Slashdot Mirror

the problem. College was _always_ this expensive. We haven't done anything radical to colleges.

The Diversity Staff at the University of Michigan Is Nearly 100 Full-Time Employees

I doubt it was "always like that". In fact, tuition fees drastically rose recently:

“According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.”

Yes. - this is a chart made famous in "Waiting for Superman" when the same documentary producer that filmed "An Inconvenient Truth" turned his critical eye on public education.

I have no idea what Maryland is doing about it, but I can bet you their answer won't be to hold back seniors that can't read and write at grade level - they'll hand the poor children papers that say they are a high school graduate, but they won't be able to take that to a college without spending half their freshman year taking remedial classes trying to bring them up to the level their classmates are at who were able to go to schools where children earned their high school diplomas.

1. The parties COULD NOT POSSIBLY have "switched" in the 19th century...

You didn't read the post accurately, or you wouldn't be making such an obvious false argument as no such claim was made.

You were supposed to follow your party's cleverly constructed and deceitful dishonest talking points and claim that the parties switched places in the 1960s (NOT in the 19th century). It's still wrong, but you would have at least been consistent with your fellow leftists.

Maybe you'd look a little less like an ass if you didn't totally make up this point about the 19th century due to your inaccurate reading of the prior post.

Here's a hint: The reference to the 19th Century was to describe the Republicans in the 1800s, and the Democrats, there was no indication that the changed occurred then.

You, by getting all up and arms over it, discredit yourself.

That "the parties swapped in the 1960s" meme only works on idiots --- it depends on the idea that LBJ gave blacks their civil rights and then Nixon won on a "southern strategy".

No, LBJ did not give blacks their Civil Rights, he worked to pass laws to protect their Civil Rights. Goldwater (and Nixon, and Reagan), saw the advantage that created, and claimed the disaffected Southern Democrats such as Strom Thurmond.

There are several problems with this:
1. LBJ privately bragged that he was ensnaring blacks with that action; he claimed the n*****s would be eating out of the Democrats hands for at least a century.

Sure man, rely on a made up quote!

2. LBJ could not pass his civil rights bill with Democrat votes in congress; he had to turn to the GOP to get it to pass.

And yet Southern Republicans voted against it.

3. People are supposed to belive that southern racist Democrats were SO MAD at the passage of the civil rights bill (which Democrats in congress would not pass) that they punished the Democrats by changing parties to vote for the Republicans (who provided the needed votes to pass it). DOH!

Yes, it is kinda easy to spot the pattern.

4. Nixon's "southern strategy" was about sweeping-up southern states with more-traditional social views at a time when hippies were burning flags, bombing police stations and occupying college offices and protesting against soldiers. Nixon was a Quaker who had NO problem with blacks and was actually far to the left within the Republican party on everything but having a strong military and opposing the Soviets. Nixon created the damned EPAm and imposed wage and price controls like FDR had!

Indeed, Nixon would probably not make it in today's GOP. Even aside from Nixon's obvious problems, they don't live him as much as Republican Jesus.

Not that I mind you being wrong about that, it is bad enough, but damn, that whole 19th Century gabble REALLY made you look stupid. You basically screwed yourself on that one.

I ask this question every time someone tries to say there was a shift. Exactly WHEN did this shift take place, where the KKK became part of the Republicans. I'll bet, you can't actually point to when.

Oh my, Archangel Michael seems to think he can create a false standard by requiring a particular and exact moment, as if anybody would be inane enough to be fooled by such a requirement. Sorry, but all you accomplished was to demonstrate, as you often do, how biased, flawed, and partisan your argumentation is. It's similar to the one Zeno used to point out sophistry, thus you are way too obvious.

So thanks, once again, you show us yourself, for the wretched fraud of a human being you are.

But I'd say that the Republican party turned its backs on blacks no later than 1876. Possibly sooner, depends on how you count NOT prosecuting the traitors in the South. Or Lincoln's willingness to talk peace.

Hell even the revered FDR was a fucking Racist pig segregationist.

Facts speak otherwise

And lets not forget Johnson's "Ni**er" comments.

You mean the one that's made-up?

If you can do that, why not make up quotes about anybody?

Hell I'll even say the Modern Democrat party is filled with the real kind of Racism with their "Blacks can't help themselves, we have to help them" attitude.

You say a lot of things, most of them fallacious, so what? You seem to think that nobody remembers the bullshit you say, but you shovel it enough that people catch on.

You can see examples in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here's a nice video for you or this one or this or this one.

Maybe you should get a license before you exercise your First Amendment rights. Or at least attend a training course. You might not shoot your mouth off so easily.

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

. Maybe banning guns like Chicago will do the trick? Last year 2,988 shooting victims, 1,827 this year. Care to guess the demographics, and more importantly gang affiliations of the parties involved? Maybe it's time to have a national discussion about how black lives don't matter to other blacks.

My pleasure, Sir!

But d-day is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...

http://www.intellectualtakeout...

http://collegecandy.com/2016/0...

The gold dollar was about to put a check on Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' crapola, but Nixon defaulted on the gold dollar, crossed the words 'I owe you' from 'I owe you X dollars' from the bank notes and called the little paper previously known as the 'Federal reserve note' into 'dollars'. This is what allowed the government to perpetuate its growth to the gargantuan size it is today and it is what killed USA economy reversing the economic growth in USA and eventually wiping out the economy completely.

As to statistics, some people compile this data, of-course unemployment rate shows some of this but the details of unemployment are much more important than the compiled averages, the poorer segment of society, the black Americans have suffered higher unemployment rate since the programs against poverty started, than ever before. Actually before the minimum wage was introduced in the 1938, unemployment among blacks youth (16-25, formative work years) was lower than among whites by 15%. Actually each 10% increase in minimum wage mandate had a disproportionate decrease in employment upon the minorities, which is counterproductive if the goal is to decrease poverty, of-course it was not, the goal was to turn people into dependants, voting for bigger and bigger government, while growing the said government.

The gold dollar was not allowing the government to carry with that goal and Nixon chose to default on the actual dollar than to abandon big government ideology.

Money is nothing more than the control of a nations' debt in the form of imaginary numbers which is why the FEDs can print endless amounts of it. Currency on the other hand is a 'medium of exchange' which is exactly what bitcoin is. While money is a form of debt aka financial slavery. Case in point, the value of the US Dollar has continuously dropped for the past hundred years because of monetary practices: http://www.intellectualtakeout...

Really? I have never seen any data to support your claim. The Kruger Dunning is about cognitive bias, not media reporting being flat-out lies.
Everything I have ever seen suggests current US inflation adjusted per student spending is about 200% of 1969 levels.

This article shows inflation both adjusted and non adjusted back to the 30s and the trend is up up up though there are some minor dips along the way. And the numbers here are consistent with government sources, etc.

Frankly, I think you are as wrong as possible in this case -- In fact, you are non-sensical. Had property taxes been that high in the 60's there would have been plenty of well-known confirming information.

Today the federal government is over-taxing and underspending.

I'm not from the US but I believe that the US government is currently spending something like $1.00 for every $0.60 it earns in revenue. Income inequality in the US is not entirely the fault of politicians and CEO's, it is the unintended side-effect of a society that still believes they too can become obscenely rich through honest, hard work - if they could "just get a break".

The higher education bubble has almost run out of steam. And, oh yes, it is a bubble.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/college-tuition-cpi-vs-us-home-prices-vs-cpi-1978-2010

I'm not sure where all the money is going, but my guess would be student amenities, building programs, and excessive administration.

The US would never cause hyper-inflation to repay their debts... doing so would destroy their economy overnight.

QE1 - http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/monetary-policy-qe1-qe2-and-oil?library_node=25113
QE2 - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26376.html
QE3? - http://money.msn.com/market-news/post.aspx?post=d062663c-e5c3-4801-8aec-a3c5a5130bbe
QED

The Dow is rising and falling in time with these huge injections of newly minted electronic cash, and all that money has to go somewhere - it's causing huge fluctuations in global asset and commodity values, and consequent crashes when it is withdrawn. It could be argued that it is making things worse, not better, and it is certainly causing higher inflation.

In 10 years time $1000 will be worth less, and quite possibly close to worthless. The only other way out is to grow the economy huge amounts while under pressure from significantly cheaper or more efficient competitors (China, SE Asia etc), pull out of all those incredibly expensive foreign wars and foreign military bases, or default. Inflating their way out of it is the easiest way for the politicians.

The Creationists, ID-ists and the slew of others nutjobs all having their pound of flesh taught in the US school system seems to show that it certainly isn't simply a matter of getting the right teaching methods.

If you really think that is "the problem" our school system has, you should do some rethinking. For example, arent these nutjobs the people who generally homeschool, and go to catholic private schools? Wonder how they score in comparison to public schools?

So no, thats NOT whats dragging our education system down.

I just think that saying our best teachers, professors and mentors are second rate to an AI is a long stretch.

If we can see from the above that rote learning en masse is less effective than smaller classes (private schools) and more 1 on 1 teaching (homeschooling), what makes you think that an impersonal teacher would do better? We are a LONG way from an AI that can personally interact with someone in a meaningful way.