Quote :

"First of all, how does lowering interest rates prevent the need to take out debt? That's going to encourage more debt. That is the function of interest rates."

the lower interest rate it to help people with existing debt refinance and to stop the federal government from profiting off of student loans. free tuition at public colleges and universities is how he intends to lower the cost of tuition.

2/15/2016 9:16:15 AM

Quote :

"^ not that you aren't making some reasonable points, but your undertone is that corporations should be the ones deciding which college programs even get to exist... You don't see how abjectly dangerous and harmful this would be? Even if this isn't your goal, this is the end result of the system you seem to think is better. If someone can make the grades and pass the tests in high school, and these people can't afford college, this is a problem for a society. It sets us back. The solution isn't to accept that they must be priced out of college, it's making sure resources are allocated to handle this demand. We're starting to see enrollment stall already because of costs and returns, and this trend will accelerate as automation makes certifications and online programs like Udacity be "good enough". The real question is what is the effect of this on society and how does this affect Americas competitiveness and standard of living."

So say college is free (or just public colleges), when people get their 16th Century French Literature degrees and still can't get a job what do we do? It isn't like making that degree free is going to improve job prospects, they just don't finish college in debt and with a worthless education.

No one is saying people can't study whatever they want but if someone is going into a lot of debt to get a degree they should get something that can provide some value to pay off said debt.

2/15/2016 11:13:38 AM

Quote :

"^ not that you aren't making some reasonable points, but your undertone is that corporations should be the ones deciding which college programs even get to exist... You don't see how abjectly dangerous and harmful this would be? Even if this isn't your goal, this is the end result of the system you seem to think is better. "

I think the market should decide which programs exist, which is a lot different than corporations deciding. If you can find someone to lend you 100k for a history degree, great. I hope the lender has done their due diligence and has a reasonable expectation of your post-grad ability to pay back the loan. If they've run their risk assessment and you're only good for 50k...well, looks like universities are going to need to find a way to lower the cost of tuition or provide better value.

Quote :

"We're starting to see enrollment stall already because of costs and returns, and this trend will accelerate as automation makes certifications and online programs like Udacity be "good enough"."

Why is this automatically a bad thing? I'm not convinced that everyone needs to spend 4 years in school. You don't need 4 years and a lot of money to learn about history, you need a browser or a library card. It's pretty arrogant to think that we've landed on the optimal way to educate people. Chances are, there are much better and cheaper ways to get the same outcome.

Quote :

"Could you go into further detail regarding the rich flight that will occur?"

If you find a way to truly tax the rich - and remember, most super rich don't get most of their income through salary, they get it through passive investments and tax sheltered assets - they will find a way to avoid that tax. The last resort is simply doing business outside of the United States. These are not stupid people that will passively sit by and watch their wealth evaporate. They will fight and they will take their money with them.

You already know that they will do this. Business owners move operations outside of the U.S. all the time, something that liberals and conservatives seem to hate. Unless you're proposing some kind of ban on capital flight like the USSR did (which Bernie may well be on board with), there is a strong possibility that the wealthy will find ways to hold onto their wealth.

Quote :

"Remember when it was conservative capitalists that valued liberal, well rounded educations and it was the communists and socialists that felt people only needed work related educations? Yea me neither, because that was well before our time, but that was a common theme not that long ago."

It's not up to me or you whether people need well rounded educations or extremely narrow, technical educations. The market may support both. My point is that the market needs to be able to clear out bad debt. Right now, there's no way for that to happen.

If a million students declare bankruptcy and can discharge most or all of their student loan debt, it's going to mean that the higher education system is going to fundamentally change. It will have to change.

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2016 12:09:52 PM

Getting a job is not the point of education. You've been brainwashed into thinking that. Who are you to determine the value of a degree? Thats up to the universitys to decide and not corporations or even "the market". We need a system where people can major in native oceanic art without hesitation just so long as the school offers it and thats what they want to study. If that results in them working at starbucks then fine. They have no debt to worry about and a 15/hr or higher livable wage. Welcome to modern society.

2/15/2016 12:42:32 PM

Quote :

"I think the market should decide which programs exist, which is a lot different than corporations deciding. If you can find someone to lend you 100k for a history degree, great. I hope the lender has done their due diligence and has a reasonable expectation of your post-grad ability to pay back the loan. If they've run their risk assessment and you're only good for 50k...well, looks like universities are going to need to find a way to lower the cost of tuition or provide better value."

This is pretty silly, because the market can't predict the future. The other problem is that this suppresses fundamental scientific research. It's not always clear when a researcher is working on something that will be huge in a few decades, and under a system that lacks broad funding for a diverse set of programs, this type of research could get overlooked too easily.

Quote :

"Why is this automatically a bad thing? I'm not convinced that everyone needs to spend 4 years in school. You don't need 4 years and a lot of money to learn about history, you need a browser or a library card. It's pretty arrogant to think that we've landed on the optimal way to educate people. Chances are, there are much better and cheaper ways to get the same outcome. "

This isn't a bad thing at all. The point was that saying we can't afford to send people to college that want to go to college (and can get in) isn't accurate. You can't use old models of the past to predict what needs to happen in the future. Who wants and needs to go to college will change as technology changes, but it still makes practical sense as a country to support educational opportunities for intelligent students. A student that puts the work in shouldn't have to depend on winning the hereditary lottery to be able to continue contributing this work to society.

2/15/2016 12:53:39 PM

Quote :

"Getting a job is not the point of education. You've been brainwashed into thinking that. Who are you to determine the value of a degree? Thats up to the universitys to decide and not corporations or even "the market". We need a system where people can major in native oceanic art without hesitation just so long as the school offers it and thats what they want to study. If that results in them working at starbucks then fine. They have no debt to worry about and a 15/hr or higher livable wage. Welcome to modern society."

Wait, why does the university get to decide what the value of the degree is? Is the university/student relationship not a business/customer relationship? The university should be providing something of value. If people are willing to pay for it, awesome. If they're not, the university gets to decide if it wants to lose money or change. This is how the market works.

Quote :

"We need a system where people can major in native oceanic art without hesitation just so long as the school offers it and thats what they want to study."

Why do we need that? There are a ton of unfilled jobs in the U.S., and a ton of unemployed people. That's called structural unemployment. Doubling down on "study what you love" is a great way to make that even worse.

The borderline religious belief in fighting structural unemployment with higher minimum wage has the potential for so much destruction. I hope that this country isn't dumb enough to buy into this nonsense.

2/15/2016 1:14:11 PM

Quote :

"Is the university/student relationship not a business/customer relationship? "

no, it's not supposed to be

you have a major conceptual misunderstanding of the purpose of academia

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 1:20:27 PM

That's certainly the kind of horseshit that academia would like us to believe. Universities want the perks of a business but none of the downsides. They want to make money hand over fist, but they want to be able to paint themselves as some kind of altruistic, above the fray entity that only cares about students.

If universities did care about students, they wouldn't be raising tuition well above the inflation rate every year. The reality is that higher education is big business, and they're doing what big businesses do: taking advantage of a high availability credit. This confuses the fuck out the left because on one hand, they have to hate business, but on the other hand, they're supposed to shill for college administrators no matter what.

2/15/2016 2:04:28 PM

except that the left has been outspoken against the commoditization of higher education and has been so for awhile

2/15/2016 2:07:37 PM

Great - make an argument for why they are right or wrong. Maybe we can have some kind of interesting discussion about it. Responding to your one liners is like pulling teeth.

2/15/2016 2:15:32 PM

it's already been discussed http://lmgtfy.com/?q=college+is+not+job+training

2/15/2016 2:18:18 PM

My argument isn't that college is job training. If you look at what you quoted from me, I was responding to someone claiming that universities should be the only ones determining how much a degree is worth. I pointed out that this should be a two way street, not a price unilaterally decided by academic institutions.

The reality is that students pay universities. Do all the mental gymnastics you want, but that's an economic transaction, meaning that tuition is a good being sold on the market for a price. The price changes depending on a lot of factors, one of them being access to credit.

2/15/2016 2:25:59 PM

You're also ignoring that tuition isn't the only source of public college funding. However, state funding and research grants have dropped almost across the board on a per student basis. To maintain their quality, colleges have had to make up that difference in tuition.

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM. Reason : State funding per student is the most significant predictor of cost]

2/15/2016 2:28:46 PM

Again, how many people are coming out of an in state, public university with 100k, or even 50k in debt? I don't think that's where the problem is.

2/15/2016 2:40:55 PM

it's still about $30k, that's not insignificant and it's time we end tuition for public universities

2/15/2016 2:45:01 PM

Then what happens when everyone wants to go to a public university since it is free and it becomes incredibly hard to be accepted?

2/15/2016 3:42:43 PM

you mean when acceptance is based on merit and need instead of who can afford it?

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 3:48 PM. Reason : does that answer your question?]

2/15/2016 3:47:42 PM

Nope, doesn't answer my question at all

2/15/2016 3:58:18 PM

admissions would be by merit and need

2/15/2016 4:12:34 PM

Need? So if my parents make too much money I can't go to a public school?

What about all the kids who couldn't get in because the competition went up so much? Don't they deserve a college education?

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 4:16:45 PM

maybe we need to backup a bit so i can understand how much you know about college acceptance

have you ever applied to or been admitted to a college or university? are you aware that admissions today are based on both merit and need? basically the only difference is that your state tuition would be free. if you are saying that there will be a huge increase in demand, then what you are admitting is that there is currently a large population that is left behind because they can not afford college

if you think that there is a large population currently not attending college, why do you think that cost should be what excludes those people instead of merit?

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 4:24 PM. Reason : i'm not sure that you through through your argument yet, you are admitting things you shouldn't]

2/15/2016 4:22:58 PM

The "market influences" on universities already exist. If no one chooses a major, then that degree program doesnt exist and if people choose it then it has value. Tuition is flat across the board anyway.

2/15/2016 4:24:14 PM

^^ what you are failing to miss is how kids who would go to private school would now go to public school because it is free. To think otherwise is foolish. I don't think you have thought this past step one, make tuition free.

2/15/2016 4:48:34 PM

private schools will also respond to those market forces, private tuition will decrease

2/15/2016 4:58:41 PM

Oh are there now more public schools? Or did they increase capacity?

2/15/2016 5:05:56 PM

so demand only increases one way?

2/15/2016 5:11:54 PM

Public schools currently turn down qualified applicants. Not sure how free tuition would cause them to accept more.

2/15/2016 5:15:39 PM

why should admission not be determined by merit?

2/15/2016 5:18:16 PM

It should be decided on merit. Problem is when people who would go to private school now go to public school because it is free the competition for public school with be higher making it much more difficult to get in causing people to have to either not go to college or go to private schools and take out loans just like they do currently.

2/15/2016 5:36:52 PM

public schools are already less expensive, why are they not already coming to public schools?

2/15/2016 5:37:47 PM

So you don't think demand would increase from students who would attend private schools currently if public schools were made free?

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 5:43:54 PM

Public schools already cost less, you are ignoring that and standing by your assertion that higher education should not be merit based

2/15/2016 7:15:32 PM

Today I learned cost less = free

And I said it should be merit based, not only are you ignoring that but you are ignoring the simple fact that demand would go up if cost went to nothing. Along with the fact that people would still have to go to private schools and still have to take out student loans to do so and this would merely make a dent in the greater issue. Anyways, I've had enough fun talking to a brick wall today, carry on.

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 7:27:34 PM

Put something up for 10 bucks on craigslist. If it doesn't sell in a couple days, put it up for free and someone will show up within 20 minutes.

2/15/2016 7:58:43 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-american-students-are-flocking-germany-staying-n515961

No reason not to travel to Germany or China or Norway or many other places that give great higher Ed for cheap. This is what Bernie wants to stop, and could have long term impacts without a real solution.

2/15/2016 8:49:41 PM

^^^ is that a serious post or sarcastic? We need sarcasm tags

2/15/2016 9:17:47 PM

line to see Sanders at EMU

http://gfycat.com/FairLoathsomeAfricanwilddog

this is what it looked like inside:


[Edited on February 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM. Reason : gif?]

2/16/2016 9:12:02 AM

I think we need to start working our way back to a system where going to college was what people interested in academia and such did rather than it being a catch all for everyone who wants a job not working at McDonalds. Somehow a stigma was created along the way over trade schools and the like and people said you need a college degree. Education needs to be broken down more in the sense there are many more options. I would like to see more busineses take on their own training systems in that they take kids straight out of high school who show an aptitude and desire for that type of work and give them free on the job training in return for working for said company for so many years or a system like that. Make trade schools more acceptable to employers that focus on more specific training that doesnt take 4 years which would reduce costs by quite a bit I would imagine.

2/16/2016 11:07:25 AM

^
We're already working back towards that as wages fall for people with college degrees, and college becomes more expensive.

There's still the problem of falling wages though...

2/16/2016 11:17:52 AM

if you want strong trade training programs you should support trade unions

Sanders supports vocational training and recognizes them as an important path to the middle class and has supported funding the perkins act. he clarified in a debate that his plan would include trade schools

2/16/2016 11:37:45 AM

Quote :

"But for Trump, 38% of likely voters would be scared if the real-estate mogul won the GOP nomination — including not only 62% of Democrats but also 17% of Republicans. A third of independents, 33%, feel that way.Of the three candidates tested, voters were inclined to have a positive reaction only for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. "

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/16/usa-today-suffolk-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-scary/80445986/

Bernie seems to be the guy most people would find acceptable...

2/16/2016 2:58:52 PM

Are you scared of this person getting the nomination:

Reaction to Clinton:
Democrats - 8% scared
Independents - 35%

Reaction to Sanders
Democrats - 12%
Independents - 28%

50% more people from the party he is running for are scared of Bernie. Yep - clearly favors Bernie.

[Edited on February 16, 2016 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2016 3:21:45 PM

not worried at all, that's a pretty silly question

[Edited on February 16, 2016 at 3:55 PM. Reason : also, 43>40]

2/16/2016 3:55:07 PM

Quote :

"if you want strong trade training programs you should support trade unions "

We don't need unions in order to have more vocational training and create more skilled laborers.

2/16/2016 5:45:58 PM

^^^That's a ridiculous polling question.

2/16/2016 8:14:54 PM

you forgot a ^ - I'm not the one who was using that ridiculous poll question to say people like bernie. i was responding to the person who did

[Edited on February 17, 2016 at 7:56 AM. Reason : ..]

2/17/2016 7:56:39 AM

peace out killer mike

2/17/2016 3:58:44 PM

?

2/17/2016 4:19:55 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/killer-mike-uterus-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-jane-elliott

2/17/2016 4:26:24 PM

Are you saying a uterus DOES qualify someone to be president?

The fact that this is an issue is ridiculous. He clearly was saying gender doesn't matter, and he was quoting someone else. Not just that, but he quoted her properly by giving her credit for the line. So why are people pissed at him? And it's obviously only people who are pro-Hillary who are upset about it. It's like Obama's "lipstick on a pig" line, except this time it wasn't even the candidate saying it.

2/17/2016 11:59:41 PM