[knox]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

The taxes paid to the state by the students' parents, as well as those paid by people who haven't go kids but might decide to use the benefits of free education for themselves, the kids they might produce in the future, members of their own family, or even some of their own friends.

it disturbs me that someone actually had to answer that question.

[Genteel Death]

The hillbilly version I composed and then decided to delete would have HORRIFIED you.

[demonrail666]

I can't speak for the rest of the world but a significant factor in England's current problem was the abolition of the grants scheme in 1999. Students paid nothing but were far more rigorously vetted. What replaced it was a market system where if you were willing to pay (via a loan), you were pretty much guaranteed a place. This inflated the number of students going into higher education but could be seen as marking a certain level of dumbing down, as universities had to accomodate a far more mixed level of ability. This problem was further compunded by New Labour's silly idea of putting 50% of the population into higher education regardless of whether they'd benefit from it from a vocational point of view or would actually be able to deal with it on an intellectual level. I work in a university and I can honestly say that a large percentage if people there simply shouldn't be. Universities do need downscaling but it should be done in such a way that doesn't compromise their availability to those who can cope with its demands. In essence, bring back university grants.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I can't speak for the rest of the world but a significant factor in England's current problem was the abolition of the grants scheme in 1999. Students paid nothing but were far more rigorously vetted. What replaced it was a market system where if you were willing to pay (via a loan), you were pretty much guaranteed a place. This inflated the number of students going into higher education but could be seen as marking a certain level of dumbing down, as universities had to accomodate a far more mixed level of ability. This problem was further compunded by New Labour's silly idea of putting 50% of the population into higher education regardless of whether they'd benefit from it from a vocational point of view or would actually be able to deal with it on an intellectual level. I work in a university and I can honestly say that a large percentage if people there simply shouldn't be. Universities do need downscaling but it should be done in such a way that doesn't compromise their availability to those who can cope with its demands. In essence, bring back university grants.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to demonrail666 again.

(but the debate has shifted from what do with universities to the fundamental question as to if higher education should be free in the first place, the answer is yes, but as you pointed out it should be better regulated. The CSU/UC system spent $457,000,000 last year on 1st year students who did not return. Of course this raw data does not serve as evidence to sways point about party college life, because a lot of the 1st year drop outs left because of a) money b) no classes/bad scheduling c) university wasn't necessarily for them and these people should not be so discouraged. But still, the number does suggest that public university should begin to shift its recruiting philosophies, and I agree with this. The CSU/UC or any university is not necessarily for everybody, but this does not negate that it should be a universal opportunity for anybody in regards to finances. Perhaps people should not get into a university because they are not university material, but they should never be turned away strictly over money, and that is the substance of the issues we have been discussing. My point, higher education should be better invested by the government and by our communities (first and foremost universities are boom to local cities where students live, eat, buy shit etc etc $$$) which even Gov. Governator agrees with highly. I say not just the CSU/UC, but follow the genius and brilliant Master Plan for Education from 1960 which designed a delightfully efficient system. Unfortunately we stopped following it, and we deprioritized the community colleges and vocational schools and the certificate programs, and began to forcefeed univeristy to ALL the students, and yet failed to invest properly in the middle-level system which better suits quite a few people who don't need to go to University at all, but would highly benefit from a trade certificate or AA degree to advance in their respective careers/jobs. I like what Detroit is doing, they have a true Polytechnic High School that offers as mandatory as college prep classes that kids graduate with TWO vocational certificates which either they offer directly at the high school are ready make available streamlined in the local community colleges. LA, America, and the world would benefit from California's Master Plan of 1960 and combining it with the developing trend (this is exceptionally popular in Ethiopia by the way ) of combining trade school/community college certificate programs directly from the high schools, which makes it much easier and efficient to get kids where they need to be. When you are a teacher or an administrator, its much easier to be able to guide and mentor students into the right direction for them, and have many of the necessary options readily available, and high schools that not just have a machine shop class, but offer competitive certificate programs and also streamlines transfer programs to colleges, provide ALL the needed options which (we) educators need.)

[fugazifan]

i agree with suchfriends and gliceand and the other few who said stuff that i agree with.
all of you basically said what i said, but it is m summary of what i think of this thread.

there is also not only a question of if universities should be free, but also what constitutes "giving back" to society. i am most troubled by this. sway seems to to claim that it might be ok to fund a businessman or a doctor, because the taxpayer, sway in this case, will get something in return, whereas sway, gets nothing back from the philosophy or musicology student.

the question is does contributing to society only occur when it is felt on an immediate level, or can the payback of my tax dollars simply be an intellectual well cultured, critically thinking society, as suchfriends and others have mentioned? i would think that that is one of the only reasons to have government, to fund and make sure that as a society we all have equal opportunities and that we can all think as individuals. not to support multinational corporations and to waste over a trillion dollars on a war.

which brings me to my next point, sway, you keep on asking how do these institutions become free, with the answer being taxdollars. but wouldnt there be a lot more tax money to fund much more things, if for instance, large corporations didnt get tax cuts and thus there was much more money to invest in people, rather than in companies?

a lot of tax money also goes to america's and other countries' useless wars, a lot of money that could have ensured free education without having the working class worry that it is coming at their expense.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

On a tv series a character knows that they'll be unemployed for 3 months already.

 

Originally Posted by fugazifan

the question is does contributing to society only occur when it is felt on an immediate level, or can the payback of my tax dollars simply be an intellectual well cultured, critically thinking society, as suchfriends and others have mentioned? i would think that that is one of the only reasons to have government, to fund and make sure that as a society we all have equal opportunities and that we can all think as individuals. not to support multinational corporations and to waste over a trillion dollars on a war.

By the time I actually pay taxes, I sincerely hope that this aspect is what my money is funding.

[Glice]

Did anyone see Question Time last night? The Tory woman on there, saying her constituents don't want to pay for students. It's an argument which is very much like saying 'well, I haven't broken my leg, why should I pay for other people's healthcare?' The question of 'who pays' for education is fantastically unimportant, methinks.

And, obviously, alluding to the NHS won't mean a lot to the yanks here. You weirdos.

[ann ashtray]

People should be allowed to determine how they spend their own money when it comes to shit that doesn't boil down to necessity (how's that for "liberal"?) for themselves or others. University schooling is not a necessity for anyone. Sure, it's mandatory if one wishes to become a doctor...but becoming as such isn't mandatory for one's own survival.

There are plenty of grants out there, plenty of scholarships...and I don't know about anywhere else, but in the United States they aren't available only to rich people. You work hard, you earn it. If you don't work hard enough earlier in the game, you pay out of yr own pocket. I shouldn't have to pay for Billy "let's smoke cigarettes in the boys room and say fuck grades" Badass to get a better education.

I don't even know why I'm partaking in this debate....everyone is smart enough to know that it (thankfully...) won't happen here anyways. Shit's already bad enough as it is....more taxes towards a free education for everyone and watered down/less valuable degrees just doesn't sound like something good to fork out money on.

[knox]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I can't speak for the rest of the world but a significant factor in England's current problem was the abolition of the grants scheme in 1999. Students paid nothing but were far more rigorously vetted. What replaced it was a market system where if you were willing to pay (via a loan), you were pretty much guaranteed a place. This inflated the number of students going into higher education but could be seen as marking a certain level of dumbing down, as universities had to accomodate a far more mixed level of ability. This problem was further compunded by New Labour's silly idea of putting 50% of the population into higher education regardless of whether they'd benefit from it from a vocational point of view or would actually be able to deal with it on an intellectual level. I work in a university and I can honestly say that a large percentage if people there simply shouldn't be. Universities do need downscaling but it should be done in such a way that doesn't compromise their availability to those who can cope with its demands. In essence, bring back university grants.

Yes. End of thread.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

People should be allowed to determine how they spend their own money when it comes to shit that doesn't boil down to necessity (how's that for "liberal"?) for themselves or others. University schooling is not a necessity for anyone. Sure, it's mandatory if one wishes to become a doctor...but becoming as such isn't mandatory for one's own survival.

There are plenty of grants out there, plenty of scholarships...and I don't know about anywhere else, but in the United States they aren't available only to rich people. You work hard, you earn it. If you don't work hard enough earlier in the game, you pay out of yr own pocket. I shouldn't have to pay for Billy "let's smoke cigarettes in the boys room and say fuck grades" Badass to get a better education.

I don't even know why I'm partaking in this debate....everyone is smart enough to know that it (thankfully...) won't happen here anyways. Shit's already bad enough as it is....more taxes towards a free education for everyone and watered down/less valuable degrees just doesn't sound like something good to fork out money on.

sour grapes, just go back to college already, trust me, its worth it. The SYG consensus is officially against you, and for good reason. Our society is ours, if they can spend trillions of dollars on war(s), and if they can give hundreds of billions of tax breaks to businesses (which CLEARLY AREN'T HIRING ANY US DESPITE MAKING RECORD SETTING PROFITS EVEN IN A RECESSION) surely we can invest a few billion on higher education. Besides sway, all the little billy's who smoke in the boys room already are trust fund kids and mommy and daddy already pay for it along with giving him the used family Saab, but me and my folks on the curb need resources, we can't EVER compete with Billy and his daddy (who gets all those fucking tax cuts!!) With the fucked up, pro-rich tax system in America, our tax dollars ALREADY subsidize little Billy and his bullshit boojie rich family, us poor folks needs more crumbs.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

sour grapes, just go back to college already, trust me, its worth it.

Well, that poses a whole 'nutha debate....

How is it worth it?

What your attempting to do is be nice about the fact that you think I'm an idiot, just because I happen to have a different opinion that you.

BRILLIANT!

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

sour grapes, just go back to college already, trust me, its worth it. The SYG consensus is officially against you, and for good reason. Our society is ours, if they can spend trillions of dollars on war(s), and if they can give hundreds of billions of tax breaks to businesses (which CLEARLY AREN'T HIRING ANY US DESPITE MAKING RECORD SETTING PROFITS EVEN IN A RECESSION) surely we can invest a few billion on higher education. Besides sway, all the little billy's who smoke in the boys room already are trust fund kids and mommy and daddy already pay for it along with giving him the used family Saab, but me and my folks on the curb need resources, we can't EVER compete with Billy and his daddy (who gets all those fucking tax cuts!!) With the fucked up, pro-rich tax system in America, our tax dollars ALREADY subsidize little Billy and his bullshit boojie rich family, us poor folks needs more crumbs.

Oh, I forget....poor people don't smoke cigarettes in the boys restroom and get bad grades....got ya.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

Well, that poses a whole 'nutha debate....

How is it worth it?

What your attempting to do is be nice about the fact that you think I'm an idiot, just because I happen to have a different opinion that you.

BRILLIANT!

I don't think you are an idiot, I think you are being an idiot. I don't honestly think you that you sincerely believe all this bitter diatribe nonsense you are spitting. Your just hating (venting) and thats fine, but reality remains reality, and luck for us, your contributions to the tax revinues are not quite significant for your solitary, griping voice to be heard over the chorus of our demands.


Again, don't be so scurred, its only college, you will inevitably succeed there, this I am sure.

[Genteel Death]

The only end to this thread is that education should be free for everyone. All the others are superfluous.

[keep poppin pimples]

sway needs some real working class education

and here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mfje...layer_embedded


knowledge is not equipped unless somebody is hurt,and it's a shame

[jon boy]

bloody students!

 

[the ikara cult]

my only message is the kids behaved, did their tests, behaved themselves, and now theyre being fucked when they dont deserve it.

[ann ashtray]

Not many here are really being "fucked" though, unless of course they've done it to themselves. Again, being poor in the United States doesn't disqualify anyone from receiving grants or scholarships. Bad grades/poor attendance are more often to blame than what most are willing to admit.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule....but they are few and far between.

[fugazifan]

i am pretty sure that most scholarships and grants are not endless but have a certain limit. so technically, if every poor person worked hard they still would not all get funding.

there are a few other flaws in your reasoning. one is that poor people cannot always afford the SAT courses and private tutors that rich people can, sop their chances are lower for getting into certain schools and certain scholarships.

but also, i dont think that people have to pay for all of their past crimes. some people dont do well in highscholl, for many reason, not only because they smoke pot but because, for instance they have learning disabilities that are not well taken care of in their specific schools. or the way that highschool is taught just does not connect to them. does that mean that they wont be good students?
i, for instance was not a very good student in highschool but when i got to university i fit in very well with the learning approach offered to me.
it is also a lot of pressure for people not to be good, but to be the best in high school, that is to say, you cant get B+ or A- but only A+ because you have to compete with others for not only getting into school but for your money to study.

ad i also feel that your logic is flawed regarding free school = water downed degree. because even if a school is free it still requires certain things in order for students to be accepted, so it wont affect the actual academic level, but just the amount of qualified students who can actually afford to study there.

and again you talk about where your taxes go. so you have a bigger problem with your taxes paying for school than it paying for war and multinational corporations who, unlike the students, are the main offenders against the working class?