Slashdot Mirror
Rice University Says Middle-Class And Low-Income Students Won't Have To Pay Tuition (npr.org)
Rice University is "dramatically expanding" its financial aid offerings, promising full scholarships to undergrads whose families have income under $130,000. NPR reports: The school says it wants to reduce student debt -- and make it easier for students from low-income families to attend. "Talent deserves opportunity," Rice President David Leebron said while announcing the plan on Tuesday. The full scholarships are earmarked for students whose families have income between $65,000 and $130,000. Below that level, the university will not only cover tuition but also provide grants to cover students' room and board, along with any other fees. Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
The trend lately is for colleges to set a ridiculously high price, then give "everyone" a discount. They're taking as much as they can from everyone. In what other field do companies get away with that? What a scam.
According to IRS figures, middle income ends at around $121,000. However, the DNC and then Obama used the figured of $250,000 for the top of middle income. President Trump has been using a figure below $200,000.
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
No sig today...
Germany has had such a system for decades, and is the power house of Europe.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That seems strange to me.
When you have three kids; even in a low-cost-of-living area... it's a tight income.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Did you miss the part where they included the middle class?
$130k is upper middle class, though the precise bounds are rather poorly defined. Pew Research defines middle class as people making between 2/3s to double the median U.S. income, which gives a range of about $42k to $135k
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Rice is a private institution so not socialist because it isn't the government. If you are dirt poor they are using their money to cover your tuition. Lots of elite schools do this, hell one of my cousins got into to Brandeis University's economics program and didn't pay a dime for tuition with his parents being a teacher and a physical therapist. What you fail to understand is that elite schools want the best and brightest to graduate from their school even if they are poor. This means that the degrees for the rich fucks who can't find their ass with both hands who also graduate from there are respected.
Time to offend someone
For schools like these it basically means you are dirt poor. I'm actually surprised Rice didn't already have a program like this as so many other schools like them do.
Time to offend someone
As the US continues it's long fall towards Socialism, I am saddened by the low information populace who think that this will be a panacea.
Let me try to help you out:
Rice University: William Marsh Rice University, commonly known as Rice University, is a private research university ... (emphasis added)
As someone who is strongly committed to both free market principles and also smaller government I think this is utterly fantastic. It doesn't get better than this. It is the polar opposite of Socialism.
The university, a private entity, has made a public financial commitment that better serves its own interests and the public good. Why hate on that? I mean, seriously, I would much rather see this sort of thing than more government handouts. Those handouts require the government to use the police power of state to confiscate private property (the money each taxpayer earns) and then use a corrupt and inefficient system to dole it back out. In fact, federal education spending is probably the most wasteful spending on the part of the federal government. The university doing this for themselves means that they have a vested interest in efficiently applying the funds in question and in producing the best outcomes (successful alumni who improve the school's reputation and donate back to the school).
Sorry, but you are way off base and this should be the way that education gets fixed in this country: by the schools, not by the government.
Or stop paying univeristy presidents high salaries that rival what CEOs make.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurensonnenberg/2017/07/17/the-top-paid-public-university-presidents/
Your great grandparents would think you're a fucking psychopath
Not that long ago we Earthlings held SOME common idea of "good" for everyone
THE KIND THAT WEREN'T FORCE-FED TO US FOR A PRICE AT OUR OWN EXPENSE
One semester of bad grades, and out the door German college students go.
German 'poors' are routed into apprenticeships, same as their parents were.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's just what you think that people think. You are wrong, and are probably incapable of understanding that you are wrong, and impervious to reasoning that you are wrong. The good news is that progress moves ahead one funeral at a time.
I hate to burst your little bubble, but that's also the trouble with capitalism.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
Rice University is a private institution, so this is charity, not "socialism".
They may have done a cost-benefit analysis and figured what they will lose on tuition, they will make up in endowment contributions from grateful future alumni who are earning and investing rather than trying to pay down debt.
Is that university good? No one I know earns $65000/y, a free trip sounds good!
I didn't read the article so it might say... but a lot of Universities charge more for people out of state- and even more for people out of country. This may not be free for people not in the US- but check, you might be in luck.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
And I'm sure there will be a similar system in place to qualify for the free tuition.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
They will cover tuition, but what about all the other costs? Not covered unless your family is below that $65k mark. I wonder if they found that they still make a nice profit on the room and board, etc.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
One semester of bad grades, and out the door German college students go.
That seems like a good incentive for students to do their best.
German 'poors' are routed into apprenticeships, same as their parents were.
No, German 'dumbs' are routed into apprenticeships. It is based on aptitude, not income.
And there is nothing wrong with apprenticeships. They are a good option for people that are not academically gifted.
I went to college and did an apprenticeship in metal working. Knowing how to use a metal lathe and CNC mill turned out to be very useful life skills.
Not just the university presidents.
You listed some university presidents with very high salaries. Let's compare to the head football coaches for those same schools.
1. Arizona State: the president makes $1.5mil, the football coach makes $3.2mil.
Your second university listed, University of Texas, paid it's chancellor $1.5mil. In the past three years, they paid their football coaches an unbelievable $54 million.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
You can go right down that list and see that university football coaches are making several times more than the presidents of the universities. In fact, in every single case, they are the highest paid public employee of their respective states.
You are welcome on my lawn.
See. There is the problem. Should've stay with the 0 kids.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
True, but wealth is a lot harder to measure accurately, and estimates paint such a bleak picture that nobody but the rich wants to look at it - and they'd just as soon the rest of us avoided looking as well.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In 1964, Rice's tuition was $0, per the Founder's will. Then they broke the will and started charging. Of course, others since, singlely and in combination, have given more now. However, this is a good step toward restoration of their Benefactor's honorable intent.
This list is soooo much worse.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Rice did without tuition for 50+ years, in the tougher years at the start.
Very good fucking point my friend!!
I cooked for 10 years. In good restaurants, some the best or busiest in their town. One might call me an apprentice chef, well not anymore, but then.
Too bad those 10 years of apprenticing got me nowhere! All I know how to do is cook very good healthy fresh food for a lot of people and also bake bread and do so with health and vigor and flavor and community in mind!
Woe is me, however will I apply all of these completely useless skills that I learned outside of college!
Family Money. Scholarships. Loans
College of the Ozarks is essentially free to students, but you have to work for it.
In some states, veterans get tuition at public or in some cases even private schools partly or fully covered.
If you can get admitted to one of the US military academies, the tuition is free but you pay for it with a commitment to serve. Similar military scholarships for ROTC students and some graduate students are also available.
I don't know about today, but in the recent past some loans were forgivable after 10 years of employment in certain high-need "social service" jobs such as teaching in a low-income school.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Another billionaire giving $1 billion now would pay for about 15,000 student years.
Howard Hughes was Rice's first potential billion dollar donor but he got crosswise and left his billions in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Probably something about divorcing the Founder's niece after screwing too many Hollywood actresses in the 20s, and wanting his name on the proposed medical school.
Intelligence is inheritable. Duh. Like I said, 'same as their parents'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It means that the people who want 'free college for all' and point to Germany are fucking liars.
'Free college for all' isn't even a worthwhile goal. Just stupid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Until the 1960s Rice University didn't charge any tuition.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Also, the money universities spend on sports *bring money in* to the institution.
Citation?
I say this because I know people say this about the local university here, but when someone actually looked in to it, the athletic department was in debt to the university to the tune of something like 10 million. I've remember reading that only the two or three biggest football teams in college athletics actually made money, all the others lose it.
If your parents live nearby you might have the option of living with them. I'm sure you still have to pay a fee for parking if you drive your car in, and there are the usual "mandatory fees" like the student union fees.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Rice University is a private institution, so this is charity, not "socialism".
Well said. Rice has a large endowment fund and can afford to shift to a model of "tuition paid by rich alums who donate". That's my favorite model for paying for college, as the university has to create rich alums who credit the university for their success, if they want to continue.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
from the accumulation of tax-free vanity donations from the wealthy, whose assets are insured and "stimulated" by the Federal Reserve: anytime anyone has a lot of free money it's a good bet the source is the "taxpayer" i.e. taxslave. This is probably some preemptive PR, since Rice was a proudly white-only school
My spouse went to Rice. The dorm was a pretty basic cinder block affair and the sports facility wasn't extravagant. The grounds and classroom were quite nice, however.
Plasma TVs are obsolete and it's pretty much impossible to find any TV that isn't flat. You can get them at Walmart for $100. Seems like an anachronistic comment.
That's my favorite model for paying for college, as the university has to create rich alums who credit the university for their success, if they want to continue.
Hopefully more universities will follow suit until it becomes what the market expects from universities: to not only instill pure knowledge but promote learning in philosophical values such as generosity as well, or "being a decent human being". If the performance and value a school brings to the table in terms of lifelong learning and earnings is really there for prospective students, then there should be plenty of rich and generous/amicable alums willing to donate to help maintain the value of their school and contribute to its longevity and future learners.
It is also important to note that this just covers tuition and not room and board, books, etc. At most "elite" schools, these other expenses can be 1/2 to 2/3's of the actual bill. A nice thing to do no doubt, but unless your parents live in the same city, a 100% tuition scholarship is not really going to get you over the goal line of total educational costs...
$130k is upper middle class, though the precise bounds are rather poorly defined.
Are you sure? What if someone makes $130k one year, but netted -$100k the previous year due to medical expenses, and all the money essentially has to go to pay debt?
Maybe they are permanently disabled and the $130k in income came from a one-time sale of property.
Income does not directly materialize into a class or way of living ---- Although $130k or more a year average maintained for 10 years is probably upper class in most cases..
If they can afford this and keep the lights on, it really shows how much we are all overpaying for higher education.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
$130K in NYC is poverty level. You definitely cannot afford Rice tuition with $130K. After taxes you are looking at $75K. A year at Rice with Room and Board is close to that.
Germany has had such a system for decades, and is the power house of Europe.
Thats because they can run to the USA if they need help. Life is cheap when you have no military.
You don't need to worry about how someone else gets to college. If you can put your kid through it with no problems, great! Spend what little time you have trying to make things better, not worrying about how someone may or may not be "freeloading" into an education that, quite frankly, everyone deserves.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Well, that is generally a good guideline for socialized programs isn't it? Don't waste resources on people who don't actually want them, or can't substantially benefit from them. College is not actually terribly useful to many people, maybe most people. You need to have both the interest and the aptitude or you're just wasting everyone's time, and both you and society would be better off if you pursued an apprenticeship or other, less intellectual, career path.
How many college educated people do you know that ended up in careers that have nothing to do with their degree? Seems like most of them to me. All those people basically wasted their time in college.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Intelligence is inheritable.
So is height. But that doesn't mean short people never have tall kids.
Heredity is complex, and dumb (and poor) parents can have bright kids, and smart parents can have dumb kids.
The German system certainly has flaws, but discrimination on income is not one of them. A bright poor kid can go to a gymnasium (4 year college) tuition free.
For kids that don't do well academically, it is foolish to try to push them into an educational track that will lead to failure and waste. Apprenticeships are a very good alternative, and are far better than what America does with our academically challenged.
'Free college for all' isn't even a worthwhile goal. Just stupid.
Assuming "all" means all who have the brains to graduate, at what level should we draw the line for "free education for all"?
In the USA, we tend to draw the line after 12th grade.
In some other countries, they draw it 2, 3, or 4 years higher (I think Belize has free college tuition, for example).
In some others, even some graduate degrees are tuition-free, albeit with strings attached (I think Cuba has free medical schools, but all doctors work for the state and they don't get paid much).
Some countries draw the line much lower, only offering free tuition to 8th grade or even lower grades.
There may be some countries that do not offer free schooling at all.
Where should America draw the line, and why?
Note: I'm not talking about "automatic admission/admission by entitlement" like the USA does for K-12 students for the vast majority of its public K-12 schools, or "compulsory attendance or registered home-schooling" like almost all of the USA does from age 6 to 16 or so (those ages may vary by state). I'm talking about "if you DO get admitted, you won't pay tuition."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Firstly, intelligence and wealth don't correlate very well. Plenty of stupid-to-mediocre people have become rich (most athletes and actors spring to mind), and plenty of brilliant ones "waste" their life in intellectual pursuits rather than accumulating wealth.
Also, the genetics of intelligence are not so simple. There's plenty of brilliant kids born to mediocre parents, and plenty of mediocre kids born to brilliant parents. Society is best served if the poor, smart ones are able to develop their intelligence into valuable skills, rather than pursuing whatever dead-end stream of jobs keeps food in their belly. Of course, that means added competition for the stupid rich kids, so the wealthy are often opposed to the idea.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Absolutely, there are *always* exceptions to any rule. But as a general rule most people's incomes don't change much from year to year. Assets might make a better guideline, but given the skill of the wealthy in hiding assets, and the fact that there's no accepted authority for measuring them (unlike the IRS for income), it can be difficult to gauge accurately.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
they got a $5.5 billion dollar endowment. They're spending it on free college for kids who can't really afford it. Don't forget that even if those parents are making good money now most in that income bracket still haven't fully recovered from the 2008 crash. I know I haven't.
I'm happy they're going to give out scholarships but I want to see more being done for public Universities. In 2018 college should be tuition free. For one thing given productivity raises and automation we could use less people in the job market. For another thing a better educated electorate would be in a better position to stop crap like the 2008 market crash from happening in the first place.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One semester of bad grades, and out the door German college students go.
Complete nonsense. Where did you get that idea? If that were true, I wouldn't have a terminal degree in computer science...
Stephan
Except that's one way to prevent too many people from attending the same university.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
My entire German extended family.
It is true.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So, when a private university sets its' own tuition policy, you call it socialism?
What does that have to do with ownership of the means of production?
I wont berate you for it. Just stop expecting me to help pay for them and stop telling me to forgo small luxuries because they damage the planet that I wont be around to need.
If everybody in my country turned barren tomorrow I'd be just fine with that.
It gets even more complicated. Nutrition during development in childhood has a pretty significant effect on cognitive ability, so even if you win the genetic lottery, you can still lose if you're born in to extreme poverty where caloric and nutritional intake is too low during developmental years. There's a lot of research to back that up, indicating that while cognition certainly has a genetic component, like all complex traits, there are significant environmental components as well; nutrition, exposure to heavy metals and other toxins, exposure to violence, maternal depression, and so on and so forth.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Certain sports (those on TV) make money for big universities.
Apart from that, college athletic departments "lose" money the same as other departments.
The US is all about forced morality. See also: Prohibition, the War on Some Drugs, historic bans on interracial marriage, the KKK, and Draconian anti-prostitution laws that punish sex workers.
A lot of very smart people stay liberal, because they realize that the public good is more important than the unlimited ability to hoard money.
Germany came damned close to dominating much of Europe, and if it had kept the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it might not have had an Eastern Front at all. That was a strategic blunder driven as much by the Nazis perverse race views as by any military necessity to drive the Communists east of the Urals. As it was, it took the combined might of the British Empire, the United States and the Soviet Union to beat Germany. We're talking the pre-eminent military powers of the mid-20th century. As to WWI, well, Germany lost because of a revolution in Germany itself, and France and Britain were just exhausted by four years of war, and certainly the domestic situation in those two countries was only marginally better than Germany's. All things being equal, if the Kaiser's regime hadn't been toppled, 1919 promised to be even more terrible than 1914-1918.
But really, there's more German history from 1945 to present than from 1914 to 1945, and even when considering that period, it's useful to ponder how Germany managed, even in the 1920s, to rebuild much of its industry (with generous American loans I'll freely admit) and be in a position that by 1939 it felt confident enough to light the fuse on the Second World War.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Only after Britain and France launched the largest land invasion in history on their Western flank, and even then it took ten months of concerted effort by all three Allied Powers to bring Germany to its knees.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.
The problem with all 'isms is that eventually you run out of money.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The general theory has been since 1945 that it's probably best if Germany's defense is largely taken care of by other people. A unified German state with a strong military has prosecuted three major wars, one of which was pretty damned successful (the Franco-Prussian War), and two of which required the combined might of the Allied Powers to defeat. Those last two wars are the most destructive conflicts in human history, so I'd say guaranteeing Germany's territorial integrity is in everyone's best interests.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I have a coworker that kind of bucks that trend. He's a fairly smart guy but still some how thinks a strong liberal government would take care of everything and if only we would just vote Democrat a utopia would be forth coming.
It's mind boggling.
P.S. I'm not endorsing Republicans in any way, shape or form, just expressing that there are old liberals that are quite smart.
none of you are getting this right. capitalism is where man exploits man, socialism it's the other way around.
The US was quite busy with its own Western front - the Pacific.
Had it not been, Europe wouldn't have taken nearly so long after the US decided to get in.
What about hoboism?
Intelligence is inheritable. Duh. Like I said, 'same as their parents'.
While true - it also means absolutely nothing.
In my family, My father, my older sister, and myself have very high intelligence. My mother and my younger sister both have average intelligence. My father was fairly poor, and my older sister worked a life full of menial jobs, despite her IQ and degree. On the other hand, I am pretty driven, and I have done well.
Silly things like "The Bell Curve" are stupid - as are the people who believe in it. Even if true, it tells not one thing about any individual.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What about hoboism?
No money to run out of, I suppose. In any event, most people end up broke.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Nutrition during development in childhood has a pretty significant effect on cognitive ability
Indeed. Breastfed children average 3 IQ points higher than average.
Even more important is prenatal nutrition.
Good nutrition is not cheap, but bad nutrition is really expensive: Prison inmates have an average IQ of 87, and 3 times the average blood lead levels. Keeping one inmate locked up costs $30k/year. With 2.2M inmates in America, that comes to over $60B per year. Better prenatal and childhood nutrition could cut that in half.
When tuition, room and board, and supplies cost $63k per year, yeah $130k is a fair cut-off.
Rice is a private university. This is not socialism as the government is not involved in any way. If you feel strongly about this, then feel free to pay full price for tuition yourself rather than bitch about a great opportunity for others.
"Sorry kids, I'm not going to pay for you to go to college. I'm also writing you out of my will. I want to make sure you work hard and grow up struggling every step of the way so that you can be just like me! You'll thank me someday."
Your comment didn't break anyone's bubble.
Just compare life in Eastern Europe following WWII with life in the West. Which society would you have rather lived in, the one which froze 1932 and made it last until 1989, or the one that became the most wealthy and powerful society with the highest number of middle class citizens in the world since the Roman Empire? Stole it? Right. If you feel like getting rich quickly, go out and rob a bunch of poor people and see how much wealth that gets you.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
We shouldn't need a lot of government programs if private donors stepped up to the plate. Government should only be a stop gap.
And yet, I've acdtually had people tell me that I was stupid to give money to charities and then later are heard to be bitching about government shouldn't be doing this either.
If someone hates government giving away any money then they should put their money where their mouth is and try to take up the slack.
The US is all about forced morality. See also: Prohibition, the War on Some Drugs, historic bans on interracial marriage, the KKK, and Draconian anti-prostitution laws that punish sex workers.
Don't forget Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other sites owned by those who own the ones I just listed. If you don't post or upload videos which agree with their corporate political POV then you are shadow banned, banned, suspended or your account is deleted. IOW, digitally, you are lined up against the wall and shot if your POV isn't Marxist. IF those folks every get power in DC then there is a good chance Conservatives will be physically lined up against the wall and shot. AntiFa, their thug arm, is giving us a view of the future they have planned for us.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
If they can lower tuition, that means that did not have to raise it to meet ends. Then why did tuition raise in the first place?
Socialism is a system of government. Socialism is not voluntary. Socialism is not "being nice to people." Socialism is organized, legalized, armed robbery perpetrated by people who tell you they're doing you a favor.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Or, compare Pinochet's Chile with current day Denmark or Canada. Which one would you rather live in?
You are welcome on my lawn.
>Better prenatal and childhood nutrition could cut that in half.
Don't be ridiculous - it'd just mean we had to increase the number of laws and severity of punishment to keep up the quotas. We're not the number one nation for incarceration (by far) because our population is significantly more violent or immoral than most. /sarcasm /sort of
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"'deserve' is used when a person should rightly receive something good or bad because of his or her actions or character." (Merriam Webster)
It may be best if everyone gets an education, but not everyone deserves an education.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If only you knew the difference between Marxism and socialism.
Is the military Marxist?
Just ask any of them how smart they are...fucking morons.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Private corporations deciding what to publish can't be equated with governments putting people in a cage for deciding how and whom to make love or for what they put into their own bodies. False equivalence.
You're missing conscientiousness. That, along with intelligence, predicts life outcomes. Low intelligence, high conscientiousness means you're the best janitor in the building. High intelligence, low conscientiousness means you're a WoW guild leader living in mom's basement. High both and you're an achiever. And human intelligence does indeed follow a bell curve. Facts over feelings.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
USA has the same thing, they are called community colleges. The problem is most people going to college are not there for the degree they are there for the lifestyle.
Well said. Rice has a large endowment fund and can afford to shift to a model of "tuition paid by rich alums who donate".
You literally made that motive up - Rice never claimed that was their motive.
They've got $5.5BN in the bank, they are offering varying grants based on family needs, up to 100% of tuition and expenses. Why is everyone acting like this is something new? Universities have offered tuition assistance to poor/low-income students of merit, the change Rice is making to that program is that they are considering families earning up to $130K/year as "low-income" and deserving of tuition assistance.
Ken
If you are twenty and a Conservative, you have no heart.
If you are forty and a Liberal, you have no brain.
Ken
Education tracks and trade school seem efficient, evidence in favor of German stereotype. I worry that the tracking might not be fair in practice in the US
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Maybe keeping the German (and Japanese) military small is worth the money from the US to help prevent a repeat of their historical behavior
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
1. Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University $1,554,058
Arizona State has 51,000 enrolled students, paying either $10/28K each year - call the average tuition $20K, times 51,000 students, and it is a Billion dollar/year business, so paying the President/CEO 1/10th of 1% of revenues isn't really an issue. If you eliminate the President's salary, you'll save $20/year per student - does that really make a difference? $28,000 becoming $27,980 doesn't make college more affordable in any meaningful way.
Ken
I didn't read the article so it might say... but a lot of Universities charge more for people out of state- and even more for people out of country.
Those are called State Universities, the tuition is subsidized by state tax revenues and federal grants.
Rice is a private university.
Ken
Rice's $5.5BN endowment is paying for this.
Ken
Yeah, people making high six low seven figures for successfully managing a large operation don't bother me, gotta keep that talent away from regular businesses. The CEOs who get 8 digits for failing is the sort of thing that ticks me off
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
We choose to go to college not because we are rich but because it is hahd.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Socialism is a system of government. Socialism is not voluntary. Socialism is not "being nice to people." Socialism is organized, legalized, armed robbery perpetrated by people who tell you they're doing you a favor.
It's all how you look at it. I pay taxes, and those taxes are used in socialist ways: education, aged care, health care, civil infrastructure (roads, rail), national defence, police departments, fire departments, ambulances, subsidised childcare, environmental management, water management, vehicle registrations, navel safety and more. Whew! Well, you know there's a heck of a lot of services provided using those taxes.
Are you saying these services shouldn't be provided by the government?
Or that perhaps just the level of service provision should be under scrutiny?
I look at many of these as preventative services - I'd rather pay a percent of my taxes to educate all children rather than have to feel unsafe due to a high uneducated criminal element. I'd rather have a safe neighbourhood as a result rather than needing a walled in fortress to protect my family and home, or pay for armed security guards. I'd like to know I can let my kids play in a government provided playground and not have to worry about needles or razorblades in the equipment - because that equipment is regularly checked and serviced.
Should I go on?
How about knowing that my kids are growing up in a lower lead environment than I did? Less asbestos? Less DDT? Less/no CFCs? Better nutrition through better quality control of food?
How about food safety and environment regulation - do you care about where something is made, whether the jobs are in your town, state, or nation? How about sustainability?
More? The entire Defense department.
All that comes at a cost, and I'd rather have everyone pay so that we get economies of scale rather than try and attempt much of that myself (and fail).
My entire German extended family.
It is true.
Well, there are at least two models of the world in which this statement is true. Either your entire German extended family consists of zero people, or they are lying.
The German education system has a lot of problems, but throwing out students after one semester of "bad grades" is not among them.
Stephan
The trouble with socialism is that people love quoting phrases about socialism without actually understanding anything about it.
German 'poors' are routed into apprenticeships, same as their parents were.
I don't understand your comment and I am sitting in a room full of german Dipl.-Ing (professional engineers) and Doctors who started life as electricians and fitters. Many of them earnt quite a bit more than I did while doing their degrees.
That's why I went there for my first degree. I was accepted by an Ivy League school, too, but Rice seemed the better value. They were still transitioning from the will-breaking that allowed them to charge tuition in the first place. (That was the same thing that allowed them to accept nonwhite students, by the way. I'm pretty sure the will also specified men, but somehow they allowed women anyway, even before they broke the will?)
Having said that, I'm not too overall impressed by President Leebron, whom I've met once or twice. I think his real priority is to get the money for a law school, which is the last thing Rice (or America) needs. Overall I feel like only the Hack and President Rupp were really putting undergraduate education first, but the other recent presidents have been pushing for growth and research and various other priorities.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Rice has a huge endowment. I think it's second highest on a per student basis. Before he died Rice was supposed to be the third richest man in America (or perhaps the world). No close relatives, so all his money went to the school (after his murderers were caught and the fake will was canceled).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I ended up getting college grants due to bad eye vision and my mothers income from the government when I went to college. Paid for everything. What is the difference?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
See. There is the problem. Should've stay with the 0 kids.
Perhaps that would have been wiser... but if everyone had 0 kids who would fund your social security and take care of you when you're old.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I didn't read the article so it might say... but a lot of Universities charge more for people out of state- and even more for people out of country.
Those are called State Universities, the tuition is subsidized by state tax revenues and federal grants.
Rice is a private university.
I went to a private university. In state students paid less than out of state students. Almost everyone paid too much. I had about 75% covered with 3 scholarships and a grant. They rest I worked a full time job for and split the cost of attending with my parents.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There are places that institute a wealth tax, so obviously it's possible to do. I would suggest a general rule is "if you sold it today, what would it be worth"
1) Sounds like your house is severely under-appraised and you're illegally dodging property taxes
2) Your father's brick was worth $50k when he bought it, $35k today, and who knows how much tomorrow. Wealth fluctuates - deal with it.
3) Your sister is either in possession of a house of known approximate value, or in possession of a contract entitling her to receive said house in the near future - either one is worth the value of the house.
4) Your friend isn't broke, he just doesn't have liquid assets - wealth doesn't care about that. If we paid wealth taxes he would have screwed up badly - he'd have to liquidate some of his assets at a potentially severe loss to pay his taxes.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Your basic idea makes some sense.
I would make several changes:
1) Admit more students to any given program that you need, because some will drop out and some will choose other careers. For example, a person training to be a physicist on the government dime might graduate and suddenly have a "calling" to become a high school physics teacher and go to teaching-college on his own dime.
2) I wouldn't ban non-government-guaranteed loans to students, provided they are willing to do so at non-usurious interest rates. I doubt many commercial banks would offer loans unless the parents put up collateral, but non-profits would likely do so. If memory serves, Benjamin Franklin provided for student loans in his will. Such altruism should not be prohibited.
3) Students who don't maintain the best grades may lose their scholarships but they should not be kicked out of their programs unless they are actually flunking. A student whose family couldn't afford to send him to engineering school for four years may be able to pay for his final year if his grades slip below "excellent" after 3 years. The number of students who are expected to "stay in the program on their own dime" would be baked into the "freshman class size" calculation above.
Any such system would also have to factor in things like:
* People change careers in mid-life, so the number of people you expect to need in any given field 4, 6, or 10 years from now may change in ways you can't predict today.
* Industries change, which also messes up future-need predictions.
* People trained in one area can, upon graduation, choose a related field with relatively little additional training. This can leave graduates who are trained in the desired field competing with others who graduated in related fields. It can also leave some fields under-served if their trainees "jump ship" and want to work in a different field.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Get a Freon education courtesy of Willis Carrier???
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Intelligence is inheritable. Duh. Like I said, 'same as their parents'.
No, it isn't.
Yeah, didn't Russia kick their butt once before?
Holy shit sweet fucking Jesus on a mopped. WWII ended 73 years ago. The socio-economic context in which that bloody shit show started and ended had little bearing to the socio-economic context of today.
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Depends. A household income of $130K in San Francisco is not the same as the same raw number for a household in Wichita. Similarly, there are other factors to consider. Is $130K the product of two earners, or only one. Does the household has zero kids, one or two, or more. This is important since if there are two earners, then there are additional expenses from cradle to college (in terms of child care during work hours.) And if there's only one income earner, then sure there are no child care expenses, but there is a loss of income potential. Either scenario is affected by the number of kids involved.
And let us not get started if a household is a single-parent one.
A $130K household in Wichita should not qualify for free college, but one in an expensive metro might qualify to some form of voucher.
The money shot is in that line where median income *per locality* is. Households at or below it qualify for free college. Anyone between that point and the top middle income can qualify for some sort of assistance which decreases proportionally as income increases.
Quite honestly, I would prefer that the first years of college be free altogether, or that we give more preference to apprenticeship and vocational programs as well as associate in science degrees that lead to immediate job opportunities.
We focus too much in 4-year university degrees.
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Um. No.
Firstly, you usually *can* afford an education, you just can't necessarily afford to get diploma from a decent college other than the state college.
State colleges are decent colleges. People shouldn't go to expensive colleges unless they can afford it or they have scholarships or low-income grants provided by said private institutions.
A lot (not all, not the majority, but a lot) of student debt is due to bad money management. Getting a 6-digit debt for a major in literature at a out-of-state private university, that's a major fuck-up, specially if one could get the same education with a Pell Grant or a 1/4 to 1/5 of that type of debt at a local university (with the first two years completed at an even much cheaper community college.)
But then again, some of these kids know shit at 17 and get horrible advise by useless college advisors. By the time they wise up, they are already up to their eyeballs in debt that cannot be discharged via bankruptcy laws (and that's totally fucking unfair considering anyone can get into a stupid business and default over and over and over.)
You're missing conscientiousness. That, along with intelligence, predicts life outcomes. Low intelligence, high conscientiousness means you're the best janitor in the building. High intelligence, low conscientiousness means you're a WoW guild leader living in mom's basement. High both and you're an achiever.
I 'm not certain that conscientiousness is always the right word. While people i have worked with have always considered me as Boy Scout honest, if they had to use a one word description, "ruthless" or "driven" would be more accurate. In any situation, Ipick the most productive person in a group, and do much better.
And human intelligence does indeed follow a bell curve. Facts over feelings.
Perhaps. Let us say that we plot average intelligence. And according to your wishes, there is a racial component to it.
Okay - what are you going to do with that? Are you going to stand 50 feet away from a person of that race and give an accurate truth of their IQ?
And given that every person I know who believes that IQ is somehow welded to racial characteristics is as white as I am - after determining what you want to do with the "lesser races", remember that the white race is not at the pinnacle of average intelligence.
The only use of the bell curve is to insinuate intelligence by race, and since racism is that weird majick that allows a mentally challenged terminally unemployed white guy pretend he is superior to a Genius who just happens to be of dark pigmentation and of African descent.
Whihc is to say, not only useless, but pointless and wrong.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In fact, in every single case, they are the highest paid public employee of their respective states.
Glad I'm from a civilized state like Kansas. Our highest paid public employee is a basketball coach.
Nobody mentioned race, buddy. That's all on you. Racists are always thinking about race. You just made a bunch of assumptions, constructed multiple strawmen, and then told me that's my position. That's so bad you do that, is that what smart people do?
Conscientiousness is indeed what we're talking about. It's one of the Big 5 personality traits, along with Openness, Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness. If I had to guess, I'd say you're low in agreeableness and openness, since you're quite aggressive and are closed-minded to new information. The Big 5 are replicable science. It's not something under debate. The only debate is if there are six factors instead of five. People who are high in intelligence and conscientiousness will do very well in life. Again, this isn't under debate. I'll just leave this here, but due to your closed-mindedness, I'm not sure how much good it will do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's probably why they forced you into a terminal degree, rather than giving you the option to continue a full GUI/web one.
Nobody mentioned race, buddy. That's all on you. Racists are always thinking about race. You just made a bunch of assumptions, constructed multiple strawmen, and then told me that's my position.
Wowee.. It's pretty obvious that you can't have a conversation without thinking that mean old uncle Olsoc isn't accusing you of something.
Siddown. Shuttup for a second.
Your insinuation that I was accusing you of being racist is interesting. I'm not certain exactly where I wrote that. Kindly point it out my paranoid friend And yes, I do judge, and you fit the paranoia spectrum to a T.
The reason I brought up the Bell curve in manner related to the use of the bell curve by racists is that it is simply one more completely useless use of the Bell curve. The same as using a bell curve to judge the intelligence of a person born to poor people
A bell curve of any use whatsoever us 100 percent useless. Pointless. A huge nothingburger. You cannot tell the intelligence of any individual. be they poor white people, or shemale midget scat porn actors by virtue of the fact that they are any grouping of people.
And note, dear DNS and Bind, I'm not accusing you of being a shemale midget scat porn actor either.
Point is, the Bell curve is useless, and the only judgement I might make is upon the intelligence of anyone who thinks it somehow means something.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I note you didn't bother to refute the Big 5. That's because it's science. You're closed-minded and disagreeable, and this makes you reject any idea you didn't come up with yourself. Human intelligence does indeed distribute on a bell curve, just like many other heritable traits. Now, your next argument is to *giggle* insist that intelligence isn't heritable.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I note you didn't bother to refute the Big 5. That's because it's science. You're closed-minded and disagreeable, and this makes you reject any idea you didn't come up with yourself. Human intelligence does indeed distribute on a bell curve, just like many other heritable traits. Now, your next argument is to *giggle* insist that intelligence isn't heritable.
Why on earth would I insist on intelligence not being inheritable. That my dear punchinello, ,is an uncontested fact. My family is largely brilliant.
Okay - let us cut through your fog. I'll ask a few questions.
Do you agree with the material presented in Charles Murray's Publication, "The Bell Curve"?
If yes, what exactly do you wish to do with that bell curve? GIve us a detailed plan of action required to address the Bell curve to make use of it and what it represents.
I say there is nothing that any bell curve presents that is of any use because it addresses nothing on an individual basis.
You seem to disagree with that, so educate me.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4) Your friend isn't broke, he just doesn't have liquid assets - wealth doesn't care about that. If we paid wealth taxes he would have screwed up badly
What should happen is the payability of the illiquid earnings/extra gains from invested portfolio assets should be delayed to provide reasonable forbearance for the taxpayer and encourage such investments. Wealth tax on the value portfolio assets had at the time acquired or purchased should be due and payable immediately, and the company handling the transfer could
(you had to have that amount of actual cash or worth something that much to acquire, But if you hold appreciated startup stock
-- the tax on extra value due to appreciation should be reportable every year as a "Speculative tax liability incurred with payment
deferred", That does not become due until you have the right and ability to sell that asset --- If at that time the appreciation has been lost.
1) Sounds like your house is severely under-appraised and you're illegally dodging property taxes
The government appraiser may have messed up. Unless the owner took fraudulent actions to cause an understatement of the worth of property to happen -- Its not illegal or tax dodging to own a property that was under appraised, and the gov't itself is essentially responsible for any losses in tax revenue that caused.
3) Your sister is either in possession of a house of known approximate value, or in possession of a contract
Temporarily deeding a property away isn't a sale --- her rights to the property automatically resume 3 years from now upon expiration of her deeding away the rights to control it, so she owns the property subject to an encumbrance providing a temporary cessation of her right to use and occupy the property for 3 years, so she could still sell her right to take use of the property after 3 years to someone else if she wanted, AND she owns the contracts she signed with the rental company that are providing her rights to receive certain rent ---- that contract would have a market value in regards to the expected revenue she will get from rents that contract reduced by any expenses she has to pay, expected future depreciation on her property (the loss in value the property will have after 3 years due to renting it out), and some percentage to make up for the risk that the rental company fails to rent out the property and generate the revenue.
and are far better than what America does with our academically challenged.
Being on Fox news isn't so bad.... well... bad for us...
Cheap storage VM.
It depends on each study course, but there are restrictions if you don't pass your exam. Many of which if you fail once or twice, you're out.
In most universities and courses, you get about 4 chances to pass an obligatory exam, plus an extra chance when needed. I teach at a place where you only get 2 and 1/2 chances. But maybe we talk at cross purposes - for me, "bad grades" is a C or D (or 3 to 4 in the German system), not an F/5. If you fail the final chance, then yes, you are out - you can go to one of the other two university types (research universities, universities of applied science, cooperative university) and try again. But you don't necessarily need to start over - you can apply to transfer earned credits, and that is routinely granted if the subject is the same.
Stephan