MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on February 09, 2018, 12:04:11 PM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/373110-university-of-wisconsin-madison-to-offer-free-tuition-for
-
So if a family makes 56000.01 they're SOL.
-
So if a family makes 56000.01 they're SOL.
Exactly what I said when I read that headline. Seems illogical to me. I don't usually get hung up on things having to be absolutely fair (except on a basketball court that my team is playing on), but this seems really unfair. Are people going to go into their HR departments and ask for a pay cut?
-
Exactly what I said when I read that headline. Seems illogical to me. I don't usually get hung up on things having to be absolutely fair (except on a basketball court that my team is playing on), but this seems really unfair. Are people going to go into their HR departments and ask for a pay cut?
Had a friend in high school who's parents were close enough to retirement that they could afford to do so and as a such had zero income and so he got a free ride to Notre Dame (obviously we aren't friends any more). When you give away stuff for some but not all there will always be inequities and/or ways to game the system.
-
What's amazing is this program will cost $3.3m .. it's a pittance.
UW-Madison's budget is $3b.
-
So if a family makes 56000.01 they're SOL.
There is still needs-based financial aid one would presume, I doubt it goes from zero tuition to full tuition.
-
In other news, UW-Madison announcing they will increase out-of-state admissions quotas by 5,000% for students whose families make under $56,000.
-
Is this a sly way to get more walk-ons?
-
What's amazing is this program will cost $3.3m .. it's a pittance.
UW-Madison's budget is $3b.
While you are correct, that's not fungible money.
30% of that is federal financial aid or grants that must be spent for an intended purpose. (financial aid, research, etc.)
14% are gifts, which are usually restricted in nature but can be more flexible. In face most of the program is being funded through gifts.
13% are auxiliaries, which is operating revenue that is usually turned back to the function (bookstore, athletics, etc.) They are using some of this income to fund this.
They have said they aren't using tuition or state revenue, which is about 35% of the budget and pretty flexible.
So yeah to a school like UW-Madison its fairly easy to swing this. However their budget is must more restrictive than the $3B figure implies.
This is an enormous PR win for the university however. IMO Chancellor Blank made a big deal of how it impacts rural areas and small communities because they are trying to counter the thought that Madison is an elite, liberal institution that doesn't serve most Wisconsinites.
-
Understood about the funding sources.
However it's all cut, $3.3m is spent every 9 hours at UW-Madison. It's small and could be doubled, quadrupled, and it's almost a rounding error.
The first question I'd ask is .. How much would it cost to make the $56k, $66k instead?
.. Unrelated, what are the procedures for an 18 year old saying, hey, I am my own family unit, I make zero.
-
Exactly what I said when I read that headline. Seems illogical to me. I don't usually get hung up on things having to be absolutely fair (except on a basketball court that my team is playing on), but this seems really unfair. Are people going to go into their HR departments and ask for a pay cut?
My guess is that there will be some moms who will be quitting their part-time jobs.
-
Ha .. good old reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/7wf1e7/ulpt_if_you_live_in_wisconsin_get_your_parents_to/
-
Understood about the funding sources.
However it's all cut, $3.3m is spent every 9 hours at UW-Madison. It's small and could be doubled, quadrupled, and it's almost a rounding error.
The first question I'd ask is .. How much would it cost to make the $56k, $66k instead?
.. Unrelated, what are the procedures for an 18 year old saying, hey, I am my own family unit, I make zero.
It's still a business. They have be responsible.
Anyway, an 18 year old has to meet independence standards for financial aid to be able to do what you are suggesting. It's very restrictive.
-
My guess is that there will be some moms who will be quitting their part-time jobs.
*parents
-
Here is the problem with programs like this, they are great for the students that are able to get into UW, but most kids from families that make less than $56k, have next to no chance of getting in to begin with.
They don't have access to the necessary resources and environment conducive to getting into the university in the first place.
That is why it only costs $3.3M for the entire program. That represents the tuition for 313 students, or less than 1% of the undergraduate enrollment at UW.
-
Here is the problem with programs like this, they are great for the students that are able to get into UW, but most kids from families that make less than $56k, have next to no chance of getting in to begin with.
They don't have access to the necessary resources and environment conducive to getting into the university in the first place.
That is why it only costs $3.3M for the entire program. That represents the tuition for 313 students, or less than 1% of the undergraduate enrollment at UW.
No it's way more than that. Remember this program will fund whatever financial aid doesn't fund up to the cost of tuition and fees. So all grants, scholarships and loans will be applied first.
They estimate about 800 students per class.
-
No it's way more than that. Remember this program will fund whatever financial aid doesn't fund up to the cost of tuition and fees. So all grants, scholarships and loans will be applied first.
They estimate about 800 students per class.
I was unaware that this covers whatever financial aid does not. Thank you for the correction.
How do they do that exactly, as this is only for tuition and not room and board? Do they apply all financial aid to room and board first?
-
Ha .. good old reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/7wf1e7/ulpt_if_you_live_in_wisconsin_get_your_parents_to/
Hilarious... first comment is about how UW is some no-name liberal arts school, and the peanut gallery goes wild.
-
I was unaware that this covers whatever financial aid does not. Thank you for the correction.
How do they do that exactly, as this is only for tuition and not room and board? Do they apply all financial aid to room and board first?
I don’t know. I just read the statement they put out. Maybe they apply a ratio of some sort?
-
I don’t know. I just read the statement they put out. Maybe they apply a ratio of some sort?
It looks as if they will assign all financial aid to Tuition, and then just add in a bit extra (average of about $1k per student) to make sure Tuition is free. Students are still responsible for all of Room and Board and all non-segregated fees.
-
Here is the problem with programs like this, they are great for the students that are able to get into UW, but most kids from families that make less than $56k, have next to no chance of getting in to begin with.
They don't have access to the necessary resources and environment conducive to getting into the university in the first place.
That is why it only costs $3.3M for the entire program. That represents the tuition for 313 students, or less than 1% of the undergraduate enrollment at UW.
Every kid that goes to public school has the access and resources necessary to go to UW. As to the environment I agree with you. Just because your family makes 56K or less does not mean your too stupid to get into UW.
-
Every kid that goes to public school has the access and resources necessary to go to UW. As to the environment I agree with you. Just because your family makes 56K or less does not mean your too stupid to get into UW.
Not true. Many kids from poor families do not have access to things like the internet, and tutors, and in some cases even textbooks that are essential to completing course material.
They are in competition for a select number of slots, with inferior resources.
Education, particularly in regards to competition for select universities, is highly dependent on resources outside the school that the majority of lower and even middle class families do not have access to.
-
Not true. Many kids from poor families do not have access to things like the internet, and tutors, and in some cases even textbooks that are essential to completing course material.
They are in competition for a select number of slots, with inferior resources.
Education, particularly in regards to competition for select universities, is highly dependent on resources outside the school that the majority of lower and even middle class families do not have access to.
So you are telling me with all the money we put into public schools they are not educating our kids to be admitted to a "select" public institution such as UW because they don't have textbooks? Where is the money going?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.e2b57550e930
-
Not true. Many kids from poor families do not have access to things like the internet, and tutors, and in some cases even textbooks that are essential to completing course material.
They are in competition for a select number of slots, with inferior resources.
Education, particularly in regards to competition for select universities, is highly dependent on resources outside the school that the majority of lower and even middle class families do not have access to.
Okay are you telling me middle class families don't have access to internet. Come on now.
-
So you are telling me with all the money we put into public schools they are not educating our kids to be admitted to a "select" public institution such as UW because they don't have textbooks? Where is the money going?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.e2b57550e930
I'm telling you that there is a very strong correlation between family income and standardized test scores. So yes, the money that we are pouring into public schools isn't leveling the playing field. It's much more complex than "money."
-
Okay are you telling me middle class families don't have access to internet. Come on now.
I put a list of items: Internet, tutors, etc. You are cherry picking internet from my list.
Middle class families making a total of under $56k do not have access to tutors and other resources the people they are competing against do have access to.
About 18% of households do not even have a computer. Over 20% do not have any internet.
The majority of american households cannot afford tutors, or ACT/SAT strategy classes/books/training.
Getting into Universities like UW is highly competitive, unequal access to resources puts many children at an extreme disadvantage.
-
I put a list of items: Internet, tutors, etc. You are cherry picking internet from my list.
Middle class families making a total of under $56k do not have access to tutors and other resources the people they are competing against do have access to.
About 18% of households do not even have a computer. Over 20% do not have any internet.
The majority of american households cannot afford tutors, or ACT/SAT strategy classes/books/training.
Getting into Universities like UW is highly competitive, unequal access to resources puts many children at an extreme disadvantage.
This is why I have a major problem with these "test prep" businesses... to what extent are they actually educating the kids academically as opposed to simply teaching them how to game the system with "test taking strategies." Obviously, the rich kids have disproportionate access to these programs which I firmly believe is a manner of artificial inflation of test scores. So even in testing, there's a poor tax being paid by otherwise hard-working, inner-city kids who are just trying to get a leg up in life who - on paper - will generally show up with lower test scores than their counterparts in the tony burbs.
But honestly, I don't know what the solution is. You can't simple ban any sort of test preparation courses (especially to the extent that they're actually teaching something, e.g. basic vocab, math, etc., that has application outside of the test itself), and even if you did, how do you enforce it? And you can't mandate state-wide or nation-wide test prep to level the playing field because then the suburban schools will just hire the better test prep teachers (or the businesses will shift their focus to something else to inflate scores).
-
Exactly what I said when I read that headline. Seems illogical to me. I don't usually get hung up on things having to be absolutely fair (except on a basketball court that my team is playing on), but this seems really unfair. Are people going to go into their HR departments and ask for a pay cut?
Agreed. Means testing sucks! Universalism rules.
Free public college for all.
Medicare for all.
Universal basic income.
We'd be an infinitely better society with those 3 things.
-
Agreed. Means testing sucks! Universalism rules.
Free public college for all.
Medicare for all.
Universal basic income.
We'd be an infinitely better society with those 3 things.
Free college and universal healthcare has definitely ruined Germany, Finland and Sweden.
Those are the real sh-tholes.
-
Free college and universal healthcare has definitely ruined Germany, Finland and Sweden.
Those are the real sh-tholes.
I couldn't imagine the horror of avoiding crippling debt for decades
-
Agreed. Means testing sucks! Universalism rules.
Free public college for all.
Medicare for all.
Universal basic income.
We'd be an infinitely better society with those 3 things.
Free college for all? But that wouldn't be fair. What about all those people who paid their own way!
-
Free college for all? But that wouldn't be fair. What about all those people who paid their own way!
They can refund me, adjusted for inflation.
-
TN, OR, RI, CA, KY, AR have a collection of free/1/2 year community/college type programs.
NY state is phasing in free tuition for incomes under $125k at SUNY and CUNY.
https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-excelsior-scholarship
It'll be interesting what happens in NY .. I wonder if it's swamped.
-
I'm telling you that there is a very strong correlation between family income and standardized test scores. So yes, the money that we are pouring into public schools isn't leveling the playing field. It's much more complex than "money."
Correct!
The single best indicator for standardized test scores is parents educational achievement and that is strongly corrected with their income.
And it is not because rich parents pay for practice classes. Rather the wealthier the parents more likely reached high levels of education themselves (say graduated from a very selective school or a post-graduate degree) and they demand/expect their kids achieve at least their levels of education.
Poor parents do the same, they demand of their kids they achieve at least their level of education. So, if that is a high school, technical or associate degree, they are not demanding/expecting their kids to apply to ivy league schools like kids with two parents with post-graduate degrees from selective schools.
-----
Why do you think so many professional athletes have parent(s) that were athletes? Because if you are a typical family, you're just happy to see your kids go out for sports and exercise and have fun. You put no more demands on them than that.
But if your Jalen Brunson, and your dad is Rick Brunson, it is not about having fun and exercise. He demands more of his son. He demands a pro career.
Parents also expect their kids to at least reach their level of athletic achievement. Since most have no real athletic achievement, they don't expect more than that out of their kids.
-
Correct!
The single best indicator for standardized test scores is parents educational achievement and that is strongly corrected with their income.
And it is not because rich parents pay for practice classes. Rather the wealthier the parents more likely reached high levels of education themselves (say graduated from a very selective school or a post-graduate degree) and they demand/expect their kids achieve at least their levels of education.
Poor parents do the same, they demand of their kids they achieve at least their level of education. So, if that is a high school, technical or associate degree, they are not demanding/expecting their kids to apply to ivy league schools like kids with two parents with post-graduate degrees from selective schools.
A lot of grand speculation there.
-
A lot of grand speculation there.
You're playing dumb ...
How to predict a student’s SAT score: Look at the parents’ tax return
http://www.danpink.com/2012/02/how-to-predict-a-students-sat-score-look-at-the-parents-tax-return/
These four charts show how the SAT favors rich, educated families
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/?utm_term=.a0ea79e27c3e
How Family Background Influences Student Achievement
http://educationnext.org/how-family-background-influences-student-achievement/
-
You're playing dumb ...
How to predict a student’s SAT score: Look at the parents’ tax return
http://www.danpink.com/2012/02/how-to-predict-a-students-sat-score-look-at-the-parents-tax-return/
These four charts show how the SAT favors rich, educated families
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/?utm_term=.a0ea79e27c3e
How Family Background Influences Student Achievement
http://educationnext.org/how-family-background-influences-student-achievement/
He isn't.
-
You're playing dumb ...
How to predict a student’s SAT score: Look at the parents’ tax return
http://www.danpink.com/2012/02/how-to-predict-a-students-sat-score-look-at-the-parents-tax-return/
These four charts show how the SAT favors rich, educated families
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/05/these-four-charts-show-how-the-sat-favors-the-rich-educated-families/?utm_term=.a0ea79e27c3e
How Family Background Influences Student Achievement
http://educationnext.org/how-family-background-influences-student-achievement/
The speculation is your claim that kids of wealthier parents do better simply because their parents demand more, as opposed to a host of other factors, many of which are cited in the stories you linked.
These other factors include access to better schools, more time for parental involvement and access to educational resources outside school (books at home, computers, tutors, libraries, camps, music lessons, etc.).
-
The speculation is your claim that kids of wealthier parents do better simply because their parents demand more, as opposed to a host of other factors, many of which are cited in the stories you linked.
These other factors include access to better schools, more time for parental involvement and access to educational resources outside school (books at home, computers, tutors, libraries, camps, music lessons, etc.).
Is that all part of "demanding more?"
Besides Freakonomics thinks everything you believe matters actually does not
https://datascience.berkeley.edu/freakonomics-data-science/
data patterns have shown that factors correlated with a child’s test scores include having highly educated parents, a high socioeconomic status, English spoken at home, parents who are involved in the PTA, and a house full of books. Makes sense, right?
On the flip side, however, factors such as a family being “intact,” having parents who read to the child nearly every day or regularly take him or her to museums, having a mother stay at home until the child reaches kindergarten, or even frequent television viewing has been shown to have no impact on a child’s eventual test scores.
I'm telling you that there is a very strong correlation between family income and standardized test scores. So yes, the money that we are pouring into public schools isn't leveling the playing field. It's much more complex than "money."
Everything you noted (like music lessons) are available in nearly all public schools. As noted by Sultan, it is not about a lack of money or resources, it is about the priorities set by the parents (more complex). The wealthier they are the bigger the priority is toward education.
-
I put a list of items: Internet, tutors, etc. You are cherry picking internet from my list.
Middle class families making a total of under $56k do not have access to tutors and other resources the people they are competing against do have access to.
About 18% of households do not even have a computer. Over 20% do not have any internet.
The majority of american households cannot afford tutors, or ACT/SAT strategy classes/books/training.
Getting into Universities like UW is highly competitive, unequal access to resources puts many children at an extreme disadvantage.
I thought you were the expert on education that cannot tell us all the secret inside information that makes us idiots unqualified to discuss this subject.
Because after you embarrassed yourself suggests that poor kids lack intent access (even though about 97% of those over 13 have access to it), and they cannot even get a textbook, now you perpetuate the myth of ACT/SAT strategy classes matter.
Intensive ACT test prep during class leads to lower scores; students don’t connect grades, study habits to exam scores
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2008/05/27/intensive-act-test-prep-during-class-leads-lower-scores-students-don-t-connect-gr
Yes, practice and get "the hang of it" ... but you can do that for the cost of electricity at home on numerous websites. You do not need a $1,000 Kaplan class.
The $1,000 Kaplan course only tells you the priority the parents set as they are willing to pay it. the $1,000 Kaplan class means the parents make the kids leave the house (and the TV, phone, net) and focus on practicing the test.
A poor parent can do the same at the kitchen table on a second-hand kindle they bought for $50 (remember 97% of the country has intent access.
Kaplan does not have "the secret" they give only to rich kids.
-
I'll bottom line it for you ...
Poor kids are at a disadvantage to rich kids because many poor kids have sh!theads parents. As they reason they are poor is the parents are sh!theads.
No amount of money to public schools and "resources" can offset sh!theads parents.
-
The speculation is your claim that kids of wealthier parents do better simply because their parents demand more, as opposed to a host of other factors, many of which are cited in the stories you linked.
These other factors include access to better schools, more time for parental involvement and access to educational resources outside school (books at home, computers, tutors, libraries, camps, music lessons, etc.).
People with high IQs usually procreate with other people with high IQs. Same with middle and low. They tend to produce children with similar ability. I never went to camp, took music lessons, had a tutor or had access to a library growing up. There were 50+ kids in my classrooms throughout grammar school and I doubt most of the nuns who taught me had college degrees (they were "imported" from Lithuania). My parents loved and encouraged me, to be sure, but the biggest advantage/head start they gave me was their genes.
-
Free college and universal healthcare has definitely ruined Germany, Finland and Sweden.
Those are the real sh-tholes.
If you're OK with only the gifted going to college (see Germany) maybe it's doable in the USA. Finland and Norway are small, homogeneous cultures - any comp to the US is specious.
-
I'll bottom line it for you ...
Poor kids are at a disadvantage to rich kids because many poor kids have sh!theads parents. As they reason they are poor is the parents are sh!theads.
No amount of money to public schools and "resources" can offset sh!theads parents.
Right. The only reason people are poor is because they are sh!theads.
You learned a lot at Marquette I see.
-
If you're OK with only the gifted going to college (see Germany) maybe it's doable in the USA. Finland and Norway are small, homogeneous cultures - any comp to the US is specious.
Why is that a reason why universal secondary education would work in some places but not the U.S.?
And B.S. on the cost. It would be ~$35 billion to achieve in the United States. We gave the military a $75billion annual increase while cutting taxes without batting an eye.
-
If you're OK with only the gifted going to college (see Germany) maybe it's doable in the USA. Finland and Norway are small, homogeneous cultures - any comp to the US is specious.
+1 about this tied saw of comparing the US to countries of sameness with less than 10 million in population.
Regarding mimicking successful idea, by most metrics homeschoolers are more successful than kids that go to public schools. Maybe we should close all public schools for homeschooling?
Oh wait, you say, homeschoolers are self-selected which is why they do better. Yes, you are correct, which makes them like the elite/talented that go to college in Germany.
College is cheap or free in Europe but it hard to qualify. Harvard is the same way. They will not charge if a family making less than $75k. But you have to get in first.
Here we want it to be free and accessible to all. Cannot have both. Can have it accessible to all, and then the product is crap. Or you can have it free and the vast majority will never get in.
-
Right. The only reason people are poor is because they are sh!theads.
You learned a lot at Marquette I see.
You do realize it is pretty hard to be poor in this country. You have to try.
Everyone that is poor has a reason, drugs, mental problems, don't speak English, etc.
Poor, for a family of four is $25k
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/
13.5% of the population is poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
-
+1 about this tied saw of comparing the US to countries of sameness with less than 10 million in population.
Regarding mimicking successful idea, by most metrics homeschoolers are more successful than kids that go to public schools. Maybe we should close all public schools for homeschooling?
Oh wait, you say, homeschoolers are self-selected which is why they do better. Yes, you are correct, which makes them like the elite/talented that go to college in Germany.
College is cheap or free in Europe but it hard to qualify. Harvard is the same way. They will not charge if a family making less than $75k. But you have to get in first.
Here we want it to be free and accessible to all. Cannot have both. Can have it accessible to all, and then the product is crap. Or you can have it free and the vast majority will never get in.
Again, what does that mean in context of providing education? Countries of sameness? Can you guys just say what you mean?
-
Again, what does that mean in context of providing education? Countries of sameness? Can you guys just say what you mean?
A rich country of 10 million blonde people cannot be a model for a country of 325 million people of many background and issues, both current and historical.
It's like Pakuni saying that the entire country should mimic successful things that the rich white suburbs do. The Scandinavian countries of Europe are their equivalent of rich white suburbs.
-
The only European countries of any size that are wealthier or have higher income than the United States on a per capita basis are Norway and Switzerland.
-
Why is that a reason why universal secondary education would work in some places but not the U.S.?
And B.S. on the cost. It would be ~$35 billion to achieve in the United States. We gave the military a $75billion annual increase while cutting taxes without batting an eye.
You are assuming that in these countries anyone who want to go to college can do so. That's not true. In most, if not all of them, you are put at a career track in primary school. Imagine what would happen in the U.S. if they started telling people that, sorry, college was not an option for their third grader and he or she is going into the skilled trade track.
-
Or, as a third grader, you start getting structure and direction toward a career where you will have a job, guaranteed training, guaranteed health care, and guaranteed pension. While getting 6 weeks of vacation and a year of maternity/paternity leave. Even if you are a ditch digger. Not that there is anything wrong with digging ditches.
-
You are assuming that in these countries anyone who want to go to college can do so. That's not true. In most, if not all of them, you are put at a career track in primary school. Imagine what would happen in the U.S. if they started telling people that, sorry, college was not an option for their third grader and he or she is going into the skilled trade track.
That's o.k. According to Lenny, all kids borne of stupid parents are going to be stupid anyway so based on their parents intelligence we can just place them in career tracks they can be successful in.
People with high IQs usually procreate with other people with high IQs. Same with middle and low. They tend to produce children with similar ability. I never went to camp, took music lessons, had a tutor or had access to a library growing up. There were 50+ kids in my classrooms throughout grammar school and I doubt most of the nuns who taught me had college degrees (they were "imported" from Lithuania). My parents loved and encouraged me, to be sure, but the biggest advantage/head start they gave me was their genes.
-
Again, what does that mean in context of providing education? Countries of sameness? Can you guys just say what you mean?
I think we all know what they mean.
-
A rich country of 10 million blonde people cannot be a model for a country of 325 million people of many background and issues, both current and historical.
It's like Pakuni saying that the entire country should mimic successful things that the rich white suburbs do. The Scandinavian countries of Europe are their equivalent of rich white suburbs.
I said this when?
Could you explain for us why race matters when it comes to paying for college education?
-
I thought you were the expert on education that cannot tell us all the secret inside information that makes us idiots unqualified to discuss this subject.
Because after you embarrassed yourself suggests that poor kids lack intent access (even though about 97% of those over 13 have access to it), and they cannot even get a textbook, now you perpetuate the myth of ACT/SAT strategy classes matter.
You do realize it is pretty hard to be poor in this country. You have to try.
Everyone that is poor has a reason, drugs, mental problems, don't speak English, etc.
Poor, for a family of four is $25k
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/
13.5% of the population is poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
I'll bottom line it for you ...
Poor kids are at a disadvantage to rich kids because many poor kids have sh!theads parents. As they reason they are poor is the parents are sh!theads.
No amount of money to public schools and "resources" can offset sh!theads parents.
Never embarrassed myself, I provided factual information that you refuse to accept. The only embarrassing thing was ever trying to engage in a rational conversation with a sh!thead like you.
Your above statements are ill-informed, vile, and wrong. I'm actually ashamed that some of the things you said were even posted on here. But unfortunately you are so clueless and unwilling to learn that there is no point is discussing anything with you.
-
For all of you Euro fans, I have a serious question: Have any of you ever been to a European university?
If you have, you would realize that the American college experience is completely different from the European college experience--apples and oranges.
Furthermore, European universities are generally highly selective. So while it is indeed true that tuition is $0, it is also true that it is difficult to get in. If Wisconsin were a European country, the only universities would be UW-Madison, Marquette, and UW-Milwaukee, all of which would likely be highly selective. There is no European equivalent to, say, UW-Parkside, which is an "inclusive admit" school where virtually anyone is accepted.
If there is anything to be envied about Europe with respect to education, it is their secondary educational framework. Students go to school longer during the day, have fewer gaps in the school year, etc. They often need to pass a test just to graduate high school. Some schools even have "junior colleges" attached to the schools where students can spend an additional two years beyond high school learning a trade. (I know for a fact that the latter two points apply to France, but I believe that they also apply to various other Euro countries).
-
Or, as a third grader, you start getting structure and direction toward a career where you will have a job, guaranteed training, guaranteed health care, and guaranteed pension. While getting 6 weeks of vacation and a year of maternity/paternity leave. Even if you are a ditch digger. Not that there is anything wrong with digging ditches.
Not if you ask most Americans. It would take a huge cultural shift that I don't see happening. Self-determination is a pillar of American life. Being told you can't go to college isn't exactly in line with that.
Rich folks whose kids were assigned the ditch-digging track would tie up the courts.
And not matter what criteria was used to track, it will be called racist, reverse-racist, sexist, classist, etc.
-
Not if you ask most Americans. It would take a huge cultural shift that I don't see happening. Self-determination is a pillar of American life. Being told you can't go to college isn't exactly in line with that.
Rich folks whose kids were assigned the ditch-digging track would tie up the courts.
And not matter what criteria was used to track, it will be called racist, reverse-racist, sexist, classist, etc.
Doesn't have to be either or. There are hundreds (thousands?) of private universities and colleges in the U.S. that would be free to accept students as they see fit and charge as they wish, If rich folks' kid doesn't qualify for public funding at a public school, he or she is free to pay the private sector for a degree.
-
Doesn't have to be either or. There are hundreds (thousands?) of private universities and colleges in the U.S. that would be free to accept students as they see fit and charge as they wish, If rich folks' kid doesn't qualify for public funding at a public school, he or she is free to pay the private sector for a degree.
What about the poor folks? My guess is that these other countries don't provide a lot of financial aid for the private universities.
-
Not if you ask most Americans. It would take a huge cultural shift that I don't see happening. Self-determination is a pillar of American life. Being told you can't go to college isn't exactly in line with that.
Rich folks whose kids were assigned the ditch-digging track would tie up the courts.
And not matter what criteria was used to track, it will be called racist, reverse-racist, sexist, classist, etc.
I recognize the paradigm shift required of the American ethos to go to that kind of system. The same kind that would be willing to pay the higher taxes in exchange for more government support. Or getting rid of guns. Or culturally embracing green energy. It isn't likely any time soon. But there are functioning models out there.
-
I think we all know what they mean.
I know. It's f*cking disgusting.
-
What about the poor folks? My guess is that these other countries don't provide a lot of financial aid for the private universities.
So now your argument against better public funding for higher education is that it's unfair to poor folks?
The only thing that would change for poor folks is that higher education would be far easier to attain without massive debt for those who qualify. Those who don't qualify shouldn't be going to university anyhow (just like rich kids who don't qualify shouldn't be going ... but they're free to waste their money as they see fit).
-
You are assuming that in these countries anyone who want to go to college can do so. That's not true. In most, if not all of them, you are put at a career track in primary school. Imagine what would happen in the U.S. if they started telling people that, sorry, college was not an option for their third grader and he or she is going into the skilled trade track.
That's not a good idea, and it's not a necessary condition to providing free secondary education. Straw man.
-
People with high IQs usually procreate with other people with high IQs. Same with middle and low. They tend to produce children with similar ability. I never went to camp, took music lessons, had a tutor or had access to a library growing up. There were 50+ kids in my classrooms throughout grammar school and I doubt most of the nuns who taught me had college degrees (they were "imported" from Lithuania). My parents loved and encouraged me, to be sure, but the biggest advantage/head start they gave me was their genes.
Hooray for eugenics.
-
A rich country of 10 million blonde people cannot be a model for a country of 325 million people of many background and issues, both current and historical.
It's like Pakuni saying that the entire country should mimic successful things that the rich white suburbs do. The Scandinavian countries of Europe are their equivalent of rich white suburbs.
Repeat this again slowly to yourself. Say it a few times. Reflect on how it makes you sound, and what it means to say something like that in the context of how to allocate a resource like education. Or anything, really.
-
I think we all know what they mean.
Please stop with the holier than thou bullst$t. I LOVE the fact that the USA is a multi cultural melting pot. It makes us better/stronger in many ways. It also means that simple, one size fits all solutions don't fit us the way they would a country that has a simple, one size fits all culture. Being intentionally myopic and then claiming moral superiority because of it doesn't advance the ball even a little.
-
That's not a good idea, and it's not a necessary condition to providing free secondary education. Straw man.
My point is that no country provides secondary education of every student's choice for free.
And I don't think any country should. There are already plenty of students in college that for a variety of reasons have no business being there.
-
Please stop with the holier than thou bullst$t. I LOVE the fact that the USA is a multi cultural melting pot. It makes us better/stronger in many ways. It also means that simple, one size fits all solutions don't fit us the way they would a country that has a simple, one size fits all culture. Being intentionally myopic and then claiming moral superiority because of it doesn't advance the ball even a little.
This does not make any sense to me. Can you expound upon that?
-
My point is that no country provides secondary education of every student's choice for free.
And I don't think any country should. There are already plenty of students in college that for a variety of reasons have no business being there.
It's not like admissions standards would have to change in order for the tuition bill to change. You would still have to get in to a public university, exactly like you have to now. I just don't buy this argument.
-
You do realize it is pretty hard to be poor in this country. You have to try.
Everyone that is poor has a reason, drugs, mental problems, don't speak English, etc.
once again you prove you are a moron
-
once again you prove you are a moron
Unreal
-
It's not like admissions standards would have to change in order for the tuition bill to change. You would still have to get in to a public university, exactly like you have to now. I just don't buy this argument.
Of course admission standards would change. There would be a finite number of slots in said schools. The schools would be flooded by kids who would otherwise be going to private universities because, hey, free tuition. How many Marquette students from Wisconsin would still be enrolled there if they could go to Madison for free? Not zero, but far less than there is now. That makes admissions pool much greater, and as a result, the school would be more selective.
-
Of course admission standards would change. There would be a finite number of slots in said schools. The schools would be flooded by kids who would otherwise be going to private universities because, hey, free tuition. How many Marquette students from Wisconsin would still be enrolled there if they could go to Madison for free? Not zero, but far less than there is now. That makes admissions pool much greater, and as a result, the school would be more selective.
On the margins, sure it would become more competitive. It probably also means that some private colleges will go down in stature or even cease to exist. Maybe even Marquette! C'est la vie.
But that's the complete opposite of your concern, which was that too many people that shouldn't be in college are already in college.
-
Please stop with the holier than thou bullst$t. I LOVE the fact that the USA is a multi cultural melting pot. It makes us better/stronger in many ways. It also means that simple, one size fits all solutions don't fit us the way they would a country that has a simple, one size fits all culture. Being intentionally myopic and then claiming moral superiority because of it doesn't advance the ball even a little.
1. I never claimed moral superiority. If you're feeling morally inferior because you believe what works in a predominantly white country could never work in one with brown people, that's on you.
2. Claiming that some countries are "simple, one size fits all" cultures because of the color of the people's skin is pretty ignorant.
3. Other things that don't advance the ball ... genetic determinism.
-
My point is that no country provides secondary education of every student's choice for free.
And I don't think any country should. There are already plenty of students in college that for a variety of reasons have no business being there.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone here argue the opposite of this.
-
once again you prove you are a moron
Not to pick on Waldo, but this is why we can't have nice things.