|
 
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's possible to both address K-12 education, and make college free at the same time. It's not as if one issue completely crowds out the other in terms of what's possible politically. Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized. Especially private schools, but then they're in direct competition with public schools. Even now the better state schools that have had their funding cut by their states have been pushing for "partial privatization." Free community college is a great idea that needs to happen yesterday. Free college is a much more complicated issue than people are making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized. I think you're a little confused on what "nationalized" means. K-12 education is run by the states, not the Federal government, although a lot of funding does come from the Federal level. American Universities are also mostly public institutions, but they're also run by the states. Part of the reason tuition costs have been so high is because government funding of post-secondary in most states has dropped over the decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I think you're a little confused on what "nationalized" means. K-12 education is run by the states, not the Federal government, although a lot of funding does come from the Federal level. American Universities are also mostly public institutions, but they're also run by the states. Part of the reason tuition costs have been so high is because government funding of post-secondary in most states has dropped over the decades. Actually k-12 is run by local municipalities on (local, not state) property taxes but it's effectively nationalized in that federal money is given for conforming to certain nationwide standards so everyone takes that money. And while of course the dropping state support of public colleges is a factor, it's a secondary one. Costs at private colleges are rising just as quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Actually k-12 is run by local municipalities on (local, not state) property taxes but it's effectively nationalized in that federal money is given for conforming to certain nationwide standards so everyone takes that money. Private colleges wouldn't be funded by a public plan, so that's not germane to anything. Also, I wouldn't call the available Federal funds for public Primary-Secondary schools a real nationalization in any sense. Federal funds don't come even close to addressing the property tax gaps between districts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
babypolis posted:"A 2012 study by the New Jersey Department of Education, however, determined that score gains in the Abbotts were no higher than in those in high-poverty districts that did not participate in the Abbott lawsuit and therefore received much less state money" You know what works? FORCED INTEGRATION.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. There is no fundamental reason that public colleges cannot be truly public institutions. This is how they work across most of the world and how they used to work in our own dumb country. It requires oversight and yanking them out of the upward-spiraling "marketplace" in which they compete with private colleges. Instead of running them like corporations, they need to be run like gov't entities. It's not just possible, it makes way more sense than the current infinite loans + no oversight free-for-all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
I do think that Hillary's plan makes a lot of sense in terms of controlling costs: incentivizing colleges to reduce tuition fees by offering sizable grants to states with public schools that can graduate all of their students debt free. It has potential to fundamentally transform the higher education model for the better. I do really like Bernie Sanders' idea of modeling American universities after European ones as well, but I would like to see more detail on it. Free tuition is going to be a very inefficient drain unless it's coupled with reforms that lower the cost of educating students.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I do think that Hillary's plan makes a lot of sense in terms of controlling costs: incentivizing colleges to reduce tuition fees by offering sizable grants to states with public schools that can graduate all of their students debt free. It has potential to fundamentally transform the higher education model for the better. Should poor people have to work in order to eat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Should poor people have to work in order to eat? What are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:What are you talking about if it's not merely "can provide a plan that could allow all of their public students to graduate debt free" then it becomes pretty inaccessible
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I do think that Hillary's plan makes a lot of sense in terms of controlling costs: incentivizing colleges to reduce tuition fees by offering sizable grants to states with public schools that can graduate all of their students debt free. It has potential to fundamentally transform the higher education model for the better. b-but the increasingly fascist euro governments want to model european universities after american ones? our universities are all going to collide in the middle of the atlantic and sink to the bottom of the sea with the smart people
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
I didn't see this but I'm imagining it was hillary getting her rear end eat by the audience and the questionaires.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Microwaves Mom posted:I didn't see this but I'm imagining it was hillary getting her rear end eat by the audience and the questionaires. the questions handed her her rear end
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton came out on top and I say good for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Hillary Clinton came out on top and I say good for her. yeah she didn't outright murder herself, or sputter like Jeb, so frankly she remains unimpeded
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good. pity, then, about the democrat frontrunner
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good. To see a politician in touch with the people they want money from, to me, is better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good. To see a politician touch the people they want to represent, to me, is better. That's why everyone liked Bill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:pity, then, about the democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead in support from the populace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Maxwells Demon posted:To see a politician touch the people they want to represent, to me, is better. Personally, I prefer not to know about the people whom politicians touch. Its a big 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead in support from the populace. they're dumb
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:they're dumb At least they aren't *shuffles unfair generalizations rolodex, flips to "Bernouts" tab* a pack of misogynists who are woefully out of touch on race issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:they're dumb Okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good. But this debate didn't take place in front of wall street so I'm not sure this statement is correct wrt Hillary Clinton
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
rscott posted:But this debate didn't take place in front of wall street so I'm not sure this statement is correct wrt Hillary Clinton It took place in front of Democratic voters, who overwhelmingly favour Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Yes that is true, but it doesn't have much bearing to what you said
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead in support from the populace. more "being in evitable" "being in sured" "being in the establishment" San SiSio posted:To see a politician in a hostage situation with the people they want to represent, to me, is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
You sound pretty delusional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:You sound pretty delusional.  is no delusion
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Many things could explain that, given that he's perceived as far worse at being able to get things done in office by those same voters, I'm going to go with that, rather than conspiracy theory mass Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the graphs. (this is UNironic)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Many things could explain that, given that he's perceived as far worse at being able to get things done in office by those same voters, I'm going to go with that, rather than conspiracy theory mass Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Many things could explain that, given that he's perceived as far worse at being able to get things done in office by those same voters, I'm going to go with that, rather than conspiracy theory mass Stockholm syndrome. Do you have a source for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:To see a politician in touch with the people they want to represent, to me, is good. Yea wish I had millions of dollars so I could be represented too 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Do you have a source for that? NYT Poll six days ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:27
|
|