|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2015 08:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote:On a bright note I imagine most people would agree that a law that made abortion mandatory was probably overdoing it too. Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.
I'd vote for Kodos.
|
On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses.
I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators.
Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money.
|
On May 20 2015 08:10 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? That all ready exists. You can CLEP a ton of different courses (there are other tests as well). I am all for the expansion of innovation in the education industry. Perhaps we can stop stifling the competition there by onerous licensing and competitive advantages via State-grants, monopolies, and subsidies. Peter Thiel has an interesting post-ed educational plan in the works + there are a million and one better ways to do things than the traditional stasis of the education establishment. I mean, having 100+ people sit it on classes taught by TA's is atrocious and that passes for 'higher education' at State-universities. Yay for people wanting more of that. blegh.
I agree, instead of dumping a bunch of people into shitty CC classes, we should be totally overhauling education. Somewhere in there though should be a 0-liability option for higher education. Where you can learn and get credit but you don't pay anything until you certify if at all. There are limited options along these lines but they need to be modified and expanded.
For instance when I became a real estate agent, I looked online and the information is out there for free, but you have to get instructional hours, then take a test.
Just let people pay to take the test, if they want to pay someone to teach them the stuff go for it.
There's an aspect to education that has been an arbitrary way to exclude certain groups from things they could do just as well as others. By placing monetary barriers in front of educational achievements you can prevent poor people from escaping poverty and turn around and blame them for being uneducated.
I knew everything I needed to know about real estate before I took my first class, yet I HAD to pay. Luckily I found a good school that actually taught me something, but a friend of mine payed 2x more for a shitty online course and had to take his test 2x. That's a dumb way to screen people from being agents. It wreaks of being motivated by something other than making sure agents know what they are doing (it would be even more apparent if you saw the test).
On May 20 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses. I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators. Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money.
I can appreciate that. I think the common ground exists in looking where that funding ends up. That doesn't just mean where federal dollars go, but digging more locally into those districts and seeing how funds are distributed on that level. You can't look at a states spending and use that to assess how individual districts and schools are being funded or those funds being used.
In Philadelphia, the per-pupil allocation in 2009 was $13,384. Just across City Line Avenue is Lower Merion, where the per-pupil allocation was $26,571. That difference adds up to $170,000 over the course of a child's education.
Source
A huge problem is the money goes into the state then gets given to schools that are already vastly better funded without any federal or state help.
|
On May 20 2015 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:10 Wegandi wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? That all ready exists. You can CLEP a ton of different courses (there are other tests as well). I am all for the expansion of innovation in the education industry. Perhaps we can stop stifling the competition there by onerous licensing and competitive advantages via State-grants, monopolies, and subsidies. Peter Thiel has an interesting post-ed educational plan in the works + there are a million and one better ways to do things than the traditional stasis of the education establishment. I mean, having 100+ people sit it on classes taught by TA's is atrocious and that passes for 'higher education' at State-universities. Yay for people wanting more of that. blegh. I agree, instead of dumping a bunch of people into shitty CC classes, we should be totally overhauling education. Somewhere in there though should be a 0-liability option for higher education. Where you can learn and get credit but you don't pay anything until you certify if at all. There are limited options along these lines but they need to be modified and expanded. For instance when I became a real estate agent, I looked online and the information is out there for free, but you have to get instructional hours, then take a test. Just let people pay to take the test, if they want to pay someone to teach them the stuff go for it. There's an aspect to education that has been an arbitrary way to exclude certain groups from things they could do just as well as others. By placing monetary barriers in front of educational achievements you can prevent poor people from escaping poverty and turn around and blame them for being uneducated. I knew everything I needed to know about real estate before I took my first class, yet I HAD to pay. Luckily I found a good school that actually taught me something, but a friend of mine payed 2x more for a shitty online course and had to take his test 2x. That's a dumb way to screen people from being agents. It wreaks of being motivated by something other than making sure agents know what they are doing (it would be even more apparent if you saw the test). Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses. I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators. Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money. I can appreciate that. I think the common ground exists in looking where that funding ends up. That doesn't just mean where federal dollars go, but digging more locally into those districts and seeing how funds are distributed on that level. You can't look at a states spending and use that to assess how individual districts and schools are being funded or those funds being used. Show nested quote +In Philadelphia, the per-pupil allocation in 2009 was $13,384. Just across City Line Avenue is Lower Merion, where the per-pupil allocation was $26,571. That difference adds up to $170,000 over the course of a child's education. SourceA huge problem is the money goes into the state then gets given to schools that are already vastly better funded without any federal or state help.
I just want to jump in and agree with the idea that managing resources tends to be just as big- if not bigger- of a problem in schools and districts than simply acquiring resources. I teach at both the high school and university levels and I'm an educational researcher, and I've found that schools tend to spend way too much money on the latest tech fad or new (and largely irrelevant) curriculum reboot instead of dedicating attention and resources towards infrastructure and basic needs of students and teachers.
|
United States42685 Posts
On May 20 2015 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 08:10 Wegandi wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? That all ready exists. You can CLEP a ton of different courses (there are other tests as well). I am all for the expansion of innovation in the education industry. Perhaps we can stop stifling the competition there by onerous licensing and competitive advantages via State-grants, monopolies, and subsidies. Peter Thiel has an interesting post-ed educational plan in the works + there are a million and one better ways to do things than the traditional stasis of the education establishment. I mean, having 100+ people sit it on classes taught by TA's is atrocious and that passes for 'higher education' at State-universities. Yay for people wanting more of that. blegh. I agree, instead of dumping a bunch of people into shitty CC classes, we should be totally overhauling education. Somewhere in there though should be a 0-liability option for higher education. Where you can learn and get credit but you don't pay anything until you certify if at all. There are limited options along these lines but they need to be modified and expanded. For instance when I became a real estate agent, I looked online and the information is out there for free, but you have to get instructional hours, then take a test. Just let people pay to take the test, if they want to pay someone to teach them the stuff go for it. There's an aspect to education that has been an arbitrary way to exclude certain groups from things they could do just as well as others. By placing monetary barriers in front of educational achievements you can prevent poor people from escaping poverty and turn around and blame them for being uneducated. I knew everything I needed to know about real estate before I took my first class, yet I HAD to pay. Luckily I found a good school that actually taught me something, but a friend of mine payed 2x more for a shitty online course and had to take his test 2x. That's a dumb way to screen people from being agents. It wreaks of being motivated by something other than making sure agents know what they are doing (it would be even more apparent if you saw the test). On May 20 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses. I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators. Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money. I can appreciate that. I think the common ground exists in looking where that funding ends up. That doesn't just mean where federal dollars go, but digging more locally into those districts and seeing how funds are distributed on that level. You can't look at a states spending and use that to assess how individual districts and schools are being funded or those funds being used. In Philadelphia, the per-pupil allocation in 2009 was $13,384. Just across City Line Avenue is Lower Merion, where the per-pupil allocation was $26,571. That difference adds up to $170,000 over the course of a child's education. SourceA huge problem is the money goes into the state then gets given to schools that are already vastly better funded without any federal or state help. I just want to jump in and agree with the idea that managing resources tends to be just as big- if not bigger- of a problem in schools and districts than simply acquiring resources. I teach at both the high school and university levels and I'm an educational researcher, and I've found that schools tend to spend way too much money on the latest tech fad or new (and largely irrelevant) curriculum reboot instead of dedicating attention and resources towards infrastructure and basic needs of students and teachers.
Are the people deciding the funding priorities elected by any chance?
|
On May 20 2015 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 08:10 Wegandi wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? That all ready exists. You can CLEP a ton of different courses (there are other tests as well). I am all for the expansion of innovation in the education industry. Perhaps we can stop stifling the competition there by onerous licensing and competitive advantages via State-grants, monopolies, and subsidies. Peter Thiel has an interesting post-ed educational plan in the works + there are a million and one better ways to do things than the traditional stasis of the education establishment. I mean, having 100+ people sit it on classes taught by TA's is atrocious and that passes for 'higher education' at State-universities. Yay for people wanting more of that. blegh. I agree, instead of dumping a bunch of people into shitty CC classes, we should be totally overhauling education. Somewhere in there though should be a 0-liability option for higher education. Where you can learn and get credit but you don't pay anything until you certify if at all. There are limited options along these lines but they need to be modified and expanded. For instance when I became a real estate agent, I looked online and the information is out there for free, but you have to get instructional hours, then take a test. Just let people pay to take the test, if they want to pay someone to teach them the stuff go for it. There's an aspect to education that has been an arbitrary way to exclude certain groups from things they could do just as well as others. By placing monetary barriers in front of educational achievements you can prevent poor people from escaping poverty and turn around and blame them for being uneducated. I knew everything I needed to know about real estate before I took my first class, yet I HAD to pay. Luckily I found a good school that actually taught me something, but a friend of mine payed 2x more for a shitty online course and had to take his test 2x. That's a dumb way to screen people from being agents. It wreaks of being motivated by something other than making sure agents know what they are doing (it would be even more apparent if you saw the test). On May 20 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses. I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators. Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money. I can appreciate that. I think the common ground exists in looking where that funding ends up. That doesn't just mean where federal dollars go, but digging more locally into those districts and seeing how funds are distributed on that level. You can't look at a states spending and use that to assess how individual districts and schools are being funded or those funds being used. In Philadelphia, the per-pupil allocation in 2009 was $13,384. Just across City Line Avenue is Lower Merion, where the per-pupil allocation was $26,571. That difference adds up to $170,000 over the course of a child's education. SourceA huge problem is the money goes into the state then gets given to schools that are already vastly better funded without any federal or state help. I just want to jump in and agree with the idea that managing resources tends to be just as big- if not bigger- of a problem in schools and districts than simply acquiring resources. I teach at both the high school and university levels and I'm an educational researcher, and I've found that schools tend to spend way too much money on the latest tech fad or new (and largely irrelevant) curriculum reboot instead of dedicating attention and resources towards infrastructure and basic needs of students and teachers. Are the people deciding the funding priorities elected by any chance?
Some are, and those are the ones who shouldn't be reelected. It's unfortunate that many parents or adults who see issues with schooling either don't actively make a difference by voting, or go straight to blaming the teachers, as if the buck should stop with them.
|
Certainly there's a lot that's done wrong in the public policy and practice on education; even when there's clear expert knowledge that points to better ways. At least I hear there's quite a disconnect between the policy as is and what the people who actually study education say should be done.
|
On May 20 2015 09:06 zlefin wrote:
Certainly there's a lot that's done wrong in the public policy and practice on education; even when there's clear expert knowledge that points to better ways. At least I hear there's quite a disconnect between the policy as is and what the people who actually study education say should be done.
Absolutely, and it's what happens when politicians, businesses, and other non-experts are in control of funding schools and creating curricula instead of teachers and educational researchers. The wrong people are in charge of education via schooling, and they end up creating new problems instead of fixing old ones.
|
There's also an aspect of participation. If you think political participation is low, take a look at some PTA's or even worse HOA's.
It's not necessarily because people don't want to participate, part of it is they don't know how. You can easily graduate high school with honors and be completely clueless as to how an organized meeting functions. We learn some token facts about our system but nothing about how to function in a democratic society.
It's been said a million times a hundred different ways but our entire educational system teaches us how to function in the workplace and almost nothing about how to function in our democracy.
As an example I got sick of dealing with HOA's messing up squirmy buyers, so I just dug into the financials and found out most of them are paying some friend to do all the accounting. It wasn't uncommon for upwards of 30% of the money taken in by the HOA to go to the accountant for 'managing the funds' Depending on the size of the neighborhood and what they actually did as part of the HOA it usually added up to several thousands of dollars a year in their pocket for sometimes doing practically nothing.
They get away with it for the same reasons. People just don't have the time, patience, or information to do anything. I could of gone around exposing them to the neighborhood but like a dick + Show Spoiler +(I was able to justify it to myself under my duty to my client, I would negatively be impacting their deal if I gave everyone that information and took away their leverage, I was taught to be so paranoid, I was actually worried they (my clients) would turn around and sue me if they figured it out also 1 reason why I wouldn't doubleside new construction that fell under existing HOA's)
If you have a HOA and you don't know how much the accountant is being paid, you're probably getting robbed legally.
Same type of stuff is happening in education and across politics. It's just amateur hour when you look at groups like PTA's or HOA's because they are just doing shitty imitations of politicians.
|
That $26k figure for that school district is insane. Philly at 13k is perfectly reasonable, the national average is 11k. Personally, I do not buy that shifting financial resources among districts will do much good. Spending and results are loosely correlated, and I would think that a lot of that comes from causality running in the other direction: richer kids having better educational prospects regardless of school spending because of heritable intelligence + out of school education by rich parents.
|
On May 20 2015 10:05 cLutZ wrote:
That $26k figure for that school district is insane. Philly at 13k is perfectly reasonable, the national average is 11k. Personally, I do not buy that shifting financial resources among districts will do much good. Spending and results are loosely correlated, and I would think that a lot of that comes from causality running in the other direction: richer kids having better educational prospects regardless of school spending because of heritable intelligence + out of school education by rich parents.
That loose correlation is diluted further by ignoring vast funding differences on a more local level. The issue is that let's say after local tax funding the poor school has $5k per student, across the imaginary property line a school has $15k per student. We shouldn't even have this issue and it's the first sign of a problem. Well then you add money from the state and feds let's say they account for $15k. That shows up as state funding and gets tied to state results and so on. What it doesn't tell you is that $15k doesn't get divided like one might imagine.
That funding was designed to induce schools to be created and would help pay for schools in poorer areas. What happened was that it just got generalized. So in our previous schools that $15k gets divided something like $10k to the poor school with $5k to the better off school.
So people can say that school got 2x the government funding and did worse than this other school. Neglecting that even after the money, the poor school had $15k per student and the other school has 20k.
The statistics are rigged in a lot of situations. The information one needs to analyze the important details are buried deep and in most places still kept on paper. This is why more detailed reporting is a new objective for movements who want to change something, from police violence to education.
In election news:
KELLY: The polls in New Jersey right now say by a 65 to 29 percent margin the New Jersey voters say you would not make a good president. They know you the best. Why shouldn't we trust them?
CHRISTIE: They want me to stay. A lot of those people that 65 percent want me to stay. I've heard that from lots of people at town hall meetings, don't leave to don't run for president because we want you to stay.
KELLY: But they say you would not make a good president.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 20 2015 10:05 cLutZ wrote:
That $26k figure for that school district is insane. Philly at 13k is perfectly reasonable, the national average is 11k. Personally, I do not buy that shifting financial resources among districts will do much good. Spending and results are loosely correlated, and I would think that a lot of that comes from causality running in the other direction: richer kids having better educational prospects regardless of school spending because of heritable intelligence + out of school education by rich parents.
lol intelligence. pls
|
Muslim organizations are voicing outrage this week after a man who plotted to attack an Islamic community in New York State was released on bail without being charged with terrorism offenses. Community leaders have pointed to a double standard, not only in the legal consequences faced by Robert Doggart, a former congressional candidate from North Carolina, but also in what they say is scant media coverage of his plot to “utterly destroy” the town of Islamberg.
Doggart, 63, was arrested by the FBI before he could carry out his plan of killing residents and firebombing a school and mosque in the small town of predominantly African-American Muslims, located 140 miles north of New York City. Islamberg residents along with representatives of the town’s founding organization, the Muslims of America (TMOA), decried the leniency of the charges leveled against Doggart
He also instructed his accomplices to carry AR-15 and M16 rifles to carry out the attack. “Those guys have to be killed,” he was recorded telling an FBI source in a phone call. “Their buildings need to be burnt down. If we can get in there and do that not losing a man, even the better.” Doggart, who made an unsuccessful bid for Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District seat in 2014, later pleaded guilty to a charge of interstate communication of threats and faces between zero and five years in prison. He was released to home confinement after posting a $30,000 bond.
The plea agreement is an example of a legal double standard, according to Amatul-Wadud, who has called for a meeting with Department of Justice officials. "Anybody who purports to be Muslim and acts inconsistently with the laws would certainly be charged with terrorism," she said. "There should be no discrepancy in how the law is applied to Muslims versus someone who is not Muslim."
Activists have also criticized media coverage of the plot as lacking and disproportionate to the level that would have been expected had Doggart not been a Christian. “It goes without saying that if Doggart had been Muslim and had planned to kill Christians in America, we would have seen wall-to-wall media coverage,”
Source
Texas Update. The gang members from Texas that were 'accidentally' released were most likely released to tell the stash houses where the cops were thinking to raid and what to do with everything.
What's going to make a joke of the justice system is when they have all these corpses and no one is probably going to go down for it. They might be able to pin some guys for discharging weapons and stuff but there's a good chance they don't even get that. At best you get one guy and everyone else claims self defense. Coincidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if the story goes all the shooters are dead or were shooting in self defense, within Texas law.
Thinking about it more, the police might end up getting sued if they push too hard since they opened fire when the bikers weren't apparently shooting AT officers and their story will be that it was a fight that escalated and once someone is shooting AT you, you can obviously legally shoot back.
Mugshots from the Texas Massacre:
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
|
On May 20 2015 12:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Muslim organizations are voicing outrage this week after a man who plotted to attack an Islamic community in New York State was released on bail without being charged with terrorism offenses. Community leaders have pointed to a double standard, not only in the legal consequences faced by Robert Doggart, a former congressional candidate from North Carolina, but also in what they say is scant media coverage of his plot to “utterly destroy” the town of Islamberg.
Doggart, 63, was arrested by the FBI before he could carry out his plan of killing residents and firebombing a school and mosque in the small town of predominantly African-American Muslims, located 140 miles north of New York City. Islamberg residents along with representatives of the town’s founding organization, the Muslims of America (TMOA), decried the leniency of the charges leveled against Doggart
He also instructed his accomplices to carry AR-15 and M16 rifles to carry out the attack. “Those guys have to be killed,” he was recorded telling an FBI source in a phone call. “Their buildings need to be burnt down. If we can get in there and do that not losing a man, even the better.” Doggart, who made an unsuccessful bid for Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District seat in 2014, later pleaded guilty to a charge of interstate communication of threats and faces between zero and five years in prison. He was released to home confinement after posting a $30,000 bond.
The plea agreement is an example of a legal double standard, according to Amatul-Wadud, who has called for a meeting with Department of Justice officials. "Anybody who purports to be Muslim and acts inconsistently with the laws would certainly be charged with terrorism," she said. "There should be no discrepancy in how the law is applied to Muslims versus someone who is not Muslim."
Activists have also criticized media coverage of the plot as lacking and disproportionate to the level that would have been expected had Doggart not been a Christian. “It goes without saying that if Doggart had been Muslim and had planned to kill Christians in America, we would have seen wall-to-wall media coverage,” Source
That's really fucked up x.x
|
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race.
Source
|
On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source
As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part?
|
On May 20 2015 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part?
Cancel the F35?
|
On May 20 2015 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part?
I'd assume that it would come from raising taxes on the super rich, as well as cutting into the defense budget, as GreenHorizons alluded to. One of my best friends dropped out of our costly, prestigious, private liberal arts college after the first year because he didn't have the luxury of "finding himself" while accumulating thousands of student loan debt. He's now taking classes at a local Chicago community college and works at Chipotle. This is an issue that I take personally and I think will resonate with a lot of college students and parents. It's simply abhorrent.
|
On May 20 2015 13:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part? Cancel the F35?
Or simply don't start another iraq war. Apparently that war alone would have paid for ~30 years of this program.
From what i hear here, this Sanders guy actually sounds like a good choice and someone i would vote for (But if i actually could vote for him, i'd obviously investigate further), which is very rare in US politicians i hear about.
|
On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source
I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?
At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eSAbAhi.jpg)
