Public Universities Ramp Up Aid for the Wealthy, Leaving the Poor Behind

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That explains a lot.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

But we rank below other 1st world countries in health care

Depends who you ask and what criteria you use. Health care, just like education, can't be boiled down to one number that purports to establish a rank. KenPom can eat a dick.

 

[Deacon923]

Okay, but from that same chart, the rankings of those "more affordable" schools suck. The US has 51 of the top 100 universities. Most of those other countries have 2 or 3, and some have none (I will however give you Sweden, for a multitude of reasons, but unfortunately we will never be Sweden). This is just an extension of your same argument that other countries have more affordable healthcare, but said healthcare also sucks. The outcome is not apples to apples, we are completely different than other countries in a variety of ways. [name redacted] was more affordable than Coach K, who would you rather have and pay for?

Let's examine this post. The many links and studies I have posted, without any evidence-based refutation from you or others on your side of the argument, showing that healthcare is actually better in many European countries, don't count for anything because, immigrants or fatness or diversity or something (always argued without a link). But some alleged world-wide ranking of universities, based on completely unexamined criteria, ends the debate over education. Excellent.

Even putting that little inconvenient gap in your argument aside, for purposes of this discussion, the "top 100 universities in the world" has no bearing. We're talking about who can afford to go to the 2d, 3d, and 4th tier public colleges and universities to punch their ticket to the middle class. The tiny minority of individuals worldwide who attend a "top 100 university" is a rounding error, at best, in this discussion.

ETA: Here are the criteria used in those rankings. About 70% or more of the ranking comes directly from research results, grants, and PhD programs. In other words, those rankings have shit-all to do with educating the large mass of citizens so they can get a decent job in the modern economy.

 

[Deacon923]

Okay, but from that same chart, the rankings of those "more affordable" schools suck. The US has 51 of the top 100 universities. Most of those other countries have 2 or 3, and some have none (I will however give you Sweden, for a multitude of reasons, but unfortunately we will never be Sweden). This is just an extension of your same argument that other countries have more affordable healthcare, but said healthcare also sucks. The outcome is not apples to apples, we are completely different than other countries in a variety of ways. [name redacted] was more affordable than Coach K, who would you rather have and pay for?

Depends who you ask and what criteria you use. Health care, just like education, can't be boiled down to one number that purports to establish a rank. KenPom can eat a dick.

Backtracking much?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Let's examine this post. The many links and studies I have posted, without any evidence-based refutation from you or others on your side of the argument, showing that healthcare is actually better in many European countries, don't count for anything because, immigrants or fatness or diversity or something (always argued without a link). But some alleged world-wide ranking of universities, based on completely unexamined criteria, ends the debate over education. Excellent.

Even putting that little inconvenient gap in your argument aside, for purposes of this discussion, the "top 100 universities in the world" has no bearing. We're talking about who can afford to go to the 2d, 3d, and 4th tier public colleges and universities to punch their ticket to the middle class. The tiny minority of individuals worldwide who attend a "top 100 university" is a rounding error, at best, in this discussion.

ETA: Here are the criteria used in those rankings. About 70% or more of the ranking comes directly from research results, grants, and PhD programs. In other words, those rankings have shit-all to do with educating the large mass of citizens so they can get a decent job in the modern economy.

I agree with you, but that is a flaw in your article, not my position. You are the one who purported to use the article to assert that somehow other Western countries do it better than we do, at least in terms of affordability. My position in responding to your article was that our educational system is not comparable to that of other countries, for a variety of reasons. As you now seem to admit, that article is almost completely irrelevant to that discussion. So I'm not sure why you posted it.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I agree with you, but that is a flaw in your article, not my position. You are the one who purported to use the article to assert that somehow other Western countries do it better than we do, at least in terms of affordability. My position in responding to your article was that our educational system is not comparable to that of other countries, for a variety of reasons. As you now seem to admit, that article is almost completely irrelevant to that discussion. So I'm not sure why you posted it.

Better education =/= more expensive education. Public universities should not be focusing on prestige at the cost of educating the lower class. All universities should have distinctive missions to serve the public, rather than wasting their resources to blindly scratch their way up the USNR ladder.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Better education =/= more expensive education. Public universities should not be focusing on prestige at the cost of educating the lower class. All universities should have distinctive missions to serve the public, rather than wasting their resources to blindly scratch their way up the USNR ladder.

But the lower class does not compromise the entire public. If, as mentioned several times on this thread and the initial article, the public university can educate 3 middle class kids for the same amount of aid needed for one lower class kid, which option better "serves the public"?

 

[RJKarl]

But the lower class does not compromise the entire public. If, as mentioned several times on this thread and the initial article, the public university can educate 3 middle class kids for the same amount of aid needed for one lower class kid, which option better "serves the public"?

And like you often say, it's the poor's fault that they are poor. So fuck them!

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

But the lower class does not compromise the entire public. If, as mentioned several times on this thread and the initial article, the public university can educate 3 middle class kids for the same amount of aid needed for one lower class kid, which option better "serves the public"?

You aren't factoring in the access that those 3 middle class students have to money that the lower class student doesn't have, the middle class has more funding avenues than the lower class does - private loans, borrowing from relatives, higher paying and more convenient job opportunites.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Okay, but that still doesn't change the fact that, in the article's example, the public college can get three for the cost of one. So what is its goal? Is it to create the most educated workforce/society possible? Or is it to only educate the lower class?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Okay, but that still doesn't change the fact that, in the article's example, the public college can get three for the cost of one. So what is its goal? Is it to create the most educated workforce/society possible? Or is it to only educate the lower class?

You're misunderstanding the article, because that's a false choice - the college "recruits" those 3 by offering them aid that they might not need, instead of offering that aid to one student with definite need

 

[RJKarl]

Okay, but that still doesn't change the fact that, in the article's example, the public college can get three for the cost of one. So what is its goal? Is it to create the most educated workforce/society possible? Or is it to only educate the lower class?

society also has a responsibility to end some of the cycle of poverty when it can. In addition to lifting families, it also has spinoff repercussions like less crime, more business, more jobs and other positives in areas that need these problems remedied.

But fuck the poor, that's been your mantra many times. You often spout that it's their fault that they are poor.

 

[PhDeac]

2&2's attitude is very scary because that's how talented people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds end up at colleges that 2&2 wouldn't even think to hire from.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

So there aren't talented people from all socioeconomic backgrounds from colleges that I have actually heard of?

 

[TownieDeac]

So there aren't talented people from all socioeconomic backgrounds from colleges that I have actually heard of?

Not if you have anything to say about it.

 

[94Deac]

Again, college is not an entitlement nor obligation.