Quote: (05-29-2016 02:34 PM)churros Wrote:
Alright. So when the states gain control of the curriculum, it might get better. But isn't it also possible it might get worse? My suspicion, personally, is that the problem just gets displaced.
What's pushing the change? You say government, I say corporations. We don't need to argue about that, because they're actually two sides of the same coin.
Clinton introduced higher education reform to replace traditional manufacturing job losses. He signed trade deals to move these jobs overseas. And the solution, as he saw it, was to expand education.
That didn't work for everyone, but it worked for Silicon Valley, I suppose.
Totally agree that too many people are going to university. But I disagree that state funding should be cancelled. We need to cut the rot out of the universities, not destroy the institution altogether.
Cburros, are you familiar with these issues at all or the policies behind them?
Quote: (05-29-2016 02:34 PM)churros Wrote:
Alright. So when the states gain control of the curriculum, it might get better. But isn't it also possible it might get worse? My suspicion, personally, is that the problem just gets displaced.
Before NCLB and the Common Core curriculum states dictated what they wanted in their text books and tasked teachers to work on them. This was how it was done up until Clinton destroyed manufacturing in the 90s.
Believe me, stupid people will always exist and before this push to give them all bachelor's degrees they went instead to vo-tech schools where they worked with their hands and then welded stuff together.
Contrary to what most of the world thinks, the US doesn't have an educational problem. Every major country has an underclass who could care less about the works of Homer, Chaucer, and Shakespeare. Everyone else is just better at hiding it. I get a kick out of hearing about England's lack of native students interested in math and science. Gee haven't heard that one before!
Quote: (05-29-2016 02:34 PM)churros Wrote:
What's pushing the change? You say government, I say corporations. We don't need to argue about that, because they're actually two sides of the same coin.
What's your point? They were one and the same up until this election cycle.
Quote: (05-29-2016 02:34 PM)churros Wrote:
Clinton introduced higher education reform to replace traditional manufacturing job losses. He signed trade deals to move these jobs overseas. And the solution, as he saw it, was to expand education.
This was where our nightmare of today started. Don't forget he also made it impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.
Quote: (05-29-2016 02:34 PM)churros Wrote:
That didn't work for everyone, but it worked for Silicon Valley, I suppose.
Totally agree that too many people are going to university. But I disagree that state funding should be cancelled. We need to cut the rot out of the universities, not destroy the institution altogether.
The changes to education that happened in the 90s are starting to bear fruit today. Silicon Valley and the dot-com bubble would have happened irrespective of the changes done at that time.
Finally, the only de-funding going on is via student loans with Trump's plan. If Cornissota wants in state tuition at Big State U to be 5k a year it will still be there. Trump is a staunch state's rights advocate and it is up to the state to decide that how much subsidizing they want, NOT the federal government.
The only problem here are private colleges which are grossly out of step with state universities on costs. As I said previously they are the ones who will feel the pinch under the new plan simply on the basis of a 40k a year sociology graduate not being able to pay back the loans in any sense of the world.
Finally from another one of your posts:
Quote:Quote:
Further privatising them will not remedy this.
You've offered no argument to support this statement. Are you telling us that you're for the government supplying tax payer backed student loans for gender studies?