• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

The Mangler said:
I’m fine with education but the constant increases of tuition well above the inflation rate do nothing to educate more individuals or improve the education that anyone is receiving.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
Strange that no conservatives squashed the idea that for 1.5 trillion added to the debt we could insure all Americans and free up cash in the middle class to spur demand and growth from the bottom up.
 
The Federalist Society (which has had an out-sized roll in Trump's court picks) wants the Republicans to insert court-packing into the tax bill.

Conservatives have a breathtaking plan for Trump to pack the courts

Enter the next element of the court-packing turducken: a new plan written by the crafty co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. In a paper that deserves credit for its transparency (it features a section titled “Undoing President Barack Obama’s Judicial Legacy”), Calabresi proposes to pack the federal courts with a “minimum” of 260 — and possibly as many as 447 — newly created judicial positions. Under this plan, the 228-year-old federal judiciary would increase — in a single year — by 30 to 50 percent.

Never mind that Republicans saw no urgency in filling judicial vacancies while Obama was president. Never mind that they ignored pleas from conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to fill positions in courts facing “judicial emergencies.” Now, conservatives want a 30 to 50 percent increase in the number of federal judgeships. And they have a clear idea of who should fill this massive number of new posts: “President Trump and the Republican Senate will need to fill all of these new judgeships in 2018, before the next session of Congress.”
Click to expand...

And if this breathtaking transformation of our federal judicial system isn’t jarring enough, Calabresi has one final treat: a proposal that Congress do all of this in the tax-cut bill that Congress is trying to pass before it leaves for the holidays.
Click to expand...

The argument to include it in the tax bill is because the tax bill cannot be filibustered. But wouldn't adding judges mean that it would need 60 votes?
 
avalon said:
This is about the tax bill, and adding a measure to it that will increase the number of federal judges, not the approval of judges.
Click to expand...


Got it. Lots of driving and little reading yesterday. Thanks for clarifying.
 
PhDeac said:
Link?
Click to expand...

No link but a price increase will decrease demand not increase it. Are you suggesting that lower tuition costs would mean fewer people would go to college? I may have exaggerated on the second part and of course it would be impossible to prove. It is possible that student to faculty ratios have dropped at some schools and I am sure there could be other ways in which education could have been improved as a result of tuition increases. I do see a lot of colleges pouring a ton of money into dorm renovations, coffee shops, food courts, shiny new buildings with $20,000 conference tables etc that make college more attractive to students but don't directly impact the quality of the education received. I also see a lot of students graduating with ridiculous amounts of debt.
 
Increased demand for education leads to higher tuition. That's how supply and demand works.

I don't disagree that colleges are pouring money into non-academic aspects of campus. But you should offer some evidence for your assertions.
 
PhDeac said:
Increased demand for education leads to higher tuition. That's how supply and demand works.

I don't disagree that colleges are pouring money into non-academic aspects of campus. But you should offer some evidence for your assertions.
Click to expand...

It has been a long time since I was in an Econ class but I agree about increases in demand leading to higher prices, if supply is held constant. I don't think there is any doubt that our higher education system has roughly increased the supply to match demand over time. Mass production usually leads to decreases in costs and price doesn't it?



A short time frame but aid has increased, tuition has increased significantly, enrollments have decreased.

Tuition going up:
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2017-09-20/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities


Enrollment going down:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/where-are-all-the-high-school-grads-going/423285/
 
Last edited:
The Atlantic article explains things well. Kind of. There are more HS grads than before. But those kids who are graduating now who weren't before aren't necessarily college ready.

There's always going to be very high demand for education especially elite education because the job market (especially high paying jobs) demand it.

Demand for education isn't simply a relationship between consumers (students and parents) and the institutions. It's a complex relationship that includes the broader economy.
 
PhDeac said:
The Atlantic article explains things well. Kind of. There are more HS grads than before. But those kids who are graduating now who weren't before aren't necessarily college ready.

There's always going to be very high demand for education especially elite education because the job market (especially high paying jobs) demand it.

Demand for education isn't simply a relationship between consumers (students and parents) and the institutions. It's a complex relationship that includes the broader economy.
Click to expand...


Honest question. Would you go back to Wake undergrad for a 200K sociology degree?
 
ONW said:
Honest question. Would you go back to Wake undergrad for a 200K sociology degree?
Click to expand...

Would be a bargain compared to the $$263k this years freshman will pay if Wake hold tuition steady for the next three years.
 
ONW said:
Honest question. Would you go back to Wake undergrad for a 200K sociology degree?
Click to expand...

It was around a $100k degree back when he went, and at that time I imagine it was fairly heavily subsidized, like it is now. Doesn't appear like increasing college costs are as big of a problem as has been portrayed.

studentloans.png
 
ONW said:
Honest question. Would you go back to Wake undergrad for a 200K sociology degree?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have gotten the degree I did get without lots of scholarships. I surely wouldn't go back for a $200K degree without plenty of help.

I'm curious which degree you think is worth $200K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top