Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Wait, you’re asking why liberals don’t have a problem with some schools being cheaper than others?

Quite the elucidation...

Does anyone else wish to take a stab at it? Public schools won't give you the same education quality, won't give you the same job opportunities, won't give you the same lifetime earnings potential...but they are cheap(er!) From a liberal perspective, is this equality and equal opportunity or is this an elitist multi-tier higher education system?

I think your premise is flawed. Depending on your field of study, schools like UCLA, Cal, University of Michigan, University of Washington, etc., will put you in just as good of a position as Stanford. And a better position if we’re talking about generic private schools like University of Seattle or University of Whatever city.

Also, all Ivy League schools and Stanford give all students with household incomes below $150k, free tuition/room and board. And for students with incomes above that, there are discounts available.

But to answer your question, the reason why people don’t complain about state schools being cheaper than private schools is they understand that state schools are state subsidized. You aren’t paying the full cost to attend when you enroll. Private schools aren’t, by definition, state subsidized.

...and I respectfully think your premise is bullshit (in a nice way.) We have White priviledge in this country, do we not? We have income inequality in this country, do we not? Isn't it amazing that only 7.5% of the student body at Stanford is black, 3.8% at Harvard and a whopping 1% at Cal Tech. Why is that? If money and skin color create permanent advantages (or disadvantages) then why are the schools that are universally ranked highest in the country invaliably exacebate the conditions that are organic to the alleged inequality? Don't talk to me about a particular field of study being good at Michigan or UCLA. Remember, the 18 yr old has no frigging idea what they want to do when they first go to college and that college is the place to figure it out. At Stanford, Harvard or Cal Tech, you're good no matter what field you choose. It's more than tuition. It's about perpetuating the imbalance you believe already exists.

We haven't had a tussle in a while so we were overdue.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

1. I agree that state schools are affordable, but you're missing the point. A lot of students will attend these schools for a year and half taking out max loans before they realize that college isn't for them. Those loans go unpaid and it is going to lead to our next financial crisis all because there is this push for every student to go to college.

2. Tech schools in GA are about $4,000/year. If you have at least a 2.0 GPA you qualify for the HOPE Grant which makes tuition at these schools free. A bloody 2.0, so essentially they are free for almost all GA residents. TN also has free tuition at tech schools and junior colleges. I think the way that this is funded is highly unethical, but that is a different debate.

3. I believe the federal government needs to stop guaranteeing all loans (this includes home mortgages). If a bank wants to make a high-risk loan, don't bail them out when it goes unpaid.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 5:59:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit confused. Public university cost has been brought up several times. What about the tuition cost of private universities? Are they not too high? I thought the idea behind progressive liberalism was equality and equal opportunity? If Cal-State Northridge cost 7K a year, why is there not an issue with Stanford or Cal Tech costing 40K a year (or whatever it is?) ...unless, everyone believes that Northridge gives the same exact education quality, the same exact job opportunities and the same exact salary potential throughout a lifetime...the only difference being some bourgeois prestige that really doesn't translate into any tangible advantage. I would think the elitist, multi-tier higher education system would drive liberals insane...that is, those who don't send their children to one of those private schools.

Wait, you’re asking why liberals don’t have a problem with some schools being cheaper than others?

Quite the elucidation...

Does anyone else wish to take a stab at it? Public schools won't give you the same education quality, won't give you the same job opportunities, won't give you the same lifetime earnings potential...but they are cheap(er!) From a liberal perspective, is this equality and equal opportunity or is this an elitist multi-tier higher education system?

I think your premise is flawed. Depending on your field of study, schools like UCLA, Cal, University of Michigan, University of Washington, etc., will put you in just as good of a position as Stanford. And a better position if we’re talking about generic private schools like University of Seattle or University of Whatever city.

Also, all Ivy League schools and Stanford give all students with household incomes below $150k, free tuition/room and board. And for students with incomes above that, there are discounts available.

But to answer your question, the reason why people don’t complain about state schools being cheaper than private schools is they understand that state schools are state subsidized. You aren’t paying the full cost to attend when you enroll. Private schools aren’t, by definition, state subsidized.

...and I respectfully think your premise is bullshit (in a nice way.) We have White priviledge in this country, do we not? We have income inequality in this country, do we not? Isn't it amazing that only 7.5% of the student body at Stanford is black, 3.8% at Harvard and a whopping 1% at Cal Tech. Why is that? If money and skin color create permanent advantages (or disadvantages) then why are the schools that are universally ranked highest in the country invaliably exacebate the conditions that are organic to the alleged inequality? Don't talk to me about a particular field of study being good at Michigan or UCLA. Remember, the 18 yr old has no frigging idea what they want to do when they first go to college and that college is the place to figure it out. At Stanford, Harvard or Cal Tech, you're good no matter what field you choose. It's more than tuition. It's about perpetuating the imbalance you believe already exists.

We haven't had a tussle in a while so we were overdue.

Well, I don't have a premise. I'm responding to your argument.

Let me breakdown what I'm taking from your post and see if we really have an argument here:

1) We have White priviledge in this country, do we not?

Yes.

2) We have income inequality in this country, do we not?

Yes,

3) Isn't it amazing that only 7.5% of the student body at Stanford is black, 3.8% at Harvard and a whopping 1% at Cal Tech

Based on your points one and two, this isn't amazing. It's literally the exact outcome you'd expect.

4) If money and skin color create permanent advantages (or disadvantages) then why are the schools that are universally ranked highest in the country invaliably exacebate the conditions that are organic to the alleged inequality?

Minor critique...the ten-dollar words are unnecessary. I don't even know what invaliably means.

But, on to what I think your point was. If you want to argue that universities should be more diverse, you get no argument from me. All universities, not just Harvard and Cal Tech, should be more diverse. That they aren't is a problem that points directly back to your points one and two. We should set public policy that changes that...but it will have to make an impact well before college. Probably before these kids are even born.

If you have an answer, let me know. It doesn't seem like everyone else can even agree that issues surrounding race and inequality are even a problem, let alone find a way to address it.

5) Don't talk to me about a particular field of study being good at Michigan or UCLA. Remember, the 18 yr old has no frigging idea what they want to do when they first go to college and that college is the place to figure it out.

Well, ok, this seems kind of out of place in the topic but someone who enrolls at UCLA will have time to figure out what they want out of the education before picking a major.

6) It's about perpetuating the imbalance you believe already exists.

That you can get an elite education at a public school (or for free at Ivies/Stanford if you're poor or middle class) is a great alternative for students who couldn't afford $40k a year tuition.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/11/2019 3:03:00 PM (view original):
I'll work ground up. I will guarantee that the most expensive tech school is exponentially cheaper than the cheapest private school.

I agree with your second paragraph in theory. The reality is that it is just not materializing in that manner. Students are racking up very expensive student loan bills to go for 3 semesters and then drop out. They have nothing to show for the $20k+ that they spent. These student loans then go unpaid and it is leading towards a very bad situation in America. The worst thing that could have happened was when the federal government took over the student loan business. I can't remember if this was Bush or Obama or if Bush started the process and Obama finished it, but either way it was a terrible idea.

We both know 18 year olds are clueless. We were all burdened with the curse of being 18 years old at one point. We were just as immature and clueless as today's crop.

Three points:

1) There’s a wide range in university tuition. Students don’t have to go to private school. Like I mentioned before, state schools are extremely affordable.

2) There are several trade schools that cost >40k a year.

3) The federal government has always guaranteed student loans. So when banks were issuing them, the banks were charging interest and profiting but taking zero risk because the feds reimbursed them for any defaults. The best solution was to cut out the middle man.

1. I agree that state schools are affordable, but you're missing the point. A lot of students will attend these schools for a year and half taking out max loans before they realize that college isn't for them. Those loans go unpaid and it is going to lead to our next financial crisis all because there is this push for every student to go to college.

2. Tech schools in GA are about $4,000/year. If you have at least a 2.0 GPA you qualify for the HOPE Grant which makes tuition at these schools free. A bloody 2.0, so essentially they are free for almost all GA residents. TN also has free tuition at tech schools and junior colleges. I think the way that this is funded is highly unethical, but that is a different debate.

3. I believe the federal government needs to stop guaranteeing all loans (this includes home mortgages). If a bank wants to make a high-risk loan, don't bail them out when it goes unpaid.

1) The max loan is one year's tuition. So they enroll in a state school, take out a $7,000 loan, quit and have to pay it back over 10 years. That's not a huge problem.

2) Sure. But there are also tech schools like UTI or WyoTech that cost 10 or 20 times that.

3) Um ok. But they did and do and as long as that is happening, inserting a proft-seeking middle-man risk-free is bad policy.

Bad luck lies again. He admitted that there is no white privelege but black disadvantage since Asians earn more than whites and now he goes back to his white privelege mantra. He is seriously the stupidest man alive. That is if he identifies as a man. What an *******.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Bad luck lies again. He admitted that there is no white privelege but black disadvantage since Asians earn more than whites and now he goes back to his white privelege mantra. He is seriously the stupidest man alive. That is if he identifies as a man. What an *******.

1. Ad hominem
2. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Posted by tangplay on 2/11/2019 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Bad luck lies again. He admitted that there is no white privelege but black disadvantage since Asians earn more than whites and now he goes back to his white privelege mantra. He is seriously the stupidest man alive. That is if he identifies as a man. What an *******.

1. Ad hominem
2. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

I’m living rent free in boris’s tiny little brain.

Posted by tangplay on 2/11/2019 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Bad luck lies again. He admitted that there is no white privelege but black disadvantage since Asians earn more than whites and now he goes back to his white privelege mantra. He is seriously the stupidest man alive. That is if he identifies as a man. What an *******.

1. Ad hominem
2. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Also has nothing to do with you. I am Glad you learned what an ad hominem is. And it was free unlike your wasted college education

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 10:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 2/11/2019 10:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/11/2019 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Bad luck lies again. He admitted that there is no white privelege but black disadvantage since Asians earn more than whites and now he goes back to his white privelege mantra. He is seriously the stupidest man alive. That is if he identifies as a man. What an *******.

1. Ad hominem
2. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

I’m living rent free in boris’s tiny little brain.

I enjoy mocking you and unlike you I am Ok with people knowing my name. You be scared.

For bad_luck. Nice retort. How do I quote only a portion rather than the entire? I like how you separated and there are only a few items I need to comment back on. That would be very helpful...thanks.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 10:48:00 PM (view original):
For bad_luck. Nice retort. How do I quote only a portion rather than the entire? I like how you separated and there are only a few items I need to comment back on. That would be very helpful...thanks.

You quote and then copy paste the sections into your reply. Then highlight them and click the “ button in the options above (source, font, size, etc.)

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 11:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 10:48:00 PM (view original):
For bad_luck. Nice retort. How do I quote only a portion rather than the entire? I like how you separated and there are only a few items I need to comment back on. That would be very helpful...thanks.

You quote and then copy paste the sections into your reply. Then highlight them and click the “ button in the options above (source, font, size, etc.)

I'll work on the quoting thing later. Let me pull a few items from your resonse.

Minor critique...the ten-dollar words are unnecessary. I don't even know what invaliably means.

Sorry, I can't help it. My normal register is actually more formal than my posts here. The way my wife and I converse drives our friends crazy but **** them. By the way, I meant to write invariably.

Well, ok, this seems kind of out of place in the topic but someone who enrolls at UCLA will have time to figure out what they want out of the education before picking a major.

For the disadvantaged, their odds are already reduced by the high probability of not being accepted to the top schools. This disadvantage gets compounded since only certain programs at state schools are on par with the elite institutions, whereas every department is good at Harvard, etc. The supreme advantage of attending an elite is that any field you decide upon is probably a winner. That is not true at UCLA or Michigan.

Now, here is my main point. These elite institutions are dominated by progressive liberals. Most of the new academic theories about racial/social/income/white priviledge inequalities originate from these bastions of progressivism. Yet, it is these very schools that maintain the inequalities through their admissions process. If liberals want to effect change in these areas, they are going to need to take on a decadent sub-sect of their own movement. Academia at its highest levels is working contrary to solving the problems of white priviledge and income inequality, if they do exist. Blacks are 12.7% of the population and I would venture to say that not a single elite school even approaches that representation. Some of the change needs to happen within the movement internally before it gets applied to American society as a whole.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 11:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 10:48:00 PM (view original):
For bad_luck. Nice retort. How do I quote only a portion rather than the entire? I like how you separated and there are only a few items I need to comment back on. That would be very helpful...thanks.

You quote and then copy paste the sections into your reply. Then highlight them and click the “ button in the options above (source, font, size, etc.)

I'll work on the quoting thing later. Let me pull a few items from your resonse.

Minor critique...the ten-dollar words are unnecessary. I don't even know what invaliably means.

Sorry, I can't help it. My normal register is actually more formal than my posts here. The way my wife and I converse drives our friends crazy but **** them. By the way, I meant to write invariably.

Well, ok, this seems kind of out of place in the topic but someone who enrolls at UCLA will have time to figure out what they want out of the education before picking a major.

For the disadvantaged, their odds are already reduced by the high probability of not being accepted to the top schools. This disadvantage gets compounded since only certain programs at state schools are on par with the elite institutions, whereas every department is good at Harvard, etc. The supreme advantage of attending an elite is that any field you decide upon is probably a winner. That is not true at UCLA or Michigan.

Now, here is my main point. These elite institutions are dominated by progressive liberals. Most of the new academic theories about racial/social/income/white priviledge inequalities originate from these bastions of progressivism. Yet, it is these very schools that maintain the inequalities through their admissions process. If liberals want to effect change in these areas, they are going to need to take on a decadent sub-sect of their own movement. Academia at its highest levels is working contrary to solving the problems of white priviledge and income inequality, if they do exist. Blacks are 12.7% of the population and I would venture to say that not a single elite school even approaches that representation. Some of the change needs to happen within the movement internally before it gets applied to American society as a whole.

The 2017 incoming Freshman GPA at Stanford was 4.18. It was 4.13 at UCLA.

They’re drawing from the same applicant pool.

But if you want to argue that universities should do a better job encouraging diversity, I back it 100%.

wow what ever what happened to 4

Posted by bad_luck on 2/12/2019 12:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 11:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/11/2019 11:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/11/2019 10:48:00 PM (view original):
For bad_luck. Nice retort. How do I quote only a portion rather than the entire? I like how you separated and there are only a few items I need to comment back on. That would be very helpful...thanks.

You quote and then copy paste the sections into your reply. Then highlight them and click the “ button in the options above (source, font, size, etc.)

I'll work on the quoting thing later. Let me pull a few items from your resonse.

Minor critique...the ten-dollar words are unnecessary. I don't even know what invaliably means.

Sorry, I can't help it. My normal register is actually more formal than my posts here. The way my wife and I converse drives our friends crazy but **** them. By the way, I meant to write invariably.

Well, ok, this seems kind of out of place in the topic but someone who enrolls at UCLA will have time to figure out what they want out of the education before picking a major.

For the disadvantaged, their odds are already reduced by the high probability of not being accepted to the top schools. This disadvantage gets compounded since only certain programs at state schools are on par with the elite institutions, whereas every department is good at Harvard, etc. The supreme advantage of attending an elite is that any field you decide upon is probably a winner. That is not true at UCLA or Michigan.

Now, here is my main point. These elite institutions are dominated by progressive liberals. Most of the new academic theories about racial/social/income/white priviledge inequalities originate from these bastions of progressivism. Yet, it is these very schools that maintain the inequalities through their admissions process. If liberals want to effect change in these areas, they are going to need to take on a decadent sub-sect of their own movement. Academia at its highest levels is working contrary to solving the problems of white priviledge and income inequality, if they do exist. Blacks are 12.7% of the population and I would venture to say that not a single elite school even approaches that representation. Some of the change needs to happen within the movement internally before it gets applied to American society as a whole.

The 2017 incoming Freshman GPA at Stanford was 4.18. It was 4.13 at UCLA.

They’re drawing from the same applicant pool.

But if you want to argue that universities should do a better job encouraging diversity, I back it 100%.

GPA is a silly measurement nowadays. Inflationary pressures push GPAs above the 4.0 mark. In another generation it'll be above 5.0. Too bad kids aren't getting any smarter.

UCLA has only 4% black. They certainly are discriminating against the same pool. Michigan also sits at 4%. Where do progressives allow black people to go to school?

Since the Champions of Fairness and Equality (sarcasm) are already the vast majority of the faculty and administration at both elite private and said public institutions, how do we get them to embrace the diversity they so vigorously give lip service to? They could affirmative action the black percentage up to mirror the national average tomorrow...but they don't. I wonder why? lol.