heres the absolute bull$hit !

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's quite a handsome little rant.

Unfortunately there's this thing called reality...The US higher educational system you so despise is also regarded as the finest in the world.

I'm not sure how many abortions it takes to keep this radical educational enterprise humming along, but I'll bet it's less than the number of taxpayer subsidized cars purchased every year.

-spence

US higher education has been regarded among the best in the world for a long time--long before it became a "system" that tries to squeeze into it thousands of "students" that are not interested, nor major in those disciplines that make our universities and colleges "fine." Our universities were regarded as among the finest before our Federal Government began to massively invest in them. They were considered among the finest when they were relatively affordable for those who were truly interested in a "fine" education and were willing to sacrifice a bit of time and money to acquire it. Our higher education was considered among the finest when university and college administrations were willing to operate more as businesses who would charge market affordable rates and pay market sustainable salaries rather than basing their rates on a willing and seemingly bottomless Government pocket. Government "investment" in education has not made it finer. It has just made it more expensive.

Your being "all for Government assistance in education" is being all for making education ever more expensive and endlessly requiring Government assistance.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure how many abortions it takes to keep this radical educational enterprise humming along, but I'll bet it's less than the number of taxpayer subsidized cars purchased every year.

-spence

The education industry to which I referred was not simply higher education. It also encompasses K-12. It is the huge Government investment in that portion that has made it labor intensive as opposed to service oriented. And with the monetary investment, of course, came the directives of what and how to teach. I don't think that our lower education is considered to be the finest in the world. Actually, it has been losing the prestige it had before the big government "assistance."

And this K-12 is the portion that spits out the less educated, less ready for higher ed., less prepared for an independant, unassisted life.

Federally assisted abortion doesn't keep the education system humming along, it helps to keep down the amount of those that the Government has to "assist"--especially the poorly educated and poorly prepared for an independant life. There is a limit to how many unproductive people that a "village" can sustain.

And, the more you assist poor education, poor preparation, and the expectation that big mama Guv will provide, the more you encourage it. I can see why the Guv wants to keep Federally paid abortion in the health "care" bill.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

US higher education has been regarded among the best in the world for a long time--long before it became a "system" that tries to squeeze into it thousands of "students" that are not interested, nor major in those disciplines that make our universities and colleges "fine." Our universities were regarded as among the finest before our Federal Government began to massively invest in them. They were considered among the finest when they were relatively affordable for those who were truly interested in a "fine" education and were willing to sacrifice a bit of time and money to acquire it. Our higher education was considered among the finest when university and college administrations were willing to operate more as businesses who would charge market affordable rates and pay market sustainable salaries rather than basing their rates on a willing and seemingly bottomless Government pocket. Government "investment" in education has not made it finer. It has just made it more expensive.

This isn't really true.

Without Federal assistance to create land grand universities we probably wouldn't have the system we do today. I think this started back in the 19th century (I went to Iowa State, one of the big ones) so I'm not sure who the system was catering to before then aside from perhaps the upper crust.

Your being "all for Government assistance in education" is being all for making education ever more expensive and endlessly requiring Government assistance.

Perhaps the better solution is a taxpayer funded "public option" to compete with those over priced private institutions

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't really true.

Without Federal assistance to create land grand universities we probably wouldn't have the system we do today. I think this started back in the 19th century (I went to Iowa State, one of the big ones) so I'm not sure who the system was catering to before then aside from perhaps the upper crust.
-spence

It really is true that we had some of the finest universities before the Federal Gov. provided MASSIVE monetary funding. Although some of them, as far back as the 17th century, did provide some private scholarships to "worthy" students that couldn't afford the tuition, it is true that they were not accessible to the masses. But for the first 70 years in this nation's history the Feds followed the Constitution and allowed the states and local communities to provide education--which included two land grant colleges. These were the models for the first Federal intrusion--the Federal Govt. providing of Federal land to the states to build land grant colleges. The purpose was laudable, to provide education to many that was relevant to their daily lives--basically agricultural and industrial. And there was no negative impact on the Federal budget. That slowly expanded to providing actual funds for creation of agricultural experiment stations for scientific research. It took another 80 years for a new Fed wrinkle, the GI Bill to accomodate WWII Vets. Then another 15 years, in response to Sputnik, for the National Defense Education Act that provided aid to all public and private levels of education, though still basically aimed at improving technical studies, but far larger in scope than the original land grant idea, and far more expensive (notice the trend). Then enter the 1960's. The War on Poverty. New Deal II. New Deal #1 being interrupted by the post-war boom, now came the opportunity to expand further into the area reserved to the states, started by the GI Bill. Now followed a plethora of acts and revisions of acts to provide Federal assistance that has blossomed (mushroomed), with a slight pullback during the Reagan Administration, and intruded into education as the Feds have done into every aspect of our lives.

Although it is not the only reason, several studies have found a correlation between the rise in Federal Aid to the rise in tuition, including, interestingly enough vis-a-vis your little gift from POTUS, not only direct assistance, but tax credits as well.

F. King Alexander, a president of Murray State U., said "ironically, Federal Programs in totality give incentive for institutions to increase tuition and to set high sticker prices." This succinctly expresses the sentiments of many others.

Of course, with the support of the Federal purse, comes an attached suggestion or mandate and direction of how and what is taught, and not taught. This reminds of Hayek's caveat--"the conception that Government should be guided by majority opinion makes sense only if that opinion is independent of Government."

I am not anti-government. We are the government. Those we vote for merely represent us. When they begin to brazenly dictate to us, not only in the most extreme and real crisis, but on a constant and all pervading basis, we must, to sustain a democratic process, be educated, informed, and independent from that government. The more we depend on a central government, distant from us in space, and in values, that enforces a cookie cutter education, a one size fits all as you referred to what you think health care should be, the less we can contribute diverse, new, re-generative ideas and solutions. We can thus be transformed from a large, truly diverse society connected by a desire to be free, that generates a robust hurly-burly of growth and innovation from the bottom up, to the anomoly of passive, polite, correct, adolescents waiting for the next Federal spending bill to cure our ills. And we will be taught, by institutions, dependent on Government largesse.

Of course, the saving grace is that the Government is broke, has been broke, is getting broker and broker, and there are still enough adults that understand this.

[scottw]

every time that Spence and Det engage in one of their "Battle of the Brains"...Spence crawls away with a massive concussion

Spence....you make a repulsive Gimme Girl.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It really is true that we had some of the finest universities before the Federal Gov. provided MASSIVE monetary funding. Although some of them, as far back as the 17th century, did provide some private scholarships to "worthy" students that couldn't afford the tuition, it is true that they were not accessible to the masses. But for the first 70 years in this nation's history the Feds followed the Constitution and allowed the states and local communities to provide education--which included two land grant colleges.

For the first 70 years of our history we were still primarily a nation of farmers, and as you've stated higher education was mostly for the elite. The majority of colleges founded early on were short-lived religious based institutions that served a particular sect rather than a local population.

The influx of government spending which started in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and continued into the 20th was a direct response to a transforming industrial base as well as shifting demographics.

These macro trends (like conflicting civilizations, radical advances in technology or transforming economies) aren't going to be solved by States providing local educational assistance alone, and the free market certainly isn't going to solve the issue. These are national issues and in some cases might require national solutions.

Is education too expensive? Sure it is, but I don't need Glenn Beck's chalkboard to understand this. Has government exacerbated the issue? I'd think it has, although that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits...

Put simply, I'm not sure America would have been able to rise to dominance during the 20th century had we not had the infrastructure to enable the people to keep pace with the opportunities.

K-12 is another issue, one I don't have time for this morning...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

every time that Spence and Det engage in one of their "Battle of the Brains"...Spence crawls away with a massive concussion

If so I can only hope to one day be beaten down to your level, but if so Butch has a lot of work to do

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If so I can only hope to one day be beaten down to your level, but if so Butch has a lot of work to do

-spence

a Gimme Girl Narcissist...even more repulsive

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

For the first 70 years of our history we were still primarily a nation of farmers, and as you've stated higher education was mostly for the elite. The majority of colleges founded early on were short-lived religious based institutions that served a particular sect rather than a local population.

Yes, free and independent people will do what is necessary and beneficial.

The influx of government spending which started in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and continued into the 20th was a direct response to a transforming industrial base as well as shifting demographics.

Yes, the Feds joined (unconstitutionally--but that's ok) what the States were already starting. The States and local districts were, and are, still providing nearly all the money.

These macro trends (like conflicting civilizations, these are not going to be resolved by K-12 or higher education. If the educational institutions of the the conflicting civilizations have different philosophies--which is probably why they are conflicting civilizations--the resolution may take place in a different arena. radical advances in technology Our private sector in conjunction with State run institutions have done this quite well or transforming economies Our free market is no slouch at this.) aren't going to be solved by States providing local educational assistance alone, and the free market certainly isn't going to solve the issue. These are national issues and in some cases might require national solutions.

The Federal "issue" was intended originally to be defense, foreign relations, and interstate commerce, the last of which has so distortedly been "interpreted" that it covers all of life. If the Federal Government isn't checked in its intrusion in State affairs (probably too late) then, indeed, all issues will be national issues.

Is education too expensive? Sure it is, And Federal loans, grants, and tax credits will ensure that it stays expensive. but I don't need Glenn Beck's chalkboard to understand this. Unfortunately, our education industry has failed to the extent that a great many do need the chalkboard to understand why. Has government exacerbated the issue? I'd think it has, although that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits...

The benefits would be validated if the Federal Guv could have stayed at a low key, well directed "assistance" level" with which it started. But its intrusion has grown too large and undirected. Aid is no longer for "useful" degrees, but for whatever your heart desires. And its money has a powerful influence against the true diversity of thought. Not to mention the pernicious choosing of winners and losers in the Federal give-away lottery which is growing at an unsustainable rate. Let the people keep money that is now spent to cull votes. Let the States compete for business, for educational excellence, for good, free market, constitutional governance, and let the Feds maintain a powerful national defence with an open but guarded relation with the rest of the world, and we might have what the founders envisioned.

Put simply, I'm not sure America would have been able to rise to dominance during the 20th century had we not had the infrastructure to enable the people to keep pace with the opportunities.

K-12 is another issue, one I don't have time for this morning...

-spence

America rose to dominance with military and productive might. The Great institutions of higher learning are a beneficiary of that might. And the influence of collective, anti-capitalist thought beginning to dominate those institutions, may be a Trojan Horse to "fundamentally change" this country.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, free and independent people will do what is necessary and beneficial.

Are people any less free to start private or religious based institutions today? I think the real question is why these early colleges failed. One might ask if they were really delivering what the people needed.

Yes, the Feds joined (unconstitutionally--but that's ok) what the States were already starting. The States and local districts were, and are, still providing nearly all the money.

Starting well? Perhaps the feds saw a good thing and accelerated it's progress. I don't think there were more than a few state sponsored colleges before 1860. Good thing too because the industrial revolution was just getting going.

these are not going to be resolved by K-12 or higher education. If the educational institutions of the the conflicting civilizations have different philosophies--which is probably why they are conflicting civilizations--the resolution may take place in a different arena.

Not resolved by, but definitely influenced. As for different philosophies, there are many different conflicts for many different reasons.

Our private sector in conjunction with State run institutions have done this quite well

Via a lot of Federal grants mind you, one area of investment that the taxpayer has seen a good ROI.

The Federal "issue" was intended originally to be defense, foreign relations, and interstate commerce, the last of which has so distortedly been "interpreted" that it covers all of life. If the Federal Government isn't checked in its intrusion in State affairs (probably too late) then, indeed, all issues will be national issues.

The evolution of the global economy has shown that our behavior as a nation is quite important. The Federal issue was smaller in scope as many of the Founding Fathers didn't believe the US would or should be running a global economy...which we still do today. Could they even imagine what the US Navy does to control shipping lanes around the entire planet? I don't think so...

And Federal loans, grants, and tax credits will ensure that it stays expensive.

A lot of this is private institutions setting the pace. More access to education creates more competition.

Unfortunately, our education industry has failed to the extent that a great many do need the chalkboard to understand why.

Not why, but a solution perhaps.

The benefits would be validated if the Federal Guv could have stayed at a low key, well directed "assistance" level" with which it started. But its intrusion has grown too large and undirected. Aid is no longer for "useful" degrees, but for whatever your heart desires. And its money has a powerful influence against the true diversity of thought. Not to mention the pernicious choosing of winners and losers in the Federal give-away lottery which is growing at an unsustainable rate. Let the people keep money that is now spent to cull votes. Let the States compete for business, for educational excellence, for good, free market, constitutional governance, and let the Feds maintain a powerful national defence with an open but guarded relation with the rest of the world, and we might have what the founders envisioned.

Also there's the evolution of education where a college degree is the minimum for most non-trade skill work. Hell, even a MS or MBA isn't considered that special any more...to a large degree because of the rapid advancement of the global economy and technology.

We're competing against a larger and smarter global workforce. Yes the corporate world can respond by becoming more global (more access to markets and sources of revenues) but that doesn't mean our people will be the source of their productivity, not if they're not ready. I don't expect any state to think at this level.

America rose to dominance with military and productive might. The Great institutions of higher learning are a benefactor of that might. And the influence of collective, anti-capitalist thought beginning to dominate those institutions, may be a Trojan Horse to "fundamentally change" this country.

One could also argue that without an educated people would we have been able to harness our resources and geographic fortune to rise to such military and productive might? The Federal land grant program was precisely to encourage such industrial education versus a more classical one. The rise of the liberal arts college isn't a Trojan horse but rather a blessing of our strength that bolsters the sciences.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Are people any less free to start private or religious based institutions today? I think the real question is why these early colleges failed. One might ask if they were really delivering what the people needed.

Probably various reasons for failure. Some didn't fail, and grew to larger institutions. Many come and go today.

Starting well? Perhaps the feds saw a good thing and accelerated it's progress. I don't think there were more than a few state sponsored colleges before 1860. Good thing too because the industrial revolution was just getting going.

Who's to say that the growth of State Colleges wouldn't have grown as well or better without the Feds. In some ways the Federal involvement has hampered diversity as well as contributed to raising costs.

Via a lot of Federal grants mind you, one area of investment that the taxpayer has seen a good ROI.

The Federal grants are mostly returning a portion of the money that was taken from the States in the first place. If the Federales would stay out of what is State business, the amount of money the national government would need would be greatly reduced, and the States could would have a great deal more to do their business, and do it without Federal mandates.

The evolution of the global economy has shown that our behavior as a nation is quite important. The Federal issue was smaller in scope as many of the Founding Fathers didn't believe the US would or should be running a global economy...which we still do today. Could they even imagine what the US Navy does to control shipping lanes around the entire planet? I don't think so...

The Founders didn't believe Federal Gov. should be running a global economy, nor that even the States should, I suppose. But if the citizens of a given State voted to allow their State to run some global business, I guess that would have been OK. I believe the Founders wanted business to be in the hands of the private market. I don't recall if they proposed a ban on global business. Quite the contrary, not only cotton, but even industrial goods, maybe some foodstuff was sold to foreign markets, and a good deal, if not all, of the Federal income was tariffs on incoming goods. Nobody could have forseen how huge the world market would become, but I don't think that would have changed their view that the market is in the private sector. The Navy is a legitimate, constitutional arm of the Federal Government, and its use to protect Americans and American interests is not an infringement on States Rights.

A lot of this is private institutions setting the pace. More access to education creates more competition.

The private institutions have to follow the inflated pace that government intervention creates.

Also there's the evolution of education where a college degree is the minimum for most non-trade skill work. Hell, even a MS or MBA isn't considered that special any more...to a large degree because of the rapid advancement of the global economy and technology.

This is another ill effect of Government promoting the value of higher ed. We are told that college is the necessary path to good employment. So more go to college. Colleges need to expand. Govt. "invests". Costs go up. An excess of graduates that are truly needed for traditionally college required jobs are now available, so employers, to weed out applicants, can require a degree for jobs the hadn't previously required degrees. Most occupations, that are not highly technical and in need of strong preparation of math and some form of science education, are actually learned on the job, and the degree that was required to get the job is superfluous.

We're competing against a larger and smarter global workforce. Yes the corporate world can respond by becoming more global (more access to markets and sources of revenues) but that doesn't mean our people will be the source of their productivity, not if they're not ready. I don't expect any state to think at this level.

All this is being, and has been done by State and private institutions. All the Federal Gov. does is "invest" a pool of money that it doesn't have and that should have stayed in the States. Thus artificially raising costs. The State and private institutions are the ones to "think at that level." And they do.

One could also argue that without an educated people would we have been able to harness our resources and geographic fortune to rise to such military and productive might? The Federal land grant program was precisely to encourage such industrial education versus a more classical one. The rise of the liberal arts college isn't a Trojan horse but rather a blessing of our strength that bolsters the sciences.

-spence

Again, the Federal influence is not necessary. The college and university personnel will be the same without the Federal Government. The State and private institutions do the hiring. Again, the Federal influence is inflationary as to cost and restrictive to diversity. If the Federal Government was, as is constitutionally mandated, restricted to defence, foreign relations, interstate commerce (as originally intended--not as currently "interpreted"), it might need only collect a fifth to a third of the taxes that it does. Government funding, now, is topsy turvy. The States should be collecting the lions share of revenue, not the Federal Government. And the States would create more diverse solutions to health and welfare problems and have the money to do so. And they would have to be more responsive to their constituents than the Federal Government is. The current health "care" that may be about to befall all of us, would be approached in a more diverse, innovative, and necessarily more responsive way, if it was in State hands.

And the Trojan Horse to which I referred, is not the liberal arts college but its antithesis--an anti-liberal, undiverse, restrictive, close-minded, collectivist, anti-capitalist mindset that pervades public education. It is a mindset that detests military might and sees production primarily as a result of labor more than a gift of capitalist, or free market ingenuity. A mindset that is about class struggle, so-called "social justice," redistribution of wealth, all of which, intended or not, will not only "fundamentally change" this society, but remove the foundations of what made it great.