Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The New York Times)   Finally, with student debt topping $1 trillion, college presidents are waking up and recognizing that they might have to handle education costs through methods other than tuition increases. Maybe think about following a budget and things   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, student debt, establishments, tuition increases, sports memorabilia, Gordon Gee, tuition, higher educations, academic disciplines  
•       •       •

8774 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2012 at 5:21 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



405 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-14 10:34:21 PM  

KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.


Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.
 
2012-05-14 10:36:15 PM  
Of course! Rather than not taking out 20k for a semester of partying, let's reinvent the whole system. Damn damn damn, maybe I really should have put myself 150k into student debt, I probably would have picked up the skills needed to figure out such a complex problem
 
2012-05-14 10:36:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: gimmegimme: It sounds like you're agreeing with me. You are specifically stating that W, Rmoney, Donald Jr. and Ivanka and Chewie are on top because of advantages given them by their older relatives, not because of their hard work or inherent intelligence or other qualities. (If his father weren't George H.W. Bush, George would have been crawling around in the jungle instead of cheerleading, no?)

You said: "those who are on top necessarily had to beat others to be in that position." Did you mean that each of these individuals are successful because the sperm cell they once were beat all the others to the egg?

No. You're not giving some of them enough credit.

George W. Bush did have to have some smarts to get through Harvard, even with a C average, and to get to be President, he had to beat out everyone who wanted to be up there. He's not some potato-counting retard, for all that people around here hate his guts, and he did have the ability to lead this country for eight years--not everyone can do that, no matter how good his support team is. After all, there are lots of people who DIDN'T make it into Harvard, even with all Daddy's money behind them, and DIDN'T graduate, no matter how many palms got greased, and DIDN'T make it as governor, no matter who got kickbacks--there still has to be some talent.

Same with Trump. He's not the incompetent douchebag people would like to believe, even if he's no good at handling money. He's a brilliant promoter, as evidenced by his continuing success at selling his brand, despite multiple well-publicized failures. How many wannabe promoters and business moguls fell by the wayside during the 80's and 90's? Hint: Most of them.

So don't discount ability and drive just because you have contempt for the individual. It's there. It may be misused, but it's there.


www.intomobile.com
 
2012-05-14 10:36:44 PM  

JaaVaa: wademh: thecpt: What are you babbling about? Are you disagreeing with my two "facts". They are rather incontestable.
Perhaps you should look up the genetic fallacy. Stating what is, is not stating what ought to be. Describing reality is not advocating for that reality. The strong may tend to dominate the weak but that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.

Nothing in what I wrote disparages hard work. If you think it does, you'll need to work harder at trying to understand logic.

No that was the other guy who they were contesting before, who is bragging about how lazy he is. However, you seem to be the babbler. You don't want to encourage the strong to work hard? If you praise logic then you have see how your previous statement concluded with that.

You fail. The words are preserved above. Nothing I said logically discourages the strong from working hard, unless you mean the implication of not bullying the weak, however, that's a determined misreading. Any sense of advocacy is your introduction.

I feel like you would do great on a Verbal section, but my God would a BS/PS section make you its farking biatch.
/I realize that's not your specialty
//still wouldn't mind your antagonistic verbal skills
///spanish major didn't provide me with those


It is my specialty so you're wrong twice. But I'm poly specialities, analytical biochemistry, analytical physical chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, toxicology, bioinformatics. The tests were always easy. Verbal skills came later.
 
2012-05-14 10:36:57 PM  

Dog Welder: The fact that tuition at Ohio State has gone up 60% in 10 years suggests to me that they're doing something horribly wrong. And the sad thing is, it's probably a normal rate of tuition increase across the board.


Only 60%? That's probably well below the average.
 
2012-05-14 10:37:56 PM  
 
2012-05-14 10:42:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: gimmegimme: It sounds like you're agreeing with me. You are specifically stating that W, Rmoney, Donald Jr. and Ivanka and Chewie are on top because of advantages given them by their older relatives, not because of their hard work or inherent intelligence or other qualities. (If his father weren't George H.W. Bush, George would have been crawling around in the jungle instead of cheerleading, no?)

You said: "those who are on top necessarily had to beat others to be in that position." Did you mean that each of these individuals are successful because the sperm cell they once were beat all the others to the egg?

No. You're not giving some of them enough credit.

George W. Bush did have to have some smarts to get through Harvard, even with a C average, and to get to be President, he had to beat out everyone who wanted to be up there. He's not some potato-counting retard, for all that people around here hate his guts, and he did have the ability to lead this country for eight years--not everyone can do that, no matter how good his support team is. After all, there are lots of people who DIDN'T make it into Harvard, even with all Daddy's money behind them, and DIDN'T graduate, no matter how many palms got greased, and DIDN'T make it as governor, no matter who got kickbacks--there still has to be some talent.

Same with Trump. He's not the incompetent douchebag people would like to believe, even if he's no good at handling money. He's a brilliant promoter, as evidenced by his continuing success at selling his brand, despite multiple well-publicized failures. How many wannabe promoters and business moguls fell by the wayside during the 80's and 90's? Hint: Most of them.

So don't discount ability and drive just because you have contempt for the individual. It's there. It may be misused, but it's there.


Given the state he left the country in, I severely question the statement, "...he had the ability to lead this country for eight years...

It rather akin to saying "Buchanan had the abililty to lead this country for four years."
 
2012-05-14 10:43:40 PM  

Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.


Like these?

http://www.google.com/search?q=university%20technology%20incubator
 
2012-05-14 10:44:59 PM  

JaaVaa: thecpt

It's more fun to imagine him like this.


Morel iike this:
mediatapper.com
 
2012-05-14 10:45:13 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.

Like these?

http://www.google.com/search?q=university%20technology%20incubator


Christ people, I work at a University, a big one, in R&D and I see these ideas languish. Tech Incubators are a great idea but are severely underfunded and often only help people write business proposals instead of helping with serious engineering muscle.
 
2012-05-14 10:46:23 PM  

melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.


A PhD in Arabic could have a number of good jobs.
 
2012-05-14 10:47:41 PM  

unlikely: umad: unlikely: Maybe stop throwing good money after bad into the football program?

Football programs bring in enough to not only pay for themselves, but to also pay for all of the women's sports that don't make any money.

Can't tell if serious.

a) What does funding ANY of that have to do with academics


What do ivy-covered walls and nice green quads have to do with academics?

Hey, I have an idea: let's replace all that with a parking lot because it has nothing to do with course material or teaching people marketable skills. Better yet, let's sell off the campus to a private developer and move all the operations into the old county office complex. It has fluorescent lights and nice gray carpeting and reassuringly cramped hallways that minimize the risk of irrelevant social interaction.

/Why yes, I did go to Asperger State.
 
2012-05-14 10:48:19 PM  

Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.


By law, publically funded instituions can't use state funds for profit. The rules on what can and cannot be done with money frim different sources is dizzying. I mean, it's an idea with potenial, but the university system would have to lobby the state legislature to do it...and right now a lot of schools are stuggling just teach the same number of students.
 
2012-05-14 10:49:28 PM  

melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.


Oh hai!

chzbronies.files.wordpress.com

I'd suggest reading

ecx.images-amazon.com

and then maybe you'll realize

thesituationist.files.wordpress.com

/it's getting hot in here
//I am aware there are very prestigious graduate programs
///congratulations on getting into yours
////being pretentious about it doesn't help the cause
 
2012-05-14 10:50:11 PM  

wademh: JaaVaa: thecpt

It's more fun to imagine him like this.

Morel iike this:


So both of us. Whatever. Your way worked for you and mine worked for me. It's probably drawn from personal experience. Things you liked came easy to you and I had to work at it. If we're both successful then our educations worked for us.
 
2012-05-14 10:50:25 PM  

Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.

Like these?

http://www.google.com/search?q=university%20technology%20incubator

Christ people, I work at a University, a big one, in R&D and I see these ideas languish. Tech Incubators are a great idea but are severely underfunded and often only help people write business proposals instead of helping with serious engineering muscle.


Well. We're waiting...
 
2012-05-14 10:52:06 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

A PhD in Arabic could have a number of good jobs.


To continue the stereotyping, this might be the best job offer (I heard they pay you in virgins or something):

schoolbusdriver.org
 
2012-05-14 10:52:08 PM  

Xcott: unlikely: umad: unlikely: Maybe stop throwing good money after bad into the football program?

Football programs bring in enough to not only pay for themselves, but to also pay for all of the women's sports that don't make any money.

Can't tell if serious.

a) What does funding ANY of that have to do with academics

What do ivy-covered walls and nice green quads have to do with academics?

Hey, I have an idea: let's replace all that with a parking lot because it has nothing to do with course material or teaching people marketable skills. Better yet, let's sell off the campus to a private developer and move all the operations into the old county office complex. It has fluorescent lights and nice gray carpeting and reassuringly cramped hallways that minimize the risk of irrelevant social interaction.

/Why yes, I did go to Asperger State.


You know that grounds keeping is a pittance in cost compared to the crappy football program of a wannabe pack 10 school?

And we need our lab buildings.
 
2012-05-14 10:53:44 PM  

KiplingKat872: Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.

By law, publically funded instituions can't use state funds for profit. The rules on what can and cannot be done with money frim different sources is dizzying. I mean, it's an idea with potenial, but the university system would have to lobby the state legislature to do it...and right now a lot of schools are stuggling just teach the same number of students.


Good point, the business interests in states often have shiat fits when they feel a U system is encroaching on their territory. At the same time said state is also slashing funding to the school.
 
2012-05-14 10:53:52 PM  

thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.


Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.
 
2012-05-14 10:54:39 PM  

wademh: JaaVaa: thecpt

It's more fun to imagine him like this.

Morel iike this:
[mediatapper.com image 300x330]


alaskabibleteacher.files.wordpress.com

/hothot
 
2012-05-14 10:56:39 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: KiplingKat872: Brontes: KiplingKat872: Brontes: herrDrFarkenstein: Brontes: Universities could make a mint helping their engineering professors transfer patents out of the system or outright funding starts ups.

They already do that. Tier I research schools have a whole bureaucracy that facilitates grants, contracts, and the protection of the U's IP - cuz they own the profs so they own the ideas (big chunk anyway)

List of relevent patent activities.
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/university-patents/

It is not nearly as streamlined and efficient as it should be, it is relies more on who knows who. Besides, if the Univ. helped fund some of the ideas and got them running as start ups, more equity to the University.

Universities give start-up funds for research when the professor is initially hired to get them going before they get grants.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about funding companies and not just labs. If they chose to help get ideas into a more beta form before selling the IP, they could keep a higher % of revenue.

By law, publically funded instituions can't use state funds for profit. The rules on what can and cannot be done with money frim different sources is dizzying. I mean, it's an idea with potenial, but the university system would have to lobby the state legislature to do it...and right now a lot of schools are stuggling just teach the same number of students.

Good point, the business interests in states often have shiat fits when they feel a U system is encroaching on their territory. At the same time said state is also slashing funding to the school.


Wow. That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of it like that.
 
2012-05-14 11:01:27 PM  

wademh: thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.

Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.


"inference that can be logically reached from the words presented"...nope. And there was a logical break in between those magical two sentences before and that one.
 
2012-05-14 11:04:19 PM  

Warlordtrooper: netizencain: It'll never happen. As long as the government is willing to continue to loan money to anyone, schools will just keep raising tuition. It's the circle of life.

And they can also stop raising tuition. I'm getting sick and tired of blame everything on the government crap. Nobody is putting a gun to their head forcing them to raise tuition rates.


Why should they not raise tuition? No matter how high they raise tuition the students can always get the money thanks to the government. There is no motivation to cut costs because there is no benefits to doing so.

My mom paid for college in 1973 by working as the night manager at the local KFC. There were few loans. If colleges raised tuition's too much people could not afford to go and instead went to another cheaper school. Colleges had to compete on price, there was more supply than demand. With government loans there is more demand than supply and so prices will continue to go up.

If you demanded a 10% raise every year and found that your boss paid it year after year, you bet your ass you'd milk it for all it's worth. You wouldn't give up that gravy train until the business went off a cliff.
 
2012-05-14 11:06:08 PM  

JaaVaa: herrDrFarkenstein: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

A PhD in Arabic could have a number of good jobs.

To continue the stereotyping, this might be the best job offer (I heard they pay you in virgins or something):

[schoolbusdriver.org image 469x625]


NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Being highly fluent in the world's third most common national language, and one with huge developing and security implications ... Worthless, I know.
 
2012-05-14 11:06:36 PM  

thecpt: wademh: thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.

Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.

"inference that can be logically reached from the words presented"...nope. And there was a logical break in between those magical two sentences before and that one.


weknowmemes.com

/sorry
//I'll go to bed now
 
2012-05-14 11:07:58 PM  

Brontes: Christ people, I work at a University, a big one, in R&D and I see these ideas languish. Tech Incubators are a great idea but are severely underfunded and often only help people write business proposals instead of helping with serious engineering muscle.


The typical problem with tech incubators is that they are "a good idea" that get administered by people who don't understand innovation and entrepreneurship. Politicians want to hear about how we are going to leverage these fancy universities and all that government funded research to benefit the economy and they want something tangible and near term. So, following the typical "edifice complex", a building is funded. Then they announce the total funding for the project, which includes assumptions about getting external funding that never actually comes. So you get a 100 million dollar building that needs 50 million a year to run but only has 5 million in funding. To avoid the obvious sense of a boondoggle, the facility is filled with people who don't actually have a viable transition plan to transform early research into a commercial product or activity. And seriously, very very few academics understand what's involved in that process. The people who do understand won't work in these tech incubators because the funding is soft and therefore unreliable and the pay is usually less than top flight people can make in industry.

But the politicians like them and can get money for them because they check the boxes, so we do them again and again.
 
2012-05-14 11:09:33 PM  
Prior to 2001, there was a statutory cap of 6% on annual tuition increases in the state of Ohio. At that point, the Taft administration decided to drastically cut state funding for higher education. In return they removed the 6% cap so the financial shifted to students in a major way. You'll notice that this is when the 60% increase in the tuition at OSU began.

Decent paying jobs requiring only a HS diploma are disappearing from Ohio (a situation starting in the '80's). In order to have any chance at anything better than a minimum-wage future, you absolutely need some post-secondary education but most people are being priced out of it unless they are willing to assume a lifetime of crushing debt. So here is the choice: a) skip college and eat dirt ya uneducated redneck, or b) go to college, go in debt and eat dirt ya overqualified elitist.

/either way, quit whining and kowtow to the 1%
 
2012-05-14 11:10:08 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: JaaVaa: herrDrFarkenstein: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

A PhD in Arabic could have a number of good jobs.

To continue the stereotyping, this might be the best job offer (I heard they pay you in virgins or something):

[schoolbusdriver.org image 469x625]

NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Being highly fluent in the world's third most common national language, and one with huge developing and security implications ... Worthless, I know.


I was being highly sarcastic, I just figured the expression on the image and me saying I wasn't serious would be expression enough.

Being fluent in multiple languages is an extremely big job opportunity. And I mean actually fluent in both, not that crap they teach you in HS/College and claim you got a major in, I mean like living there for multiple years in complete immersion fluent.

Being multilingual will get you further in life than most college degrees, if you market yourself properly, and your second language isn't pig latin.
 
2012-05-14 11:10:08 PM  
Here is an example of IP that made it that with some state funding, but if the University had supplied the early engineering, they would have made waaaay more then they did.

http://www.otc.utexas.edu/News/SpinoffCompanysSaleHailed.jsp
 
2012-05-14 11:11:44 PM  

Crosshair: Warlordtrooper: netizencain: It'll never happen. As long as the government is willing to continue to loan money to anyone, schools will just keep raising tuition. It's the circle of life.

And they can also stop raising tuition. I'm getting sick and tired of blame everything on the government crap. Nobody is putting a gun to their head forcing them to raise tuition rates.

Why should they not raise tuition? No matter how high they raise tuition the students can always get the money thanks to the government. There is no motivation to cut costs because there is no benefits to doing so.

My mom paid for college in 1973 by working as the night manager at the local KFC. There were few loans. If colleges raised tuition's too much people could not afford to go and instead went to another cheaper school. Colleges had to compete on price, there was more supply than demand. With government loans there is more demand than supply and so prices will continue to go up.

If you demanded a 10% raise every year and found that your boss paid it year after year, you bet your ass you'd milk it for all it's worth. You wouldn't give up that gravy train until the business went off a cliff.


Complete bullshiat. The cost of public colleges in this country has never been paid through tuition alone, but by a combination of state and federal tax money, research and contract overhead, charitable giving, and tuition. Each of these accounts for roughly 1/4 of the overall funding stream, mileage will vary by specific system.

1. Recession hits.

2. States and Fed cut tax financing even more steeply after a decade of weakened support, contracts and research grants become more competitive as sources shrink and more people go after them to take up slack, and charitable giving collapses with the stock market.

3. Record number of students enroll in college (no jobs), return to college (lost jobs), or stay in college (to avoid having to pay back loans in a jobless recession).

Colleges are then faced with a dramatically increased demand to provide services to students whose tuition never fully covered the real cost of their education. Students use up staff time, wear out equipment, and drive up utility costs and the colleges go into the red.

You can cut staff salaries, but then you have bigger classes and less maintenance. You can reduce infrastructure, but we need to educate workers for 21st century jobs. You can offer online alternatives, but that's a crap education.

You can raise tuition. But that saddles students with more debt in a bad economy. But the money has to come from somewhere. Loans defer public costs and hide the responsibility.

There is plenty of political demand for higher education in this country, but no political will to support it. The decline of public education in this country is now peaking into higher ed.

Until the other legs of the stool readjust, students are what remain however unfair that is. Meanwhile China graduates more engineers alone each year than we do all college grads in total. Zài jiàn!
 
2012-05-14 11:14:17 PM  

thecpt: wademh: thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.

Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.

"inference that can be logically reached from the words presented"...nope. And there was a logical break in between those magical two sentences before and that one.


No, there isn't a logical break in there. Read it again. Find the thread. It isn't that hard.

(a)Stating what is, (b) is not stating what ought to be.
(a)Describing reality (b) is not advocating for that reality.
(a)The strong may tend to dominate the weak but (b) that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.
 
2012-05-14 11:15:04 PM  

JaaVaa: herrDrFarkenstein: JaaVaa: herrDrFarkenstein: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

A PhD in Arabic could have a number of good jobs.

To continue the stereotyping, this might be the best job offer (I heard they pay you in virgins or something):

[schoolbusdriver.org image 469x625]

NotSureIfSerious.jpg

Being highly fluent in the world's third most common national language, and one with huge developing and security implications ... Worthless, I know.

I was being highly sarcastic, I just figured the expression on the image and me saying I wasn't serious would be expression enough.

Being fluent in multiple languages is an extremely big job opportunity. And I mean actually fluent in both, not that crap they teach you in HS/College and claim you got a major in, I mean like living there for multiple years in complete immersion fluent.

Being multilingual will get you further in life than most college degrees, if you market yourself properly, and your second language isn't pig latin.


Besides, if you want to be paid in virgins stay at university amirite?
 
2012-05-14 11:19:22 PM  

melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.


Traditional PhD programs, that admit students with the customary tuition waiver and stipend, are as selective as ever, since they are obviously limited by the number of available funding lines (and this certainly doesn't go up in a down economy.)

However, many students do not know what is "traditional" or "customary," and in recent years a lot of them have handed over their own money to go to grad school. Universities are happy to admit students who pay their own way, and even expand their programs or invent entirely new ones to accept more of them.

This is apparently changing societal expectations of Ph.D. programs. I advise undergraduates that they're never supposed to pay to be a Ph.D. student, that this is like paying to be a monk. This is standard and common sense advice. However, if I say this online, I often incur a volley of hostile responses from a bunch of people who supposedly "know" better and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 
2012-05-14 11:22:26 PM  

Xcott: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

Traditional PhD programs, that admit students with the customary tuition waiver and stipend, are as selective as ever, since they are obviously limited by the number of available funding lines (and this certainly doesn't go up in a down economy.)

However, many students do not know what is "traditional" or "customary," and in recent years a lot of them have handed over their own money to go to grad school. Universities are happy to admit students who pay their own way, and even expand their programs or invent entirely new ones to accept more of them.

This is apparently changing societal expectations of Ph.D. programs. I advise undergraduates that they're never supposed to pay to be a Ph.D. student, that this is like paying to be a monk. This is standard and common sense advice. However, if I say this online, I often incur a volley of hostile responses from a bunch of people who supposedly "know" better and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.


Spot on advice.
 
2012-05-14 11:24:48 PM  

that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years
//I try not to think about it
///just happy to be working


My alumni department finally found my number.

I told the poor kid to go get fingerbanged by Freddy Krueger.

I like your approach better though.
 
2012-05-14 11:26:16 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: Xcott: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

Traditional PhD programs, that admit students with the customary tuition waiver and stipend, are as selective as ever, since they are obviously limited by the number of available funding lines (and this certainly doesn't go up in a down economy.)

However, many students do not know what is "traditional" or "customary," and in recent years a lot of them have handed over their own money to go to grad school. Universities are happy to admit students who pay their own way, and even expand their programs or invent entirely new ones to accept more of them.

This is apparently changing societal expectations of Ph.D. programs. I advise undergraduates that they're never supposed to pay to be a Ph.D. student, that this is like paying to be a monk. This is standard and common sense advice. However, if I say this online, I often incur a volley of hostile responses from a bunch of people who supposedly "know" better and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Spot on advice.


Odd, I didn't know people had that misconception.
In all the cases I know, Ph.D. programs pay you.
 
2012-05-14 11:26:29 PM  

Xcott: melopene: PhD programs are a whole different story -- they're grasping at straws just to get people to fill their programs.

You're an idiot. I just got hooded (with a sweet TT job waiting for me) from a top-5 program in my field, and they are still insanely selective. Don't presume to speak for the entire graduate market just because you study Arabic lit or some stupid shiat like that.

Traditional PhD programs, that admit students with the customary tuition waiver and stipend, are as selective as ever, since they are obviously limited by the number of available funding lines (and this certainly doesn't go up in a down economy.)

However, many students do not know what is "traditional" or "customary," and in recent years a lot of them have handed over their own money to go to grad school. Universities are happy to admit students who pay their own way, and even expand their programs or invent entirely new ones to accept more of them.

This is apparently changing societal expectations of Ph.D. programs. I advise undergraduates that they're never supposed to pay to be a Ph.D. student, that this is like paying to be a monk. This is standard and common sense advice. However, if I say this online, I often incur a volley of hostile responses from a bunch of people who supposedly "know" better and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.


Not from me. Ph.D. students maybe poor and overworked, but they should not pay anything more than nominal campus fees for health clinic, etc.
 
2012-05-14 11:26:30 PM  

wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.

Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.

"inference that can be logically reached from the words presented"...nope. And there was a logical break in between those magical two sentences before and that one.

No, there isn't a logical break in there. Read it again. Find the thread. It isn't that hard.

(a)Stating what is, (b) is not stating what ought to be.
(a)Describing reality (b) is not advocating for that reality.
(a)The strong may tend to dominate the weak but (b) that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.


thats not my problem with it. Strong in what sense? Dominating in what sense? Thats the problem. Yes they are the same shape in logical statements and thats fine, my problem is what you are trying to associate as strengths. Kind of like virtuous morals in philosophy, what one describes as strength might be what the other describes as weakness.
 
2012-05-14 11:27:30 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years
//I try not to think about it
///just happy to be working

My alumni department finally found my number.

I told the poor kid to go get fingerbanged by Freddy Krueger.

I like your approach better though.


I don't understand why he would only donate if he's working in his field. A university education is not simply job training for a specific job. The student is supposed to get a well-rounded education. if your education is so good that you get a job in another field...well, that's partially the point.
 
2012-05-14 11:47:29 PM  

thecpt: wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt: Yeah, speaking generally and vaguely can lead to misinterpretations. "Strong may tend to dominate the weak" has a lot of variables in it. Quit trying to pretend you're some logic god. "Any sense of advocacy is your introduction" So if someone disagrees with your statement they're wrong because they can't possibly predict what specifics you meant when you polarize strong and weak.

Boggle. You introduce the claim of advocacy (despite the context). I point out it is not a logical inference, as in an inference that can be logically reached from the words presented. Your defense is that I was somehow ambiguous so you could not be sure what I meant. Thus, you inserted the notion of advocacy. Are you seeing the problem yet? And would you care to include the two prior sentences in your reading, you know, context and all that.

Do look up the is::ought fallacy. is::ought fallacy. It should help make things clearer.

"inference that can be logically reached from the words presented"...nope. And there was a logical break in between those magical two sentences before and that one.

No, there isn't a logical break in there. Read it again. Find the thread. It isn't that hard.

(a)Stating what is, (b) is not stating what ought to be.
(a)Describing reality (b) is not advocating for that reality.
(a)The strong may tend to dominate the weak but (b) that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.

thats not my problem with it. Strong in what sense? Dominating in what sense? Thats the problem. Yes they are the same shape in logical statements and thats fine, my problem is what you are trying to associate as strengths. Kind of like virtuous morals in philosophy, what one describes as strength might be what the other describes as weakness.


You claimed there was a logical break between the first two and the third. Now you are back to asserting ambiguity. The link in logical flow is the contextual guide to the meaning. The obvious allusion to natural selection, as in survival of the fittest, would be your guide. It ain't that hard. It should require a supplementary session with a teachers assistant to explain it to you. Fill in just what you need to for it to make sense, don't add unnecessary bits. Life works better that way. You won't have to work so hard.
 
2012-05-14 11:56:37 PM  

jakomo002: Meanwhile in Montreal, students have been marching for many weeks in protest of a tuition hike, even though we have the lowest tuition in Canada.

Just today the Education Minister RESIGNED in disgrace, and I'll betcha the students get what they want.

Is it just that y'all are lazy, or what?


Yes. But more than that, it is that American society has become thoroughly apathetic and the politicians here don't have to answer to anyone unless they get in some sort of a sex scandal. Protest has been made next to useless as a means of encouraging policy change.
 
2012-05-14 11:58:07 PM  

JaaVaa: Odd, I didn't know people had that misconception.
In all the cases I know, Ph.D. programs pay you.


Virtually all Ph.D. programs pay you, but virtually all graduate programs will happily admit a student who has external support---typically from an employer or a fellowship.

When we review Ph.D. applications, we have two boxes to check: admit Y/N, and I will fund this person Y/N (or recommend a TA line.) Lots of applications end up an admit with nobody willing or able to offer a funding line, and that person will get what is traditionally interpreted as a rejection letter. However, nothing stops an admitted student from mistakenly paying his own way, aside from the high cost and unpredictable duration of a PhD.

It's not a surprise that some students have a misconception about who pays whom for graduate school. After all, where do they learn otherwise? Who explained to you that you don't pay for grad school? I learned this because I was admitted with a waiver and stipend, and because I'm old enough that I shopped for Ph.D. programs by reading the hard copy Peterson's guide, which clearly listed the typical stipend amount for each program. A student who applies to graduate school today may never be told the funding birds and bees by anyone.
 
2012-05-14 11:58:09 PM  

gimmegimme: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years
//I try not to think about it
///just happy to be working

My alumni department finally found my number.

I told the poor kid to go get fingerbanged by Freddy Krueger.

I like your approach better though.

I don't understand why he would only donate if he's working in his field. A university education is not simply job training for a specific job. The student is supposed to get a well-rounded education. if your education is so good that you get a job in another field...well, that's partially the point.


I took it that the offer to donate was hollow and that the message was "f*ck you for asking".

I commented by way of commiseration.

/$100k of private student loans finally paid off in February
//You wouldn't believe what I had to go through to accomplish that
///May God have mercy on my soul
 
2012-05-14 11:58:33 PM  

wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt:
No, there isn't a logical break in there. Read it again. Find the thread. It isn't that hard.

(a)Stating what is, (b) is not stating what ought to be.
(a)Describing reality (b) is not advocating for that reality.
(a)The strong may tend to dominate the weak but (b) that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.

thats not my problem with it. Strong in what sense? Dominating in what sense? Thats the problem. Yes they are the same shape in logical statements and thats fine, my problem is what you are trying to associate as strengths. Kind of like virtuous morals in philosophy, what one describes as strength might be what the other describes as weakness.

You claimed there was a logical break between the first two and the third. Now you are back to asserting ambiguity. The link in logical flow is the contextual guide to th ...


the break I was getting at is that there was no transference of meaning from the first two sentences to the strength and weaknesses portion in the third. That was the meaning I was looking for. And survival of the fittest still doesn't cut it. In your case you probably think that being naturally gifted is the strength whereas I believe that independent hard work is the strength. See how animals survive and are the fittest with both of those? I'm trying to figure out which one you meant.

/also quit trying to pretend your above everyone. I don't mean that as a cut, but if you talk like this with friends then you probably don't have many.
 
2012-05-15 12:05:42 AM  

that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years


$2k/month for 25 years is $600,000. Did they accidentally bill you for 15 years of school?
 
2012-05-15 12:12:39 AM  

thecpt: wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt: wademh: thecpt:
No, there isn't a logical break in there. Read it again. Find the thread. It isn't that hard.

(a)Stating what is, (b) is not stating what ought to be.
(a)Describing reality (b) is not advocating for that reality.
(a)The strong may tend to dominate the weak but (b) that doesn't mean we need to encourage to even tolerate that.

thats not my problem with it. Strong in what sense? Dominating in what sense? Thats the problem. Yes they are the same shape in logical statements and thats fine, my problem is what you are trying to associate as strengths. Kind of like virtuous morals in philosophy, what one describes as strength might be what the other describes as weakness.

You claimed there was a logical break between the first two and the third. Now you are back to asserting ambiguity. The link in logical flow is the contextual guide to th ...

the break I was getting at is that there was no transference of meaning from the first two sentences to the strength and weaknesses portion in the third. That was the meaning I was looking for. And survival of the fittest still doesn't cut it. In your case you probably think that being naturally gifted is the strength whereas I believe that independent hard work is the strength. See how animals survive and are the fittest with both of those? I'm trying to figure out which one you meant.

/also quit trying to pretend your above everyone. I don't mean that as a cut, but if you talk like this with friends then you probably don't have many.


You take the long way home. And even with your unnecessarily specific interpretation(s) of strength and weakness, you leap back into the notion of advocacy despite the context. You're a hard worker all right, but you're working hard at inventing a problem where there doesn't have to be one. And I'm not pretending anything, nor claiming to be __above__ anyone. I never claimed to be the master of logic. Talking about logic was about the words written and being read, not about me. There's no need for you to make it about me.
 
2012-05-15 12:15:23 AM  

Xcott: that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years

$2k/month for 25 years is $600,000. Did they accidentally bill you for 15 years of school?


I am on a mobile phone. What's the interest on $160,000 at 6.8% compounded daily with $2k/month payments over 30 years?

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out to half a million.

My girlfriend's in a similar situation, except with federal loans. Basically she can never make more than $10k/year until she turns 65 (any more and it gets garnished) and she will owe close to a million dollars by the time she hits the average life expectancy age.

Talk about hopeless.
 
2012-05-15 12:17:45 AM  

Xcott: that was my nickname in highschool: When I applied to my grad school, they advertised $26k/yr for tuition and fees. I paid a little more than that the first year, but then they upped tuition to $39k/yr for my second and third years.

Every year when the alumni folks call, I kindly remind them that I prepaid my $1k/yr contributions through 2030, and that if I am still practicing in the field of my degree at that time then I will be happy to start donating again.

/$2k/month for 25 years

$2k/month for 25 years is $600,000. Did they accidentally bill you for 15 years of school?


If it's a private loan, like I have, he could be paying 10.75% ... Obviously, this is very rough, but $120k borrowed over a 25 year payback period and simple interest at 10.75% APR, I'm showing just under $14k a year in payments.

So, well short of $2000/month, but still pretty outrageous.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-05-15 12:22:25 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Xcott: $2k/month for 25 years is $600,000. Did they accidentally bill you for 15 years of school?

I am on a mobile phone. What's the interest on $160,000 at 6.8% compounded daily with $2k/month payments over 30 years?

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out to half a million.


You wouldn't? Think about a $160,000 mortgage, and think about a typical mortgage payment.

If you paid 2k per month, a 160K loan at 6.8% would be killed off in 9 years and cost you an extra 54K in interest. If you paid it over 25 years it would cost you $1,111/mo, and cost you about twice what you borrowed. Neither would come close to half a million dollars.
 
Displayed 50 of 405 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report