Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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

145791015

Posts

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    With all the states fucking up their university systems, now would be a great time to examine just what "in state tuition" actually accomplishes. Under the guise of giving locals a break, it actually creates a system where social mobility - in terms of the ability to study in a place with the best chances of interning and networking in your chosen field - is decided by the ability to pay out of state tuition.
    Republicans like to talk about how strong state governments create "50 laboratories of democracy", but nowadays they seem to resemble 50 3rd world nations that are undercutting each other at every turn for short-term benefit (or to launch the careers of the politicians in those states towards a national office).

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Wisconsin and Minnesota have that exchange thing as well, but somehow it comes out so that Wisconsin residents end up paying less than Minnesota residents at either school.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are.

    At least Andrew Mellon's belief that the Depression would purge the immorality of the 20s and thus was necessary hasn't become mainstream yet, as much as David Brooks wishes it were so.

    It's amazing how much conservative "economics" is based on morality rather then actual economics.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are?

    It is difficult for outsiders to track the patterns of the GOP Hive Mind, but Investopedia says the term was originally coined by Warren Buffet and it first appeared on my radar as a Wingnut talking point when Steve King said we should return to the days of property-linked suffrage

    I don't want to be the guy that brings up the generation gap every time, but doesn't it stand out to you that the goal of this and other pieces of legislation seems to be a people who cannot actually live their lives or start families until they are too old to do so? We are supposed to work hard and save every penny for when we're too old to work anymore because retirement is the only time you're allowed to take a break, coincidentally the time in their life that the boomers and policy-makers are at. The same ones who smoked pot and wore tie-dye in their youth.

    Maybe it's just me but the message that American culture seems to be drilling into me is that I should wait forever for the chance to actually LIVE or else I am a slatternly slacker and poor planner.

    I mean one of the (many) sources of my lack of social life is the niggling voice at the back of my head that tells me I can't afford one, I should stop wasting money on such things, I need to save more money for the next inevitable emergency (like getting my car wrecked, which insurance NEVER covers).

    Boring7 on
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.

    2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.

    3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
    Some Republican politican-or-other already answered that for you. He noted the expected increase in lifetime income from having an education, and said that even if we subtract 16K straight up, each individual would still benefit from having an education. If we accept that at face value, then the rational actor would still choose higher education, as long as the expected returns in the form of a higher income is "sufficiently" large, somewhat modified for the risk of not finding a job that pays the bills in your particular branch of study.

    So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?

    Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.


    We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.

    Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.

    And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.


    It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.

    And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.

    Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.

    I think the bolded part is worth exploring: Arizona's graduation rate is approaching 60% at its four year public universities. Since you're defining "dropping out" as evidence of not appreciating the value of a college education, it's the case that a minority of students fall into this category. Yet the suggestion for addressing the problem of the 40% who don't eventually leave their state schools with a bachelors degree is to compel 100% of their students to pay $2,000 per anum out of pocket, even when they can get someone else (not the state) to pay that funding. Why should the 60% be compelled to pay money so that the other 40% appreciate their education more.

    I'm about to go out to dinner with my wife, so I can't continue this point further -- but in case the food or service is subpar, would you be so kind as to kick in an extra couple of bucks on top of my bill to that I'll appreciate my dinner just a little bit more?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The biggest problem with the car metaphor is that it sets up a false choice. For the students that this 2K Poor Tax is targeting and going to hurt, buying a Chevy Sonic isn't a choice to begin with.

    It's not like if we don't charge the kids, they're going to run out and buy a car.

    It's a symptom of the attitude at play in this clip:



    The idea is that poor people are poor because of some failure of will or spirit or morality, which is insulting and bullshit. It's the same boomer mindset that people can indeed just bootstrap themselves out of poverty. Which is not always the case. Especially not with students.

    It is not a kid's fault that his or her parents become poor and it is unfair to punish them with this regressive and unnecessary tax.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Did the term "skin in the game" just spring up when "bootstraps" became a mockable, derisive term amongst every day people to describe how out of touch the wealthy are?

    It is difficult for outsiders to track the patterns of the GOP Hive Mind, but Investopedia says the term was originally coined by Warren Buffet and it first appeared on my radar as a Wingnut talking point when Steve King said we should return to the days of property-linked suffrage

    I don't want to be the guy that brings up the generation gap every time, but doesn't it stand out to you that the goal of this and other pieces of legislation seems to be a people who cannot actually live their lives or start families until they are too old to do so? We are supposed to work hard and save every penny for when we're too old to work anymore because retirement is the only time you're allowed to take a break, coincidentally the time in their life that the boomers and policy-makers are at. The same ones who smoked pot and wore tie-dye in their youth.

    Maybe it's just me but the message that American culture seems to be drilling into me is that I should wait forever for the chance to actually LIVE or else I am a slatternly slacker and poor planner.

    I mean one of the (many) sources of my lack of social life is the niggling voice at the back of my head that tells me I can't afford one, I should stop wasting money on such things, I need to save more money for the next inevitable emergency (like getting my car wrecked, which insurance NEVER covers).

    It's very American. And North American more generally.

    spacekungfuman made an entire thread about it actually.

    It's less generational and more that whole protestant work ethic, prosperity gospel bullshit that pervades alot of american society.

    If there's generational issues, I'm betting their more related to geezers not really understand how the cost of higher education has changed over the last 4 decades.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.

    Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.

    Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school has only two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor* who went to school anyway because his parents were providing his "skin in the game" (and student 3 wouldn't go because of the $16K, but otherwise would have graduated) then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.

    See how that works?

    Also, do I need to point out how amusing it is that you talk about $2K a semester being a trivial amount of money for an education, when we've gone on for literally pages and pages about how your status as a high-flying corporate benefits attorney seems to keep you from having any concept of how normal people see the world? Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial. But when you're dirt poor and opting out of the workforce for four years to begin with, with no promise of any job even if you graduate (and parents/family who would be unable to help you significantly), taking on $2K a year in debt is a pretty big deal.


    * - Actually, blowing mom and dad's money to party it up in Tempe is a perfectly rational course of action, but I wanted to keep the structure more parallel.


    Calixtus wrote: »
    And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.

    Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.
    You - well, that guy John - are suggesting that irrational actors would alter their behaviour based on a rational cost/benefit analysis that extra costs doesn't change. If lifetime income was a compelling enough argument when measured against short term loss - because whether it's just time or tuition it is a loss compared to joining the work force straight up - then students already have significant "skin in the game".

    As for expending state resources; Because people who actually get useful jobs post-graduation will have the financial muscle to pay back what their education costed - in taxes, if not in debt - the only inefficiency that really fucks you up is the one where you squander human potential by denying them access to higher education because they have poor parents.

    I don't think that it is accurate to call most people strictly rational or irrational. If a small additional price (keep in mind, this amount is only an "additional" cost if you (1) would have received sufficient need based funding to reduce your tuiton below $2k and (2) live at home and do not pay rent) which can be paid through student loans is enough to shift the calculus for someone from "will attend" to "will not attend" then I think that the people who will choose not to attend are sufficiently irrational for these purposes.

    On state resources, money we expend to educate someone who drops out is never recouped. With such a low completion percentage, this seems like an issue that is worth considering, although there may be better solutions, like requiring a dropout from a public university to pay a fee to leave the school, to help the state recover the amount it wasted in subsidies.

    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Calixtus wrote: »
    1. Whether or not it happens in practice, it is not a bad idea in theory. Full rides are probably generally more than what is needed to invent people to go to college.

    2. It is not a matter of worthiness. It is about not wasting our money on services for someone who will not really appreciate it. $2,000 per semester is really a pretty nominal amount, and I wonder if expending public resources on someone who would go to school for $0 but not for $16k makes sense.

    3. I don't think there are many, but to the extent they are out there, it might keep them from going. I will readily admit this is a weak argument.
    Some Republican politican-or-other already answered that for you. He noted the expected increase in lifetime income from having an education, and said that even if we subtract 16K straight up, each individual would still benefit from having an education. If we accept that at face value, then the rational actor would still choose higher education, as long as the expected returns in the form of a higher income is "sufficiently" large, somewhat modified for the risk of not finding a job that pays the bills in your particular branch of study.

    So for the rational actor, there is no practical difference in incentatives between 0$ and -16K$ - the expected payoff in the future is still strictly larger. Okay, so who wouldn't go through with this investment, as making the investment is the smart thing to do?

    Answer: The people who can't afford the initial investment (and irrational players, but we're not letting them ruin the example just yet). It is not a nominal amount for people of all backgrounds.


    We can even extend the same reasoning to a system where tuition is free, all students are issued a small stipend, and the state offers loans with the explicit purpose of letting you get through school rather than loan-based profits for a bank (Hi, you just moved to Sweden). Take a person A who works for five years, or a person B who spends five years getting a degree while living on the above. After those first five years, person A is going to be ahead in accumulated income, even if we straight up count the loan as income. Then, in the decades that follow, person B is gradually going to catch up until at some point, person B's lifetime earnings has surpassed those of person A.

    Alright, that scene having been set: What happends if B drops out before those five years is finished? He's behind A in terms of lifetime income. And he's going to stay there, because without an education to lean on, person A is always - right up until retirement - going to have more on-the-job experience than person B.

    And so, the rational actor - the same guy who'd say "It's worth an extra 16K" - wouldn't drop out anyway. I can't really stress this enough because even the locals have trouble grasping it; Even when tuition is free, you need a return on the time investment on getting the degree for the degree to be worth it. Dropping out or fucking around instead of getting your degree - fees or no fees, deposits or no deposits - is not a good idea.


    It's legislation with a stated goal that's off-the-charts-silly, because students wasting time being students already have a non-trivial amount of skin in the game, and a deposit that was returned - while still being silly - would achieve the same stated effect. There's just no way in hell that this would influence people's decisionmaking process on anything other than economic grounds. An actual inability to invest money now in favour of recieving a larger sum later is just about the only effect you'll see. Maybe with a side order of having some financial instituion make money of the additional interest.

    And yet people drop out all the time. I really don't think we can just dismiss irrational actors as being irrelevant to policy making, when we know they exist. If B drops out, then he has literally wasted the resources of the state. If $2,000 a semester is enough to eliminate the irrational actors early, I don't think that is a bad thing at all.

    Let's say there are three students who want to go to school, but the school only has two spots open. If students 1 and 2 are admitted and 3 is waitlisted, but student 2 is an irrational actor who would not go because of the extra $16k, then I think students 1 and 3 are the ones we should be expending state resources to educate.

    I think the bolded part is worth exploring: Arizona's graduation rate is approaching 60% at its four year public universities. Since you're defining "dropping out" as evidence of not appreciating the value of a college education, it's the case that a minority of students fall into this category. Yet the suggestion for addressing the problem of the 40% who don't eventually leave their state schools with a bachelors degree is to compel 100% of their students to pay $2,000 per anum out of pocket, even when they can get someone else (not the state) to pay that funding. Why should the 60% be compelled to pay money so that the other 40% appreciate their education more.

    I'm about to go out to dinner with my wife, so I can't continue this point further -- but in case the food or service is subpar, would you be so kind as to kick in an extra couple of bucks on top of my bill to that I'll appreciate my dinner just a little bit more?

    I agree this is probably not the optimal solution (we should be increasing the cost to drop out, or maybe front loading the cost of college so that it is disproportionately borne by those who drop out, with state subsidies mostly going towards the later years). But even if it is not ideal, depending on how the numbers look (I have no idea what the state is spending on drop outs relative to how much they themselves are spending for the years they do attend) it may make sense to try this because it could have at least some impact on the problem. Again, the current proposal is not a policy I would have put forward, but I do think it has some merits, even though it is flawed.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Two thousand dollars a year is not a small additional price, and student loans are not a pleasant thing, particularly because you can never get rid of them, not even by declaring bankruptcy. You are incredibly fucking out of touch, you goddamn goose. Not everyone can afford to mortgage their future.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    Erik
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Two thousand dollars a year is not a small additional price, and student loans are not a pleasant thing, particularly because you can never get rid of them, not even by declaring bankruptcy. You are incredibly fucking out of touch, you goddamn goose. Not everyone can afford to mortgage their future.

    Plus your entire argument: "this will make Irrational actors behave rationally" falls apart at the first post. Irrational actors behave in irrational ways. What a surprise! You have yet to make any coherent argument for how adding 2k debt will sudenly make them rational.

    The only thing this bill will do is make rational actors more leery of taking an education, since its perfectly rational to not want to be fucked over by the state goverment next time they need a whiping boy(and Arizona needs whiping boys).

    Which negates your entire argument.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this affects everyone who goes to a state college except for the athletes. It is, if not actually than effectively, a tuition hike that gives a free 2k scholarship to all athletes. But we just aren't CALLING it that because "poor people", because "skin in the game" and "because socialism."

    Why?

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this affects everyone who goes to a state college except for the athletes. It is, if not actually than effectively, a tuition hike that gives a free 2k scholarship to all athletes. But we just aren't CALLING it that because "poor people", because "skin in the game" and "because socialism."

    Why?

    Hmm, I can see where you're going with that, but I'm not sure I'd want to follow.

    I don't want to demonize athletic students, but I don't buy that they already have "skin in the game."

    If anything it's a Poor Tax, I think that's the more marketable opposition to it. But I wouldn't stop you from pointing out the free scholarship to athletes, either.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »

    I don't want to be the guy that brings up the generation gap every time, but doesn't it stand out to you that the goal of this and other pieces of legislation seems to be a people who cannot actually live their lives or start families until they are too old to do so? We are supposed to work hard and save every penny for when we're too old to work anymore because retirement is the only time you're allowed to take a break, coincidentally the time in their life that the boomers and policy-makers are at. The same ones who smoked pot and wore tie-dye in their youth.
    They're trying to protect their political interests. If they can stop all the younger generations from having children, they'll have a majority of the votes until they finally die. And if they can preserve medicare for themselves while axing it for everyone younger, they might actually out-live some of the people younger than them too.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Good question, I suppose. The problem is that we fund education at the state level, and states want to fund public universities...so the only other option would be some kind of grant that would be given directly to the student, regardless of where they attend. But then that would gut public universities in about half of states, because then who the fuck is going to bother going to school in Wyoming? Also, you'd start handing cash to your residents to take out of state, which isn't always a great idea (especially if they don't come back). And lastly, you're giving your residents cash to spend at universities elsewhere where you've got no control at all of the costs or standards.

    I can actually see the benefit of no one going to school in Montana. If you don't have any major industries and a small population, then maybe the best option is to let your kids go somewhere that they can find internships, network while a student and find jobs after school.

    There was a great article talking about going to college in Michigan in the New York Times. The long and the short of it was, no matter how good a student you were, you didn't want to be poor and graduate from college in Michigan, because you were much more likely to become an overeducated service industry drone, if you were lucky enough to even get a job.

    The support given to students - housing, meals, etc. - is ideal for getting people out of poor communities. A lot of our social ills could be eased if we made it easier for people to move out of historically economically depressed areas. That's especially true when "economically depressed area" encompasses entire states.

    Phillishere on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    The Boomers where also the generation that was handed college on a silver platter because "OMG RUSSIANS LAUNCHED SPUTNIK"!

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    Take a drink every time goose references his wealth. Call 911 first, because the alcohol poisoning will creep up on you.

  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    spacekungfu saying that he's rich an adding a smiley face is about all that's needed to completely disregard anything he ever says from here on out

    what a complete bellend

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Two thousand dollars a year is not a small additional price, and student loans are not a pleasant thing, particularly because you can never get rid of them, not even by declaring bankruptcy. You are incredibly fucking out of touch, you goddamn goose. Not everyone can afford to mortgage their future.

    Plus your entire argument: "this will make Irrational actors behave rationally" falls apart at the first post. Irrational actors behave in irrational ways. What a surprise! You have yet to make any coherent argument for how adding 2k debt will sudenly make them rational.

    The only thing this bill will do is make rational actors more leery of taking an education, since its perfectly rational to not want to be fucked over by the state goverment next time they need a whiping boy(and Arizona needs whiping boys).

    Which negates your entire argument.

    I was writing a reply, then I ran a search on reasons people drop out.

    "A study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that the main reason why students drop out of college is the conflict between school and work and family commitments. The study, With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, was conducted by Public Agenda, a nonprofit and nonpartisan public policy research organization.

    Many students who drop out of college have to work while enrolled in college. They often find it very difficult to support themselves and their families and go to college at the same time. Many have dependent children and enroll part-time. Many lack adequate support from parents and student aid.

    Nearly three-quarters (71%) of students who dropped out of college said that work contributed to the decision, with more than half (54%) identifying it as a major factor. About a third (35%) said that balancing work and school was too stressful.

    Other major reasons for leaving school included affordability of tuition and fees (31%) and needing a break (21%).

    http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/1965-why-do-students-drop-out-of-college"

    Since my stated justification for the law was to weed out potential quitters, I withdraw that argument.

    I still think the goal of trying to keep people who are likely to drop out from starting in the first place makes sense, but it needs to be done in a way that will not increase the number of drop outs. The best idea I can come up with off the top of my head is requiring repayment of state subsidies by people who drop out (but with a generous forgiveness program if people are not making much money). But since the proposed program would most likely increase drop outs, I will stop defending it now, since it seems to be actively harmful, not just imperfect but potentially useful.



    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    Take a drink every time goose references his wealth. Call 911 first, because the alcohol poisoning will creep up on you.

    That doesn't count. It was just a funny coincidence. Other than this post, I have not said a thing about my personal position in a while, even when other people bring it up.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    How do poor people not have their skin in the game even if it is free? It isn't like they have zero cost of living or extra costs outside of maintaining homeostasis and going to school. They are losing some opportunities in the hope of gaining more opportunities in the future through higher education. Time and lost opportunities aren't free.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    How do poor people not have their skin in the game even if it is free? It isn't like they have zero cost of living or extra costs outside of maintaining homeostasis and going to school. They are losing some opportunities in the hope of gaining more opportunities in the future through higher education. Time and lost opportunities aren't free.

    Bankers are the only ones without any skin in the game, because they've rigged it so they can't lose.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    How do poor people not have their skin in the game even if it is free? It isn't like they have zero cost of living or extra costs outside of maintaining homeostasis and going to school. They are losing some opportunities in the hope of gaining more opportunities in the future through higher education. Time and lost opportunities aren't free.

    Matt Taibbi had a great article on that note:
    But it seems to me that if you’re broke enough that you’re not paying any income tax, you’ve got nothing but skin in the game. You've got it all riding on how well America works.

    You can’t afford private security: you need to depend on the police. You can’t afford private health care: Medicare is all you have. You get arrested, you’re not hiring Davis, Polk to get you out of jail: you rely on a public defender to negotiate a court system you'd better pray deals with everyone from the same deck. And you can’t hire landscapers to manicure your lawn and trim your trees: you need the garbage man to come on time and you need the city to patch the potholes in your street.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-christmas-message-from-americas-rich-20111222#ixzz1nRptoMru

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Two thousand dollars a year is not a small additional price, and student loans are not a pleasant thing, particularly because you can never get rid of them, not even by declaring bankruptcy. You are incredibly fucking out of touch, you goddamn goose. Not everyone can afford to mortgage their future.

    Plus your entire argument: "this will make Irrational actors behave rationally" falls apart at the first post. Irrational actors behave in irrational ways. What a surprise! You have yet to make any coherent argument for how adding 2k debt will sudenly make them rational.

    The only thing this bill will do is make rational actors more leery of taking an education, since its perfectly rational to not want to be fucked over by the state goverment next time they need a whiping boy(and Arizona needs whiping boys).

    Which negates your entire argument.

    I was writing a reply, then I ran a search on reasons people drop out.

    "A study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that the main reason why students drop out of college is the conflict between school and work and family commitments. The study, With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, was conducted by Public Agenda, a nonprofit and nonpartisan public policy research organization.

    Many students who drop out of college have to work while enrolled in college. They often find it very difficult to support themselves and their families and go to college at the same time. Many have dependent children and enroll part-time. Many lack adequate support from parents and student aid.

    Nearly three-quarters (71%) of students who dropped out of college said that work contributed to the decision, with more than half (54%) identifying it as a major factor. About a third (35%) said that balancing work and school was too stressful.

    Other major reasons for leaving school included affordability of tuition and fees (31%) and needing a break (21%).

    http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/1965-why-do-students-drop-out-of-college"

    Since my stated justification for the law was to weed out potential quitters, I withdraw that argument.

    I still think the goal of trying to keep people who are likely to drop out from starting in the first place makes sense, but it needs to be done in a way that will not increase the number of drop outs. The best idea I can come up with off the top of my head is requiring repayment of state subsidies by people who drop out (but with a generous forgiveness program if people are not making much money). But since the proposed program would most likely increase drop outs, I will stop defending it now, since it seems to be actively harmful, not just imperfect but potentially useful.

    I honestly fail to see how that information changed your argument. Hike tuition, reduce access, and potentially the people who would have dropped out never try in the first place. The "know your place, peasant," methodology, if I might snark for a moment. In the "big picture" of it college and your ability to stay in it is pretty much always about the money. The Trustafarian Fratboys you know who finished their 5 or 6-year degree; the epic freakout that disappears to an institution for 6 months, the guy who gets kicked out for grades, every last one of them can overcome any failure with enough money. And it seems like just about everyone who goes to college thinks they can hack it. The chance you will fail college doesn't really enter into the planning process, like, ever. Actually, assuming (as seems safe) that most drop outs are money and work related, if you want to decrease drop outs the only thing I can think of that might change things is "densifying" scholarships; making it so that all scholarships are full-ride (or darned close) and there are fewer scholarships overall to make up the difference. Not only do you end up with less people going to college (which, if supply-and-demand function, lowers cost) but those who are there are focused on their studies instead of juggling a job and school.

    But that is another admission that "The American Dream" is largely bunk and the commoners should accept their lot.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Correct. People in power cannot draw on their own experiences to ascertain the will of the poor. That's why the poor should receive the benefit of the doubt when faced with issues that exclusively affect them.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    SKFM, Try not to take it as an insult; 'out of touch' is not some sort of denigration against you.

    I doubt I'm in touch with the extremely wealthy, and I don't consider that some sort of negative judgment against myself so much as a fact of life.

    But, yes, your view of just how much money $2000 is to a poor family is... well, yeah, out of touch. I guess it's a little easier for me to relate to such a plight: I've never been poor, but I did have to pay my own way through university and was eligible for almost no scholarships or financial aid because of my familial situation (my parents, as far as scholarship committees were concerned, should have been paying my way through university.) Basically I could get the scholarships that are 'wow, you're REALLY GOOD at that. Here's some money' type things. So for my time in university, I worked full time and scraped by paycheque to paycheque. $2000 more a year would have killed me.

    When you have nothing to spare, $2000 might as well be $20,000.

    These days I can relax. These days I can think about things like shelling out a few grand for eye surgery. But back then... yeah, there was just no chance. And to think of people who were genuinely in poverty being expected to come up with a couple thousand dollars to complete an education that they hope pulls them out of poverty just makes me feel ill.

    To me, this is just another rehash of the 'welfare queen' / 'welfare recipient using his money for drugs and so needing to pay for drug testing to get welfare' / 'illegal immigrants casting illegal votes' type stuff. A problem that is thought about far more than it is existent. And a 'problem' with so called solutions that tend to be based on personal world views rather than reality, and that cause more harm than good.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Since you must recognize that it's an awful situation to be in, you could show more empathy.

    That doesn't require you to have lived through it. I won't hold my breath though. People who are very successful in life often to go to great lengths to insulate themselves from even having to be reminded of the less fortunate. Gated communities and the like.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2012
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Since you must recognize that it's an awful situation to be in, you could show more empathy.

    That doesn't require you to have lived through it. I won't hold my breath though. People who are very successful in life often to go to great lengths to insulate themselves from even having to be reminded of the less fortunate. Gated communities and the like.

    I don't think things are nearly as devious or deliberate as you think they are. It isn't as if you are likely to have random people from a different socioeconomic status show up at your door if you don't have a gate to keep them out. I think that because people with more money tend to do things that cost more money (i.e., go to more expensive restaurants, go on more expensive vacations, shop in more expensive stores) so they are less likely to have signifigant interactions with people who have less. Also, to the extent there is interaction (such as store clerks, waiters, etc.) or even extensive contact like friends who are in a different socio-economic class, you probably don't really talk about the differences in your lives or the problems people face because they are poor much, in part because talking about money is taboo.

    Edit - I think this is actually a really interesting topic on its own, and may warrant its own thread.

    spacekungfuman on
    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Since you must recognize that it's an awful situation to be in, you could show more empathy.

    That doesn't require you to have lived through it. I won't hold my breath though. People who are very successful in life often to go to great lengths to insulate themselves from even having to be reminded of the less fortunate. Gated communities and the like.

    I don't think things are nearly as devious or deliberate as you think they are. It isn't as if you are likely to have random people from a different socioeconomic status show up at your door if you don't have a gate to keep them out. I think that because people with more money tend to do things that cost more money (i.e., go to more expensive restaurants, go on more expensive vacations, shop in more expensive stores) so they are less likely to have signifigant interactions with people who have less. Also, to the extent there is interaction (such as store clerks, waiters, etc.) or even extensive contact like friends who are in a different socio-economic class, you probably don't really talk about the differences in your lives or the problems people face because they are poor much, in part because talking about money is taboo.

    Edit - I think this is actually a really interesting topic on its own, and may warrant its own thread.

    This creates a culture of insulation where it keeps people who are well off from knowing how the the lives of the less fortunate work. This attitude is self-evident in laws like this one and countless others.

    It takes a special effort for those with privlege to emphasize with those who don't. In matters of wealth, race, sex, etc.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    edited February 2012
    I'm kind of disgusted by the phrase 'skin in the game' and how it is being used to justify the shit that it is. Particularly so, because you have to frame the discussion just right and ignore so very many things to come out with the idea that low-income individuals don't have any 'skin in the game'. (Note how when it comes to taxation the phrase usually follows observations about how X amount or % of individuals pay little or no income tax, ignoring basically every other kind of tax or taxes paid as a percentage of yearly earnings.)

    I have a growing suspicion that Arizona Republicans will literally be calling for the flesh of the underclass in a few months time. Skin in the game, bro.

    UnknownSaint on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Since you must recognize that it's an awful situation to be in, you could show more empathy.

    That doesn't require you to have lived through it. I won't hold my breath though. People who are very successful in life often to go to great lengths to insulate themselves from even having to be reminded of the less fortunate. Gated communities and the like.

    I don't think things are nearly as devious or deliberate as you think they are. It isn't as if you are likely to have random people from a different socioeconomic status show up at your door if you don't have a gate to keep them out. I think that because people with more money tend to do things that cost more money (i.e., go to more expensive restaurants, go on more expensive vacations, shop in more expensive stores) so they are less likely to have signifigant interactions with people who have less. Also, to the extent there is interaction (such as store clerks, waiters, etc.) or even extensive contact like friends who are in a different socio-economic class, you probably don't really talk about the differences in your lives or the problems people face because they are poor much, in part because talking about money is taboo.

    Edit - I think this is actually a really interesting topic on its own, and may warrant its own thread.

    This creates a culture of insulation where it keeps people who are well off from knowing how the the lives of the less fortunate work. This attitude is self-evident in laws like this one and countless others.

    It takes a special effort for those with privlege to emphasize with those who don't. In matters of wealth, race, sex, etc.

    I don't want to sound like an asshole, but this goes both ways. I find that I can't talk about issues I face (in real life or online) a lot of the time because who can't identify with them are extremely dismissive.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    I actually think it is hilarious you said "Yes, when you do all your shopping at Burberry, $2K a semester is trivial." since I actually wore a burberry shirt and coat today. I am literally your caricature of an out of touch rich guy ;)

    Alternatively you might actually be out of touch, and not a caricature at all.

    So I get accused of being out of touch all the time here, and I guess it is probably true, but then isn't everyone who is not currently (or has not in the recent past been) poor out of touch with the poor in America? I don't want to derail the thread, but can someone explain to me how I could be "in touch" with a lifestyle that is completly different from my own? At best, I could have some second hand observations or some statistics, but that would only mean that I have a vague, academic understanding.

    I am not one of those people who goes to charity galas and laments the plight of the [insert cause of the moment] and talks about how I "understand" or "sympathize" with their plight with other people also dressed in their formal wear, none of whom actually understand the issue. I find it really hard to stand those people, and prefer to just give to a charity I support without claiming to really understand anything other than that the situation is bad for certain people, and that giving money, toys, time, etc. may help. I am currently working on a draft tax credit that has a decent chance of passing at the Federal level (or at least several state levels) to help a certain specific class of poor home owners to be protected against having the land underlying their homes sold out from under them. I understand the mechanics of the tax code, how the credit would work, the political realities of drafting something that is palatable, etc. but I would never claim to understand the plight of the people it will benefit, because their lives are so different from my own. I feel like any claim that I really "get" their problem would be insulting to them.

    Since you must recognize that it's an awful situation to be in, you could show more empathy.

    That doesn't require you to have lived through it. I won't hold my breath though. People who are very successful in life often to go to great lengths to insulate themselves from even having to be reminded of the less fortunate. Gated communities and the like.

    I don't think things are nearly as devious or deliberate as you think they are. It isn't as if you are likely to have random people from a different socioeconomic status show up at your door if you don't have a gate to keep them out. I think that because people with more money tend to do things that cost more money (i.e., go to more expensive restaurants, go on more expensive vacations, shop in more expensive stores) so they are less likely to have signifigant interactions with people who have less. Also, to the extent there is interaction (such as store clerks, waiters, etc.) or even extensive contact like friends who are in a different socio-economic class, you probably don't really talk about the differences in your lives or the problems people face because they are poor much, in part because talking about money is taboo.

    Edit - I think this is actually a really interesting topic on its own, and may warrant its own thread.

    This creates a culture of insulation where it keeps people who are well off from knowing how the the lives of the less fortunate work. This attitude is self-evident in laws like this one and countless others.

    It takes a special effort for those with privlege to emphasize with those who don't. In matters of wealth, race, sex, etc.

    I don't want to sound like an asshole, but this goes both ways. I find that I can't talk about issues I face (in real life or online) a lot of the time because who can't identify with them are extremely dismissive.

    That's certainly a fair point.

    I, equally, don't want to sound like an asshole, but not really a fair trade I think all the time. Especially in this instance, as education is the thing that gives poor kids the chance to break the cycle of poverty.

    The reason people don't take the problems of the rich too seriously is because, in most instances, the well off are equipped to deal with them. Now, that's not to discount your personal issues and I think every human being, regardless of wealth, is entitled to empathy and fair play, but that's why you get that reaction I would think.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    This is an unfortunate, but not unexpected event for that state. This is just a continuation of the (please excuse the foul language) "Fuck you. I got mine." attitude that is prevalent in the densely populated Phoenix-Metro area; due to the retirement communities and entrenched-corrupted interests, and all the propaganda/voting-patterns that fall out from that.

    For an example of the "Fuck you. I got mine." attitude,
    [Rep. Michelle] Ugenti [R-Scottsdale] said she paid for her own apartment, her car and her food, worked full time "and still having enough time in all of that, and with all of that responsibility, to play rugby for ASU.''

    What she didn't say:
    • When she went to ASU (2000-2004):
      • In-State Tuition was all of $2,400 annually
      • Parking decals were ~$50-$100 (annually) for lot 59
      • Rent for a near campus apartment or house was all of $400-500 for a two bedroom that you could split the rent 4 ways. *cough*okitwasmorelike6or7butdon'ttellthelandlord*cough*
      • Food prices were cheaper
      • Gasoline Prices were cheaper
    • The "ASU Rugby Team" is a sports club with no tryouts. You just have to show up to practice; if you're good enough, you play in the matches. Point being, she could have played, but the commitment wasn't as big of a thing as she's making it out to be in her retort.

    What I get from this is a list of excuses. So are you going to blame those that say the same thing when they went to school in the 70's-80's? The fact is students have to work hard. There is no point in funding them if all they are going to do is just get passing grades (3.0 and lower GPA) and come out with debt working in a McDonalds because they are so poorly educated due to them not having either the skills needed or enough training.

    I don't follow your line of thought in the least.

    Course work is primarily where students gain the skills for gainful employment in their chosen fields.

    Or does your 40 hour part time work week prepare you to translate ancient Mongolian texts? Somehow I doubt it.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    This is an unfortunate, but not unexpected event for that state. This is just a continuation of the (please excuse the foul language) "Fuck you. I got mine." attitude that is prevalent in the densely populated Phoenix-Metro area; due to the retirement communities and entrenched-corrupted interests, and all the propaganda/voting-patterns that fall out from that.

    For an example of the "Fuck you. I got mine." attitude,
    [Rep. Michelle] Ugenti [R-Scottsdale] said she paid for her own apartment, her car and her food, worked full time "and still having enough time in all of that, and with all of that responsibility, to play rugby for ASU.''

    What she didn't say:
    • When she went to ASU (2000-2004):
      • In-State Tuition was all of $2,400 annually
      • Parking decals were ~$50-$100 (annually) for lot 59
      • Rent for a near campus apartment or house was all of $400-500 for a two bedroom that you could split the rent 4 ways. *cough*okitwasmorelike6or7butdon'ttellthelandlord*cough*
      • Food prices were cheaper
      • Gasoline Prices were cheaper
    • The "ASU Rugby Team" is a sports club with no tryouts. You just have to show up to practice; if you're good enough, you play in the matches. Point being, she could have played, but the commitment wasn't as big of a thing as she's making it out to be in her retort.

    What I get from this is a list of excuses. So are you going to blame those that say the same thing when they went to school in the 70's-80's? The fact is students have to work hard. There is no point in funding them if all they are going to do is just get passing grades (3.0 and lower GPA) and come out with debt working in a McDonalds because they are so poorly educated due to them not having either the skills needed or enough training.

    Can't... tell... if serious...

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    What I'm hearing is that because some folks with the means to go to college without burying themselves in debt resent unknown slacker stereotypes, they wish to undermine the central mechanism of socio-economic mobility in this country for everyone besides similarly-situated individuals.

    Am I hearing that right?

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    So have they clarified "Athletics" yet? I'm just curious if the Arizona bowling team is going to suddenly be packed.

145791015
Sign In or Register to comment.