COMMENTS: 156
A Crisis of Affordability: How Our Public Colleges Are Turning into Gated Communities for the Wealthy
April 3, 2009 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
Advertisement
Editor's Note: Just this week, on the front page of my hometown paper was the less-than-shocking news that, in our new economically wounded world, if your parents can pay the staggering tuition demanded by our top private colleges in full, you have a major leg up in the race to the college of your choice. New York Times reporter Kate Zernike quotes Robert A. Sevier, an "enrollment consultant to colleges," saying, "If you are a student of means or ability, or both, there has never been a better year." And as fans of my beloved Brooklyn Dodgers used to say in my childhood, "Wait till next year!"
In the meantime, college and university endowments are plummeting, non-tenured professors and teaching assistants are being dropped, and classes cut back on campuses nationwide. Going to college was, of course, something only a thin slice of the American elite once did. If it turns out that we are indeed in a twenty-first century version of the Great Depression, who knows what a college campus will look like, or who will be walking its paths to class, a decade from now?
As the latest entry in TomDispatch's ongoing series on the fallout in the U.S. from the global economic meltdown, Andy Kroll, who last wrote on the ways in which new Secretary of Education Arne Duncan militarized Chicago's school system, explores higher education in the financial doldrums. Still a college student himself, in a state that's been clobbered by bad times and the collapse of the American auto industry, Kroll considers an American world in which the door to college could be slammed shut on so many. --- Tom Engelhardt
A few months ago, Bobby Stapleton, a 21-year-old student at the University of Michigan, received a phone call from his younger brother. The good news came first: a senior in high school, he, too, had been accepted by the university, the fourth sibling in his family to have the opportunity to make the move to Ann Arbor from rural Hemlock, Michigan.
Then came the bad news: his brother had no intention of telling their parents, because as Bobby put it, "he knew the money just wasn't there anymore, and that it wasn't realistic." The financial crisis had plunged the Stapleton family into severe debt. At this point, paying Michigan's modest (by college standards) $11,000 tuition for another child appeared unlikely. As his younger brother told their younger sister, Bobby recalled, "Things were just going to have to be different for the two of them."
Since that moment, Bobby and his older sisters have tirelessly searched for a way to change that fate. He has sought advice from older relatives who attended the university, met with members of its financial aid office, and explained his brother's situation to officials at the Michigan Education Trust, a statewide tuition payment program; all this in addition to a full class schedule and a dormitory dining-hall job that often keeps him at work until one or two in the morning. Still, Bobby wasn't about to give up. "I can truly say that being part of this university is one of the best things that's ever happened to me." He was, he swore, going to do everything he could to make sure that his brother and sister had that same opportunity.
Engines of Inequality
Welcome to the other crisis spreading quietly across the country: the crisis of college affordability. Talk to enough students and families on a college campus like the University of Michigan, where I'm a student, and you'll hear plenty of stories like Bobby Stapleton's -- of families scraping by in increasingly tough times as tuition bills rise, of students working second and third jobs, of newly minted graduates staggering into an ever more jobless world under the weight of tens of thousands of dollars in student-loan debt.
Andy Kroll is a writer based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a soon-to-be graduate of the University of Michigan. His writing has appeared at the Nation.com, Alternet, CNN.com, CBSNews,com, and Truthout, among other places. He welcomes feedback, and can be reached at his website.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 156 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Apr 3, 2009 1:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Apr 3, 2009 1:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"NO DREAM ACT"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: Yankeeinexile
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: astralman
» H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» "why is a Bachelor Degree priced at about $75,000-100,000? Isn't this stupid?"
Posted by: Smackback
» Did you run out of lube this morning, Horny?
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Free Education
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 3, 2009 2:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 3, 2009 2:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the misfortune of being educated under a Socialist education system. In the U.K my tuition was paid for, and I got several thousand a year to help cover costs ( all free). Darn socialism ,I so wish I could have studied in America so I could've had my History degree topped with a mountain of debt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Me Too!
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» Socialist Inequality
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Quist
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Hecate_magika
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Hecate_magika
Comments are closed-
look in the mirror
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 3, 2009 3:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 3, 2009 3:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you guys run education, even in the reddest of red states the state Universities are incubators for liberalism. Maybe its time to spend some of that endowment eh?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: jmndodge
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» factory of learning
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: factory of learning
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Lilly
» I'll be enjoying the Final Four
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Actually, the corporate classes run higher ed in America.
Posted by: redceres
» Thank God for the internet, at least you can get to a Marxist Website and get the unfiltered version
Posted by: RR#1
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: bobtr900
» That must be why you conservatives want to destroy higher education
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Indenture
Posted by: exvagabond on Apr 3, 2009 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: exvagabond on Apr 3, 2009 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If students graduate with enormous student debt, then "education" is in fact indentured servitude.
Forty years ago lots of us could work our way thru college and come out owing zero. If this is not feasible today, it indicates that my generation have less use for our kids that our parents did for us. If I were young today, and there were no Vietnam draft, I would never opt-in to this snare.
Forty years ago lots of us could work our way thru college and come out owing zero. If this is not feasible today, it indicates that my generation have less use for our kids that our parents did for us. If I were young today, and there were no Vietnam draft, I would never opt-in to this snare.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
It's Still Possible To Go To University in The UK if You Are Skint
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Apr 3, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Apr 3, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tuition Fees are about £3K a year
Accommodation Costs are about £3K a year
Other costs like eating, drinking and books can be done for about £4K a year.
If your parents earn less than £25K you will get a full grant to pay Tuition fees - and you may also get a bursary from the University (neither of which have to paid back)
On top of this you will get a student loan which should just about cover all your costs. The student loan has an interest rate 1% above the inflation rate. It gets paid back automatically from any future employment - only when you get paid over £15K a year. Its by far the cheapest loan you can get with the best terms of repayment. If the loan is still outstanding 25 years it gets written off.
Now I realise this isn't perfect - but its doable - even comfortably so if you manage to get a part time job.
So far as I am aware the tuition fees are fixed at a maximum of around £3K regardless of the quality of the university.
Personally, I think far too many people are going to University - and many would be far better off learning practical skills on the job and getting paid for it by getting an apprenticeship with an employer.
Traditional practical skills are still very much in demand in the UK - and very well paid.
3 Years at University gurantees you nothing in terms of employment.
Plumbers and Car Mechanics get paid far more than most University Graduates many who end up working in McDonalds or a Pub if they are lucky.
The job market is saturated with people qualified in academic skills - but who haven't got a clue how to make anything work or build anything.
Accommodation Costs are about £3K a year
Other costs like eating, drinking and books can be done for about £4K a year.
If your parents earn less than £25K you will get a full grant to pay Tuition fees - and you may also get a bursary from the University (neither of which have to paid back)
On top of this you will get a student loan which should just about cover all your costs. The student loan has an interest rate 1% above the inflation rate. It gets paid back automatically from any future employment - only when you get paid over £15K a year. Its by far the cheapest loan you can get with the best terms of repayment. If the loan is still outstanding 25 years it gets written off.
Now I realise this isn't perfect - but its doable - even comfortably so if you manage to get a part time job.
So far as I am aware the tuition fees are fixed at a maximum of around £3K regardless of the quality of the university.
Personally, I think far too many people are going to University - and many would be far better off learning practical skills on the job and getting paid for it by getting an apprenticeship with an employer.
Traditional practical skills are still very much in demand in the UK - and very well paid.
3 Years at University gurantees you nothing in terms of employment.
Plumbers and Car Mechanics get paid far more than most University Graduates many who end up working in McDonalds or a Pub if they are lucky.
The job market is saturated with people qualified in academic skills - but who haven't got a clue how to make anything work or build anything.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's cheaper, convenient when you need it, and you don't have to pay all those unnecessary boarding costs. Online education is going to be the future. Let's get used to it. Plus, it actually opens the door to parents and their children interacting more often. I completed my online masters a few years ago and it wasn't too bad. Some of my online classmates were even serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» Hi Tony, thank you for posting positive thinking for a change.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» "I must have killed some of my social skills somewhere and ended up being a little too rough".
Posted by: leafmen
» Tony, you are correct ! Social interactivity leads to more friends and better roommates in life !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: Beck
» So technology is the problem, not the user?
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: technology has replaced human contact, that we need to turn stuff off and get out more
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Resource-efficient alternatives to traditional college are needed if there will be any hope of
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Online education for Bayou residents? No way. Already have enough closed-minded folks out here.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Growing ignorance is probably an inevitable consequence of resource depletion and economic decline.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 3, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 3, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been teaching in universities for the last 25 years.
What has happened at public universities in the U.S. is that admissions standards have been lowered to the point that anyone who can sign a financial aid form gets in ("X" will do). The predictable consequences are that students who can't read or write or do basic math enter college and drag everyone else down with them.
Who but the capitalist swine who make all of the decisions in the U.S. (e.g., banks that loan kids the money at usurious rates) could have thought that everyone should go to college? Many young people would be much better off going to trade school or starting an apprenticeship than going to college.
What has happened at public universities in the U.S. is that admissions standards have been lowered to the point that anyone who can sign a financial aid form gets in ("X" will do). The predictable consequences are that students who can't read or write or do basic math enter college and drag everyone else down with them.
Who but the capitalist swine who make all of the decisions in the U.S. (e.g., banks that loan kids the money at usurious rates) could have thought that everyone should go to college? Many young people would be much better off going to trade school or starting an apprenticeship than going to college.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're looking at college from the naive insider perspective of an academic,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Wrong
Posted by: socialpsych
» You're being historically myopic.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: EncinoM
» Pay Attention!
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Don't go to college at 18
Posted by: astudent
» At 18, I was sick and tired of school
Posted by: Smackback
» And P.S., I still have a full-time job in this economy, in spite of no college degree
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
College and the american dream myth
Posted by: peacelf on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: peacelf on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cringe every time I hear someone mention the "american dream." Indeed, until the affordability of college effects the middle class, they're not aware of the fact that the dream of upward mobility is a myth. And, this is not a recent phenomenon.
The american dream, or upward mobility, has always been a myth perpetuated by those with power and wealth. The fact is that whatever social-economic class you're born in is the one you'll stay in. Upward mobility is about 1%, a near statistical impossibility.
And, given the declining value of student loans and grants to pay rising college tuitions, what we have is a class of indentured servants- not middle class people- IF they are fortunate enough to find good paying jobs after graduation.
More to the point: the deconstructed myth of the american dream is really social class replication. Poor people stay poor, middle class stay in the middle and the rich? well, they get richer.
Moreover, there is great value, for those in power, to perpetuate the myth. When the poor and working people covet wealth and materialistic "freedom," they will more than likely defend wealth and power. Joe the plumber exemplifies this paradigm of working class white males who support the wealthy's causes and issues that directly disempower and neuter the working class.
Had Joe the plumber attended a four year university, taken a few sociology courses, studied politics, indeed, had he READ the Employee Free Choice Act, he'd likely have a different opinion.
But, Joe is not alone. Too many americans buy into the idea of upward mobility or succumb to the cynicism and anger and feeling of failure when they can't achieve the dream, blaming oneself. That's the power of the myth: instead of seeing it as a myth and critically challenging the affects of mythology on our american social and economic psyche, we americans line up behind wealth and power, the very forces that brought us to the brink of economic disaster in the first decade of the 21st Century.
Last, there are two forces that largely perpetuate the myth: the media, and the american educational system.
The media loves to hold up example after example of the dream fulfilled, those rags to riches stories that so touch our hearts. All americans need is one Slumdog Millionaire, Lil' Wayne, Tiger Woods, or any lottery or game show winner to spark that sentimental desire to be rich. If the media isn't inviting you into someone's Crib, then they give you a thousand examples a day why you're worthless without this or that product.
Educational theorists have long known that our educational system perpetuates social class by the way we teach children. Kids in poorer and working class neighborhoods get a more rigid, structured and highly disciplined education. Think Direct Instruction. It's boring and repetitive, preparing poor and working class kids for their boring and repetitive adult lives.
Some creativity creeps into the curriculum in middle class schools, but only enough to create a class of middle managers, underlings to those at the top.
The very rich send their children to schools for the very rich, so their children won't be infected by an inferior value system. Boarding schools offer the extension of the gated community, along with life-long social contacts with rich friends and families. It's in-breeding at its finest.
The power of the myth is its exclusion and the acceptability of the exclusion. Until we working people overcome that mythological power, we will continue to allow rich people to rule our lives.
Peace
The american dream, or upward mobility, has always been a myth perpetuated by those with power and wealth. The fact is that whatever social-economic class you're born in is the one you'll stay in. Upward mobility is about 1%, a near statistical impossibility.
And, given the declining value of student loans and grants to pay rising college tuitions, what we have is a class of indentured servants- not middle class people- IF they are fortunate enough to find good paying jobs after graduation.
More to the point: the deconstructed myth of the american dream is really social class replication. Poor people stay poor, middle class stay in the middle and the rich? well, they get richer.
Moreover, there is great value, for those in power, to perpetuate the myth. When the poor and working people covet wealth and materialistic "freedom," they will more than likely defend wealth and power. Joe the plumber exemplifies this paradigm of working class white males who support the wealthy's causes and issues that directly disempower and neuter the working class.
Had Joe the plumber attended a four year university, taken a few sociology courses, studied politics, indeed, had he READ the Employee Free Choice Act, he'd likely have a different opinion.
But, Joe is not alone. Too many americans buy into the idea of upward mobility or succumb to the cynicism and anger and feeling of failure when they can't achieve the dream, blaming oneself. That's the power of the myth: instead of seeing it as a myth and critically challenging the affects of mythology on our american social and economic psyche, we americans line up behind wealth and power, the very forces that brought us to the brink of economic disaster in the first decade of the 21st Century.
Last, there are two forces that largely perpetuate the myth: the media, and the american educational system.
The media loves to hold up example after example of the dream fulfilled, those rags to riches stories that so touch our hearts. All americans need is one Slumdog Millionaire, Lil' Wayne, Tiger Woods, or any lottery or game show winner to spark that sentimental desire to be rich. If the media isn't inviting you into someone's Crib, then they give you a thousand examples a day why you're worthless without this or that product.
Educational theorists have long known that our educational system perpetuates social class by the way we teach children. Kids in poorer and working class neighborhoods get a more rigid, structured and highly disciplined education. Think Direct Instruction. It's boring and repetitive, preparing poor and working class kids for their boring and repetitive adult lives.
Some creativity creeps into the curriculum in middle class schools, but only enough to create a class of middle managers, underlings to those at the top.
The very rich send their children to schools for the very rich, so their children won't be infected by an inferior value system. Boarding schools offer the extension of the gated community, along with life-long social contacts with rich friends and families. It's in-breeding at its finest.
The power of the myth is its exclusion and the acceptability of the exclusion. Until we working people overcome that mythological power, we will continue to allow rich people to rule our lives.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's exactly right.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: barry1of4 on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: barry1of4 on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a contingent (some say "part-time" or "adjunct") faculty member of two Oregon community colleges, I can see Kroll's point when he talks of how many students must use community colleges as a junior college option, hoping to get into a 4-year university with good grades and an Associates Degree. I hear many students talk of this every term.
However, Kroll glosses over another inequity that occurs at both 2-year and 4-year colleges, though seeming more prevalent at community colleges. An inequity just as detrimental to higher education and just as important to correct. The inequity between tenure-track and contingent faculty.
Contingent faculty are much as 70% of the faculty members at a single college, often teach more than 50% of the course work, typically receive 40% to 60% of the "per course" wages compared to tenured faculty, and have few (if any) benefits. Many contingents must teach at multiple colleges to make something close to a living wage. These faculty members are often called "Road Scholars" or "Freeway Flyers". As an example, I know of contingent faculty members who have teaching assignments at 4 colleges and still qualify for Food Stamps. For the last 30+ years, contingent faculty have been increasingly used by colleges and universities as a cost saving measure, while at the same time the full-time tenured faculty base is steadily being eroded. How does this effect the quality of education?
Consider, "Generally speaking, how well is a contingent faculty member going to teach if they also have to worry about paying the rent, how to afford privately purchased health-care for themselves or their children, if there is enough money for groceries, how to pay for fixing their old broken-down excuse for a car, or all the other things tenured faculty take for granted because their compensation package gives them the capability to afford them?"
My point is best summed up by Frank Brooks, a contingent faculty member of Roosevelt University: "Contingency is a threat to quality, not contingent faculty. It's not who we are but how we are treated that undermines the quality of higher education."
The Obama Administration, Congress, and state governments need to get serious about reversing the overuse and abuse of contingent faculty if they are going to deal with issues like access and quality in the nation's institutions of higher education, whether they are big 4-year universities or community colleges.
However, Kroll glosses over another inequity that occurs at both 2-year and 4-year colleges, though seeming more prevalent at community colleges. An inequity just as detrimental to higher education and just as important to correct. The inequity between tenure-track and contingent faculty.
Contingent faculty are much as 70% of the faculty members at a single college, often teach more than 50% of the course work, typically receive 40% to 60% of the "per course" wages compared to tenured faculty, and have few (if any) benefits. Many contingents must teach at multiple colleges to make something close to a living wage. These faculty members are often called "Road Scholars" or "Freeway Flyers". As an example, I know of contingent faculty members who have teaching assignments at 4 colleges and still qualify for Food Stamps. For the last 30+ years, contingent faculty have been increasingly used by colleges and universities as a cost saving measure, while at the same time the full-time tenured faculty base is steadily being eroded. How does this effect the quality of education?
Consider, "Generally speaking, how well is a contingent faculty member going to teach if they also have to worry about paying the rent, how to afford privately purchased health-care for themselves or their children, if there is enough money for groceries, how to pay for fixing their old broken-down excuse for a car, or all the other things tenured faculty take for granted because their compensation package gives them the capability to afford them?"
My point is best summed up by Frank Brooks, a contingent faculty member of Roosevelt University: "Contingency is a threat to quality, not contingent faculty. It's not who we are but how we are treated that undermines the quality of higher education."
The Obama Administration, Congress, and state governments need to get serious about reversing the overuse and abuse of contingent faculty if they are going to deal with issues like access and quality in the nation's institutions of higher education, whether they are big 4-year universities or community colleges.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: yesman
Comments are closed-
what's left out
Posted by: mike1997 on Apr 3, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mike1997 on Apr 3, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things that never gets mentioned in discussions about the rising cost of college is the fact that state aid as percentage of tuition has fallen like a rock. Back in the late -70's (when I was an undergrad) my home state of Missouri covered 90% of the cost of tuition at the State Universities. Now that number is below 50%. With the shift of Pell grants and workstudy going from a program for lower and middle class students to a program only for the poorest of the poor added into that, the cost of going to college is getting harder and harder.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: lorenbliss on Apr 3, 2009 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: lorenbliss on Apr 3, 2009 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
College in the United States has always been a major battlefield in the class struggle. The locked door of educational opportunity has been a reality here for at least 40 years, but its exclusionary oppression is only now reaching into the bourgeoisie, so that the nation’s unique and definitively capitalist assumption that wealth not talent is the sole determinant of who goes to college is afflicting people who still have the ability to make themselves heard. Hence after four decades of infuriating silence, the issue is finally being discussed, not because it’s a new problem, but because of a great awakening by the bourgeoisie that its white collars no longer protect it from being victimized by the plutocracy.
When Nixon halved the eligibility period for the never-adequate Vietnam Era GI Bill, when Vietnam Era veterans were forced out of school by various supplemental-aid curtailments that made the GI Bill itself useless, when the great free-tuition City University of New York was destroyed by the Ford Administration, the mothers and fathers of these people whose lamentations fill the pages and airwaves today were as coldly indifferent to impoverished students as the pre-repentance Ebenezer Scrooge might have been to the Little Match Girl. I know; I was one of the (typical) vets ousted from school by financial hardship -- not once but half a dozen times. Though I started college in 1959, I didn’t get my BA until 1976 -- my 36th year.
Obviously the Vietnam Era GI Bill was never intended to be anything but propaganda and was thus deliberately structured to be useless. Its stipend was tiny -- $155 a month in 1968, $175 in 1971, $225 in 1976 (never more than about a week’s gross pay to cover a month‘s expenses) -- but until 1972 you could supplement it with student loans, work-study jobs and food stamps. Nixon however ended or radically reduced nearly all the supplemental-funding eligibility of GI Bill students. And though the vast majority of vets actively opposed the war, when we asked non-veteran fellow students to back our efforts to mobilize against the funding cuts, the result was a sneer of class hatred that to this day twists Democratic Party politics -- the hatred and contempt the draft-exempt elite felt (and openly expressed) for those us whose parents were not rich enough to buy us draft exemptions.
Scholarship eligibility is meanwhile another Big Lie. Though I was a Dean’s List student at least twice, have SAT scores in the upper five percent (verbal score in the topmost one-tenth of one percent), I quickly learned it is pointless to apply for scholarships simply because they all require the kind of character witnesses (clergy, politicians, Big Businessmen) that are forever beyond the reach of anyone who has been -- as I was from age 16 on -- a refugee from a viciously dysfunctional family. Just as the national college finance system is designed to reserve college for the rich, so is the U.S. scholarship system is designed to make certain if impoverished people do manage to get money for college, they are certain to be submissively conformist if not dependably conservative -- in other words, ideal capitalist drones.
Not that a degree did me any good. In a job interview not long after graduation I had the profoundly enlightening experience of being denounced by a personnel officer because it had taken me 17 years to earn my diploma. “Obviously you weren’t very serious about college-level work,” she said. “You had all the advantages of being a white male but it still took you all that time.”
Bottom line, the state of college finance whether now or 40 years ago is merely one more irrefutable proof that the sole purpose of the United States is the propagation of capitalism -- the protection of the ruling class and the subjugation of all the rest of us.
When Nixon halved the eligibility period for the never-adequate Vietnam Era GI Bill, when Vietnam Era veterans were forced out of school by various supplemental-aid curtailments that made the GI Bill itself useless, when the great free-tuition City University of New York was destroyed by the Ford Administration, the mothers and fathers of these people whose lamentations fill the pages and airwaves today were as coldly indifferent to impoverished students as the pre-repentance Ebenezer Scrooge might have been to the Little Match Girl. I know; I was one of the (typical) vets ousted from school by financial hardship -- not once but half a dozen times. Though I started college in 1959, I didn’t get my BA until 1976 -- my 36th year.
Obviously the Vietnam Era GI Bill was never intended to be anything but propaganda and was thus deliberately structured to be useless. Its stipend was tiny -- $155 a month in 1968, $175 in 1971, $225 in 1976 (never more than about a week’s gross pay to cover a month‘s expenses) -- but until 1972 you could supplement it with student loans, work-study jobs and food stamps. Nixon however ended or radically reduced nearly all the supplemental-funding eligibility of GI Bill students. And though the vast majority of vets actively opposed the war, when we asked non-veteran fellow students to back our efforts to mobilize against the funding cuts, the result was a sneer of class hatred that to this day twists Democratic Party politics -- the hatred and contempt the draft-exempt elite felt (and openly expressed) for those us whose parents were not rich enough to buy us draft exemptions.
Scholarship eligibility is meanwhile another Big Lie. Though I was a Dean’s List student at least twice, have SAT scores in the upper five percent (verbal score in the topmost one-tenth of one percent), I quickly learned it is pointless to apply for scholarships simply because they all require the kind of character witnesses (clergy, politicians, Big Businessmen) that are forever beyond the reach of anyone who has been -- as I was from age 16 on -- a refugee from a viciously dysfunctional family. Just as the national college finance system is designed to reserve college for the rich, so is the U.S. scholarship system is designed to make certain if impoverished people do manage to get money for college, they are certain to be submissively conformist if not dependably conservative -- in other words, ideal capitalist drones.
Not that a degree did me any good. In a job interview not long after graduation I had the profoundly enlightening experience of being denounced by a personnel officer because it had taken me 17 years to earn my diploma. “Obviously you weren’t very serious about college-level work,” she said. “You had all the advantages of being a white male but it still took you all that time.”
Bottom line, the state of college finance whether now or 40 years ago is merely one more irrefutable proof that the sole purpose of the United States is the propagation of capitalism -- the protection of the ruling class and the subjugation of all the rest of us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: abstractedaway
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: lorenbliss
Comments are closed-
College is a way for affluent families to legitimate the future, hereditary authority
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of their children. This has always been the essential function of "higher learning."
It is known that kids from affluent to wealthy families will generally have the connections to inherit their parents' social status, and their actual talent isn't so much an issue, as long as the kid isn't absolutely incompetent or insane. College gives a meritocratic cover to the inheritance of social status, as well as helping train affluent kids in networking to secure and advance their socioeconomic position.
It is known that kids from affluent to wealthy families will generally have the connections to inherit their parents' social status, and their actual talent isn't so much an issue, as long as the kid isn't absolutely incompetent or insane. College gives a meritocratic cover to the inheritance of social status, as well as helping train affluent kids in networking to secure and advance their socioeconomic position.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So true...
Posted by: Ladydog
» College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Exactly!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Also a lot of affluent kids, probably most, aren't in college for love of learning. It's family
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
Testing could be offered as an alternative credentialing process.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A student really doesn't need four years of study at facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, run, and maintain to learn the curriculum of a given course of study. This can be accomplished via methodical independent study.
Tests should be offered that would confer the equivalent of a college degree on people who can pass a test of what knowledge and thinking skills should be obtained from an equivalent college program. If a person passes the test, the credential is conferred and must be accepted by employers just as a college degree.
We are heading to a far less materially prosperous future due to resource constraints and the economic meltdown. Higher learning as we know it will not survive except for the children of elites and a handful of the most gifted non-elite students (Isaac Newton types). If less resource-intensive alternatives to college-level credentialing are not developed and accepted, then higher education will revert to what it was 100+ years ago (and still mostly is): the virtually exclusive domain of affluent families as a means to socialize their kids for a life among the affluent and legitimate their kids' inherited status.
Tests should be offered that would confer the equivalent of a college degree on people who can pass a test of what knowledge and thinking skills should be obtained from an equivalent college program. If a person passes the test, the credential is conferred and must be accepted by employers just as a college degree.
We are heading to a far less materially prosperous future due to resource constraints and the economic meltdown. Higher learning as we know it will not survive except for the children of elites and a handful of the most gifted non-elite students (Isaac Newton types). If less resource-intensive alternatives to college-level credentialing are not developed and accepted, then higher education will revert to what it was 100+ years ago (and still mostly is): the virtually exclusive domain of affluent families as a means to socialize their kids for a life among the affluent and legitimate their kids' inherited status.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Testing was the standard in Pinochet's Chile, and in Orwell's 1984
Posted by: peacelf
» I know this already. How does it pertain to what I wrote?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Don't I wish!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Situations like yours are exactly why I support testing for this purpose,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
The Sinecures are A-Trembling
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 3, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 3, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a feeling that the rising cost of tuition in America's major universities and private colleges is at least partly due to growing waste, and a loss of focus on what students need to know.
Can you take a four-year degree and go teach? No, you cannot. You have not learned what you need to know. You have to get a teaching certificate and preferably a Master's. (By contrast, 100 years ago two years of college qualified you to become a K-12 teacher. And don't tell me they didn't teach their kids well. They were probably better at it than our K-12 teachers now, on average.)
Can you graduate from business school and open a business? Not exactly. They prepare you, not to be come an engine of economic growth, but a wage slave at a major corporation. If you want to learn to run your own business, you'll find there is a steep learning curve, and that your education didn't prepare you for it.
With a four-year degree in English, are you competent to make a living as a writer? Not even close. English curricula are practically remedial in nature now. You could probably start up a blog, and maybe things will develop from there. Or if you're lucky, you will find an internship somewhere on a newspaper that hasn't folded yet, at a salary less than you'd get driving a bus. But if you want the skills of a pro, you won't find them in a four-year curriculum.
How about becoming a biologist? Well, you can maybe get a job as a lab technician, injecting drugs into rat's eyeballs for low pay. But you won't have the right to call yourself a biologist without a lot more education. You'll be lucky if you learn how to plan and execute the various types of scientific studies; more likely you'll just end up memorizing species, structures and geological periods from flash cards.
Engineering? You may fare a little better, and you may not. Depends on the program you're in. Many engineering schools seem to lack fire in the belly. An engineering program which cannot excite students is just going through the motions.
There's a lot of going through the motions in American higher education.
It did not used to be this way. Education beyond a bachelor's was rare, not obligatory. There's been "credential creep." You need more and more education to step onto the lowest white collar rung of the economic ladder. And as the costs rise, people are starting their careers ever deeper in the hole.
We also need to recognize that arriving freshmen are typically unprepared by high school for the experience. High school has become, in many communities, mostly about controlling teens and teaching to the test, not prying open minds and stimulating excitement about learning. Universities have to remedy that, and it takes time and effort. And it doesn't always work. This is a huge distraction and resource hog, and it undermines the value of a four-year degree. We really need to fix our K-12 system. (Hint: the way forward is not to bury it in a straight-jacket of rules and mandatory tests.)
Every university is carrying supercargo on its rolls, a lot of it. Teachers who don't excite. Teachers who don't innovate. Teachers whose sole mission is to serve corporate interests. In good times it's easy to just expand the curriculum around the dinosaurs to pick up the slack, and that's exactly what we've seen over the past 30 years. But the good times are over. Tenure or no tenure, universities need to cut back the brush.
My solution is not to regulate what universities can teach. But I do think universities ought to take a hard look at what they are offering students, and tighten it up.
Can you take a four-year degree and go teach? No, you cannot. You have not learned what you need to know. You have to get a teaching certificate and preferably a Master's. (By contrast, 100 years ago two years of college qualified you to become a K-12 teacher. And don't tell me they didn't teach their kids well. They were probably better at it than our K-12 teachers now, on average.)
Can you graduate from business school and open a business? Not exactly. They prepare you, not to be come an engine of economic growth, but a wage slave at a major corporation. If you want to learn to run your own business, you'll find there is a steep learning curve, and that your education didn't prepare you for it.
With a four-year degree in English, are you competent to make a living as a writer? Not even close. English curricula are practically remedial in nature now. You could probably start up a blog, and maybe things will develop from there. Or if you're lucky, you will find an internship somewhere on a newspaper that hasn't folded yet, at a salary less than you'd get driving a bus. But if you want the skills of a pro, you won't find them in a four-year curriculum.
How about becoming a biologist? Well, you can maybe get a job as a lab technician, injecting drugs into rat's eyeballs for low pay. But you won't have the right to call yourself a biologist without a lot more education. You'll be lucky if you learn how to plan and execute the various types of scientific studies; more likely you'll just end up memorizing species, structures and geological periods from flash cards.
Engineering? You may fare a little better, and you may not. Depends on the program you're in. Many engineering schools seem to lack fire in the belly. An engineering program which cannot excite students is just going through the motions.
There's a lot of going through the motions in American higher education.
It did not used to be this way. Education beyond a bachelor's was rare, not obligatory. There's been "credential creep." You need more and more education to step onto the lowest white collar rung of the economic ladder. And as the costs rise, people are starting their careers ever deeper in the hole.
We also need to recognize that arriving freshmen are typically unprepared by high school for the experience. High school has become, in many communities, mostly about controlling teens and teaching to the test, not prying open minds and stimulating excitement about learning. Universities have to remedy that, and it takes time and effort. And it doesn't always work. This is a huge distraction and resource hog, and it undermines the value of a four-year degree. We really need to fix our K-12 system. (Hint: the way forward is not to bury it in a straight-jacket of rules and mandatory tests.)
Every university is carrying supercargo on its rolls, a lot of it. Teachers who don't excite. Teachers who don't innovate. Teachers whose sole mission is to serve corporate interests. In good times it's easy to just expand the curriculum around the dinosaurs to pick up the slack, and that's exactly what we've seen over the past 30 years. But the good times are over. Tenure or no tenure, universities need to cut back the brush.
My solution is not to regulate what universities can teach. But I do think universities ought to take a hard look at what they are offering students, and tighten it up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: Urgelt
» the students have to do their part
Posted by: nate
Comments are closed-
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: gar1948
Comments are closed-
If You Think Education Is Expensive- Try Ignorance
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great read, you should have a great career ahead if there is any justice in the world.
What we are witnessing all around us are the downstream effects of the Howard Jarvis-Prop 13 movement and the Reagan/NeoCon era disinvestment in our nation. Infrastructure falling apart, escalating higher ed costs, wrecked public education, debt up our ha-ha and all the rest.
Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan are dead, but their acolytes live on and will accede to reality when pigs fly. It's going to take some smash-mouth politics to get past the NeoCon Rethugnicans and their closeted siblings- the Blue-Tick, Blue Dog, Conservative (read fake) Democrats.
I'm 47 years old and this trend started before I could vote and here we are- still dealing with these fear-mongering trolls and the wreckage that has ensued. For all of the rhetoric, Obama has bought into Wall Street's Friedmanite bullsh*t, so unless we yank his chain really hard we will just have Clinton term III.
A quality education should be available to all and in-state tuition should be free for anyone who can do the work and maintain the academic standards. You simply cannot have a decent life in modern America without a quality education unless you are a trust-fund kid.
I am so tired of hearing the same recycled crap from the overly inbred- a.k.a. Conservatives. They have been supporting this crap for 30= Years even as their throats have been slashed by the very reptiles they elect.
What we are witnessing all around us are the downstream effects of the Howard Jarvis-Prop 13 movement and the Reagan/NeoCon era disinvestment in our nation. Infrastructure falling apart, escalating higher ed costs, wrecked public education, debt up our ha-ha and all the rest.
Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan are dead, but their acolytes live on and will accede to reality when pigs fly. It's going to take some smash-mouth politics to get past the NeoCon Rethugnicans and their closeted siblings- the Blue-Tick, Blue Dog, Conservative (read fake) Democrats.
I'm 47 years old and this trend started before I could vote and here we are- still dealing with these fear-mongering trolls and the wreckage that has ensued. For all of the rhetoric, Obama has bought into Wall Street's Friedmanite bullsh*t, so unless we yank his chain really hard we will just have Clinton term III.
A quality education should be available to all and in-state tuition should be free for anyone who can do the work and maintain the academic standards. You simply cannot have a decent life in modern America without a quality education unless you are a trust-fund kid.
I am so tired of hearing the same recycled crap from the overly inbred- a.k.a. Conservatives. They have been supporting this crap for 30= Years even as their throats have been slashed by the very reptiles they elect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: redceres on Apr 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: redceres on Apr 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work at a small private liberal arts college in the Midwest. In the past two years, our "business team"--and I do NOT mean business department faculty--has grown at an astounding rate. While instructors and staff have been told that we will have no raises--not even cost of living raises--in the foreseeable future, our college president (a business person, rather than an educator) has increased our tiny school's development staff from 2 people to 17 people. SEVENTEEN!
Not even one academic department at this institution has HALF that many full time salaried positions in it.
We have been told that the reason we won't get raises is that "giving is way, way down." I ask you, what are these people doing to justify their ever-increasing share of the college's money? Our enrollment has stayed the same. Our salaries, god knows, have stayed the same. We have no new tech, no new facilities, and, I'll repeat, no prospect of even a cost-of-living raise in the foreseeable future.
Now, the burgeoning "development staff that does not develop" is only part of the problem. This president has bumped up the numbers of other administration posts as well. We have Deans coming out of our ears.
And no raises.
And rising tuition.
Just as other segments of our society have been held hostage by the out-of-control business classes and their assumption that the corporate way is best for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, so, too, are institutions of higher education under the dirty, rotten thumb of the corporate community and its shoddy ethical frameworks.
If your tuition has gone up, ask your college representative how many new administrative and business-type positions have been created in the past year. Do please, use the word "created" so that you'll get a clearer picture of what is happening.
You'll find out quickly that the same screwheads who tanked Wall Street are taking Board of Trustees and administration positions at arts, education, and community service organizations all over the country.
Unless we cut the cancer that is corporate America out of these institutions, we will continue to see higher ed priced out of the range of most students and jobs in higher ed continually funneled to unqualified non-educators.
Not even one academic department at this institution has HALF that many full time salaried positions in it.
We have been told that the reason we won't get raises is that "giving is way, way down." I ask you, what are these people doing to justify their ever-increasing share of the college's money? Our enrollment has stayed the same. Our salaries, god knows, have stayed the same. We have no new tech, no new facilities, and, I'll repeat, no prospect of even a cost-of-living raise in the foreseeable future.
Now, the burgeoning "development staff that does not develop" is only part of the problem. This president has bumped up the numbers of other administration posts as well. We have Deans coming out of our ears.
And no raises.
And rising tuition.
Just as other segments of our society have been held hostage by the out-of-control business classes and their assumption that the corporate way is best for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, so, too, are institutions of higher education under the dirty, rotten thumb of the corporate community and its shoddy ethical frameworks.
If your tuition has gone up, ask your college representative how many new administrative and business-type positions have been created in the past year. Do please, use the word "created" so that you'll get a clearer picture of what is happening.
You'll find out quickly that the same screwheads who tanked Wall Street are taking Board of Trustees and administration positions at arts, education, and community service organizations all over the country.
Unless we cut the cancer that is corporate America out of these institutions, we will continue to see higher ed priced out of the range of most students and jobs in higher ed continually funneled to unqualified non-educators.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's amazing how inefficient coporate practices are. There is a "too many chiefs, not enough
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Americans have been trained to place great faith in the corporate system.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: Lilly
» Business people and ex-athletes abound in the higher pay scales.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: yesman
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: davewuxi
» It's The Way American Crony Capitalism Works
Posted by: NoPCZone
Comments are closed-
The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Triumph on Apr 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Triumph on Apr 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument is posed time and time again, that people in the 1800's were more educated than we are today. The argument is simple and structrally valid but completely unsound!
We as a society have amassed so much information, just from the year 1800 until now. Take into account that we as a society carry forth all relevant scientific theories, and societal theories, along with all revelant factual data since the begining of human societies, we are therefore overwhelmed with data, hence the term "information overload!"
In the 1800s, science was in its infancy. For instance, humankind has had a fascination with the heavens since the dawn of prehistoric societies, and yet we are only now, many thousands of years later, sending probes into space.
The foundations of education started at the dawn of humankind, when tribal societies learned how to hunt for food and keep warm, procreate and protect their dwellings, and keep themselves protected from predatory animals. That was potentially 100,000 years ago perhaps more giving relevant current data!
Therefore those in the 1800s were leagues away from the knowledge of prehistoric humans!
However to assert that humanity in the 1800's were more educated than we are today, is just ridiculous.
Our present level of understanding in regards to all areas of science, and society is far, far ahead of those behind us just for the simple fact that we bring along all revelant data with us that they had learned and those before them!
The big question regarding humanity is, will we survive the next few thousand years or perhaps even a hundred at this rate!
Triumph
We as a society have amassed so much information, just from the year 1800 until now. Take into account that we as a society carry forth all relevant scientific theories, and societal theories, along with all revelant factual data since the begining of human societies, we are therefore overwhelmed with data, hence the term "information overload!"
In the 1800s, science was in its infancy. For instance, humankind has had a fascination with the heavens since the dawn of prehistoric societies, and yet we are only now, many thousands of years later, sending probes into space.
The foundations of education started at the dawn of humankind, when tribal societies learned how to hunt for food and keep warm, procreate and protect their dwellings, and keep themselves protected from predatory animals. That was potentially 100,000 years ago perhaps more giving relevant current data!
Therefore those in the 1800s were leagues away from the knowledge of prehistoric humans!
However to assert that humanity in the 1800's were more educated than we are today, is just ridiculous.
Our present level of understanding in regards to all areas of science, and society is far, far ahead of those behind us just for the simple fact that we bring along all revelant data with us that they had learned and those before them!
The big question regarding humanity is, will we survive the next few thousand years or perhaps even a hundred at this rate!
Triumph
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Cybershaman
» That's a good point.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: davewuxi
» Your position isn't trendy but I agree with you.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» I also agree that knowledge is generally cumulative through the centuries and millennia, though
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Urgelt
Comments are closed-
Hey, look on the bright side
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you a sparrow-brained ignoramus who's so obnoxious you were "graduated" from high school just so the teachers could be rid of you? Do you have the intellectual curiosity and burnibg desire to refine yourself of a wart hog? Want the prestige of a college degree? No problem! As long as you can play football, basketball, hockey, etc., and/or your daddy's got a bazillion bucks, you're in like Flynn (apologies to the late actor). Just take a look at our former "president", for instance. Bachelor's from Yale and a masters from Harvard, and he SILL didn't know his ass from his elbow. He did OK, right?
The forces of greed, willful ignorance, and apathy have taken over, folks. It's happened before and it's happening now. Only time will tell if we can right all our wrongs in time to save our nation. It doesn't look all that good at present.
The forces of greed, willful ignorance, and apathy have taken over, folks. It's happened before and it's happening now. Only time will tell if we can right all our wrongs in time to save our nation. It doesn't look all that good at present.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
can we end this knee-jerk "Americanism"
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for a bit?
"The World does not consist of Americans screaming to get out" - Bill Maher
honestly, its seems that there are VERY FEW people who can write a piece without immediately defaulting to, "THIS MATTERS TO AMERICANS, because it impacts the AMERICAN DREAM, & I wanna be an AMERICAN PATRIOT because AMERICANS ARE GOOD & America is the BEST & only AMERICANS know what a sovereign social self-regulated culture should be!!"
does every issue only matter if it somehow requires Americans to change their lives to a more sustainable, globally respectful model?
oh give it a rest.
There's plenty wrong in this World, try caring about something because it matters if YOU are a GOOD PERSON & because it matters if you participate in a GOOD SOCIETY...
this tautological nonsense about "America!" is such a waste of time & only highlights how little Americans know or care about things that happen to non-Americans.
virtually *every* newscast or progressive talkshow features nationalistic goosestepping that is breathtaking simplistic: say "AMERICA" or one of its over-wrought descriptive spin-offs enough times, & your argument becomes "arguing MotherHood!", right?
There are billions of Us, much fewer of YOU & frankly, we're all a bit tired of you & your self-centred attitudes & interests.
give it a rest, show that you can formulate a thought about ethics or politics without stammering out the same WELL-MARKETED phraseology.
"America!...
... because its TOASTED & its got DRINKABILITY!!"
think about it: you've been HAD.
limiting your interest & caring about others, is how corporate ReichWingers taught you to be the narcissistic, consumerist society you've got which dropped you & the World to the mess its in.
There has to be a way to interest Americans in being good people & conducting their society with a modicum of respectful inter-cultural interaction that doesn't require punctuating every thought with nationalistic fervor.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
"The World does not consist of Americans screaming to get out" - Bill Maher
honestly, its seems that there are VERY FEW people who can write a piece without immediately defaulting to, "THIS MATTERS TO AMERICANS, because it impacts the AMERICAN DREAM, & I wanna be an AMERICAN PATRIOT because AMERICANS ARE GOOD & America is the BEST & only AMERICANS know what a sovereign social self-regulated culture should be!!"
does every issue only matter if it somehow requires Americans to change their lives to a more sustainable, globally respectful model?
oh give it a rest.
There's plenty wrong in this World, try caring about something because it matters if YOU are a GOOD PERSON & because it matters if you participate in a GOOD SOCIETY...
this tautological nonsense about "America!" is such a waste of time & only highlights how little Americans know or care about things that happen to non-Americans.
virtually *every* newscast or progressive talkshow features nationalistic goosestepping that is breathtaking simplistic: say "AMERICA" or one of its over-wrought descriptive spin-offs enough times, & your argument becomes "arguing MotherHood!", right?
There are billions of Us, much fewer of YOU & frankly, we're all a bit tired of you & your self-centred attitudes & interests.
give it a rest, show that you can formulate a thought about ethics or politics without stammering out the same WELL-MARKETED phraseology.
"America!...
... because its TOASTED & its got DRINKABILITY!!"
think about it: you've been HAD.
limiting your interest & caring about others, is how corporate ReichWingers taught you to be the narcissistic, consumerist society you've got which dropped you & the World to the mess its in.
There has to be a way to interest Americans in being good people & conducting their society with a modicum of respectful inter-cultural interaction that doesn't require punctuating every thought with nationalistic fervor.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are you actually responding to anything that anyone here wrote?
Posted by: redceres
» you must be kidding...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Comments are closed-
Somethings to take serious note of here in case no one's noticed.
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone wants to see the real truth of our educational problems in finance and failing to match up with the rest of the world, look at three things.
First our highly overpaid and non-teaching tenured faculty and administrative staff. Second what is being taught. Thirdly the criteria for admitting.
You will know exactly where the problem is.
First our highly overpaid and non-teaching tenured faculty and administrative staff. Second what is being taught. Thirdly the criteria for admitting.
You will know exactly where the problem is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Trust me, the public will take note.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
Comments are closed-
What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: tapadance on Apr 3, 2009 10:37 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tapadance on Apr 3, 2009 10:37 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it to gain knowledge, or to get a better jobs than their parents? Is it so important that they all go to the very same school?
Perhaps the younger siblings could be served by a college that teaches a specialty they wish to learn, not just stepping on the same side walk the rest of the family has.
When you apply for college you have to have a plan in place. Not to just take classes that start at a decent time, but a plan for what your going to do with your life. If a student signs up for a degree program that offers a bachelor of Arts degree, well that person is asking to spend the rest of their life selling coffee at Starbucks. Attending a liberal arts school is setting your self up for failure. You don't receive an education, you receive four extra years of middle school.
Then in order to be employable, you have to get an additional two years, in what the people in the Bachelor of Science programs got while the BAss were sitting up discussing the meaning of trees.
I know many many people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who are unemployed or underemployed. Who are struggling to pay off college loans, or who have spent their parents retirement because their degree is not worth the paper it's printed on.
I also know many people like myself, who went to college to get a Bachelor of Science degree. Who are still employee, still doing well, and will continue to do well.
My student loans were paid off four months before I left college. The aerospace company that hired me wanted me that much.
It's time to do away with liberal arts programs, they were Mrs. degrees to start with anyway. If students stop flocking to colleges that off useless educations, and start attending colleges that allow them to move forward. Then college tuition will drop significantly.
Not that there is not a place in this world for poem about trees, or someone to stare at clouds and find the meaning of life. Just don't expect to find money in it.
Perhaps the younger siblings could be served by a college that teaches a specialty they wish to learn, not just stepping on the same side walk the rest of the family has.
When you apply for college you have to have a plan in place. Not to just take classes that start at a decent time, but a plan for what your going to do with your life. If a student signs up for a degree program that offers a bachelor of Arts degree, well that person is asking to spend the rest of their life selling coffee at Starbucks. Attending a liberal arts school is setting your self up for failure. You don't receive an education, you receive four extra years of middle school.
Then in order to be employable, you have to get an additional two years, in what the people in the Bachelor of Science programs got while the BAss were sitting up discussing the meaning of trees.
I know many many people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who are unemployed or underemployed. Who are struggling to pay off college loans, or who have spent their parents retirement because their degree is not worth the paper it's printed on.
I also know many people like myself, who went to college to get a Bachelor of Science degree. Who are still employee, still doing well, and will continue to do well.
My student loans were paid off four months before I left college. The aerospace company that hired me wanted me that much.
It's time to do away with liberal arts programs, they were Mrs. degrees to start with anyway. If students stop flocking to colleges that off useless educations, and start attending colleges that allow them to move forward. Then college tuition will drop significantly.
Not that there is not a place in this world for poem about trees, or someone to stare at clouds and find the meaning of life. Just don't expect to find money in it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: davewuxi
» good for you: an overpaid 'corporate training' not *broad education*
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Comments are closed-
Homogenized Leadership: the 'Real Cornell' - Coulter vs. Olbermann
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
. . . who went to the REAL Cornell?
was it Ann Coulter, who paid far more & went to a different Cornell COLLEGE?
was it Olbermann, who paid a fraction for the same education @ the Agri'College?
if you think IVY LEAGUE is about EDUCATION, you're MISSING THE POINT
Crack open any magazine or newspaper that advertises PRIVATE SCHOOLS for children.
They yap about programmes. Well, they should.
But to get INTO the better colleges, you don't just need MONEY... you need 'social & educational pedigree'.
THESE COLLEGES AREN'T ABOUT EDUCATION.
THESE COLLEGES ARE ABOUT manufacturing a dedicated, insular social structure cultivating Associates (aka 'Friends'') with 'The Right People' who can 'Do Each Other Favours In The Future'... who play by the same rules, are judged by the same social structure of 'peers'
who 'are Like-Minded Individuals'... indoctrinated to think, believe & act the same way... which supports the economic stratification that got them into that school.
THAT is the 'Real Cornell' difference Coulter is implying that makes the difference between those who attend the SAME education, but at a cheaper college of the same school...
not the EDUCATION, but the DEDICATION TO INDOCTRINATION.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
.
. . . who went to the REAL Cornell?
was it Ann Coulter, who paid far more & went to a different Cornell COLLEGE?
was it Olbermann, who paid a fraction for the same education @ the Agri'College?
if you think IVY LEAGUE is about EDUCATION, you're MISSING THE POINT
Crack open any magazine or newspaper that advertises PRIVATE SCHOOLS for children.
They yap about programmes. Well, they should.
But to get INTO the better colleges, you don't just need MONEY... you need 'social & educational pedigree'.
THESE COLLEGES AREN'T ABOUT EDUCATION.
THESE COLLEGES ARE ABOUT manufacturing a dedicated, insular social structure cultivating Associates (aka 'Friends'') with 'The Right People' who can 'Do Each Other Favours In The Future'... who play by the same rules, are judged by the same social structure of 'peers'
who 'are Like-Minded Individuals'... indoctrinated to think, believe & act the same way... which supports the economic stratification that got them into that school.
THAT is the 'Real Cornell' difference Coulter is implying that makes the difference between those who attend the SAME education, but at a cheaper college of the same school...
not the EDUCATION, but the DEDICATION TO INDOCTRINATION.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: Ayla87 on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Ayla87 on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who thinks differently should read "Real Education" by Charles Murray.
He sums his opinion up in four sentences on the back cover. They are;
1. Ability Varies
2. Half of all children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America's Future Depends on How we Educate our Gifted Youth.
Simply put, the majority of Americans don't need a bachelors degree, and pressuring everyone to get one, only punishes the majority who don't.
Most Americans can get by with two years of junior college or vocational training, with certifications to prove you're level of skill. A 'liberal arts' education can by large be imparted to an individual in primary school
It's a good read, and it basically sums up the philosophy that I had when I was in highschool.
He sums his opinion up in four sentences on the back cover. They are;
1. Ability Varies
2. Half of all children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America's Future Depends on How we Educate our Gifted Youth.
Simply put, the majority of Americans don't need a bachelors degree, and pressuring everyone to get one, only punishes the majority who don't.
Most Americans can get by with two years of junior college or vocational training, with certifications to prove you're level of skill. A 'liberal arts' education can by large be imparted to an individual in primary school
It's a good read, and it basically sums up the philosophy that I had when I was in highschool.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
money is intelligence?
Posted by: wleming on Apr 3, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: wleming on Apr 3, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
capitalism simply makes wealth the sole factor for access to education. that the US reveals that the class/caste system is alive and well is no surprise. the ford foundation.. in the 1950s..did a study which revealed that Americans born into one class... never left it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Remember all that talk about how CEOs are totally brilliant gurus and all that shit?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
Tuition Error
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland on Apr 3, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland on Apr 3, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General undergraduate tuition at the University of Michigan for in-state students such as the one Andy Kroll mentioned is about $6,000 a year, not the $11,000 he claimed. Graduate tuition is much more, but the vast majority of graduate students in the humanities have this tuition waived as part of their fellowships.
Rising costs are a problem for students at state universities, but Andy Kroll's false reporting exaggerates the problem.
Rising costs are a problem for students at state universities, but Andy Kroll's false reporting exaggerates the problem.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland
Comments are closed-
The obvious easy solution:
Posted by: johnshark on Apr 3, 2009 12:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: johnshark on Apr 3, 2009 12:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe universities and colleges should replace full time, tenured and tenure-track instructors with part-time at-will instructors. That would save a lot of money and they could reduce tuition, benefitting everyone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The obvious easy solution:
Posted by: jmoore
» RE: The obvious easy solution: A response from Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: barry1of4
Comments are closed-
treat them like businesses
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Apr 3, 2009 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Apr 3, 2009 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
states went wild in the past 30 years in creating branches of the main state U as well as creating subsidiary colleges less prestigious than the main U but nevertheless larger and larger in size. But how many computer programs, business programs, communications programs(whatever they are) and other 21st century BS courses do we need? And how good are these courses in this ever expanding and expensive network of "colleges"?This mania is partly driven by politicians, parents, and communities that demand that practically all kids go to "college", even though many kids drop out of colleges or take many years to finish.
Let's inventory what we have,freeze establishment of new colleges and branches, merge overlapping programs in colleges geographically near, including cooperation with private colleges, and expand community college capacity if necessary.
Most college courses can be offered at community colleges which are often more efficient and economical that overgrown branches and divisions of "state Universities". It's a prestige and bullsh game and the four year state schools,with few exceptions like UC Berkeley or U Virginia, are mediocre at best. The harsh truth is that the best schools are the Ivies and near Ivies, like Duke and Stanford, and these are private institutions.
States should focus on community colleges and one high quality campus where world class research and thinking is done, with exceptional students and faculty.
We need to build more trade and occupational institututes as well. We have become a nonliterate society and and the literate elite should go to elite schools like Harvard or Virginia. The rest should go towhat they need to be productive for society and to make a living.
The vast majority of students don't need four years of college, let alone a masters degree, to earn a living and to provide the nation with needed skills.
Of course the biggest waste of money is the "historic" black colleges with two or three exceptions like Morehouse or Spellman.
Segregation should be over and colleges tumble over themselves to recruit qualified "minorities", if that word means anything anymore in a diverse society.
Let's inventory what we have,freeze establishment of new colleges and branches, merge overlapping programs in colleges geographically near, including cooperation with private colleges, and expand community college capacity if necessary.
Most college courses can be offered at community colleges which are often more efficient and economical that overgrown branches and divisions of "state Universities". It's a prestige and bullsh game and the four year state schools,with few exceptions like UC Berkeley or U Virginia, are mediocre at best. The harsh truth is that the best schools are the Ivies and near Ivies, like Duke and Stanford, and these are private institutions.
States should focus on community colleges and one high quality campus where world class research and thinking is done, with exceptional students and faculty.
We need to build more trade and occupational institututes as well. We have become a nonliterate society and and the literate elite should go to elite schools like Harvard or Virginia. The rest should go towhat they need to be productive for society and to make a living.
The vast majority of students don't need four years of college, let alone a masters degree, to earn a living and to provide the nation with needed skills.
Of course the biggest waste of money is the "historic" black colleges with two or three exceptions like Morehouse or Spellman.
Segregation should be over and colleges tumble over themselves to recruit qualified "minorities", if that word means anything anymore in a diverse society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I don't think public universities will necessarily be for only the very well to do.
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would be private universities then. At some point, the public will no longer stand for it and the universities will have to come clean or face the consequences. Try this on for positive thinking. If you push someone too far, at some point they'll push back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Interesting...
Posted by: Wolfrider on Apr 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Wolfrider on Apr 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner and I recently attempted to move out of her parent's condo and into a place of our own. Of course, this involved a credit check. I have a student loan (which means bad credit) she doesn't and she has good credit. My student loan is equal to that of the cost of going to university for four years and is currently on a debt relief program (meaning I don't have to pay for another three years).
We impressed our would-be landlord so much that when we said we were thinking about looking elsewhere she offered us additional incentive to take the place. We were her "first choice". Until she looked at our credit and we were rejected flat out. Why? Not because she didn't think we could afford it (she said just the opposite) but it was because I had a student loan.
A young couple, both with university degrees and both employed in the tech industry with a combined annual income of 60k a year were rejected HOUSING on the basis of going to university.
I did a search for the word "fraud" in the comments and was surprised to find not a single instance of it. When are we going to stop giving higher education the benefit of the doubt and start acknowledging we can see the emperor's meat and two veg?
Government's are not to blame - there's no way the province I went to school in can afford to fund the skyrocketing costs of tuition along with providing student loans. And the way university administration officials spend government money is disgusting. On funding the library? Nope. On building a new student center with pretty glass floors? Yup.
Higher education is institutionalized extortion and when are we going to start suing universities for fraud and treating those inside the system as the criminals they are?
We impressed our would-be landlord so much that when we said we were thinking about looking elsewhere she offered us additional incentive to take the place. We were her "first choice". Until she looked at our credit and we were rejected flat out. Why? Not because she didn't think we could afford it (she said just the opposite) but it was because I had a student loan.
A young couple, both with university degrees and both employed in the tech industry with a combined annual income of 60k a year were rejected HOUSING on the basis of going to university.
I did a search for the word "fraud" in the comments and was surprised to find not a single instance of it. When are we going to stop giving higher education the benefit of the doubt and start acknowledging we can see the emperor's meat and two veg?
Government's are not to blame - there's no way the province I went to school in can afford to fund the skyrocketing costs of tuition along with providing student loans. And the way university administration officials spend government money is disgusting. On funding the library? Nope. On building a new student center with pretty glass floors? Yup.
Higher education is institutionalized extortion and when are we going to start suing universities for fraud and treating those inside the system as the criminals they are?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
College costs,have gone up at more than five times the rate of incomes.
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?
Isn't this the real story to investigate? Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?
From what I hear they cram more students into the same facilities and overload the profs classes. Herding more cattle through, and charging more?
WHERE is the money going?
I suspect a bloated overhead of middle and upper management that have little to do with educating anybody.
Isn't this the real story to investigate? Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?
From what I hear they cram more students into the same facilities and overload the profs classes. Herding more cattle through, and charging more?
WHERE is the money going?
I suspect a bloated overhead of middle and upper management that have little to do with educating anybody.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?"
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
us citizens can't get a good education in its schools...
Posted by: eosrk on Apr 3, 2009 3:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: eosrk on Apr 3, 2009 3:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like harvard mit and the like....but alQaida sure as hell can...for free
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
College used to be about learning stuff.
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once the owning class realized it was leveling the playing field, they quickly distributed kool-aid that told the middlings, college was for getting a job and class mobility (upward). Once that suicide cocktail was drunk from deeply, we get the shite that poses for college today.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you polemics. Go to college to learn shit and stop fucking around with the elitist horseshit.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you polemics. Go to college to learn shit and stop fucking around with the elitist horseshit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: College used to be about learning stuff. Groovy.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Yet another case of moneyed interests,
Posted by: lewb on Apr 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: lewb on Apr 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
perverting another institution. Colleges now are turning out drones for their financial systems. The
universities don't foster education to uplift and enlighten. Higher education isn't supposed to be a bastion of the rich. The nation will be poorer for
it. Who will teach students to ask the important questions? Where will the moral compass of our youth be nurtured? The universities fostered the social conscience of the students against the war in Vietnam and the pollution emanating from the greedy corporations. The universities must re-examine their purpose if they are not become a
tool for the corporatocracy.
universities don't foster education to uplift and enlighten. Higher education isn't supposed to be a bastion of the rich. The nation will be poorer for
it. Who will teach students to ask the important questions? Where will the moral compass of our youth be nurtured? The universities fostered the social conscience of the students against the war in Vietnam and the pollution emanating from the greedy corporations. The universities must re-examine their purpose if they are not become a
tool for the corporatocracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
THE DISASTER SOLUTIONIST AMERICAN MASTER
Posted by: foxxx on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: foxxx on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IN THE STATE I'M LIVING IN SCHOOLS ARE CLOSING, TEACHERS ARE GETTING LAID OFF, 10,000 COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE BEING REFUSED BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, SO I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT A NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. YES MY NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WILL WORK FOR LAID-OFF TEACHERS, COLLEGE STUDENTS THAT WANT TO LEARN, NO MATTER POOR OR RICH. ALL THE CHILDREN THAT ARE LOOSING THEIR SCHOOLS DUE TO CLOSURE. I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM. FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES= BY USEING A PROFESSOR FOR EACH MAJOR SUBJECT AND 3 TEACHERS AS ASSISTANTS PER PROFESSOR AND THEY'D BE IN A CENTER POSITION EACH WITH A MASTER COMPUTER. EACH STUDENT WOULD PAY THEIR YEARLY TUITION TO THE MASTER CONTROL, THEN EACH BUY A COMPUTER AND A FAX MACHINE. THE MASTER PROFESSOR WILL TEACH ALL STUDENTS OF EACH SUBJECT BY THE MASTER COMPUTER TO HIS OR HER STUDENTS ON COMPUTER AND ALL HOMEWORK WILL BO FAXED TO AND FROM THE MASTER AND EACH STUDENT 'S FAX MACHINE. IN OTHERWARDS THE TEACHING AND LEARNING WILL BE DONE THROUGH COMPUTERS AND SENDING IN HOMEWORK AND TESTS THROUGH FAX MACHINES. AS FOR REGULAR SCHOOLS THE SAME PRINCIPLE, BUT I SUGGEST EDUCATIONAL TAXES BE DIVERTED FROM THE STATE, CITY AND COUNTY TO THE MASTER COMPUTER AND EACH STUDENT LEARN AT HOME OR MAKE ARRANGMENTS WITH OTHER PARENTS. BY BEING AT HOME, LESS BUSING, PARENTAL GUIDANCE, SAVE ON MONEY AND BETTER LEARNING. THIS WAY MORE TIME FOR LEARNING, MORE FREEDOM FOR KIDS AND LESS CROWDING. NO BUSSUNG, LESS FUEL FOR MAINTAINING BUILDINGS, BUSSES, NO UPKEEP + SINCE AMERICA'S GETTING BIGGER MORE PEOPLE TO LEARN MORE, BY LEARNING AT HOME. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE DISASTER SOLUTIONIST AMERICAN MASTER
Posted by: chomsky
» Phalanx Failure
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
What happens when the
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
potential customer base for these four-year colleges becomes smaller than the classroom seats for sale each year? If college tuition is priced beyond the ability of most people to pay, will the colleges be unable to fill their classrooms? Won't tuition have to drop to meet the market? A decade ago, I remember reading that college tuition had outpaced the rate of inflation for years because colleges had established a built-in, automatic increase indexed at a time when inflation was high, and as long as the public continued to pay the increasing rates, colleges happily kept increasing and raking in the unwarranted additional tuition. Maybe the market will readjust. Maybe we also need to stop putting a premium on a bachelor's or post-graduate degree, and give the tradespeople the respect due for the skills they acquire in two-year programs coupled with apprenticeships.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Well...
Posted by: finch on Apr 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: finch on Apr 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this wasn't a problem until Universities became puppy mills of high pay seeking, materialistic graduates. Seriously, Universities used to be a center of learning and were about building friendships and questioning the status quo. Now, students just want to get it over with and start making that money.
I know someone who just graduated and is, and this is overstating it, underemployed. Even if offered a government job in some sort of New Deal public works program, he would turn it down.
Yeah. That is what colleges are breeding out from what I have seen.
The only thing they do now is act as a method to extend the blissful ignorance of consumer society that allows its government to be bought and run by the very same companies they buy terrible, unnecessary products from third world nations who basically live in slavery. They make it seem ok that your lifestyle is destroying this planet, that it is alright because you went to college and the world is getting better all the time! [even when its not, but they won't teach you that in economics or any other class]
Maybe the youth vote for Obama is signifying a change, maybe not. We will see if he is actually more of an icon or if he represents a true change in thinking for young people.
I know someone who just graduated and is, and this is overstating it, underemployed. Even if offered a government job in some sort of New Deal public works program, he would turn it down.
Yeah. That is what colleges are breeding out from what I have seen.
The only thing they do now is act as a method to extend the blissful ignorance of consumer society that allows its government to be bought and run by the very same companies they buy terrible, unnecessary products from third world nations who basically live in slavery. They make it seem ok that your lifestyle is destroying this planet, that it is alright because you went to college and the world is getting better all the time! [even when its not, but they won't teach you that in economics or any other class]
Maybe the youth vote for Obama is signifying a change, maybe not. We will see if he is actually more of an icon or if he represents a true change in thinking for young people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well...
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Rise Of The Idiots.
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Apr 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Apr 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Higher education in the States and most of the West,has always reflected and reproduced a dominant order.The middle class have always been over-represented,and the working class under represented (i'm using the more accurate non-US,categories of social class here).In the 1970s,the sociologist Paul Willis outlined one reason for this, manual working families,did not always value the academic,and there was an uneven tendency towards a resistant sub-culture,which valued the masculine,tough skills which are the essence of the capitalist class system's proletarian role.My own experience of the dynamic between blue collar family,and education,convince me that there is at least some validity in this.."what do you want to get a degree for?""you are just learning for the sake of it".
However Willis's theory doesn't catch all of the aspects,of class/education reproduction.For many poorer parent's attitudes to education are in themselve's often shaped by a lack of finances.
Family name,parental awareness of the education system,instilled confidence and extra tuition also play/ed, a huge part in this reproduction of the class struture through education,with all disadvantages going to those at the bottom of the economic pile.Which ever way you cut it a form of social engineering has always been at play.
Dullards,stretched to the limit of their capacity,always had more chance of getting to university..especially the top one's.
At least in the UK though,in the post war period we had a grant system,where the state payed for tuition fee's.That was until Thatcher and her twin sons Blair and Brown made education a costly business,where student's graduate with a ton of debt.The more elite institutions are also amongst the most costly.
The post war red brick University expansion,had seen opportunities grow for the brighter working class students,who became the first in their family line to go to uni.
Even that marginal improvement seems to have withered or at least ground to a halt in Britain.The elite institutions Oxford and Cambridge still contain a disproportionate number of ex-pupil's of fee paying schools..whose parents can afford the fee's of the more expensive Universities.This just serve's to make the link between wealth,privilege and educational attainment even starker,and more direct.
This to my eye's create's an anti-meritocracy,and ensures that the brightest "don't"rise,and the offspring of the posh ..come in David Cameron,George Bush,Boris Johnson etc..always rise.
This has to be bad for society,and for the economy..the waste of talent is enormous,while the top positions are filled by the born lucky,and less so by the brightest.
There will always be exceptions to this,though that seem's to be an important aspect of the education system..to be able to point to the poor girl made good,prove's that the whole system work.It doesn't.
However Willis's theory doesn't catch all of the aspects,of class/education reproduction.For many poorer parent's attitudes to education are in themselve's often shaped by a lack of finances.
Family name,parental awareness of the education system,instilled confidence and extra tuition also play/ed, a huge part in this reproduction of the class struture through education,with all disadvantages going to those at the bottom of the economic pile.Which ever way you cut it a form of social engineering has always been at play.
Dullards,stretched to the limit of their capacity,always had more chance of getting to university..especially the top one's.
At least in the UK though,in the post war period we had a grant system,where the state payed for tuition fee's.That was until Thatcher and her twin sons Blair and Brown made education a costly business,where student's graduate with a ton of debt.The more elite institutions are also amongst the most costly.
The post war red brick University expansion,had seen opportunities grow for the brighter working class students,who became the first in their family line to go to uni.
Even that marginal improvement seems to have withered or at least ground to a halt in Britain.The elite institutions Oxford and Cambridge still contain a disproportionate number of ex-pupil's of fee paying schools..whose parents can afford the fee's of the more expensive Universities.This just serve's to make the link between wealth,privilege and educational attainment even starker,and more direct.
This to my eye's create's an anti-meritocracy,and ensures that the brightest "don't"rise,and the offspring of the posh ..come in David Cameron,George Bush,Boris Johnson etc..always rise.
This has to be bad for society,and for the economy..the waste of talent is enormous,while the top positions are filled by the born lucky,and less so by the brightest.
There will always be exceptions to this,though that seem's to be an important aspect of the education system..to be able to point to the poor girl made good,prove's that the whole system work.It doesn't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
one thing about managers today
Posted by: bluetiger7 on Apr 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bluetiger7 on Apr 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now I know this doesn't invovle every manager, but I have seen with my very own eyes where the top executive hardly does anything. I used to work for a car rental corp. one day I was called in by the top brass and told my job was no longer available. I asked why is that to which I got because you hardly do any work. Yeah right. compared to you if it wasn't for emmployees like me this business would not be in the running.
one thing I want to point out. while in his office, his desk was empty of any paper, there was no file cabin, not one evidence of work done by him. I see him come in only once a week. when he is in he will just sit there for an hour doing nothing. finally he decideds to leave and go to the corp country club for a round of golf.
one thing I want to point out. while in his office, his desk was empty of any paper, there was no file cabin, not one evidence of work done by him. I see him come in only once a week. when he is in he will just sit there for an hour doing nothing. finally he decideds to leave and go to the corp country club for a round of golf.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
We are all indentured
Posted by: socrates2 on Apr 5, 2009 10:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: socrates2 on Apr 5, 2009 10:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, folks, in case you weren't looking, there is something "embedded" in _our_ Constitution called the 16th Amendment.
In case you didn't notice, by a 2/3rds vote of the entire United States back in 1913 (yes, by, ahem, "coincidence" the same year the Federal Reserve Act was enacted as the law of the land) we voted ourselves into a _perpetual economic servitude_ to those who decide how much taxes we pay, to whom, and for what...
So if you have to work until April or May to finally take care of your needs blame your careless and indifferent grandparents. Today we have ourselves to blame for not voting to liberate ourselves from this economic curse.
At least in socialist countries their taxes benefit their student class and the working class. Here it benefits the banking class and their protectors the military-industrial-Congress complex. (Do you really believe one cent of those bailout billions will ever "trickle down" to you and little old me? Not if you knew in whose hands those bucks are going to end up in...)
Everything else is conditioning (memes) and propaganda to keep us as uncritical sheep...
In the words of John Carpenter, "They Live!"
Good luck and good night...
In case you didn't notice, by a 2/3rds vote of the entire United States back in 1913 (yes, by, ahem, "coincidence" the same year the Federal Reserve Act was enacted as the law of the land) we voted ourselves into a _perpetual economic servitude_ to those who decide how much taxes we pay, to whom, and for what...
So if you have to work until April or May to finally take care of your needs blame your careless and indifferent grandparents. Today we have ourselves to blame for not voting to liberate ourselves from this economic curse.
At least in socialist countries their taxes benefit their student class and the working class. Here it benefits the banking class and their protectors the military-industrial-Congress complex. (Do you really believe one cent of those bailout billions will ever "trickle down" to you and little old me? Not if you knew in whose hands those bucks are going to end up in...)
Everything else is conditioning (memes) and propaganda to keep us as uncritical sheep...
In the words of John Carpenter, "They Live!"
Good luck and good night...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
BAILOUT....OF DEBACLES & DREAMS
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's important the PUBLIC seek LEGAL AND legislative action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT. We must force these business to pay every dime back IN A TIMELY FASHION and restore these businesses to the PUBLIC SECTOR so that the SMALL bus/med business sector can participate in FREE ENTERPRISE.
Do it for your children's sake OTHERWISE... there will be no hope for any young couple in love whom wishes to think about getting married and starting a new business and make it profitably work. IT WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE IF THE PUBLIC doesn't show their determination to protect their CONSTITUTION. IN ADDITION, the 99 PERCENT of the public 'needs" to seek LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT AND STIMULUS
No wonder all those big companies cannot wait to get their hands on taxpayer funds to throw away. this stimulus creates a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY r for the big business to MUSCLE out and eradicate the small business/med business sectors from the ECONOMIC marketplace landscape and to keep small/med business from every getting a chance to be able to exist at all in the marketplace for all time.
it took ACORN and DEMS 9 years to bring on the meltdown now this new bailout THROWS more money at them so they will be the bottomless moneypit drain on public funds. WANNA know what happened to all those low income ACORN homes??? they are all boarded up. WHILE our economy is still reeling from the effects of DEMS CONSTANT bad fiscal policies. Got it straight from the horse's mouths people. .
Then WASH DC slugs have the nerve to claim 500.00 bucks will "help"?? that won't even buy groceries for MONTH for most USA.
WASH DC SLUGS think that a couple of bucks is all it takes to DESTROY the USA freedoms and free enterprise and peoples health and DISMANTLE it's entire economic structure a sector at a time??? Do they think the USA is a bargain basement shop?!!!
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.
WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.
Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.
Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on
see American Center for Law & Justice and familysecuritymatters.org
Do it for your children's sake OTHERWISE... there will be no hope for any young couple in love whom wishes to think about getting married and starting a new business and make it profitably work. IT WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE IF THE PUBLIC doesn't show their determination to protect their CONSTITUTION. IN ADDITION, the 99 PERCENT of the public 'needs" to seek LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT AND STIMULUS
No wonder all those big companies cannot wait to get their hands on taxpayer funds to throw away. this stimulus creates a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY r for the big business to MUSCLE out and eradicate the small business/med business sectors from the ECONOMIC marketplace landscape and to keep small/med business from every getting a chance to be able to exist at all in the marketplace for all time.
it took ACORN and DEMS 9 years to bring on the meltdown now this new bailout THROWS more money at them so they will be the bottomless moneypit drain on public funds. WANNA know what happened to all those low income ACORN homes??? they are all boarded up. WHILE our economy is still reeling from the effects of DEMS CONSTANT bad fiscal policies. Got it straight from the horse's mouths people. .
Then WASH DC slugs have the nerve to claim 500.00 bucks will "help"?? that won't even buy groceries for MONTH for most USA.
WASH DC SLUGS think that a couple of bucks is all it takes to DESTROY the USA freedoms and free enterprise and peoples health and DISMANTLE it's entire economic structure a sector at a time??? Do they think the USA is a bargain basement shop?!!!
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.
WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.
Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.
Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on
see American Center for Law & Justice and familysecuritymatters.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
"Your children,"
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Apr 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Apr 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was the NeoCon mantra for the past couple of years, "won't have it as good as you did..."
All we had to do was to elect a Democrat, we thought, to turn that notion on its head.
Little did we know when we first heard that, that the fix was already in.
America let its deadliest of enemies into the halls of power, and they waited patiently, one by one, gaining power, until in the year 2000, they struck and took over our country, seemingly for good.
Now we're hearing all kinds of such bullshit--such as the words with which our Founding Fathers formed this nation's gestalt, are 'old-fashioned' and 'silly'.
In this nation, where everything was once possible to everyone--where Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, guaranteed a good education for all--now the schools are closing their doors to all but the elite.
And it only took these NeoCon pig thieves of the American Dream, 8 years to strip it from the complacent gang of idiots that we've become.
While it's true that the Cons stole the election in Florida in 2000; and again in Ohio in 2004--nobody much disputes that any more--it's also true that THE DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS IN BOTH THOSE ELECTIONS, IN DROVES--making that theft even possible.
We deserve what we got. Now we have to go after the DemoPublicans in the Senate, who are effectively blocking all Democratic initiatives--going so far as to refuse to OK workers in President Obama's administration, IF OBAMA INSISTS ON INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT ALL THE TORTURE THAT BUSH ALLOWED.
They're THAT POWERFUL--STILL. Think about that, dear Middle America--think of how you never bothered to go vote on Election Day. Think how you all but opened the door to America's highest institutions, wide to these pigs and thieves.
In 2008, the "Democrats won"--and then we saw how many "DemoPublicans" out there in the Senate, are bringing our power to naught.
Congratulations.
All we had to do was to elect a Democrat, we thought, to turn that notion on its head.
Little did we know when we first heard that, that the fix was already in.
America let its deadliest of enemies into the halls of power, and they waited patiently, one by one, gaining power, until in the year 2000, they struck and took over our country, seemingly for good.
Now we're hearing all kinds of such bullshit--such as the words with which our Founding Fathers formed this nation's gestalt, are 'old-fashioned' and 'silly'.
In this nation, where everything was once possible to everyone--where Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, guaranteed a good education for all--now the schools are closing their doors to all but the elite.
And it only took these NeoCon pig thieves of the American Dream, 8 years to strip it from the complacent gang of idiots that we've become.
While it's true that the Cons stole the election in Florida in 2000; and again in Ohio in 2004--nobody much disputes that any more--it's also true that THE DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS IN BOTH THOSE ELECTIONS, IN DROVES--making that theft even possible.
We deserve what we got. Now we have to go after the DemoPublicans in the Senate, who are effectively blocking all Democratic initiatives--going so far as to refuse to OK workers in President Obama's administration, IF OBAMA INSISTS ON INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT ALL THE TORTURE THAT BUSH ALLOWED.
They're THAT POWERFUL--STILL. Think about that, dear Middle America--think of how you never bothered to go vote on Election Day. Think how you all but opened the door to America's highest institutions, wide to these pigs and thieves.
In 2008, the "Democrats won"--and then we saw how many "DemoPublicans" out there in the Senate, are bringing our power to naught.
Congratulations.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: Yankeeinexile
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: astralman
» H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» "why is a Bachelor Degree priced at about $75,000-100,000? Isn't this stupid?"
Posted by: Smackback
» Did you run out of lube this morning, Horny?
Posted by: Smackback
» Me Too!
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» Socialist Inequality
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Quist
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Hecate_magika
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Hecate_magika
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: jmndodge
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» factory of learning
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: factory of learning
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Lilly
» I'll be enjoying the Final Four
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Actually, the corporate classes run higher ed in America.
Posted by: redceres
» Thank God for the internet, at least you can get to a Marxist Website and get the unfiltered version
Posted by: RR#1
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: bobtr900
» That must be why you conservatives want to destroy higher education
Posted by: Smackback
» Good point
Posted by: Karina
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» Hi Tony, thank you for posting positive thinking for a change.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» "I must have killed some of my social skills somewhere and ended up being a little too rough".
Posted by: leafmen
» Tony, you are correct ! Social interactivity leads to more friends and better roommates in life !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: Beck
» So technology is the problem, not the user?
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: technology has replaced human contact, that we need to turn stuff off and get out more
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Resource-efficient alternatives to traditional college are needed if there will be any hope of
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Online education for Bayou residents? No way. Already have enough closed-minded folks out here.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Growing ignorance is probably an inevitable consequence of resource depletion and economic decline.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» You're looking at college from the naive insider perspective of an academic,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Wrong
Posted by: socialpsych
» You're being historically myopic.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: EncinoM
» Pay Attention!
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Don't go to college at 18
Posted by: astudent
» At 18, I was sick and tired of school
Posted by: Smackback
» And P.S., I still have a full-time job in this economy, in spite of no college degree
Posted by: Smackback
» That's exactly right.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: yesman
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: abstractedaway
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: lorenbliss
» RE: So true...
Posted by: Ladydog
» College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Exactly!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Also a lot of affluent kids, probably most, aren't in college for love of learning. It's family
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Testing was the standard in Pinochet's Chile, and in Orwell's 1984
Posted by: peacelf
» I know this already. How does it pertain to what I wrote?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Don't I wish!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Situations like yours are exactly why I support testing for this purpose,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: Urgelt
» the students have to do their part
Posted by: nate
» Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: gar1948
» It's amazing how inefficient coporate practices are. There is a "too many chiefs, not enough
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Americans have been trained to place great faith in the corporate system.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: Lilly
» Business people and ex-athletes abound in the higher pay scales.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: yesman
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: davewuxi
» It's The Way American Crony Capitalism Works
Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Cybershaman
» That's a good point.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: davewuxi
» Your position isn't trendy but I agree with you.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» I also agree that knowledge is generally cumulative through the centuries and millennia, though
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Urgelt
» Are you actually responding to anything that anyone here wrote?
Posted by: redceres
» you must be kidding...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
» Trust me, the public will take note.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: davewuxi
» good for you: an overpaid 'corporate training' not *broad education*
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: Ayla87
» Remember all that talk about how CEOs are totally brilliant gurus and all that shit?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland
» RE: The obvious easy solution:
Posted by: jmoore
» RE: The obvious easy solution: A response from Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: barry1of4
» "Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?"
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College used to be about learning stuff. Groovy.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: THE DISASTER SOLUTIONIST AMERICAN MASTER
Posted by: chomsky
» Phalanx Failure
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Well...
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Apr 3, 2009 1:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist... on Apr 3, 2009 1:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"NO DREAM ACT"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: Yankeeinexile
» RE: Congress is doing everything in its power to make college more affordable....For Illegal Aliens.
Posted by: astralman
» H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: H1B visas drive down salaries for the middle class; illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Posted by: anneliese-nyc
» "why is a Bachelor Degree priced at about $75,000-100,000? Isn't this stupid?"
Posted by: Smackback
» Did you run out of lube this morning, Horny?
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Free Education
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 3, 2009 2:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 3, 2009 2:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had the misfortune of being educated under a Socialist education system. In the U.K my tuition was paid for, and I got several thousand a year to help cover costs ( all free). Darn socialism ,I so wish I could have studied in America so I could've had my History degree topped with a mountain of debt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Me Too!
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» Socialist Inequality
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Quist
» RE: Got proof???
Posted by: Hecate_magika
» RE: Free Education
Posted by: Hecate_magika
Comments are closed-
look in the mirror
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 3, 2009 3:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 3, 2009 3:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you guys run education, even in the reddest of red states the state Universities are incubators for liberalism. Maybe its time to spend some of that endowment eh?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: jmndodge
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Cybershaman
» factory of learning
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: factory of learning
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: Lilly
» I'll be enjoying the Final Four
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Actually, the corporate classes run higher ed in America.
Posted by: redceres
» Thank God for the internet, at least you can get to a Marxist Website and get the unfiltered version
Posted by: RR#1
» RE: look in the mirror
Posted by: bobtr900
» That must be why you conservatives want to destroy higher education
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
Indenture
Posted by: exvagabond on Apr 3, 2009 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: exvagabond on Apr 3, 2009 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If students graduate with enormous student debt, then "education" is in fact indentured servitude.
Forty years ago lots of us could work our way thru college and come out owing zero. If this is not feasible today, it indicates that my generation have less use for our kids that our parents did for us. If I were young today, and there were no Vietnam draft, I would never opt-in to this snare.
Forty years ago lots of us could work our way thru college and come out owing zero. If this is not feasible today, it indicates that my generation have less use for our kids that our parents did for us. If I were young today, and there were no Vietnam draft, I would never opt-in to this snare.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
It's Still Possible To Go To University in The UK if You Are Skint
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Apr 3, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Apr 3, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tuition Fees are about £3K a year
Accommodation Costs are about £3K a year
Other costs like eating, drinking and books can be done for about £4K a year.
If your parents earn less than £25K you will get a full grant to pay Tuition fees - and you may also get a bursary from the University (neither of which have to paid back)
On top of this you will get a student loan which should just about cover all your costs. The student loan has an interest rate 1% above the inflation rate. It gets paid back automatically from any future employment - only when you get paid over £15K a year. Its by far the cheapest loan you can get with the best terms of repayment. If the loan is still outstanding 25 years it gets written off.
Now I realise this isn't perfect - but its doable - even comfortably so if you manage to get a part time job.
So far as I am aware the tuition fees are fixed at a maximum of around £3K regardless of the quality of the university.
Personally, I think far too many people are going to University - and many would be far better off learning practical skills on the job and getting paid for it by getting an apprenticeship with an employer.
Traditional practical skills are still very much in demand in the UK - and very well paid.
3 Years at University gurantees you nothing in terms of employment.
Plumbers and Car Mechanics get paid far more than most University Graduates many who end up working in McDonalds or a Pub if they are lucky.
The job market is saturated with people qualified in academic skills - but who haven't got a clue how to make anything work or build anything.
Accommodation Costs are about £3K a year
Other costs like eating, drinking and books can be done for about £4K a year.
If your parents earn less than £25K you will get a full grant to pay Tuition fees - and you may also get a bursary from the University (neither of which have to paid back)
On top of this you will get a student loan which should just about cover all your costs. The student loan has an interest rate 1% above the inflation rate. It gets paid back automatically from any future employment - only when you get paid over £15K a year. Its by far the cheapest loan you can get with the best terms of repayment. If the loan is still outstanding 25 years it gets written off.
Now I realise this isn't perfect - but its doable - even comfortably so if you manage to get a part time job.
So far as I am aware the tuition fees are fixed at a maximum of around £3K regardless of the quality of the university.
Personally, I think far too many people are going to University - and many would be far better off learning practical skills on the job and getting paid for it by getting an apprenticeship with an employer.
Traditional practical skills are still very much in demand in the UK - and very well paid.
3 Years at University gurantees you nothing in terms of employment.
Plumbers and Car Mechanics get paid far more than most University Graduates many who end up working in McDonalds or a Pub if they are lucky.
The job market is saturated with people qualified in academic skills - but who haven't got a clue how to make anything work or build anything.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Good point
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's cheaper, convenient when you need it, and you don't have to pay all those unnecessary boarding costs. Online education is going to be the future. Let's get used to it. Plus, it actually opens the door to parents and their children interacting more often. I completed my online masters a few years ago and it wasn't too bad. Some of my online classmates were even serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: tony_opmoc
» Hi Tony, thank you for posting positive thinking for a change.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» "I must have killed some of my social skills somewhere and ended up being a little too rough".
Posted by: leafmen
» Tony, you are correct ! Social interactivity leads to more friends and better roommates in life !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: But without socializing, learning is cut off. Just ask the hick brains out here in LA.
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: Beck
» So technology is the problem, not the user?
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
» RE: technology has replaced human contact, that we need to turn stuff off and get out more
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Resource-efficient alternatives to traditional college are needed if there will be any hope of
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Online education for Bayou residents? No way. Already have enough closed-minded folks out here.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Growing ignorance is probably an inevitable consequence of resource depletion and economic decline.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: And yet more people especially those in the military are doing online education these days.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 3, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 3, 2009 5:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been teaching in universities for the last 25 years.
What has happened at public universities in the U.S. is that admissions standards have been lowered to the point that anyone who can sign a financial aid form gets in ("X" will do). The predictable consequences are that students who can't read or write or do basic math enter college and drag everyone else down with them.
Who but the capitalist swine who make all of the decisions in the U.S. (e.g., banks that loan kids the money at usurious rates) could have thought that everyone should go to college? Many young people would be much better off going to trade school or starting an apprenticeship than going to college.
What has happened at public universities in the U.S. is that admissions standards have been lowered to the point that anyone who can sign a financial aid form gets in ("X" will do). The predictable consequences are that students who can't read or write or do basic math enter college and drag everyone else down with them.
Who but the capitalist swine who make all of the decisions in the U.S. (e.g., banks that loan kids the money at usurious rates) could have thought that everyone should go to college? Many young people would be much better off going to trade school or starting an apprenticeship than going to college.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're looking at college from the naive insider perspective of an academic,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Wrong
Posted by: socialpsych
» You're being historically myopic.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: the myth that everyone should go to college
Posted by: EncinoM
» Pay Attention!
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: Don't go to college at 18
Posted by: astudent
» At 18, I was sick and tired of school
Posted by: Smackback
» And P.S., I still have a full-time job in this economy, in spite of no college degree
Posted by: Smackback
Comments are closed-
College and the american dream myth
Posted by: peacelf on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: peacelf on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cringe every time I hear someone mention the "american dream." Indeed, until the affordability of college effects the middle class, they're not aware of the fact that the dream of upward mobility is a myth. And, this is not a recent phenomenon.
The american dream, or upward mobility, has always been a myth perpetuated by those with power and wealth. The fact is that whatever social-economic class you're born in is the one you'll stay in. Upward mobility is about 1%, a near statistical impossibility.
And, given the declining value of student loans and grants to pay rising college tuitions, what we have is a class of indentured servants- not middle class people- IF they are fortunate enough to find good paying jobs after graduation.
More to the point: the deconstructed myth of the american dream is really social class replication. Poor people stay poor, middle class stay in the middle and the rich? well, they get richer.
Moreover, there is great value, for those in power, to perpetuate the myth. When the poor and working people covet wealth and materialistic "freedom," they will more than likely defend wealth and power. Joe the plumber exemplifies this paradigm of working class white males who support the wealthy's causes and issues that directly disempower and neuter the working class.
Had Joe the plumber attended a four year university, taken a few sociology courses, studied politics, indeed, had he READ the Employee Free Choice Act, he'd likely have a different opinion.
But, Joe is not alone. Too many americans buy into the idea of upward mobility or succumb to the cynicism and anger and feeling of failure when they can't achieve the dream, blaming oneself. That's the power of the myth: instead of seeing it as a myth and critically challenging the affects of mythology on our american social and economic psyche, we americans line up behind wealth and power, the very forces that brought us to the brink of economic disaster in the first decade of the 21st Century.
Last, there are two forces that largely perpetuate the myth: the media, and the american educational system.
The media loves to hold up example after example of the dream fulfilled, those rags to riches stories that so touch our hearts. All americans need is one Slumdog Millionaire, Lil' Wayne, Tiger Woods, or any lottery or game show winner to spark that sentimental desire to be rich. If the media isn't inviting you into someone's Crib, then they give you a thousand examples a day why you're worthless without this or that product.
Educational theorists have long known that our educational system perpetuates social class by the way we teach children. Kids in poorer and working class neighborhoods get a more rigid, structured and highly disciplined education. Think Direct Instruction. It's boring and repetitive, preparing poor and working class kids for their boring and repetitive adult lives.
Some creativity creeps into the curriculum in middle class schools, but only enough to create a class of middle managers, underlings to those at the top.
The very rich send their children to schools for the very rich, so their children won't be infected by an inferior value system. Boarding schools offer the extension of the gated community, along with life-long social contacts with rich friends and families. It's in-breeding at its finest.
The power of the myth is its exclusion and the acceptability of the exclusion. Until we working people overcome that mythological power, we will continue to allow rich people to rule our lives.
Peace
The american dream, or upward mobility, has always been a myth perpetuated by those with power and wealth. The fact is that whatever social-economic class you're born in is the one you'll stay in. Upward mobility is about 1%, a near statistical impossibility.
And, given the declining value of student loans and grants to pay rising college tuitions, what we have is a class of indentured servants- not middle class people- IF they are fortunate enough to find good paying jobs after graduation.
More to the point: the deconstructed myth of the american dream is really social class replication. Poor people stay poor, middle class stay in the middle and the rich? well, they get richer.
Moreover, there is great value, for those in power, to perpetuate the myth. When the poor and working people covet wealth and materialistic "freedom," they will more than likely defend wealth and power. Joe the plumber exemplifies this paradigm of working class white males who support the wealthy's causes and issues that directly disempower and neuter the working class.
Had Joe the plumber attended a four year university, taken a few sociology courses, studied politics, indeed, had he READ the Employee Free Choice Act, he'd likely have a different opinion.
But, Joe is not alone. Too many americans buy into the idea of upward mobility or succumb to the cynicism and anger and feeling of failure when they can't achieve the dream, blaming oneself. That's the power of the myth: instead of seeing it as a myth and critically challenging the affects of mythology on our american social and economic psyche, we americans line up behind wealth and power, the very forces that brought us to the brink of economic disaster in the first decade of the 21st Century.
Last, there are two forces that largely perpetuate the myth: the media, and the american educational system.
The media loves to hold up example after example of the dream fulfilled, those rags to riches stories that so touch our hearts. All americans need is one Slumdog Millionaire, Lil' Wayne, Tiger Woods, or any lottery or game show winner to spark that sentimental desire to be rich. If the media isn't inviting you into someone's Crib, then they give you a thousand examples a day why you're worthless without this or that product.
Educational theorists have long known that our educational system perpetuates social class by the way we teach children. Kids in poorer and working class neighborhoods get a more rigid, structured and highly disciplined education. Think Direct Instruction. It's boring and repetitive, preparing poor and working class kids for their boring and repetitive adult lives.
Some creativity creeps into the curriculum in middle class schools, but only enough to create a class of middle managers, underlings to those at the top.
The very rich send their children to schools for the very rich, so their children won't be infected by an inferior value system. Boarding schools offer the extension of the gated community, along with life-long social contacts with rich friends and families. It's in-breeding at its finest.
The power of the myth is its exclusion and the acceptability of the exclusion. Until we working people overcome that mythological power, we will continue to allow rich people to rule our lives.
Peace
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's exactly right.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» RE: College and the american dream myth
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: barry1of4 on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: barry1of4 on Apr 3, 2009 5:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a contingent (some say "part-time" or "adjunct") faculty member of two Oregon community colleges, I can see Kroll's point when he talks of how many students must use community colleges as a junior college option, hoping to get into a 4-year university with good grades and an Associates Degree. I hear many students talk of this every term.
However, Kroll glosses over another inequity that occurs at both 2-year and 4-year colleges, though seeming more prevalent at community colleges. An inequity just as detrimental to higher education and just as important to correct. The inequity between tenure-track and contingent faculty.
Contingent faculty are much as 70% of the faculty members at a single college, often teach more than 50% of the course work, typically receive 40% to 60% of the "per course" wages compared to tenured faculty, and have few (if any) benefits. Many contingents must teach at multiple colleges to make something close to a living wage. These faculty members are often called "Road Scholars" or "Freeway Flyers". As an example, I know of contingent faculty members who have teaching assignments at 4 colleges and still qualify for Food Stamps. For the last 30+ years, contingent faculty have been increasingly used by colleges and universities as a cost saving measure, while at the same time the full-time tenured faculty base is steadily being eroded. How does this effect the quality of education?
Consider, "Generally speaking, how well is a contingent faculty member going to teach if they also have to worry about paying the rent, how to afford privately purchased health-care for themselves or their children, if there is enough money for groceries, how to pay for fixing their old broken-down excuse for a car, or all the other things tenured faculty take for granted because their compensation package gives them the capability to afford them?"
My point is best summed up by Frank Brooks, a contingent faculty member of Roosevelt University: "Contingency is a threat to quality, not contingent faculty. It's not who we are but how we are treated that undermines the quality of higher education."
The Obama Administration, Congress, and state governments need to get serious about reversing the overuse and abuse of contingent faculty if they are going to deal with issues like access and quality in the nation's institutions of higher education, whether they are big 4-year universities or community colleges.
However, Kroll glosses over another inequity that occurs at both 2-year and 4-year colleges, though seeming more prevalent at community colleges. An inequity just as detrimental to higher education and just as important to correct. The inequity between tenure-track and contingent faculty.
Contingent faculty are much as 70% of the faculty members at a single college, often teach more than 50% of the course work, typically receive 40% to 60% of the "per course" wages compared to tenured faculty, and have few (if any) benefits. Many contingents must teach at multiple colleges to make something close to a living wage. These faculty members are often called "Road Scholars" or "Freeway Flyers". As an example, I know of contingent faculty members who have teaching assignments at 4 colleges and still qualify for Food Stamps. For the last 30+ years, contingent faculty have been increasingly used by colleges and universities as a cost saving measure, while at the same time the full-time tenured faculty base is steadily being eroded. How does this effect the quality of education?
Consider, "Generally speaking, how well is a contingent faculty member going to teach if they also have to worry about paying the rent, how to afford privately purchased health-care for themselves or their children, if there is enough money for groceries, how to pay for fixing their old broken-down excuse for a car, or all the other things tenured faculty take for granted because their compensation package gives them the capability to afford them?"
My point is best summed up by Frank Brooks, a contingent faculty member of Roosevelt University: "Contingency is a threat to quality, not contingent faculty. It's not who we are but how we are treated that undermines the quality of higher education."
The Obama Administration, Congress, and state governments need to get serious about reversing the overuse and abuse of contingent faculty if they are going to deal with issues like access and quality in the nation's institutions of higher education, whether they are big 4-year universities or community colleges.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: yesman
Comments are closed-
what's left out
Posted by: mike1997 on Apr 3, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mike1997 on Apr 3, 2009 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the things that never gets mentioned in discussions about the rising cost of college is the fact that state aid as percentage of tuition has fallen like a rock. Back in the late -70's (when I was an undergrad) my home state of Missouri covered 90% of the cost of tuition at the State Universities. Now that number is below 50%. With the shift of Pell grants and workstudy going from a program for lower and middle class students to a program only for the poorest of the poor added into that, the cost of going to college is getting harder and harder.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: lorenbliss on Apr 3, 2009 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: lorenbliss on Apr 3, 2009 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
College in the United States has always been a major battlefield in the class struggle. The locked door of educational opportunity has been a reality here for at least 40 years, but its exclusionary oppression is only now reaching into the bourgeoisie, so that the nation’s unique and definitively capitalist assumption that wealth not talent is the sole determinant of who goes to college is afflicting people who still have the ability to make themselves heard. Hence after four decades of infuriating silence, the issue is finally being discussed, not because it’s a new problem, but because of a great awakening by the bourgeoisie that its white collars no longer protect it from being victimized by the plutocracy.
When Nixon halved the eligibility period for the never-adequate Vietnam Era GI Bill, when Vietnam Era veterans were forced out of school by various supplemental-aid curtailments that made the GI Bill itself useless, when the great free-tuition City University of New York was destroyed by the Ford Administration, the mothers and fathers of these people whose lamentations fill the pages and airwaves today were as coldly indifferent to impoverished students as the pre-repentance Ebenezer Scrooge might have been to the Little Match Girl. I know; I was one of the (typical) vets ousted from school by financial hardship -- not once but half a dozen times. Though I started college in 1959, I didn’t get my BA until 1976 -- my 36th year.
Obviously the Vietnam Era GI Bill was never intended to be anything but propaganda and was thus deliberately structured to be useless. Its stipend was tiny -- $155 a month in 1968, $175 in 1971, $225 in 1976 (never more than about a week’s gross pay to cover a month‘s expenses) -- but until 1972 you could supplement it with student loans, work-study jobs and food stamps. Nixon however ended or radically reduced nearly all the supplemental-funding eligibility of GI Bill students. And though the vast majority of vets actively opposed the war, when we asked non-veteran fellow students to back our efforts to mobilize against the funding cuts, the result was a sneer of class hatred that to this day twists Democratic Party politics -- the hatred and contempt the draft-exempt elite felt (and openly expressed) for those us whose parents were not rich enough to buy us draft exemptions.
Scholarship eligibility is meanwhile another Big Lie. Though I was a Dean’s List student at least twice, have SAT scores in the upper five percent (verbal score in the topmost one-tenth of one percent), I quickly learned it is pointless to apply for scholarships simply because they all require the kind of character witnesses (clergy, politicians, Big Businessmen) that are forever beyond the reach of anyone who has been -- as I was from age 16 on -- a refugee from a viciously dysfunctional family. Just as the national college finance system is designed to reserve college for the rich, so is the U.S. scholarship system is designed to make certain if impoverished people do manage to get money for college, they are certain to be submissively conformist if not dependably conservative -- in other words, ideal capitalist drones.
Not that a degree did me any good. In a job interview not long after graduation I had the profoundly enlightening experience of being denounced by a personnel officer because it had taken me 17 years to earn my diploma. “Obviously you weren’t very serious about college-level work,” she said. “You had all the advantages of being a white male but it still took you all that time.”
Bottom line, the state of college finance whether now or 40 years ago is merely one more irrefutable proof that the sole purpose of the United States is the propagation of capitalism -- the protection of the ruling class and the subjugation of all the rest of us.
When Nixon halved the eligibility period for the never-adequate Vietnam Era GI Bill, when Vietnam Era veterans were forced out of school by various supplemental-aid curtailments that made the GI Bill itself useless, when the great free-tuition City University of New York was destroyed by the Ford Administration, the mothers and fathers of these people whose lamentations fill the pages and airwaves today were as coldly indifferent to impoverished students as the pre-repentance Ebenezer Scrooge might have been to the Little Match Girl. I know; I was one of the (typical) vets ousted from school by financial hardship -- not once but half a dozen times. Though I started college in 1959, I didn’t get my BA until 1976 -- my 36th year.
Obviously the Vietnam Era GI Bill was never intended to be anything but propaganda and was thus deliberately structured to be useless. Its stipend was tiny -- $155 a month in 1968, $175 in 1971, $225 in 1976 (never more than about a week’s gross pay to cover a month‘s expenses) -- but until 1972 you could supplement it with student loans, work-study jobs and food stamps. Nixon however ended or radically reduced nearly all the supplemental-funding eligibility of GI Bill students. And though the vast majority of vets actively opposed the war, when we asked non-veteran fellow students to back our efforts to mobilize against the funding cuts, the result was a sneer of class hatred that to this day twists Democratic Party politics -- the hatred and contempt the draft-exempt elite felt (and openly expressed) for those us whose parents were not rich enough to buy us draft exemptions.
Scholarship eligibility is meanwhile another Big Lie. Though I was a Dean’s List student at least twice, have SAT scores in the upper five percent (verbal score in the topmost one-tenth of one percent), I quickly learned it is pointless to apply for scholarships simply because they all require the kind of character witnesses (clergy, politicians, Big Businessmen) that are forever beyond the reach of anyone who has been -- as I was from age 16 on -- a refugee from a viciously dysfunctional family. Just as the national college finance system is designed to reserve college for the rich, so is the U.S. scholarship system is designed to make certain if impoverished people do manage to get money for college, they are certain to be submissively conformist if not dependably conservative -- in other words, ideal capitalist drones.
Not that a degree did me any good. In a job interview not long after graduation I had the profoundly enlightening experience of being denounced by a personnel officer because it had taken me 17 years to earn my diploma. “Obviously you weren’t very serious about college-level work,” she said. “You had all the advantages of being a white male but it still took you all that time.”
Bottom line, the state of college finance whether now or 40 years ago is merely one more irrefutable proof that the sole purpose of the United States is the propagation of capitalism -- the protection of the ruling class and the subjugation of all the rest of us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: abstractedaway
» RE: A Protest 40 Years Too Late
Posted by: lorenbliss
Comments are closed-
College is a way for affluent families to legitimate the future, hereditary authority
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of their children. This has always been the essential function of "higher learning."
It is known that kids from affluent to wealthy families will generally have the connections to inherit their parents' social status, and their actual talent isn't so much an issue, as long as the kid isn't absolutely incompetent or insane. College gives a meritocratic cover to the inheritance of social status, as well as helping train affluent kids in networking to secure and advance their socioeconomic position.
It is known that kids from affluent to wealthy families will generally have the connections to inherit their parents' social status, and their actual talent isn't so much an issue, as long as the kid isn't absolutely incompetent or insane. College gives a meritocratic cover to the inheritance of social status, as well as helping train affluent kids in networking to secure and advance their socioeconomic position.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: So true...
Posted by: Ladydog
» College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Exactly!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Also a lot of affluent kids, probably most, aren't in college for love of learning. It's family
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: College provides a veneer of fairness, making it look like the kids of affluent families earned
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
Testing could be offered as an alternative credentialing process.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on Apr 3, 2009 6:54 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A student really doesn't need four years of study at facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, run, and maintain to learn the curriculum of a given course of study. This can be accomplished via methodical independent study.
Tests should be offered that would confer the equivalent of a college degree on people who can pass a test of what knowledge and thinking skills should be obtained from an equivalent college program. If a person passes the test, the credential is conferred and must be accepted by employers just as a college degree.
We are heading to a far less materially prosperous future due to resource constraints and the economic meltdown. Higher learning as we know it will not survive except for the children of elites and a handful of the most gifted non-elite students (Isaac Newton types). If less resource-intensive alternatives to college-level credentialing are not developed and accepted, then higher education will revert to what it was 100+ years ago (and still mostly is): the virtually exclusive domain of affluent families as a means to socialize their kids for a life among the affluent and legitimate their kids' inherited status.
Tests should be offered that would confer the equivalent of a college degree on people who can pass a test of what knowledge and thinking skills should be obtained from an equivalent college program. If a person passes the test, the credential is conferred and must be accepted by employers just as a college degree.
We are heading to a far less materially prosperous future due to resource constraints and the economic meltdown. Higher learning as we know it will not survive except for the children of elites and a handful of the most gifted non-elite students (Isaac Newton types). If less resource-intensive alternatives to college-level credentialing are not developed and accepted, then higher education will revert to what it was 100+ years ago (and still mostly is): the virtually exclusive domain of affluent families as a means to socialize their kids for a life among the affluent and legitimate their kids' inherited status.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Testing was the standard in Pinochet's Chile, and in Orwell's 1984
Posted by: peacelf
» I know this already. How does it pertain to what I wrote?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Don't I wish!
Posted by: Cybershaman
» Situations like yours are exactly why I support testing for this purpose,
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
The Sinecures are A-Trembling
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 3, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 3, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a feeling that the rising cost of tuition in America's major universities and private colleges is at least partly due to growing waste, and a loss of focus on what students need to know.
Can you take a four-year degree and go teach? No, you cannot. You have not learned what you need to know. You have to get a teaching certificate and preferably a Master's. (By contrast, 100 years ago two years of college qualified you to become a K-12 teacher. And don't tell me they didn't teach their kids well. They were probably better at it than our K-12 teachers now, on average.)
Can you graduate from business school and open a business? Not exactly. They prepare you, not to be come an engine of economic growth, but a wage slave at a major corporation. If you want to learn to run your own business, you'll find there is a steep learning curve, and that your education didn't prepare you for it.
With a four-year degree in English, are you competent to make a living as a writer? Not even close. English curricula are practically remedial in nature now. You could probably start up a blog, and maybe things will develop from there. Or if you're lucky, you will find an internship somewhere on a newspaper that hasn't folded yet, at a salary less than you'd get driving a bus. But if you want the skills of a pro, you won't find them in a four-year curriculum.
How about becoming a biologist? Well, you can maybe get a job as a lab technician, injecting drugs into rat's eyeballs for low pay. But you won't have the right to call yourself a biologist without a lot more education. You'll be lucky if you learn how to plan and execute the various types of scientific studies; more likely you'll just end up memorizing species, structures and geological periods from flash cards.
Engineering? You may fare a little better, and you may not. Depends on the program you're in. Many engineering schools seem to lack fire in the belly. An engineering program which cannot excite students is just going through the motions.
There's a lot of going through the motions in American higher education.
It did not used to be this way. Education beyond a bachelor's was rare, not obligatory. There's been "credential creep." You need more and more education to step onto the lowest white collar rung of the economic ladder. And as the costs rise, people are starting their careers ever deeper in the hole.
We also need to recognize that arriving freshmen are typically unprepared by high school for the experience. High school has become, in many communities, mostly about controlling teens and teaching to the test, not prying open minds and stimulating excitement about learning. Universities have to remedy that, and it takes time and effort. And it doesn't always work. This is a huge distraction and resource hog, and it undermines the value of a four-year degree. We really need to fix our K-12 system. (Hint: the way forward is not to bury it in a straight-jacket of rules and mandatory tests.)
Every university is carrying supercargo on its rolls, a lot of it. Teachers who don't excite. Teachers who don't innovate. Teachers whose sole mission is to serve corporate interests. In good times it's easy to just expand the curriculum around the dinosaurs to pick up the slack, and that's exactly what we've seen over the past 30 years. But the good times are over. Tenure or no tenure, universities need to cut back the brush.
My solution is not to regulate what universities can teach. But I do think universities ought to take a hard look at what they are offering students, and tighten it up.
Can you take a four-year degree and go teach? No, you cannot. You have not learned what you need to know. You have to get a teaching certificate and preferably a Master's. (By contrast, 100 years ago two years of college qualified you to become a K-12 teacher. And don't tell me they didn't teach their kids well. They were probably better at it than our K-12 teachers now, on average.)
Can you graduate from business school and open a business? Not exactly. They prepare you, not to be come an engine of economic growth, but a wage slave at a major corporation. If you want to learn to run your own business, you'll find there is a steep learning curve, and that your education didn't prepare you for it.
With a four-year degree in English, are you competent to make a living as a writer? Not even close. English curricula are practically remedial in nature now. You could probably start up a blog, and maybe things will develop from there. Or if you're lucky, you will find an internship somewhere on a newspaper that hasn't folded yet, at a salary less than you'd get driving a bus. But if you want the skills of a pro, you won't find them in a four-year curriculum.
How about becoming a biologist? Well, you can maybe get a job as a lab technician, injecting drugs into rat's eyeballs for low pay. But you won't have the right to call yourself a biologist without a lot more education. You'll be lucky if you learn how to plan and execute the various types of scientific studies; more likely you'll just end up memorizing species, structures and geological periods from flash cards.
Engineering? You may fare a little better, and you may not. Depends on the program you're in. Many engineering schools seem to lack fire in the belly. An engineering program which cannot excite students is just going through the motions.
There's a lot of going through the motions in American higher education.
It did not used to be this way. Education beyond a bachelor's was rare, not obligatory. There's been "credential creep." You need more and more education to step onto the lowest white collar rung of the economic ladder. And as the costs rise, people are starting their careers ever deeper in the hole.
We also need to recognize that arriving freshmen are typically unprepared by high school for the experience. High school has become, in many communities, mostly about controlling teens and teaching to the test, not prying open minds and stimulating excitement about learning. Universities have to remedy that, and it takes time and effort. And it doesn't always work. This is a huge distraction and resource hog, and it undermines the value of a four-year degree. We really need to fix our K-12 system. (Hint: the way forward is not to bury it in a straight-jacket of rules and mandatory tests.)
Every university is carrying supercargo on its rolls, a lot of it. Teachers who don't excite. Teachers who don't innovate. Teachers whose sole mission is to serve corporate interests. In good times it's easy to just expand the curriculum around the dinosaurs to pick up the slack, and that's exactly what we've seen over the past 30 years. But the good times are over. Tenure or no tenure, universities need to cut back the brush.
My solution is not to regulate what universities can teach. But I do think universities ought to take a hard look at what they are offering students, and tighten it up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Oh, for f@#$ sake.
Posted by: Urgelt
» the students have to do their part
Posted by: nate
Comments are closed-
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: gar1948
Comments are closed-
If You Think Education Is Expensive- Try Ignorance
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 3, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great read, you should have a great career ahead if there is any justice in the world.
What we are witnessing all around us are the downstream effects of the Howard Jarvis-Prop 13 movement and the Reagan/NeoCon era disinvestment in our nation. Infrastructure falling apart, escalating higher ed costs, wrecked public education, debt up our ha-ha and all the rest.
Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan are dead, but their acolytes live on and will accede to reality when pigs fly. It's going to take some smash-mouth politics to get past the NeoCon Rethugnicans and their closeted siblings- the Blue-Tick, Blue Dog, Conservative (read fake) Democrats.
I'm 47 years old and this trend started before I could vote and here we are- still dealing with these fear-mongering trolls and the wreckage that has ensued. For all of the rhetoric, Obama has bought into Wall Street's Friedmanite bullsh*t, so unless we yank his chain really hard we will just have Clinton term III.
A quality education should be available to all and in-state tuition should be free for anyone who can do the work and maintain the academic standards. You simply cannot have a decent life in modern America without a quality education unless you are a trust-fund kid.
I am so tired of hearing the same recycled crap from the overly inbred- a.k.a. Conservatives. They have been supporting this crap for 30= Years even as their throats have been slashed by the very reptiles they elect.
What we are witnessing all around us are the downstream effects of the Howard Jarvis-Prop 13 movement and the Reagan/NeoCon era disinvestment in our nation. Infrastructure falling apart, escalating higher ed costs, wrecked public education, debt up our ha-ha and all the rest.
Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan are dead, but their acolytes live on and will accede to reality when pigs fly. It's going to take some smash-mouth politics to get past the NeoCon Rethugnicans and their closeted siblings- the Blue-Tick, Blue Dog, Conservative (read fake) Democrats.
I'm 47 years old and this trend started before I could vote and here we are- still dealing with these fear-mongering trolls and the wreckage that has ensued. For all of the rhetoric, Obama has bought into Wall Street's Friedmanite bullsh*t, so unless we yank his chain really hard we will just have Clinton term III.
A quality education should be available to all and in-state tuition should be free for anyone who can do the work and maintain the academic standards. You simply cannot have a decent life in modern America without a quality education unless you are a trust-fund kid.
I am so tired of hearing the same recycled crap from the overly inbred- a.k.a. Conservatives. They have been supporting this crap for 30= Years even as their throats have been slashed by the very reptiles they elect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: redceres on Apr 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: redceres on Apr 3, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work at a small private liberal arts college in the Midwest. In the past two years, our "business team"--and I do NOT mean business department faculty--has grown at an astounding rate. While instructors and staff have been told that we will have no raises--not even cost of living raises--in the foreseeable future, our college president (a business person, rather than an educator) has increased our tiny school's development staff from 2 people to 17 people. SEVENTEEN!
Not even one academic department at this institution has HALF that many full time salaried positions in it.
We have been told that the reason we won't get raises is that "giving is way, way down." I ask you, what are these people doing to justify their ever-increasing share of the college's money? Our enrollment has stayed the same. Our salaries, god knows, have stayed the same. We have no new tech, no new facilities, and, I'll repeat, no prospect of even a cost-of-living raise in the foreseeable future.
Now, the burgeoning "development staff that does not develop" is only part of the problem. This president has bumped up the numbers of other administration posts as well. We have Deans coming out of our ears.
And no raises.
And rising tuition.
Just as other segments of our society have been held hostage by the out-of-control business classes and their assumption that the corporate way is best for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, so, too, are institutions of higher education under the dirty, rotten thumb of the corporate community and its shoddy ethical frameworks.
If your tuition has gone up, ask your college representative how many new administrative and business-type positions have been created in the past year. Do please, use the word "created" so that you'll get a clearer picture of what is happening.
You'll find out quickly that the same screwheads who tanked Wall Street are taking Board of Trustees and administration positions at arts, education, and community service organizations all over the country.
Unless we cut the cancer that is corporate America out of these institutions, we will continue to see higher ed priced out of the range of most students and jobs in higher ed continually funneled to unqualified non-educators.
Not even one academic department at this institution has HALF that many full time salaried positions in it.
We have been told that the reason we won't get raises is that "giving is way, way down." I ask you, what are these people doing to justify their ever-increasing share of the college's money? Our enrollment has stayed the same. Our salaries, god knows, have stayed the same. We have no new tech, no new facilities, and, I'll repeat, no prospect of even a cost-of-living raise in the foreseeable future.
Now, the burgeoning "development staff that does not develop" is only part of the problem. This president has bumped up the numbers of other administration posts as well. We have Deans coming out of our ears.
And no raises.
And rising tuition.
Just as other segments of our society have been held hostage by the out-of-control business classes and their assumption that the corporate way is best for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, so, too, are institutions of higher education under the dirty, rotten thumb of the corporate community and its shoddy ethical frameworks.
If your tuition has gone up, ask your college representative how many new administrative and business-type positions have been created in the past year. Do please, use the word "created" so that you'll get a clearer picture of what is happening.
You'll find out quickly that the same screwheads who tanked Wall Street are taking Board of Trustees and administration positions at arts, education, and community service organizations all over the country.
Unless we cut the cancer that is corporate America out of these institutions, we will continue to see higher ed priced out of the range of most students and jobs in higher ed continually funneled to unqualified non-educators.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's amazing how inefficient coporate practices are. There is a "too many chiefs, not enough
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» Americans have been trained to place great faith in the corporate system.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: Lilly
» Business people and ex-athletes abound in the higher pay scales.
Posted by: redceres
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: yesman
» RE: Let me explain the increase in tuition costs.
Posted by: davewuxi
» It's The Way American Crony Capitalism Works
Posted by: NoPCZone
Comments are closed-
The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Triumph on Apr 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Triumph on Apr 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument is posed time and time again, that people in the 1800's were more educated than we are today. The argument is simple and structrally valid but completely unsound!
We as a society have amassed so much information, just from the year 1800 until now. Take into account that we as a society carry forth all relevant scientific theories, and societal theories, along with all revelant factual data since the begining of human societies, we are therefore overwhelmed with data, hence the term "information overload!"
In the 1800s, science was in its infancy. For instance, humankind has had a fascination with the heavens since the dawn of prehistoric societies, and yet we are only now, many thousands of years later, sending probes into space.
The foundations of education started at the dawn of humankind, when tribal societies learned how to hunt for food and keep warm, procreate and protect their dwellings, and keep themselves protected from predatory animals. That was potentially 100,000 years ago perhaps more giving relevant current data!
Therefore those in the 1800s were leagues away from the knowledge of prehistoric humans!
However to assert that humanity in the 1800's were more educated than we are today, is just ridiculous.
Our present level of understanding in regards to all areas of science, and society is far, far ahead of those behind us just for the simple fact that we bring along all revelant data with us that they had learned and those before them!
The big question regarding humanity is, will we survive the next few thousand years or perhaps even a hundred at this rate!
Triumph
We as a society have amassed so much information, just from the year 1800 until now. Take into account that we as a society carry forth all relevant scientific theories, and societal theories, along with all revelant factual data since the begining of human societies, we are therefore overwhelmed with data, hence the term "information overload!"
In the 1800s, science was in its infancy. For instance, humankind has had a fascination with the heavens since the dawn of prehistoric societies, and yet we are only now, many thousands of years later, sending probes into space.
The foundations of education started at the dawn of humankind, when tribal societies learned how to hunt for food and keep warm, procreate and protect their dwellings, and keep themselves protected from predatory animals. That was potentially 100,000 years ago perhaps more giving relevant current data!
Therefore those in the 1800s were leagues away from the knowledge of prehistoric humans!
However to assert that humanity in the 1800's were more educated than we are today, is just ridiculous.
Our present level of understanding in regards to all areas of science, and society is far, far ahead of those behind us just for the simple fact that we bring along all revelant data with us that they had learned and those before them!
The big question regarding humanity is, will we survive the next few thousand years or perhaps even a hundred at this rate!
Triumph
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Cybershaman
» That's a good point.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Triumph
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: davewuxi
» Your position isn't trendy but I agree with you.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» I also agree that knowledge is generally cumulative through the centuries and millennia, though
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The Academic Quality of the 1800's Compared to Today
Posted by: Urgelt
Comments are closed-
Hey, look on the bright side
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you a sparrow-brained ignoramus who's so obnoxious you were "graduated" from high school just so the teachers could be rid of you? Do you have the intellectual curiosity and burnibg desire to refine yourself of a wart hog? Want the prestige of a college degree? No problem! As long as you can play football, basketball, hockey, etc., and/or your daddy's got a bazillion bucks, you're in like Flynn (apologies to the late actor). Just take a look at our former "president", for instance. Bachelor's from Yale and a masters from Harvard, and he SILL didn't know his ass from his elbow. He did OK, right?
The forces of greed, willful ignorance, and apathy have taken over, folks. It's happened before and it's happening now. Only time will tell if we can right all our wrongs in time to save our nation. It doesn't look all that good at present.
The forces of greed, willful ignorance, and apathy have taken over, folks. It's happened before and it's happening now. Only time will tell if we can right all our wrongs in time to save our nation. It doesn't look all that good at present.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
can we end this knee-jerk "Americanism"
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for a bit?
"The World does not consist of Americans screaming to get out" - Bill Maher
honestly, its seems that there are VERY FEW people who can write a piece without immediately defaulting to, "THIS MATTERS TO AMERICANS, because it impacts the AMERICAN DREAM, & I wanna be an AMERICAN PATRIOT because AMERICANS ARE GOOD & America is the BEST & only AMERICANS know what a sovereign social self-regulated culture should be!!"
does every issue only matter if it somehow requires Americans to change their lives to a more sustainable, globally respectful model?
oh give it a rest.
There's plenty wrong in this World, try caring about something because it matters if YOU are a GOOD PERSON & because it matters if you participate in a GOOD SOCIETY...
this tautological nonsense about "America!" is such a waste of time & only highlights how little Americans know or care about things that happen to non-Americans.
virtually *every* newscast or progressive talkshow features nationalistic goosestepping that is breathtaking simplistic: say "AMERICA" or one of its over-wrought descriptive spin-offs enough times, & your argument becomes "arguing MotherHood!", right?
There are billions of Us, much fewer of YOU & frankly, we're all a bit tired of you & your self-centred attitudes & interests.
give it a rest, show that you can formulate a thought about ethics or politics without stammering out the same WELL-MARKETED phraseology.
"America!...
... because its TOASTED & its got DRINKABILITY!!"
think about it: you've been HAD.
limiting your interest & caring about others, is how corporate ReichWingers taught you to be the narcissistic, consumerist society you've got which dropped you & the World to the mess its in.
There has to be a way to interest Americans in being good people & conducting their society with a modicum of respectful inter-cultural interaction that doesn't require punctuating every thought with nationalistic fervor.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
"The World does not consist of Americans screaming to get out" - Bill Maher
honestly, its seems that there are VERY FEW people who can write a piece without immediately defaulting to, "THIS MATTERS TO AMERICANS, because it impacts the AMERICAN DREAM, & I wanna be an AMERICAN PATRIOT because AMERICANS ARE GOOD & America is the BEST & only AMERICANS know what a sovereign social self-regulated culture should be!!"
does every issue only matter if it somehow requires Americans to change their lives to a more sustainable, globally respectful model?
oh give it a rest.
There's plenty wrong in this World, try caring about something because it matters if YOU are a GOOD PERSON & because it matters if you participate in a GOOD SOCIETY...
this tautological nonsense about "America!" is such a waste of time & only highlights how little Americans know or care about things that happen to non-Americans.
virtually *every* newscast or progressive talkshow features nationalistic goosestepping that is breathtaking simplistic: say "AMERICA" or one of its over-wrought descriptive spin-offs enough times, & your argument becomes "arguing MotherHood!", right?
There are billions of Us, much fewer of YOU & frankly, we're all a bit tired of you & your self-centred attitudes & interests.
give it a rest, show that you can formulate a thought about ethics or politics without stammering out the same WELL-MARKETED phraseology.
"America!...
... because its TOASTED & its got DRINKABILITY!!"
think about it: you've been HAD.
limiting your interest & caring about others, is how corporate ReichWingers taught you to be the narcissistic, consumerist society you've got which dropped you & the World to the mess its in.
There has to be a way to interest Americans in being good people & conducting their society with a modicum of respectful inter-cultural interaction that doesn't require punctuating every thought with nationalistic fervor.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are you actually responding to anything that anyone here wrote?
Posted by: redceres
» you must be kidding...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Comments are closed-
Somethings to take serious note of here in case no one's noticed.
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone wants to see the real truth of our educational problems in finance and failing to match up with the rest of the world, look at three things.
First our highly overpaid and non-teaching tenured faculty and administrative staff. Second what is being taught. Thirdly the criteria for admitting.
You will know exactly where the problem is.
First our highly overpaid and non-teaching tenured faculty and administrative staff. Second what is being taught. Thirdly the criteria for admitting.
You will know exactly where the problem is.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Trust me, the public will take note.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
Comments are closed-
What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: tapadance on Apr 3, 2009 10:37 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tapadance on Apr 3, 2009 10:37 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it to gain knowledge, or to get a better jobs than their parents? Is it so important that they all go to the very same school?
Perhaps the younger siblings could be served by a college that teaches a specialty they wish to learn, not just stepping on the same side walk the rest of the family has.
When you apply for college you have to have a plan in place. Not to just take classes that start at a decent time, but a plan for what your going to do with your life. If a student signs up for a degree program that offers a bachelor of Arts degree, well that person is asking to spend the rest of their life selling coffee at Starbucks. Attending a liberal arts school is setting your self up for failure. You don't receive an education, you receive four extra years of middle school.
Then in order to be employable, you have to get an additional two years, in what the people in the Bachelor of Science programs got while the BAss were sitting up discussing the meaning of trees.
I know many many people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who are unemployed or underemployed. Who are struggling to pay off college loans, or who have spent their parents retirement because their degree is not worth the paper it's printed on.
I also know many people like myself, who went to college to get a Bachelor of Science degree. Who are still employee, still doing well, and will continue to do well.
My student loans were paid off four months before I left college. The aerospace company that hired me wanted me that much.
It's time to do away with liberal arts programs, they were Mrs. degrees to start with anyway. If students stop flocking to colleges that off useless educations, and start attending colleges that allow them to move forward. Then college tuition will drop significantly.
Not that there is not a place in this world for poem about trees, or someone to stare at clouds and find the meaning of life. Just don't expect to find money in it.
Perhaps the younger siblings could be served by a college that teaches a specialty they wish to learn, not just stepping on the same side walk the rest of the family has.
When you apply for college you have to have a plan in place. Not to just take classes that start at a decent time, but a plan for what your going to do with your life. If a student signs up for a degree program that offers a bachelor of Arts degree, well that person is asking to spend the rest of their life selling coffee at Starbucks. Attending a liberal arts school is setting your self up for failure. You don't receive an education, you receive four extra years of middle school.
Then in order to be employable, you have to get an additional two years, in what the people in the Bachelor of Science programs got while the BAss were sitting up discussing the meaning of trees.
I know many many people with Bachelor of Arts degrees who are unemployed or underemployed. Who are struggling to pay off college loans, or who have spent their parents retirement because their degree is not worth the paper it's printed on.
I also know many people like myself, who went to college to get a Bachelor of Science degree. Who are still employee, still doing well, and will continue to do well.
My student loans were paid off four months before I left college. The aerospace company that hired me wanted me that much.
It's time to do away with liberal arts programs, they were Mrs. degrees to start with anyway. If students stop flocking to colleges that off useless educations, and start attending colleges that allow them to move forward. Then college tuition will drop significantly.
Not that there is not a place in this world for poem about trees, or someone to stare at clouds and find the meaning of life. Just don't expect to find money in it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: What are the Stapleton's going to college for?
Posted by: davewuxi
» good for you: an overpaid 'corporate training' not *broad education*
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Comments are closed-
Homogenized Leadership: the 'Real Cornell' - Coulter vs. Olbermann
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
. . . who went to the REAL Cornell?
was it Ann Coulter, who paid far more & went to a different Cornell COLLEGE?
was it Olbermann, who paid a fraction for the same education @ the Agri'College?
if you think IVY LEAGUE is about EDUCATION, you're MISSING THE POINT
Crack open any magazine or newspaper that advertises PRIVATE SCHOOLS for children.
They yap about programmes. Well, they should.
But to get INTO the better colleges, you don't just need MONEY... you need 'social & educational pedigree'.
THESE COLLEGES AREN'T ABOUT EDUCATION.
THESE COLLEGES ARE ABOUT manufacturing a dedicated, insular social structure cultivating Associates (aka 'Friends'') with 'The Right People' who can 'Do Each Other Favours In The Future'... who play by the same rules, are judged by the same social structure of 'peers'
who 'are Like-Minded Individuals'... indoctrinated to think, believe & act the same way... which supports the economic stratification that got them into that school.
THAT is the 'Real Cornell' difference Coulter is implying that makes the difference between those who attend the SAME education, but at a cheaper college of the same school...
not the EDUCATION, but the DEDICATION TO INDOCTRINATION.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
.
. . . who went to the REAL Cornell?
was it Ann Coulter, who paid far more & went to a different Cornell COLLEGE?
was it Olbermann, who paid a fraction for the same education @ the Agri'College?
if you think IVY LEAGUE is about EDUCATION, you're MISSING THE POINT
Crack open any magazine or newspaper that advertises PRIVATE SCHOOLS for children.
They yap about programmes. Well, they should.
But to get INTO the better colleges, you don't just need MONEY... you need 'social & educational pedigree'.
THESE COLLEGES AREN'T ABOUT EDUCATION.
THESE COLLEGES ARE ABOUT manufacturing a dedicated, insular social structure cultivating Associates (aka 'Friends'') with 'The Right People' who can 'Do Each Other Favours In The Future'... who play by the same rules, are judged by the same social structure of 'peers'
who 'are Like-Minded Individuals'... indoctrinated to think, believe & act the same way... which supports the economic stratification that got them into that school.
THAT is the 'Real Cornell' difference Coulter is implying that makes the difference between those who attend the SAME education, but at a cheaper college of the same school...
not the EDUCATION, but the DEDICATION TO INDOCTRINATION.
perspective, people.
Perspective.
The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEST
FREE podcast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: Ayla87 on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Ayla87 on Apr 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who thinks differently should read "Real Education" by Charles Murray.
He sums his opinion up in four sentences on the back cover. They are;
1. Ability Varies
2. Half of all children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America's Future Depends on How we Educate our Gifted Youth.
Simply put, the majority of Americans don't need a bachelors degree, and pressuring everyone to get one, only punishes the majority who don't.
Most Americans can get by with two years of junior college or vocational training, with certifications to prove you're level of skill. A 'liberal arts' education can by large be imparted to an individual in primary school
It's a good read, and it basically sums up the philosophy that I had when I was in highschool.
He sums his opinion up in four sentences on the back cover. They are;
1. Ability Varies
2. Half of all children are below average
3. Too many people are going to college
4. America's Future Depends on How we Educate our Gifted Youth.
Simply put, the majority of Americans don't need a bachelors degree, and pressuring everyone to get one, only punishes the majority who don't.
Most Americans can get by with two years of junior college or vocational training, with certifications to prove you're level of skill. A 'liberal arts' education can by large be imparted to an individual in primary school
It's a good read, and it basically sums up the philosophy that I had when I was in highschool.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: Too Many People Are Going To College
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
money is intelligence?
Posted by: wleming on Apr 3, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: wleming on Apr 3, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
capitalism simply makes wealth the sole factor for access to education. that the US reveals that the class/caste system is alive and well is no surprise. the ford foundation.. in the 1950s..did a study which revealed that Americans born into one class... never left it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Remember all that talk about how CEOs are totally brilliant gurus and all that shit?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
Tuition Error
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland on Apr 3, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland on Apr 3, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
General undergraduate tuition at the University of Michigan for in-state students such as the one Andy Kroll mentioned is about $6,000 a year, not the $11,000 he claimed. Graduate tuition is much more, but the vast majority of graduate students in the humanities have this tuition waived as part of their fellowships.
Rising costs are a problem for students at state universities, but Andy Kroll's false reporting exaggerates the problem.
Rising costs are a problem for students at state universities, but Andy Kroll's false reporting exaggerates the problem.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Are you including fees, mandatory health insurance, estimated book expenses etc.?
Posted by: Tim Cleaveland
Comments are closed-
The obvious easy solution:
Posted by: johnshark on Apr 3, 2009 12:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: johnshark on Apr 3, 2009 12:07 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe universities and colleges should replace full time, tenured and tenure-track instructors with part-time at-will instructors. That would save a lot of money and they could reduce tuition, benefitting everyone.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The obvious easy solution:
Posted by: jmoore
» RE: The obvious easy solution: A response from Barry Edwards of Oregon COCAL
Posted by: barry1of4
Comments are closed-
treat them like businesses
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Apr 3, 2009 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: johnwinthrop on Apr 3, 2009 12:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
states went wild in the past 30 years in creating branches of the main state U as well as creating subsidiary colleges less prestigious than the main U but nevertheless larger and larger in size. But how many computer programs, business programs, communications programs(whatever they are) and other 21st century BS courses do we need? And how good are these courses in this ever expanding and expensive network of "colleges"?This mania is partly driven by politicians, parents, and communities that demand that practically all kids go to "college", even though many kids drop out of colleges or take many years to finish.
Let's inventory what we have,freeze establishment of new colleges and branches, merge overlapping programs in colleges geographically near, including cooperation with private colleges, and expand community college capacity if necessary.
Most college courses can be offered at community colleges which are often more efficient and economical that overgrown branches and divisions of "state Universities". It's a prestige and bullsh game and the four year state schools,with few exceptions like UC Berkeley or U Virginia, are mediocre at best. The harsh truth is that the best schools are the Ivies and near Ivies, like Duke and Stanford, and these are private institutions.
States should focus on community colleges and one high quality campus where world class research and thinking is done, with exceptional students and faculty.
We need to build more trade and occupational institututes as well. We have become a nonliterate society and and the literate elite should go to elite schools like Harvard or Virginia. The rest should go towhat they need to be productive for society and to make a living.
The vast majority of students don't need four years of college, let alone a masters degree, to earn a living and to provide the nation with needed skills.
Of course the biggest waste of money is the "historic" black colleges with two or three exceptions like Morehouse or Spellman.
Segregation should be over and colleges tumble over themselves to recruit qualified "minorities", if that word means anything anymore in a diverse society.
Let's inventory what we have,freeze establishment of new colleges and branches, merge overlapping programs in colleges geographically near, including cooperation with private colleges, and expand community college capacity if necessary.
Most college courses can be offered at community colleges which are often more efficient and economical that overgrown branches and divisions of "state Universities". It's a prestige and bullsh game and the four year state schools,with few exceptions like UC Berkeley or U Virginia, are mediocre at best. The harsh truth is that the best schools are the Ivies and near Ivies, like Duke and Stanford, and these are private institutions.
States should focus on community colleges and one high quality campus where world class research and thinking is done, with exceptional students and faculty.
We need to build more trade and occupational institututes as well. We have become a nonliterate society and and the literate elite should go to elite schools like Harvard or Virginia. The rest should go towhat they need to be productive for society and to make a living.
The vast majority of students don't need four years of college, let alone a masters degree, to earn a living and to provide the nation with needed skills.
Of course the biggest waste of money is the "historic" black colleges with two or three exceptions like Morehouse or Spellman.
Segregation should be over and colleges tumble over themselves to recruit qualified "minorities", if that word means anything anymore in a diverse society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I don't think public universities will necessarily be for only the very well to do.
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Apr 3, 2009 12:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would be private universities then. At some point, the public will no longer stand for it and the universities will have to come clean or face the consequences. Try this on for positive thinking. If you push someone too far, at some point they'll push back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Interesting...
Posted by: Wolfrider on Apr 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Wolfrider on Apr 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My partner and I recently attempted to move out of her parent's condo and into a place of our own. Of course, this involved a credit check. I have a student loan (which means bad credit) she doesn't and she has good credit. My student loan is equal to that of the cost of going to university for four years and is currently on a debt relief program (meaning I don't have to pay for another three years).
We impressed our would-be landlord so much that when we said we were thinking about looking elsewhere she offered us additional incentive to take the place. We were her "first choice". Until she looked at our credit and we were rejected flat out. Why? Not because she didn't think we could afford it (she said just the opposite) but it was because I had a student loan.
A young couple, both with university degrees and both employed in the tech industry with a combined annual income of 60k a year were rejected HOUSING on the basis of going to university.
I did a search for the word "fraud" in the comments and was surprised to find not a single instance of it. When are we going to stop giving higher education the benefit of the doubt and start acknowledging we can see the emperor's meat and two veg?
Government's are not to blame - there's no way the province I went to school in can afford to fund the skyrocketing costs of tuition along with providing student loans. And the way university administration officials spend government money is disgusting. On funding the library? Nope. On building a new student center with pretty glass floors? Yup.
Higher education is institutionalized extortion and when are we going to start suing universities for fraud and treating those inside the system as the criminals they are?
We impressed our would-be landlord so much that when we said we were thinking about looking elsewhere she offered us additional incentive to take the place. We were her "first choice". Until she looked at our credit and we were rejected flat out. Why? Not because she didn't think we could afford it (she said just the opposite) but it was because I had a student loan.
A young couple, both with university degrees and both employed in the tech industry with a combined annual income of 60k a year were rejected HOUSING on the basis of going to university.
I did a search for the word "fraud" in the comments and was surprised to find not a single instance of it. When are we going to stop giving higher education the benefit of the doubt and start acknowledging we can see the emperor's meat and two veg?
Government's are not to blame - there's no way the province I went to school in can afford to fund the skyrocketing costs of tuition along with providing student loans. And the way university administration officials spend government money is disgusting. On funding the library? Nope. On building a new student center with pretty glass floors? Yup.
Higher education is institutionalized extortion and when are we going to start suing universities for fraud and treating those inside the system as the criminals they are?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
College costs,have gone up at more than five times the rate of incomes.
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: kedikat on Apr 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?
Isn't this the real story to investigate? Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?
From what I hear they cram more students into the same facilities and overload the profs classes. Herding more cattle through, and charging more?
WHERE is the money going?
I suspect a bloated overhead of middle and upper management that have little to do with educating anybody.
Isn't this the real story to investigate? Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?
From what I hear they cram more students into the same facilities and overload the profs classes. Herding more cattle through, and charging more?
WHERE is the money going?
I suspect a bloated overhead of middle and upper management that have little to do with educating anybody.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Where is the fat in the system accumulating? Where is that money going too?"
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
Comments are closed-
us citizens can't get a good education in its schools...
Posted by: eosrk on Apr 3, 2009 3:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: eosrk on Apr 3, 2009 3:37 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like harvard mit and the like....but alQaida sure as hell can...for free
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
College used to be about learning stuff.
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 3, 2009 3:46 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once the owning class realized it was leveling the playing field, they quickly distributed kool-aid that told the middlings, college was for getting a job and class mobility (upward). Once that suicide cocktail was drunk from deeply, we get the shite that poses for college today.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you polemics. Go to college to learn shit and stop fucking around with the elitist horseshit.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you polemics. Go to college to learn shit and stop fucking around with the elitist horseshit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: College used to be about learning stuff. Groovy.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Yet another case of moneyed interests,
Posted by: lewb on Apr 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: lewb on Apr 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
perverting another institution. Colleges now are turning out drones for their financial systems. The
universities don't foster education to uplift and enlighten. Higher education isn't supposed to be a bastion of the rich. The nation will be poorer for
it. Who will teach students to ask the important questions? Where will the moral compass of our youth be nurtured? The universities fostered the social conscience of the students against the war in Vietnam and the pollution emanating from the greedy corporations. The universities must re-examine their purpose if they are not become a
tool for the corporatocracy.
universities don't foster education to uplift and enlighten. Higher education isn't supposed to be a bastion of the rich. The nation will be poorer for
it. Who will teach students to ask the important questions? Where will the moral compass of our youth be nurtured? The universities fostered the social conscience of the students against the war in Vietnam and the pollution emanating from the greedy corporations. The universities must re-examine their purpose if they are not become a
tool for the corporatocracy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
THE DISASTER SOLUTIONIST AMERICAN MASTER
Posted by: foxxx on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: foxxx on Apr 3, 2009 4:36 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IN THE STATE I'M LIVING IN SCHOOLS ARE CLOSING, TEACHERS ARE GETTING LAID OFF, 10,000 COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE BEING REFUSED BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, SO I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT A NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. YES MY NEW EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WILL WORK FOR LAID-OFF TEACHERS, COLLEGE STUDENTS THAT WANT TO LEARN, NO MATTER POOR OR RICH. ALL THE CHILDREN THAT ARE LOOSING THEIR SCHOOLS DUE TO CLOSURE. I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM. FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES= BY USEING A PROFESSOR FOR EACH MAJOR SUBJECT AND 3 TEACHERS AS ASSISTANTS PER PROFESSOR AND THEY'D BE IN A CENTER POSITION EACH WITH A MASTER COMPUTER. EACH STUDENT WOULD PAY THEIR YEARLY TUITION TO THE MASTER CONTROL, THEN EACH BUY A COMPUTER AND A FAX MACHINE. THE MASTER PROFESSOR WILL TEACH ALL STUDENTS OF EACH SUBJECT BY THE MASTER COMPUTER TO HIS OR HER STUDENTS ON COMPUTER AND ALL HOMEWORK WILL BO FAXED TO AND FROM THE MASTER AND EACH STUDENT 'S FAX MACHINE. IN OTHERWARDS THE TEACHING AND LEARNING WILL BE DONE THROUGH COMPUTERS AND SENDING IN HOMEWORK AND TESTS THROUGH FAX MACHINES. AS FOR REGULAR SCHOOLS THE SAME PRINCIPLE, BUT I SUGGEST EDUCATIONAL TAXES BE DIVERTED FROM THE STATE, CITY AND COUNTY TO THE MASTER COMPUTER AND EACH STUDENT LEARN AT HOME OR MAKE ARRANGMENTS WITH OTHER PARENTS. BY BEING AT HOME, LESS BUSING, PARENTAL GUIDANCE, SAVE ON MONEY AND BETTER LEARNING. THIS WAY MORE TIME FOR LEARNING, MORE FREEDOM FOR KIDS AND LESS CROWDING. NO BUSSUNG, LESS FUEL FOR MAINTAINING BUILDINGS, BUSSES, NO UPKEEP + SINCE AMERICA'S GETTING BIGGER MORE PEOPLE TO LEARN MORE, BY LEARNING AT HOME. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE DISASTER SOLUTIONIST AMERICAN MASTER
Posted by: chomsky
» Phalanx Failure
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
What happens when the
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Jeanne on Apr 3, 2009 5:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
potential customer base for these four-year colleges becomes smaller than the classroom seats for sale each year? If college tuition is priced beyond the ability of most people to pay, will the colleges be unable to fill their classrooms? Won't tuition have to drop to meet the market? A decade ago, I remember reading that college tuition had outpaced the rate of inflation for years because colleges had established a built-in, automatic increase indexed at a time when inflation was high, and as long as the public continued to pay the increasing rates, colleges happily kept increasing and raking in the unwarranted additional tuition. Maybe the market will readjust. Maybe we also need to stop putting a premium on a bachelor's or post-graduate degree, and give the tradespeople the respect due for the skills they acquire in two-year programs coupled with apprenticeships.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Well...
Posted by: finch on Apr 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: finch on Apr 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this wasn't a problem until Universities became puppy mills of high pay seeking, materialistic graduates. Seriously, Universities used to be a center of learning and were about building friendships and questioning the status quo. Now, students just want to get it over with and start making that money.
I know someone who just graduated and is, and this is overstating it, underemployed. Even if offered a government job in some sort of New Deal public works program, he would turn it down.
Yeah. That is what colleges are breeding out from what I have seen.
The only thing they do now is act as a method to extend the blissful ignorance of consumer society that allows its government to be bought and run by the very same companies they buy terrible, unnecessary products from third world nations who basically live in slavery. They make it seem ok that your lifestyle is destroying this planet, that it is alright because you went to college and the world is getting better all the time! [even when its not, but they won't teach you that in economics or any other class]
Maybe the youth vote for Obama is signifying a change, maybe not. We will see if he is actually more of an icon or if he represents a true change in thinking for young people.
I know someone who just graduated and is, and this is overstating it, underemployed. Even if offered a government job in some sort of New Deal public works program, he would turn it down.
Yeah. That is what colleges are breeding out from what I have seen.
The only thing they do now is act as a method to extend the blissful ignorance of consumer society that allows its government to be bought and run by the very same companies they buy terrible, unnecessary products from third world nations who basically live in slavery. They make it seem ok that your lifestyle is destroying this planet, that it is alright because you went to college and the world is getting better all the time! [even when its not, but they won't teach you that in economics or any other class]
Maybe the youth vote for Obama is signifying a change, maybe not. We will see if he is actually more of an icon or if he represents a true change in thinking for young people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well...
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Rise Of The Idiots.
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Apr 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Apr 4, 2009 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Higher education in the States and most of the West,has always reflected and reproduced a dominant order.The middle class have always been over-represented,and the working class under represented (i'm using the more accurate non-US,categories of social class here).In the 1970s,the sociologist Paul Willis outlined one reason for this, manual working families,did not always value the academic,and there was an uneven tendency towards a resistant sub-culture,which valued the masculine,tough skills which are the essence of the capitalist class system's proletarian role.My own experience of the dynamic between blue collar family,and education,convince me that there is at least some validity in this.."what do you want to get a degree for?""you are just learning for the sake of it".
However Willis's theory doesn't catch all of the aspects,of class/education reproduction.For many poorer parent's attitudes to education are in themselve's often shaped by a lack of finances.
Family name,parental awareness of the education system,instilled confidence and extra tuition also play/ed, a huge part in this reproduction of the class struture through education,with all disadvantages going to those at the bottom of the economic pile.Which ever way you cut it a form of social engineering has always been at play.
Dullards,stretched to the limit of their capacity,always had more chance of getting to university..especially the top one's.
At least in the UK though,in the post war period we had a grant system,where the state payed for tuition fee's.That was until Thatcher and her twin sons Blair and Brown made education a costly business,where student's graduate with a ton of debt.The more elite institutions are also amongst the most costly.
The post war red brick University expansion,had seen opportunities grow for the brighter working class students,who became the first in their family line to go to uni.
Even that marginal improvement seems to have withered or at least ground to a halt in Britain.The elite institutions Oxford and Cambridge still contain a disproportionate number of ex-pupil's of fee paying schools..whose parents can afford the fee's of the more expensive Universities.This just serve's to make the link between wealth,privilege and educational attainment even starker,and more direct.
This to my eye's create's an anti-meritocracy,and ensures that the brightest "don't"rise,and the offspring of the posh ..come in David Cameron,George Bush,Boris Johnson etc..always rise.
This has to be bad for society,and for the economy..the waste of talent is enormous,while the top positions are filled by the born lucky,and less so by the brightest.
There will always be exceptions to this,though that seem's to be an important aspect of the education system..to be able to point to the poor girl made good,prove's that the whole system work.It doesn't.
However Willis's theory doesn't catch all of the aspects,of class/education reproduction.For many poorer parent's attitudes to education are in themselve's often shaped by a lack of finances.
Family name,parental awareness of the education system,instilled confidence and extra tuition also play/ed, a huge part in this reproduction of the class struture through education,with all disadvantages going to those at the bottom of the economic pile.Which ever way you cut it a form of social engineering has always been at play.
Dullards,stretched to the limit of their capacity,always had more chance of getting to university..especially the top one's.
At least in the UK though,in the post war period we had a grant system,where the state payed for tuition fee's.That was until Thatcher and her twin sons Blair and Brown made education a costly business,where student's graduate with a ton of debt.The more elite institutions are also amongst the most costly.
The post war red brick University expansion,had seen opportunities grow for the brighter working class students,who became the first in their family line to go to uni.
Even that marginal improvement seems to have withered or at least ground to a halt in Britain.The elite institutions Oxford and Cambridge still contain a disproportionate number of ex-pupil's of fee paying schools..whose parents can afford the fee's of the more expensive Universities.This just serve's to make the link between wealth,privilege and educational attainment even starker,and more direct.
This to my eye's create's an anti-meritocracy,and ensures that the brightest "don't"rise,and the offspring of the posh ..come in David Cameron,George Bush,Boris Johnson etc..always rise.
This has to be bad for society,and for the economy..the waste of talent is enormous,while the top positions are filled by the born lucky,and less so by the brightest.
There will always be exceptions to this,though that seem's to be an important aspect of the education system..to be able to point to the poor girl made good,prove's that the whole system work.It doesn't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
one thing about managers today
Posted by: bluetiger7 on Apr 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bluetiger7 on Apr 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now I know this doesn't invovle every manager, but I have seen with my very own eyes where the top executive hardly does anything. I used to work for a car rental corp. one day I was called in by the top brass and told my job was no longer available. I asked why is that to which I got because you hardly do any work. Yeah right. compared to you if it wasn't for emmployees like me this business would not be in the running.
one thing I want to point out. while in his office, his desk was empty of any paper, there was no file cabin, not one evidence of work done by him. I see him come in only once a week. when he is in he will just sit there for an hour doing nothing. finally he decideds to leave and go to the corp country club for a round of golf.
one thing I want to point out. while in his office, his desk was empty of any paper, there was no file cabin, not one evidence of work done by him. I see him come in only once a week. when he is in he will just sit there for an hour doing nothing. finally he decideds to leave and go to the corp country club for a round of golf.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
We are all indentured
Posted by: socrates2 on Apr 5, 2009 10:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: socrates2 on Apr 5, 2009 10:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, folks, in case you weren't looking, there is something "embedded" in _our_ Constitution called the 16th Amendment.
In case you didn't notice, by a 2/3rds vote of the entire United States back in 1913 (yes, by, ahem, "coincidence" the same year the Federal Reserve Act was enacted as the law of the land) we voted ourselves into a _perpetual economic servitude_ to those who decide how much taxes we pay, to whom, and for what...
So if you have to work until April or May to finally take care of your needs blame your careless and indifferent grandparents. Today we have ourselves to blame for not voting to liberate ourselves from this economic curse.
At least in socialist countries their taxes benefit their student class and the working class. Here it benefits the banking class and their protectors the military-industrial-Congress complex. (Do you really believe one cent of those bailout billions will ever "trickle down" to you and little old me? Not if you knew in whose hands those bucks are going to end up in...)
Everything else is conditioning (memes) and propaganda to keep us as uncritical sheep...
In the words of John Carpenter, "They Live!"
Good luck and good night...
In case you didn't notice, by a 2/3rds vote of the entire United States back in 1913 (yes, by, ahem, "coincidence" the same year the Federal Reserve Act was enacted as the law of the land) we voted ourselves into a _perpetual economic servitude_ to those who decide how much taxes we pay, to whom, and for what...
So if you have to work until April or May to finally take care of your needs blame your careless and indifferent grandparents. Today we have ourselves to blame for not voting to liberate ourselves from this economic curse.
At least in socialist countries their taxes benefit their student class and the working class. Here it benefits the banking class and their protectors the military-industrial-Congress complex. (Do you really believe one cent of those bailout billions will ever "trickle down" to you and little old me? Not if you knew in whose hands those bucks are going to end up in...)
Everything else is conditioning (memes) and propaganda to keep us as uncritical sheep...
In the words of John Carpenter, "They Live!"
Good luck and good night...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
BAILOUT....OF DEBACLES & DREAMS
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Apr 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's important the PUBLIC seek LEGAL AND legislative action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT. We must force these business to pay every dime back IN A TIMELY FASHION and restore these businesses to the PUBLIC SECTOR so that the SMALL bus/med business sector can participate in FREE ENTERPRISE.
Do it for your children's sake OTHERWISE... there will be no hope for any young couple in love whom wishes to think about getting married and starting a new business and make it profitably work. IT WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE IF THE PUBLIC doesn't show their determination to protect their CONSTITUTION. IN ADDITION, the 99 PERCENT of the public 'needs" to seek LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT AND STIMULUS
No wonder all those big companies cannot wait to get their hands on taxpayer funds to throw away. this stimulus creates a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY r for the big business to MUSCLE out and eradicate the small business/med business sectors from the ECONOMIC marketplace landscape and to keep small/med business from every getting a chance to be able to exist at all in the marketplace for all time.
it took ACORN and DEMS 9 years to bring on the meltdown now this new bailout THROWS more money at them so they will be the bottomless moneypit drain on public funds. WANNA know what happened to all those low income ACORN homes??? they are all boarded up. WHILE our economy is still reeling from the effects of DEMS CONSTANT bad fiscal policies. Got it straight from the horse's mouths people. .
Then WASH DC slugs have the nerve to claim 500.00 bucks will "help"?? that won't even buy groceries for MONTH for most USA.
WASH DC SLUGS think that a couple of bucks is all it takes to DESTROY the USA freedoms and free enterprise and peoples health and DISMANTLE it's entire economic structure a sector at a time??? Do they think the USA is a bargain basement shop?!!!
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.
WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.
Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.
Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on
see American Center for Law & Justice and familysecuritymatters.org
Do it for your children's sake OTHERWISE... there will be no hope for any young couple in love whom wishes to think about getting married and starting a new business and make it profitably work. IT WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE IF THE PUBLIC doesn't show their determination to protect their CONSTITUTION. IN ADDITION, the 99 PERCENT of the public 'needs" to seek LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE action to OPPOSE THE BAILOUT AND STIMULUS
No wonder all those big companies cannot wait to get their hands on taxpayer funds to throw away. this stimulus creates a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY r for the big business to MUSCLE out and eradicate the small business/med business sectors from the ECONOMIC marketplace landscape and to keep small/med business from every getting a chance to be able to exist at all in the marketplace for all time.
it took ACORN and DEMS 9 years to bring on the meltdown now this new bailout THROWS more money at them so they will be the bottomless moneypit drain on public funds. WANNA know what happened to all those low income ACORN homes??? they are all boarded up. WHILE our economy is still reeling from the effects of DEMS CONSTANT bad fiscal policies. Got it straight from the horse's mouths people. .
Then WASH DC slugs have the nerve to claim 500.00 bucks will "help"?? that won't even buy groceries for MONTH for most USA.
WASH DC SLUGS think that a couple of bucks is all it takes to DESTROY the USA freedoms and free enterprise and peoples health and DISMANTLE it's entire economic structure a sector at a time??? Do they think the USA is a bargain basement shop?!!!
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems.
WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think American's are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU don't think the 99% of American's will be 'smart enough" to CARE about their country, their homes, their small business enough to kick the WASH DC SLUGS out and send them packing by way of Balagovich for NOT doing what is right to protect PUBLIC freedoms and the free enterprise system (ie meaning small business/med business) and rights.
Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.
Then, we will be SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST/MARX/FACIST/COMM COUNTRY and the marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED 1 or 2 or several big businesses in sector. Gone will be the hope for any American whom would wish to start a business and earn profit to live on
see American Center for Law & Justice and familysecuritymatters.org
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
"Your children,"
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Apr 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Apr 12, 2009 7:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was the NeoCon mantra for the past couple of years, "won't have it as good as you did..."
All we had to do was to elect a Democrat, we thought, to turn that notion on its head.
Little did we know when we first heard that, that the fix was already in.
America let its deadliest of enemies into the halls of power, and they waited patiently, one by one, gaining power, until in the year 2000, they struck and took over our country, seemingly for good.
Now we're hearing all kinds of such bullshit--such as the words with which our Founding Fathers formed this nation's gestalt, are 'old-fashioned' and 'silly'.
In this nation, where everything was once possible to everyone--where Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, guaranteed a good education for all--now the schools are closing their doors to all but the elite.
And it only took these NeoCon pig thieves of the American Dream, 8 years to strip it from the complacent gang of idiots that we've become.
While it's true that the Cons stole the election in Florida in 2000; and again in Ohio in 2004--nobody much disputes that any more--it's also true that THE DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS IN BOTH THOSE ELECTIONS, IN DROVES--making that theft even possible.
We deserve what we got. Now we have to go after the DemoPublicans in the Senate, who are effectively blocking all Democratic initiatives--going so far as to refuse to OK workers in President Obama's administration, IF OBAMA INSISTS ON INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT ALL THE TORTURE THAT BUSH ALLOWED.
They're THAT POWERFUL--STILL. Think about that, dear Middle America--think of how you never bothered to go vote on Election Day. Think how you all but opened the door to America's highest institutions, wide to these pigs and thieves.
In 2008, the "Democrats won"--and then we saw how many "DemoPublicans" out there in the Senate, are bringing our power to naught.
Congratulations.
All we had to do was to elect a Democrat, we thought, to turn that notion on its head.
Little did we know when we first heard that, that the fix was already in.
America let its deadliest of enemies into the halls of power, and they waited patiently, one by one, gaining power, until in the year 2000, they struck and took over our country, seemingly for good.
Now we're hearing all kinds of such bullshit--such as the words with which our Founding Fathers formed this nation's gestalt, are 'old-fashioned' and 'silly'.
In this nation, where everything was once possible to everyone--where Lyndon Johnson in the 60s, guaranteed a good education for all--now the schools are closing their doors to all but the elite.
And it only took these NeoCon pig thieves of the American Dream, 8 years to strip it from the complacent gang of idiots that we've become.
While it's true that the Cons stole the election in Florida in 2000; and again in Ohio in 2004--nobody much disputes that any more--it's also true that THE DEMOCRATS STAYED HOME FROM THE POLLS IN BOTH THOSE ELECTIONS, IN DROVES--making that theft even possible.
We deserve what we got. Now we have to go after the DemoPublicans in the Senate, who are effectively blocking all Democratic initiatives--going so far as to refuse to OK workers in President Obama's administration, IF OBAMA INSISTS ON INFORMING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT ALL THE TORTURE THAT BUSH ALLOWED.
They're THAT POWERFUL--STILL. Think about that, dear Middle America--think of how you never bothered to go vote on Election Day. Think how you all but opened the door to America's highest institutions, wide to these pigs and thieves.
In 2008, the "Democrats won"--and then we saw how many "DemoPublicans" out there in the Senate, are bringing our power to naught.
Congratulations.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Save Our Democracy From the Corporatists!
Don't let the Supreme Court sell our democracy to the highest bidder.
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead
