I agree with you. Your first point can be seen by anyone....... go and look at the campus and housing at universities prior to 1990. The campuses were not constantly being renovated or built onto. New dinning halls or other excursions were smaller or more simple. It was also far less commercial. That has all changed and the VAST majority of it does not enhance the actual educational experience. Those costs are in part a result of opening up student loan lending. These schools know that their students will get loans and they can increase tuition accordingly. We have to find a way so that those that want to go to college can go, but also stop the ever increasing cost of secondary education greatly. I see a lot of animosity towards professors but a lot of the money isn't going into the educators but the administrators, the buildings and maintaining the massive compounds.
on the academic side there are fewer professors and far more adjuncts, lecturers, research associates and the like, many if not most of whom are on short-term contracts and paid with soft money.
A professor told me about years ago in a lecture that Texas had a law that pegged tuition to something. But it was changed. I don’t remember all of the specifics. But it resulted in big spikes in tuition after the law was changed.
Yes and adjunct professors are terribly under paid (or were last I checked). The point of the entire exercise is to educate people and it sure seems to me that often times that is not the top priority.
not to defend universities on the adjunct issue, but . . . another part of the problem is that there are way too many people going to college who have no business going to college. At least not straight out of high school. But because high school students are bombarded with the message that they have to go to college, they go -- and many of them bury themselves in debt to go through what is essentially a hollow ritualistic experience. Universities basically are forced to teach what is actually an artificially high number of students using temporary hires/adjuncts rather than tenure-stream faculty. This as the baby boom era is over and universities are facing declining student applications for the next few decades. Making the scramble for students that much more important and fueling the arms race over facilities. A vicious cycle.
I guess it was my mistake responding to you sincerely in what I believe and how I formed my belief when you ask me questions using this type of "bro" language: or this You responded to my explanation by saying that I'm murdering you with words....? What? If you don't want a genuine conversation of my beliefs in education, then ignore me. That's why I call you a bad poster. I've never had discussion with you like I've had with many posters here. It's only poster drama with you or debates about random tweets. Same in the GARM. I express my opinions. People disagree such as yourself and use personal insults and then gaslight and say "look in the mirror".
Might be a good idea to be in cash before he wins the nomination .... just him winning the nom , I see a sharp pullback immediately. The markets don't like his plans ....
That's some wack ass spin. The guy serving in the military is serving his country - the guy that skips the military and goes to college is serving himself. College is a self serving decision no two ways about it - You do it to have greater earning potential. We've had the GI bill since 1944 .... Many other countries compel people to join the military in a similar fashion - Its called earning it. Yeah , people with money have a leg up .... but getting a free or near free college education for serving in the military isn't such a raw deal. War just isn't fought the way it was even 30 years ago and mortality rates are infinitely lower today. Its a hell of a lot better idea than forgiving their debts for nothing.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...ent-loans-period.299642/page-13#post-12862037 And most people I've seen who join the military are serving their self interests also. People earn their degree also.
Their answers leave considerable shortfalls. You forget that tax is on income - not their total worth. I gave the example of Elon Musk a page or two earlier. Now matter how much he's worth , his earnings are what you tax and in 2018 he made $513million so a top rate of 70% only nets the gubmint $359.1million. There just aren't enough billionaires to tax at that rate to make these numbers add up and trying to tax their net worth is simple unconstitutional - Never in a million years would that fly not to mention equal protections laws.
Yep , many are doing it to limit the debt. So what's wrong with asking those others to do the same thing rather than just giving them a handout at the taxpayers expense ?
For profit colleges and MLMs shouldn’t be a thing. Both are predatory and do massive financial disservice to the vast majority of people who become involved with them. Frankly, its complete bulls&&t either of them exist. The lack of political will to eliminate these harmful forces on society is disturbing.
So you agree there is such a thing as Bro language and behavior, at least we got that straight. You are the one not trying to engage in conversation when you poo poo what I encounter everyday. Call me a bad poster IDGAF really. That's not what it only is with me it's what you have an issue with so you trot out your talking points. In garm why is your only opinion about what Harden is lacking or not doing? When have I used a personal insult about you? Saying look in the mirror is not gaslighting it's calling for some self reflection on your part.
I just gave examples at the top of my post if you just dismissing my arguments when I was typing my mere opinion and calling them drivil. Then I explained my "drivil" and you relied with saying I'm murdering you with words. You aren't fun to engage a debate with. I've had more engaging conversations with less poster drama with ideological opposites such as @dachuda86 than you.
LOL. I swear you used to be a much better poster than this. I know I have given you many likes. What happened?
You heard opinions from me you disagree with and took it personally. How does his question relate to my post. His question just dismisses my entire post and doesn't address it at all.
