College Sophomore stumps Bush..

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito
You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

You can support education in other ways, for example, by raising standards for our students.

How does that help students get into college?

Better standards in high school might better prepare them for college.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do you think the oversupply of applicable students is causing the severe inflation we are seeing in tuition rates?

To an extent it is.

For Tier1 schools, if they can get 2 qualified (top 1%, ETC...) students to fill 1 seat, they can raise the tuition far enough to cut their applicant pool 30% and still fill their seats with room to spare.

The schools that take less competitive students are able to raise their tuition in accordance with the better schools, since the students place more value on a degree now, then 10 years ago, let's say.

It's free market at work, really... which would please Zendari, I am sure. But in effect, it chokes off tons of potentially productive people, by restricting them from higher education.

I have heard this theory and it sounds solid.

I ask if the Govt getting involved in an open market transaction by providing grants(free money) and low rate student loans, is indeed creating or at least accelerating the increase in tuition by artificially creating a larger pool of students through subsidies. In effect this ends up cutting off the very students it was designed to help.

Free market is definately at play, I wonder if through a program designed to help some people we are hurting the majority.

The inflation for tuition is no joke and could quickly cutoff parts of our population who are smart enough but cant afford it.

Edit: I will also add that I dont have an answer for this problem. I just recognize some of the possible reasons.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do you think the oversupply of applicable students is causing the severe inflation we are seeing in tuition rates?

To an extent it is.

For Tier1 schools, if they can get 2 qualified (top 1%, ETC...) students to fill 1 seat, they can raise the tuition far enough to cut their applicant pool 30% and still fill their seats with room to spare.

The schools that take less competitive students are able to raise their tuition in accordance with the better schools, since the students place more value on a degree now, then 10 years ago, let's say.

It's free market at work, really... which would please Zendari, I am sure. But in effect, it chokes off tons of potentially productive people, by restricting them from higher education.

I have heard this theory and it sounds solid.

I ask if the Govt getting involved in an open market transaction by providing grants(free money) and low rate student loans, is indeed creating or at least accelerating the increase in tuition by artificially creating a larger pool of students through subsidies. In effect this ends up cutting off the very students it was designed to help.

Free market is definately at play, I wonder if through a program designed to help some people we are hurting the majority.

The inflation for tuition is no joke and could quickly cutoff parts of our population who are smart enough but cant afford it.

Edit: I will also add that I dont have an answer for this problem. I just recognize some of the possible reasons.

A potential solution to the free-money inflation program would be a scaled subsidized loan program which would be merit-based. In effect, instead of helping students equally, the more successful students would get more government assistance, while the less successful would get less.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Condor
You failed to mention the Iraqui women that Bush asked to shut up. She was thanking him for the freedom she and her family now has. He requested that she either ask a question or quit talking. Funny you didn't Cliff note that. He answered questions for 45 minutes to an hour and was only stumped once? Could you actually do as well?

Maybe if more students actually paid back their loans, the budget wouldn't have been cut. Responses only from past students who have actually paid back their loans in full please!

Yeah, unpaid loans was the problem.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito
You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

You can support education in other ways, for example, by raising standards for our students.

How does that help students get into college?

It doesn't. It assures that only rich kids will be able to get a college education. That's the whole idea and why the neocon fanbois support it so much.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have heard this theory and it sounds solid.

I ask if the Govt getting involved in an open market transaction by providing grants(free money) and low rate student loans, is indeed creating or at least accelerating the increase in tuition by artificially creating a larger pool of students through subsidies. In effect this ends up cutting off the very students it was designed to help.

Free market is definately at play, I wonder if through a program designed to help some people we are hurting the majority.

The inflation for tuition is no joke and could quickly cutoff parts of our population who are smart enough but cant afford it.

Edit: I will also add that I dont have an answer for this problem. I just recognize some of the possible reasons.

A potential solution to the free-money inflation program would be a scaled subsidized loan program which would be merit-based. In effect, instead of helping students equally, the more successful students would get more government assistance, while the less successful would get less.

Define merit. Certain people get whiny when you use test scores and make excuses.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have heard this theory and it sounds solid.

I ask if the Govt getting involved in an open market transaction by providing grants(free money) and low rate student loans, is indeed creating or at least accelerating the increase in tuition by artificially creating a larger pool of students through subsidies. In effect this ends up cutting off the very students it was designed to help.

Free market is definately at play, I wonder if through a program designed to help some people we are hurting the majority.

The inflation for tuition is no joke and could quickly cutoff parts of our population who are smart enough but cant afford it.

Edit: I will also add that I dont have an answer for this problem. I just recognize some of the possible reasons.

A potential solution to the free-money inflation program would be a scaled subsidized loan program which would be merit-based. In effect, instead of helping students equally, the more successful students would get more government assistance, while the less successful would get less.

Define merit. Certain people get whiny when you use test scores and make excuses.

Merit = class %-ile and standardized test scores.
I see only you whining btw.

Personally I am not a fan of need-based scholarships in the form that they are now. A student who is in the top 1%, and whose parents make $60k/year, shouldn't be at a disadvantage compared to a student who's in the top 10%, and whose parents make $40k/year.

Neither family could afford a $30k/year school for their child, so using arbitrary cutoffs for "need-based" scholarships is a disgusting way of doing it.

The only place where "need" should figure into the equation is at the same level of scholastic achievement.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Meuge
A potential solution to the free-money inflation program would be a scaled subsidized loan program which would be merit-based. In effect, instead of helping students equally, the more successful students would get more government assistance, while the less successful would get less.

Define merit. Certain people get whiny when you use test scores and make excuses.

Merit = class %-ile and standardized test scores.
I see only you whining btw.

Personally I am not a fan of need-based scholarships in the form that they are now. A student who is in the top 1%, and whose parents make $60k/year, shouldn't be at a disadvantage compared to a student who's in the top 10%, and whose parents make $40k/year.

Neither family could afford a $30k/year school for their child, so using arbitrary cutoffs for "need-based" scholarships is a disgusting way of doing it.

The only place where "need" should figure into the equation is at the same level of scholastic achievement.

There are plenty of people who complain about how tests are "unfair", example: the people who write this. Incidentally the same groups whining are the ones doing poorly on tests.

Incidentally, I agree with you. A family that makes $200k a year with a straight A 1600 student should get something, but they don't.

You are completely wrong about me, I am a huge fan of using tests and test scores in evaluations for our children, including NCLB.

 

[Meuge]

Those are the same people who claim that SATs are racially biased. The can go suck a big one, for all I care. I know plenty of students of nearly every race and nationality who did just fine on their SATs. Now they might be a minority within their ethnic groups, but handing out college admissions to their less successful brethren when they clearly don't deserve them, isn't going to change the statistics for the best. It's "equality of condition" superceding "equality of opportunity" in the worst way.

 

[LegendKiller]

Standardized tests suck. They are probably the worst measurement of brains, talent, and desire ever created. They do nothing to measure intelligence of complex topics, personality, or ability to actually do well in the real world. I am a perfect example of that. All of my standardized tests in HS and college entry were ~50 percentile.
I have performed *WAY* above people who scored higher and I am leaving them in my dust professionally and personally.

Give people the chance to prove themselves and they will. Take away their opportunity or burden them with working while they should be studying and you will make their task impossible.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standardized tests suck. They are probably the worst measurement of brains, talent, and desire ever created. They do nothing to measure intelligence of complex topics, personality, or ability to actually do well in the real world. I am a perfect example of that. All of my standardized tests in HS and college entry were ~50 percentile.
I have performed *WAY* above people who scored higher and I am leaving them in my dust professionally and personally.

Give people the chance to prove themselves and they will. Take away their opportunity or burden them with working while they should be studying and you will make their task impossible.

They are the only way to test people objectively. The other way is school %-ile, which should certainly figure into the final formula.

The only thing SATI measures is how long you sat on your ass preparing for the SATI. Which incidentally measures the student's will and desire.

Knowledge and the alike are measured by the subject tests, which actually require knowledge and mastery of specific disciplines.

Now I am not a big fan of the SATI. If it was up to me, I'd change it to a logic game test, similar (but obviously easier) to the LSAT... and just make it one of the subject tests. It doesn't have any merit to be used as a "primary" test.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

Oh, have you paid back your loan?

I've paid back my loans in full, and, to answer another of your challenges, I'm happy to compare my GPA to GWB's. Hell, I went to a public law school, much like the one that turned him down (he went to Harvard Business School only after he couldn't get into the Univ of Texas law school, where his family ties didn't weigh as heavily as at a private school).

If you're going to rationalize the Bush administration's cutting student loans on the basis of defaulting borrowers, at least produce some data to indicate that the actual rates of default are on the rise.

You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

I believe the topic was "College Sophomore stumps Bush..". Guess you didn't read that. My response was that he had responded to 45 min to an hour of questions before that one came up. I guess you would have been able to give the speech and then top that with answers to many questions without having to ask anyone at all for the fine details. In your mind, of course! Supporting education and paying for it are two different issues. Dims may have made education cheap for the individual to get, but did they improve education? Did they really support education? If they had, it would have improved, wouldn't it?

Several threads in the last day or two have had questions of a legal nature in them. When those threads are active, I notice your asbsence. Being that as you area of expertise, I would think you would be eager to chime in. I don't remember you ever answering a single legal query on any of the threads. I know you must have, but not many is my guess. Why that avoidance of your area?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor
Responses only from past students who have actually paid back their loans in full please!

<-- right here.

Now you tell me, why is Bush such a lying, snivelling little worm? Doesn't he have the the balls to get up there and defend his policies?

He had just done that for 45 minutes to an hour before that question was raised. You didn't watch, did you? If you had, you could have posted something factual.

Oh, have you paid back your loan?

Yes, a rather large lump sum paid a few days after I got a letter asking me for my first payment.

Now lets get back on topic, so you can help me understand Bush..
Are you saying he's so stupid that he can't answer a few questions about his policies without forgetting what they are? Or is that he isn't aware of what he is signing into law to begin with? Or is it that he's a lying coward who cuts funding one day, then tells a student the next day that he didn't cut anything?

If I thought yopu had any desire to understand Bush, I would be more than glad to help. I know that attack, not understand, is your goal. A few questions? You really are uninformed aren't you. Students are lucky to get the funding in the first place and to whine about the conditions is beyond understanding!

 

[Gaard]

fine details = Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?
😕

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Let's not even mention the Iraqi thanking Bush for liberating her people. Let's instead try yet another lame "Bush is stupid" attack.

What possible relevance does it have? You're actually whining about the fact that Condor didn't manage to completely derail this thread with irrelevant nonsense? Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

I'm glad that you see freeing 23 million people as irrelevant nonsense. Kind of broadens my understanding of you, doesn't it.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: maluckey
LegendKiller

Perhaps you should pay attention to what was said. Student loans default at a higher rate than most all other loans. Show me where they don't...

Student loans are for those that can generally afford to pay back college ;oans, PELL are for those that can't.

As far as applying my situation to the masses? It's common for people to work their way through college.

While most of that is probably true, I think the days of "working through college" are growing leaner. The combination of tuition inflation, general cost of living, weak grant/loan programs, and poor quality/pay PT work will surely take its toll on upwardly mobility through education.

Think this through! Pell grants and student loans are the very factors that have fueled inflation in education.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito
You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

You can support education in other ways, for example, by raising standards for our students.

How does that help students get into college?

Better standards in high school might better prepare them for college.

I repeat, how does that help students get into college?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standardized tests suck. They are probably the worst measurement of brains, talent, and desire ever created. They do nothing to measure intelligence of complex topics, personality, or ability to actually do well in the real world. I am a perfect example of that. All of my standardized tests in HS and college entry were ~50 percentile.
I have performed *WAY* above people who scored higher and I am leaving them in my dust professionally and personally.

Give people the chance to prove themselves and they will. Take away their opportunity or burden them with working while they should be studying and you will make their task impossible.

I have to agree with the post. I myself did pretty well in those tests and got multiple advanced degrees. But when I got into the real world and started working, I feel myself lacking in many aspects that could've helped me in my career and personal life. In other word, just because someone is great in hitting the books or getting high scores, it doesn't mean the person will do well in the real world. The people that do best in the real world are those who knows how to communicate, how to build relationship, how to present ideas to others, and many many more that those standard tests do not test you on.

It's not that I don't believe in a standard for students, what I am saying is that the standard tests we have are seriously lacking. Relying on one freaking test to judge student is just stupid, the system should put more work into really looking at student's entire middle/high school achievement, in and out of school to really tell how good the student is.

Anyway, back to the OP. There is just no excuse for cutting funds that could've help more students to get a college education. The Bush people can spin it anyway they like, but that's just gonna show how they are blinded by partisanship. The fact is, with the war in Iraq costing hundreds of billions, and government deficit still near all time high, important funds are being cut, and the cut in education fund is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Yes, the 9.5% subsidy is old news. Where is your default proof? The 9.5% has almost nothing to do with defaults but has almost everything to do with interest rates. Looks like a shell game to me.

I could have done it myself, technically.

Let me break it down to you simply.

If I have done through with 0 loans, it would have taken me 10 years between 6 under and 4 grad. During that time I would have been living at home, making enough to pay for school and thats it. I would have given up approx 190k in compensation during the additional years. However, since I got it over with and have my 89k in debt, I am now making six figures and paying in a lot of cash.

Now, tell me what makes a better economy. Me making 6 figures for 2 years + 5 for 2, or me making a whole lot less. Add in the benefit society gets from me bettering it (hah!), and the interest payments I pay.

On my taxes alone I am feeding several welfare recipients or subsizing roads.

Now considering the fact that I no longer subsize education but wars, it pisses me off. But thats the nature of the uneducated masses who voted for him.

Since the student loan has helped you increase your income over time, surely you can't complaign about the interest rate. Seems like a good investment in your case.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: maluckey
LegendKiller

Perhaps you should pay attention to what was said. Student loans default at a higher rate than most all other loans. Show me where they don't...

Student loans are for those that can generally afford to pay back college ;oans, PELL are for those that can't.

As far as applying my situation to the masses? It's common for people to work their way through college.

While most of that is probably true, I think the days of "working through college" are growing leaner. The combination of tuition inflation, general cost of living, weak grant/loan programs, and poor quality/pay PT work will surely take its toll on upwardly mobility through education.

But why would you want upward mobility through education? Remember - the goal of the Bush team is to eliminate the middle class.

The first time I heard an administration speaking of building a service based economy, it was in 1994. Seems that they have suceeded and should share full credit.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito
You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

You can support education in other ways, for example, by raising standards for our students.

How does that help students get into college?

Better standards in high school might better prepare them for college.

I repeat, how does that help students get into college?

There is more to education than the number of people in college. Quality > quantity.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do you think the oversupply of applicable students is causing the severe inflation we are seeing in tuition rates?

To an extent it is.

For Tier1 schools, if they can get 2 qualified (top 1%, ETC...) students to fill 1 seat, they can raise the tuition far enough to cut their applicant pool 30% and still fill their seats with room to spare.

The schools that take less competitive students are able to raise their tuition in accordance with the better schools, since the students place more value on a degree now, then 10 years ago, let's say.

It's free market at work, really... which would please Zendari, I am sure. But in effect, it chokes off tons of potentially productive people, by restricting them from higher education.

Pouring federal money into the process fueled the inflation. It always works like that. Libs never understand that it always does. Marvelous!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Standardized tests suck. They are probably the worst measurement of brains, talent, and desire ever created. They do nothing to measure intelligence of complex topics, personality, or ability to actually do well in the real world. I am a perfect example of that. All of my standardized tests in HS and college entry were ~50 percentile.
I have performed *WAY* above people who scored higher and I am leaving them in my dust professionally and personally.

Give people the chance to prove themselves and they will. Take away their opportunity or burden them with working while they should be studying and you will make their task impossible.

It seems to me that people who have to work while getting their education (like me) is a very good way to make them prove themselves. The best will overcome the impossible. The ones who don't wouldn't use the education productively anyway.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito
You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

You can support education in other ways, for example, by raising standards for our students.

How does that help students get into college?

Better standards in high school might better prepare them for college.

I repeat, how does that help students get into college?

There is more to education than the number of people in college. Quality > quantity.

Why don't you answer the question? How does raising standards in lieu of cutting grants and loans help students get into college?

Show the board that you have the ability to think. Or, are you a prime example of why higher standards might be required?


And, btw, there's a "leadership race" thread that's been requesting your presence for some time.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Gaard
fine details = Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?
😕

OK, it can remove some of the inflation from the process and drive costs back down so that an education is affordable? Just a guess.