Clinton College Proposal

[Gregolian]

There's a part of me that honestly isn't a huge fan of making Uni "paid for" so to speak. Generally speaking people go to University in order to get higher paying jobs yadayada... however, generally speaking most of those jobs could be considered "intellectual"/white collar. I mean fuck, I make shit wages but still have to wear a damn collared shirt and tie to work everyday.

I would not be against starting this by having the gov't pay for Tech/Trade schools which is what this country is really REALLY lacking. They aren't glamorous but I bet I could find a better paying job faster if I had a Welders, Plumbers, Electrician, or Mechanics certificate than I found with my 4 year degree when I ended up working as a bouncer for a year.

Not trying to hate, but...sell your damn car and buy a cheaper one. I have a C300 that I don't pay $462 a month on.

It's my first ever real loan from a bank so I have ZERO credit history. I am sure once I re-finance here in the next 6 months it'll be better.

And sorry, but no, not selling my truck and driving some piece of shit Civic or Camry when I am 6'4" and have to wear a suit to work. There is no way I could get in and out of it without ripping something. And I certainly will not use my 1984 Bronco 1 as a daily driver anymore, the gas on that thing is ridiculous and it does not want to run at all in the winter time.

I AM however like 3 months ahead on my truck payment since I drop $500 every time I go to pay.

 

[llperez22]

are there a bunch of quality careers out there that require college education sitting around unstaffed? You can promote education all you want, im certainly not against that, but might be waste of money if we dont adress the bigger issue of job creation.

 

[panamaican]

Great suggestions, especially making college enrollment more difficult, which would increase the value of the degrees. If it were only the smartest 20% going to college, I'd have no problem paying for their tuition.

But you know we can't have nice things because that would result in "disparate impact" :icon_neut

I'll try not to sidetrack the thread but we have disparate impact because our current public school system was redesigned to create disparate impact. The shift to property tax funding was done specifically to yield different results based on where people lived. No one should be surprised.

It's one reason I think shifting to federal funding makes far more sense. You fund every school the same per student, set national standards, and then enforce them. Instead, we're using a market based system to determine quality of education and that's stupid for a public good. It's more asinine when the market we're using isn't based on anything school related but property values. In what world, should there be a relationship between property values and quality of education provided if education is actually important for it's own sake?

 

[weich]

I think our high school education system needs to be changed. It seems that most, if not all, public high schools are funded by the property taxes that are in the vicinity of the school. This means that poor neighborhoods have less funds for their schools. You end up taking disadvantaged kids and giving them a lesser education.

It's in society's interest to educate our children to a higher degree, especially singe education reduces crime and incarceration.

 

[ripskater]

That would be a waste of money. I went to college and most kids were just screwing off.

 

[panamaican]

I disagree with the whole highschool thing 100%. I barely made it past highschool cause just didn't care. I was to young to understand how it would affect my future if I failed. Just keep highschool as it is I don't see any reason to change it. This country has plenty of money to pay for the colleges it's just a matter of are we willing to make the cuts in the places we know we can afford to. Mainly the defense budget.

No offense but that's not a good reason to keep high school standards low. If someone barely makes it past high school then they're not prepared for something more rigorous anyway. And getting by with low marks doesn't help you, you still have the same hs school transcript.

But I do understand your concern. I think hs needs a complete overhaul. I think each level of completion at 10th, 11th, and 12th grade needs it's own recognition. That way attrition doesn't also permanently disenfranchise people. The thing is we can do all of this for less than paying for a bunch of college degrees that might not be employable plus paying for high school.

 

[Medusas Weave]

Hillary is looking to reduce/eliminate costs of public college and pay for it by eliminating/reducing certain itemized deductions on higher income earners.

http://www.accountingtoday.com/news...etter&utm_campaign=daily-aug 12 2015&st=email

The plan is estimated to cost $350 billion. Assuming the cost is covered (lets be honest, we can reduce military spending as well to fund this) I think it's a great idea. Ideas along this line of thinking are probably the best way to combat income inequality.

This also seeks to hold public colleges to higher standards and to control costs.

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear a conservative solution to rising education costs.

again, stupid answer that does not fix the issue.
It is known that the more students can loan, the more colleges will charge for tuition.

How do you fix that? I don't know without controls.

 

[Denter]

I'll try not to sidetrack the thread but we have disparate impact because our current public school system was redesigned to create disparate impact. The shift to property tax funding was done specifically to yield different results based on where people lived. No one should be surprised.

It's one reason I think shifting to federal funding makes far more sense. You fund every school the same per student, set national standards, and then enforce them. Instead, we're using a market based system to determine quality of education and that's stupid for a public good. It's more asinine when the market we're using isn't based on anything school related but property values. In what world, should there be a relationship between property values and quality of education provided if education is actually important for it's own sake?

Not to derail too much, but there have been experiments in funding inner city schools with extreme amounts of money, which failed to move the needle very much at all.

Even moving to federal funding, there would be an achievement gap, and it would manifest itself in whatever meritocratic admissions criteria you come up with.

 

[Gregolian]

To change inner city schools I think you have to change... well, the area surronding.

When kids grow up surrounded by people that can basically get what they want when they want buy selling dope and shit, well, as a kid did you want the easy way or the hard way to get what you wanted?

 

[kpt018]

That would be a waste of money. I went to college and most kids were just screwing off.

That's deep, man.

But seriously, how can you argue that college does not educate people?

again, stupid answer that does not fix the issue.
It is known that the more students can loan, the more colleges will charge for tuition.

How do you fix that? I don't know without controls.

Did you even read the proposal?

 

[Medusas Weave]

I think our high school education system needs to be changed. It seems that most, if not all, public high schools are funded by the property taxes that are in the vicinity of the school. This means that poor neighborhoods have less funds for their schools. You end up taking disadvantaged kids and giving them a lesser education.

It's in society's interest to educate our children to a higher degree, especially singe education reduces crime and incarceration.

Well, why should I pay for some asshole's school in some other town?

Guess who gets more government funding? the getto schools or the rich area schools?

So, while they get less from property taxes, they get more fed money.

I saw a HS in bronx in a shitty area. Fucking place was incredible, I mean a CSI lab, a full mock courtroom and etc. Kids in uniforms. For real.
I spoke to an english teacher and she told me 60% of her kids are failing.


Again, the problem with getto schools are the getto motherfuckers that live there, who do NOT VALUE EDUCATION AT ALL.

There are some kids there that really care and really try, but they have an issue of the assholes interrupting class so no one can learn and intimidating the kids who do want to learn.

No amount of money is going to fix that.

You cannot make a kid want to learn if the culture he is living in gives zero fucks about school.

wake up people

 

[Gregolian]

That's deep, man.

But seriously, how can you argue that college does not educate people?

It educates but so many college kids get a "holier than thou" attitude about fucking EVERYTHING.

I think I was lucky that I missed out on much of that cause my dad, even though he is 77 years old at the end of the week, still scares the FUCK out of me and wouldn't let me act that way.

I saw it a ton at my bar... idiots suggesting to us bouncers to "unionize" and we'd all stare at each other like "huh? that won't fucking work"

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't know enough to really evaluate the plan, but I like the goal, and the cost seems reasonable.

Side note: I wonder what the folks at Accounting Today think of the convention of reporting the costs of programs in terms of 10-year nominal dollars. It's very common, but it seems obviously majorly flawed. Might be better to relate it to GDP (I think that would be about 0.17% of GDP over the next 10 years).

 

[dabausplaya]

I can't even afford to not live at home with the folks right now. Barely make $1400 a month, with a $462 truck payment every month... bbbbooooo

You could find a much cheaper car than that. Which is why it's ridiculous for the tax payers to subsidize your ventures. But carry on.

 

[ripskater]

You could find a much cheaper car than that. Which is why it's ridiculous for the tax payers to subsidize your ventures. But carry on.

I paid $1000 bucks for the van I'm driving.

 

[Gregolian]

You could find a much cheaper car than that. Which is why it's ridiculous for the tax payers to subsidize your ventures. But carry on.

Not one that is only 10 years old, had under 100k miles, and isn't only 3 inches off the ground that I can comfortably get in and out of.

I paid $1000 bucks for the van I'm driving.

That's nice but how often does it break down or need shit fixed? How old is it and how many miles does it have?

Also, does it look like the Free Candy van?

 

[ucunc156]

Sucks to be this generation. Last generation, they were able to file bankruptcy. Which I think we should be able to do. File it, start fresh but with the credit hit. You lose time but it's not the debt servitude that it's become.

As for MA and PhD programs, I don't think we need to fund those yet. But at some point the conversation will be needed.

In truth, the cheapest and best option is to ramp up high school difficulty levels so that graduation isn't the rubber stamp it has become and starts meaning something again. People need to fail high school - we should probably aim for a specific attrition rate.

That will make college enrollment more competitive and, presumably, increase the value of the degrees. That should boost employability, relative to the debt incurred, and we wouldn't have to pay for college at all, just better high schools. But people balk at the idea of rigorous high school standards so this is the next best option.

i'm not even at that stage. even if they let me claim bankruptcy, I already paid all my loans off so it doesn't help me at all lol. i'd just lose the house I bought and the car I already paid for.

Great suggestions, especially making college enrollment more difficult, which would increase the value of the degrees. If it were only the smartest 20% going to college, I'd have no problem paying for their tuition.

But you know we can't have nice things because that would result in "disparate impact" :icon_neut

i've gone back and forth on this stuff. Standards should rise, because in general people have gotten smarter. And oversaturating the market is horrible for the economy. OTOH, jobs for people who just have a high school degree are also being replaced. When you have a huge increase in engineers and programmers, natural selection will climate the manual labor. This cycle just continues over and over, so even if the average student with an engineering degree is a worse student than an engineering grad 20 years ago, he is still comparatively in the top ___% of the general population, which is ultimately what matters.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

If everyone has a college degree how would you differentiate yourself from your fellow jobseekers?

Wouldn't there be a new standard of needing a doctorate? Or maybe a 4.0 GPA?

Point being, the college degree will become as useless as a high school diploma.

 

[ripskater]

That's deep, man.

But seriously, how can you argue that college does not educate people?

College helps people. But if you make other people subsidize your college, and you get off by paying a lot less, you will value that opportunity less. Lots of kids go to school and its pretty much one big party, if you make it cheaper, that cheapens the opportunity and you'll probably see even more kids screwing off.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I can't even afford to not live at home with the folks right now. Barely make $1400 a month, with a $462 truck payment every month... bbbbooooo

Dude, why in the hell do you have a $462 truck payment while earning $1400 a month. That's as dumb as it gets. This is the problem with the world. Keeping up with the Jonses is always a bad idea.



Edit: You should be driving a car that cost no more than 6 grand. Sure, it's not as nice as what you have, but that is what you can afford.