Going off to college in America?

[redstar2000]

Going off to college in America

Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over $100,000 a year (!), who want to send their kid to college in America.

Want to read a long article about what they face?

Paying for college (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/21/pf/college/college_costs_0605/index.htm?cnn=yes)

What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?

Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:30 AM
Going off to college in America

Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over $100,000 a year (!), who want to send their kid to college in America.

Want to read a long article about what they face?

Paying for college (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/21/pf/college/college_costs_0605/index.htm?cnn=yes)

What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?

Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
or a descrease in the cost of non-college educated labour, making the country more compeitive in the area of factories/construction..and yes low level service jobs

[ColinH]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 23 2006, 10:10 PM--> (theraven @ Apr 23 2006, 10:10 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 01:30 AM
Going off to college in America

Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over $100,000 a year (!), who want to send their kid to college in America.

Want to read a long article about what they face?

Paying for college (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/21/pf/college/college_costs_0605/index.htm?cnn=yes)

What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?

Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
or a descrease in the cost of non-college educated labour, making the country more compeitive in the area of factories/construction..and yes low level service jobs [/b]
AKA lower wages for anyone that couldn&#39;t already afford post-secondary education. Seems sane to me. <_<

[Kia]

My Family fits into that situation perfectly. My parents make a little over a 100k a year. But they have 3 kids to send to college....i dont know what they plan to do.


To solve the problem for Millions of families in America that are much worse of then mine, america simply needs to put MORE FUCKING MONEY INTO ITS EDUCATION SYSTEM&#33; Stop pouring damn money into military budget and give it to colleges,schools, nurserys, etc&#33; Imagine how cheap education would be if we spent just as much money on the USA&#39;s military budget as we did on schools. :angry:

[encephalon]

Imagine how cheap education would be if we spent just as much money on the USA&#39;s military budget as we did on schools.

We&#39;d have even better brainwashing techniques than now.

Is the high cost of "education" really any secret? Is it any secret that the working class can rarely afford to send its children to college? College has always been the domain of the elite, and although some working class individuals do indeed make it to college, as a class they are not representative of the campus--even in state universities.

Of course, technical schools and technical courses will be of increasing importance, and I suspect that those degree will remoain cheap in comparison to the classical college "education." In order to use the machines that make a profit for the capitalist, workers increasingly need to be sent to class. Those classes, however, don&#39;t usually stray beyond the focus of technical application, and when they do it usually isn&#39;t beyond the level of 101 politics or sociology courses. Welcome to low-level management of McDonalds. Yes, many of those people actually have degrees.

In short, though, college will always act to reinforce class interests, not destroy them. There may be heretics within the church, but the church itself will never reflect those heretics. Although I&#39;m aware that this is in opposing ideologies and probably directed at those who&#39;ve been restricted here, I can&#39;t see how anyone in their right mind, OI or not, could possibly believe that the majority of the working class can send their kids off to "higher education." The majority of society must be working class in order for capitalism to persist, and therefore can&#39;t all congeal into those positions normally associated with college educations.

[theraven]

Originally posted by ColinH+Apr 24 2006, 09:03 AM--> (ColinH @ Apr 24 2006, 09:03 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:10 PM

[email protected] 24 2006, 01:30 AM
Going off to college in America

Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over &#036;100,000 a year (&#33;), who want to send their kid to college in America.

Want to read a long article about what they face?

Paying for college (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/21/pf/college/college_costs_0605/index.htm?cnn=yes)

What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?

Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
or a descrease in the cost of non-college educated labour, making the country more compeitive in the area of factories/construction..and yes low level service jobs
AKA lower wages for anyone that couldn&#39;t already afford post-secondary education. Seems sane to me. <_< [/b]
well being rich isn&#39;t the only way you can afford it. scholarships, grants. student loans....

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Great news&#33;

Less opportunities for anti-intellectual, spoiled-brats to indulge in their little beer bonging, trying to get laid fantasies--which is what college is perceived as among adolescents.

Maybe this will separate the boozing, hedonistic morons from the kids who REALLY want to and should be there&#33;

Sorry brats....the party&#39;s over&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Less opportunities for anti-intellectual, spoiled-brats to indulge in their little beer bonging, trying to get laid fantasies--which is what college is perceived as among adolescents.[/b]

As someone who requested I "Try poking [my] head outside of academia for a few days and join the real world (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48739&view=findpost&p=1292057323)" and described people who try to figure out why stuff happens as "theoretical pinheads" and people who are just "pissing around"; I find it rather amusing that you would call anyone "anti-intellectual". :lol:

But I suppose, clarity shouldn&#39;t be expected from you. <_<

On a side note, you seem to dislike the idea of people having fun....did someone not invite you to a College party or something? And what the fuck is "beer bonging"?


encephalon
Of course, technical schools and technical courses will be of increasing importance....

From a few oldies I&#39;ve spoken too, there seems to be a visible difference in the function of the education system....my mother, passed her 11 plus and went to a grammar school, and the stuff she was taught there seems to be more geared towards creating intelligent and knowledgeable people. Where as my school life, was, in my opinion, a process of creating efficient workers.

So whilst, in the past, the education system did at least to teach the most intelligent sections of the working class and promote some degree of class mobility....now, they just seem to be aiming solely to create efficient and productive workers.

I suppose there&#39;s something in that, you know, a class system that no longer tries to recruit talent and is more and more inclined towards ruling class welfare....you know, giving people like Bush Jnr. a job because his dad is your buddy instead of trying to find someone competent.

Just another straw in the proverbial wind I suppose. :D

[theraven]

As someone who requested I "Try poking [my] head outside of academia for a few days and join the real world" and described people who try to figure out why stuff happens as "theoretical pinheads" and people who are just "pissing around"; I find it rather amusing that you would call anyone "anti-intellectual". laugh.gif

But I suppose, clarity shouldn&#39;t be expected from you. dry.gif

perhaps he is advocating a moderatin of the two.neither all paly or all work is good


On a side note, you seem to dislike the idea of people having fun....did someone not invite you to a College party or something? And what the fuck is "beer bonging"?
similar ot funneling..you pour beer in a hold with no oxygen/bubbles and done it fast. it is a fast track to a crazy night.



From a few oldies I&#39;ve spoken too, there seems to be a visible difference in the function of the education system....my mother, passed her 11 plus and went to a grammar school, and the stuff she was taught there seems to be more geared towards creating intelligent and knowledgeable people. Where as my school life, was, in my opinion, a process of creating efficient workers.

the education system has worsened of late that is true. though i have trouble believing this was a capitlis policy


So whilst, in the past, the education system did at least to teach the most intelligent sections of the working class and promote some degree of class mobility....now, they just seem to be aiming solely to create efficient and productive workers.

I suppose there&#39;s something in that, you know, a class system that no longer tries to recruit talent and is more and more inclined towards ruling class welfare....you know, giving people like Bush Jnr. a job because his dad is your buddy instead of trying to find someone competent.

Just another straw in the proverbial wind I suppose. biggrin.gif

both have always happened historically

[Capitalist Lawyer]

On a side note, you seem to dislike the idea of people having fun

You go to college to learn first and foremost&#33; Most college students, atleast the ones I have been to school with not too long ago, seem to be more pre-occupied with their AIM, cellphones, cars, and their social lives....and then wonder why they fail out or why their GPA is inching above a 2.0.

There are millions that would donate their kidneys and liver in order to able to go to college and learn but MOST just see college as "just another party" and can give two shits about their education.

College (or anything for that matter) for "the masses" isn&#39;t always a good thing you know? You utilitarians have it all wrong in regards to education.

Most College Students not Prepared for the Work? (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/050817/17act.htm)



....did someone not invite you to a College party or something? And what the fuck is "beer bonging"?

A rather immature statement wouldn&#39;t you say?

See above about beer bonging. It&#39;s something that college students know how to do rather well but can&#39;t seem to stich together a basic research report and realize that "Wikipedia" isn&#39;t an academic source&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2006, 11:02 AM
Great news&#33;

Less opportunities for anti-intellectual, spoiled-brats to indulge in their little beer bonging, trying to get laid fantasies--which is what college is perceived as among adolescents.

Maybe this will separate the boozing, hedonistic morons from the kids who REALLY want to and should be there&#33;

Sorry brats....the party&#39;s over&#33;
Yes...family wealth is the benchmark that separates the really serious students and the fuckoffs.

It is??? :lol:

Pretty weak, CL, even by your standards.

Well, what about those tests?

Yeah, I suspect that most people who go on to college aren&#39;t "ready" for "college level" work (hell, I would have flunked the biology portion of that exam myself...I skipped it in high school because I thought it was boring).

Now why is that?

Does it have anything to do with the fact that most public schools in the U.S. really suck?

If salaries for public high school teachers are really low, what does that strongly imply about the level of "talent" attracted to those jobs?

Do public schools get the educational equivalent of "burger flippers"...as opposed to the prestigious private high schools who have educational "chefs"?

It strikes me that a civilized society would regard the education of the young as a "resource-worthy" investment (to use terminology with which you are familiar).

On the other hand, what does all this say about the social order we have now?

How does senile ruling class sound?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Yes...family wealth is the benchmark that separates the really serious students and the fuckoffs.

So there aren&#39;t any student fuck-offs who come from the middle-class and the upper-strata? What explains all of the student fuck-ups who drive nice cars, have nice computers and plenty of family money to spend on booze, drugs, and pizza?

Are you suggesting that all of the fuck-ups come from the lower-strata? Most college students (most are dumb btw) come from the middle-class&#33;

Explain that one.


Do public schools get the educational equivalent of "burger flippers"...as opposed to the prestigious private high schools who have educational "chefs"?

That&#39;s what you get when you feel the need to "educate the masses". When culture or education is geared "towards the masses", you&#39;re going to have a degenerated form of it.

There&#39;s simply not enough resources to lift every educational hopeful to the status of a "chef".



Does it have anything to do with the fact that most public schools in the U.S. really suck?

There you go again...always blaming something or someone else for people&#39;s mistakes.

Have you ever considered putting the blame squarely on the kids, their crap culture, and their careless, permissive parents?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2006, 12:02 PM
Great news&#33;

Less opportunities for anti-intellectual, spoiled-brats to indulge in their little beer bonging, trying to get laid fantasies--which is what college is perceived as among adolescents.

Maybe this will separate the boozing, hedonistic morons from the kids who REALLY want to and should be there&#33;

Sorry brats....the party&#39;s over&#33;
Fuck you :) I will be paying this off for about 30 years, now thank you for calling me a lazy beer guzzler because I don&#39;t have the money to pay for it.

Lots of people really want to be there, but guess what motherfucker you need money to do that. But you seem to be hogging it all, I guess we will have to do something about that :lol:

[Janus]

There are still scholarship opportunities out there even though they&#39;re limited. That&#39;s an alternative option, I suppose, even though you have to pay it off eventually. Furthermore, financial aid is primarily based on income but of course this in no way is helping the majority of working class kids get in. Of course, eduaction has been quite de-emphasized for a while now and the US has definitely felt the results.

[Publius]

Well, I plan on getting a few scholarships (National Merit, high ACT score).

A capable student can find plently of money this way.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)That&#39;s what you get when you feel the need to "educate the masses". When culture or education is geared "towards the masses", you&#39;re going to have a degenerated form of it.

There&#39;s simply not enough resources to lift every educational hopeful to the status of a "chef".[/b]

What sort of "poverty" are you pleading here?

There are "not enough" material resources to provide a "first class" education for anyone who wants one?

You must know that&#39;s absurd.

There are "not enough" actual or potential "first class teachers" to provide a "first class" education for anyone who wants one?

Well, that&#39;s a possibility...teaching may be a talent in "short supply". It may be something that only a few people are "really good at". And it may be something that "can&#39;t really be taught"...like creative writing.

What happens now is that elite private high schools hire the brightest people they can find and pay them really well...so if you are born into an upper-class family and are reasonably bright yourself, you&#39;re going to go to one of those schools and get "the best education money can buy". Graduating from one of those schools with high grades will get you automatically admitted into a "first class" university...especially if your parents can afford to pay "full fare".

Why don&#39;t more "really bright people" become high school teachers? Because the pay is shit, that&#39;s why. A really intelligent person usually prefers to work for a corporation because that&#39;s where the big money is.

Is that where it should be?

As to the "cultural level of the masses", what options do the masses have? The dummyvision may have 500 channels, but what if it&#39;s all mindless crap?

The internet may have lebenty-zillion sites, but if 50% are porn sites and 40% are shopping sites, what are people likely to find?

The people who produce the content of our "culture" are motivated by how much money they can make...not how "good" a "product" they can make.

Sometimes, something "good" becomes popular...but the "good" was accidental. The goal was to make money.


Have you ever considered putting the blame squarely on the kids, their crap culture, and their careless, permissive parents?

Nope. The people you condemn do not make policy. They have neither political nor economic power in this society. To them, life is simply a matter of chance.


Publius
Well, I plan on getting a few scholarships (National Merit, high ACT score).

A capable student can find plenty of money this way.

Your optimism is commendable. But I&#39;ll tell you, I put up some "big numbers" myself on the national tests...good enough to get admitted to a school like Columbia.

But they didn&#39;t offer me a dime&#33; :o

If you are really bright and get big scores, then yes, you can get admitted to a first class university.

But it won&#39;t do you any good unless your parents have serious money.

Funny story: when I did end up at a little shit municipal university, I hung out with some kids who, like me, had racked up a 99th percentile score on the National Merit tests...we referred to ourselves as "the National Merit Scholarship Losers". :lol:

Good luck...you&#39;ll need it&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[encephalon]

Well, I plan on getting a few scholarships (National Merit, high ACT score).

A capable student can find plently of money this way.


BWAHA HAHA HA.

Good luck brother. I planned on my high test scores to affect that as well, back then. Instead, reality beat the shit out of a poor kid.

Redstar&#39;s right. Your parents better be filthy rich.

[overlord]

QUOTE (Publius)
Well, I plan on getting a few scholarships (National Merit, high ACT score).

A capable student can find plenty of money this way.



Your optimism is commendable. But I&#39;ll tell you, I put up some "big numbers" myself on the national tests...good enough to get admitted to a school like Columbia.

But they didn&#39;t offer me a dime&#33;

If you are really bright and get big scores, then yes, you can get admitted to a first class university.

But it won&#39;t do you any good unless your parents have serious money.

Funny story: when I did end up at a little shit municipal university, I hung out with some kids who, like me, had racked up a 99th percentile score on the National Merit tests...we referred to ourselves as "the National Merit Scholarship Losers".

Good luck...you&#39;ll need it&#33;



Is this why you hate capitalism so much, Redstar? Pretty good reason I must admit. Capitalism is definitely not a meritocracy in an acedemic sense.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
Is this why you hate capitalism so much, Redstar?

Probably had something to do with it. Insofar as I can remember that far back, I just assumed that intelligence and effort "would be rewarded" -- you should see the letters they send you when you rack up big numbers on those tests...it&#39;s like the sun "now officially shines out of your ass"&#33; :lol:

I was certainly not any kind of a "commie" in 1960...a "left-liberal" maybe. I did work on the Kennedy campaign during the summer after graduating high school.

(And that&#39;s another story&#33; :o)

Later on, I heard this from a woman whose father was on the board of some "big name" university...she explained to me why Columbia admitted me but didn&#39;t give me any money.

"What they want," she said, "is for you to bust your ass and become successful and then send your kids to Columbia&#33;"

They want you to think that "even if I couldn&#39;t go, my kids will go&#33;"

Guess they missed on that one. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[overlord]

"What they want," she said, "is for you to bust your ass and become successful and then send your kids to Columbia&#33;"

They want you to think that "even if I couldn&#39;t go, my kids will go&#33;"


I admire aristocracy but this sort of treatment and &#39;generational inducement&#39; is BS in what is supposed to be an egalatarian nation. It&#39;s times like this I start to think &#39;ah what the hell&#39; and can actually physically feel my mind converting into a socialist orientation - which is usually when I have to start slapping myself silly in order to snap out of it.


I did work on the Kennedy campaign during the summer after graduating high school.


Ironically enough my father used to say Kennedy was the best president because he stood up to communism&#33; :o

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I finally got around to reading the article, perhaps I should comment on it.



Here are the stark financial facts. Together, Dick, 55, and Shari, 52, earn &#036;110,000 a year. So far they&#39;ve saved less than &#036;10,000 for Jake&#39;s education (&#036;4,000 in mutual funds in the parents&#39; names and &#036;5,500 in a 529 account).


This is NOT a couple of burger flippers. They are in the top 10% (I would guess) of income earners in the USA.

The example couple has saved all of &#036;9,500 for thier son&#39;s education. Now whose fault is that???

The kid can do what alot of people do, join the service, use his/her GI Bill and or Tuition Assistance program (which pays some 90% of tuition costs) and get his degree that way.

Or if he is near the top of his class he can apply to one of the service acadamies. ALL of them are certainly respected universities.

Then he and his parents can quit whining about the cost of the son&#39;s education.


Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over &#036;100,000 a year (&#33;), who want to send their kid to college in America


The thing that strikes me is that a couple in their 50&#39;s, and with a family income of &#036;110,000 a year has saved only &#036;10,000 for their child&#39;s education. Perhaps I&#39;m being too hard on them but, it seems to me that &#39;an educated working couple.....who want to send their kid to college&#39; could over 18 years of the child&#39;s life save more than an average of &#036;500 a year for that purpose.




What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?


I&#39;m not sure that college costs as percentage of income has changed substantially in the past 20 years or that college is any less affordable today than it was 20 years ago....To the average American family college has always been expensive....The article cites a couple under the burden of potential annual college cost of &#036;25,000 which is equal to 22% of the family&#39;s income........It is not unreasonable to believe that this same ratio held in 1980-2000 or even during much earlier periods in the U.S.

IMO (and it&#39;s only my opinion) the cost of the college in most U.S. colleges is not substantially different as a percentage of family income than it always has been.




Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?


Don&#39;t get your hopes up too soon, redstar and BTW please let us know which of the remaining societies of which you are so fond has a higher standard of living (even for &#39;burger flippers&#39;):


You relocate any time you wish.....I&#39;ll stay in this evil capitalistic society even at the risk of "flipping burgers".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
The kid can do what a lot of people do, join the service, use his/her GI Bill and or Tuition Assistance program (which pays some 90% of tuition costs) and get his degree that way.

Now that&#39;s an option.

Become a professional killer for U.S. imperialism&#33;

And when they cut you loose and assuming you&#39;re not dead or a hopelessly fucked up cripple, then you can go to college.

Ain&#39;t that sweet&#33; :o

Makes burger-flipping look "not so bad after all". :lol:


Or if he is near the top of his class he can apply to one of the service academies. ALL of them are certainly respected universities.

Yes, a Ph.D. in Mass Murder is a valuable asset in "late" capitalism...no argument there.

Lots of "job opportunities" after you graduate. :lol:


I&#39;m not sure that college costs as percentage of income has changed substantially in the past 20 years or that college is any less affordable today than it was 20 years ago.

Everything I&#39;ve seen points in that direction; tuition and fees have risen far beyond the inflation rate for many years. Scholarships and grants are disappearing...replaced by student loans that one can only escape by leaving the country permanently.


I&#39;ll stay in this evil capitalistic society even at the risk of "flipping burgers".

Your choice.

Just don&#39;t "whine" if things turn out badly for you; you can&#39;t say that no one warned you&#33; ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[FatFreeMilk]

I was under the impression that if you&#39;re poor, it&#39;s easier to pay for college cus you get lots of help...Like Stanford and Harvard have made college FREE for students whos family&#39;s earn less than &#036;40,000 a year.

Right now I&#39;m going through all this financial aid drama. I guess the government didn&#39;t beleive the numbers I put down on my FASFA so I had to go through some "verification" process. So with May 1 being the deadline to submit my intent to enroll , I&#39;m barely getting my official financial aid award letters now. From what I&#39;ve gathered, I guess I have to take out some loans....Which was something I was sooo against , but they told me to go ahead and see how much I was eligible for anyways. So now they seem like my only option.

So in conclusion, if you want to go to college, aim for Stanford so you can get your education for FREE&#33; :lol: . If you ain&#39;t that smart of a cookie expect to get a few loans.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FatFreeMilk
So in conclusion, if you want to go to college, aim for Stanford so you can get your education for FREE&#33;

Best of luck to you&#33; :)

But remember that Stanford is located in Palo Alto...a charming community and one of the most expensive places in California to live in. Look up the apartment rents on line and you&#39;ll see what I&#39;m talking about. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Become a professional killer for U.S. imperialism.


Oh, puhleze, most people in the service have never killed anyone. (A minutely few ever get the privilege to get the honor to qualify as a special forces soldier/marine/sailor in defense of their country.) But I&#39;m not holding my breath waiting for you to honor their service, redstar.

As for imperialism:

Who have we colonized? the Marianas? Guam? US Virgin Islands? Puerto Rico? Big deal. Puerto Rico has been PUSHING for statehood for years and years.

That hardly compares to that the Soviets brutally did with Eastern Europe, the Chinese have done in East Asia. What the the British did (in far less violent way) with India, Hong Kong, several nations in Africa, and the French did several other places in North Africa and Indochina.



Everything I&#39;ve seen points in that direction; tuition and fees have risen far beyond the inflation rate for many years.


Well, everything you&#39;ve seen is not supported by statistics published by the U.S. Department of Education.


Using the year 1983 as a base the cost of the average 4 year college rose 40.8% by 1990.

Income per capita increased 52.5% for the same period.

From 1990 to 1995 college cost increased 15.9%.

Income per capita increased 19.7%.

From 1995 to 2000 college cost increased 24.5%

Income per capita increased 29.7%

and from 2000 to 2004 college cost increased 11.8%

and per capita income increased 4.2%


Total for the 21 year period:

College cost increased 131.5%

Per capita income increased 146.7%
Source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S.

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/stati...stract-04.html

[Tungsten]

Why is paying for college such a big issue to a communist? Communists are right saying that paying for college will not be a problem in their system. I mean, who&#39;s going to waste years studying at college only to be given the same rewards and privelages as everyone who didn&#39;t even bother? What would be the point?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:38 PM
Why is paying for college such a big issue to a communist? Communists are right saying that paying for college will not be a problem in their system. I mean, who&#39;s going to waste years studying at college only to be given the same rewards and privelages as everyone who didn&#39;t even bother? What would be the point?
Paying for college isn&#39;t just an issue to communist. Have you actually paid for college before at a decent public university? I graduated from the U of Colorado, definitely not the best school in the world, upon graduating last spring I immidetly had to start paying on the over 100,000 dollars in student loans I had to take out to pay for it. Don&#39;t bring up scholarships either, because the amount of students who actually recieve any scholarship that will actually contribure a ny kind of substantial amount towards tution is about one in 10,000 and most of the students who do recieve scholarships from the school are athletes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)Oh, puhleze, most people in the service have never killed anyone.[/b]

And, I dare say, most of the SS men at Auschwitz probably didn&#39;t personally kill a single Jew.

That didn&#39;t change the purpose of Auschwitz.

Or what it meant to be willing to become a member of the SS.


But I&#39;m not holding my breath waiting for you to honor their service, redstar.

No, I&#39;m leaving that for the International War Crimes Tribunal. They have more experience at that sort of thing than I do.


Who have we colonized?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Rice joins Rumsfeld on Iraq trip

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is making an unheralded visit to Iraq, joining US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who arrived hours earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4945180.stm

Just the most recent addition to our Glorious Empire, of course. A full list would be exhausting just to read.

American Imperialism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5309)


Well, everything you&#39;ve seen is not supported by statistics published by the U.S. Department of Education.

Clearly invalid statistical techniques at work here.

"Per capita" income means how much per person...it says nothing about how that income is distributed. It&#39;s well known that over the last three decades, income increases are nearly all at the top of the scale.

"Average" tuition means just that...an average. It throws in (and counts as equal) the &#036;200/semester tuition for Horseturd Bible College and the &#036;22,000/semester tuition for New York University in lower Manhattan.

A much better number would consist of how much each full-time college student actually pays...get an average from that and then see how much that average has grown over the last few decades.

And don&#39;t include the "community colleges" in the numbers; they are basically trade schools...which serve a useful purpose but should not be confused with univerities.

Statistical scams are commonplace in contemporary public discourse; it helps to know at least a little bit about statistics to spot them. :D


Tungsten
Why is paying for college such a big issue to a communist?

We are looking for "signs" of the decay of capitalism in the "old" capitalist countries.

I started this thread to point to the fact that it is now ruling class policy in the U.S. to make higher education a class privilege...as it was prior to 1945. A similar policy is being put into place in the U.K. with "top-up fees".

What this suggests is that the "old" capitalist countries will, at some point, fall behind the "younger" capitalist countries...creating the kinds of crises that Marxists expect to see prior to communist revolution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And, I dare say, most of the SS men at Auschwitz probably didn&#39;t personally kill a single Jew.

That didn&#39;t change the purpose of Auschwitz.

Or what it meant to be willing to become a member of the SS.


Yes, I wondered how long it would take for you to compare U.S. servicemen to Nazis. I see it didn&#39;t take all THAT long.

Or to compare the US military to the SS. How typical for a radical lefty communist.

Zoltan Grossman (from the link you provided)... just one more leftist from academia. Washington State&#39;s version of Ward Churchill. And that nutball HS teacher also from Colorado whose name escapes me at the moment. None of their ramblings, drivel, and wild-eyed anti-American propaganda which they pass as &#39;intellectual writings&#39; impresses me much.




I started this thread to point to the fact that it is now ruling class policy in the U.S.


Which &#39;ruling class&#39; policy are you referring to? The GI Bill, last I checked, is still in effect. But then, one would have to actually perform a duty to qualify for it. Not just get it handed to you like some entitlement.

Then again, a couple earning over &#036;110K a year can only put away &#036;10K for their son&#39;s educational expenses is pretty pathetic. And/or their taxes are oppressive.

Both are probable true.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Yes, I wondered how long it would take for you to compare U.S. servicemen to Nazis. I see it didn&#39;t take all THAT long.

Or to compare the US military to the SS. How typical for a radical lefty communist.

Considering what&#39;s been documented by the criminal "servicemen" themselves, how accurate.

Naturally, the totality of what they&#39;ve done is far greater than what has appeared in the media thus far.

Your attitude of "denial" is "typical" as well...I&#39;m sure that there are some Germans to this day who think that Auschwitz was a "fake".

To face the bitter truth about your own country is pretty challenging...and some people simply lack the intellectual courage to do that.


Then again, a couple earning over &#036;110K a year can only put away &#036;10K for their son&#39;s educational expenses is pretty pathetic.

Which makes all the couples earning less than &#036;110K/year even "more pathetic", doesn&#39;t it?

Perhaps people should be honest with their kids right from the beginning: unless you earn a full scholarship, it&#39;s McDonalds for you, kid&#33; :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Just the most recent addition to our Glorious Empire, of course. A full list would be exhausting just to read.

What a joke of a list. Half of it are items like this:

CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

I guess for a self-confessed communist you WOULD see something wrong in evacuating US citizens just before a Communist takeover of China. Too bad for you that they weren&#39;t left behind to be indoctrinated into the collective.

We made our mistakes in the 19th and 20th centuries regarding South America. But these were not based on pure imperialism. They were based on a desire to keep these countries from falling into European hands, due to their own lack of stability. Simply put, we sought no American colonies there, but we refused to permit European ones either. Because of interventions, we DID end up with places like Puerto Rico and Cuba. It was an unfortunate side-effect.

But to say that the US is an imperial power is beyond ridiculous.

See Charles Krauthammer&#39;s assement of that statement here:



"Even Rome is no model for what America is today. First, because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens. And this American Republic has acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world--acquired it in a fit of absent-mindedness greater even than Britain’s. And it was not just absent-mindedness; it was sheer inadvertence. We got here because of Europe’s suicide in the world wars of the twentieth century, and then the death of its Eurasian successor, Soviet Russia, for having adopted a political and economic system so inhuman that, like a genetically defective organism, it simply expired in its sleep. Leaving us with global dominion.

Second, we are unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain and the other classical empires of modern times, in that we do not hunger for territory. The use of the word “empire” in the American context is ridiculous. It is absurd to apply the word to a people whose first instinct upon arriving on anyone’s soil is to demand an exit strategy. I can assure you that when the Romans went into Gaul and the British into India, they were not looking for exit strategies. They were looking for entry strategies.

In David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia, King Faisal says to Lawrence: “I think you are another of these desert-loving English. . . . The English have a great hunger for desolate places.” Indeed, for five centuries, the Europeans did hunger for deserts and jungles and oceans and new continents.

Americans do not. We like it here. We like our McDonalds. We like our football. We like our rock-and-roll. We’ve got the Grand Canyon and Graceland. We’ve got Silicon Valley and South Beach. We’ve got everything. And if that’s not enough, we’ve got Vegas--which is a facsimile of everything. What could we possibly need anywhere else? We don’t like exotic climates. We don’t like exotic languages--lots of declensions and moods. We don’t even know what a mood is. We like Iowa corn and New York hot dogs, and if we want Chinese or Indian or Italian, we go to the food court. We don’t send the Marines for takeout.

That’s because we are not an imperial power. We are a commercial republic. We don’t take food; we trade for it. Which makes us something unique in history, an anomaly, a hybrid: a commercial republic with overwhelming global power. A commercial republic that, by pure accident of history, has been designated custodian of the international system. The eyes of every supplicant from East Timor to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Liberia; Arab and Israeli, Irish and British, North and South Korean are upon us."

America haters and apologists who loved to sling around the charge of modern American imperialism have little or no understanding of the word in the context of world history. They confuse global power for empire.

[Guerrilla22]

Zoltan Grossman (from the link you provided)... just one more leftist from academia. Washington State&#39;s version of Ward Churchill. And that nutball HS teacher also from Colorado whose name escapes me at the moment. None of their ramblings, drivel, and wild-eyed anti-American propaganda which they pass as &#39;intellectual writings&#39; impresses me much.

Ward Churchill is a great proffesor at an institution you most likely could not get into. Having actually had him as a proffesor I can say that your assertion sas well as those espoused by your hero, David Horowitz are completely ridiculous. You&#39;re probaly one of those student sfor academic freedom idiots who want to use the government to silence views they are opposed to in the class room, which is pretty much everything that is common sense. Here&#39;s a rant from your leader:

: "There are 50,000 professors ... [who] identify with the terrorists"
Summary: On MSNBC&#39;s Scarborough Country, right-wing activist David Horowitz claimed that "[t]here are 50,000 professors" who are "anti-American" and "identify with the terrorists." There are just over 400,000 tenured and tenure-track full-time university professors in the United States. If Horowitz&#39;s numbers are accurate, that means approximately one out of every eight tenured or tenure-track college and university professors is a terrorist sympathizer.
On the March 2 edition of MSNBC&#39;s Scarborough Country, right-wing activist David Horowitz claimed that "[t]here are 50,000 professors" who are "anti-American" and "identify with the terrorists." Horowitz, the president of Students for Academic Freedom and a proponent of an "Academic Bill of Rights" for American universities, is the author of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006).

According to statistics from the Department of Education, there are just over 400,000 tenured and tenure-track full-time university professors* in the United States. If Horowitz&#39;s numbers are accurate, that means approximately one out of every eight tenured or tenure-track college and university professors is a terrorist sympathizer.

From the March 2 edition of MSNBC&#39;s Scarborough Country:

MICHAEL SMERCONISH (guest host): David Horowitz, you wrote a book, your new book where you expose this on college campuses. Do you think what we&#39;re talking about now is symptomatic of what&#39;s going on across the country or is this an aberration?

HOROWITZ: There are 50,000 professors with the views of [fellow Scarborough Country guest and Citizens for Legitimate Government founder Michael] Rectenwald and [Colorado high school teacher] Jay Bennish, who are anti-American, they&#39;re radicals, they identify with the terrorists, they think of them as freedom fighters. It&#39;s a huge danger for the country. And I tell you, if there was a Christian teacher who was ranting in that way against abortion in the classroom, they would be toast.

Bennish is accused of issuing, during a class, what Horowitz has described as "a Communist political rant on the evils of America, capitalism and George Bush in that order." Bennish has been suspended from his job pending an investigation; Horowitz wrote: "May his suspension last a long time and be a warning to other teachers who think that abusing their students serves a higher cause."

*Tenured and tenure-track professorships are, according to Horowitz, the positions of significance on college and university campuses. He wrote in an April 2003 column for FrontPageMag.com, of which he is editor-in-chief: "Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired. The conservative faculty members I encounter who have achieved this feat, invariably tell me that they were forced to keep their political orientation to themselves until they achieved tenure. Alternatively, they were hired and tenured twenty years ago before the left secured its grip on the hiring process."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Charles Krauthammer
America haters and apologists who loved to sling around the charge of modern American imperialism have little or no understanding of the word in the context of world history. They confuse global power for empire.

Gee, how about that?

It&#39;s not an Empire, it&#39;s just "global power"...to rob and murder any damn place we please.

What America is: the most radically dishonest Empire in history&#33;

And anyone who points out that obvious fact is an "America hater"...not a member in good standing of the Übervolk, no question about it. :lol:

The combination of imperial arrogance and rank dishonesty of Mr. Krauthammer&#39;s statement qualifies him easily for a post in the Bush administration.

I understand they&#39;re hiring. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Ward Churchill is a great proffesor at an institution you most likely could not get into.Having actually had him as a proffesor I can say that your assertion sas well as those espoused by your hero, David Horowitz are completely ridiculous. You&#39;re probaly one of those student sfor academic freedom idiots

Obviously, he didn&#39;t teach you proper spelling and etiquette&#33;

Sorry, but anybody who calls WTC workers "little Eichmans", should not be teaching or receive praise from anyone&#33;

You&#39;re one sick human being. I don&#39;t think most communists here would even stoop to your level and praise Ward Churchhill.

And why was a communist at a prestigious, elitist, capitalist dominated, social advancing institution such as University of CO? Kind of hypocritical wouldn&#39;t you say? And I&#39;m sure most "working-class" and ghetto-dwellers couldn&#39;t get in there either...aren&#39;t you supposedly "pro-working-class"? How "capitalist" of you&#33;

Were you trying to "work your way up the capitalist ladder" by attending college? :D



Considering what&#39;s been documented by the criminal "servicemen" themselves, how accurate.

Naturally, the totality of what they&#39;ve done is far greater than what has appeared in the media thus far.

Your attitude of "denial" is "typical" as well...I&#39;m sure that there are some Germans to this day who think that Auschwitz was a "fake".


American Marines and GIs are not much different than Americans who don&#39;t enlist in the military.

Some are jerks, but most aren&#39;t.

Are all military personnel brain-washed, blood-thristy, Bush-loving, imperialist, automatons?

I doubt it.

Here&#39;s a link to a website that would tend to say otherwise:

http://www.optruth.org/index.php?opt...tpage&Itemid=1

Here&#39;s a link to some Iraq War movies made about American troops that might not support your stereotype of them being pro-Bush baby-killers:

http://thewartapes.com/

http://www.homefrontthemovie.com/main.html

http://www.gunnerpalace.com/


And a lot (Zogby poll says 72%) of US troops want to pull out of Iraq:

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Have a nice day, Mr. Cynical.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer+--> (Capitalist Lawyer)American Marines and GIs are not much different than Americans who don&#39;t enlist in the military.

Some are jerks, but most aren&#39;t.[/b]

Speculative.

Prior to the first Bush war against Iraq, your argument might carry some weight...mostly poor and many minority Americans just trying to find a ladder up out of the shit zone.

Even back then, I still think you&#39;d find that a lot of enlistees were from rural and especially religious backgrounds and often from "military families" -- there&#39;s a whole "subculture" of those folks around...though I expect they sharply declined in numbers after Vietnam.

In other words, you have to be pretty backward to put your life on the line "for America".

But in our new era of imperial adventures -- Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and obviously more to come -- I think enlistees now are either exceptionally moronic or they really believe in the Empire&#33;


Are all military personnel brain-washed, blood-thirsty, Bush-loving, imperialist, automatons?

Until proven otherwise, I think is the most reasonable assumption.

Of course, having been told that they would be welcomed in other countries with flowers and kisses...and discovering that the reality was somewhat different from what they were promised (:lol:), I have no doubt that the occupation troops are having "second thoughts".

But I have yet to see any reason to believe that they will not "march on Tehran" if given the order to do so.

Now, if we see massive mutinies...? :D


Have a nice day, Mr. Cynical.

You too, Mr. Gullible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Edit


WBBM Newsradio
Chicago Gang Graffiti In Iraq

Street gangs born in Chicago are making their presence known 6,000 miles away.

The Sun-Times reports Chicago gang graffiti is showing up in Iraq, the handiwork of gang members now in the military.

Army Reservist Jeffrey Stolesonhas taken hundreds of pictures of gang graffiti in Iraq.

A Defense Department official says he&#39;s identified 320 soldiers as gang members and he thinks that&#39;s just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/30651.php

One can hardly wait until "our boys" get home and start applying the lessons they&#39;ve learned in Iraq. :lol:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Back to the topic at hand.....

You know... I&#39;m no big defender of our public school system, but I think I&#39;ll take a centrist position here. The system we do have is good enough that if someone really WANTS a good education, they can obtain it in nearly any public school out there. Thing is, they have to want it... it won&#39;t be handed to them on a lunch tray. They have to WORK to obtain it. They can&#39;t sit back and think that they&#39;ll be educated with no effort on their part.

As for your rant about why women shouldn&#39;t have kids..... (this was in another thread I believe)

It is NOT only young women who are responsible for having babies. You sound very sexist in your remarks. For all your protestations about being a progressive thinker, this illustrates to me that you are not so far advanced.

Further, economics should not be a consideration in bringing children into the world. Many of us plan and consider our means before embarking on parenthood, but many financially disadvantaged families with children have wonderful, loving bunches, work hard for them, and are not on welfare.

What wars they will have to fight? Well, with an ALL volunteer military... the answer would be none.



If salaries for public high school teachers are really low, what does that strongly imply about the level of "talent" attracted to those jobs?

For an answer...look to the standards to get be an education major in college&#33;

It appears that we actually agree on something, but what I want is a tougher curriculum in order to maintain our 8 trillion dollar economy....what you want is Marxism 101 in every classroom.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
The system we do have is good enough that if someone really WANTS a good education, they can obtain it in nearly any public school out there.

When the toilets are overflowing and pieces of the ceiling are falling down? It&#39;s kind of distracting, you know? :lol:

I&#39;ll grant you that now and then a student is highly self-motivated and, provided they are taught how to read, will self-educate themselves needing only access to a public library. I learned much more from "outside reading" during my high school years than I did in class (except for mathematics).

And today, in the "internet age", any kid with access to a computer doesn&#39;t have much excuse at all for being ignorant. There are even some universities that offer their courses online for free -- I think MIT does this. Of course, you don&#39;t get the credential...but you can learn the material if you "want" to.


It is NOT only young women who are responsible for having babies.

The burden of birth-control is placed on young women because they&#39;re the ones who get pregnant. The smart thing for young women to do is prevent that from happening.


Further, economics should not be a consideration in bringing children into the world. Many of us plan and consider our means before embarking on parenthood, but many financially disadvantaged families with children have wonderful, loving bunches, work hard for them, and are not on welfare.

Bah&#33;

Likewise, Humbug&#33;


What wars they will have to fight? Well, with an ALL volunteer military... the answer would be none.

How much longer will it be "all volunteer"? Considering the expressed imperial ambitions of our ruling class, a conscript army looks to be inevitable.


For an answer...look to the standards to get be an education major in college&#33;

Yes, the education departments are a standing embarrassment to every university. But, once more, why is that? Where and how was the decision made that teaching "deserved" the worst rather than the best?

When you look at the faculty at elite private high schools, I think you&#39;d find that they don&#39;t come from Dumbass Teacher&#39;s College. They actually have degrees in the subjects that they&#39;re going to teach the children of the ruling class.

That makes a huge difference, believe me&#33; When I was in high school, my physics teacher was one of the football coaches. :lol:


It appears that we actually agree on something, but what I want is a tougher curriculum in order to maintain our 8 trillion dollar economy....what you want is Marxism 101 in every classroom.

Today&#39;s public school curriculum is designed to teach kids how to pass standardized multiple-choice tests...it&#39;s "Trivial Pursuit" writ large. What is not taught is critical thinking...in fact, it&#39;s actively discouraged.

Public school teachers of the present day are no more qualified to teach Marxism than they are to teach anything else. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Zero]

US DOD+VA spending as per 2007 budget: 487 billion dollars
US Job Training, Education, and Placement as per 2007 budget: 2 billion dollars.

Remember kids, we care&#33;

[MurderInc]

I read this thread a lot and have enjoyed it so I wanted to contribute to it.

Two points:

First, there is, generally, no such thing as an "American" education system. The word does not appear in our Constitution, and despite money given to schools from the federal government to the state and school districts, it is the state that controls the vast majority of decisions re: education.

That&#39;s why you get Kansas removing Darwin from its science curriculum, and Oakland, California requiring all of its students learn a class called, African-American Studies", with a pretty leftists point of view.


Second point, and probably the most important. 25 years old has become the new 18. Most people at this age are continuing to enjoy their youth. College is for many not only a place to learn, but a way of enjoying one&#39;s youth at their parents/the states expense.

There is a Party Nation attitude about it and it&#39;s getting worse. I am not talking about only the children of the afluent, but young people in general. Growing up have become a bore, and is now prolonged at degrees people today in their 50&#39;s never imagined.

I wonder how this will effect our future generation(s)?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And today, in the "internet age", any kid with access to a computer doesn&#39;t have much excuse at all for being ignorant.


Oh come on. Good education was available through the public school system long before the internet. But again... the student and parents need to WANT to get that education.

I specifically remember that you never seemed to blame the parents or the kids for that matter in regards to education...it was always "the ruling class&#39;s" fault simply because it is they who "set and determine the policies".

Then again, that&#39;s typical for a communist...always blaming someone or something else.


But, once more, why is that? Where and how was the decision made that teaching "deserved" the worst rather than the best?


The answer is simple. Like nearly every gov&#39;t program, the users became dependent on the gov&#39;t. Instead of people STRIVING to get a good education, the gov&#39;t was now going to provide it... free of charge. We&#39;ll make it law that everyone gets a good education. Wonderful. Problem is, now that it was free, it was no longer valued or something to strive for. Simply look at drop out rates before and after the Great Society.



US DoD+VA spending as per 2007 budget: 487 billion dollars

US Job Training, Education, and Placement as per 2007 budget: 2 billion dollars.


What part of &#39;it&#39;s the federal gov&#39;t&#39;s JOB to defend the nation&#39; don&#39;t you understand? There&#39;s no provision in the Constitution for job training and education. There&#39;s a reason for that. The state and local gov&#39;ts can&#39;t defend the nation as a whole, and the central national gov&#39;t can&#39;t provide education to the masses of infinately varied needs.

[synthesis]

I got here a little late for the discussion about the quality of public school education, but there are points that still need to be made.

It is not necessarily the experience, skill, salary, or talent of the teachers that makes one school better than another. Speaking for myself, I was lucky enough to land a scholarship to a notable private high school which taught college-level courses to freshmen.

The school named children of industrialists, Saudi oil barons, and TV personalities among its pupils. And yes, the teachers there were exceptionally intelligent. They gave students individual attention and resources.

But the teachers there were not paid the salaries of college professors. In fact, it was well-known that the teachers actually recieved a smaller salary than their equivalents in many urban high schools. These teachers opted to forego the higher salary in order to teach better material to smaller classes - usually around fifteen kids as compared to 25-35 in Portland&#39;s public schools.

Having spent half my schooling in public institutions and the other half in private, it is completely apparent that private schools do not have the "smartest" teachers, but those that are at the private school have half the kids that they need to bring up to a standard and therefore can dedicate much more time on each student&#39;s individual education.

The point is that the quality of teachers is only one factor in education; quantity of teachers combined with the quality of their resources can overcome any supposed deficit of "first-class" teachers. There is no "supply and demand" in the "best" teachers, there&#39;s simply no financial ability to meet needs in many areas; the situation is simply another example of how capitalism naturally acts against class mobility.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
I specifically remember that you never seemed to blame the parents or the kids for that matter in regards to education...it was always "the ruling class&#39;s" fault simply because it is they who "set and determine the policies".

Then again, that&#39;s typical for a communist...always blaming someone or something else.

And your position is not "typically capitalist"...not to say Calvinist? That is, individual "failure" is due to one&#39;s own "sinfulness". Material prosperity is a consequence of individual "virtue".

The myth that we are "captains of our individual fates" is no doubt pleasing to the winners of the capitalist lottery...who never grow weary of flattery.

As an explanation of what actually happens in the world and why, it is, as the kids say now, extremely lame.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The myth that we are "captains of our individual fates" is no doubt pleasing to the winners of the capitalist lottery...who never grow weary of flattery.

As an explanation of what actually happens in the world and why, it is, as the kids say now, extremely lame.

Did you not say the following below? It seems to support my claims that the burden of education falls on the students and their parents alike. Now, if the "ruling class" closed down all the schools for the lower classes, then you may have a point. But that clearly isn&#39;t the case here now is it?

Listen, a kid can go to school and get fairly decent grades if properly motivated, and the parent can atleast provide some material and emotional assistance. Or, the kid can indulge in video games, beer, and other forms of crap culture and put off studying.

It&#39;s their choice.



I&#39;ll grant you that now and then a student is highly self-motivated and, provided they are taught how to read, will self-educate themselves needing only access to a public library. I learned much more from "outside reading" during my high school years than I did in class (except for mathematics).

And today, in the "internet age", any kid with access to a computer doesn&#39;t have much excuse at all for being ignorant. There are even some universities that offer their courses online for free -- I think MIT does this. Of course, you don&#39;t get the credential...but you can learn the material if you "want" to.


And btw, you deliberately ignored most of previous posting.


The answer is simple. Like nearly every gov&#39;t program, the users became dependent on the gov&#39;t. Instead of people STRIVING to get a good education, the gov&#39;t was now going to provide it... free of charge. We&#39;ll make it law that everyone gets a good education. Wonderful. Problem is, now that it was free, it was no longer valued or something to strive for. Simply look at drop out rates before and after the Great Society.


What part of &#39;it&#39;s the federal gov&#39;t&#39;s JOB to defend the nation&#39; don&#39;t you understand? There&#39;s no provision in the Constitution for job training and education. There&#39;s a reason for that. The state and local gov&#39;ts can&#39;t defend the nation as a whole, and the central national gov&#39;t can&#39;t provide education to the masses of infinately varied needs.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Still waiting for a reply from Zero and Redstar.

[Janus]

Redstar, although it is quite difficult to get into college these days a lot of it has to do with the competition rather than the money. Back in the 50&#39;s, competition was quite low. Nowadays, some states have the 10% rule which only guarantees state university admittance for those students who&#39;s class rank are in the top 10%. If they have financial problems, then there is always financial aid, which is need based rather than academically based.

[Zero]

Whoops, I don&#39;t read the OI very often. =&#092; This place is so huge as it is.


Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"
What part of &#39;it&#39;s the federal gov&#39;t&#39;s JOB to defend the nation&#39; don&#39;t you understand? There&#39;s no provision in the Constitution for job training and education. There&#39;s a reason for that. The state and local gov&#39;ts can&#39;t defend the nation as a whole, and the central national gov&#39;t can&#39;t provide education to the masses of infinately varied needs.

So you would have us outspend every country in the world by more then 7-10 times to protect us? Sure, safety is important, but wouldn&#39;t repairing the image abroad of America be... how shall I put it... more important in the long run? But let me first tell you a story about a friend of mine....

I hung out with a kid for maybe 3, 4 years. We had lectures in the same wing, and hung around the same general crowd. He had decided that he had criticised the Bush machine too much to not do anything to back it up. So he applied for the Army. I did my best to dissuade him, but he was insistant on doing it. He came back after a single tour with only one leg, and was half deaf. He is 23 years old. Before he went, his family was informed that they needed to pay for his armor, and his night-vision goggles. Bush&#39;s proposed defense budget (including VA and desk jobs) is in the area of 478 billion dollars (I am too lazy at this second to look it up) I just kind of thought that if he intended on defending America with his troops by sending them to Iraq to fight for resources and map control he would spend at least some of that money equipping them, so that the family of the troops doesn&#39;t need to pay to risk the life of their son/daughter.

And reguarding education, yes, it is the job of the state government to alocate funds for education. But every school recieves funding for the number of children who attend the school (I can&#39;t remember if its weekly or monthly though, its been a long time since my Local Gov&#39;t class) from the federal government. On average here in Oregon, that Federal funding comprises ~60% of the public school budget. If more money was given to help fund school&#39;s... well... we might get higher average GPAs, higher numbers earning scholarships, bigger colleges, more educated workforce, and a larger supply of trained, skilled, workers. Hell, maybe even a drop in college prices as larger numbers of students are able to achieve higher degrees.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Why is paying for college such a big issue to a communist? Communists are right saying that paying for college will not be a problem in their system. I mean, who&#39;s going to waste years studying at college only to be given the same rewards and privelages as everyone who didn&#39;t even bother? What would be the point?

How ignorant could you be lol. Why go to college to learn? I mean life is about money, money, and money. Why would anybody go because learning and science and history and etc.. are their passions?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I&#39;m giving serious though to joining the national guard or reserves to pay for college. I know it&#39;s pretty reactionary but well I don&#39;t want to be stuck with a loan or spending the next 5 years frying burgers.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:39 PM
I&#39;m giving serious though to joining the national guard or reserves to pay for college. I know it&#39;s pretty reactionary but well I don&#39;t want to be stuck with a loan or spending the next 5 years frying burgers.
Good plan, become an agent of U.S imperialism, a professional killer.

[Zero]

Lefty you don&#39;t need meterial wealth, or a big-name degree to succeed in life. Community Colleges work just fine. In fact I&#39;ve found that in Community Colleges have better teachers, and more flexibility... though you do have to deal with a lot of smokers and retarded people. <_<

[jy00]

Who have we colonized? the Marianas? Guam? US Virgin Islands? Puerto Rico? Big deal. Puerto Rico has been PUSHING for statehood for years and years.

The Marianas stay with the U.S. for one reason money. They get lots of government aid. But all this does is create a ruling class on these islands. There are no Yankee Go Home signs there.

Who is the ruling class on that island? Anyone with U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizens get better jobs and higher pay. They can go to America anytime they want no questions asked. They get all the welfare and education benefits. They get full benefits of U.S citizenship. Do the many foriegn workers get the same? No&#33;

Of course, there might be a few Marianas U.S. citizens who have kids with Che shirts. But there parents sure won&#39;t attack U.S. imperialism. There is too much cash at stake.

But don&#39;t get me wrong can you blame the locals? Would you rather accept ruling class status (by being a commonwealth) or be poor? But then that&#39;s where idealism comes in. Should we sacrifice comfort for our ideals? What&#39;s your opinion?

[jy00]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:15 AM
Going off to college in America

Imagine an educated working couple, combined annual income over &#036;100,000 a year (&#33;), who want to send their kid to college in America.

Want to read a long article about what they face?

Paying for college (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/21/pf/college/college_costs_0605/index.htm?cnn=yes)

What happens to a capitalist country where most people can no longer afford to pay for a college education for their kids?

Welcome to the "nation of burger-flippers"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
But are there not many government programs to help pay for college (besides the military)? Is this problem really severe? I would agree that in U.S. client states college would be expensive. But is it in the U.S. itself? Also, many kids drop out of college for various reasons. Is that the capitalism&#39;s fault?

I don&#39;t like capitalism but perhaps this problem is exxagerated. Now as for other aspects of the U.S. I agree there is a decline. For example, there are few factory jobs, family farmers are being destroyed by plantation farms etc.

[Janus]

But are there not many government programs to help pay for college (besides the military)
Yes, most of these programs aren&#39;t sponsored by the governemt though but by private groups. For example: Rhodes Scholarship and National Merit. There is also financial aid that is need-based.


Also, many kids drop out of college for various reasons
There is an inherent inequality between the rich who have much more educational opportunities and the poor who do not. So yes, capitalism is a fundamental reason for this.

[Felicia]

I know a guy (an average income guy) who&#39;s son went to Harvard and graduated with straight A&#39;s and A+, I saw his report card, the father keeps it in his wallet, lol. But yeah, he had to remortgage his house and everything just to pay for it. The kid&#39;s a lawyer now, with his grandfathers firm.

[Guerrilla22]

Most kids going to college in the US come out of college with massive debt. I have over a hundred grand in debt from my four years in college and that&#39;s not including the thousands I spent on books and housing.

[MKS]

College in America is becoming what high school once was. A degree is necessary to achieve any level of success above the previous generation. However this need for "education" has led to an over-sautration of the market, simply put; there are too many colleges/universities in America and the value of a Bachelors degree has decreased drastically, therefore the value in a &#036;30,000+ (adjusted for inflation) a year degree is not the same as it was ten or twenty years ago.

If the people want change there is only one thing that has to be done. They need to push for the construction of completely public Colleges, much like all other grades of scholarship, colleges would fall under the funding of the municipalities, the states and federal governments. That is the only way to make higher education truly equal and &#39;free&#39; for all citizens who work for it. But then again we are talking about Americans so nothing will get done.

I have always been against the American education system for its inherent racism, classicism and creation and support of the Neo-Liberal ideals and systems which exist today. It is simply a training or indoctrination camp for the herd.