• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

BOSTON COLLAGE $42000 per year

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Contrarian said:
The idea of college is not to train you for a job, it is to develop your mind for critical thought. The difference between the achievers and the non-achievers in this society is a quality education. Only 20% of the high school graduates ever complete college. Only 5% graduate from top tier universities like Harvard, Yale, BC, BU, NYU, etc. These people have a distinct advantage over the others. If you think otherwise you are only fooling yourself. If an absolute idiot with a Harvard MBA walks into a job interview... he will get the job before anyone else regardless of the other candidates credentials... just ask "W"...

How to think is one of the most critical things you learn in college. The other thing I came away understanding is just how little we actually know.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
The irony is that people often site the successes of those of us without the premium university educations and it is true... it happens, however, if you had the choice of a HArvard or Yale degree over a state college... take the Ivy degree. People WILL judge you by the pedigree regardless of how smart you are. How competent you are or how successful you are. It's just the way of the world.

By the way... the education they receive IS better. No question.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Contrarian said:
The idea of college is not to train you for a job, it is to develop your mind for critical thought. The difference between the achievers and the non-achievers in this society is a quality education. Only 20% of the high school graduates ever complete college. Only 5% graduate from top tier universities like Harvard, Yale, BC, BU, NYU, etc. These people have a distinct advantage over the others. If you think otherwise you are only fooling yourself. If an absolute idiot with a Harvard MBA walks into a job interview... he will get the job before anyone else regardless of the other candidates credentials... just ask "W"...

Actually, you are thinking of the liberal arts education. To learn to think critically and be well rounded is the characteristic of liberal arts colleges. Universties are more known for job training in a specific field with less regard towards the other subjects. That comment about Harvard is not always true. What people learn and get from Harvard and those top universities is the skill of networking. they meet the people that will help them get their future jobs and those they will compete against. while they have a leg up because of harvard's name, they will still have to compete if the other person interviews better, has a better resume, etc, etc
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Contrarian said:
The irony is that people often site the successes of those of us without the premium university educations and it is true... it happens, however, if you had the choice of a HArvard or Yale degree over a state college... take the Ivy degree. People WILL judge you by the pedigree regardless of how smart you are. How competent you are or how successful you are. It's just the way of the world.

By the way... the education they receive IS better. No question.
Yes. Where you attend will greatly affect where your résumé is accepted. But you always hear someone saying that this person or that person didn't go to college, or sometimes even finish high school, and they become a huge success. But that’s certainly not archetypal. Education and further education helps in ones success.

I’ve noticed that many people making statements of this nature are the same people who’ve been afforded every opulence life could offer and they seem to think they‘ve earned it all. That life owes them some special gift. It’s as if they’ve been born on third base, yet think they hit a triple. All while having no understanding that some people in this world have not been given the luxury of being born even in the batting order. They then seem to think that these same people would prosper, just like them, if they only worked hard enough or weren’t merely lazy.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
Pacridge said:
Yes. Where you attend will greatly affect where your résumé is accepted. But you always hear someone saying that this person or that person didn't go to college, or sometimes even finish high school, and they become a huge success. But that’s certainly not archetypal. Education and further education helps in ones success.

I’ve noticed that many people making statements of this nature are the same people who’ve been afforded every opulence life could offer and they seem to think they‘ve earned it all. That life owes them some special gift. It’s as if they’ve been born on third base, yet think they hit a triple. All while having no understanding that some people in this world have not been given the luxury of being born even in the batting order. They then seem to think that these same people would prosper, just like them, if they only worked hard enough or weren’t merely lazy.

Pac, as usual you are right on both counts. There are great successes for many with modest education. This is usually as an entrepreneur but very rarely in corporate America. CEO's, CFO's etc are high profile positions and the Boards like to show heavy credential. I've always valued common sense and "street smarts" over theoretical thinkers... but as I've gotten older and wiser, I realize the importance of both. The big mistake is that people assume that an Ivy League education represents the best education available. I agree that it's not necessarily so. I've heard it said that the hardest part of a Harvard / Yale etc education is getting in. Once you are there it is a piece of cake. Brown lets you go the entire four years on a "Pass / Fail" basis with no GPA.

You are right also Pac that the fortunate / wealthy / Ivy educated start their kids out with a distinct advantage. I have 2 partners who both have Harvard MBAs, one did undergrad at Brown the other at Duke. It was understood from their early years that this was what they had to do. Thier kids in turn have the same mandate and stronger advantage (alumni kids get preference). The rest of us have to fight through... the only weapon is dedication to getting the best education possible no matter what they choose to do in life.

Unfortunately, the harsh reality is someone with these credentials WILL receive preferential treatment in job interviews. Bosses like to say they have a "Harvard" grad working for them, as if they were responsible for it. The standard joke in my office is... "How many Harvard MBAs does it take to screw in a light bulb? no one knows yet because they haven't figured out the feasibility of the costs related to burning electricity in relation to the material one wishes to read and the benefit ratio of hiring a handyman to do the installation!" ... the rest of us just get it done!
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Contrarian said:
You are right also Pac that the fortunate / wealthy / Ivy educated start their kids out with a distinct advantage. I have 2 partners who both have Harvard MBAs, one did undergrad at Brown the other at Duke. It was understood from their early years that this was what they had to do. Thier kids in turn have the same mandate and stronger advantage (alumni kids get preference). The rest of us have to fight through... the only weapon is dedication to getting the best education possible no matter what they choose to do in life.

I just want to touch on this really quickly...as much as the alumni parents and relatives were a factor way back when, it honestly is not much of a factor anymore. I have to use a point system to explain this...say you have 100 points necessary for admission, maybe 1 or 2 of those might be based on the "legacy" factor. My friend's dad went to harvard, my friend had a 4.2 and a 1400, he didn't get in. The alumni factor really isn't a factor anymore.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ShamMol said:
I just want to touch on this really quickly...as much as the alumni parents and relatives were a factor way back when, it honestly is not much of a factor anymore. I have to use a point system to explain this...say you have 100 points necessary for admission, maybe 1 or 2 of those might be based on the "legacy" factor. My friend's dad went to harvard, my friend had a 4.2 and a 1400, he didn't get in. The alumni factor really isn't a factor anymore.

A 4.2 and a 1400 isn't nearly enough to give you better than a 50% change of getting into Harvard most of the time now, even aside from the alumni factor.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
RightatNYU said:
A 4.2 and a 1400 isn't nearly enough to give you better than a 50% change of getting into Harvard most of the time now, even aside from the alumni factor.

Nonsense... I have two friends... each one had two sons... all four got into Harvard with less than that. Perhaps they showed other traits that were attractive to the admissions people?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Contrarian said:
Nonsense... I have two friends... each one had two sons... all four got into Harvard with less than that. Perhaps they showed other traits that were attractive to the admissions people?

Well, in 2003, Harvard's Freshman entering average SAT score was 1485. The 25th percentile is 1400, while the 75th is 1580. Think about that. 1 in 4 kids has a 1580 or better. 2800 valedictorians applied. GPA is almost meaningless in applications nowadays, so many schools weight it ridiculously, so no matter what it is, it's a crap shoot.

Did those kids attend private schools, or were they not applying for financial aid? Those two things make it slightly easier.

About 12% of kids who apply get in, so either way, that case you speak of is an extreme abberation.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
First off I want to address Freedom69's (hehe) theory about the expense of college. Yes, Boston College is $42,000 per year. I've learned recently that over $30,000 of this is tuition alone. This means that each class costs over $3000 per student. Amazing. Imagine a class with about 20 students in it (supposedly the average class size). The total income from 20 students would be $60,000 for 3 hours a week for 4 months. Ridiculous. Why does this occur?

Here's my theory:

Institutional financial aid costs colleges millions of dollars every year. Not government provided, but institutional provided financial aid. Basically you have an income redistribution, much like the graduated income tax we have in our country. Those who can afford to pay $40,000 per year pick up some of the tab for those who cannot. Where do you think all those scholarships come from?

If we only decreased or eliminated institutional aid it makes sense that tuition costs would go down, therefore eliminating the need for aid. Seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys think?


P.S.: Ironically enough I am actually enrolling at Boston College next fall and I am planning to major in political science. Its a small world after all...
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
AHSPolitician said:
First off I want to address Freedom69's (hehe) theory about the expense of college. Yes, Boston College is $42,000 per year. I've learned recently that over $30,000 of this is tuition alone. This means that each class costs over $3000 per student. Amazing. Imagine a class with about 20 students in it (supposedly the average class size). The total income from 20 students would be $60,000 for 3 hours a week for 4 months. Ridiculous. Why does this occur?

Here's my theory:

Institutional financial aid costs colleges millions of dollars every year. Not government provided, but institutional provided financial aid. Basically you have an income redistribution, much like the graduated income tax we have in our country. Those who can afford to pay $40,000 per year pick up some of the tab for those who cannot. Where do you think all those scholarships come from?

If we only decreased or eliminated institutional aid it makes sense that tuition costs would go down, therefore eliminating the need for aid. Seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys think?


P.S.: Ironically enough I am actually enrolling at Boston College next fall and I am planning to major in political science. Its a small world after all...

I got into boston college, going to a liberal arts college instead...The fact is that that aid makes it possible for this to eventually become a society where calss and race and social standing doesn't matter in education
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
ShamMol said:
The fact is that that aid makes it possible for this to eventually become a society where calss and race and social standing doesn't matter in education

I must agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part.

First, we will start with the agreeing.

"Class" and "Social Standing" should not be a factor in admission to college, but the fact is, that it is an important factor, at least on the student end. I have many friends who cannot go to schools they can get into and be successful at, but cannot afford. This is unfair.

I must somewhat shamefully (yet thankfully and gratefully) admit that my parents are paying my whole way for college. I can't tell you I personally know what it is like to have to deal with poverty. But here's my view:

Hard work over multiple generations can solve this problem of poverty and higher education.

Say a poverty stricken student gets into a public university, accepts financial aid from the government, work/studies his/her butt off in college, and takes out a few loans. This person, if they worked hard in high school may be able to get into an Honors Program of some sorts. If they get good grades and graduate from a decent state school with honors, maybe they can get a decent job, making a decent living and achieving middle class status.

Let's say that this person's kid also works hard in high school. Maybe now the first generation student can afford to get them into a decent private school. If the second generation kid works hard and graduates with honors, maybe they can land a high-paying, high-prestige job.

The third generation of this family then would have the opportunities to go to Ivy League schools, as far as financing goes.

It happened to my family. My grandma was poor as all get up during the Great Depression, but with hard work, careful planning, and lots of love she was able to raise a pretty darn successful family. I am proud of that. I am proud to say that all of my family's money is earned. I will be proud to finance my kids educations with earned money.

So there you have it: the only problem with poverty is that it cannot be solved quickly. The first generation may not live a lavish life, and may not have access to an Ivy. But the fact is that any student today can go to college, regardless of how much money they have. They just need to want it. Improvement comes with time and hard work.

Now, the disagreeing part. Under the Constitution today, race IS something that can be considered in college admissions, and it should be considered. The 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld as constitutional the use of race as a factor in admissions. Simply put, the Court believed that maintaining diversity was an important factor for colleges and universities to consider. Therefore, as the Constitution stands today race will be considered in admissions, not for racist reasons, but for important cultural interaction reasons.

Even if maintaining a high number of minorities was a problem in college admissions, throwing money at these students would not solve the problem. This is a moral issue, a civil rights issue, or even an attitudinal issue, but not a financial issue (see above, if they work hard they'll have the same opportunities)

To summarize:
financial aid to fight poverty=good, but needs to be accompanied by hard work.
financial aid to fight racism=useless without attitudinal changes by the college as well as the minority students
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AHSPolitician said:
First off I want to address Freedom69's (hehe) theory about the expense of college. Yes, Boston College is $42,000 per year. I've learned recently that over $30,000 of this is tuition alone. This means that each class costs over $3000 per student. Amazing. Imagine a class with about 20 students in it (supposedly the average class size). The total income from 20 students would be $60,000 for 3 hours a week for 4 months. Ridiculous. Why does this occur?

Here's my theory:

Institutional financial aid costs colleges millions of dollars every year. Not government provided, but institutional provided financial aid. Basically you have an income redistribution, much like the graduated income tax we have in our country. Those who can afford to pay $40,000 per year pick up some of the tab for those who cannot. Where do you think all those scholarships come from?

If we only decreased or eliminated institutional aid it makes sense that tuition costs would go down, therefore eliminating the need for aid. Seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys think?


P.S.: Ironically enough I am actually enrolling at Boston College next fall and I am planning to major in political science. Its a small world after all...

The reason why that occurs? Because elite universities have professors who are worth 500,000 per year, so the tuition must be high to pay them. You're right that the rich subsidize the poor. It's the way life works.

And just so you know, most aid comes from the fed govt, not the private institution. If you eliminate inst. aid, you do nothing.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ShamMol said:
I got into boston college, going to a liberal arts college instead...The fact is that that aid makes it possible for this to eventually become a society where calss and race and social standing doesn't matter in education

What school did you decide on?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AHSPolitician said:
I must agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part.

First, we will start with the agreeing.

"Class" and "Social Standing" should not be a factor in admission to college, but the fact is, that it is an important factor, at least on the student end. I have many friends who cannot go to schools they can get into and be successful at, but cannot afford. This is unfair.

I must somewhat shamefully (yet thankfully and gratefully) admit that my parents are paying my whole way for college. I can't tell you I personally know what it is like to have to deal with poverty. But here's my view:

Hard work over multiple generations can solve this problem of poverty and higher education.

Say a poverty stricken student gets into a public university, accepts financial aid from the government, work/studies his/her butt off in college, and takes out a few loans. This person, if they worked hard in high school may be able to get into an Honors Program of some sorts. If they get good grades and graduate from a decent state school with honors, maybe they can get a decent job, making a decent living and achieving middle class status.

Let's say that this person's kid also works hard in high school. Maybe now the first generation student can afford to get them into a decent private school. If the second generation kid works hard and graduates with honors, maybe they can land a high-paying, high-prestige job.

The third generation of this family then would have the opportunities to go to Ivy League schools, as far as financing goes.

It happened to my family. My grandma was poor as all get up during the Great Depression, but with hard work, careful planning, and lots of love she was able to raise a pretty darn successful family. I am proud of that. I am proud to say that all of my family's money is earned. I will be proud to finance my kids educations with earned money.

So there you have it: the only problem with poverty is that it cannot be solved quickly. The first generation may not live a lavish life, and may not have access to an Ivy. But the fact is that any student today can go to college, regardless of how much money they have. They just need to want it. Improvement comes with time and hard work.

Now, the disagreeing part. Under the Constitution today, race IS something that can be considered in college admissions, and it should be considered. The 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger upheld as constitutional the use of race as a factor in admissions. Simply put, the Court believed that maintaining diversity was an important factor for colleges and universities to consider. Therefore, as the Constitution stands today race will be considered in admissions, not for racist reasons, but for important cultural interaction reasons.

Even if maintaining a high number of minorities was a problem in college admissions, throwing money at these students would not solve the problem. This is a moral issue, a civil rights issue, or even an attitudinal issue, but not a financial issue (see above, if they work hard they'll have the same opportunities)

To summarize:
financial aid to fight poverty=good, but needs to be accompanied by hard work.
financial aid to fight racism=useless without attitudinal changes by the college as well as the minority students


The idea of using race to decide college acceptance is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The real difference isn't across race, it's across class and ideology. There should be affirmative action for conservative students and poor students to even things out in education.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
RightatNYU said:
There should be affirmative action for conservative students and poor students to even things out in education.

Right on buddy. I feel like as a moderate conservative that I am going to be a minority student on campus. Haha...but I can't imagine them having affirmative action for political leaning. Can you imagine the court cases? The newspaper headlines? "Political Discrimination Hits New High at University of Michigan" "Conservative Group Leads March for Equality" "Karl Rove Gives Speech: 'I Have a Dream'..." Haha. That would be fun.

I think no matter what you do college will always be liberal just because of the kind of people who teach there, and the kind of people who go there even. It seems to me that intellectuals have always leaned left, and that probably won't change any time soon.

Do you have stats on how much financial aid comes from the government and how much comes from the institution via scholarships, etc.? I am curious.
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
FIrst AHS welcome to DP and congratulations on you acceptance to BC.. it is a great school.

Just some quick thoughts as a parent how has son who recently graduated as an engineer and a daughter at Boston University.

The tuition at fine colleges, covers not only the cost of quality professors, it shoulders the enormous costs of buildings, grounds, amenities, support services, security etc. On top of it top notch schools like BC, BU, NYU etc have extensive research programs which require contributions far and above any grants etc that are received. The truth is that the $40+ thousand that we pay is a bargain and requires the institutions to look for alternative funding from endowments, corporate donations, and even athletic programs. It is cheaper to give a star athlete free tuition if a championship yields endorsements and donations... look at the BC hockey program... big bucks come in.

With respect to "supporting" those less fortunate, it is pretty short sighted to say that the "haves" support the "have nots". Don't you think it's better to assist people in elevating themselves TODAY through education so they are more productive citizens as opposed to paying for them TOMORROW (and forever) via increased taxes for subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid etc? I thought you guys were Republicans? I thought you wanted people to go out and earn their own way? Do you really want them to wait "two or three generations"... that means you are willing to support that burden during your lifetime.. not a good idea.

If you want the most vibrant, successful economy possible, the government, as was done in Georgia (I believe), gives FREE tuition to state universities for any HS grad with a B average and some decent SAT... If we really want to stop the cycle of poverty and enhance our competitiveness, we as a people had best invest in those who have proven a desire to succeed.

Lastly, class, money and education DO matter. Kids with parents who have been exposed to a life of education and social standing know what to do, how to do it and where to go to achieve success. Poor working class people have no experience in getting their kids ahead because very often thay are merely trying to survive. So please don't be so short sighted as to think that they have the same advantages as you folks have had. If it wasn't for the environment you grew up in. The support of your parents. The support of enlightened schools... you might be applying for jobs at Wal MArt ot the teamsters union instead of attending BC and NYU... think about it.

Good luck to you both!
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
What school did you decide on?

Deciding between 6 of them...Notre Dame, Colby, Bates, Hamilton, Boston College and Kenyon
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ShamMol said:
Deciding between 6 of them...Notre Dame, Colby, Bates, Hamilton, Boston College and Kenyon


Hahahaha, okay, I can give you a bit of insight on Hamilton.

I was born, raised, and lived my entire life on the Hamilton college campus. Clinton is a great town, really nice, but there isn't **** to do after 9pm. It's a boring area, but a nice campus to live on. My friends who go there like it, it's a pretty liberal school, but you should enjoy that. If you want to know anything about the area, the school, or the classes, let me know, many of my friends parents are professors there.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I gratefully accept your congratulations, Contrarian. I am very excited to go to BC next fall. Everyone keeps telling me how great it is, making me eager to get out there and do some damage in the "quest for knowledge." (no joke)

Contrarian said:
With respect to "supporting" those less fortunate, it is pretty short sighted to say that the "haves" support the "have nots". Don't you think it's better to assist people in elevating themselves TODAY through education so they are more productive citizens as opposed to paying for them TOMORROW (and forever) via increased taxes for subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid etc?

I completely agree with you here (except the part about the "haves" and the "have nots", but we'll get there in a minute). I think that education is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in getting ahead today, and having a higher education degree is almost essential to getting a decent job. I agree that it is important to "assist people in elevating themselves TODAY."

I don't support current governmental solutions to poverty such as food stamps and Medicaid. Yes, there needs to be some safety net program for those who need it, but the terrible mismanagement of these current programs wastes a lot of money.

The fact is, however, that whether through institutional financial aid or through governmental financial aid, one way or another the money to subsidize higher education has to come from somewhere. Private colleges must get some money from donations from corporations and alumni, but much of the money students get at these colleges comes from financial aid provided by the government. WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME FROM IF NOT FROM TAXES? And under our current system the graduated income tax DOES tax the rich proportionally higher than the poor. Therefore, based upon this logic, I disagree that it is "short sighted" to say that the "haves" support the "have-nots" under this system. No, they don't pay for all of it. But there's no doubting that they pay for some of it.

I believe this is one of the only wealth redistribution plans that is logical. Hard-working students who grow up in poverty DESERVE to go to college, probably more than I do. I would certainly not mind the government helping out a student who works hard and takes advantage of the opportunity of a subsidized higher education. Government subsidy of higher ed is not the problem.

My problem is with those students who do receive a subsidized education from the government and then choose to slack off during college. I'm not sure of the precision of the stats, but I know that the University of Minnesota allows federally financed students to get C's and D's in their classes, as well as take 5 to 7 years to graduate. There should be tighter management of financial aid. I DON'T want to pay for a kid to take Pottery 106 and Fun with Felt 205 while he/she changes his/her mind on his/her major 7 times (the average number for all college students) and finally gets his/her Communications degree 6 years down the road. Gross mismanagement of the system is what I feel makes it flawed.

Give money to hard working students via government financial aid, private scholarships, and institutional grants. Great. But college is a privilege and not a right. The government should treat it that way.

Does anybody feel that college is a right ? What do you think?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AHSPolitician said:
I think that education is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in getting ahead today, and having a higher education degree is almost essential to getting a decent job. I agree that it is important to "assist people in elevating themselves TODAY."

I disagree with that. If everyone in the US reeived university education, it wouldn't really do much for us in the way of benefits. The biggest industry in the US is the service industry, and grad school for people who pump gas and flip burgers is useless.

My problem is with those students who do receive a subsidized education from the government and then choose to slack off during college. I'm not sure of the precision of the stats, but I know that the University of Minnesota allows federally financed students to get C's and D's in their classes, as well as take 5 to 7 years to graduate. There should be tighter management of financial aid. I DON'T want to pay for a kid to take Pottery 106 and Fun with Felt 205 while he/she changes his/her mind on his/her major 7 times (the average number for all college students) and finally gets his/her Communications degree 6 years down the road. Gross mismanagement of the system is what I feel makes it flawed.

That's a good argument for requirements for scholarships. Need-based aid is foolish when compared to merit-based.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
AHSPolitician said:
I think that education is THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in getting ahead today, and having a higher education degree is almost essential to getting a decent job.

RightatNYU said:
I disagree with that. If everyone in the US reeived university education, it wouldn't really do much for us in the way of benefits. The biggest industry in the US is the service industry, and grad school for people who pump gas and flip burgers is useless.

Notice the adjective "decent" modifying the noun "job". I wouldn't classify gas pumping and burger flipping as "decent" jobs. To clarify, I was speaking specifically about jobs which you can actually make a career of and make enough to live off of. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

It would be ridiculously expensive to fund everyone going to college after high school, if they only ended up working as a cashier at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. I repeat from earlier:

AHSPolitician said:
college is a privilege and not a right
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AHSPolitician said:
Notice the adjective "decent" modifying the noun "job". I wouldn't classify gas pumping and burger flipping as "decent" jobs. To clarify, I was speaking specifically about jobs which you can actually make a career of and make enough to live off of. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

It would be ridiculously expensive to fund everyone going to college after high school, if they only ended up working as a cashier at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. I repeat from earlier:

My point is that there is no real need to "elevate" people. The majority of the jobs in the US and world will always be service industry jobs which rarely require post secondary education. Increasing the percentage of the population who attends college only increases the employee pool for higher skill employers.
 

AHSPolitician

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Minneapolis, MN
RightatNYU said:
Increasing the percentage of the population who attends college only increases the employee pool for higher skill employers.

With service jobs going overseas to low-cost labor markets such as China and India, we NEED a larger pool of higher skill employees. People complain about losing jobs to foreign markets, but most of the ones complaining are in the blue-collar industrial sector, and low-skill service sectors. Thus higher education IS a necessity so we can keep those high-skill jobs here in America.

Do you agree?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AHSPolitician said:
With service jobs going overseas to low-cost labor markets such as China and India, we NEED a larger pool of higher skill employees. People complain about losing jobs to foreign markets, but most of the ones complaining are in the blue-collar industrial sector, and low-skill service sectors. Thus higher education IS a necessity so we can keep those high-skill jobs here in America.

Do you agree?

In some ways.

Most of our service industry jobs are NOT going overseas, that's a myth. The vast, vast majority of our service industry jobs are here in America.
 
Top Bottom