"the Welfare of the 21st Century"

[TwinTownBisonFan]

because there is literally no commitment whatsoever to education from these for-profits. so long as your check clears, you will end up with a piece of paper. moreover, these institutions exist almost solely for the purpose of bilking the federal student loan system - whereas more legitimate schools actually have a legitimate educational mission. some of them may not be as prestigious as others - but since state governments subsidize their college and university systems extensively, it's pretty clear they aren't in the business of making money off of them.

But again, there are plenty of examples around the country of brick and mortar places where you almost just have to show up enough times to get a degree. It's not as if graduation rates at the less prestigious schools are low - they graduate plenty of people, regardless if they learned something or not.

And how do you assume just because they get subsidies that they aren't about making money off of their students? That's actually naive, very much unlike you. Tuition at colleges and universities part of state systems has mushroomed over the years too, again, right in line and often above federal student loan outlays. Interest in state schools in pulling in more out of state students (and hence higher tuitions) is also high - are they only doing that for the "educational mission"?

Are schools like the U of Phoenix pure and noble in their educational mission? I'm pretty sure they aren't. But I'm also pretty sure that they aren't all that different than almost every other brick and mortar institution out there - they like to make money, and the more the better.

I'm not saying that state schools are some bastion of unflappable morality. they aren't. the difference is, they actually produce tangible benefits - which is more than can be said of U of P or Capella, which produce wastepaper.

look at state schools and the amount of corporate research they do - and how many are complete whores for it... the thing is - their need for money, especially in the last 20 years, stems almost directly from having their funding slashed routinely. For example, North Dakota has it in the state constitution that in-state tuition will be subsidized something like 66 or 75% (i forget which) - however, they fell from that standard about 15 years ago - with no legal repercussions... now they are subsidizing about 40% (near the national average for state schools) so seeking out-of-state tuition, raising tuition, making room and board more expensive, whoring out for corporate research... nothing new... but almost entirely in response to massive cutbacks from their states.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Schools like University of Phoenix and other "for profits" cost a hell of a lot more than schools like Minnesota-Duluth and provide far less as far as education. Students are led to believe their classes will be transferable or acceptable by graduate schools. Then they come to find out they are... and stuck with large government loans, without the education or marketability to pay them off.

Students at "for profit" universities make up only 9% of student population... but, receive 25% of all federal grants and loans, and are 44% of all student loan defaults:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Top 3 Universities receiving Pell Grant money:
1. University of Phoenix
2. Everest College
3. Kaplan College

Employers and graduate schools generally look at these degrees as worthless... graduates can't find decent work... and can't pay off student loans.

Anyone interested in the "for profit" college thing should watch this Frontline: College, Inc:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... einc/view/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

that was the f'ing link i was looking for... it was frontline... not pov... thanks jelly.

[GannonFan]

Schools like University of Phoenix and other "for profits" cost a hell of a lot more than schools like Minnesota-Duluth and provide far less as far as education. Students are led to believe their classes will be transferable or acceptable by graduate schools. Then they come to find out they are... and stuck with large government loans, without the education or marketability to pay them off.

Students at "for profit" universities make up only 9% of student population... but, receive 25% of all federal grants and loans, and are 44% of all student loan defaults:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Top 3 Universities receiving Pell Grant money:
1. University of Phoenix
2. Everest College
3. Kaplan College

Employers and graduate schools generally look at these degrees as worthless... graduates can't find decent work... and can't pay off student loans.

Anyone interested in the "for profit" college thing should watch this Frontline: College, Inc:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... einc/view/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So does that mean that the poorest and most without means are the ones attending these schools? If so many needed and qualified for the grants before they even got there, then it's not as if they are pulling from the most well-to-do pool of applicants. And it's shocking, shocking I tell you, that brick and mortar graduate schools do not accept transfer credits from these instititions. I mean, it's not like they are competing with them for students and money.

[GannonFan]

But again, there are plenty of examples around the country of brick and mortar places where you almost just have to show up enough times to get a degree. It's not as if graduation rates at the less prestigious schools are low - they graduate plenty of people, regardless if they learned something or not.

And how do you assume just because they get subsidies that they aren't about making money off of their students? That's actually naive, very much unlike you. Tuition at colleges and universities part of state systems has mushroomed over the years too, again, right in line and often above federal student loan outlays. Interest in state schools in pulling in more out of state students (and hence higher tuitions) is also high - are they only doing that for the "educational mission"?

Are schools like the U of Phoenix pure and noble in their educational mission? I'm pretty sure they aren't. But I'm also pretty sure that they aren't all that different than almost every other brick and mortar institution out there - they like to make money, and the more the better.

I'm not saying that state schools are some bastion of unflappable morality. they aren't. the difference is, they actually produce tangible benefits - which is more than can be said of U of P or Capella, which produce wastepaper.

look at state schools and the amount of corporate research they do - and how many are complete whores for it... the thing is - their need for money, especially in the last 20 years, stems almost directly from having their funding slashed routinely. For example, North Dakota has it in the state constitution that in-state tuition will be subsidized something like 66 or 75% (i forget which) - however, they fell from that standard about 15 years ago - with no legal repercussions... now they are subsidizing about 40% (near the national average for state schools) so seeking out-of-state tuition, raising tuition, making room and board more expensive, whoring out for corporate research... nothing new... but almost entirely in response to massive cutbacks from their states.

First of all, there are plenty of state institutions that don't pull in any research money, or very little. It's mainly the large, flagship schools in each state that are big players in terms of research money, so that's about 100 or so schools. I don't see Lock Haven University (part of the PA system) being a big player in terms of corporate research.

And state funding as mainly fallen off only as it relates to the amount of money the schools charge for tuition, and that's mainly percentage based. Schools are guaranteed to get their money (tuition) no matter if they educate the student or not, and therefore the goal is to bring in as many students as possible to do that. As federal money is increased for grants and student loans, that just makes the pool of potential students both richer and wider, so tuition can and has been bumped up. Throw in the fact that we're well into the Baby Boom echo generation and the number of students seeking college has grown, it just makes it easier to charge more. It's only been recently that state governments, for lack of money, have really racheted back state funding. The schools have just been responding to the market and acting accordingly - even if they charge more, they still get the same number of students, and in lots of cases recently they've gotten more. The market has decided that college education needs to be for everyone, the market has grown in terms of people seeking college education, the amount of money available to fund this (through loans, grants, savings plans, etc) has grown, and the colleges have increased tuition in advance of those savings and are making the profits from them. Seems pretty clear to me.

[AZGrizFan]

Schools like University of Phoenix and other "for profits" cost a hell of a lot more than schools like Minnesota-Duluth and provide far less as far as education. Students are led to believe their classes will be transferable or acceptable by graduate schools. Then they come to find out they are... and stuck with large government loans, without the education or marketability to pay them off.

Students at "for profit" universities make up only 9% of student population... but, receive 25% of all federal grants and loans, and are 44% of all student loan defaults:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Top 3 Universities receiving Pell Grant money:
1. University of Phoenix
2. Everest College
3. Kaplan College

Employers and graduate schools generally look at these degrees as worthless... graduates can't find decent work... and can't pay off student loans.

Anyone interested in the "for profit" college thing should watch this Frontline: College, Inc:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... einc/view/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really? YOu guys are fucking idiots.

My Chief Information Officer got his undergrad from U of P. Then he got accepted into Thunderbird School of Global Management (you know, that one rated #1 in International Business by Financial Times, US News and World Report and the Economist?...perhaps you've heard of those?). Guess the didn't think his poor little U of P degree was "worthless"...BTW, he now makes 3 x what TTBF is making... I guess you could call that "decent work"...

Stop talkin' out your ASS and listen up. You get exactly OUT of an education what you put INTO it. Nothing more...nothing less. You don't wanna work, you're gonna walk away an idiot, just like you started---whether you went to Harvard or University of Phoenix. Quit being a classic fucking liberal and blaming the INSTITUTION...take just a LITTLE personal responsibility just ONCE in your pathetic life.

[YoUDeeMan]

AZ...that isn't the only example. My friend graduated from the University of Phoenix...wasn't afraid to put it on her resume.

She now makes over $150K per year.

DD had it right...look in the mirror and see the reason you are where you are.

[Chizzang]

look in the mirror and see the reason you are where you are.

Pardon my cherry picking your post... but
This is absolutely correct in most regards

When a person wants something bad enough and has decided they are willing to do whatever it takes - there is almost nothing that can keep them from achieving that goal - that has been proven over and over again



There is one exception: And that is "influence"
I made a lot of mistakes as a young adult and if I were black and poor I might probably still be in jail

But that is not the reason we ultimately succeed or fail
but being white and coming form a good family sure fucking helps

But in general I completely agree with your point

[YoUDeeMan]

look in the mirror and see the reason you are where you are.

Pardon my cherry picking your post... but
This is absolutely correct in most regards

When a person wants something bad enough and has decided they are willing to do whatever it takes - there is almost nothing that can keep them from achieving that goal - that has been proven over and over again



There is one exception: And that is "influence"
I made a lot of mistakes as a young adult and if I were black and poor I might probably still be in jail

But that is not the reason we ultimately succeed or fail
but being white and coming form a good family sure fucking helps

But in general I completely agree with your point

So, if you were a poor white kid you wouldn't get in any trouble that could throw some challenges into your path to success?

[JohnStOnge]

To me the real rip off is failing to re-evaluate and re-design the "college education" paradigm. There is no way it should cost what it costs to get a college education. And the rate of increase in cost is such that one really has to wonder if most in the next generation will be able to afford it.

There is a real need to throw out all preconceptions with respect to what a "college education" entails based on past traditions and start from scratch. The question should be: What is really necessary?

For instance: If someone wants to be an Engineer, what is really necessary to equip them to be an entry level Engineer? Design the "college educatin" leading to the Engineering degree with that in mind and nothing else. Do it while completely ignoring what has been considered "necessary" in the past.

It might also be good to re-evaluate what is required to be a college teacher. For instance: Does one really necessarily need a graduate degree to teach freshman biology? That sort of thing.

[D1B]

To me the real rip off is failing to re-evaluate and re-design the "college education" paradigm. There is no way it should cost what it costs to get a college education. And the rate of increase in cost is such that one really has to wonder if most in the next generation will be able to afford it.

There is a real need to throw out all preconceptions with respect to what a "college education" entails based on past traditions and start from scratch. The question should be: What is really necessary?

For instance: If someone wants to be an Engineer, what is really necessary to equip them to be an entry level Engineer? Design the "college educatin" leading to the Engineering degree with that in mind and nothing else. Do it while completely ignoring what has been considered "necessary" in the past.

It might also be good to re-evaluate what is required to be a college teacher. For instance: Does one really necessarily need a graduate degree to teach freshman biology? That sort of thing.

Tend to agree with some of this.

I sense though that someone like you would only require engineers to learn physics, chemistry, math and only those courses directly related to a particular kind of engineering. You, though are a fucking whackjob of the highest degree, and a dork. And this type of curriculum would produce like-minded dorks and dangerous automatons like you.

I think it's important for all students to have a well rounded humanities background in any discipline. This world would be seriously fucked with 200 million St. Wronges running the show.

[YoUDeeMan]

Tend to agree with some of this.

I sense though that someone like you would only require engineers to learn physics, chemistry, math and only those courses directly related to a particular kind of engineering. You, though are a fucking whackjob of the highest degree, and a dork. And this type of curriculum would produce like-minded dorks and dangerous automatons like you.

I think it's important for all students to have a well rounded humanities background in any discipline. This world would be seriously fucked with 200 million St. Wronges running the show.

So, if it is "important for all students to have a well rounded humanitarian background in any discipline", then what happens to people that don't go to college? Are they all to end up as violent thugs?

[Chizzang]

Pardon my cherry picking your post... but
This is absolutely correct in most regards

When a person wants something bad enough and has decided they are willing to do whatever it takes - there is almost nothing that can keep them from achieving that goal - that has been proven over and over again



There is one exception: And that is "influence"
I made a lot of mistakes as a young adult and if I were black and poor I might probably still be in jail

But that is not the reason we ultimately succeed or fail
but being white and coming form a good family sure fucking helps

But in general I completely agree with your point

So, if you were a poor white kid you wouldn't get in any trouble that could throw some challenges into your path to success?

I think we all know, and has been documented over and over...
Well to do white kids get issued far more lenient sentences than poor ethnic kids
Get arrested three times as a rich white kid and that's really not a problem
Get arrested three times and be poor and black and you're gone for a long long time



It's old news - and it's true...
The system never really viewed me as a threat... old family influence helped too
and I have profited from that, and I will never forget that
Yes I have gone on to be successful - but I'm not sure that would be the case were I not white upper middle class



That first hand experience has altered greatly the way I view the world as you can probably imagine

[ODUsmitty]

Tend to agree with some of this.

I sense though that someone like you would only require engineers to learn physics, chemistry, math and only those courses directly related to a particular kind of engineering. You, though are a **** whackjob of the highest degree, and a dork. And this type of curriculum would produce like-minded dorks and dangerous automatons like you.

I think it's important for all students to have a well rounded humanities background in any discipline. This world would be seriously **** with 200 million St. Wronges running the show.

Does DIB stand for "dick-in-butt"? Maybe you should change your name to HIB (Head in butt), and then honestly try to get it out of your arse. If I am designing a bridge, who gives a flying fuck how versed I am with English literature or psychology? All of this liberal fluff about how I should interpret someone's drug-induced ramblings do nothing to advance the human condition, it only serves as an attempt to indoctrinate students in liberal ideology by involuntarily forcing someone to listen to some liberal jerf-off's opinion of why businesses are bad, but unions and collective morality is good. Make those same liberal professors earn a living outside academia, and they quickly are braiding their armpit hair into eco-friendly keychains to be sold at Grateful Dead concerts.

GFY.

[YoUDeeMan]

So, if you were a poor white kid you wouldn't get in any trouble that could throw some challenges into your path to success?

I think we all know, and has been documented over and over...
Well to do white kids get issued far more lenient sentences than poor ethnic kids
Get arrested three times as a rich white kid and that's really not a problem
Get arrested three times and be poor and black and you're gone for a long long time



It's old news - and it's true...
The system never really viewed me as a threat... old family influence helped too
and I have profited from that, and I will never forget that
Yes I have gone on to be successful - but I'm not sure that would be the case were I not white upper middle class



That first hand experience has altered greatly the way I view the world as you can probably imagine

Interesting story, but, in typical TTBF style, you made a statement you wanted to make but didn't answer the question.

[Chizzang]

I think we all know, and has been documented over and over...
Well to do white kids get issued far more lenient sentences than poor ethnic kids
Get arrested three times as a rich white kid and that's really not a problem
Get arrested three times and be poor and black and you're gone for a long long time



It's old news - and it's true...
The system never really viewed me as a threat... old family influence helped too
and I have profited from that, and I will never forget that
Yes I have gone on to be successful - but I'm not sure that would be the case were I not white upper middle class



That first hand experience has altered greatly the way I view the world as you can probably imagine

Interesting story, but, in typical TTBF style, you made a statement you wanted to make but didn't answer the question.

We agree on this one for sure...
As you said:
One only needs to look in the mirror to find the ultimate reasons why one is not successful (or something like that)

[JohnStOnge]

I sense though that someone like you would only require engineers to learn physics, chemistry, math and only those courses directly related to a particular kind of engineering. You, though are a **** whackjob of the highest degree, and a dork. And this type of curriculum would produce like-minded dorks and dangerous automatons like you.

I think it's important for all students to have a well rounded humanities background in any discipline. This world would be seriously **** with 200 million St. Wronges running the show.

You are correct about how I would look at an engineering curriculum. For the sake of argument, let's say you are correct about me being a whackjob to the highest degree, a dork, and an automaton.

I was educated under the current paradigm. I took philosophy while I was an Engineering major (that was what I started in). I ended up getting a biology degree. I didn't take English and writing classes because I tested out of all that stuff and got credit beforehand. But I did take an English Literature course, an Art course, and Foreign Languages (French and German). I'm sure I took other courses that fall under the umbrella of the Humanities. Like I'm sure I must've taken at least one History course of some kind. None of those things had anything to do what what I needed in order to be able to function as a biologist (or in a related field). Taking English and Writing courses would have had something to do with it but I tested out of those anyway.

You'll be glad to know that when I took philosophy I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes because so much of it was such crap. But taking the course didn't make me decide that it wasn't crap.

I really don't think taking Humanities courses in college was a significant factor in what I developed into. About the only thing that had lasting impact is that I remember Ozymandius, a poem I liked. I'll admit that's a good poem and the message really did hit home with the way I think of things.

But who's to say I wouldn't have run across it without having to take an English Literature course?

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if 200 million like me ran the world (or the country), you would have a lot more liberty than you do now. You'd be able to smoke pot if you wanted to without having to worry about being arrested. You would not be treated like you raped a baby if you were found to have a 0.081 BAC as measured by a breath testing device. You could pay a woman (or a man...though I know you wouldn't do that) for sex if you wanted to without concern about government coming down on you. You could walk naked down the street if you wanted to. You could do ANYTHING you wanted unless you were intentionally attempting to engage in attacks upon someone else, their property, or their interests or unless you were engaging in behavior that constituted an imminent, high probability threat to others. You would not be regulated because you changed the risk from 1 in 2 million to 1 in 1 million. You would not be required to file an income tax return every year (or ever). So on and so forth.

And you could still express all the inflamatory opinions you express.

I don't think you'd think the world would be ****ed at all. It would truely be a "free" country instead of something we just call that when it really isn't.

[Skjellyfetti]

You could do ANYTHING you wanted unless you were intentionally attempting to engage in attacks upon someone else, their property, or their interests or unless you were engaging in behavior that constituted an imminent, high probability threat to others.

But you're against gays marrying each other?

How does gay marriage attack someone else, their property, or interests... or how is it behavior that constitutes and imminent, high probability threat to others?

[JohnStOnge]

But you're against gays marrying each other?

How does gay marriage attack someone else, their property, or interests... or how is it behavior that constitutes and imminent, high probability threat to others?

Actually my position is that, since we've gotten to the point of lunacy where we are suggesting that there is some kind of equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual romantic relationships, we need to get government out of the business of marriage. We have reached a point at which there is substantial disagreement as to what a marriage can be.

Marriage is a recognition. I do not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live together as partners or engage in their perverse relationships. I just suggest that those in the society who wish not to recognize their relationships as "marriage" be free not to recognize them as such.

I think it's important here to repeat the point: Opposition to homosexual marriage does not mean opposing letting people do what they want to do. What people want to do is engage in a homosexual relationship. The question is just whether or not OTHERS have to recognize that relationship as a "marriage." You are not at all preventing anyone from physically doing what they want to do by refusing to have others recognize what they do as a "marriage."

It's the same as if 5 men and 5 women want to live together and exchange partners on a routine basis. They are free to do that and they should be. But that does not mean there is some obligation to recognize that relationship as a "marriage."

[Ivytalk]

Rip van Ivytalk just woke up.

How did we get from Pell grants to gay marriage?

[JohnStOnge]

Rip van Ivytalk just woke up.

How did we get from Pell grants to gay marriage?

We started posting on a message board.

[Ivytalk]

Rip van Ivytalk just woke up.

How did we get from Pell grants to gay marriage?

We started posting on a message board.

[YoUDeeMan]

We started posting on a message board.

Good to see that the better half of Harvard showed up.

[kalm]

But you're against gays marrying each other?

How does gay marriage attack someone else, their property, or interests... or how is it behavior that constitutes and imminent, high probability threat to others?

Actually my position is that, since we've gotten to the point of lunacy where we are suggesting that there is some kind of equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual romantic relationships, we need to get government out of the business of marriage. We have reached a point at which there is substantial disagreement as to what a marriage can be.

Marriage is a recognition. I do not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live together as partners or engage in their perverse relationships. I just suggest that those in the society who wish not to recognize their relationships as "marriage" be free not to recognize them as such.

I think it's important here to repeat the point: Opposition to homosexual marriage does not mean opposing letting people do what they want to do. What people want to do is engage in a homosexual relationship. The question is just whether or not OTHERS have to recognize that relationship as a "marriage." You are not at all preventing anyone from physically doing what they want to do by refusing to have others recognize what they do as a "marriage."

It's the same as if 5 men and 5 women want to live together and exchange partners on a routine basis. They are free to do that and they should be. But that does not mean there is some obligation to recognize that relationship as a "marriage."

Or we could get religions out of the business of defining what words mean or contractual relationships.

[D1B]

Tend to agree with some of this.

I sense though that someone like you would only require engineers to learn physics, chemistry, math and only those courses directly related to a particular kind of engineering. You, though are a fucking whackjob of the highest degree, and a dork. And this type of curriculum would produce like-minded dorks and dangerous automatons like you.

I think it's important for all students to have a well rounded humanities background in any discipline. This world would be seriously fucked with 200 million St. Wronges running the show.

So, if it is "important for all students to have a well rounded humanitarian background in any discipline", then what happens to people that don't go to college? Are they all to end up as violent thugs?

They'll get it in highschool or they'll turn into Tea Baggers or union thugs.