• 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!

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

94Deac said:
I agree that this is a shame and a fact but are we now at the point where we're saying going to college is a right? That some entity outside of a student's family has an obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to ensure funding for college? Devil's advocate...
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with our student loan debt crisis? "Entity outside" my ass.
 


It really sucks how far we've come from this being the level of candor in political discourse to today's completely disingenuous goalpost moving to "handouts" and "bootstraps."
 
That chart is pretty sad. But the end result doesn't sound that bad to me: a student can take out $4,000 in private loans per year or go to a community college for free and then transfer.

And a big reason that states are cutting back on the funding of public universities is that the costs of state employee pensions are so high and were underfunded in previous decades.
 
TownieDeac said:
And yet we can't seem to cut down on the drivers of the escalating costs.

The John Oliver bit on for profit universities this past Sunday showed some of the despicable tactics they're using, but that didn't come close to some of the investigative journalism I've seen elsewhere, like the Atlantic cover story. And for profit universities are only one tiny piece of the student debt cost driver picture.

I've never been one to buy wholly into the argument that administrative costs are a massive piece, because looking line item at a lot of public universities, it's hard to make top down cuts. And professors still aren't paid commensurate to their work/education.

What are the legitimate solutions here.
Click to expand...

What led to this chart? Honest question because I have no idea.

inflation-factors-2.jpg
 
JGDeac said:
What led to this chart? Honest question because I have no idea.

inflation-factors-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Lack of government restraint on the amount that they will pay out, either through student loans or medical reimbursements?
 
Their version of "restraint" was raising interest rates and cutting down on subsidies.
 
TownieDeac said:
I agree that the middle class is starting to get priced out of education at a higher rate, and the scale should continue to slide, but probably not even close to the extent you do, and not to the detriment of those trying to scrape their way out of generational poverty. You're trying to raise the price of bootstraps again here.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm saying that the primary goal of our secondary education system isn't to combat generational poverty to the detriment of the majority, when the majority faces the same economic issues with respect to that education as those in generational poverty.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Not really. I'm saying that the primary goal of our secondary education system isn't to combat generational poverty to the detriment of the majority, when the majority faces the same economic issues with respect to that education as those in generational poverty.
Click to expand...

yikes, i don't even know where to begin with this post

the subject of this article is public secondary education, so i'd argue that the goal isn't increasing revenue, it's providing a level playing field of access to education to all americans

and you can't seriously argue that people who make more money have the "same economic issues" as those in generational poverty; by definition, they don't

i've already conceded the fact that secondary education is starting to price out higher and higher earning families, and that this is problematic, and that loans should extend to the middle class, ideally not to the detriment of those who need help even more

you're trying to shift generational need to generational merit
 
PhDeac said:
Are you familiar with our student loan debt crisis? "Entity outside" my ass.
Click to expand...

And it's hitting demographically on both ends of the spectrum: the young is nothing new. But increasingly, many senior citizens are now getting pinched for student loans they took out and defaulted on years ago. Your anatomical observations aside, and student loans notwithstanding, I'm asking if we're saying that the government has an obligation to provide college education. Not access, but payment/subsidies for those who do have the academic qualifications. Are we at the point where it's presumed that college is a "right?"
 
TownieDeac said:
yikes, i don't even know where to begin with this post

the subject of this article is public secondary education, so i'd argue that the goal isn't increasing revenue, it's providing a level playing field of access to education to all americans

and you can't seriously argue that people who make more money have the "same economic issues" as those in generational poverty; by definition, they don't

i've already conceded the fact that secondary education is starting to price out higher and higher earning families, and that this is problematic, and that loans should extend to the middle class, ideally not to the detriment of those who need help even more

you're trying to shift generational need to generational merit
Click to expand...

1. I never said anything about increasing revenue as a goal. Revenue should have nothing to do with it. However, I also don't see how "providing a level playing field" to the detriment of the system as a whole is also a remotely high goal. The goal is to provide quality education to as many people as possible, not to make up for poor individual decisions or past institutional mistakes. It is an educational system, not a reparation. We don't provide free college education to everyone who wants one; and, based on our high school results, its probably a very good thing that we don't.

2. If you finished reading the words right after those you quoted (and which you conveniently deleted), you will see that I said people who make more money face "the same economic issues with respect to that education as those in generational poverty". If you can't pay for it, then you can't pay for it, regardless of whether someone else who makes less money than you can't pay for it either.

3. I'm not shifting generational need to generational merit, I'm saying that nothing generational should come into play at all. If you can't pay for it right now then you should be treated exactly the same as everyone else who can't pay for it right now. It should have absolutely nothing to do with generational anything.
 
We can't even use the same vocabulary. How can we have this conversation? America is fucked.
 
Don't have time to read it all, but to the extent that the ratings are causing perverse incentives, what can we do to change the ratings paradigm? I'm really interested in others' ideas here.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
1. I never said anything about increasing revenue as a goal. Revenue should have nothing to do with it. However, I also don't see how "providing a level playing field" to the detriment of the system as a whole is also a remotely high goal. The goal is to provide quality education to as many people as possible, not to make up for poor individual decisions or past institutional mistakes. It is an educational system, not a reparation. We don't provide free college education to everyone who wants one; and, based on our high school results, its probably a very good thing that we don't.

2. If you finished reading the words right after those you quoted (and which you conveniently deleted), you will see that I said people who make more money face "the same economic issues with respect to that education as those in generational poverty". If you can't pay for it, then you can't pay for it, regardless of whether someone else who makes less money than you can't pay for it either.

3. I'm not shifting generational need to generational merit, I'm saying that nothing generational should come into play at all. If you can't pay for it right now then you should be treated exactly the same as everyone else who can't pay for it right now. It should have absolutely nothing to do with generational anything.
Click to expand...


1. Why would providing equal access to higher education come at the "detriment of the system as a whole"? You're right, it's not a reparation. It should ultimately be blind to the situation from which people come. But that's just admissions. When you start talking aid, need-based aid should be given to those who need it most on a sliding scale upwards. We don't provide free college education to everyone, that's a good thing, but it's also a complete red herring/straw man.

2. I don't see how what I left out is at all relevant, and I'm not sure how you're missing the notion that I'm putting all families in the same boat who can't pay a dime for their kids' education. And then kids' parents who can pay a dime get put in a slightly different boat. And then families who can pay $10,000 but not $35,000/year in a different boat. You know, the way we've been doing it. Except instead of taking paddles away from the poorest boats first, I'd rather take them away from the yachts first.

3. Ok.
 
"Reparation"? When did this issue turn into a race issue?
 
Jiminy Christmas, :rulz:

Apparently, there is nothing to see here and nothing wrong or imbalanced wrt wealth and opportunity in America. Everything is fine, we didn't do anything wrong to prevent Shauniqua from going to college, so why should we worry?
 
TownieDeac said:
1. Why would providing equal access to higher education come at the "detriment of the system as a whole"? You're right, it's not a reparation. It should ultimately be blind to the situation from which people come. But that's just admissions. When you start talking aid, need-based aid should be given to those who need it most on a sliding scale upwards. We don't provide free college education to everyone, that's a good thing, but it's also a complete red herring/straw man.

2. I don't see how what I left out is at all relevant, and I'm not sure how you're missing the notion that I'm putting all families in the same boat who can't pay a dime for their kids' education. And then kids' parents who can pay a dime get put in a slightly different boat. And then families who can pay $10,000 but not $35,000/year in a different boat. You know, the way we've been doing it. Except instead of taking paddles away from the poorest boats first, I'd rather take them away from the yachts first.

3. Ok.
Click to expand...

So, you want to not give three middle class kids the $4,000 they need to attend college in favor of giving the one poor kid the $12,000 they need to attend college. Not sure I agree completely, three go to college or one goes to college, seems society woud benefit more from three people getting a college degree than just the one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top