation of professionals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I am sure the Dutch give a gak about Santorum. Inversely I am sure Santorum gives a gak about the Dutch.
Your response makes no sense. The Dutch don't give a gak about Santorum, except to the extent that they're bothered about anyone telling lies about their country. Santorum doesn't give a gak about the Dutch, except to the extent he can tell fantastical lies that excite people who want to believe lies about scary secular societies.
What you should pick up out of that is not the relationship of the Dutch to Santorum, but that Santorum is telling lies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.
The problem there comes from the system they've used, granting funds to anyone who wanted to attend college, but not placing a check on the number of college places available. The interactions of various factors are too complex for anyone to conclude that that alone is the cause of the oversupply of college graduates (psychological factors and status of being a college graduate are too powerful for the individual student's decision to be assumed as purely rational), but it can certainly be considered a factor.
But consider a system wherein government agreed to fund 100,000 college places a year, in specific, high end degrees, for the brightest 100,000 graduates from high school, but would not fund anyone else. What you'd get is talented people who might otherwise be unable to attend college would go, replacing less talented people with richer parents. And at the same time you'd have no effect on overall college attendance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:As we've see, increasing the amount of money is akin to the current crisis in overinflating the cost of healthcare- a government backed system has led to overcharging and created a system wherein the payer suffers while the organization that collects the money benefits.
Please reconcile this statement with the healthcare systems of other developed countries, who have more government involvement, and yet have lower healthcare costs and generally better outcomes.
It really isn't as simple as government involvement always does x and y. It depends on how government interacts with the system.
Polonius wrote:50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.
The problem there comes from the system they've used, granting funds to anyone who wanted to attend college, but not placing a check on the number of college places available. The interactions of various factors are too complex for anyone to conclude that that alone is the cause of the oversupply of college graduates (psychological factors and status of being a college graduate are too powerful for the individual student's decision to be assumed as purely rational), but it can certainly be considered a factor.
But consider a system wherein government agreed to fund 100,000 college places a year, in specific, high end degrees, for the brightest 100,000 graduates from high school, but would not fund anyone else. What you'd get is talented people who might otherwise be unable to attend college would go, replacing less talented people with richer parents. And at the same time you'd have no effect on overall college attendance.
Its also worth noting that the only incentive colleges have to accept only students likely to succeed is institutional prestige. Institutional prestige is important when considering what a school can charge (people will pay to go to Harvard than to go to Illinois), but its only one factor among several, the dominant one being ability to pay. Once the administration has your tuition, whether or not you succeed or fail is largely irrelevant so long as costs are covered.
dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that the only incentive colleges have to accept only students likely to succeed is institutional prestige. Institutional prestige is important when considering what a school can charge (people will pay to go to Harvard than to go to Illinois), but its only one factor among several, the dominant one being ability to pay. Once the administration has your tuition, whether or not you succeed or fail is largely irrelevant so long as costs are covered.
Having just completed a three year stint working at a university, I can also say that the assumption that universities operate on anything near a rational financial basis to be really very dubious. Money matters, obviously, but the prestige of the university is a priority in and of itself at least equal to financial considerations.
We're talking about academics here, after all, and even the best of them are still more than a little vain. So when it comes to telling their fellows that they are dean of a department that is ranked among the best in the world, and produces more cited research in their field than any other, or telling their fellows their department is consistantly profitable, which do you think they prefer?
ing India here (and no insult meant to India just their old higher education system).
*