06 Jan 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, I prefer a classless society. I abhor trade and labor unions that use nepotism as a basis for entry, as well as preferred entry to Universities of alumni young adults.
I'm not saying it shouldn't take effort to get a degree. I'm saying it should take effort to get a degree rather than luck. I know you prefer a class-based society where people are born into a certain craft or career, but I prefer one that optimizes people's talents and empowers people to put them to use.
From what I've seen all of the efforts to subsidize University education in this country has perpetuated and extended a class based system.
The first effort to get a degree, it would seem, would be to earn and save the money to pay for it. In the '60s it was still possible to "work your way through college. Even in the '80s I paid cash to go to an out county community college. Today, those opportunities are diminished, although not totally destroyed.
When I was in school in the 80s, a huge majority of the young people there were unmotivated, or negatively motivated, only attending classes because of parental expectations. They were wasting their parent's money, and their own time.
The "lucky" children of the wealthy don't always maximize the benefits of college. One stormy night, I showed up for a class in Business Law, to find a note on the door that the class had been cancelled. Most of the youngsters cheered and headed for a local watering hole to celebrate. I went to the administration the following day, to lobby for a replacement of the missed class that I had paid for, or at least a refund of my tuition. You can guess the result, but at least I tried. Had a majority of that class asked for a rescheduling, it would probably have been done.
One of the regents I knew told me that 'nobody values anything that is apparently given away'. Public school education teaches kids that value, and extending the give away to college would only convince them they were being forced to do something which was of so little value it is given away, or that their parents were 'making' them do.
07 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtfrom the various articles i skimmed, the father would have been ok to pay for the first college she attended and not the one she transferred to. another article claims he would pay for college if the "child" moves back home and agrees to some rules.
In this case the child is 21 which implies to me that she was already at the college and they had been paying her fees. This would create a reasonable expectation that the remainder of her college education would be paid for. I might be wrong, the article does not make this clear. Either way, she could demonstrate that she had a reasonable expectation ...[text shortened]... different matter.
It's worth noting that the grandparents seem to be taking her side in this.
that's just some trivia in my opinion. i am not taking the parents' side because i like them. both parties involved seem to be thoroughly unlikeable.
parents should be held responsible for you when you are a minor and for good reason. you cannot work, you cannot take care of yourself. that responsibility stops when society declares you an adult. some choose to continue that struggle because an 18 year old is not much better than a 17 kid at taking care of him/herself. that should however be a matter of personal decision and it should carry whatever conditions the parent wants, as long as they are permitted by law.
07 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1maraudergoing to college would still have been a matter of personal decision for the parents.
Would it "feel wrong" if the student was living with one parent and the non-custodial parent who had a much higher income had to pay a portion of college costs?
Would it "feel right" that a student who would have certainly gone to college if her parents had stayed together was deprived of the chance to attend college because her parents divorced?
there is no "must" when it comes to getting a higher education. you get it if the parents wish to make a sacrifice for you. that's it.
the government shouldn't be allowed to force citizens to pay for an education that was made so expensive through government incompetence.
07 Jan 15
Originally posted by normbenignAnecdotes by right wingers where the vast majority of the peasants are lazy good for nothing slackers and they and/or some members of the elite are tireless hard workers disadvantaged by the shiftless Others are as common as sunny days in Honolulu.
No, I prefer a classless society. I abhor trade and labor unions that use nepotism as a basis for entry, as well as preferred entry to Universities of alumni young adults.
From what I've seen all of the efforts to subsidize University education in this country has perpetuated and extended a class based system.
The first effort to get a degree, it w ...[text shortened]... hing which was of so little value it is given away, or that their parents were 'making' them do.
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree to some degree with Stiglitz, that members of the bottom economically, and members of the top both tend to be lazy ( for differing reasons). I totally disagree with his solutions. I am not responsible for the anecdotes of others.
Anecdotes by right wingers where the vast majority of the peasants are lazy good for nothing slackers and they and/or some members of the elite are tireless hard workers disadvantaged by the shiftless Others are as common as sunny days in Honolulu.
08 Jan 15
Originally posted by normbenignIf you and enough other people cling to that pessimistic belief is it really a surprise if it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy?
......One of the regents I knew told me that 'nobody values anything that is apparently given away'. Public school education teaches kids that value, and extending the give away to college would only convince them they were being forced to do something which was of so little value it is given away, or that their parents were 'making' them do.[/b]
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by normbenignMama Mia.
I agree to some degree with Stiglitz, that members of the bottom economically, and members of the top both tend to be lazy ( for differing reasons). I totally disagree with his solutions. I am not responsible for the anecdotes of others.
Having read several books and many articles written by Stiglitz, I found it incredible that he has ever claimed "that members of the bottom economically, and members of the top both tend to be lazy". You'll have to give some specific quote in his body of work supporting such a dubious claim.
He well may have said that certain policies and choices offer disincentives for certain economic groups to engage in activities that maximize productive effort but that is a far cry from what you asserted he believed.