Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need to test everyone in 10th grade. If they haven't shown aptitude and attitude to succeed by then, no public funding or loans for college. Teach them a trade.
For the rest, the top 20%, give them a free ride to any college they can gain admission into. Nothing stimulates things like a dose of healthy competition.
Along the right track but not quite there IMO.
Here's a better solution:
Put the competitive pressure on the universities instead of the students. Only the top 20% of universities to accept federal financial aid. This will weed out schools such as for-profit universities which may not yield a sufficient education. Limit grants to the top 5%.
As long as the student is attending one of these colleges, they will have financial aid (if needed).
This will motivate universities to perform well and attract the brightest students. The result is that we know that we're investing in the brightest.
Typical teabagger BS - that the banks didn't need to be bailed out to fix the economy
The economy? No. The banks and Wall Street could have gone broke and better business practices would have increased as a result.
The reason the government didn't let banks and Wall Street go belly up has already been explained to you...
The early 1990s federal government (look up which party had the presidency, House, and Senate) was explicitly complicit in causing the financial crisis, and to NOT bail out the banks and Wall Street would have virtually wiped out everyone's savings, investments, pensions and retirement accounts. Obviously, the government would have NO way of supporting hundreds of millions of suddenly destitute people. Chaos would ensue, and life as we know it would get violently ugly very quickly.
To further clarify, the GSEs had to be bailed out AS WELL to the tune of $400 billion because they had agreed to buy the now-defaulting low-income high risk nontraditionally documented loans (read: no doc liar loans) from Countrywide and other lenders via a deal brokered by the Clinton admin's HUD. Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal
Liberals are very defensive even when the facts are present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The economy? No. The banks and Wall Street could have gone broke and better business practices would have increased as a result.
The reason the government didn't let banks and Wall Street go belly up has already been explained to you...
The early 1990s federal government (look up which party had the presidency, House, and Senate) was explicitly complicit in causing the financial crisis, and to NOT bail out the banks and Wall Street would have virtually wiped out everyone's savings, investments, pensions and retirement accounts. Obviously, the government would have NO way of supporting hundreds of millions of suddenly destitute people. Chaos would ensue, and life as we know it would get violently ugly very quickly.
To further clarify, the GSEs had to be bailed out AS WELL to the tune of $400 billion because they had agreed to buy the now-defaulting low-income high risk nontraditionally documented loans (read: no doc liar loans) from Countrywide and other lenders via a deal brokered by the Clinton admin's HUD. Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal
Put the competitive pressure on the universities instead of the students. Only the top 20% of universities to accept federal financial aid. This will weed out schools such as for-profit universities which may not yield a sufficient education. Limit grants to the top 5%.
As long as the student is attending one of these colleges, they will have financial aid (if needed).
This will motivate universities to perform well and attract the brightest students. The result is that we know that we're investing in the brightest.
Both of these solutions are flawed. There are many bright people who do not get accepted into the harvards, yales, and princetons. There are many good schools that aren't elite. We don't need frivolous competition.
Both of these solutions are flawed. There are many bright people who do not get accepted into the harvards, yales, and princetons. There are many good schools that aren't elite. We don't need frivolous competition.
The top 20% includes all the good schools and some. It's not frivolous competition to aim to provide a superior higher education.
Great article from the New York Times. Even a $10/hour job as a document runner for this law firm requires a college degree now. All of this thanks to degree inflation, or shall I call it degree water down. All because liberals think everyone has the right to go to college. If one tries to even insinuate that maybe college might not be right for everyone. they throw a hissy fit.
... and go back to Va Tech and finish your degree, then.
Great article from the New York Times. Even a $10/hour job as a document runner for this law firm requires a college degree now. All of this thanks to degree inflation, or shall I call it degree water down. All because liberals think everyone has the right to go to college.
If one tries to even insinuate that maybe college might not be right for everyone. they throw a hissy fit.
A) It is job outsourcing, public-sector layoffs, and Congressional obstruction of jobs legislation by corporate republicans, which creates unemployment, an employer's market, and desperate workers - and corporations know it. Therefore they can take advantage of this desperation and demand all kinds of concessions from workers, including higher education for jobs which don't need it. This is part of the republican plan to reform government into single-party corporatocracy.
Corporations have discovered they can hire part-time, thus employ at low wages plus avoiding benefits payments. Win-win.
The changing face of the part-time worker; Desperation becoming driving force for growing labor segment | | The Bulletin ** "As of September, about 8.8 million Americans are working part time while desiring full-time work. That number is double what it was in 2007, just before the recession began". ** "But the recession and high unemployment have changed the once coveted status. Increasingly, the face of the part-time worker has become the dad jumping at any chance of income or the college graduate desperate for an opportunity to get a foot in the door. It might be the loyal worker whose weekly hours have been cut to save the company a few bucks or the desperate former executive patching together jobs to pay rent".
So you can see how recession is good for the republican base.
B) And where have you heard these "hissy fits"? Nobody thinks college is right for everyone. There is thought that college should be attainable for those who want it, and that this is feasible. Is that what you call a "hissy fit"?
Here is your hated "liberal" New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/we...anted=all&_r=0 ** "A small but influential group of economists and educators is pushing another pathway: for some students, no college at all. It’s time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do so". ** "Among those calling for such alternatives are the economists Richard K. Vedder of Ohio University and Robert I. Lerman of American University, the political scientist Charles Murray, and James E. Rosenbaum, an education professor at Northwestern. They would steer some students toward intensive, short-term vocational and career training, through expanded high school programs and corporate apprenticeships".
Again, out of right-wing desperation it seems you must fabricate a story in order to rationalize your view on this.
The economy? No. The banks and Wall Street could have gone broke and better business practices would have increased as a result.
The reason the government didn't let banks and Wall Street go belly up has already been explained to you...
The early 1990s federal government (look up which party had the presidency, House, and Senate) was explicitly complicit in causing the financial crisis, and to NOT bail out the banks and Wall Street would have virtually wiped out everyone's savings, investments, pensions and retirement accounts. Obviously, the government would have NO way of supporting hundreds of millions of suddenly destitute people. Chaos would ensue, and life as we know it would get violently ugly very quickly.
To further clarify, the GSEs had to be bailed out AS WELL to the tune of $400 billion because they had agreed to buy the now-defaulting low-income high risk nontraditionally documented loans (read: no doc liar loans) from Countrywide and other lenders via a deal brokered by the Clinton admin's HUD. Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quit griping about it...
