Political science experiment: Can politics be discussed without resorting to personal attacks?

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
The Republicans just passed a repeal of Dodd-Frank. It was a crappy substitute for Glass-Steagall, but better than nothing.

Let's give banks that are 'too big to fail' an even greater ability to destroy our economy!

'he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing' -Chairman Mao.

Chairman, huh?

Sounds familiar all of a sudden.
 
DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
They should make free public colleges. 2 years associates course for free.
Click to expand...
Free public college would not strengthen higher education, even though I'm favor of greatly reduced tuition payments--to where they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when one could really indeed work their way through college. I think that free college in its current state would degenerate into a glorified high school. After all, about a 140-150 years ago, the high school movement swept across the Northeast, and then moved the Midwest, and southward after that. High school in the early 1900s wasn't for everyone, and not everyone was mandated to attend. And it was hard back then.

Higher ed needs to retain high standards for achievement. In its current state, higher ed has relaxed its standards to appeal to the rank and file 18-22 year old, and so that they won't be so challenged that they drop out (and the University then would miss out on all those loans and grants the students' parents have secured for them to attend). I'd say the average American college graduate didn't really learn anything in five, six years of "study."

Tty's posts on higher ed are spot on. I'd only add that not only are university administrations building huge student unions, but also palatial student housing complete with saunas, swimming pools, jacuzzis. It's kind of like sending the message 'hey, don't study while you're here...we don't care."

Some states, usually Red states, have issued mandated quotas for certain degree programs in an effort to "hold accountable" (their words) colleges that don't succeed in making a student career-ready in four years' time. So universities in those states have responded by graduating any and all comers. That's not higher ed.

Education in America is probably reverting back to the days during the Early Republic and antebellum period when it was pretty much non-existent except for common schools, private tutoring, and elite higher ed for elites to train for the halls of power. America's days a global hegemon are numbered. You have to have educated people to keep up global power.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
Free public college would not strengthen higher education, even though I'm favor of greatly reduced tuition payments--to where they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when one could really indeed work their way through college. I think that free college in its current state would degenerate into a glorified high school. After all, about a 140-150 years ago, the high school movement swept across the Northeast, and then moved the Midwest, and southward after that. High school in the early 1900s wasn't for everyone, and not everyone was mandated to attend. And it was hard back then.

Higher ed needs to retain high standards for achievement. In its current state, higher ed has relaxed its standards to appeal to the rank and file 18-22 year old, and so that they won't be so challenged that they drop out (and the University then would miss out on all those loans and grants the students' parents have secured for them to attend). I'd say the average American college graduate didn't really learn anything in five, six years of "study."

Tty's posts on higher ed are spot on. I'd only add that not only are university administrations building huge student unions, but also palatial student housing complete with saunas, swimming pools, jacuzzis. It's kind of like sending the message 'hey, don't study while you're here...we don't care."

Some states, usually Red states, have issued mandated quotas for certain degree programs in an effort to "hold accountable" (their words) colleges that don't succeed in making a student career-ready in four years' time. So universities in those states have responded by graduating any and all comers. That's not higher ed.

Education in America is probably reverting back to the days during the Early Republic and antebellum period when it was pretty much non-existent except for common schools, private tutoring, and elite higher ed for elites to train for the halls of power. America's days a global hegemon are numbered. You have to have educated people to keep up global power.
Click to expand...
The poorest most illiterate countries in the word dont have oublic school you have to pay for it. So the rich get all the good jobs and get richer and nothing changes
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
I love when people on the left talk about fake news but simultaneously think:
•there's a conspiracy because people want to buy the rights to Obama's book
•talk about Hillary's emails
•claim the DNC was the sole reason for Bernie losing (not the 4 million voted or 12% he lost by)
•claim Democrats are the same as Republicans
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
They should make free public colleges. 2 years associates course for free.
Click to expand...
DiogenesTheWiser said:
Free public college would not strengthen higher education, even though I'm favor of greatly reduced tuition payments--to where they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when one could really indeed work their way through college. I think that free college in its current state would degenerate into a glorified high school. After all, about a 140-150 years ago, the high school movement swept across the Northeast, and then moved the Midwest, and southward after that. High school in the early 1900s wasn't for everyone, and not everyone was mandated to attend. And it was hard back then.

Higher ed needs to retain high standards for achievement. In its current state, higher ed has relaxed its standards to appeal to the rank and file 18-22 year old, and so that they won't be so challenged that they drop out (and the University then would miss out on all those loans and grants the students' parents have secured for them to attend). I'd say the average American college graduate didn't really learn anything in five, six years of "study."

Tty's posts on higher ed are spot on. I'd only add that not only are university administrations building huge student unions, but also palatial student housing complete with saunas, swimming pools, jacuzzis. It's kind of like sending the message 'hey, don't study while you're here...we don't care."

Some states, usually Red states, have issued mandated quotas for certain degree programs in an effort to "hold accountable" (their words) colleges that don't succeed in making a student career-ready in four years' time. So universities in those states have responded by graduating any and all comers. That's not higher ed.

Education in America is probably reverting back to the days during the Early Republic and antebellum period when it was pretty much non-existent except for common schools, private tutoring, and elite higher ed for elites to train for the halls of power. America's days a global hegemon are numbered. You have to have educated people to keep up global power.
Click to expand...


Cough cough internet Cough cough free market efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top