|
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 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at.
|
On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars 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 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.
you're right let's just wait until everyone that isn't super rich stops going To college and settles down as a burger flipper or janitor for tuition to naturally go down from lack of consumers. Because the beat way to deal with the skyrocketing tuition costs compared to ROI of degrees is to leave it alone and let a generation get screwed over, right?
|
there's also still the problem everywhere that kids from academic households are insanely overrepresented, until that isn't fixed I'd hardly call any education system a huge success.
|
On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at.
Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Our research institutions are also "brain-draining" the top talents from other countries exponentially more so than other countries are doing to us.
|
United States42024 Posts
On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S.
Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable.
|
On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Our research institutions are also "brain-draining" the top talents from other countries exponentially more so than other countries are doing to us.
Right, because of that you can ignore the state of the rest of your education? You know the bits where 99% of students go to?
When you compare the general state of anything you cant just look at the top 0.1% and declare victory.
Not for healthcare, not for education
|
On May 21 2015 00:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable.
Not disagreeing that we need a hell of a lot more affordability and equality of opportunity, but our top schools are the envy of the world. As someone who attended one, I am very aware of their massive shortcomings in education as well as in ability to recruit a truly diverse class, but I also know that people from around the world--including places like the UK and Germany-- send their kids to the US to get a good education. This is true at the undergrad level and even more true for a lot of graduate programs.
|
On May 21 2015 01:15 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:51 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable. Not disagreeing that we need a hell of a lot more affordability and equality of opportunity, but our top schools are the envy of the world. As someone who attended one, I am very aware of their massive shortcomings in education as well as in ability to recruit a truly diverse class, but I also know that people from around the world--including places like the UK and Germany-- send their kids to the US to get a good education. This is true at the undergrad level and even more true for a lot of graduate programs.
not to mention most private universities offer scholarships for qualified students whose parents don't make enough. There are also foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation etc etc.
|
On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars 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 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.
Free education is small fries compared to guaranteed basic income. The administrative and extra costs at private universities have ballooned because they are feeding on federally subsidized grants while competing with each other for students. Just make it free for all and costs will go down, and Harvard can continue to be Harvard if you want.
But you need to get onboard wth basic income Dangles. Free education is small fries and already exists in places like Canada: https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961
The machines are coming. 3.5 million truckers in the US going to lose their jobs in the next 15 years. Disappearance of small towns in the heartland. Real America is going to be the first to go and the Real Americans would willingly accelerate their demise.
|
On May 21 2015 01:15 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:51 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable. Not disagreeing that we need a hell of a lot more affordability and equality of opportunity, but our top schools are the envy of the world. As someone who attended one, I am very aware of their massive shortcomings in education as well as in ability to recruit a truly diverse class, but I also know that people from around the world--including places like the UK and Germany-- send their kids to the US to get a good education. This is true at the undergrad level and even more true for a lot of graduate programs.
Can we call it what it is? Most rich foreigners don't send their kids to Harvard for an "education" so much as an "education in how to be upper class." The main benefits are almost entirely related to prestige, networking with other rich and educated people, and being socialized in the upper class.
|
On May 21 2015 01:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars 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 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. Free education is small fries compared to guaranteed basic income. The administrative and extra costs at private universities have ballooned because they are feeding on federally subsidized grants while competing with each other for students. Just make it free for all and costs will go down, and Harvard can continue to be Harvard if you want. But you need to get onboard wth basic income Dangles. Free education is small fries and already exists in places like Canada: https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961The machines are coming. 3.5 million truckers in the US going to lose their jobs in the next 15 years. Disappearance of small towns in the heartland. Real America is going to be the first to go and the Real Americans would willingly accelerate their demise.
I remembered a town/city in Canada implemented the basic income thing for like a year and it worked for them. But realistically do you think this would also work for America?
|
On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
Middle and upper class.* Today's bachelor's degree was last generation's high school diploma. It's absolutely expected that you go to college, and to become competitive in the employment market, you need additional experience and frequently a graduate (master's or higher) degree. Simply graduating college does not guarantee you a job, let alone a well-paying, relevant job... as nearly every recent college graduate will tell you (quite angrily, and rightly so). A large portion of college graduates can't simply start to easily pay off their student loans in a timely manner.
Of course, we definitely shouldn't be denying benefits for the poor either, but there are plenty of other places we can cut from (e.g., military spending) that could provide the U.S. with the 60-70 billion dollars needed to make college 100% free for everyone.
|
On May 21 2015 00:00 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. The professors are not the ones that are benefiting from higher college costs. Professor positions and benefits are being constantly cut, with more adjunct professors (who make well under minimum wage for the amount of work they do) working than ever. The idea that professors are just making more money and teaching less classes is absolutely ridiculous.
Precisely, and I'm exactly one of these adjuncts who is looking for full-time university positions, but administrations rarely offer them. Why pay a single professor a significant amount of money and added benefits when you can hire 2 or 3 adjuncts for a fraction of the price, with few benefits, that still end up teaching the same amount (or more)? You need to have quite a lot of publications under your belt and be a genius at writing grants to be offered even a tenured-track professorship, nowadays.
|
On May 21 2015 01:26 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 01:20 IgnE wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars 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 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. Free education is small fries compared to guaranteed basic income. The administrative and extra costs at private universities have ballooned because they are feeding on federally subsidized grants while competing with each other for students. Just make it free for all and costs will go down, and Harvard can continue to be Harvard if you want. But you need to get onboard wth basic income Dangles. Free education is small fries and already exists in places like Canada: https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961The machines are coming. 3.5 million truckers in the US going to lose their jobs in the next 15 years. Disappearance of small towns in the heartland. Real America is going to be the first to go and the Real Americans would willingly accelerate their demise. I remembered a town/city in Canada implemented the basic income thing for like a year and it worked for them. But realistically do you think this would also work for America?
Did you read the article? Not only do I think it can work, I think it is the only way to prop up capitalism in the 21st century without reverting to a feudalistic society dominated by private tyrannies (i.e. the machine owners).
|
United States42024 Posts
On May 21 2015 01:15 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:51 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable. Not disagreeing that we need a hell of a lot more affordability and equality of opportunity, but our top schools are the envy of the world. As someone who attended one, I am very aware of their massive shortcomings in education as well as in ability to recruit a truly diverse class, but I also know that people from around the world--including places like the UK and Germany-- send their kids to the US to get a good education. This is true at the undergrad level and even more true for a lot of graduate programs.
I was not aware of any desire or interest in US universities while at British universities. The idea that I would have had to go to America to get a "good" education is a little absurd and a lot condescending. Quite the opposite, British universities are filling up with foreign students taking advantage of our very high quality of education. 435,000 of them in 2014 for example.
http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Info-for-universities-colleges--schools/Policy-research--statistics/Research--statistics/International-students-in-UK-HE/
|
The UK is a pretty obvious exception to the rule that much of the world's upper-middle class comes to the US for higher ed.
|
People from engineering school in France don't go to the US for the quality of education, which is worse overall from everyone I've heard who's gone there, but for other reason that stem from the overall appeal of US culture. Signal and international appeal French school don't have. Losing one year in Caltech is worth it if you want to work out of France apparently.
|
The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines.
Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values.
The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.
In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.
The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion.
Source
|
On May 21 2015 02:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines.
Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values.
The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.
In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.
The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion. Source
Boom! About damn time they have to plead guilty! We've all known it for years but now at least part of it is official and on record as being guilty. Still no prison for the people responsible, but at least they had to admit they did it and not just pay their way out without admitting why they are paying.
|
On May 21 2015 01:15 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 00:51 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2015 00:49 ref4 wrote:On May 21 2015 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On May 20 2015 23:57 meadbert wrote:
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
If you actually believe the US education system isn't fucked when compared to the rest of the western world then I don't know what your looking at. Most of the world's top-ranked universities are in the U.S. Most of the world's university spending happens in the U.S. And yet the rest of the world functions well enough spending far, far less and getting something comparable. Not disagreeing that we need a hell of a lot more affordability and equality of opportunity, but our top schools are the envy of the world. As someone who attended one, I am very aware of their massive shortcomings in education as well as in ability to recruit a truly diverse class, but I also know that people from around the world--including places like the UK and Germany-- send their kids to the US to get a good education. This is true at the undergrad level and even more true for a lot of graduate programs.
Your implications are totally off the mark. Germans do not need to go to the US to get a good education. They do not even do it in large numbers. A highly diverse first world country with hundreds of millions of inhabitants and a corresponding infrastructure will automatically see large numbers of temporary and permanent migration, in both directions. That some Germans do go to the US for some part of their studies has (as was already explained to you) many reasons, and is not due to some bullshit singular need of "good education".
Most go the US to get english language in business/science practice because it is the dominant language in the world, and the US is a good place to interact with many english speakers in the respective desired field of study.
Some go for establishing connections and collecting prestige, especially Ivy League students, but that does not prove their education quality but just their gateway function to getting wellconnected and their percieved importance by human resources in the business and science world.
It actually looks like ignorance of the quality of graduate programms at for instance an MPI, looking like you think it is not exceptional world class education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
