What is so bad about Hillary Clinton?

Jeanette

Thu, Sep 15 2016, 9:57 pm

Quote:

Well, that's an issue for any President. think you have to assume that you're really voting for an administration -- not an individual. In Clinton's case, we already know the cast of characters. And 'd definitely vote for Ivanka and Thiel over Sidney Blumenthal!

Hillary's pretty hands-on. She has a firm grasp on policy. I don't see her letting her administration do whatever while she runs around giving bombastic speeches. Just not her style.

amother

Linen

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 2:28 am

ally wrote:

I don't understand why free education automatically lacks in quality and amounts to no education. Noone is telling colleges that they have to lower their standards or hand their degrees out on the street.

The idea of free college is not to create jobs that do not exist. It is to open up access to a broader sector of society and increase admission based on merit rather than socioeconomic standing. It is offering opportunity for people to cross those same socio-economic barriers. Whether it increases your employability depends on what your employability was before you had access to free college.

Of course, as an isolated policy, it is not going to instantaneously create an even level playing ground - tuition cost is only one part of the equation. Other factors like attitudes towards higher education, mentorship, even s-x ed, also have a significant role.

Finally it is clear that such a policy is costly, and would need to be carefully implemented, probably in stages. That doesn't mean it is not worthwhile in the long term.

First off, what Fox said.

You say the idea is not to create jobs (of course not) but to open up access to college. To what purpose? What is the end goal?

ora_43

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 5:38 am

Fox wrote:

3. When something is free, there's never enough to go around.

This is a basic tenet of even a quasi-free market economy. In fact, its proof is in planned economies, such as those undertaken by the former Soviet Union. Making something free simply means that those with the inclination and savvy will find ways to get more than their fair share.

What does that mean re: college courses? Nobody I know wants more than their fair share of calculus Wink

amother

Linen

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 9:24 am

ora_43 wrote:

So that bright, motivated people with the ability to do well in fields that require higher ed are able to go into those fields.

On a societal level, to make sure socio-economic mobility remains a thing.

We're going around in circles. I don't think this plan will solve the problems it purports to solve.

If you have universal college, you can't keep out the un-bright, unmotivated. If you've worked hard to create this extensive, expensive, tax-funded program to get people into college you want to make sure that they come out the other end so you dumb it down to ensure a low failure/dropout rate and nearly everyone graduates with a degree. Such degrees have little to no value and employers hire grads of these programs at about the same rate that they currently hire non-college grads. And we're right back where we started. Except for all that tax money.

I agree with Fox that much of the knowledge and skills that employers seek can and should be taught in high school (and she's also right that the same problems that plague public high school education will plague public college) and we ought to recognize that college is only a necessity for certain specific fields. College is not the only way, nor is it always the best way, to get a higher education. Really, college, college, and only college is such in-the-box outdated thinking in 2016.

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 9:57 am

ora_43 wrote:

What does that mean re: college courses? Nobody I know wants more than their fair share of calculus Wink

On the contrary. One of the prime characteristics of a free market is efficiency. When something is free, we don't bother to be efficient in our use of it.

For example, when I was a child, a perfectly common summer evening activity was to drive around in your car. "Going out for a drive" was a way of seeing and being seen. When you could fill your gas tank for $5, nobody thought twice about the practice. But when the price of gas went up significantly in the 1970s, the practice all but ceased.

When education is free, there's no need to push yourself to finish your course of study in a timely manner or sacrifice any element of your short-term lifestyle in order to maximize your use of educational resources. There's no incentive not to change majors repeatedly or use enrollment as a way to postpone full-time entry into the labor market.

Should community colleges be cheap? Absolutely. In fact, the community college is one of the few overwhelmingly positive models of higher education in the past 50 years, and they deserve support and accolades. Community colleges do more and do better because of their tighter focus and responsiveness to market conditions. Of course, we need major research universities, too. But not every Joe-and-Fred's-College should be encouraged to become one.

ora_43

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:27 am

amother wrote:

If you have universal college, you can't keep out the un-bright, unmotivated.

Free college is not universal college. A college can accept just 5% of applicants and not charge tuition.

Quote:

If you've worked hard to create this extensive, expensive, tax-funded program to get people into college you want to make sure that they come out the other end so you dumb it down to ensure a low failure/dropout rate and nearly everyone graduates with a degree. Such degrees have little to no value and employers hire grads of these programs at about the same rate that they currently hire non-college grads.

The term "gentleman's B-" didn't come into use thanks to state schools.

I can see the logic of what you're saying, but my experience has been basically the exact opposite. Expensive private schools are really invested in keeping students in the program 1. paying money and 2. keeping their dropout rates low. Sometimes expensive private schools give Cs to people who'd be failing out of state schools.

Israel has way cheaper tuition than most US schools and IME the programs aren't dumbed down in the slightest. It happened more than once that I had to work very hard not to fail a course here despite having taken the equivalent in the US and come out with a good grade.

Quote:

College is not the only way, nor is it always the best way, to get a higher education. Really, college, college, and only college is such in-the-box outdated thinking in 2016.

Where did "college, college and only college" come into things?

If anything, making college a bazillion-dollar industry is what's created the "college and only college" mindset. Right now there are a whole lot of people invested in pushing college as a prerequisite to employment. Get rid of that, and maybe employers will be more likely to be open-minded.

Last edited by ora_43 on Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total

ora_43

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:33 am

Fox wrote:

There's a fairly big difference, though. College can be free in the sense of not needing to pay money, but it's still hugely expensive in terms of the effort it takes to complete.

Running was free in the 1970s, running is free today, and yet, very few of us run nearly as much as we probably should.

Quote:

When education is free, there's no need to push yourself to finish your course of study in a timely manner or sacrifice any element of your short-term lifestyle in order to maximize your use of educational resources. There's no incentive not to change majors repeatedly or use enrollment as a way to postpone full-time entry into the labor market.

Only rich people could possibly want to postpone full-time entry into the labor market. For the vast majority of people, getting into the labor market is the entire point.

Not only does college take effort, it also costs money in the form of potential work hours that have to be spent studying. Not many people can afford that long-term.

And colleges would still have the power to give students bad grades, or expel them, or insist that degrees be completed within a certain period of time.

Quote:

Should community colleges be cheap? Absolutely. In fact, the community college is one of the few overwhelmingly positive models of higher education in the past 50 years, and they deserve support and accolades. Community colleges do more and do better because of their tighter focus and responsiveness to market conditions. Of course, we need major research universities, too. But not every Joe-and-Fred's-College should be encouraged to become one.

What's the difference between making community colleges cheap, and providing equally cheap tuition at public universities?

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:38 am

ora_43 wrote:

What's the difference between making community colleges cheap, and providing equally cheap tuition at public universities?

Major research universities are exponentially more expensive to run. It's a difference in purpose. The purpose of a community college is exclusively teaching. The purpose of a research university is primarily the advancement of knowledge. It's a subtle difference with a big price tag.

There are far more institutions in the U.S. trying to act like major research universities than are either needed or are even effective. Most students do not require an education from a major research university in order to be competitive in the work force.

amother

Linen

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 10:44 am

ora_43 wrote:

I can see the logic of what you're saying, but my experience has been basically the exact opposite. Expensive private schools are really invested in keeping students in the program 1. paying money and 2. keeping their dropout rates low. Sometimes expensive private schools give Cs to people who'd be failing out of state schools

I don't think this is the opposite of what I'm saying. They can both be true. I agree that this is a problem and is just one reason why a college degree, including those from a prestigious college, isn't all it's cracked up to be. (It's well known that the prestige mainly comes from being accepted to and attending a selective college, not necessarily from the actual education provided there.) In the current college and job market, it only matters what employers *think* they're getting, not what they are actually getting. And if employers think that comparatively speaking a degree from a free college is worth less, than it *is* worth less in the job market. And isn't that the point?

ora_43 wrote:

That's exactly what I mean. Wink

amother

Linen

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 11:11 am

ora_43 wrote:

Israel has way cheaper tuition than most US schools and IME the programs aren't dumbed down in the slightest. It happened more than once that I had to work very hard not to fail a course here despite having taken the equivalent in the US and come out with a good grade.

US college tuition rates are grotesquely inflated. Israeli rates are much more reasonable, yes, but college in Israel is hardly free. Relative to income, Israeli colleges still cost their students a pretty penny. And nobody says that everyone has a right to go to college. It's a privilege and you know you have to work hard at it.

I'm not arguing in general that more expensive = better, cheaper = worse. I'm specifically discussing the idea that everyone has a right to go to college (it's not a need like food and shelter and it's not the only way or in many cases the best way to get a higher education and job skills), the free college plan, the problems it purports to solve and why I think that, given the social, political, educational and economic realities in the US, it won't solve them. Socio-political, educational, and socio-economic issues differ so vastly between the US and Israel that zeh b'chlal lo shayach.

ally

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 11:36 am

Fox wrote:

*Disclaimer* I'm late to the party because I've been working on research;)

Of course, while I was away, Ora said most of what I was going to say but more eloquently.

So I'll just jump in here:

In many institutions, the money for research does not come from tuition but rather from other sources such as grants, endowments and alumni. Moreover, at least in the institutions with which I am familiar, tuition for grad students is paid by the advisor to the university from their own research funds.

Overall, I agree that there is a place for both community college and research institutions. I disagree that equal access (which to me is what the free education is about) should only be to the former. Perhaps my perspective is different because I am coming from the direction of the sciences - where even undergrad level subjects can be pre-requisite for entry-level jobs. For example - a major in computer science vs a major in history for a junior reporter.

ally

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 11:51 am

amother wrote:

Again, everyone has a right to ACCESS.
Arguing for free (or 'moderate' tuition), does not equal arguing for the abolition/easement of entrance and graduation criteria.
And, I don't think anyone imagines this will instantaneously break-down all socio-economic boundaries and fix everything. As I said previously, there are a number of other factors such as attitudes to education, mentorship etc...that also need to be targeted.

Tuition rates in Israel are maybe closer to State University. The difference is, you don't pay an astronomically higher amount to go to Hebrew U instead of Ariel. So your choice of university is limited by whether you can get in and keep up.

And yes, still certain sectors are under-represented and a person whose parents have degrees is much more likely to pursue higher education. It doesn't uniquely solve all of societies problems. But I do believe it is one significant barrier that is removed.

Fox

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 11:59 am

ally wrote:

In many institutions, the money for research does not come from tuition but rather from other sources such as grants, endowments and alumni. Moreover, at least in the institutions with which I am familiar, tuition for grad students is paid by the advisor to the university from their own research funds.

In theory, yes. But in reality, much of the infrastructure and indirect costs are passed along to undergraduates. For example, it is the rare research university that doesn't employ graduate assistants to teach undergrads. In some cases, undergrads will still receive instruction from professors, but there are plenty of big universities where a student could enter his/her third year having been taught mostly by graduate students.

This underlies the increasing pressure for unionization or collective bargaining on the part of graduate student instructors -- the fact that they believe their the value of their labor far outstrips the compensation they receive. That's a different debate, but it underscores the fact that research centers are dependent on the presence of undergrads in a variety of ways that aren't always obvious.

ally wrote:

Overall, I agree that there is a place for both community college and research institutions. I disagree that equal access (which to me is what the free education is about) should only be to the former. Perhaps my perspective is different because I am coming from the direction of the sciences - where even undergrad level subjects can be pre-requisite for entry-level jobs. For example - a major in computer science vs a major in history for a junior reporter.

I don't think we have to choose one model or the other. They're both necessary. The key issue is that we have limited resources, and we have to decide how to allocate those resources in ways that achieves our goals. "Equal access" means different things to different people, and all of them have unintended consequences. Whether college tuition is free, cheap, or overpriced, the best way to ensure access is by adequately preparing students at the secondary level.

ally

Fri, Sep 16 2016, 12:15 pm

Fox wrote:

I am not following this argument at all. If research universities are placing teaching responsibility on graduate students, how does this increase the expenses of the research university? On the contrary, since grad students are presumably cheaper than lecturers/professors, they are saving money by doing so (and enabling their faculty to focus on those Nobel prizes I guess).

I agree that undergrads are mostly a money factory and means to an end for research institutions. I'm not convinced their tuition goes to research.

I agree with you on the unionization/collective bargaining.

ora_43

Sat, Sep 17 2016, 4:42 pm

Fox wrote:

I don't get what you're saying here.

If college is overpriced, adequately preparing students at the secondary level will do very little to ensure access. (The kids whose parents can afford overpriced college tuition and care enough about education that they're willing to pay for it are already getting decent secondary education.)

I agree with the other direction, meaning, that access to good secondary education affects access to higher education.