Fully tax supported public colleges and universities.

[ronburgundy]

When I went to university, not only were all of the fees paid for from taxation, but they also provided me with a cash award that was enough to live on (albeit frugally, and with subsidised rent from the university). At no time during my university education did I have a job, nor did I get any money from family or friends; I did borrow a few hundred pounds from a bank, but it was never on the cards that I might borrow thousands, or tens of thousands. This was at the end of the 1980s. I was amongst the last people in the UK to have the benefit of that system. I am pretty sure that had I not been able to access this funding from the public purse, I would not have been able to go to university at all.

My subsequent employment has never been in specific field I studied (Molecular Biology), although I did work for a pharmaceutical company in a variety of non-technical roles for about 12 years; I now work in IT, in a technical role that has no relationship to the biological sciences at all. I have no doubt that my education played a vital part in making me a net contributor to society - and I have no doubt that the taxes I have paid since have covered the initial investment made in my education many times over.

The only 'reason' I can see that that system was dumped is because some people (in particular Margaret Thatcher and her government) had an ideological horror of the idea that anybody might get more than their share, or might be able to play the system in any way. They were more than happy to see a worse overall outcome for the United Kingdom, as long as they could thereby ensure that fewer people were able to free-load. Ha! Take that, face. Don't look so pretty now you have no nose, do you?

I don't understand. Since you didn't have skin in the game, how in the world did you ever complete your education?

This passive aggressive attempt to mock the "commitment" argument has identical "logic" to the following anti-gun control argument:

"I don't understand. Since you own 10 assault rifles that you got without a check or wait at a gun show, how is it possible that you have never killed anyone?"

Both are completely invalid strawman distortions of the arguments they pretend to be mocking. The issue is not that every student would waste their opportunity if their education were free (just like not every assault rifle sold results in a killing).
The point is that the number of students that don't put in the effort to get an education in college would increase, if the opportunity was increased for them to do so without any cost to themselves. This is a virtual certainty based only on 2 undeniable, evidence verified facts: 1) many students go to college without much if any internal drive to get educated and merely use college as a way of deferring responsibility and choice making about their future; 2) when people lack an internal motive to do something, then external motives like cost of doing it or not largely determine how they act.

Many of these non-intrinsically motivated students are already wasting other people's money by not putting in sufficient effort in their college education, even though they or their parents also pay for a portion of it. IF we completely remove any negative cost of wasting this money, then that inherently decreases external motivation to get anything out of their education, which will impact the actions of those lacking sufficient internal motivation. Few statements about human behavior have more empirical support than that.

The rational response here is not to deny this fact of reality, but to argue that this increase cost of more students "screwing off" is outweighed by the increased benefit of getting education to people who do have internal motivation but are either scared off by the high risk of large debt or whose honest efforts in college are undermined by having to spend too much time working while in college. Also, there are ways that the "screwing off" costs can be reduced, such as the suggestion I made earlier that college carries a back-end cost ranging from free to X, depending upon actual course performance and graduation. IOW, increase effort via external motivations that puts a cost to the student, but not a cost on getting an actual education, but on wasting their opportunity and not getting one while still spending other people's money. This is not very radical. Something like it already happens with many grants and scholarships where if the student fails to maintain a particular GPA or fails to graduate, then they are in debt for the "free" money they were given up front.

 

[laughing dog]

Besides being a mindless lefty American analysis of what these countries are dealing with, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that their educational success is directly tied to testing, tracking, and not using non-academic factors (e.g., skin color) as an excuse to lower admission standards below levels that make failure and non-graduation highly likely. Your argument is as invalid as those who argue that we should reject the theory of Evolution because of Darwin's personal failings.

For some reason, you are under the illusion that your handwaved broadbrushed generalizations about students are different than mindless analysis.

 

[Toni]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree? Those less committed will be more likely to choose community college, which is less expensive. This doesn't mean it's not possible for them to attend a university, just that they aren't committed enough to part with the additional out of pocket.

If you have all of these less committed students attending university, a large part of that money is being thrown away.

In that case we should forbid parents from paying for their kid's college. After all, if the kids themselves don't have skin in the game then how can we be sure they'll be committed to finishing the school they are not paying for directly?

The difference with the parents paying for it is that the taxpayers don't lose money on a noncommittal student - it's the parents who are out the money.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Trying not to do the eyeroll thing at Germany's stance on skin color.

You should probably be working on getting yourself much more up to date on how Germany and other European countries are dealing with the influx of immigrants and persons of color.

Besides being a mindless lefty American analysis of what these countries are dealing with, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that their educational success is directly tied to testing, tracking, and not using non-academic factors (e.g., skin color) as an excuse to lower admission standards below levels that make failure and non-graduation highly likely. Your argument is as invalid as those who argue that we should reject the theory of Evolution because of Darwin's personal failings.

What argument did I make? I suggested that you better inform yourself.

I can see that such suggestions will be wasted on you as you are so certain of your opinion that no facts will influence it.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you want to educate people as well as they can be educated then price to the student should not be any kind of barrier at all. Otherwise you are going to have kids that only go to lower tier schools because of the price to them out of pocket when they could have easily handled a higher tier school.

I'd like to see free, at the point of service, higher education funded by taxes. Every year we have national testing to see which schools you would be eligible to attend. That way academic performance is what determines what level of school you can attend rather than what you can afford yourself.

How do you test for commitment to complete a 4 year degree? Those less committed will be more likely to choose community college, which is less expensive. This doesn't mean it's not possible for them to attend a university, just that they aren't committed enough to part with the additional out of pocket.

If you have all of these less committed students attending university, a large part of that money is being thrown away.

In that case we should forbid parents from paying for their kid's college. After all, if the kids themselves don't have skin in the game then how can we be sure they'll be committed to finishing the school they are not paying for directly?

The difference with the parents paying for it is that the taxpayers don't lose money on a noncommittal student - it's the parents who are out the money.

I think you are blowing this potential problem way out of proportion.

Do you have any hard numbers about the non-graduation rate of university systems in countries that have publically financed tuition?

Several countries, like Germany, do not allow people into academic University unless they show clear evidence of having both the skill and will to succeed, which means high grades in secondary school and lots of standardized testing, and no excuses, and no affirmative action that lowers standards based on skin color.
All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students.
Other students not eligible for academic university are tracked into career-specific training schools (similar to ITT but publicly funded and less corrupt).

There is a lot there that would be opposed in the US, and moreso by segments of the political left than the right.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Trying not to do the eyeroll thing at Germany's stance on skin color.

You should probably be working on getting yourself much more up to date on how Germany and other European countries are dealing with the influx of immigrants and persons of color.

Besides being a mindless lefty American analysis of what these countries are dealing with, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that their educational success is directly tied to testing, tracking, and not using non-academic factors (e.g., skin color) as an excuse to lower admission standards below levels that make failure and non-graduation highly likely. Your argument is as invalid as those who argue that we should reject the theory of Evolution because of Darwin's personal failings.

What argument did I make? I suggested that you better inform yourself.

Your right, as per usual, you made no argument, which requires presenting something resembling a coherent thought of logical relevance to the issue.

What you did was try to dismiss my relevant facts by presenting a claim about Germany's race relations that has zero logical relevance to anything I said or to why their college system is both government funded and effective and efficient. Why would you possibly offer that observation, unless you thought (wrongly) that it somehow constituted a basis to reject my argument?

Oh, and I am far more informed about Germany and its race relations than you are.

 

[ksen]

What in your proposal would be opposed by the Left?

It isn't "my proposal", but existing features of some of the successful European education systems that you were referring to. The features that would be opposed by the US left are those they already oppose in even a more modest/limited form, namely standardized testing in general, centralized common core standards, ability-based tracking, and high academic admission standards rooted in objective quantified achievement that is applied equally to all (i.e., no affirmative action in college admissions).

I'm pretty left-leaning and the only problem I'd have if we instituted these standards is that we'd also have to figure out a way to equalize k-12 education so that kids in poorer communities aren't at a disadvantage when it comes time to take their university entrance examinations.

Of course there would have to be standards and testing to get admitted into university.

And there is a massive anti-testing and anti-standards culture in the US that comes almost entirely from the political left.

I don't know that that's entirely true. At least anecdotally I live in a very conservative part of Florida and local morning talk radio is full of callers complaining about teachers teaching to the test and hatred of Common Core.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Ok, this one just sounds like the "there are too many blacks in America for this to work" argument.

No, it is a "there are too many idiots and anti-intellectuals" argument. Of the non-exhaustive list of 6 types of excuses to not try in school that would impact no-cost college, some come from the political right and only 1 had to do with race, and not about blacks or their actual abilities, but rather about the pseudo-intellectuals (plenty of them white) who create a culture and rhetoric that fuels "because racism" as an excuse for minorities to not try as hard, which is ironically responsible for much of the academic performance gap that these pseudo-intellectuals wrongly blame on racism (unless they count their own racism, then it is tied to racism).

Unfortanately it is a fact that we are still dealing with the fallout of our racist policies of the past. There's a reason there's still so much minority poverty and it's not because they're just not that good at capitalism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Besides being a mindless lefty American analysis of what these countries are dealing with, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that their educational success is directly tied to testing, tracking, and not using non-academic factors (e.g., skin color) as an excuse to lower admission standards below levels that make failure and non-graduation highly likely. Your argument is as invalid as those who argue that we should reject the theory of Evolution because of Darwin's personal failings.

For some reason, you are under the illusion that your handwaved broadbrushed generalizations about students are different than mindless analysis.

For some reason, you are under the illusion that you have any understanding about the accurate meaning of words like "handwaved" "broadbrushed" and "generalization".
But then, I have yet to see you discuss a topic without grossly abusing language in order to misrepresent others, so no surprises.
I have made claims about students in general other than that they are subject to the most basic factors of behavioral determination that impact all humans, namely that perceived personal costs and benefits impact their choices and actions. Why don't you try to deny that fact? You've certainly denied similarly irrefutable scientific facts, plenty of times.

In fact, other than this human quality, my whole point is that students vary a great deal from one another. They vary in their capability of learning at the college level and the type of skills they would best learn, they vary in internal motivation to get an education or just pursue a paycheck or just goof off. Some students will still try at college if its free and some with not. Some struggle with academic achievement due to racism and some use it at a b.s. excuse not to try harder, etc..

In fact, I was pointing out the wrongness of the presumed generalizations about all students that was logically inherent to ksen's comment. His argument against some students not trying if college were free was that if that isn't a problem in European countries with free college, then it won't be a problem in the US. That presumes that all potential college students in the US and all of Europe are a single type of student, which is the only way it would be reasonable to presume that what is true of students in Germany would hold for students in the US. He also, makes the even more implausible assumptions that ever other relevant factor that impacts college effort and graduation is the same between these cultures.

 

[laughing dog]

For some reason, you are under the illusion that your handwaved broadbrushed generalizations about students are different than mindless analysis.

For some reason, you are under the illusion that you have any understanding about the accurate meaning of words like "handwaved" "broadbrushed" and "generalization".

No. Nuggets like "there is a massive anti-testing and anti-standards culture in the US that comes almost entirely from the political left" and "All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students" are examples of mindless handwaved (i.e unsubstantiated) broadbrush generalizations.

But then, I have yet to see you discuss a topic without grossly abusing language in order to misrepresent others, so no surprises.
I have made claims about students in general other than that they are subject to the most basic factors of behavioral determination that impact all humans, namely that perceived personal costs and benefits impact their choices and actions. Why don't you try to deny that fact? You've certainly denied similarly irrefutable scientific facts, plenty of times.

I think we are both on the same page here - neither you nor I know what you are talking about.

But then, I have yet to see you discuss a topic without grossly abusing language in order to misrepresent others, so no surprises. The features that would be opposed by the US left are those they already oppose in even a more modest/limited form, namely standardized testing in general, centralized common core standards, ability-based tracking, and high academic admission standards rooted in objective quantified achievement that is applied equally to all

And here you are, once again, providing more examples of mindless broadbrush generalizations.

In fact, other than this human quality, my whole point is that students vary a great deal from one another. They vary in their capability of learning at the college level and the type of skills they would best learn, they vary in internal motivation to get an education or just pursue a paycheck or just goof off. Some students will still try at college if its free and some with not. Some struggle with academic achievement due to racism and some use it at a b.s. excuse not to try harder, etc..

Then make that point (as if it is really relevant).

In fact, I was pointing out the wrongness of the presumed generalizations about all students that was logically inherent to ksen's comment. His argument against some students not trying if college were free was that if that isn't a problem in European countries with free college, then it won't be a problem in the US. That presumes that all potential college students in the US and all of Europe are a single type of student, which is the only way it would be reasonable to presume that what is true of students in Germany would hold for students in the US. He also, makes the even more implausible assumptions that ever other relevant factor that impacts college effort and graduation is the same between these cultures.

Your reading between the lines (implict assumptions) reflects on your imagination, not the actual content of his posts.

 

[ronburgundy]

It isn't "my proposal", but existing features of some of the successful European education systems that you were referring to. The features that would be opposed by the US left are those they already oppose in even a more modest/limited form, namely standardized testing in general, centralized common core standards, ability-based tracking, and high academic admission standards rooted in objective quantified achievement that is applied equally to all (i.e., no affirmative action in college admissions).

I'm pretty left-leaning and the only problem I'd have if we instituted these standards is that we'd also have to figure out a way to equalize k-12 education so that kids in poorer communities aren't at a disadvantage when it comes time to take their university entrance examinations.

Glad to hear it, but your personal openness isn't the issue. Overwhelmingly the political movement against standardized testing comes from the left, and it is only partly tied to minorities performing worse. Some on the left are hell bent on denying that people are unequal in any meaningful way on any trait that might be generally valued. Standardized tests inherently put a specific number onto where students stand relative to each other (i.e. unequal) on basic qualities important to intellectual development and education. They measure either how much you already know, or how easily you can learn new things are constantly attacked by the left with b.s. pseudo-science arguments similar to their denial of the established reality of general cognitive abilities that are relatively stable over time and topic. Academic tracking was and is opposed in the US mostly by the left, and again, only partly due to racial issues. But even so, the racial issue is inherently part of it. Your grandkids will be long dead before the racial gap in grade school performance is gone. Thus, any tracking based on ability and/or readiness will result in racial disparities between the tracks. There is no quick fix (less than a century) for that which would not undermine the effects of the tracking system which is responsible for Germany's effectiveness in placing people on vocational and academic tracks that optimize their success and doesn't waste resources. There is no plausible universe where poorer kids are not going to score worse on average on any remotely valid entrance exam the measures intellectual readiness. There are no government policies that would come close to making that happen. Parents, peers, community, and life events all impact how much learning happens in schools. So, the governments would actually have to intentionally hamper the quality of education that wealthier kids got in order to ensure that their test scores were equal to that of poorer kids in better schools but with everything else working less in their favor.

Of course there would have to be standards and testing to get admitted into university.

And there is a massive anti-testing and anti-standards culture in the US that comes almost entirely from the political left.

I don't know that that's entirely true. At least anecdotally I live in a very conservative part of Florida and local morning talk radio is full of callers complaining about teachers teaching to the test and hatred of Common Core.

You are right that there is rhetoric against the common core from the right, and quick googling shows its more common than I realized. But for them its not about have core standards assessed with standardized tests, but about the "common" part, namely it being Federal and thus a state's rights issue, plus its something they can blame on Obama. They are using it as a phony wedge issue. In principle, conservatives have much less of a problem with having a set of intellectual standards that all students are evaluated on, which then determines eligibility for higher education opportunities. Do you think that sounds like something conservative or liberals are more likely to oppose? I have done education research dealing with the common core and with teacher's views of it. Almost all the rhetoric I hear against it is tied either to it hampering teachers classroom creativity, allowing more direct teacher effectiveness comparisons that will determine promotions, or general opposition to standardized testing. The relative % of opposition from left or right doesn't really matter. It is that there is plenty of opposition from the left, including among teachers, and not for valid reasons. Common core is just one factor that ties into testing and eligibility, which gets some leftists focusing myopically on the ties into class and race disparities.

Also, education-related cultural differences make likely that the US would face a level of uncommitted, money wasting students that these other countries do not. Most of the north and western Europe countries with strong University systems seem to have a lot less of the anti-intellectualism that plagues the US and comes from both the left and right of the political spectrum. We have so many students just looking to invent reasons why they shouldn't try in school, why they should give up when it gets hard, and why when they struggle it is always someone else's fault (e.g., the teacher, the school, standardized testing, common core, racism, "useless" courses that don't translate directly into job skills).

Ok, this one just sounds like the "there are too many blacks in America for this to work" argument.

No, it is a "there are too many idiots and anti-intellectuals" argument. Of the non-exhaustive list of 6 types of excuses to not try in school that would impact no-cost college, some come from the political right and only 1 had to do with race, and not about blacks or their actual abilities, but rather about the pseudo-intellectuals (plenty of them white) who create a culture and rhetoric that fuels "because racism" as an excuse for minorities to not try as hard, which is ironically responsible for much of the academic performance gap that these pseudo-intellectuals wrongly blame on racism (unless they count their own racism, then it is tied to racism).

Unfortanately it is a fact that we are still dealing with the fallout of our racist policies of the past. There's a reason there's still so much minority poverty and it's not because they're just not that good at capitalism.

I agree, but that just supports my point above that this fallout is akin to nuclear fallout in the longevity and lack of easy "fixability". Race will be related to income for generations to come and income will be related to objective readiness for college until the end of time. Thus, it is impossible to implement an effective (both educationally and costwise) system based upon actual college readiness that won't produce college attendance disparities in both income and race. And no matter the massive benefits to all people of all income and all races, many on the left care more about relative differences than absolute benefits, and will thus oppose such a system. Conservatives would also oppose it but only for the reason that it would entail more Fed level control over curriculum and college eligibility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, plenty of college students already screw off and put no effort into it, barely graduating or dropping out. That's a lot of wasted money other people are paying for zero benefit to society. That would get much worse with completely free tuition.

Exactly. I knew too many back in school who saw their parents sending them to school as easier than working. They weren't there to learn. My parents both taught at a community college--and saw a big difference between the fresh-out-of-high-school students and those coming back later in life on their own dime.

1) Higher grades and graduation get students tuition refunds up to potentially "full refund" levels, which will incentivise effort and disincentivise students just wasting everyone's time and money spending years in school without real effort or direction.

Only if we get rid of grade inflation. I like the idea but I'm not at all sure of how it could be made to actually work.

2) Loan repayment is conditional on future income. Graduates pay back % of their loans, depending upon income during the years after graduation. This has a number of benefits. First, it allows education to serve its other important societal functions above and beyond just creating a skilled workforce. Second, graduates that get more financial benefit from their education will pay for more of that education.

I've been advocating this for years. Student loan repayment would become part of your tax return. If you have student loans you owe a certain amount of repayment based on your income. (Graduated, like the income tax is, not a flat rate.) The IRS distributes this to your creditors. This only ends when the loan is paid off but if your income is low enough you don't have to pay anything--the disabled end up with in effect automatic forgiveness of the loans.

 

[ronburgundy]

For some reason, you are under the illusion that you have any understanding about the accurate meaning of words like "handwaved" "broadbrushed" and "generalization".

No. Nuggets like "there is a massive anti-testing and anti-standards culture in the US that comes almost entirely from the political left" and "All of these are critical in producing not only high graduation rates, but avoiding the need to lower grading standards that is widespread in the US, just to avoid failing half their students" are examples of mindless handwaved (i.e unsubstantiated) broadbrush generalizations.

First, none of those have to do with statements "about students" which is what you claimed, but please keep back-peddling. Second, those are not broadbush generalizations either. They are references to specific sub-cultures within the US to which some people ascribe and some do not. The unscientific and anti-education movement to get rid of SATs and other standardized tests for college is a part of it. It is mostly driven by the fact that minority students perform worse on them, so pro affirmative action advocates want to get rid of them. There are plenty of "liberals" that support standardized testing, including most of the people with enough scientific literacy to see the b.s. arguments levied against them. I never painted liberals as generally opposing standardized testing, only that the culture that opposes such testing in principle (not just the Fed over State aspect of it) is largely made up of people with a left-wing political agenda and this is one of the wrong headed ways they pursue it.

But then, I have yet to see you discuss a topic without grossly abusing language in order to misrepresent others, so no surprises. The features that would be opposed by the US left are those they already oppose in even a more modest/limited form, namely standardized testing in general, centralized common core standards, ability-based tracking, and high academic admission standards rooted in objective quantified achievement that is applied equally to all

And here you are, once again, providing more examples of mindless broadbrush generalizations.

And here you are once again showing total illiteracy and ignorance in the meaning of those terms. Funny how you cannot show a single way in which my statements are incorrect, other than handwaving dismissal (that's a valid use) on the grounds that its a "generalization" and therefore wrong (thus making all scientific statements wrong, since all are generalizations). Are you actually going to make an argument that there is no sub-segment of liberals who oppose standardized testing? Because that is the only argument that would refute what I said.

In fact, other than this human quality, my whole point is that students vary a great deal from one another. They vary in their capability of learning at the college level and the type of skills they would best learn, they vary in internal motivation to get an education or just pursue a paycheck or just goof off. Some students will still try at college if its free and some with not. Some struggle with academic achievement due to racism and some use it at a b.s. excuse not to try harder, etc..

Then make that point (as if it is really relevant).

I did make it. You are just too blinded by rabid ideology to understand that all arguments against your vacuous rhetoric are not identical and cannot be refuted by your little rehearsed mantras. The fact that you can't grasp the logical relevance of personal costs to behavioral motivation shows an inability at basic logic or profound ignorance of the most basic facts of human behavior, or most likely both.

In fact, I was pointing out the wrongness of the presumed generalizations about all students that was logically inherent to ksen's comment. His argument against some students not trying if college were free was that if that isn't a problem in European countries with free college, then it won't be a problem in the US. That presumes that all potential college students in the US and all of Europe are a single type of student, which is the only way it would be reasonable to presume that what is true of students in Germany would hold for students in the US. He also, makes the even more implausible assumptions that ever other relevant factor that impacts college effort and graduation is the same between these cultures.

Your reading between the lines (implict assumptions) reflects on your imagination, not the actual content of his posts.

No, it reflects my ability to accurately identify the implicit logical assumptions that he must be making for his comment to have any relevance to the claims he is rejecting, and to be anything other than random word salad from a madman.
A child reaches for a cookie jar and says "I want a cookie". Inferring that he thinks there are cookies in the jar is rational. Pretending that you or others have no basis to think the child believes the jar contains cookies is as stupid as it gets and denies the inductive source of virtually all knowledge.

 

[laughing dog]

First, none of those have to do with statements "about students" which is what you claimed, but please keep back-peddling. Second, those are not broadbush generalizations either....

Yes they are broadbrush generalizations.

They are references to specific sub-cultures within the US to which some people ascribe and some do not. The unscientific and anti-education movement to get rid of SATs and other standardized tests for college is a part of it. It is mostly driven by the fact that minority students perform worse on them, so pro affirmative action advocates want to get rid of them. There are plenty of "liberals" that support standardized testing, including most of the people with enough scientific literacy to see the b.s. arguments levied against them. I never painted liberals as generally opposing standardized testing, only that the culture that opposes such testing in principle (not just the Fed over State aspect of it) is largely made up of people with a left-wing political agenda and this is one of the wrong headed ways they pursue it.

Thank you for admitting you used a handwaved broadbrush generalization.

And here you are once again showing total illiteracy and ignorance in the meaning of those terms. Funny how you cannot show a single way in which my statements are incorrect, other than handwaving dismissal (that's a valid use) on the grounds that its a "generalization" and therefore wrong (thus making all scientific statements wrong, since all are generalizations). Are you actually going to make an argument that there is no sub-segment of liberals who oppose standardized testing? Because that is the only argument that would refute what I said.

Making ridiculous assertions that I am claiming a "generalization" is necessarily wrong and shifting the goal posts from "the political left" to "a sub-segment of liberals" is a tacit admission on your part that my observations are valid.

I did make it. You are just too blinded by rabid ideology to understand that all arguments against your vacuous rhetoric are not identical and cannot be refuted by your little rehearsed mantras. The fact that you can't grasp the logical relevance of personal costs to behavioral motivation shows an inability at basic logic or profound ignorance of the most basic facts of human behavior, or most likely both.

Instead of engaging in mind-reading, try to focus on actual logical arguments. "Personal costs to behavioral motivation" with regard to students is such a broad brush as to be meaningless. For example, how does that apply to a student who misses a week of classes due to an unprovoked beating and subsequently fails a couple of classes due the rigidity of the professors's grading standards? Or the death of sibling throws the student into a depression that results in flunking all the classes? Instead of throwing out psychojargon to justify your biases, try to actual think about what you are proposing and writing.

No, it reflects my ability to accurately identify the implicit logical assumptions that he must be making for his comment to have any relevance to the claims he is rejecting, and to be anything other than random word salad from a madman. ...

Nah, it doesn't.

A child reaches for a cookie jar and says "I want a cookie". Inferring that he thinks there are cookies in the jar is rational. Pretending that you or others have no basis to think the child believes the jar contains cookies is as stupid as it gets and denies the inductive source of virtually all knowledge.

There is nothing similar about your analogy and the points under discussion. If I suppose I should wonder why you feel the need to persistently come up with this dumb and irrelevant examples in order to throw out some veiled insults, but life is too short to waste on such trivial matters.

 

[untermensche]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Try to address my post next time you respond to my post.

You talked about funding based on "practical" standards.

If those standards are to supply a workforce for capitalism then the education should seek to make people as narrow minded and generally useless as capitalism makes them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

 

[ksen]

I just gotta say that the ronburgundy/laughing dog fights are some of the best ones we have.

 

[laughing dog]

I just gotta say that the ronburgundy/laughing dog fights are some of the best ones we have.

Thanks buddy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How do other countries afford to fully fund higher education? How did we?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Fully taxpayer funded higher education? Only the truly useful ones. Science and engineering and medicine and law, yes. Philosophy and Fine Art, no.

And no public funding of any kind for any admission not based entirely on merit. None for athletic scholarships. None for race based.

If public tax dollars are used, it should be used fairly and based on merit alone, and it should yeild results for the general public.

 

[untermensche]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

You've obviously not ever read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' if you think these comments are not about the real world.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Fully taxpayer funded higher education? Only the truly useful ones. Science and engineering and medicine and law, yes. Philosophy and Fine Art, no.

And no public funding of any kind for any admission not based entirely on merit. None for athletic scholarships. None for race based.

If public tax dollars are used, it should be used fairly and based on merit alone, and it should yeild results for the general public.

Why Law? And Fine Arts does yield results for the general public.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's (the University of Oklahoma) mission is not to make a profit, nor to attract students - it is to educate those who qualify and wish to attend. .

If this is the case, should public universities be free at the point of admission? Should they be totally supported by tax payer dollars?

Ideally, yes. This is the main obligation that society has, to educate our children. And society benefits the most when our children are educated to fulfill their maximum potential. We learned this from the impact of the GI bill after World War II.

And it is obscene that people have to take out high interest loans that take half of lifetime to pay back in order to go to a public university. </slight hyperbole>