Arizona isn't the only state with schools offering scholarships, so essentially they legislated their schools less competitively because the smart kids I know choose schools pretty much based on scholarships and prestige, and it looks like Arizona is going to get less potent students as a result. And that will cause a decrease in human capital.
Of course Arizona is already a shithole, so now it is just shittier.
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
You're definitely right about Arizona getting shittier.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Arizona isn't the only state with schools offering scholarships, so essentially they legislated their schools less competitively because the smart kids I know choose schools pretty much based on scholarships and prestige, and it looks like Arizona is going to get less potent students as a result. And that will cause a decrease in human capital.
Of course Arizona is already a shithole, so now it is just shittier.
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
Maybe, but the way I understand it, is that you can get student loans for the amount, and as I understand the need based grants you can get them from any accredited school, or am I missing something?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Arizona isn't the only state with schools offering scholarships, so essentially they legislated their schools less competitively because the smart kids I know choose schools pretty much based on scholarships and prestige, and it looks like Arizona is going to get less potent students as a result. And that will cause a decrease in human capital.
Of course Arizona is already a shithole, so now it is just shittier.
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
Maybe, but the way I understand it, is that you can get student loans for the amount, and as I understand the need based grants you can get them from any accredited school, or am I missing something?
Yes, let's make more students take out student loans! Oh wait, we're also going to stop those programs and make students go through banks and get wallet raped before they even have jobs!
Out of state tuition is prohibitively expensive, you might as well go to a private school in state at least then you might get to live at home.
If you move to another state doesn't that add like another $5000-$10,000 per year or so to your bill? Or was that just for international students.
Anyway, the fact that students do not know what to do with their lives while going into college is more a failure of the high school system to actually prepare students for the real world.
I do not really see the problem with everyone going to either college or a trade school before finding work.
Their are two problems with going to college, 1. It takes time you could be working in a field and 2. It costs money. Guess which one of those problems can actually be taken care of by the state.
This particular measure doesn't sound so bad now that I look at it, but the idea behind it is terrible. We should be reducing barriers to education in order to create a skilled and flexible workforce.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Arizona isn't the only state with schools offering scholarships, so essentially they legislated their schools less competitively because the smart kids I know choose schools pretty much based on scholarships and prestige, and it looks like Arizona is going to get less potent students as a result. And that will cause a decrease in human capital.
Of course Arizona is already a shithole, so now it is just shittier.
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
Maybe, but the way I understand it, is that you can get student loans for the amount, and as I understand the need based grants you can get them from any accredited school, or am I missing something?
I mean, I'm no expert or anything, but something tells me that Arizona state schools don't attract a lot of people from other states. So, it's mostly going to be kids going there because they can't afford to go to/don't qualify for out of state schools.
If you move to another state doesn't that add like another $5000-$10,000 per year or so to your bill? Or was that just for international students.
Anyway, the fact that students do not know what to do with their lives while going into college is more a failure of the high school system to actually prepare students for the real world.
I do not really see the problem with everyone going to either college or a trade school before finding work.
Their are two problems with going to college, 1. It takes time you could be working in a field and 2. It costs money. Guess which one of those problems can actually be taken care of by the state.
This particular measure doesn't sound so bad now that I look at it, but the idea behind it is terrible. We should be reducing barriers to education in order to create a skilled and flexible workforce.
Reading the language makes it not seem so bad? It says "everyone has to pay at least two thousand dollars per semester out of their own pocket, no grants, scholarships, or financial aid allowed". How is that not terrible?
So football players who are going to get straight Cs in Physical Ed aren't getting slugged 2k because they make money for the University? Why don't they have a skin in the game? Or is it because they don't want to risk the money in TV fees and such?
This seems silly.
I have a feeling the athletic departments would revolt. And have a decent following of people who would politically burn everyone who voted for this to the ground.
Shitting on poor people? Who cares! Fuckers got to go to college for free while I still have my loan repayment! (note: not actually my view, but I'd wager quite a few of the politician's views of this.)
Overall, the penalty seems arbitrary, regressive, and carves out unfair exceptions that have nothing to do with academic performance.
I agree that there are plenty of Republican lobby groups and special interests and issue-centric politicians and backers who aren't good natured, and who have loathsome, exclusionary interests and goals.
I also think that plenty of Republicans support education, as an ideal, but disapprove of the way education policy works, and disapprove of the manner in which universities are run and how they teach. I have plenty of disagreements with the way postsecondary education works, but Republicans would probably hate all my suggestions as much as I hate theirs...
I also admit that it's quite possible that many Republicans, politicians and constituents alike, have absorbed the idea that the kind of education received in college and university is liberal propaganda. This is not helped by the fact that a lot of the more far-right Republican ideals are, yes, rendered unpalatable by an education. They want education, but they think it's been corrupted by a liberal agenda, and that - not an inherent distaste for education that is part of the ideology - is what I would see as responsible for any kind of anti-education policy or rhetoric.
I don't think it helps that any aspect of the far right ideology that is contradicted by the knowledge one absorbs through education forces them to either speak against that education, let go of that aspect, or contort their ideology to absorb the criticism without admitting fault (which is true of all ideologies).
If you move to another state doesn't that add like another $5000-$10,000 per year or so to your bill? Or was that just for international students.
Anyway, the fact that students do not know what to do with their lives while going into college is more a failure of the high school system to actually prepare students for the real world.
I do not really see the problem with everyone going to either college or a trade school before finding work.
Their are two problems with going to college, 1. It takes time you could be working in a field and 2. It costs money. Guess which one of those problems can actually be taken care of by the state.
This particular measure doesn't sound so bad now that I look at it, but the idea behind it is terrible. We should be reducing barriers to education in order to create a skilled and flexible workforce.
Reading the language makes it not seem so bad? It says "everyone has to pay at least two thousand dollars per semester out of their own pocket, no grants, scholarships, or financial aid allowed". How is that not terrible?
Well for one is everyone except athletes.
Secondly it puts an unfair burden on people who are already struggling to make tuition with assistance. How is that not terrible?
This is the GOP pissing on the Constitution, by the way.
Section 6. The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.
Straight from AZ's Constitution. Of course, we have "conservative" courts there, who have decided that section is up to the interpretation of the Legislature. (i.e. it means shit)
What amazes me is how this has been worded and spun. all that had to get said was "we need more people in college and current funds are tight, if we free up 2k from each student, over all we can allow 1 extra student funding for each 4 students that takes the 2k hit." but this just seems like a slap in the face.
edit:
So football players who are going to get straight Cs in Physical Ed aren't getting slugged 2k because they make money for the University?
It may seem silly, but I think you underestimate how much money college sports programs make for colleges. smart people make patents and discoveries, but they can hire them at any time, and but noone trusts/believes/gives a shit because there a 18-22 student and arent going to do those things yet.. but if you throw a football then thats merchandizing, tickets, ad revenue and branding in the common eye.
DiannaoChong on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
What amazes me is how this has been worded and spun. all that had to get said was "we need more people in college and current funds are tight, if we free up 2k from each student, over all we can allow 1 extra student funding for each 4 students that takes the 2k hit." but this just seems like a slap in the face.
edit:
So football players who are going to get straight Cs in Physical Ed aren't getting slugged 2k because they make money for the University?
It may seem silly, but I think you underestimate how much money college sports programs make for colleges. smart people make patents and discoveries, but they can hire them at any time, and but noone trusts/believes/gives a shit because there a 18-22 student and arent going to do those things yet.. but if you throw a football then thats merchandizing, tickets, ad revenue and branding in the common eye.
Sports can be a big draw of money, but I think that if we're going to start playing the "Academic Skin" game, you can't justify not holding athletes to the same candle.
A student on a football scholarship that works hard in class isn't any more deserving of a free ride than an English major who pounds the books just as well.
[Republicans generally have the same goal as Democrats - a prosperous country full of happy, healthy, educated, employed people - and they entirely disagree on the best way to achieve it.
I simply cannot accept that that statement is generally true. It is likely true for some Republicans, but it is certainly not the case with all of them.
With some in the leadership, I agree with you. But with general Republicans, this is what everyone wants. Just because people think that everyone is capable of doing everything by themselves doesn't mean they don't want this endgame.
Demonizing Jeffery J. GOP is the same thing they do to David D. Democrat and it lets people like Rick Santorum become legitimate players.
i think he'd agree that Jeffrey J. GOP is most often described by my statement. the group of republicans he's talking about, who are the exception, is most likely part of the leadership.
the problem is that in order to believe that you should keep people uneducated in order to maintain power, you must prioritize power over the wellbeing of your people. this is a problem of politics and governance in general, and it's certainly not limited to republicans. i'm sure there are power-hungry monsters in the ranks, but i don't think they're the ones who are causing the problems we see in republican policy. it's the ideology, or rather certain permutations of it, that are the problem. hunger for power causes different problems on both sides of the aisle.
Not only that, but I feel like a majority of Republican voters are being swayed by emotional rhetoric and religious political manipulation to vote for that party.
When I start nailing down the people around me down here in Alabama, they invariably have a rather earnest faith, which doesn't allow for or tolerate picking on poor people. The biggest wedge issue is abortion, and the biggest culprit there are the religious leaders who have made it the most important Christian issue in the history of ever, for years.
Never mind the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law, and all the wingnut local and state Republicans they elect because their churches tell them Republican = good Democrat = evil will never have anything to do with ending abortion for reals. That will only ever come with a stacked supreme court, and that rests exclusively with el Presidente.
[Republicans generally have the same goal as Democrats - a prosperous country full of happy, healthy, educated, employed people - and they entirely disagree on the best way to achieve it.
I simply cannot accept that that statement is generally true. It is likely true for some Republicans, but it is certainly not the case with all of them.
With some in the leadership, I agree with you. But with general Republicans, this is what everyone wants. Just because people think that everyone is capable of doing everything by themselves doesn't mean they don't want this endgame.
Demonizing Jeffery J. GOP is the same thing they do to David D. Democrat and it lets people like Rick Santorum become legitimate players.
i think he'd agree that Jeffrey J. GOP is most often described by my statement. the group of republicans he's talking about, who are the exception, is most likely part of the leadership.
the problem is that in order to believe that you should keep people uneducated in order to maintain power, you must prioritize power over the wellbeing of your people. this is a problem of politics and governance in general, and it's certainly not limited to republicans. i'm sure there are power-hungry monsters in the ranks, but i don't think they're the ones who are causing the problems we see in republican policy. it's the ideology, or rather certain permutations of it, that are the problem. hunger for power causes different problems on both sides of the aisle.
Not only that, but I feel like a majority of Republican voters are being swayed by emotional rhetoric and religious political manipulation to vote for that party.
When I start nailing down the people around me down here in Alabama, they invariably have a rather earnest faith, which doesn't allow for or tolerate picking on poor people. The biggest wedge issue is abortion, and the biggest culprit there are the religious leaders who have made it the most important Christian issue in the history of ever, for years.
Never mind the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law, and all the wingnut local and state Republicans they elect because their churches tell them Republican = good Democrat = evil will never have anything to do with ending abortion for reals. That will only ever come with a stacked supreme court, and that rests exclusively with el Presidente.
I think another big thing about Republican voters, and perhaps this is becoming a discussion for another thread, is that very few of them ever question their views. Coming out of the rural, evangelical south I can tell you that very often people just don't think about anything outside of their insular communities.
They're very concerned with their faith and not much else, which is why they just latch onto ABORTION or MUSLISM and, sadly THE GAYS WANTING TO MARRY and see it as a societal conspiracy against them. It's pitiable, if anything. The people who are evil aren't the people like my grandmother who hasn't left the county except to visit my aunt in Alaska for the last ten years, it's the people praying on her and people like her to get money and power.
In short, there are few people more evil than the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Cantido on
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Nomadic Circle has gone on record saying that there's no such thing as rights and now seems to be saying we should all just accept our positions in the lottery of birth.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
He's actually in favor of whatever bizarre regressive proto-serfdom they have going on in the country he's from.
When he says "blue collar workers" he doesn't mean what it makes you and I think of.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be.
Universities in the US have traditionally selected candidates on the basis of merit rather than strict ability to pay for some time now, to include the most prestigious universities. In fact, that's a significant part of the reason they are worth attending.
The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
The world has never in its history needed fewer blue collar workers (per capita), so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
So football players who are going to get straight Cs in Physical Ed aren't getting slugged 2k because they make money for the University? Why don't they have a skin in the game? Or is it because they don't want to risk the money in TV fees and such?
This seems silly.
Football players quite literally have skin in the game, in that they quite often get injured and even die every now and then to earn that scholarship. I do my fair share of bitching about athletics scholarships too, but most of it is in favor of the players, in that they should just get fucking paid like the minor-league athletes they are rather than maintain the facade of the "scholar athlete."
I don't understand the logic of saying students need "Skin in the Game" financially. They already have the skin of getting a degree, failing out, dropping below a 2.0 and thus losing your financial aid, etc. Having said that if once decides that students do need skin in the game, it should be all students, including athletes.
No. "Not getting a degree" isn't skin in the game, there's nothing to actually lose there. You simply aren't getting something. Same for losing financial aid. Basically, a student who is entirely on non-recoverable financial aid and just straight up blows off their studies and plays Warcraft or smokes weed for a year doesn't lose anything, and they get to live for a year on somebody else's dime. They have nothing at stake, other than not getting to do that anymore, which they shouldn't have been allowed to in the first place.
That said, this is retarded. Because much like the mythical Welfare Queen, the Slacker Student who is getting by entirely on financial aid (without at least $2K of either family contribution or personal loans/payment on the line) is ridiculously rare, and certainly rare in proportion to the attention they receive. They exist. I knew one. But they don't exist in numbers significant enough to warrant this legislation. And even if they do exist in numbers great enough to warrant some legislation, this wouldn't be it; some form of "deposit" would make more sense, because there's no reason to keep the "skin" that was left in the "game" when the student wins in the end, earning their degree. This policy is overbroad, by far, even if it's warranted (which it isn't).
So football players who are going to get straight Cs in Physical Ed aren't getting slugged 2k because they make money for the University? Why don't they have a skin in the game? Or is it because they don't want to risk the money in TV fees and such?
This seems silly.
Football players quite literally have skin in the game, in that they quite often get injured and even die every now and then to earn that scholarship. I do my fair share of bitching about athletics scholarships too, but most of it is in favor of the players, in that they should just get fucking paid like the minor-league athletes they are rather than maintain the facade of the "scholar athlete."
I don't understand the logic of saying students need "Skin in the Game" financially. They already have the skin of getting a degree, failing out, dropping below a 2.0 and thus losing your financial aid, etc. Having said that if once decides that students do need skin in the game, it should be all students, including athletes.
No. "Not getting a degree" isn't skin in the game, there's nothing to actually lose there. You simply aren't getting something. Same for losing financial aid. Basically, a student who is entirely on non-recoverable financial aid and just straight up blows off their studies and plays Warcraft or smokes weed for a year doesn't lose anything, and they get to live for a year on somebody else's dime. They have nothing at stake, other than not getting to do that anymore, which they shouldn't have been allowed to in the first place.
That said, this is retarded. Because much like the mythical Welfare Queen, the Slacker Student who is getting by entirely on financial aid (without at least $2K of either family contribution or personal loans/payment on the line) is ridiculously rare, and certainly rare in proportion to the attention they receive. They exist. I knew one. But they don't exist in numbers significant enough to warrant this legislation. And even if they do exist in numbers great enough to warrant some legislation, this wouldn't be it; some form of "deposit" would make more sense, because there's no reason to keep the "skin" that was left in the "game" when the student wins in the end, earning their degree. This policy is overbroad, by far, even if it's warranted (which it isn't).
Very well put, McDermott. I think you might have just won the thread.
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.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
... Because if there's one thing America really can't find enough of, it's construction workers?
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
... Because if there's one thing America really can't find enough of, it's construction workers?
Why is everyone getting down on construction workers? The pay is good, and the career options are far more robust than starting in an office or fast food. As an entry level career field with no experience there aren't a lot of options that beat construction worker.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
... Because if there's one thing America really can't find enough of, it's construction workers?
Why is everyone getting down on construction workers? The pay is good, and the career options are far more robust than starting in an office or fast food. As an entry level career field with no experience there aren't a lot of options that beat construction worker.
It's true. There are a lot of paths available to people and I think we need to do a better job of making those fields clear in high school. Right now districts are under pressure from parents and legislatures to push college college college as the only option instead of one of many.
I think when a kid comes out of high school, they should be prepared for college so that they can go if they choose, but also actually know about the wide variety of choices they can make.
That being said, targeting poor students is a dumb, elitist, archaic way to go about bringing balance to the employment market.
0
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
Says the guy pursuing a Central Asian History degree....How many Central Asian History majors do you think we need? Why don't you just save yourself the time and money and become a janitor if you're not going to bother getting a useful degree like Chemical Engineering? See? Other people can act all "holier than thou too."
Disclaimer: I don't look down on any type of history major.
It's an interesting discussion, but I honestly don't think that party strategists sit down and say "uneducated people are more likely to vote Republican, so we should make sure people aren't educated. that way we can stay in power." I don't think they even secretly have that strategy in mind but don't say it out loud. I can see why you'd believe it, though, with the odious things that the Republicans in the limelight lately are willing to spout. But I think it is motivated not by cynical political power-grabbing, but rather ideology.
First of all, they will deny the notion that education leads to liberal voting, because it's a lot more complicated than that. I believe the actual stat is "Democratic voters tend to be more educated," which does not necessarily mean that education makes people more likely to vote for a Democrat. But there's lots of contentious stat-twisting around that issue, because both sides want to be both popular and educated.
Second of all, lower education does lead to lower incomes, and low income groups definitely start to skew towards Democratic voting.
But really what it comes down to is: Republicans don't want to stop people from being educated, because they are not actually demons from hell (mostly), nor are they idiots (at least not in this sense). Republicans like this guy believe it is morally wrong and economically unsound to grant money to poor folks just because they need it; they believe that it is better for people to be forced to work hard and earn what they get, and better for the economy or the business if people don't get "handouts." It's this sort of Protestant work ethic/American dream/bootstrapping plus aversion to public spending/taxation/public programs.
Aside from the obviously revolting extremism we're seeing more and more of when it comes to social issues, religious agendas, treatment of minority groups, etc., Republicans generally have the same goal as Democrats - a prosperous country full of happy, healthy, educated, employed people - and they entirely disagree on the best way to achieve it.
I'm sure that for some politicians that statement is too optimistic, or subordinate to other concerns, or just blatantly untrue, though.
I'm going to put forward the idea that Republicans (not the average voter, but the elected officials) even at many strategy meetings have taken a type of dogwhistling to a new level. We all know how they tend to code their language to hide biases and bigotry. Lee Atwater revealing the Southern Strategy for what it was really opened my eyes. I would contend that after enough strategy they can make all of their plans in a form of rhetorical code so complete that as time advances they even become consciously unaware of what they are truly advocating for, having stuffed their original intentions so far down their vacant memory-hole that they now legitimately believe they are arguing for X when in fact they are arguing for Y. They are basically training themselves how to continue to remain just "civil" enough in their discourse despite changing norms; so as to appear like well-intentioned champions of some cause when in fact their true intent is to build a permanent political majority so that they can do whatever they want with total impunity. Training themselves so well through think-tanks, PR, etc. so as to even be able to pass a lie detector test themselves on what they believe.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
Your stance is innately flawed in that you are associating merit and major with financial status. Now, I can see "college shouldn't be for everyone, and only for the professions that require intense additional training", but by that merit it has nothing to do with how much you pay out of pocket, and everything to do with providing MORE full merit based scholarships. Aka: If you're GOOD at this, we'll pay you to get better. But if you're a middling student, fuck off. Instead, you seem to think if you're rich you'll be good in school and only select "good" majors.
Basically: to be ideologically consistent in your post, you'd need to be insisting colleges ONLY accept merit based scholarship funds, and deny anyone offering to pay cash.
editing a bit: just a rant: we put entirely too much stock into college as is. I recall looking for jobs at one point, and a job installing fire exit doors required a degree. Any degree. Look, if you require "any" degree, chances are you're just being a douchebag because it's obvious you don't actually need anything highly advanced. Hell, most of the people I know with advanced degrees don't work in a field related to their degree. So either we all sit down and say college is just an extension of K-12 and make it mandatory, or we admit that it's not and stop being total fucking dicks in the hiring process. Hiring a lawyer? Make sure they went to law school. Hiring a tier 1 help desk tech? Fuck that noise, ask them computer questions because nothing they got in their Comp Sci degree is actually going to do anything for them in the job.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
... Because if there's one thing America really can't find enough of, it's construction workers?
Why is everyone getting down on construction workers? The pay is good, and the career options are far more robust than starting in an office or fast food. As an entry level career field with no experience there aren't a lot of options that beat construction worker.
I thought that was the point, construction is a good job, one that likely already has plenty of applicants for it.
I feel the need to reiterate page one's disgust at the "skin in the game" meme that seems to have spread far and wide within the Republican Silly Goose Gaggle.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
... Because if there's one thing America really can't find enough of, it's construction workers?
Why is everyone getting down on construction workers? The pay is good, and the career options are far more robust than starting in an office or fast food. As an entry level career field with no experience there aren't a lot of options that beat construction worker.
I have nothing against the job itself. I just know that they got completely devastated by the collapse of the housing bubble, and still have the highest unemployment of any field. So NomadicCircle's thinking that "we need more of them" is totally wrong.
I'm surprised that they didn't add a military exception to it as well. My GI bill is admisistered almost exclusively through my schools veteran services office. Which would effectively increase tuition for veterans by 2k.
I'm surprised that they didn't add a military exception to it as well. My GI bill is admisistered almost exclusively through my schools veteran services office. Which would effectively increase tuition for veterans by 2k.
Veterans just need more skin in the game, obviously.
I'm also thinking that combining a mandate that $2K a year of college tuition must be paid in cash and the phrase "skin in the game" is biggest boon Arizona's amateur porn industry could receive.
"You can't pay for college in Arizona by taking a Stafford loan, but you can by taking a different kind of staff".
The ironic thing is that this is supposed to make people more focused on their studies, but the only people this is going to affect are the poorer ones, who will have to have to work extra to pay for this, which will take focus away from their studies. It's pretty bullshit.
The ironic thing is that this is supposed to make people more focused on their studies, but the only people this is going to affect are the poorer ones, who will have to have to work extra to pay for this, which will take focus away from their studies. It's pretty bullshit.
Some people seem to believe you cannot ever appreciate something if you have not been tied to a rack and tortured for months by Jack Bauer as a condition of getting it. These people appear to be getting more successful at dictating policy, sadly. -_-;;
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Countries do need their janitors, construction workers and other jobs that don't require university education. Everyone going to university is just a sign that the country in unable to handle menial jobs and has to import workers to fill these positions. Those that can't afford the extra $2000 should look into these sorts of jobs. What state needs a 1000 art history majors being produced at their university every year with 0 say janitors?
I say its good they got their priorities in order. Society needs stratification not everyone can be rich or should be rich.
I disagree that we should intentionally weaken our capacity to expand human knowledge due solely to excluding people on the basis of their parents' qualifications. If anything the notion that people's worth can be measured by, let alone should be held hostage to, past generations goes against the very idea of universities to begin with.
moniker on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think this is a good idea. Frankly universities were meant to be upper class educational institutions where only those worthy enough to be educated further should be. The world doesn't need more Art History majors or foolish degrees. What it needs are workers, blue collar workers who can fill in gaps. It will save them the time and money and society will be better.
Says the guy pursuing a Central Asian History degree....How many Central Asian History majors do you think we need? Why don't you just save yourself the time and money and become a janitor if you're not going to bother getting a useful degree like Chemical Engineering? See? Other people can act all "holier than thou too."
Disclaimer: I don't look down on any type of history major.
How many have already lined up jobs waiting in the National heritage department of the Turkmenistan government when they graduate? When you don't know a situation don't try to make it sound better than you know.
And since we are on this level, Central Asia is a vastly wide open field with relatively low amount of English language scholars. The last important works were done in the 1960's to 1980's with little or no major scholarly work done since. The majority of work available is either in three languages, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese. The amount of Mongolian speakers where the majority of work relating to the Mongols in the Western world would be 0.5% and the translations done would be less than 0.1%. The only shcolar whose work was translated was Jagchid's and his last published and translated work was in the 90's. Its been 20 years and there as been a barren field since then.
As you can see a little research would help you save face when describing a field that is not knowledgeable to yourself.
You've proven Olorin's point a bit there, NC.
You gave a blanket statement that the world doesn't need "art history majors" which are no more or less likely to lead to a solid career than your major. Bully for you for getting a job lined up, guess what? Many other liberal arts majors do just as well as you hopefully will.
College is about more than just getting a job, it's about the intrinsic value of learning more about yourself and the world around you. That's why, in the US at least, most people change majors several times. It's about finding exactly what you want to spend the rest of your life doing. Not everyone's goal is to make a mint.
Restricting access by adding a $2,000 tax on education doesn't solve the problem of market overload, it just forces poor students to drop out or take on crippling debt. It's unconscionable.
Posts
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
You're definitely right about Arizona getting shittier.
Yes, let's make more students take out student loans! Oh wait, we're also going to stop those programs and make students go through banks and get wallet raped before they even have jobs!
Out of state tuition is prohibitively expensive, you might as well go to a private school in state at least then you might get to live at home.
Anyway, the fact that students do not know what to do with their lives while going into college is more a failure of the high school system to actually prepare students for the real world.
I do not really see the problem with everyone going to either college or a trade school before finding work.
Their are two problems with going to college, 1. It takes time you could be working in a field and 2. It costs money. Guess which one of those problems can actually be taken care of by the state.
This particular measure doesn't sound so bad now that I look at it, but the idea behind it is terrible. We should be reducing barriers to education in order to create a skilled and flexible workforce.
So, it's mostly poor kids.
I have a feeling the athletic departments would revolt. And have a decent following of people who would politically burn everyone who voted for this to the ground.
Shitting on poor people? Who cares! Fuckers got to go to college for free while I still have my loan repayment! (note: not actually my view, but I'd wager quite a few of the politician's views of this.)
Overall, the penalty seems arbitrary, regressive, and carves out unfair exceptions that have nothing to do with academic performance.
I also think that plenty of Republicans support education, as an ideal, but disapprove of the way education policy works, and disapprove of the manner in which universities are run and how they teach. I have plenty of disagreements with the way postsecondary education works, but Republicans would probably hate all my suggestions as much as I hate theirs...
I also admit that it's quite possible that many Republicans, politicians and constituents alike, have absorbed the idea that the kind of education received in college and university is liberal propaganda. This is not helped by the fact that a lot of the more far-right Republican ideals are, yes, rendered unpalatable by an education. They want education, but they think it's been corrupted by a liberal agenda, and that - not an inherent distaste for education that is part of the ideology - is what I would see as responsible for any kind of anti-education policy or rhetoric.
I don't think it helps that any aspect of the far right ideology that is contradicted by the knowledge one absorbs through education forces them to either speak against that education, let go of that aspect, or contort their ideology to absorb the criticism without admitting fault (which is true of all ideologies).
Well for one is everyone except athletes.
Secondly it puts an unfair burden on people who are already struggling to make tuition with assistance. How is that not terrible?
Straight from AZ's Constitution. Of course, we have "conservative" courts there, who have decided that section is up to the interpretation of the Legislature. (i.e. it means shit)
edit: It may seem silly, but I think you underestimate how much money college sports programs make for colleges. smart people make patents and discoveries, but they can hire them at any time, and but noone trusts/believes/gives a shit because there a 18-22 student and arent going to do those things yet.. but if you throw a football then thats merchandizing, tickets, ad revenue and branding in the common eye.
Sports can be a big draw of money, but I think that if we're going to start playing the "Academic Skin" game, you can't justify not holding athletes to the same candle.
A student on a football scholarship that works hard in class isn't any more deserving of a free ride than an English major who pounds the books just as well.
Not only that, but I feel like a majority of Republican voters are being swayed by emotional rhetoric and religious political manipulation to vote for that party.
When I start nailing down the people around me down here in Alabama, they invariably have a rather earnest faith, which doesn't allow for or tolerate picking on poor people. The biggest wedge issue is abortion, and the biggest culprit there are the religious leaders who have made it the most important Christian issue in the history of ever, for years.
Never mind the fact that Roe v. Wade is the law, and all the wingnut local and state Republicans they elect because their churches tell them Republican = good Democrat = evil will never have anything to do with ending abortion for reals. That will only ever come with a stacked supreme court, and that rests exclusively with el Presidente.
I think another big thing about Republican voters, and perhaps this is becoming a discussion for another thread, is that very few of them ever question their views. Coming out of the rural, evangelical south I can tell you that very often people just don't think about anything outside of their insular communities.
They're very concerned with their faith and not much else, which is why they just latch onto ABORTION or MUSLISM and, sadly THE GAYS WANTING TO MARRY and see it as a societal conspiracy against them. It's pitiable, if anything. The people who are evil aren't the people like my grandmother who hasn't left the county except to visit my aunt in Alaska for the last ten years, it's the people praying on her and people like her to get money and power.
In short, there are few people more evil than the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.
....Uncle Civil E, is that you?
Nomadic Circle has gone on record saying that there's no such thing as rights and now seems to be saying we should all just accept our positions in the lottery of birth.
Best not to engage.
He's actually in favor of whatever bizarre regressive proto-serfdom they have going on in the country he's from.
When he says "blue collar workers" he doesn't mean what it makes you and I think of.
Universities in the US have traditionally selected candidates on the basis of merit rather than strict ability to pay for some time now, to include the most prestigious universities. In fact, that's a significant part of the reason they are worth attending.
The world has never in its history needed fewer blue collar workers (per capita), so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Football players quite literally have skin in the game, in that they quite often get injured and even die every now and then to earn that scholarship. I do my fair share of bitching about athletics scholarships too, but most of it is in favor of the players, in that they should just get fucking paid like the minor-league athletes they are rather than maintain the facade of the "scholar athlete."
No. "Not getting a degree" isn't skin in the game, there's nothing to actually lose there. You simply aren't getting something. Same for losing financial aid. Basically, a student who is entirely on non-recoverable financial aid and just straight up blows off their studies and plays Warcraft or smokes weed for a year doesn't lose anything, and they get to live for a year on somebody else's dime. They have nothing at stake, other than not getting to do that anymore, which they shouldn't have been allowed to in the first place.
That said, this is retarded. Because much like the mythical Welfare Queen, the Slacker Student who is getting by entirely on financial aid (without at least $2K of either family contribution or personal loans/payment on the line) is ridiculously rare, and certainly rare in proportion to the attention they receive. They exist. I knew one. But they don't exist in numbers significant enough to warrant this legislation. And even if they do exist in numbers great enough to warrant some legislation, this wouldn't be it; some form of "deposit" would make more sense, because there's no reason to keep the "skin" that was left in the "game" when the student wins in the end, earning their degree. This policy is overbroad, by far, even if it's warranted (which it isn't).
Because we all know that inherited wealth is the true indicator of merit.
Very well put, McDermott. I think you might have just won the thread.
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.
It's true. There are a lot of paths available to people and I think we need to do a better job of making those fields clear in high school. Right now districts are under pressure from parents and legislatures to push college college college as the only option instead of one of many.
I think when a kid comes out of high school, they should be prepared for college so that they can go if they choose, but also actually know about the wide variety of choices they can make.
That being said, targeting poor students is a dumb, elitist, archaic way to go about bringing balance to the employment market.
Says the guy pursuing a Central Asian History degree....How many Central Asian History majors do you think we need? Why don't you just save yourself the time and money and become a janitor if you're not going to bother getting a useful degree like Chemical Engineering? See? Other people can act all "holier than thou too."
Disclaimer: I don't look down on any type of history major.
I'm going to put forward the idea that Republicans (not the average voter, but the elected officials) even at many strategy meetings have taken a type of dogwhistling to a new level. We all know how they tend to code their language to hide biases and bigotry. Lee Atwater revealing the Southern Strategy for what it was really opened my eyes. I would contend that after enough strategy they can make all of their plans in a form of rhetorical code so complete that as time advances they even become consciously unaware of what they are truly advocating for, having stuffed their original intentions so far down their vacant memory-hole that they now legitimately believe they are arguing for X when in fact they are arguing for Y. They are basically training themselves how to continue to remain just "civil" enough in their discourse despite changing norms; so as to appear like well-intentioned champions of some cause when in fact their true intent is to build a permanent political majority so that they can do whatever they want with total impunity. Training themselves so well through think-tanks, PR, etc. so as to even be able to pass a lie detector test themselves on what they believe.
Your stance is innately flawed in that you are associating merit and major with financial status. Now, I can see "college shouldn't be for everyone, and only for the professions that require intense additional training", but by that merit it has nothing to do with how much you pay out of pocket, and everything to do with providing MORE full merit based scholarships. Aka: If you're GOOD at this, we'll pay you to get better. But if you're a middling student, fuck off. Instead, you seem to think if you're rich you'll be good in school and only select "good" majors.
Basically: to be ideologically consistent in your post, you'd need to be insisting colleges ONLY accept merit based scholarship funds, and deny anyone offering to pay cash.
editing a bit: just a rant: we put entirely too much stock into college as is. I recall looking for jobs at one point, and a job installing fire exit doors required a degree. Any degree. Look, if you require "any" degree, chances are you're just being a douchebag because it's obvious you don't actually need anything highly advanced. Hell, most of the people I know with advanced degrees don't work in a field related to their degree. So either we all sit down and say college is just an extension of K-12 and make it mandatory, or we admit that it's not and stop being total fucking dicks in the hiring process. Hiring a lawyer? Make sure they went to law school. Hiring a tier 1 help desk tech? Fuck that noise, ask them computer questions because nothing they got in their Comp Sci degree is actually going to do anything for them in the job.
I thought that was the point, construction is a good job, one that likely already has plenty of applicants for it.
I feel the need to reiterate page one's disgust at the "skin in the game" meme that seems to have spread far and wide within the Republican Silly Goose Gaggle.
Veterans just need more skin in the game, obviously.
I'm also thinking that combining a mandate that $2K a year of college tuition must be paid in cash and the phrase "skin in the game" is biggest boon Arizona's amateur porn industry could receive.
"You can't pay for college in Arizona by taking a Stafford loan, but you can by taking a different kind of staff".
Some people seem to believe you cannot ever appreciate something if you have not been tied to a rack and tortured for months by Jack Bauer as a condition of getting it. These people appear to be getting more successful at dictating policy, sadly. -_-;;
I disagree that we should intentionally weaken our capacity to expand human knowledge due solely to excluding people on the basis of their parents' qualifications. If anything the notion that people's worth can be measured by, let alone should be held hostage to, past generations goes against the very idea of universities to begin with.
You've proven Olorin's point a bit there, NC.
You gave a blanket statement that the world doesn't need "art history majors" which are no more or less likely to lead to a solid career than your major. Bully for you for getting a job lined up, guess what? Many other liberal arts majors do just as well as you hopefully will.
College is about more than just getting a job, it's about the intrinsic value of learning more about yourself and the world around you. That's why, in the US at least, most people change majors several times. It's about finding exactly what you want to spend the rest of your life doing. Not everyone's goal is to make a mint.
Restricting access by adding a $2,000 tax on education doesn't solve the problem of market overload, it just forces poor students to drop out or take on crippling debt. It's unconscionable.