If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Austin Statesman)   Texas Governor calls for $10,000 bachelor's degrees   (statesman.com) divider line 218
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

2986 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2011 at 2:26 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-14 03:20:05 PM

Epoch_Zero: It's is the most dumb and extremely careless with money.


Self-derp. Nice.
 
2011-02-14 03:22:26 PM

Barricaded Gunman: PowerSlacker: Collegiate sports programs only are unprofitable because of Title IX requirements that forces the schools to fund unprofitable women's sports.

Citation needed.


Lenny_da_Hog: I still don't fault schools for having sports programs... Lots of average kids have made it through college on sports scholarships.

So within moments of having your baseless assertion about school sports profitability shown to be a complete load of nonsense, you just shrug your shoulders and crap out another one? I must say, I admire your ability to ignore reality.


And you edited out the part that said sports are a part of traditional college life. And as someone else posted the link, the assertion wasn't baseless, it was just incorrect. There were stories saying that sports programs pay for themselves, they just don't include all costs.

You also ignored the fact that, when it was pointed out, I said yes, trim over-expending sports programs, but don't eliminate them.

You're just a late jump-on. biatch more.
 
2011-02-14 03:25:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: PowerSlacker: Philip Francis Queeg: Lenny_da_Hog: Scerpes: Lenny_da_Hog: sprawl15: Instead of building a new stadium, lower tuition. There. What do I win?

A "D" in economics.

Sports programs usually pay for themselves or turn a profit for the school.

You don't know what you're talking about. Very few college sports programs make money. (new window)

Oh. Times have changed.

I still don't fault schools for having sports programs. It's been a traditional part of college life for a long time. Trim them back if they've gotten far too big, but don't eliminate them. Lots of average kids have made it through college on sports scholarships.

But when a financial crunch comes, shouldn't the over riding priority of a University be it's educational programs, not athletics?

How do you propose schools steal the money that goes strictly for collegiate athletics?

They don't need to steal anything. Just stop subsidizing sports.

In Illinois, a state which in nearly bankrupt, the highest paid state employee is the U of I football coach at roughly $1,000,000/yr.

At the same time tuition is being increased 9.5%, and educational programs are being cut.


Illinois is not subsidizing its football coach. In fact, its football program is subsidizing minor sports.
 
2011-02-14 03:25:46 PM

tdude: Occam's Nailfile: Skleenar: DRTFA, but it really doesn't seem to be news when a Texas politician calls for less education.

If college went to 90% telecommuting, it could be done easily. The only time a student would need to be in school would be for labs and for classes that require hands-on work.

No fking reason for a new school book to cost $300 when you could theoretically download one to your iPad. And they could stop enforcing the purchase of new books because a word was (intentionally) misspelled in the previous year's version.

Education is invaluable, but colleges are a racket.

I agree with everything said above - but would also argue that by doing so you would miss out on the most important "parts" of a college degree:

1) The experience. The more experiences you have will make you more rounded of a person/better educated overall. This includes the ability to traverse the college bureaucracy/put up with random shiat. This goes beyond how to "learn how to learn something new", it hopefully will challenge your prior beliefs, make you more independent and gets you set for living a life as a subject (taxpayer, reading contracts, etc).

2) Create connections / friends that often payback in spades later. I can't overemphasize this. I used to have a bias against Fraternities/Sororities when I was in college ... if I could go back in time I'd join, and will encourage my kids to do this. Most of my peers that attended them rose up much faster in the ranks than those that didn't.



Make the experience available for those who can afford to pay for it. Private universities can continue running themselves however they like. But for those who cannot afford it, let them still have a chance to earn a degree through a streamlined public university system.


1) the american dream (work hard, be rewarded) is basically a myth to keep the "meek" down and obedient while those in the know prosper (with few exceptions)


Bullshiat. Unless you are lazy, disabled, functionally retarded, or a complete asshole who is unwilling to compromise, you can succeed in this country. Yes, it's tougher lately, but not impossible. I don't have a degree, and I make over $100K at a job that I enjoy. I had work jobs I DIDN'T enjoy to gain the experience, and let myself be exploited a bit while I learned the politics of business, and had to fall on my face a few times, but I got there, and I'm nobody special.

2) what gets you ahead faster/new jobs, etc is your connections. People like hiring people they know/trust over those they don't. The lion's share of the jobs I've had in the last 10 years has been due to the contacts I've cultivated over my career.

You don't need a college degree to make connections. Go get a social membership at a local country club for $100 a month, play cards with people, network, make sure everyone you know has a copy of your business card and knows what you do for a living - or what you want to do.

Also, if you have had so many jobs in the past ten years that you can refer to a percentage of them as a "lion's share", you're doing it wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against getting a degree...I have three college funds set up for my kids, and they will graduate or I will kill them until they die. I'm just saying that a lack of a degree is not an excuse for failure, and the possession of a degree does not ensure success.
 
2011-02-14 03:26:50 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Shrugging Atlas: That idea smacks of Socialism. Perry's asking for a Tea Bagging, and I'm not just talking about on Craigslist.

Is you trolling? I hear him saying "cut government spending on education" and you saying "That's socialism".

Can you please explain how?


He's messing with the free market of course. Colleges should be allowed to charge whatever absurd rates they wish. If we can bail out Detroit and the Banks with taxpayer money, we should bail out schools as well. And since he's messing with the free market, he's Socialist.

Does that make sense to you? Because it shouldn't.
 
2011-02-14 03:29:29 PM

Shrugging Atlas: He's messing with the free market of course. Colleges should be allowed to charge whatever absurd rates they wish.


State colleges?
 
2011-02-14 03:30:14 PM

Occam's Nailfile: You don't need a college degree to make connections. Go get a social membership at a local country club for $100 a month, play cards with people, network, make sure everyone you know has a copy of your business card and knows what you do for a living - or what you want to do.


Qu'ils mangent de la brioche
 
2011-02-14 03:30:22 PM

muck4doo: Send the students to school in Mexico. That should be around $10k


you can get a Masters down there for 15-20 k and walk out

I knew a guy who did it, he never had to work for it, they just wanted his money.
 
2011-02-14 03:35:58 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: I'm sorry, what were you saying?


Sigh, do I really have to explain this? You were wrong. I was showing you that even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
 
2011-02-14 03:44:58 PM

sprawl15: Lenny_da_Hog: I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Sigh, do I really have to explain this? You were wrong. I was showing you that even if you were right, you would still be wrong.


And again, if it's cost neutral, as your specific example was asking, what is the harm?

You gave a specific example. I responded to you specifically, with your specific example. You now cower in the shelter of other posts that didn't have that specific example.
 
2011-02-14 03:47:14 PM

ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.


This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.
 
2011-02-14 03:50:39 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: You gave a specific example. I responded to you specifically, with your specific example. You now cower in the shelter of other posts that didn't have that specific example.


What do you think it was a specific example of?
 
2011-02-14 03:51:55 PM

sprawl15: Lenny_da_Hog: You gave a specific example. I responded to you specifically, with your specific example. You now cower in the shelter of other posts that didn't have that specific example.

What do you think it was a specific example of?


Followup: How is "So what, nerd?" a valid response?
 
2011-02-14 03:52:14 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Shrugging Atlas: He's messing with the free market of course. Colleges should be allowed to charge whatever absurd rates they wish.

State colleges?


"State" colleges? As in colleges of the State? That too sounds Socialist. When did Obama do this??
 
2011-02-14 03:52:21 PM
It's a bad plan.
 
2011-02-14 03:52:56 PM

hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.


After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.
 
2011-02-14 04:00:57 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: sprawl15: Instead of building a new stadium, lower tuition. There. What do I win?

A "D" in economics.

Sports programs usually pay for themselves or turn a profit for the school.




Wrong. Very very few college sports programs actually make money. Of the top 100 Division 1A schools, only about 10 actually turned a profit. There was an interesting report about this that came out about 6 months back.
 
2011-02-14 04:01:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.

After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.



Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.
 
2011-02-14 04:03:19 PM
I call on auto manufacturers to build a new car, with all the modern electronic and security features, for LESS than $3,000!

That's about as likely to happen as a $10k Bachelor's degree. hell, you can't educate CHILDREN for $10k for 4 years, why the hell would you have advanced degrees that cheap?

Idiots.
 
2011-02-14 04:03:29 PM

hasty ambush: Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.


Wait... should?

Sounds like some anti-free-market talk.
 
2011-02-14 04:04:37 PM

sprawl15: sprawl15: Lenny_da_Hog: You gave a specific example. I responded to you specifically, with your specific example. You now cower in the shelter of other posts that didn't have that specific example.

What do you think it was a specific example of?

Followup: How is "So what, nerd?" a valid response?


It was a specific example of sports profits being rolled back into sports programs, which would leave it cost-neutral.

"So what, nerd," is asking you what you have against a cost-neutral sports program -- the specific example you gave.
 
2011-02-14 04:06:39 PM

PowerSlacker: Remove artifical demand in the form of student aid, watch price plummet.


We need move away from the idea that everybody needs a college education. Partly because of this idea a BA has about the same value as a high school diploma did 20 years ago and except for cost is about as easy to get.
 
2011-02-14 04:07:44 PM
How's this headline: Fark.com poster calls for cock-punching Texas governor


Being that incredibly stupid should hurt.
 
2011-02-14 04:08:15 PM

hasty ambush: PowerSlacker: Remove artifical demand in the form of student aid, watch price plummet.

We need move away from the idea that everybody needs a college education. Partly because of this idea a BA has about the same value as a high school diploma did 20 years ago and except for cost is about as easy to get.


How about expanding support for those to go to vocational schools instead?
 
2011-02-14 04:08:21 PM
I think the better solution would be to get rid of 11th and 12th grade and use the public money allocated for those to pay for the first two years of college or a two year vocational/technical degree.
 
2011-02-14 04:08:31 PM

hasty ambush: Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.


Most (all?) public universities have subsidized tuition rates for in-state students. What more are they supposed to do? Declare by fiat that the university officially simply cost less to maintain? That's all the TX Gov can come up with - "just, uh ... make it ... like ... cost ... ... ... LESS!"

You might as well just demand that students show up on campus with more money, as if saying so will fix the problem.
 
2011-02-14 04:09:08 PM
So, the Texas government is going to provide highly-subsidized higher education to Texas residents? Great!

Oh, that's not it, hmm?

Let me try again: The Texas government is going to cut funding to education, make unreasonable demands, blame liberal atheist socialist muslin elitists for failing and start cutting state schools loose because they're just lost causes and it's all the left's fault? Is that it? What do I win?
 
2011-02-14 04:09:29 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: It was a specific example of sports profits being rolled back into sports programs, which would leave it cost-neutral.


Spending profits on aesthetic improvements is not 'cost neutrality' any more than blowing your paycheck on hookers and blow means you don't have to pay income tax.
 
2011-02-14 04:09:51 PM

Cinaed: hasty ambush: Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

Wait... should?

Sounds like some anti-free-market talk.


State universities and colleges are not the free market. Private institutions are of course free to charge what they want.
 
2011-02-14 04:10:10 PM

Epoch_Zero: I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that Texas is both near the last scored in education and near the highest in state welfare.

It's is the most dumb and extremely careless with money.

I'm sure this will end well.


It also has the lowest rate of health coverage and they implemented medical liability reforms that Republicans are saying would drive down costs.

This is the state conservatives want the US to become like, low wages, low benefits, low living standards. Texas becomes more and more a third world nation daily. And it STILL has one of the highest budget deficits in the nation.
 
2011-02-14 04:10:10 PM

hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.

After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.


Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.


Your solution to stop the extortion is to shoot the person being extorted.

College tuition inflation is a problem. Eliminating the means by which a person who isn't born to wealthy parents can possibly finance a college education isn't the answer.

Neither of my parents would have been able to afford college without scholarships and other aide. They both worked nearly full time in college, but that took care of room and board, and that was the early 60s.
 
2011-02-14 04:14:40 PM

hasty ambush: State universities and colleges are not the free market.


Correct, and therein lies the problem if your earlier statement had any seriousness behind it.
 
2011-02-14 04:16:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.

After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.


Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.

Your solution to stop the extortion is to shoot the person being extorted.

College tuition inflation is a problem. Eliminating the means by which a person who isn't born to wealthy parents can possibly finance a college education isn't the answer.

Neither of my parents would have been able to afford college without scholarships and other aide. They both worked nearly full time in college, but that took care of room and board, and that was the early 60s.


We are eliminati8ng the means by which the extornist can get away with charging what the does. Reducing tuition rates is the most realistic means of making college more affordable not more government aid.

To this I would add we nned to stop tying what student aid that colleges make avialble to the parents income. There are many students 18-23 years old not being supported by their parents and the aid they recive should not be based on those parents income.
 
2011-02-14 04:16:55 PM
Apart from the having no idea how to make this a reality, how does Perry plan to coerce employers to hire someone from an "on-line" school?
 
2011-02-14 04:18:59 PM

Weaver95: "My answer is I have no idea how," McKinney, chancellor of the Texas A&M University System, told the Senate Finance Committee. "I'm not going to say that it can't be done."

sure you do, but you're not gonna talk about in public. hell, you could save a couple thousand dollars just by bringing the text books into the 21st century.


The text books, OMG the godawful, outdated, error-riddled farking overpriced goddamn text books...
 
2011-02-14 04:19:07 PM

hasty ambush: We are eliminati8ng the means by which the extornist can get away with charging what the does.


Yes, killing the victim of extortion will do that.

/Take the hostage out of the equation.
// Yeah well... I'm taller
 
2011-02-14 04:19:13 PM

Occam's Nailfile: Skleenar: DRTFA, but it really doesn't seem to be news when a Texas politician calls for less education.

If college went to 90% telecommuting, it could be done easily. The only time a student would need to be in school would be for labs and for classes that require hands-on work.

No fking reason for a new school book to cost $300 when you could theoretically download one to your iPad. And they could stop enforcing the purchase of new books because a word was (intentionally) misspelled in the previous year's version.

Education is invaluable, but colleges are a racket.


Just wait until e-textbooks are mandatory. They'll only be available for purchase through the university and they'll self-delete after one year. It's coming sooner than you think.

The college textbook industry is one of the biggest scams that pervades higher education. The prices they charge for information that could be obtained for free on the internet are insane, but colleges will force professors to require them in exchange for kickbacks and lower costs to carry them in university bookstores.

/grad student
//haven't bought a book in three years
///thank god for inter-library loan programs
 
2011-02-14 04:21:34 PM

hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.

After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.


Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.

Your solution to stop the extortion is to shoot the person being extorted.

College tuition inflation is a problem. Eliminating the means by which a person who isn't born to wealthy parents can possibly finance a college education isn't the answer.

Neither of my parents would have been able to afford college without scholarships and other aide. They both worked nearly full time in college, but that took care of room and board, and that was the early 60s.

We are eliminati8ng the means by which the extornist can get away with charging what the does. Reducing tuition rates is the most realistic means of making college more affordable not more government aid.

To this I would add we nned to stop tying what student aid that colleges make avialble to the parents income. There are many students 18-23 years old not being supported by their parents and the aid they recive should not be based on those parents income.


I see. So in your opinion we not only need to eliminate student loans and decrease student aid, we need to spread the remaining aid out to the children of the wealthy who can afford it anyway.

You certainly are homing in on the solution to the problem. If the problem is "Poor kids going to college", that is.
 
2011-02-14 04:22:24 PM
1. Eliminate funding for NCAA sponsored sports. All athletics on campus will be intramural.

2. Eliminate ridiculous technology/activity/admin fees that do little to improve any of the former items while padding the bottom line.

/problem solved
 
2011-02-14 04:28:28 PM

Fart_Machine: Apart from the having no idea how to make this a reality, how does Perry plan to coerce employers to hire someone from an "on-line" school?



Many courses are already taught on line and not just at the University of Phoenix. Get with the 21st century. Off site education is the future.

Beyond that there are plenty of ways to lower costs first and foremost would be to eliminate the "required" courses that have nothing to do with students major. Many of these courses are required to justify a teaching position for somebody whose degree would not enable them to get a job outside of academia (ie. Women's studies). They are forced upon the students under the guise of making them more well rounded but the jack up the cost. If it was all about a well rounded education you would see philosophy majors forced to take a mechanical or chemical engineering course or two.

I know many people with engineering degrees who be just fine without have to pay off the part of the student loan that went to course in sociology or the humanities.
 
2011-02-14 04:31:12 PM

hasty ambush: Beyond that there are plenty of ways to lower costs first and foremost would be to eliminate the "required" courses that have nothing to do with students major. Many of these courses are required to justify a teaching position for somebody whose degree would not enable them to get a job outside of academia (ie. Women's studies).


The elimination of general education requirements is more revolutionary than you think.

It's easy to say an Engineering major shouldn't have to take humanities, but should an English major be walking around with a Bachelor's degree and no coursework in mathematics or science at all?
 
2011-02-14 04:36:01 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Lots of average kids have made it through college on sports scholarships.


No. Sports scholarships don't go to "average" kids, they go to kids with exceptional ability. That's fine and all - I'm not opposed to athletic programs in particular - but if athletic scholarship programs went away, "average" kids would be unaffected.

As for TFA (which I can't be bothered to read, I'm afraid) - a $10,000 degree works out to about $278 a month, based on four 9-month academic years. Right now, I pay $375 a month for after-school care for my kid; preschool and, before that, day care were even more expensive. Does anyone really think it reasonable to propose that a decent post-secondary education should cost less than preschool or after-school care?
 
2011-02-14 04:36:39 PM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: hasty ambush: Beyond that there are plenty of ways to lower costs first and foremost would be to eliminate the "required" courses that have nothing to do with students major. Many of these courses are required to justify a teaching position for somebody whose degree would not enable them to get a job outside of academia (ie. Women's studies).

The elimination of general education requirements is more revolutionary than you think.

It's easy to say an Engineering major shouldn't have to take humanities, but should an English major be walking around with a Bachelor's degree and no coursework in mathematics or science at all?


I think both sides should have exposure to the other. People do alot of different things in the course of their life. College should be more than a narrow trade school for one small part of it.
 
2011-02-14 04:40:36 PM

hasty ambush: Many courses are already taught on line and not just at the University of Phoenix. Get with the 21st century. Off site education is the future.


Yes, and many employers think University of Phoenix is a diploma mill and don't take on-line degrees seriously.
 
2011-02-14 04:43:24 PM

Occam's Nailfile:
1) the american dream (work hard, be rewarded) is basically a myth to keep the "meek" down and obedient while those in the know prosper (with few exceptions)

Bullshiat. Unless you are lazy, disabled, functionally retarded, or a complete asshole who is unwilling to compromise, you can succeed in this country. Yes, it's tougher lately, but not impossible. I don't have a degree, and I make over $100K at a job that I enjoy. I had work jobs I DIDN'T enjoy to gain the experience, and let myself be exploited a bit while I learned the politics of business, and had to fall on my face a few times, but I got there, and I'm nobody special.


Good for you - I'd consider you one of the exceptions. I know many that are making far more than that while having done/doing much less. My point was the connections makes it far easier/faster to succeed (if you define success by your income).

2) what gets you ahead faster/new jobs, etc is your connections. People like hiring people they know/trust over those they don't. The lion's share of the jobs I've had in the last 10 years has been due to the contacts I've cultivated over my career.

You don't need a college degree to make connections. Go get a social membership at a local country club for $100 a month, play cards with people, network, make sure everyone you know has a copy of your business card and knows what you do for a living - or what you want to do.


Agreed. Go do as many as you can - however in my opinion you'll have a much better chance if you associate with people that are at the same place you are. If you have a big network already, great. If not, you will need to socialize with people you have things in common with to make friends/connections, right? At College the studies are the equalizing factor (everyone has paid for tuition/books in some way). If you are just starting out, going to a country club is a poor choice imo as why would any businessman want to play a round of golf with you (and that is even assuming you live near a country club)? If you answer that you are a hot female (male), then this entire thread is redundant to you anyway :)

Also, if you have had so many jobs in the past ten years that you can refer to a percentage of them as a "lion's share", you're doing it wrong.

Would guess that depends on your definition. A bit less than ten years ago I switched to being a consultant, and each job I get I earn more money (yes I often have multiple concurrent jobs), and things have been booming since then.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against getting a degree...I have three college funds set up for my kids, and they will graduate or I will kill them until they die. I'm just saying that a lack of a degree is not an excuse for failure, and the possession of a degree does not ensure success.

Yes, agree here too, mostly. Ultimately it comes down to your profession. However there are still many jobs/opportunities out there (I'm in white collar, so can't speak outside of that) that consider a college degree a requirement for entry, either explicit (in the job description) or implied (in who they choose).
 
2011-02-14 04:47:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: ne2d: Stop subsidizing higher education with student loans and watch the price of tuition plummet.

This. The only reason institutions of "higher learning" get away with charging the tuition rates they do is students are able to pay them because of government loans and handouts.

Tuition rates have increased faster than the cost of living but for some reason these institutions of "higher learning" do not face the same outrage as health insurance or oil companies.

After all only the wealthy really should be going to college. We are all best off if the children of the poor don't get silly notions of life beyond their station. All they need is to learn to obey their betters who have money.


Your statement does not address the fact that colleges and universities are charging more for tuition than they should.

If you are really concerned about the non-wealthy's ability to afford a higher education you would be asking that something be done about the exorbitant tuition rates not that government step in and help them pay those rates.

It is like asking government to help pay an extortionist instead of arresting him.

Your solution to stop the extortion is to shoot the person being extorted.

College tuition inflation is a problem. Eliminating the means by which a person who isn't born to wealthy parents can possibly finance a college education isn't the answer.

Neither of my parents would have been able to afford college without scholarships and other aide. They both worked nearly full time in college, but that took care of room and board, and that was the early 60s.

We are eliminati8ng the means by which the extornist can get away with charging what the does. Reducing tuition rates is the most realistic means of making college more affordable not more government aid.

To this I would add we nned to stop tying what student aid that colleges make avialble to the parents income. There are many students 18-23 years old not being supported by their parents and the aid they recive should not be based on those parents income.

I see. So in your opinion we not only need to eliminate student loans and decrease student aid, we need to spread the remaining aid out to the children of the wealthy who can afford it anyway.

You certainly are homing in on the solution to the problem. If the problem is "Poor kids going to college", that is.



You have offered no solution except to make it possible to for colleges to keep over charging the poor as well as everybody else by making government money available to pay the extortion. Remove the money you remove the incentive to overcharge making it more affordable fore everybody rich and poor.

But I am going t o piss you off even more. There should be no Federal level money for education. It is not a Federal responsibility it is a state one. Federal responsibilities are limited to civil rights issues. Whatever state money is made available should be targeted toward degrees that will be of benefit to those financing the education-the tax payer.

For example we have a shortage of nurses so it would be the states interest to help finance the education of those who are becoming nurses in the form of a low cost loan or an agreement to work in a community health clinic for x years after degree completion at a reduced salary.

On the other hand we have too many lawyers in this country so no government money should be made available for those studying to become a lawyer. In fact there should be a education surcharge on those people desiring to become scumsuckingmaggotlawyers at taxpayer financed institutions.

If you want a degree in women's studies, 13th Century children's literature or the Klingon Language you are on your own to pay for it.
 
2011-02-14 04:47:46 PM
Perry was inspired by comments that Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft Corp. and co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, made at a conference in California, said Catherine Frazier , a spokeswoman. A video posted on YouTube captured some of Gates' remarks.

"College, except for the parties, needs to be less place-based," he said. Web-based instruction and other technology could drive the price down to $2,000 a year, he said.


Because all academic programs should be as rigorous as University of Phoenix Online.

I mean, universities can and should cut costs. But that's ridiculous. A big part of your education happens when you socialize with your peers. The premium you pay to go to Big Name U. covers a lot of advantages. The opportunity to rub elbows with bright people is one of them. Socialization with people who demand more of themselves changes your values. You start to demand more of yourself too, and you start performing better as a result.

I respectfully assert that Mr. Gates does not fully understand higher education. It's not just about what's in the books, or how well you can perform on a standardized test. Much of it is tied to place, to the extent that socialization is necessarily tied to place. Much will be lost if universities go this direction.
 
2011-02-14 04:48:26 PM

mitchcumstein1: Can you even get an Associates Degree for $10K anymore?


Yes.$26 per unit in california, 60 units for an associates degree, give or take a class or two comes to $1560. Add in student fees (insurance, health services, etc) plus parking passes, and we still haven't broken $2k. Toss in a generous $500 for books and other supplies over two or three years, and you've spent less than $2500 for your AA/AS or transfer to a 4 year. Save $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

/I like cali
 
2011-02-14 04:51:35 PM

rewind2846: Toss in a generous $500 for books and other supplies over two or three years


$500 per semester, maybe.... you should still come in well under $10,000 though.

/AA Riverside Community College... super cheap
/BS West Chester University of PA.... not quite as lucky, but still decent.
 
2011-02-14 04:54:03 PM

captain_heroic44: I mean, universities can and should cut costs. But that's ridiculous. A big part of your education happens when you socialize with your peers. The premium you pay to go to Big Name U. covers a lot of advantages. The opportunity to rub elbows with bright people is one of them. Socialization with people who demand more of themselves changes your values. You start to demand more of yourself too, and you start performing better as a result.


Bullshiat.

I respectfully assert that Mr. Gates does not fully understand higher education.

I respectfully assert that Mr. Gate gets a billion dollar note massage from Melinda every night, and you don't, so I have to go with his opinion.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report