Troubles at Mizzou

[Smalliebigs]

Majority rules on what is inappropriate speech??? Hahahaha

 

 

[SpoonDog]

I mean, if parents are in the right refusing to send their kids to a school based on political ideology, why should students be forking over tuition dollars so idealogues they don't agree with get to come to campus?  A lot of you guys are saying that in the interest of diversity and free speech other people's kids should be exposed to alternative (conservative) viewpoints, but that your kids need to be shielded from alternative (liberal) viewpoints.  Why the double standard?

Everyone's allowed an opinion- but if you can't argue or defend or support or substantiate that opinion, it isn't worth much.  You may feel trout are superior to bass, but if you want the state to go on a prolonged smallmouth extermination initiative- you'll have to provide more evidence.  There are lots of conservative individuals wiling to do do that.  But that's the issue a lot of academics take with folks like Ann Coulter and Milo ... coming to campuses.  If they wanted a dialogue, they'd be welcome.  But at best they're interested in a captive audience to spout their views without critical thought or examination.  At worst they just want to use the conflict as another tool to manipulate their fans.  If they're uninterested in the one process a university's designed to convey to its students, what are they doing on campus?

And to that point- why should a person like Ann Coulter, who's made a career of trashing millennials expect to be welcomed with oen arms to a university campus? You do have the right to free speech, but not speech without consequences.  It isn't lost on anyone- students especially- that one party in the state legislature has been pretty consistent in its de-funding of higher education.  If conservatives are feeling unwelcome on campuses, maybe it has less to do with black student protestors and more to do with the fact they've routinely thrown support behind the folks slashing university budgets.

[Quillback]

So if you're slashing university budgets, shouldn't we also see a slash in tuition rates?  Students might be behind a tuition decrease.  Instead the answer to high college cost is to have the government spend more money - which doesn't do anything to increase the quality of education, or rein in cost. 

[SpoonDog]

No.  Because if the state legislature cuts appropriations by 15%, administrators recoup that loss by increasing tuition.  And the end of the day someon's gotta pay the piper, and if it isn't the state government it'll be the students.  Of course most of those students have taken out loans, many of which are federally funded, meaning the money's coming out of taxpayer's pockets anyway.  It's the same outcome, we've just created a byzantine, inefficient, expensive system because people are so repulsed at the idea of funding their public institutions. 

The answer to high college cost is doing what your parents did.  And their parents did.  Supporting universities through taxes.  It worked so well, you were able to afford college.  But as of right now and adjusted for inflation the UM system receives less money through state appropriations than it did in 1990- and the student population has doubled since then.  If it were true that reduced funding improves higher education outcomes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.   It isn't a matter of reining in costs, as a student today has half the allocated resources their parents did.  If you think that's just a matter of better money management, you're welcome to donate half your income to charity while maintaining the same quality of life. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

4 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

Of course most of those students have taken out loans, many of which are federally funded, meaning the money's coming out of taxpayer's pockets anyway.

Doesn't the definition of loan mean it gets paid back.

[SpoonDog]

Sure, and if the student defaults they'll be paying indefinitely.

We could use state taxes to offset tuition increases.  Instead we send tax dollars to the Feds, who funnel a chunk into the Department of Education, who funnels some of it into student loans, charging you interest on a loan with the money you gave them. 

I'm just saying that instead of paying for it twice (taxes AND loan interest), pay once and be done with it.  Again, it's been such a successful system it's how most folks paid for college outside the last twenty years.  

[snagged in outlet 3]

Actually in my family we paid for it out our pockets as we went.  Or the companies we worked for paid for it.  I'm paying for my daughters now.  At least the portion she didn't get as a scholarship.

[dblades]

16 hours ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Doesn't the definition of loan mean it gets paid back.

Not necessarily, I know a guy that owes a massive student loan debt, in the 100's of thousands. Rather than get a job in his field where he'd have to make payments, he works a low level job making less money but gets to keep it all.

[vernon]

9 minutes ago, dblades said:

Not necessarily, I know a guy that owes a massive student loan debt, in the 100's of thousands. Rather than get a job in his field where he'd have to make payments, he works a low level job making less money but gets to keep it all.

Boy, that'll show 'em!

Makes as much sense as a couple of guys that I know that swear they'll work until the day they die so as to prevent their ex-wives from getting half of their retirement.........

Strategery?

[snagged in outlet 3]

48 minutes ago, dblades said:

Not necessarily, I know a guy that owes a massive student loan debt, in the 100's of thousands. Rather than get a job in his field where he'd have to make payments, he works a low level job making less money but gets to keep it all.

He sounds like a real go getter.  He must have skipped Econ.