|
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. |
Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. There are very few people who, without the existence of a severe mental disability, can't get admitted to at least a community college. Free college simply won't mean 'no college'.
Making community college free will be life changing for millions of potential students who otherwise would not have been able to gain access to higher education.
|
On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality.
Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it.
And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by.
|
Rand Paul is currently doing a "real" filibuster of the Patriot Act, for those who are interested in that.
|
United States43808 Posts
I wonder if reading the text of the Patriot Act in full would qualify as a filibuster. Not only would it buy time but it might do something to prevent them passing it. Are you allowed props while filibustering?
|
Yes. Usually people just read from a text that they like or think supports the values of the filibuster.
|
On May 21 2015 06:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Again taxes disproportionately hit the rich. You seem to be ignoring this and presenting the tax burden as being shouldered by the people who didn't get into college. It's really not. And again the benefits of the educated society affect the poor. It's not as simple as an efficient business manager or a great doctor simply increasing their own riches, their compensation is a reflection of the greater good they provide for the wider society including the poor. You're 0/2 on this argument.
I would agree to a compromise where those who go to college at the state's expense pay a higher tax rate or receive less in social security to compensate for the privileged education they received.
Doctors help society, but the medical field is very competitive and pays well. Doctors are capable of paying back their own student loans and do not need the state's assistance.
|
On May 21 2015 06:22 KwarK wrote:
I wonder if reading the text of the Patriot Act in full would qualify as a filibuster. Not only would it buy time but it might do something to prevent them passing it. Are you allowed props while filibustering?
Hell, you should promote politicians reading all Bills in full regardless of the reasons. Seems like most politicians don't even care about the laws they're voting on, and only care about the premises that they're supposed to be based on.
|
On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality.
Colleges literally do not give half of a shit what your income is and if you're rich enough to go there. Do some? Yes. However, the vast majority of truly elite universities are need-blind. Is there a disproportionate number of rich people at top universities? Yes. But is that because the universities are targeting wealthier students or because wealthier students are better prepared to go to top universities? More likely than not, it's because people who come from lower income areas are just not prepared as well in high school. In lower income areas the average SAT drops significantly, the amount of people taking AP and other advanced classes drops significantly, and you get into areas where there's not necessarily an expectation that the majority of students will go to college.
And just so you know, college is not cheap for anybody except the upper end of the 1%. Actually, families that are at the higher end of middle class or lower end of upper class are hurt the most by the higher tuition. The way universities calculate financial aid screws over people with incomes >$200k/year, because that's not nearly enough to just hand over $60k a year out of pocket, yet but those students don't receive any sort of financial aid. A lot of those students have to try and find schools that will offer them significant merit awards, since they just can't receive enough need-based aid at schools with no merit awards.
Poor students are actually in a better position financially at top universities, provided they can gain admission. Stanford eliminated tuition for anyone with an income of less than $120k per year (most Americans). Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have some of the most generous financial aid offerings of any college. If you get in, they will make it affordable. The problem is that most lower income students are in positions where they will not have the opportunities to get into those schools. Breaking down the first barrier where those future students' parents can gain any kind of higher education would be a huge win towards eventually closing the inequality.
|
On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by.
Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed.
If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges.
|
United States43808 Posts
On May 21 2015 06:27 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. And just so you know, college is not cheap for anybody except the upper end of the 1%. Actually, families that are at the higher end of middle class or lower end of upper class are hurt the most by the higher tuition. The way universities calculate financial aid screws over people with incomes >$200k/year, because that's not nearly enough to just hand over $60k a year out of pocket, yet but those students don't receive any sort of financial aid. A lot of those students have to try and find schools that will offer them significant merit awards, since they just can't receive enough need-based aid at schools with no merit awards. Poor students are actually in a better position financially at top universities, provided they can gain admission. Stanford eliminated tuition for anyone with an income of less than $120k per year (most Americans). Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have some of the most generous financial aid offerings of any college. If you get in, they will make it affordable. The problem is that most lower income students are in positions where they will not have the opportunities to get into those schools. Breaking down the first barrier where those future students' parents can gain any kind of higher education would be a huge win towards eventually closing the inequality.
You lost me here. If you make 200k and for four years you have to spend 60k supporting your kids then
1) Couldn't you have seen this coming in the previous 18 years and saved a little money in each of those?
2) What the hell are you spending the other 140k on?
Because really the suggestion that 200k isn't enough that you could take 60k away from it and still make ends meet is a little insulting. If you were to give me 200k a year and then insist that for a small number of years I can only treat 140k of that 200k as discretionary income I'm pretty sure I'd be okay. I'm pretty sure most people would be okay.
|
On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges.
Your position makes no sense.
You want public funding for things that will help everybody.
College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college.
So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college.
And yet you oppose this.
|
On May 21 2015 06:27 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Colleges literally do not give half of a shit what your income is and if you're rich enough to go there. Do some? Yes. However, the vast majority of truly elite universities are need-blind. Is there a disproportionate number of rich people at top universities? Yes. But is that because the universities are targeting wealthier students or because wealthier students are better prepared to go to top universities? More likely than not, it's because people who come from lower income areas are just not prepared as well in high school. In lower income areas the average SAT drops significantly, the amount of people taking AP and other advanced classes drops significantly, and you get into areas where there's not necessarily an expectation that the majority of students will go to college. And just so you know, college is not cheap for anybody except the upper end of the 1%. Actually, families that are at the higher end of middle class or lower end of upper class are hurt the most by the higher tuition. The way universities calculate financial aid screws over people with incomes >$200k/year, because that's not nearly enough to just hand over $60k a year out of pocket, yet but those students don't receive any sort of financial aid. A lot of those students have to try and find schools that will offer them significant merit awards, since they just can't receive enough need-based aid at schools with no merit awards. Poor students are actually in a better position financially at top universities, provided they can gain admission. Stanford eliminated tuition for anyone with an income of less than $120k per year (most Americans). Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have some of the most generous financial aid offerings of any college. If you get in, they will make it affordable. The problem is that most lower income students are in positions where they will not have the opportunities to get into those schools. Breaking down the first barrier where those future students' parents can gain any kind of higher education would be a huge win towards eventually closing the inequality.
As you say there is a disproportionate number of rich kids at top universities. There are also a disproportionate number of top 35% kids at lower end universities. Subsidized tuition at selective schools benefits the rich. While you may find it inconvenient for a family making $200K/year to hand over $60K to some college, how is it fair to make some family making $40K/year and with no one in college to pay instead?
|
On May 21 2015 06:39 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:27 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Colleges literally do not give half of a shit what your income is and if you're rich enough to go there. Do some? Yes. However, the vast majority of truly elite universities are need-blind. Is there a disproportionate number of rich people at top universities? Yes. But is that because the universities are targeting wealthier students or because wealthier students are better prepared to go to top universities? More likely than not, it's because people who come from lower income areas are just not prepared as well in high school. In lower income areas the average SAT drops significantly, the amount of people taking AP and other advanced classes drops significantly, and you get into areas where there's not necessarily an expectation that the majority of students will go to college. And just so you know, college is not cheap for anybody except the upper end of the 1%. Actually, families that are at the higher end of middle class or lower end of upper class are hurt the most by the higher tuition. The way universities calculate financial aid screws over people with incomes >$200k/year, because that's not nearly enough to just hand over $60k a year out of pocket, yet but those students don't receive any sort of financial aid. A lot of those students have to try and find schools that will offer them significant merit awards, since they just can't receive enough need-based aid at schools with no merit awards. Poor students are actually in a better position financially at top universities, provided they can gain admission. Stanford eliminated tuition for anyone with an income of less than $120k per year (most Americans). Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have some of the most generous financial aid offerings of any college. If you get in, they will make it affordable. The problem is that most lower income students are in positions where they will not have the opportunities to get into those schools. Breaking down the first barrier where those future students' parents can gain any kind of higher education would be a huge win towards eventually closing the inequality. As you say there is a disproportionate number of rich kids at top universities. There are also a disproportionate number of top 35% kids at lower end universities. Subsidized tuition at selective schools benefits the rich. While you may find it inconvenient for a family making $200K/year to hand over $60K to some college, how is it fair to make some family making $40K/year and with no one in college to pay instead?
They wouldn't. That's the entire point of making it free.
|
Only in America will people argue that free education favors the rich...
|
On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this.
If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine.
|
On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where your parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality.
Maybe it's just me, but usually college hits the middle class, and upper middle class the hardest.
Just rich enough that you don't get any financial assistance outside of low-interest loans.
But not rich enough to fully pay off college without loans.
If you're poor and going to a top-tier college, you get a large amount of grants and financial assistance.
If you're rich, well... you're rich. lol.
On May 21 2015 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. There are very few people who, without the existence of a severe mental disability, can't get admitted to at least a community college. Free college simply won't mean 'no college'. Making community college free will be life changing for millions of potential students who otherwise would not have been able to gain access to higher education.
ehhh, community college is still extremely easily affordable for most people that you're mentioning, the real barrier to entry for community college is still being able to find time to take classes, all while making enough money to sustain yourself. Making it free would help, but not by the magnitude you think it will.
|
On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this.
He's repeatedly contradicted himself throughout his posts over the last few pages. I'm actually just beginning to think he's screwing with everyone.
|
On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall 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.
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges.
That's the thing though, can you really call them "elite" colleges if they are free? Are you arguing that there shouldn't be intellectually elite colleges? I think everyone is agreeing with you that currently the system favors students from families that can afford to send them to good schools. What you seem to be failing to realize is that if higher education was free, this privilege would go away. And if the money to pay for it came from taxing stock sales, it's unlikely that it would be a burden felt by the lower to middle class.
Then we are left with elite colleges that are elite only because the best and brightest get to go there, no matter what their background, because it doesn't cost them any money. Now, if you want to argue that it would be easier for privileged kids to get the K-12 education that allows them to get into a good college, there may be merit to that, but at least we would have gotten rid of the paywall surrounding college itself.
EDIT: If I didn't receive help from my parents to go to college, I can't honestly say I would have gone. At the very least I definitely wouldn't have gone to an out of state 4-year college (Colorado State). I'm about to get married and with the way tuition prices are going, unless there is a serious overhaul of the higher education system we will have to be real with our kids and have them seriously think about whether a college education is worth the money. My guess from this far out is probably not unless they want to be doctors, lawyers, or engineers.
|
On May 21 2015 06:46 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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. This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity. Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this. If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine.
Any institution that takes significant government money should be open to anyone. The very fact that this isn't a thing right now is part of the reason why tuition fee's have gotten completely out of control.
|
On May 21 2015 06:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 06:46 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 21 2015 06:34 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 06:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 21 2015 06:07 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 04:53 meadbert wrote:On May 21 2015 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2015 03:00 meadbert wrote:
[quote]
This is how you promote inequality. You design an admissions system which finds those students who are most likely to succeed in the future and offers them admission, while denying those who are less likely to succeed the same opportunity.
Who said anything about that? Why would free college actively deny others opportunities? If anything, it opens the idea of college up to anyone who's interested, regardless of whether or not they're currently too poor to pay for it. So Berkeley can close down its admissions office and accept everyone? This is the second post in a row with me that you've created a complete non sequitur. Free/ cheap education does not necessarily lead to actively denying people opportunities to attend college. If anything, it does the opposite, as the cost becomes less of an issue for those who are poorer. Free/ cheap education does not mean that colleges must accept everyone. There should (and would) still be admissions processes, competitive applications, and other criteria and benchmarks before one can be accepted into good/ great universities. The admissions process consists of colleges measuring how likely someone is to succeed. Those students who are accepted were already more likely to succeed even before being allowed in. Grades are an indication of how likely you are to succeed. The SAT is basically an IQ test. Colleges ask where you parents went to school? Do you have any legacies? The whole process is designed to select those who are already most privileged and most likely to succeed so they can further educate them and help them succeed more. This is economically efficient as it is easier to train someone who is already very smart and educated to become a doctor than someone who is behind in school, but it makes no sense to force the 65% who will not get degrees to pay for it. Welfare for the poor is one thing, but welfare for the rich is something else entirely. While college graduates may not be the 1%, they are the 35% and are in no need of welfare. Under the current system a high school class may apply for college. The privileged half get in and go, while the unfortunate half grabs what low paying jobs they can. Meanwhile the unfortunate half are forced to pay taxes on their meager income to support the future upper class while they study, relax on lazy rivers and do whatever else it is the upper class does in college. The idea that free tuition is targeted at the poor is ludicrous. This is not means tested free tuition being talked about. This is across the board free tuition which applies to whoever gets in and for the most part "whoever gets in" = "children of rich parents." The will always be a few exceptions to the rule, but the general rule remains that those with well off parents go to college while those with poor parents do not. Free college for those with good enough grades and high enough test scores to get in and no college for those without is a blueprint for how to promote inequality. Ignoring that many people who know they will never afford college or university don't ever apply for it. And also ignoring that many colleges exist (or should exist) as trade schools for careers that may not need the highest educated people, but do need hard working people who are properly trained. Which, again, many people don't even try for because they need to start working in low-end jobs as soon as they can just to get by. Would these trade schools be open to the public? If so then I am fine with subsidizing tuition. What I am against are subsidies aimed at elite colleges with elaborate admissions systems designed to weed out anyone unlikely to succeed. If we are talking about education aimed at the bottom 65% that anyone is welcome to sign up for, then I am in favour. I am in favour of free high school, but not free elite colleges. Your position makes no sense. You want public funding for things that will help everybody. College is currently for "privileged elites only". The only way that this statement makes sense is if you are referring to the fact that only the financially privileged (those that can afford it) can go to college. So, to remove that "privileged elite" status, people are proposing that college should be free, which breaks down a major barrier for poor people entering college. And yet you oppose this. If a college is willing to abandon its admissions process and become public (as in open to the public like public high school) then I am in favour. Community College and trade schools are fine. Any institution that takes significant government money should be open to anyone. The very fact that this isn't a thing right now is part of the reason why tuition fee's have gotten completely out of control.
Wat, no. that's not. Especially in regards to the UC system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
