Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arizona: College is only for the rich and athletes

KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
edited February 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46487781/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/#.T0aJ6vEgdbk
Students at Arizona's three state universities will have to pay -- or borrow -- at least $2,000 a year to get an education under terms of legislation approved by a House panel today.

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said students should have some "skin in the game.'' He said students will take their schooling more seriously and be less likely to drop out if they have made an investment.

"I really believe that when something is given to you, you don't have the appreciation of having put in some work,'' agreed Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction.

He said $2,000 out of $9,000 annual tuition is not that big a deal. Even with books and fees, Kavanagh said that adds only another $1,500 a year.


So basically Arizona students will now have to pay 2k extra (which won't be covered by financial aid unless they apply for it separately). Athletes are except.

Anyone find this a huge problem? I lived at home when I was going to college, and I think scrunging up 2k extra to pay for school would have really been hard. And I worked a full shift.

scale3nk0.png
«13456715

Posts

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    What in the hell are student loans if not an investment?
    Whattttt.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Are they just increasing tuition, or is this now a minimum required payment to attend? As in, you qualify for a full ride because of your financial situation, but now you need to pay a minimum $2,000?

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    So wait

    They are just adding an extra 2k to all tuition on the board, just because?

    No, it means that at least $2000 of your tuition has to come from non-needs-based scholarships or grants.

    Say you pay $2k in cash and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay.

    $2k in merit-based scholarships and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay too.

    $2k in loans and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay too.

    $1k in loans and $8k in needs-based scholarships? Not okay. You need to take out $1k more debt to go to school.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Basically, it's a whole lot of rhetorical dancing around "we need to fuck poor people some more."

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    If that's the case, it's a pretty ridiculous and regressive fee.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Uh, athletes are exempt huh. Well, that makes sense. I know all the athletes in my undergrad were among the most studious. Oh wait...
    Kavanagh said that would leave students with $14,000 debt after four years, "less than the cost of a Chevy Sonic.''
    "And I personally believe that degrees from our universities are worth far more than Chevy Sonics,'' he said. Anyway, Kavanagh said that is a small amount, as college grads earn anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million more over their lifetimes than those who do not have a higher education.
    The vote came despite objections from students who said there are expenses beyond tuition. Room and board aside, they said they are forced to pay for gasoline, insurance and parking.

    "Welcome to life,'' Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, told the students.
    "I don't understand why that should affect a modest $2,000 for your education,'' Ugenti continued. "We all are thrust into circumstances and unpredictable life experiences.''

    So basically, fuck off.

    Now, $2,000 isn't that bad. If all you have to take out to get a BA is $14,000 that's really nothing. But on the other hand, what makes athletes so special that they shouldn't have some skin in the game, too?

    What this amounts to is a $2K tax on students for the sole purpose of making those students pay more money. Which is pretty much bullshit.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    adytum wrote: »
    Are they just increasing tuition, or is this now a minimum required payment to attend? As in, you qualify for a full ride because of your financial situation, but now you need to pay a minimum $2,000?

    It's an extra $2,000 for anybody receiving Federal Student Aid, and it can't be paid for with scholarship or grant money.

    Athletes don't have to worry about it.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    "everyone needs to have some skin in the game" is quickly becoming one of my most hated cliches.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    "Welcome to life,'' Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, told the students.

    Holy shit, what an asshole

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    adytum wrote: »
    If that's the case, it's a pretty ridiculous and regressive fee.

    Kavanaugh's quote:
    Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said students should have some "skin in the game.'' He said students will take their schooling more seriously and be less likely to drop out if they have made an investment.

    ...reminds me of this: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/22/394647/schwarzman-skin-in-the-game

    One of Mitt Romney top fundraisers and fellow 1-percenter Stephen Schwarzman was recently on television questioning the civic involvement of nearly half of Americans. Asked on Bloomberg TV whether he would be willing to pay higher taxes to help solve the country’s fiscal challenges, the billionaire Schwarzman responded by pointing at the approximately 45 percent of households who will not owe income taxes this year (an abnormally high number due to the recession) and said:
    You have to have skin in the game….The issue is the concept that we’re all in this together, solving problems together…. The concept that half of the public isn’t involved with the income tax system is somewhat odd, and I’m not saying how much people should do, but we should all be part of the system.

    It is a way of justifying flagrantly regressive policies.

    It seems to reflect the idea that poor people aren't invested in society because they're not paying enough money. No, they're not invested in society because we're not investing them. Social involvement is mutual.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Whenever someone uses the phrase "skin in the game" to justify making other people suffer you can be assured that they do not, in fact, have skin in any game.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    Whenever someone uses the phrase "skin in the game" to justify making other people suffer you can be assured that they do not, in fact, have skin in any game.

    Yehp

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Whenever someone uses the phrase "skin in the game" to justify making other people suffer you can be assured that they do not, in fact, have skin in any game.

    And that they care more about the colour of said skin then anything else.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    Arch wrote: »
    "Welcome to life,'' Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, told the students.

    Holy shit, what an asshole

    Scottsdale, AZ., everyone!

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Arizona must really, really love paying its lawyers to spend time arguing in Federal court.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    Does this save Arizona ANY money?

    I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Arizona must really, really love paying its lawyers to spend time arguing in Federal court.

    Thing is, what is there to sue over?

    Arguably students who have full ride scholarships now might have standing to get their contracts honored, but states retain the power to set any tuition level they want.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Not if they are a land grant university or college, which is gifted by the Federal Government.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Does this save Arizona ANY money?

    I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.

    This isn't about money. It's a tactic to keep poor & middle class people from having good educations.

  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    Yeah, unless there's a huge uproar there's really no way to reverse this.

    I just can't get over the gall over the people quote on this.

    scale3nk0.png
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Does this save Arizona ANY money?

    I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.

    By the time they've finished trying to argue why they have the right to discriminate against a dollar based on how it was earned or why it was given, I imagine it's going to cost them at least half a million in man-hours at their justice department.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Yeah, but this isn't about setting a tuition level. This is about denying funding, because of the source. It's kind of like if a restaurant accepted master card, but only for 80% of the check. They want 20% paid in cash so that all of their diners have some "skin in the game".

    Deebaser on
  • BuddiesBuddies Registered User regular
    Why would they make athletes pay the 2k extra a year? Those athletes make them a shit ton of money. Absurd amounts in the case of Football and Basketball. Making them pay an extra 2k a year will make recruitment harder, so fuck that.

    Man I really hope people just transfer to other schools, and new graduating high school students do not even apply to state schools.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    Brilliant idea. It will 100% work as intended.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Not if they are a land grant university or college, which is gifted by the Federal Government.

    If they're land grant, they're not state universities iirc.

    My undergrad was a a land grant school and while the state of florida had no control over tuition and certain other things, they could still mess with things like bright futures and other ICUF coverage areas.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    If that's the case, it's a pretty ridiculous and regressive fee.

    Kavanaugh's quote:
    Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said students should have some "skin in the game.'' He said students will take their schooling more seriously and be less likely to drop out if they have made an investment.

    ...reminds me of this: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/22/394647/schwarzman-skin-in-the-game

    One of Mitt Romney top fundraisers and fellow 1-percenter Stephen Schwarzman was recently on television questioning the civic involvement of nearly half of Americans. Asked on Bloomberg TV whether he would be willing to pay higher taxes to help solve the country’s fiscal challenges, the billionaire Schwarzman responded by pointing at the approximately 45 percent of households who will not owe income taxes this year (an abnormally high number due to the recession) and said:
    You have to have skin in the game….The issue is the concept that we’re all in this together, solving problems together…. The concept that half of the public isn’t involved with the income tax system is somewhat odd, and I’m not saying how much people should do, but we should all be part of the system.

    It is a way of justifying flagrantly regressive policies.

    It seems to reflect the idea that poor people aren't invested in society because they're not paying enough money. No, they're not invested in society because we're not investing them. Social involvement is mutual.

    Why do they always ignore sales tax?
    Or the myriad of other (federal) taxes they still pay.

    Income tax is not the only tax that exists.

    Invisible on
    steam_sig.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    the best part about this is the assumption that poorer folks going to school on needs-based funding are the ones who aren't taking their studies seriously

    because it's clearly not the kid whose parents are paying for his education while he drinks himself stupid and coasts with Cs and Ds, who would incidentally be totally unaffected by this bizarre legislation

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    the best part about this is the assumption that poorer folks going to school on needs-based funding are the ones who aren't taking their studies seriously

    because it's clearly not the kid whose parents are paying for his education while he drinks himself stupid and coasts with Cs and Ds, who would incidentally be totally unaffected by this bizarre legislation[
    yessssssssssssssssssss

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Does this save Arizona ANY money?

    I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.

    This isn't about money. It's a tactic to keep poor & middle class people from having good educations.

    i don't think there is someone thinking "we really need to keep poor and middle class people from having a good education." that's not what the republican mindset is. that's just the result of their mindset. they don't hate a student because he's poor; they resent a student who is, they feel, being propped up by the state and not earning what they're getting. in this guy's mind, he's forcing people to earn what they're getting.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    SammyF wrote: »
    Arizona must really, really love paying its lawyers to spend time arguing in Federal court.

    Thing is, what is there to sue over?

    Arguably students who have full ride scholarships now might have standing to get their contracts honored, but states retain the power to set any tuition level they want.

    You're misunderstanding the issue. The state isn't setting a tuition level, it's refusing to allow schools to accept some money based on the source of that money. A dollar is a dollar. All dollars must be honored equally.

    So when the board of trustees of a privately-funded scholarship program with a needs based criterion award a student $8,000 in scholarship funds, but the state refuses to honor $1,000 of that grant, there's $1,000 in actual damages right there. Boom. Lawsuit.

    SammyF on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    They should just institute a $1,000 application fee, with students needing to reapply for admission every semester.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    it's actually tragically hilarious how liberals see wealthy students as lazy, irresponsible and spoiled, and conservatives see poor or even middle class students as sullen, selfish, and exploitative of the system

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Arizona must really, really love paying its lawyers to spend time arguing in Federal court.

    Thing is, what is there to sue over?

    Arguably students who have full ride scholarships now might have standing to get their contracts honored, but states retain the power to set any tuition level they want.

    You're misunderstanding the issue. The state isn't setting a tuition level, it's refusing to allow schools to accept some money based on the source of that money.

    From my understanding of the article, outside scholarships can still be used to cover it. What they're doing is telling state schools they can't give full ride tuition to anyone other than athletes (which I imagine could be open for legal challenge).

    So basically it's the state telling its colleges and universities how much of a free ride they can give which is within state doe purview.

    It's bullshit dickery, but from my understanding it's 100% legal bullshit dickery.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    it's actually tragically hilarious how liberals see wealthy students as lazy, irresponsible and spoiled, and conservatives see poor or even middle class students as sullen, selfish, and exploitative of the system

    Same thing both sides!

    steam_sig.png
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    Who needs social mobility or an educated workforce, when you can have financial indenturement and outsource to India?

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Does this save Arizona ANY money?

    I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.

    This isn't about money. It's a tactic to keep poor & middle class people from having good educations.

    i don't think there is someone thinking "we really need to keep poor and middle class people from having a good education." that's not what the republican mindset is. that's just the result of their mindset. they don't hate a student because he's poor; they resent a student who is, they feel, being propped up by the state and not earning what they're getting. in this guy's mind, he's forcing people to earn what they're getting.

    Because doing well enough in school to get a scholarship isn't earning your keep.

    I'm wagering that "Welcome to life" was just what he decided to say instead of "Being dicked out of a college education builds character".

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • r4dr3zr4dr3z Registered User regular
    the best part about this is the assumption that poorer folks going to school on needs-based funding are the ones who aren't taking their studies seriously

    because it's clearly not the kid whose parents are paying for his education while he drinks himself stupid and coasts with Cs and Ds, who would incidentally be totally unaffected by this bizarre legislation
    +1

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    SammyF wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Arizona must really, really love paying its lawyers to spend time arguing in Federal court.

    Thing is, what is there to sue over?

    Arguably students who have full ride scholarships now might have standing to get their contracts honored, but states retain the power to set any tuition level they want.

    You're misunderstanding the issue. The state isn't setting a tuition level, it's refusing to allow schools to accept some money based on the source of that money.

    From my understanding of the article, outside scholarships can still be used to cover it. What they're doing is telling state schools they can't give full ride tuition to anyone other than athletes (which I imagine could be open for legal challenge).

    So basically it's the state telling its colleges and universities how much of a free ride they can give which is within state doe purview.

    It's bullshit dickery, but from my understanding it's 100% legal bullshit dickery.

    False. It discriminates against money from all needs-based tuition sources, not just those funded by the state. Got a Pell grant? Too bad.

    By the way, anyone else catch later in the article where it mentions that the guy who said this:
    "I really believe that when something is given to you, you don't have the appreciation of having put in some work,'' agreed Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction.

    never actually went to college?
    Fillmore said he wanted to go to college in 1969 but did not have that opportunity.

    "I had other responsibilities,'' he said, with a mother who died his senior year of high school and two younger sisters. "Every night when I got out of high school at 3 o'clock, I went to work in a rubber factory.''

    Way to legislate other people's lives based on your own sour grapes, you unconscionable asshole.

    SammyF on
«13456715
Sign In or Register to comment.