Claremont McKenna vs Pomona

Colleges and Universities A-Z Claremont McKenna College
21

<p>
[quote]
Also Pitzer & Scripps classes are wayy easier than CMC. Diplomatic Political Correctness demands: There are exceptions. Now I might be biased (and when I say I might, I am) but Pitzer and Scripps are an ant in the academic powerhouse that is the Claremont Consortium.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Together, the five colleges represent 1/10 of what US News says are the top 50 LAC's in the country. None of them are easy, and none of them should be referred to as "ants" in any sense of the term, relative or otherwise. My personal experience was 100% the opposite of what you're claiming it should have been (perhaps because citations don't say a lot about teaching quality, as anyone who's ever considered LAC's should realize). IMO, "bias" is perfectly natural, but that's an understatement here, and this is coming from someone who took multiple courses on every campus, and utilized the consortium to a far greater degree than the average Claremont student. Try to forget, for just one moment, that you're talking about the "lowest ranked" among the Claremont schools, and remember that you're talking about two of the top liberal arts colleges in the country. The consortium set-up invites so much talk of "Who's better?" that it's easy to lose that perspective.</p>

<p>Anyway, that's just my experience, and as you say, it's useless to anyone looking for objectivity. Then again, so is the statement that I quoted. Your point is taken, this was a tangent, and I've said my piece.</p>

22

<p>People don't care if you're politically correct, but they might care that you're propagating false generalizations when they're trying to find out about a school.
Pitzer and Scripps classes are not easier than CMC classes in general. Ever taken a Pitzer course? (I doubt it, since CMC has restrictions on how many classes students can take off campus in their first 2 years) If you have: did they grade with gold stars or something?
The famous ugliest campus "ranking" was given to Pitzer by a blogger who looked at pixelated old pictures of the academic buildings and thought they were ugly. He never set foot on campus.
As for strangest college course, I'm guessing that refers to the YouTube course for which the college got some publicity last semester. Apparently some people hear the word "youtube" and think whatever is associated with it is full of it, even though it is a legitimate medium of communication, and contains thousands of videos of artistic performance that the average Joe would never be able to see otherwise.
As for "most liberal"? Darn right we are. I doubt a registered Republican would every apply for the position of college president at Pitzer.
But here are some more significant rankings: 5th most diverse top-tier coed LAC. Youngest top 50 LAC in the country. 3rd best faculty, 8th most politically active students, 8th for lots of race/class interaction, according to the Princeton Review rankings. 25th in percentage of its students who study abroad.<br>
Okay, I'm done.</p>

23

<p>To be fair, I want to correct something in my last post. I said that my academic experience in Claremont was 100% the opposite of what santino was implying it should have been, and that was an exaggeration. What is true is simply that my experiences at the various schools differed regularly and significantly from what rankings or anything like 'prestige' might have suggested (and I mean that in a general sense...I didn't just have a few surprising courses). I'm definitely not attempting to say that Scripps and Pitzer rule all, and the other schools are overrated...just trying to point out that between joint and cooperative departments, shared faculty, cross registration, etc., the lines are all quite blurred (more so than many students realize, I think), and that when I say positive things about all of the colleges, I mean them honestly, not just diplomatically.</p>

<p>Just wanted to scale back my claim...no use fighting fire with fire! Now I've said my piece ;)</p>

<p>cantsaythatido: For future reference, don't forget Pitzer's place on the list of "Colleges With a Conscience," or their Fulbright numbers...</p>

24

<p>Student615: Before you run off to Pitzer or Scripps, Read: TEACHING AWARDS. It was right next to citations, don't see how you missed it. </p>

<p>I said that they were easy compared to CMC, PO & Mudd. I am currently taking a course at Scripps (albeit taught by a CMC Prof on their campus). I have never taken a course at Pitzer and don't plan to-ever. This decision was made upon advice from my faculty advisor, profs and other students. </p>

<p>CMC & Mudd have the lowest grade inflation in the consortium and the statistics agree with this.</p>

<p>Yeah, they might be highly ranked in absolute, but I thought this was a comparative discussion. Sure, there are so many schools better/worse than ones at the CUC, but thats a futile discussion. The OP was interested in CMC v PO and I responded. I wrote Pitzer in brackets and this topic came up. So maybe you mixed up threads, but this is a comparative discussion. </p>

<p>I think "Whose better" is a perfectly relevant question when you are about to spend a large amount of money for your four most crucial years. </p>

<p>Cantsaythatido:</p>

<p>People at CMC surely don't care if I'm politically correct and I love it! FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) does not even have a ranking for Pitzer because of its numerous violations of free expression and speech codes. </p>

<p>False generalizations? A generalization or stereotype is an opinion or view developed after multiple observations and interactions. How is mine generalization false? Till now I've backed most of what I said with statistics. The only unsubstantiated statement I made was given with a disclaimer. </p>

<p>Facts are stubborn things, but CMC, Mudd top the list on course load, thesis requirements and lowest grade inflation. College ******* which collects large straw polls concedes that Pitzer, Scripps is where you go when you want an easy A. Of course, relative to CMC. Heck, its what we're told at orientation by students, sponsors as well! So it maybe a generalization but a lot of people seem to agree with me!</p>

<p>I saw those pictures and they weren't old or pixelated. And he did conduct research. He commissioned students on various campuses and even contacted the guys who made the 'Most beautiful campus' list. These weren't unfounded and YES THEY WERE SUBJECTIVE. As a matter of fact, I think Pitzer is ugly. Scripps is undoubtedly the most beautiful campus on the 5C's IN MY OPINION. </p>

<p>Thank you for the YouTube pitch, I'm sure Google appreciates the advertising. Pitzer is a private college and you have every right to spend your money on a course about Youtube. At the same time, I have the right to mock it. </p>

<p>Yep you are the "most liberal", and yet you haven't produced any prominent liberal political commentators, social scientists or politicians. Political Activism might be high at Pitzer, but its low on Political Awareness and debate. CMC was indeed the most heated campus in America for Election year (Newsweek ranking, I think- <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/70801%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nysun.com/article/70801&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>Most Diverse? But diversity isn't a substitute for academic excellence. It would also be interesting to find a study on Least Ideological Diversity. I don't value superficial diversity for several reasons. It is orchestrated by racist instruments that undermine merit and reward one for their ethnicity. I already mentioned this earlier but my campus newspaper Claremont Independent is publishing a report on the shady affirmative action policies at Pitzer. And if you care about the law Pitzer is in violation of Leonards Law which extends First Amendment rights to private colleges. (So is SC & Mudd) They are an extreme form of a nanny-welfare state.</p>

<p>Their sociology professors have made crazy economic and governance claims (some feel sociology is the required profession for economic analysis) which were debunked within 48 hours in Academic Journals and publications. A Pitzer Professor, Jose Calderon has even been caught lying and playing with facts. </p>

<p>Youngest Top 50 indeed, but 49th :) I would also weigh in success and organic growth since inception.</p>

<p>3rd Best Faculty? LOL where'd you pull that one from? </p>

<p>Here are some other rankings:</p>

<p>In COSMOGirls Top 50 College rankings. (Ok, you win!)</p>

<h1>6 for Reefer Madness (Marijuana use)</h1>

<h1>16 Birkenstock-Wearing, Tree-Hugging, Clove-Smoking Vegetarians</h1>

25

<p>As a parent of a Claremont student I find some of the stereotypes of Claremont on this board to be potentially counterproductive to Claremont's stated desire to attract an ideologically diverse student body. For those of you who are considering Claremont and are of the Liberal persuasion, I want to assure you that you will find plenty of support among your fellow students and more importantly, plenty of institutional support for your goals and pursuits.</p>

<p>My experience of CMC is that they walk their talk in the realm of supporting ideological diversity and real examination of the issues from all points of view. If you look at the speakers at the ATH over the last few years they include luminaries from every point on the political spectrum, from Rigiberta Michu and Robert F Kennedy JR, to Bill Clinton, Ehud Barrack and Antonin Scalia. Students are exposed to EVERY point of view at the highest level imaginable, which as a proud liberal, I find to be the essence of liberalism.</p>

<p>As far as the kinds of students they pursue and attract. My child's leadership essay was on the founder of the Catholic Worker's Party. She was offered more financial aide, by far, by Claremont than any other college she was accepted to.</p>

<p>Summer internships at non profits financed by CMC are readily available to anyone who bothers to organize an internship and apply for funding. Kids I'm familiar with interned with the Sierra Club in Berkeley and building homes in Mexico, among other liberal causes, with very generous support from the Kravis Leadership Institute. </p>

<p>So if you are a Democrat or even a Liberal Democrat don't let Santino's posts put you off. My observation as a parent is that CMC's characterization of its student body as 1/3 liberal. 1/3 moderate. 1/3 conservative or libertarian is probably true. What I observe the kids having in common is that they are all "doers," who are getting out there and putting their ideas into practice in one way or another. Also the kids I've met on campus when I've been wandering around on visits to my daughter have been pretty universally outgoing. </p>

<p>All of the Claremont Colleges are remarkable for different reasons and if you are accepted into any one of them and you take the initiative to make use of the resources the consortium makes available, you will surely find the people, classes and career opportunities you are looking for. </p>

<p>As I've often discovered in life sometimes the things you are most put off by initially, turn out to be the strength of a given experience. As a parent I was worried at first about the conservative side of CMC. In the end I think being in an ideologically diverse setting makes for a livelier, more "real" atmosphere.</p>

26

<p>ErlindaP, we are not in disagreement. I mentioned CMC's ideological diversity in a previous post and even cited successful students, faculty and alumni on all fields of the political spectrum. </p>

<p>The Non Profit internships by Kravis are new and did not exist earlier. CMC students worked at non profits before and that has nothing to do with liberalism. </p>

<p>I wish the Athenaeum fostered the ideological diversity you mentioned. On closer inspection, the Athenaeum only hosts liberal speakers and guests. However, they are compelled to host events sponsored by Research Institutes such as the Rose, Lowe and FEI and thats how you get that balance. Unfortunately, the Ath has much more money so right now the tilt of liberal conservative is about 15-70, with the rest as apathetic subjects. I work at the Lowe and FEI and we're trying to change this. </p>

<p>I'm not trying to put any democrat or liberal off. CMC is described as the school where you can have a heated debate with an opposite ideology and then play a nice game of beer pong with them. Ideological tolerance was a key component of George C. Benson, founder of CMC's belief system. We were meant to follow the University of Chicago ideological format. </p>

<p>Also, the 1/3rd is a myth. It was only true till about 1997. The tilt has been leaning leftwards since and there's a counter movement to bring back the balance.</p>

<p>I was simply giving the background history of CMC which is undeniably right or libertarian leaning. We still have a conservative gov, econ faculty. The students were never all conservative and Benson didn't want that. He wanted that balance in the student body. As for the conservatism, our faculty wasn't some intolerant religious group, they were labeled conservative because of their adherence to Straussian philosophy, Natural Law and free markets.</p>

27

<p>Santino; Thanks for clarifying what you meant by conservatisim. My feeling is that we are all like "the blind men and the elephant," and each type of ideology is capable of describing a part of reality. Only by avoiding vitriol and really listening to each other can we glimpse the nature of the whole beast. </p>

<p>On this subject-I was heartened by Mike Huckabee's very generous statement in the Times Editorial Section today about the conditions in the South at the time in in our history when both he, and Obama's former pastor, Rev. Wright, were growing up in the Jim Crow South. I can't remember the exact words but he talked about what segregation was really like and how he understood the terrible impact it had on people who lived with it. From a white, Southern Evangelical this was about as generous and compassionate a statement as I can imagine, and may help to move the debate in my party and in our country back to the issues. Huckabee's example is a great illustration of where we need to go in our discussion of our differences as a country. Perspective is everything. Pulling each other apart by any means possible, gets us nowhere.</p>

<p>We have been too distracted by the culture wars for too long. As a liberal I can totally cope with a tolerant conservative and learn from their insights. Heck-I can even learn from a tolerant Evagelical Conservative-as I did this morning from Huckabee.</p>

<p>We need to talk to each other in order to move past the impass we are in as a country. and I think Claremont's ideological diversity creates the conditions for that to happen. I hope they can keep that balance and that people on all sides of the political spectrum work to preserve it, and keep the discussion on an ethical plane.</p>

28

<p>Erlinda, Thank you for your response.</p>

<p>Indeed, my confidence in my own views (libertarian) was strengthened by debating liberals and conservatives. My primary focus is Economic Freedom, followed by Political Freedom. The GOP is far from being a free-market party, they are less Big Government and lesser regulation. </p>

<p>I like the concept of bipartisan that both seem to speak about all the time. Unfortunately, their voting record doesn't follow. They (Obama and Huckabee) have several contradictions in what they say and do. Huckabee's has few wedge issues and most of his primary issues involve more regulation. Obama has economic advisors who disagree with him and as for his voting record, he mixes up bipartisanship and abstaining. The only bills he brings up or supports, Nationally and at state level, are very partisan. I want a candidate who really walks the talk and doesn't just talk about bipartisanship. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, even I would be labeled partisan as Constitutionalism and Economic Freedom are partisan. </p>

<p>(Wow, this post has really 'evolved' (hehe) )</p>

29

<p>For anyone who is interested in Huckabee's quote. It's on Page 4 of the NY Times, Week in Review, "What Politicians Say When they Talk About Race"-Column 4 paragraph 4.</p>

<p>Santino, I realize people are going to disagree and be partisan about so many things, but I'm also old enough to remember when progress in the country was made by members of congress really listening to each other and hammering out the compromises that got everybody some of what they wanted. Members of congress used to socialize and have really deep friendships between members of different political persuasions, much like the lively debates followed by beer pong that you describe as being typical of CMCs political culture. Before the most recent era of "the culture wars" there were bowling leagues and "Mixed Doubles" of conservatives and liberals for God's sake. My friends in Washington (State Department) lament the passing of that era.</p>

<p>If CMC is fostering that kind of rational civility between future leaders of different political persuasions, it is doing a HUGE service to this country. We absolutely can not afford to be at each other's throats anymore, the stakes are too high. Although this post is evolving, this is still about CMC and the contribution its unique culture can make in developing future leaders who can get the job done. In fact it is still about CMC vs Pomona and the rest of the consortium, because, to my knowledge, CMC is unique in its ideological diversity. So kids-if you want that-CMC is for you.</p>

30

<p>I second that. CMC is great for debate. Sometimes I think the Bro/Jock stereotype exists to make up for our nerdy political and economic debates!</p>

<p>ErlindaP, civility and rationality are great attributes for any debate. However, I disagree slightly on the benefits of such compromises. Conceding ground and creating wedge issues to appeal to a broader base is essential-no doubt. But, today we have a situation where to much has been conceded and both parties have lost track of their founding ideologies. </p>

<p>From a Psychology perspective, there isn't too much difference between bipartisanship and group think. Congress overvalues cohesiveness under the name of civility and common understanding. Ideally, they should have more bowling leagues, heck even a few beer pong games after clearing Pelosi's table, but only after a comprehensive debate. </p>

<p>The danger of bipartisanship is that it undermines its said intent by becoming tolerant of partisan issues. CMC is not bipartisan by any stretch of imagination. The closest the Claremont Republicans and Democrats come to agree on is the time limit for our Dodgeball games. The more we disagree, the more we learn. We're used to meeting communists, feminists, creationists and we like to debate those views. </p>

<p>A quote I always think of is:</p>

<p>Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue</p>

<p>Marcus Tullius Cicero</p>

31

<p>What has angered me about partisan politics in the recent past is not fighting over legitimate differences and taking principaled stands , but things like "the Southern Strategy," race baiting like the recent slimey performance by former President Clinton, firing up the Evangelicals over gay rights, and anything else that distracts our attention from the real issues. like Education, Health Care, Security, Human Rights, dealing with the end of oil, terrorism and its root causes, and the host of other critical problems that we are facing. As a former teacher I can see potentially useful solutions to our crisis in education coming from both sides of the aisle For example. No Child Left Behind although loathed by the teacher's unions, I find a useful start to closing the acheivement gap and giving every kid in the country a fair shot. Is it flawed?-absolutely-are there other things we should be doing? yes but just because it is a Bush policy and the NEA hates it, I'm not going to call it a mistake. I also used to work for Head Start-which not only changes kids' lives but often gets whole families headed in a better direction. It works, so why can't we find the money for it that we so easily find to fight "nation building" wars in other places. Personally I don't see those wars as being "conservative." The point is-some conservative approaches like figuring out performance standards for schools, and some liberal startegies like supporting kids during the critical years of their neurolical development and teaching poor parents better child rearing skills, also "work," to solve our problems.</p>

<p>What I'm talking about here is everyone trying to be more creative and pragmatic as opposed to ideological and locked into knee jerk positions. That pragmatism is another thing I see CMC fostering when it pays my kid to intern at a non profit or sponsors workshops on leadership. To quote the cable guy "Git er done."</p>

<p>I work with a lot of government agencies as well as private businesses here in Portland. We have a civic culture of civility and as a result we have accomplished a tremendous amount as a city, both through the acts of private parties like the Poirtland Development Commission and the Downtown Business Association and through unique goverment agencies like "Metro". There are still TONS of problems. But when we sit down together to solve them there is a minmum of BS, vitriol, posturing and red herrings. My work takes me to many other states and cities and getting something done where everybody is so busy trying not to be attacked by rabid, no holds barred partisan politics is a nightmare. Even total Liberals like myself can admire Gordon Smith's (R Oregon) decency as a human being. That allows us to more than occasionally-work together to get things done.</p>

<p>Another example was when I attended a community meeting in Klamath Falls,OR in the middle of Klamath County's "Water Wars." This controversy pitted the Klamath Tribe against Klamath Basin farmers over dwindling water in the Klamath River. The tribe was trying to save the fish that are key to their religion and entire way of life, the farmers were trying to save their farms and their entire way of life. Feelings were strong for everyone. I had been working with both communities as a planner on another project. Tribal Leaders who attended the meeting as well as city government types were totally cordial to each other-despite what was a terribly painful dispute and conflict for both communities and the entire region. I think at times things did get ugly among the grass roots, but in my observation of the leadership on both sides, they kept it on the up and up. Although I was only there for a brief time, people were more than civil to each other. I recently heard that a compromise had been hammered out. It took a few years but I think it would have been impossible if these Oregonians had allowed themselves to sink to the low levels of politics that we have experienced lately on the National playing field.</p>

<p>Civility does not preclude passionate advocacy, it precludes dirty tricks, pandering and other BS.</p>

32

<p>I agree 100%. Modern day partisan politics isn't partisan in any ideological foundation, rather it panders to extremist viewpoints. So today we have partisan issues not ideologies. The ideological diversity, in reality is actually limited in government today and has reduced significantly over the past century. </p>

<p>I'm actually amazed at how much of present day politics can be explained by the Founders, the Federalists and Tocqueville. It is true that the founders did not favor strong party politics like today, however they were also opposed to big government, and correctly so in my opinion. They designed the political structure of America to be in constant debate so that no rash decision, or partisan issue can pass through. Today several partisan issues, under the banner of bipartisanship, become law through compromises and abstain votes. I disagree in a few areas with Ron Paul, but I respect him for voting on every issue. If you disagree, just say no. Little known fact: Many southern states had a voting turnout of <10% when choosing to secede from the union. This is because many held the view that even considering such a vote was immoral and wrong. </p>

<p>I think ideologies and knee jerk reactions are extremely important. And CMC is a school that truly represents that. 'Civilization Prospers with Commerce" is an unusual motto with deep ideological traditions. CMC's 'Git er done' is there culture- leadership, entrepreneurship and debate. But their ideological roots are the foundation on which they succeed. I find those to be crucial, regardless of your political affiliation. Being pragmatic without any orientation can cause one to lose perspective. Pat Buchanan? </p>

<p>In fact, Erlinda, the doctrine of pragmatism has in itself been described as an ideology. The view of lets use our collective brainpower and get things done was popular in several third world countries that followed Near-Socialism or state corporatism. They would talk about a third way, become a third power and trusting their leaders to make the right decision. Academia marks India's Jawaharlal Nehru as the pioneer of this disoriented ideology.</p>

<p>Finally, Big Government is inherently inefficient and will never solve our problems. To quote Madison from Federalist 51, Men Are Not Angels. The greatest myth today is that the United States is and has always been the beacon of free markets and capitalism. Today, the US ranks 7th or 8th on an Index for Economic Freedom. The 7 countries before have seen greater success in a shorter span of time. Many of the collective solutions in Congress are trying to find the best solution within big govt. bureaucracy as opposed to eliminating the actual root of the problem. Take for example the case of Progressive Taxation. Progressive taxation is an excellent example of how we fell behind in Economic Legislative Progress. Russia and 15 other countries have a flat tax today and more are considering it. These countries saw economic growth as a result of these reforms and reduced income inequality. In Congress, there were a few bills proposing a flat tax that were all shot down by both the GOP and the Democrats.</p>

33

<p>I am for decreased income disparity, so I would like to know more about the flat tax. Where can I read more about countries that have implemented a flat tax?</p>

<p>However-in my experience as an early childhood educator (First career) I saw first hand that there are some projects that government can do better that private enterprise. Headstart is so far superior in the services that it can deliver to low income families than any private care provider, that it isn't even funny. If we want to attempt to level the playing field for our children, which I think most moral humans would agree is the right thing to do, not to mention being in the common interest in terms of future productivity, reduction in crime etc. this is one area where the markets don't really work very well at all. How do I know this? I evaluated licensed private care providers as well as Headstart Centers for the state of Montana for several years. Private care affordable to working class and low income families was uniformly FAR inferior to Headstart and Early Start. Early Childhood Education is costly to do right and is not really a viable profit making enterprise, particularly in low income communities. Since these are the communities where early education is likely to have the biggest impact, the sensible thing to do is to fund the programs that help kids and families get their feet on the ground and become contributing participants in the society. </p>

<p>Another government program I worked on provided small grants and training to aspiring day care home providers in low income communities, so that women could start small businesses caring for their neighbors' children in their homes. We also provided training so they could educate the kids rather than just park them in front of the TV, and feed them nutritious food instead of wonder bread sandwiches and tortilla chips. Since no working class family can survive on a single income in this country anymore, this is a desperately needed service. The grants and training program for home day care providers was an early version of microeconomics, and helped people start small businesses that supported a real need in their communities. HOWEVER without the government grants many of these budding small businesses would never have gotten off the ground , and without the government supported teacher training, they would have offered an inferior product and potentially caused more harm than good. </p>

<p>If your conservative ideology says that mothers should stay home with their small children and that they should carry to term every pregnancy, then I sincerely hope you support a raise in the minimum wage so that working class fathers can support their families on a single income. If you expect all hands on deck working as hard as humanly possible and not relying on handouts, with the market setting the wage standard, then somebody needs to care for the children. Or maybe we could go back to the poor houses that were prevalent in England during the first industrial revolution when the free market was really unbridled. Heck-we got some great literature out of it thanks to Dickens' childhood experiences with that system.</p>

<p>Santino-wake up and smell the coffee-there are some things that the free market does beautifully that government could never do in its wildest dreams, and there are some things that government does that will never be profitable when done correctly. Remember the robber barons? Remember the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire? How about NASA and the Interstate Highway System? Our constitution set up a system of checks and balances to save us from ourselves, and I believe our economy also functions best with a balance-that is open to change as societal conditions demand. That's what I mean by pragmatism. I'm almost sixty years old and although I would like to believe that my liberal ideology has all the answers, Rudy Guliani's success in NYC taught me that was a fallacy. Eight years of George W. Bush's administration should have taught you the same thing about conservatism. Our markets are imploding thanks to conservatives' ostrich like refusal to see that the end of the petroleum based economy is on the horizon. Granted-now that New Orleans has been 70% washed away and we are up to our necks in debt over this stupid war, the free enterprise system is starting to kick in with some new ideas about energy, but the markets are not God and they are completely amoral. Leaving everything to them was tried with Laissez Faire Capitalism and wasn't very successful.</p>

<p>On the other hand- I have been much amused lately because I insisted my very mainstream broker invest some of the money I recently inherited, in socially responsible investment funds. Since it is my money he agreed very reluctantly and skeptically. Last week he called to report that my Calvert Funds are doing very nicely despite the turmoil in the markets and they are shifting more of my money into them. I just hope this faint hint that the markets really do have some wisdom is not too late.</p>

<p>You are SO right about men not being angels. The dialogue between different viewpoints is what keeps us honest. For the most part I think we ordinary Americans agree that we would all like to see our kids be well educated, home ownership on the rise, the country be safe and secure, civil liberties intact, a healthy environment and a thriving economy. We mostly differ on the means and on a few hot button issues. What I mean by pragmaticism is the ability of a liberal to admire Rudy Guliani's success in making the city of New York safer for all its citizens and the ability of a conservative to look at the absolutely thriving center city of Portland, Oregon (liberal capital of the Universe) which is active, filled with people and doing business day and night seven days a week, and admit that regional government planning over a course of decades-did that. My point is-we all hold a piece of the solution and it is just plain stupid not to recognize that when it is so clear. That is where I think rigid ideologues on both sides of the aisle have got it wrong. Or maybe it's just more fun to sling mud at each other. Maybe it makes us feel more important or powerful. Even writing this I subconsciously worry that admitting that Guliani did a good job in NY is a betrayal-if we all feel that way in the face of sucess by our countrymen on the opposite side of the aisle-how stupid is that? Did LBJ not pass the Voting Rights Act? Did Nixon not go to China? Did FDR not lead us galantly through WW2? Did Reagan not push the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall? People on both sides of the aisle have led us forward. We are so polarized right now it is nearly impossible to admit this. Which is SO STUPID.</p>

<p>Now we really are off the subject of CMC vs Pomona</p>

34

<p>wowza, that is one deep conversation.</p>

35

<p>ErlindaP, Thank you for this wonderful discussion. I'm really enjoying it and we're creating some excellent view rates!</p>

<p>The following study is the most comprehensive summary of the Global flat tax movement. Before you study flat vs. progressive taxation or taxation theory in detail, some basic statistics theory is important. The moral foundation for progressive taxation is that the rich have more money so they ought to pay a higher amount. And I agree! However, proponents of progressive taxation are making a fundamental mathematical mistake. They are confusing absolute dollar terms with percentile terms. </p>

<p>David Friedman, Economist at the University of Chicago explains this as follows:</p>

<p>To see that, consider two taxpayers, one with an income of $40,000/year, one with an income of $80,000. Consistent with declining marginal utility of income, assume that the former has a marginal utility of income of two utiles/dollar, the latter of one utile/dollar. Assume a flat tax which collects $4,000 from the poorer taxpayer, $8,000 from the richer. The utility cost of the tax is then 8000 utiles for each--"fair" by the standard of equal utility burden. The utility cost to the richer person of each dollar he pays is half as much--but he is paying twice as many dollars.</p>

<h2>Generalizing this example, we can see that if marginal utility of income declines with increasing income less than proportionally--if, say, MU(I)=AI^(-.9)--then equal utility shares imply a regressive tax, while if it declines more than proportionally to income, the same rule implies a progressive tax.</h2>

<p>Here's the report: <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I am familiar with Head Start and respect you for committing you time with the organization. However, you are evaluating the success of private enterprise in a restrictive environment where private enterprise isn't allowed to thrive. Let me give an example: </p>

<p>" licensed private care providers as well as Headstart Centers for the state of Montana for several years"</p>

<p>Licenses are a form of protectionist controls to benefit the private companies that are already in the market. They are a barrier to entry and are an arch enemy of the free market. Private care is inefficient in sectors with the highest protection because efficiency is the result of competition. Public industries are complete monopolies and therefore have little economic incentive to perform. Now, under the capable leadership of someone like yourself, these institutions may thrive, but they are not sustainable in the long run. Even Head Start has consistently changed its objectives, and when a Senate Committee requested a report on their success in achieving the state objectives at inception, the result was largely disappointing. Here's another article on Head Start:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5544%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5544&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1047%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1047&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Globally, school vouchers and free market education have proven to be far superior. They are cheaper, more committed and have produced better results in almost every country that used them. We fear Indian engineers taking our jobs. Their population has always danced around 1 billion, why the concern now? Because prior to 1991, there was no private education. Today 80% of India's graduate engineers come from private institutions. Mind you the 20% is also sub-contracted. </p>

<p>Micro-Financing is still being studied by Economists. Most cases were found to be unsustainable in the long run. Their impact was the highest in the poorest developing countries, where aid money and micro-finance got families to a subsistence level, thereby saving lives. However, even in those countries, the programs became more and more dependent on government reimbursements, i.e. taxpayers money. This drainage from the economic system and guaranteed loan defaulting bail out scheme has not achieved the desired objectives. Look up the Kauffman Foundation, they are a private charitable foundation that does pretty much the same thing, except they don't use government money. Entrepreneurship is crucial to a free market economy. Those licenses you mentioned, thats a barrier to trade that hurts entrepreneurs the most. The red tape to start a business has increased significantly since the early 20th century. Another reason why the current market structure cannot get money to aspiring entrepreneurs is again because of a government granted oligopoly to the banking sector. The Republican Study Committee, as well as the Heritage Foundation advocated a removal of government approval for opening credit channels. Wall Street lobbyists feared competition that may decrypt the regulated citadel that stands today. </p>

<p>I'm libertarian, not conservative. I believe in individual rights and equality before law. I think family values are overrated and over hyped. There are several cultural values that we adapt to and the government regulating culture is the last thing Madison would have wanted. "The biggest fallacy in evaluating public policy is to judge it by its intent rather than its outcome" Minimum wage laws are counter productive- largely an economic consensus on this, as well as empirical evidence. The only case where minimum wage laws produced desirable outcomes were in the company coal mines where you had a Monopsony (Single buyer) market situation. That structure is rare and the Monopsony model is disputed. I can't go into all the arguments against the minimum wage, but the most substantiated ones are: Unemployment increases, Big Business benefits as smaller producers cannot absorb additional cost, deterrence effect on entrepreneurs, pushes workers with low, inadequate skills out of the labor market, disincentive to train and transfer human capital. </p>

<p>Also, you're projects are not disconnected from each other. The costs of starting a business, i.e. barrier to entry, include labor costs. The Kauffman Foundation found a lowered rate of entrepreneurship in states that had substantial increases in the minimum wage. Hong Kong is also held as a classical example. They had no minimum wage till 1999, but when the Peoples Republic of China took control and introduced minimum wage reform, unemployment increased and wages actually decreased across the board since economic activity was diminished. Estonia, a country that went through dramatic free market reform saw an increase of 110% for the poorest 5%ile of the income pyramid. Thomas Sowell, a famous economist puts the question to advocates of the minimum wage: If minimum wage removes poverty, then why doesn't Bangladesh just increase the minimum wage?</p>

<p>I assume you're speaking of the late 19th century England. That was far from being a free market system. It was a system known as mercantilism (sort of like the Whigs in America). Another key fallacy in upholding England as an example of free markets is their complete monopoly on Money and Banking. They financed their expenditure on colonies by reducing the Gold-Notes ratio. Some Austrians would be very offended if you consider this free market, they spent their life fighting monetary regulation. </p>

<p>I would smell the coffee, if those damn tariffs were removed on Vietnamese products. Your argument citing public industry success is countered by a 17th century work by Friederic Bastiat, where he talks about the visible and invisible benefit/cost. We see NASA's success, however we can never know the relative success or failure of a privatized system. Again, the country fast moving towards free markets - India has provided the answer. Indian private companies have launched several Israeli spy satellites and Indian entertainment broadcasting satellites in the past two years. Their productivity, accident ration and all those cooky Mudder terms a far superior to NASA. Its funny you mention NASA, since they faced the stiffest competition (debatably). Now imagine multiple NASA's ! awesome eh? Thats how the Japanese, Chinese and Indians are engaging in a space race today. I don't know much about Israel, but apparently thats how they got their space race out on the rocks as well. I think they sub-contracted thought. </p>

<p>To use Sowell's line of reasoning, if state guided technology programs are so successful why have they failed in almost every other country? How come India launched 2 spy satellites in 2 months without being a state controlled entity and without using taxpayer money?</p>

<p>Now here's the biggest myth of them all: George Bush is a fiscal conservative. He's just a bit on the right to Lenin. Farm subsidies have never been higher, government spending (minus military) increased more than the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administration combined! Regulations on business increased, accounting firms thrived with more red tape. The only part I really like about Bush, is that he restricted and weakened Eminent Domain.</p>

<p>The Petroleum Based Economy is another myth. The US has ample oil reserves at home and the 40 year Saudi Arabia claim is modest. The economic argument is that reducing supply in oil pushes prices up which increases the incentive to invest and use other fuels. Natural Gas and Oil keep bouncing up and down. Due to this basic economic phenomenon, running out isn't a problem. The same argument was used for Tin back in the day when everything was made out of Tin. What will we do when Tin runs out? Aluminum along with other materials were discovered and the world still exists. </p>

<p>My fingers are tired and the Portland debate will tire them further. Read:
<a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf&lt;/a>
"Debunking Portland"</p>

<p>I generally don't like to attribute too much success to presidents. Reagan wasn't that good. He was funny, and strengthened the GOP (albeit Jimmy Carter made it easy). Most of the credit for the Soviet Union collapsing should go to Gorbachev and the inherent failure of communism that came calling. Nixon went to China, but equal credit should go to Dang Pao Cheng for pioneering reforms. Nixon never fought the CPC, Cheng did. That was the greater milestone. Trade volumes with China were still insignificant in his time. </p>

<p>We are off CMC vs. Pomona. Its CMC vs. CMC!</p>

<p>I thought you might be interested in reading this:
<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVlZGZhNmUyMWNjNGI4Y2VlZmQwNWRlOTY4N2JiZTY=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVlZGZhNmUyMWNjNGI4Y2VlZmQwNWRlOTY4N2JiZTY=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I assume you know Professor Pitney.</p>

36

<p>Santino - many good points, but some very flawed arguments.</p>

<p>You cite Japanese, Russian, and other space programs as private successes. But their success is almost completely dependent on technology taken from the Russian and US state funded programs. Without government intervention beginning space exploration, there would be no satellites in the air today. How much would that change the world, with no DirecTV, Sat phones, GPS, and so on? Not necessarily worse, as I'm certain that the pursuit of easy global communication would have received heavy research, but the private sector moves gradually. Only government programs can hemmorage money for years on the basis of hope. Do you really think that India would have launched those satellites if they hadn't seen the Russian and US programs accomplishment, successes, failures, and so on? I hope not.</p>

<p>There are only a few exceptions to the general trait of the private sector increasing in baby steps, and most of those exceptions require only low entry costs. That is very different than the space race or other governmental intervention policies.</p>

<p>Look at the railroads - we were heavily built up in the industrial north very quickly, but the paths that spread us across the country were government backed. And those railroads allowed our country to grow much quicker.</p>

<p>And your example of licensing as a blockage to the free market is pretty flawed. It is more information provided to the consumer about the product. Laws preventing those without licenses from practicing do obscure market forces. But a properly informed consumer is absolutely necessary to Smith's capitalistic economy, so those licenses and other regulating forces are not inhibitors. They are what allows the economy to function without tearing itself to pieces.</p>

<p>People are naturally selfish, and Smith counted on that. But they can only be appropriately selfish when accurate information is available. Intelligent choices cause private sector efficiency.</p>

<p>And just because I can't let it go - you cannot possibly believe that government-backed research is an inhibitor to growth. There are sooooo many examples of tasks that the government is really the only group that could do. The private sector is FANTASTIC at using innovations effectively, and progressing from that point. But look around you - how much of modern life is completely tied to government projects(especially the defense department). Computers, the internet, satellites, the interstate highway system, a highly populated west coast, TV's, remotes, and on forever. Most metal alloys have come from military research.</p>

<p>The private sector may have done a good job. But I am just fine with the leaps caused by the government.</p>

37

<p>True DSC, space programs had significant government intervention, mainly because of the military use of such technology. My argument was that without licensing, sub contracting or nationalizing technology develops faster in competitive environment. I don't see any evidence for private sector moving 'gradually'. Technology based industries are always progressing and therefore the need to innovate persists. Its a great Washington quote: "If there's a rabbit being chased by a wolf, whose going to win? The rabbit because the Wolf is running for his dinner, the Rabbit for his life."</p>

<p>Time</a> to Privatize NASA </p>

<p>Most of the great human achievements or inventions that you cited had a nearly complete embargo decades earlier. The government simply decided to research certain fields. Even when the government does succeed in innovating something new, its almost always during war or for military purpose. </p>

<p>As for the railroads, you are guilty of Bastiats visible-invisible benefit again. True, railroads aided economic progress, however they also froze technology. Think of it this way: How much have trains developed since their inception? How much have cars, airplanes, ships? The problem is that you are assuming the current technological structure to be ideal. The biggest flaw of the US economy in the 18th and 19th century was federal regulation between the states. So even back then, the industries with few people, lots of money and low innovation were natural gas, pipeline projects, telecommunications projects and so on. Many countries in the 20th century tried this approach and miserably failed. And a shortage of money wasn't the reason behind it. </p>

<p>DSC, Smith would roll over in his grave.</p>

<p>1) Occupations with licenses suffer shortage, high cost and a black market.
The classic case of this are New York Taxis. Government makes these decisions to benefit current producers. Their argument is rarely the ones you cited.</p>

<p>2) Smith never spoke about the properly informed consumer per say. He focussed on the rational consumer. The information is restricted by intellectual property rights, not a market failure of information. Another important aspect of the Neoclassical school of thought are time dynamics and learning curve benefits. Trade benefits both parties because every exchange of product or service increases knowledge. Tearing itself to pieces? According to your misinterpretation of Smith, industries without licenses should 'tear themselves to pieces'. I doubt you can ever find empirical results on this one. </p>

<p>The most morbid example of licenses inhibiting market forces is the FDA.
Breaking</a> Up the FDA's Medical Information Monopoly</p>

<p>The notion of a godly, all knowing entity telling us what to do has its appeal, but can never succeed. Industries without licenses thrive and licensed industries collapsed. Its essentially why Nehru's India and Mao's China came close to a complete collapse. In India, you couldn't even change the color of your product before government approval. </p>

<p>Smith wasn't counting on that. He formed axioms of human nature to create a model for understanding commercial interaction. The term economists like to use is Self Interest. Again, the basis of Market theory is rational decision making, not intelligent and Smith explains this much better than I ever can. </p>

<p>BSC, most economists would shocked at your claims on licenses helping the economy. Never have, never can and never will. Essentially. what are government-backed research projects. Its taking tax payers money and spending it on a group of scientists to produce something. Invention is best driven by incentives not allocation. </p>

<p>You might be just fine, but you entire post is a study in Bastiats invisible effects. The costs of these programs are often very high. In this sense, I'm talking about the actual payback, where several government programs are loss-making and require too much of our money. Secondly, the opportunity cost of taking away that money from consumers, producers has a strong domino effect. You've really given way too much credit to government. Most economists cite our free markets, degree of competition and lower government regulation as the reason for our innovation.</p>

38

<p>Fair enough on the current market as ideal(I was reluctant to use some examples due to that, but I felt that the changes were large enough to be noted even with that).</p>

<p>And I think you completely misunderstood my reasoning(which is likely my fault for not writing clear enough). And yes, rational decisions depend on understanding the forces at work, 'truth in advertising if you will'. Examples of my 'tear apart at the seams' theory are pretty cliche - The meatpackers of 'The Jungle', and other such situations. Where, due to malicious intent on behalf of the company a rational choice is not possible(spoiled meat disguised as fresh for example).</p>

<p>I didn't claim that licensing was perfection, and specifically that if mandated it caused problems. Instead, as builders across the country can tell you, it offers the ability to charge a premium for ensured quality. Licensing increases the information available to the consumer, refining rational choice.</p>

<p>And to take your analogy about the rabbits - sure they run the fastest, but they might not take the best path, or find new paths.</p>

<p>I think that you give too much credit to the free market - it fails quite a bit more often. The government is subject to the same forces, if much more slightly. Emigration from Russia was part of its failure. Immigration to the US has been a huge portion of its success. The difference is the risks possible, if the government fails the entire country fails, so it cannot take the risks of a single company. But any multinational moves exactly like a government, the only difference being who it serves.</p>

<p>Innovation has long depended on the brilliant searching for the money to pursue their ideas. The government offers the only group big enough to fund many of these paths. Is it perfect? No. Even good? Not always. But it has played a very important part in the advance of society.</p>

<p>I seem to have let my points wander a little too far, and I think you take my point wrong. I do not believe the government is great. But I do believe that its gambles have often done us a lot of good, so it shouldn't be completely neutered in the name of economic freedom. In order to control a country of this size, it will naturally become less efficient - just like a multinational vs. a small business. Just like communism on the other side, size brings things towards the middle, existing on the fringes is more possible if it is a smaller group.</p>

<p>The index of economic freedom shows how far we outshine nations of similar size: <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/searchresults.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/searchresults.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And yet, our government is too big in many ways as (relatively) small as it is. So how do we avoid the stupid parts(like the med example you linked) and keep the good parts(NASA when it had a coherent vision)? That is the question.</p>

<p>And the minimum wage debate is a classic, and your point of view should be true. But Smith's invisible hand is not always possible. With the costs of moving and sustaining life people can become trapped in economically unfavorable situations. People cannot not work, so they must work below what the minimum would be in a vaccuum. That ignores the collusion of our robber barons, and monopolies which also create the need for such legislation. You have professed doubt in the efficiency of government (and who hasn't), so the government's job is to prevent trusts, monopolies, and collusion in order to maintain the many producer market needed for effective capitalism. They cannot and do not react effectively enough, so they create laws like a minimum wage to fill in for their inability to effectively prosecute all such cases.</p>

<p>Burma cannot simply raise the minimum wage due to the fact that their economy itself is the problem, not trusts and collusion. If you raise it too high, you get the situation that you refer to, a price floor that creates a shortage in the supply of jobs.</p>

<p>And I do apologize for the lack of precision in these arguments, I am not extensively schooled in economics, so I am limited by readily available examples, rather than models of economists closer to my viewpoint.</p>

39

<p>Ah, I see your point know. </p>

<p>Alright, so without getting philosophical of theoretical, I am going to try and sum this up:</p>

<p>Governments are institutions created by people to protect liberty. The notion of a license has several philosophical, moral, economic and practical problems:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>A license is a right to sell your product or service. Some consider licenses unconstitutional as they violate property rights. Economic freedom deals with an individuals ability to buy, sell and trade property in product and service in their quantities. The immediate implication of a license is that You can sell, but someone else cannot! Such a system tramples economic freedom and in its extremity is a feudalism. Philosophically, it asserts that Men are not equal before law. </p></li>
<li><p>Economic: I already mentioned these arguments before. They create an artificial scarcity, red tape, barrier to entry, consumer-producer surplus lost. Most monopolies or oligopolies are government granted - either through licenses or intellectual property rights. Now think about Smith's market information. People really misinterpret this. Worse, rarely anyone ever reads the Wealth of Nations. In Classical Economics, market information is information about price, product and quantity. These three fundamentals of information guide and direct a free market mechanism. In the contemporary sense, industry information is mostly composed of regulatory papers, filing and procedures. Most of it is tax forms, registration forms, regulatory approvals, adherence to codes. (I'll talk about the dangers of these in a minute). This creates a market of brokers, analysts and consultants who ease the pain for you at a price. So you're right when you say that information isn't flowing freely, but we're talking about two different kinds of information and two different diseases. (Princeton Review, Kaplan, CC all are part of this information gap capitalization)</p></li>
<li><p>Practical: Licenses are wrong in theory and have devastating effects in practice. The first problem is, how does the government know who to give a license to? Now, in the utopian world, they would conduct thorough research and give out licenses to the right people, correct? But even in this utopia, there's ample waste. Taxpayers like you and me would pay the government to conduct long surveys and then create these licenses- even worse, tax us more for creating agencies to enforce them. And all this for what? When I have something you want and I can sell it to you. Its not a middle man, its a middle army.
In the real world, this leads to lobbying, corruption and shady practices. The system has an in built incentive for existing business and government to collude and safeguard their interests. So the taxi drivers in New York can form a lobby group and keep the licenses regime. However, the consumers or potential producers of a taxi service have not realized their loss and therefore don't collude. At the highest levels, licenses and sub contracts corrupt our political system because we allow our economic freedom to trampled for special interest. </p></li>
<li><p>Property Rights: License systems undermine property rights. If I own property and I sell it to you, then you own that property for a monetary transaction at a mutually agreeable price. Right? Not quite with license systems. Because the government rules only certain producers legitimate and the rest illegal, the property a licensed producer sells to me isn't mine any longer since I'm limited in my use of it. (this same argument can be extended for flat tax..)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Alright ****, I have to go..I have class. I promise to come back and finish this. I'll address minimum wage and anti trust.</p>

<p>Nice talking to you.</p>

40

<p>This is fun for me. I assume the rest of you are CMC students and I am getting a taste of the dialogue that takes place in your classes. I can see why I am spending the big bucks for my daughter's education, because I would have to do some further research before I could participate in any meaningful way in most of this, they are definitely training you how to construct an argument.</p>

<p>I do think however, that the market has been behind the curve on replacing oil as our primary fuel, whether or not supplies remain. Sometimes something is still profitable in the short term, when its continued use will be disasterous to the long term health of the economy. Scientists pretty much universally agree that global warming or man made climate change is real. CO2 levels are higher than they have been in tens of thousands of years. Even if this is only probably true, which I think even George W is now willing to concede, prudence dictates that we find other fuels. The planet is a very big chip to be gambling in the market. But oil is still profitable and people like Dick Cheney have manipulated their Science hating Evangelical constituencies and free market ideologues like Santino, to believe that none of this is real. NOW the markets are finally beginning to respond in a minimal way-however whatever we do now will only mitigate the impact of global climate change. Will the markets respond in time? It's difficult to say, but we are playing roulette with our children's-ie you guys-futures. I think I'll be dead when Wall Street is under water. Santino-you will not be. Devastation of natural systems as we see in sub saharan Africa make for poor economic conditions, even though it is profitable in the short term to extract and run.</p>

<p>One theory about the root cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the total deforestation of Italy and all the colonies. The cedars of Lebanon that we read about in the bible where gone 2000 years ago for example. No trees = no fuel, no masts and spars for the Roman fleet etc. If not the main cause it was certainly a contributing factor. So-I am concerned that while the market may be able to respond nimbly to short term conditions of the moment, it is not structured to account for long term prudence, and prudence is a virtue we can't survive without.</p>