How George W. Bush screwed this generation of college students...
Every kid in America could have a free public college education right now if George W. Bush hadn’t been such a war monger. In early 2001, prior to the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban government in Afghanistan issued an edict to ban opium cultivation in that nation, saying it was a violation of Islam. (Opium is the raw material for heroin.) And it worked pretty well.
In 2000, roughly 4,500 metric tons of opium was produced in Afghanistan. In 2001, that number plummeted to less than 1,000 metric tons. The price of heroin went up around the world, and the number of addicts – particularly in Europe, Russia, and America – dropped. The Bush administration was so impressed by the decrease in opium production that it gave $43 million to the Taliban, to encourage a continued halt on opium production.
While $43 million may not seem like a lot, it’s important to put it in context. At the time of the deal, Afghanistan’s total GDP was just $2 billion, putting it at the bottom of the global GDP rankings. It was, literally, the poorest country in the world. So, for the Taliban, $43 million was a lot of money. George W. Bush’s decision to fork over $43 million to the Taliban to help curb drug trafficking, use, and abuse was actually a good choice, and a smart policy.
Now fast forward to the days and weeks after 9/11. On October 14th, 2001, a senior Taliban leader, Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir, sent an official offer to Washington, saying that the Taliban would be willing to hand over Osama Bin Laden to a third-party country, if the U.S. stopped the bombing of Afghanistan. Kabir said that, “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate. Then we could discuss which third country.”
But Bush, the same man who, just months earlier, had handed over a small fortune to the Taliban government, rejected this latest offer of cooperation. Instead, he took up a “scorched earth” policy and bombed Afghanistan back into the stone ages. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan has cost our country over $713 billion since 2001. And that number is rising by the millisecond. In fact, every hour, the war in Afghanistan is costing We the People another $10.17 million.
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on a silver platter, but we said no, and now it’s cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. But what if George W. Bush had taken up the offer from the Taliban, and even sweetened the deal like he did with the opium?
What if he did something similar to what he had done just months before, and offered to give the Taliban money, if they promised to cut down on terrorism and on al Qaeda’s presence and influence in that nation? We could have given the Taliban $2 billion, enough to double the nation’s GDP and make everybody in the country twice as wealthy, and it still would have only been a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve spent on the war in Afghanistan.
And, if we had done that, we would have saved ourselves enough money to provide a free public college education to every single eligible student in America. As The Atlantic points out, according to Department of Education data, public colleges across America collected $62.6 billion in tuition from undergrads in 2012.
That means that the federal government would only have had to spend $62.6 billion to help make public college tuition free for every student in America in 2012. That’s less than 11% of what we have spent on the war in Afghanistan. The bottom-line here is that George W. Bush had a chance to get America’s priorities right, and he failed. Fortunately, he’s not in Washington anymore.
So now, instead of spending trillions of dollars on prolonging the Bush legacy of unjust wars, we should be spending those trillions on the things that will make America great again, like giving every eligible student in America a free public college education.
Comments
Also, Matt, quite logically, when a society is less equal there is much less social mobility and when a society is more equal there is much more. As chuckle8 told you, there was much more before Reagan.
Mark S -- In support of Thom's reason, wasn't the Powell memo before the oil embargo? Although scarcity of raw materials is hard to argue against, the fear in the elites caused by the masses refusing to go fight their war is also hard to argue against. Also per Thom in the "Crash of 2016", the elite did not like the masses becoming enamored with socialism. Yet another motivation for the Reagan era.
The oil embargo was the final push for manufacturing to leave the cities in the '70s because suburbs offered lower taxes and out of the country in the '80s as it and other factors, i.e., labor collective bargaining agreements, taxes, regulations, etc., made the per unit cost of production greater than they wanted to afford. When the elites lost their colonial power they had to cannibalize and colonize their fellow Americans and Europeans and go global.
Sharing his experience working for McDonald's years ago, Matt describes how the "higher-ups" would say employee turnover was the company's biggest problem, along with the cost of training new workers.
No. I worked for McDonalds for one summer as a teen. I worked for a different chain retail place in my 20s. But they probably have a similar business model when it comes to workers.
Overworked and underpaid employees (at least some of whom, beyond underpaid, also happen to be victims of wage theft) are not gonna stick around for long. They will continually be seeking better opportunities elsewhere, while swarms of new applicants keep showing up to pound at the gate.
True. I wish I would have written down the name of the company, but whenever we wanted to hire someone, we ran their information through this third-party company who did a background check. That information included any other chain stores the person worked at, why they left, if that store would rehire them, and also, sometimes, what other chain stores had an active application for that person.
In other words - we knew how desparate you were for a job, if we could see that you had applied at dozens of places over the previous weeks. Which is a good way of knowing just how little you'd be willing to work for.
Also, we frequently caught people leaving out unpleasant things on their applications, like being fired for stealing from another company.
I guess that all fits well into the "corporations are evil and out to stick it to the workers" meme.
The pre Reagan, post WW II period was absolutely the best, most carefree economic period in the U.S., ever! And that is not controversial. Not coincidentally, that was also the time of the most equality in U.S.society with the largest blue collar middle class.That seems to be the consensus among the learned people I talk to. Of course, most of them are baby boomers, and anyone saying things were better when they were younger just seems normal. But I can see your point.
Can you also see how some people (I am not saying I am one of them) can couple the country's current economic problems with the other changes that were happening at the same time? Like:
- Computers really took off in the 70s - they might deserve some of the blame. More automation, less person-to-person contact, advantages for the wealthy who could afford computers, etc...
- The breakdown of traditional family roles. (again, I am not saying I believe this) A large influx of women in the workplace not only created changes in domestic life, but also created more competition for jobs.
- The collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, I know this didn't happen until 1991, but the "writing was on the wall", so to speak. That lack of a clearly defined enemy, PLUS that change of that enemy into capitalism, which made them our economic competition instead of our military one, could also be a little to blame.
- Affirmative Action really took off in the 70s and 80s as well, and there are plenty of people who point to that as a possible reason for our current problems. (Those unintended consequences Republicans always like to bash the Democrats about. For every one person who got ahead because of A.A., dozens more because resentful. I've heard it compared to American's bombing of terrorists in the Middle East - sure, it solved one problem, but just created more in the process.)
Actually, now that I read those altogether, they all seem to point to one thing: Fewer jobs (automation), and too many people to fill them.
but the real reason for the ending of our carefree opulence was the ending of our imperial, colonial hedgemony.
I teach American History from the post-Revolutionary period to modern times. Starting with the annexation of Florida, I tell the students, "You're going to be hearing a lot of this in American History - if you have something we want, we like to point guns at you and make you sign it over to us." By the time we get to learning about the Panama Canal, the students know what's coming....
Quote ChicagoMatt:- The collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, I know this didn't happen until 1991, but the "writing was on the wall", so to speak. That lack of a clearly defined enemy, PLUS that change of that enemy into capitalism, which made them our economic competition instead of our military one, could also be a little to blame.
This was very significant in another way. As long as there was a threat of communism the elites in our society were always careful to keep a "capitalism with a human face" in place. FDR, for example, was as he was and was elected and reelected because there was a real threat of communist revolution in that period, as you'd hear from experts and lay people who lived through that era. The quasi socialism of the New Deal and other welfare statisms, like the Great Society and such, were compromises with socialism to keep capitalism from going assunder.
When the threat of communism was gone the elites could drop any pretense about freedom and equality for all and openly and brazenly pursue their agenda.
When the threat of communism was gone the elites could drop any pretense about freedom and equality for all and openly and brazenly pursue their agenda.
When you talk about elites, are you talking about the same group of people, or just whoever happens to have money and power at any given time? Is it more "Illuminati"-style, where there is literally a handful of very powerful people at work behind the scenes? Or is it more like "wealthy people who all have the same mindset and just want more wealth"? Like, for example, would Bill Gates, who made most of his fortune after the Reagan Revolution, be considered an "eilte"?
Quote ChicagoMatt:- Affirmative Action really took off in the 70s and 80s as well, and there are plenty of people who point to that as a possible reason for our current problems. (Those unintended consequences Republicans always like to bash the Democrats about. For every one person who got ahead because of A.A., dozens more because resentful. I've heard it compared to American's bombing of terrorists in the Middle East - sure, it solved one problem, but just created more in the process.)
Before affirmative action there was structural racism keeping people from getting ahead. You're never gonna please everybody.
I don't much sympathize with those who grouse about AA for having to share some of their privilege with people who never had it so good. They're OK with injustice as long it only affects somebody else.
Before affirmative action there was structural racism keeping people from getting ahead. You're never gonna please everybody. I don't much sympathize with those who grouse about AA for having to share some of their privilege with people who never had it so good. They're OK with injustice as long it only affects somebody else.
It became a convenient scapegoat for any white person who didn't get a job they wanted or into their college of choice. "Must have already hit their quota of whites", they might say.
It also had another affect of belittling the efforts of minorities who didn't use Affirmative Action.
Quote ChicagoMatt:When you talk about elites, are you talking about the same group of people, or just whoever happens to have money and power at any given time? Is it more "Illuminati"-style, where there is literally a handful of very powerful people at work behind the scenes? Or is it more like "wealthy people who all have the same mindset and just want more wealth"? Like, for example, would Bill Gates, who made most of his fortune after the Reagan Revolution, be considered an "eilte"?
The elites I talk about are those who determine the course and structure of society. They are the most prominent business and political leaders. They are not that secretive a group. Anybody can find out about them and their activity by reading The Wall Street Journal. Sometimes some investigative reporting is necessary to get at the real story but that is also readily available to the "consumer of news", as it were.
Business influences government and public policy many ways. It does this through the campaign finance system - essentially, a system of legalized bribery; through the power of big business to influence public opinion through its PR and marketing apparatae - and simply through its ownership of major media organs; through its power to affect local, national and international economies (capital flight, capital strike and such); through the revolving door between business and politics and other ways.
In general, the powerful most always collude and conspire against the powerless, simply because they can. There is a saying I heard Norman Goldman say, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
Mark, it's refreshing to read your comments about Affirmative Action and those white folks always whining about "reverse racism". They don't have my sympathy either. You're right, Mark; long as someone else is affected, injustice seems fine by them. - AIW
In general, the powerful most always collude and conspire against the powerless, simply because they can. There is a saying I heard Norman Goldman say, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
I think there's a fine line between people looking out for themselves - the elites or anyone else - and people actively trying to keep other people down. The desire to keep the status quo, even by people on the low end of the economic ladder, just seems normal to me. Like greed, fear of change is a normal human emotion. How many people are willing to give up the little they have for the promise of having a little more, but at the risk of losing what they already have? Not many.
Mark, it's refreshing to read your comments about Affirmative Action and those white folks always whining about "reverse racism".
It's not "reverse racism". It's just racism - judging people based on their race.
It's the opposite of what Dr. King wanted. He said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Giving someone preference because of their race - judging them as more worthy - is racism.
Fortunately, that's mostly in the past. In isolated pockets, like Chicago, it's been replaced with classism - judging people "more worthy" of a spot in a selective school because of their parents' income.
Matt, I've heard it all before and it's all bullshit. Affirmative Action was about extending opportunities to minorities who would otherwise have been excluded from higher education because of racism, or its consequences. Too bad all these white people have to keep whining about it, even years after Affirmative Action has ended. Makes me question the "content of their character". Never mind that prior to Affirmative Action, white people got preference because of THEIR color! Nobody was whining then. But the moment a policy is enacted in an effort to resolve this problem, white folks start squealing like pigs. Just breaks mah heart. - Aliceinwonderland
Never mind that prior to Affirmative Action, white people got preference because of THEIR color! Nobody was whining then.
Again, a policy of "THEY STARTED IT..." is immature and something I don't accept from my 13-year-old students, much less politicians.
And white people were whining then. Dr. King referenced it in his same "Dream" speech - all of the whites in the crowd:
"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."
and:
"In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds."
Or, in other words, even Dr. King realized committing a wrong to correct a wrong was wrong.
And it's not just minorites. Here in Illinois, the state still has an official policy of preferential treatment/hiring of female-owned businesses, particularly for things like road construction. Some men just "sold" their companies to their wives, in order to get government contracts.
ChicagoMatt ~ You can also add, "...where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Yeah, I too would doubt Dr. King would have been a big fan of "affirmative action." Other than some brief economic justice it did no permanent good for anyone and only fanned the flames of racial discontent. I'm so glad that nonsense is behind us and we can focus on real equal opportunity reforms; which, of course, begin with education, equal opportunity laws, and equal employment practices.
You simply cannot reverse the damage of four centuries of human rights abuses and inequality in a decade or two, all you do is postpone the real recovery. It is time we take equal rights and justice for all seriously.
You really need to define your "affirmative action" more precisely. We have stopped racial affirmative action and gone back to the legacy affirmative action.
Why do you say it was a brief economic justice? I thought racial affirmative action was acontinuing contribution to economic justice, until it was stopped.
Quote chuckle8:Why do you say it was a brief economic justice?
chuckle8 ~ Because you and I both know it was nothing more than another hand out. Another "fish" instead of "teaching how to fish." Do you really think any "injustice" could ever lead to "justice?" Do you really think any judgement by the color of someones skin alone is going to lead to equality? Affirmative action was a slap in the face to equality.
Chi Matt -- During the time of the new deal to Reagan, no one willingly gaive up anything.
Quote Chi Matt:How many people are willing to give up the little they have for the promise of having a little more, but at the risk of losing what they already have?
The main underlying policy was to ensure a level playing field. It seems an optimal marketplace is when the bottom 90% has as much power as the top 10%. Ravi Batra has pointed out that all economics has to take into consideration the balance of supply and demand. I think the key battle in this supply/demand balance, is the power struggle between labor and business. That is why I keep repeating the key policy change that is needed is card check With one more vote in the senate in 2009, card check would be the law of the land.
DAM --
Quote DAnneMarc:Because you and I both know it was nothing more than another hand out.
I do not know that. It seems to me admitting an underprivileged black person in to a university with a lower score is the definition of teaching someone to fish.
I knew I was opening a can of worms by responding to Matt's initial complaint about Affirmative Action. Oh well... frankly, I am sick of arguing with other whites over this issue. I think that to this very day, we as whites are enjoying a certain amount of unearned privilege in this society that we're so accustomed to, we hardly even notice it... but we only make fools of ourselves when we conveniently deny it exists.
Matt's case against Affirmative Action is that "committing a wrong to correct a wrong is wrong". That might make a compelling argument against capital punishment, but not Affirmative Action, which I don't consider to be a "wrong".
And Marc, I disagree with your remark that Affirmative Action "did no permanent good for anyone". There are literally thousands of black professionals in this country who would still be stuck in low-paid menial grunt jobs were it not for Affirmative Action. Recently Randi Rhodes pointed out that at least two justices of the Supreme Court would probably not be there, had it not been for Affirmative Action. (One of them we would be better off without… but that's beside the point.)
How is availing someone an opportunity for higher education a "hand-out"? When you sign up for college, you're taking on a boatload of work; unpaid work, I might add. How is education not "teaching how to fish?" Chuck got it right when he said "It seems to me admitting an underprivileged black person in to a university with a lower score is the definition of teaching someone to fish."
The fact remains that if those Affirmative Action students had lower scores prior to admission, it wasn't because they were dumber than the rest or didn't try hard enough. It was because they lived in the poorest neighborhoods and went to the crappiest schools, which didn't prepare them as well as those from better neighborhoods & schools. This is simply the result of economic policies that benefitted whites while maliciously excluding blacks, giving generations of whites a head start academically as well as financially. Affirmative Action's purpose was to help compensate for a socio-economic handicap blacks and other minorities were not to blame for, due to conditions beyond their control. So what in the hell is wrong with that?! Of those multitudes of white complainers who think Affirmative Action was "racist", I have not heard anyone suggest a better approach to leveling the proverbial playing field; just a lot of bitching & whining.
Even if Affirmative Action students had somewhat lower test scores prior to admission, they had to do the same work as everyone else, and jump through the same hoops and pass the same tests. Hardly a free ride. - Aliceinwonderland
ChicagoMatt ~ You can also add, "...where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I did, in an earlier message.
Glad we found something we can sort of agree on. There is hope!
chuckle8 and Aliceinwonderland ~ I have no problem with the educational intent of affirmative action That is where I believe the entire focus of this intent should be!! My problem is with the economic action. As far as educational assistance is concerned I want that for everyone else as well. There is no reason anyone who wants to learn in this country can't for free. It's just not moral. It's also not logical to provide anything less. However, if we made cradle to grave education 100% free for everyone why would we need affirmative action for anyone? Why would we have to force employers to choose anything other than the best candidate for the position? Affirmative action was nothing more than a ploy by the elite to offer a peanut in exchange for all the real reforms that they are responsible to provide to ALL "WE THE PEOPLE" Sure the ploy helped raise up a few isolated people. It also conveniently let the elite get away with the real reform that needs to be done--without really doing anything!!
As a result we now have a $1Trillion + student loan debt in this country. You now see the real cost of the nonsense of "Affirmative Action?"
By the way. That $1Trillion dollar debt. That with super interest and debt insurance--they cannot claim bankruptcy.Surely We as a People could have educated those kids for free a whole lot cheaper than that? Also, surely as a society we would have taken a far greater interest in their career choices if WE were paying for it?
I don't know about you guys, but I feel violated!
I didn't realize until I started paying back my student loans that they front-load the interest. I suppose that's my fault for not reading the fine print. I've been paying for about 10 years now, and have practically the same principal as when I started. They are getting their interest first.
I make sure I tell my students about how that works when we talk about economics. Hopefully they will remember by the time they need to think about college.
I'm only slightly peeved because it is entirely concievable that I will be able to pay off all of my student loans early, once some personal things happen in my life. But by then, they will have all of their interest anyway, so I won't be saving anything.
There is no reason anyone who wants to learn in this country can't for free. It's just not moral. It's also not logical to provide anything less.
I'm going to try and talk about something that I learned in grad school while getting my teaching degree, but I probably won't do it justice. But bear with me:
Perhaps one of the reasons minorities - Blacks in particular - lag so far behind their European and Asian peers in education isn't just economic. Even in affluent suburbs, the minorities, who have parents at equal income levels, tend to lag when it comes to standardized testing. If poorer areas, where everyone is poor, the minorities lag behind their equally-poor European and Asian counterparts.
Maybe we should start looking at learning styles instead. The current American education system is based on a European model - students are grouped based on age, not learning ability. They are put in groups of 20-40 in most schools, and taught by a single adult. That adult typically has no relationship with the student or the parents. Subjects are compartmentalized - English lesson now, Math lesson later, etc....
Maybe this system doesn't work for everyone for cultural reasons. Perhaps minorities who struggle in this system are better off in a different one - where students are grouped based on ability, not age. Where students are taught by multiple adults or even older students, and where there isn't such a clear dividing line between this subject and that subject. Perhaps they would do better with more apprenticeships and practical, hands-on learning styles.
We all know that, until recently, the curriculum for most schools was Euro-centric. Now perhaps it is time to look at the entire layout of the school system.
Marc, I always thought Affirmative Action had to do with bending admissions requirements for disadvantaged students, to give them access to higher education opportunities they would not otherwise have had. I agree with you that education should be free in this country for everyone. But admissions requirements are another matter.
How is Affirmative Action to blame for this trillion-dollar student debt problem? I don't get it.
By the way, you mentioned feeling violated..... by what? The context of that statement eludes me. - AIW
This isn't related to education, but would still be considered Affirmative Action:
The city of Chicago was sued for not admitting enough black firefighter applicants into the academy, even though the city just took the top 1800 applicants for the open positions. Those 1800 applicants happened to be mostly white.
A "passing" score on the test was 64, but because they had so many applicants, they were able to raise the standards to people who scored 89 or better. By raising the standards to the best candidates for the available positions, only 11 percent of the accepted applicants were black, even though many more blacks had "passing" scores. Some black applicants sued and won, and the city was forced to hire 111 of them and give them back pay, even though they scored lower on the test than the white applicants who actually got accepted the first time.
You can read the whole story here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/chicago-firefighters-city_n_861...
Chi Matt --
Quote Chi Matt:Even in affluent suburbs, the minorities, who have parents at equal income levels, tend to lag when it comes to standardized testing
I wonder if any notice was made of how many generations of affluency those students had. Thom has noted it took about 3 generations for Italians and Irish to meld into acceptance and they did not even have skin pigmentation to deal with. One of the factors that contribute is amount of cortisol in the womb.
Chi Matt -- I wonder what those test are like. Both you and DAM seem to think those test scores are the ultimate admission requirement.
Quote Aliceinwonderland: Marc, I always thought Affirmative Action had to do with bending admissions requirements for disadvantaged students, to give them access to higher education opportunities they would not otherwise have had.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Yes, it was. That is the problem. We are paying for "disadvantaged students." Don't you realize there are far more advantaged students; who, together with the disadveantaged ones eaqually deserved free education? "For All!!" The only real disadvantaged students are the ones with out every advantage. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THAT ADVANTAGE!!!
That is whereThe Front should be fought!!
Quote chuckle8:Chi Matt -- I wonder what those test are like. Both you and DAM seem to think those test scores are the ultimate admission requirement.
chuckle8 ~ I'm sorry!! I thought I said that, "breathing" should be the ultimate admission requirement!!
Thom has noted it took about 3 generations for Italians and Irish to meld into acceptance
And that was before assimilation took on its current negotive connotation. Now, students are taught to be proud of their heritage (nothing wrong with that), and part of being proud means not assimilating (that's a problem if you want to get ahead in America).
It's difficult for me, as a white male English and Social Studies teacher, to teach a student from a different race/culture and not sound like I'm saying different versions of "act more like me". If, for example, I'm teaching grammar to someone who speaks Spanish as their first language, and I tell them that in English, the adjectives come before the nouns, they may take offense to that, since it's the opposite in Spanish. Like I'm saying the English way isn't just different, but better than the Spanish way.
English grammar is what it is; anyone starting from another language who has half a brain will understand that. Teaching English grammar is not the same as preaching that English is superior to all other languages. Grammar is objective; value judgments (i.e. "superior" versus "inferior") are subjective. Don't underestimate your students! - AIW
Marc, you are preaching to the choir. I am among the last persons you would need to convince that everyone should be entitled to a free tax-funded education. But the Affirmative Action issue isn't about money; it's about admissions requirements. Don't you think that in order to get into college, prospective students should possess certain skills already, and a certain level of literacy? Or do you think colleges & universities should just admit anyone unconditionally, regardless of any of that? - AIW
True. But if they've been hearing their whole lives (via music, pop culture, social media, etc...) things like, "white privledge is keeping you down" or "the system is rigged against you and your parents", or even seemingly benign things like, "be yourself" or "don't change to please anybody", it makes a teacher's job that much harder.
Some degree of assimilation is necessary if you want to succeed in this country. (Cultural treatment of women, for example. Even if it's a common practice for women in your country to be considered the "property" of their fathers and then husbands, that doesn't fly here.) Even cultures that aren't from other countries, like rural Southerners or inner-city minorities, must assimilate their dialects if they want to succeed.
But, like I said, nowadays that word (assimilation) has a very negative connotation.
Quote Aliceinwonderland:English grammar is what it is; anyone starting from another language who has half a brain will understand that. Teaching English grammar is not the same as preaching that English is superior to all other languages. Grammar is objective; value judgments (i.e. "superior" versus "inferior") are subjective. Don't underestimate your students! - AIW
I certainly can't disagree with that!!
Quote Aliceinwonderland:Or do you think colleges & universities should just admit anyone unconditionally, regardless of any of that? - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ Bingo!! The only thing that should matter is the desire of the student. If he/she has applied him/herself at least to the subject matter' and in any manner wants to devote themselves they should be allowed to be... ALL THAT THEY CAN BE!!
Marc, you don't think prospective college students should have to prove they're ready for higher ed? Really?! Because if those prospective students haven't even mastered high school skill levels, how are they going to handle higher ed? - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ Yes, I think everyone that goes on to college should first graduate from High School... And just what does that have what to do with the price of rice in China??
Anyone graduating from High School should have the same opportunities as anyone else who graduates. Anyone who fails to graduate from High School should be eligible for special education. Anyone who fails that should be eligible for welfare and employer assistance. Can I break it down simpler than that?
Marc, your post #293 makes no sense. After agreeing that anyone going to college should first be a high school grad, you ask "what does that have what to do with the price of rice in China?" HUH?
This started out as a discussion about Affirmative Action, which lead to a discussion about college admission standards.
Back in the late 1990s, while enrolled in creative writing and essay writing classes at the local community college, I was appalled at the writing skills of some of my classmates, who seemed not to know even the most basic grammar; stuff we're supposed to know before high school. - AIW
Back in the late 1990s, while enrolled in creative writing and essay writing classes at the local community college, I was appalled at the writing skills of some of my classmates, who seemed not to know even the most basic grammar; stuff we're supposed to know before high school.
That's not surprising. One side effect of the pressure to increase graduation rates in a decrease in graduation standards. It's even worse now, with texting lingo and whatnot. Every year I get students who write things like "btw" and "omg" on their essays, and when I correct them on it, they literally do not know why it is wrong.
Another interesting "how things have changed" kind of fact for you: (I may have shared this already) Most schools do not even teach cursive writing anymore. Even when I was in grammar school in the late 80s/early 90s, we were taught it for just one year, and it was never enforced, so we all just went back to printing. Only two of my students still write in cursive, and I hate grading their essays, because it's hard for me to read.
Schools are also dropping "spelling" as a gradable subject after fifth grade. By then, the emphasis is on "getting it close enough for the spell checker to figure it out".
Remember Cliff Notes? Those are also old news. Now, the students watch video summaries of their novels, complete with sections about "what your teacher will ask you" and "what to talk about in an essay". Google "60 Second Recap" if you want to see one...
DAM --
Quote DAnneMarc:I'm sorry!! I thought I said that, "breathing" should be the ultimate admission requirement!!
We certainly agree on breathing as being the ultimate test (LOL). We also agree that the lack of money should never be a deterrent to going to college. We disagree on the purpose of a higher education. I think under the fake limits we currently have, that one should base admissions on which students will contribute the greatest to our nation (AKA the people paying for their education). I just do not believe that scores on a test meet that criterion.
You are aware that Wall St hires the top students coming out of MIT. They hire them to create the algorithms to tranche derivatives amongst other things. I would bet those students scored really high on those tests.
You are aware that Wall St hires the top students coming out of MIT. They hire them to create the algorithms to tranche derivatives amongst other things.
I can't remember if I heard this on Thom's show, but either way, it's pretty interesting. When a small-time trader (like myself) logs on to their account, the big-time traders know when my mouse is hovering over the "buy" or "sell" keys, and can jump ahead of me to raise or lower the price by a few hundredths of a cent. They use those MIT grad's skills to get just a few miliseconds jump, but all of those fractions of a cent add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per day.
Well, I doubt they're tracking me personally. I'm too small time for that.
I also am very good friends with a person who works for a company that does most of their business online. He showed me how they can see exactly how long someone's mouse "dwells" on a specific area of the screen. Using that information, they can tell what that person might be in the market for, and target their offerings to that person.
He could also tell who was right and left handed that way.
If I were the paranoid type, this kind of stuff might bother me. But as it is, I just find it interesting.
Quote Aliceinwonderland:This started out as a discussion about Affirmative Action, which lead to a discussion about college admission standards.Back in the late 1990s, while enrolled in creative writing and essay writing classes at the local community college, I was appalled at the writing skills of some of my classmates, who seemed not to know even the most basic grammar; stuff we're supposed to know before high school. - AIW
Aliceinwonderland ~ I'm sorry, I was still talking about Affirmative Action and how it was nothing more than lottering education to the lucky few as opposed to providing a quality education to everyone. I never made the switch to college admission standards. Quite frankly I know nothing about the current standards and would prefer not to comment on them.
However, in the 80"s when I was in college I had little problem with those standards. I also remember quite clearly also enrolled in a creative writing course--among other literary courses--in the local community college and found my peers to be quite proficient at writing. Actually, I was quite impressed with both their syntax and creativity. Of course, neither of our experiences constitute a functional enough sampling of the population to draw any serious conclusions; however, if that much has changed in 10 short years it would certainly help support my contention that our educational system is sorely in need of reform.
Quote chuckle8:We certainly agree on breathing as being the ultimate test (LOL). We also agree that the lack of money should never be a deterrent to going to college. We disagree on the purpose of a higher education. I think under the fake limits we currently have, that one should base admissions on which students will contribute the greatest to our nation (AKA the people paying for their education). I just do not believe that scores on a test meet that criterion.
chuckle8 ~ I must have got tired last night and missed this whole switch over to the admissions subject. Perhaps I was doing too many things at once--a very bad habit all we Americans seem to be getting into.
Like I told Aliceinwonderland this is an area I'm not familiar with. All I can say is that I don't like any admission tests. Why pretest people on things they haven't learned yet. The only test that should be considered for admission anywhere is their finals in their last learning institution. If they got at least a "B" average they are admitted. A "B" average shows they are serious enough and disciplined enough to train. What more can you ask for?
If you are suggesting that some institutions use admission tests in order to discriminate I would say you are probably right. And, if so, that is absolutely wrong and should be illegal.
Personally, I agree on the first two items you mentioned above. However, I don't understand what you are saying in the one we supposedly disagree about. I could not imagine how we could disagree on the "purpose of higher education." To me, that is to prepare a child for life--the same way a mother bird prepares her babies to hunt.
And no, I don't agree that education should only be available to the kids who can pay for it. I firmly disagree. I don't think any child should have to spend a dime for a college education. That is also clearly discrimination; and, should be illegal.
Let's back up a bit. Are you trying to tell me you believe that it is possible for a 16-17 year old to be able to make the decision on what they want to do the rest of their lives and stick to it? That kid can't even vote, drive a car, or buy alcohol; yet, he/she is capable of deciding what they want to do for the rest of their life enough to go into debt for a huge portion of that life to pay for that decision? No, I don't agree with that! Not at all! No way!!!
I believe it is the responsibility of society to pick up the check for all educational expenses--as well as medical expenses--for all of its members. Medical care and education are fundamentally necessary for the smooth functioning of society; and, therefore, are the responsibility of society to pay for. I think kids should be encouraged to take all the time they need to make that critical decision. If they want to take a break after High School to become apprentices it should be encouraged. If a 40 year old is fed up with their work and want to return to college it should also be encouraged.
Strapping people in debt and locking them into the same career for life is criminal. Turning institutions of higher education into factories that produce indentured servants is not my idea of civilized! That is what I stand for and oppose!!
To me, higher education is supposed to set people free, not lock them into the bondage of slavery! However, it certainly fulfills the vision of the Powell Memo.
DAM -- The only complaining I ever hear concerning Affirmative Action is for test scores on admission. Do you have some other complaint about Affirmative Action? If so, what?
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Matt, you need to get a more firm grasp of the obvious. The pre Reagan, post WW II period was absolutely the best, most carefree economic period in the U.S., ever! And that is not controversial. Not coincidentally, that was also the time of the most equality in U.S.society with the largest blue collar middle class.
I disagree with Thom as to why that ended. I think Reagan's policies caused much of it - his general unconcern for the country as a whole in favor of a concern only for the elites caused us to go from being the world's greatest exporter of finnished goods to being the world's greatest exporter of jobs - but the real reason for the ending of our carefree opulence was the ending of our imperial, colonial hedgemony. The decline of our economy began substantially before Reagan, it began with the Arab countries' - beginning with Iraq's - nationalization of their oil indusries in 1973. (It then, incidentally, immediately became the policy, under the "Kissinger Plan", to take that oil back by force. That policy was finally effected in 2003.) We didn't have recessions, of the kind we'd had since, before that.
Reagan's policies, were, essentially, the elites' way of dealing with the new scarcity resulting from the loss of control of oil production making sure we, the common people, rather than they, felt the consequences of that new scarcity.