<p>Leave the political debate alone. Argue it elsewhere.</p>
<p>@BigEast
I meant financially-uneducated families. I misinterpreted your post.</p>
<p>The problem is still the same: the current system still ranks schools on their college-enrollment. Unless the college system changes, the hs one won’t.</p>
<p>The intellectually honest libertarians (UChicago economists e.g. come to mind) look at the economic collapse of this decade and the gulf disaster and realize that their ideology is deeply flawed. Even Bernanke, Paulson, and Greenspan had to look into camera and pretty much say “*** was I thinking ?” Too bad their voices are drowned out by tea baggers. ` Eric</p>
<hr>
<p>Let’s avoid politics, because there is plenty of blame to go around.</p>
<p>For example, one of the major causes of the current economic collapse stemmed from the liberal agenda to force mortgage companies into providing loans to low-income, unqualified applicants. This was done out of pure ideological means, because “everyone is entitled to own a home”, apparently even those who can’t afford one.</p>
<p>If you are going to put fingers, you might want to point them at Barney Frank, AKA Bawny Fwank and Christopher Dodd.</p>
<p>The scary thing is that those two bozos still have influence.</p>
<p>@pandem. I don’t think you can leave out politics in a debate about education. At least not if you want to be honest about it.</p>
<p>Arguing over the housing financial crisis has nothing to do with technical education.</p>
<p>Actually, the connection is this:</p>
<p>Universities won’t change voluntarily;
Governments could make them change;
To do so would be for the government to interfere in the free market;
Some things are best not left to the free market.</p>
<p>So it is related, if tangentially. I would argue that an understanding that sometimes things aren’t best left to their own devices is pertinent to the discussion, given the arguments of many that LA programs are going away by themselves. Why not force them to stay around?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Let’s avoid politics. By the way, neener neener neener liberals suck.”</p>
<p>Riiiight…</p>
<p>And by the way, nobody seemed to be arguing about the financial housing collapse… it was merely mentioned by EricLG. If anybody argued about it politically, it was BIGeastBEAST in the post quoted above.</p>
<p>…and this has degenerated into a mindless political debate. </p>
<p>Have fun, folks.</p>
<p>I meant financially-uneducated families. I misinterpreted your post.</p>
<p>The problem is still the same: the current system still ranks schools on their college-enrollment. Unless the college system changes, the hs one won’t. ~ Pandem</p>
<hr>
<p>Well a Voucher program would require the funds to be used for education purposes only, so it’s not like families without financial acumen could really screw it up. Worst case scenario is that they would make a bad choice and essentially send their child to the school they are already attending.</p>
<p>Think of it as a pre-paid debt gift card that can only be used on a school. It would be the same money that is typically given directly to the school district, but diverted to the parents. </p>
<p>I mean afterall, it IS THEIR MONEY! lol, I don’t know about you, but I pay a good deal in property taxes that support my local school system. So if the school in my system is broken, why should I be forced to send my child there? I’d much rather get that money back in the form of a voucher and send my child to a school that provides a better education.</p>
<p>Sure, you have the private school option, but as we know that isn’t a financial possibility for many families. So families really get pigeoned holed into accepting a system that provides no options.</p>
<p>Would it cause some schools to close? Yes, probably - but that is happening now. Shrinking tax bases are forcing school districts to merge and families can’t afford to send their kids to private/Catholic schools and enrollment has dramatically dropped, forcing them to close their doors also.</p>
<p>A prime example is in your (our) own backyard. St. Simon and Jude Church on Greentree Road is closing it’s doors next year due to drop in enrollment,this scenario is repeatedly seen year in year out across the country. Parents, just don’t have the dollars to pay for 12 years of private schooling anymore. Plus, those parents are already paying property taxes for the public schools that their kids aren’t attending, so they get effed twice over.</p>
<p>“I don’t think you can leave out politics in a debate about education. At least not if you want to be honest about it.”</p>
<p>Right, particularly in regards to LA education. Society subsidizes intellectualism if it wants progress at a rate faster than the middle ages.</p>
<p>BeB, take a gander at the relative amounts of government mandated subsidy of house ownership for the ‘poor’, vs the private, unregulated, unsupported derivatives market and then tell me with a straight face which caused the world-wide credit bubble. Use that poliSci LA training you received to think, rather than regurgitate a right wing blog. – last post on this topic.</p>
<p>Pandem: lol. Nobody is arguing politics. Please, feel free to go, but don’t pretend you have any sort of high ground.</p>
<p>
I think your complaint is not really so different from an English major who wishes their school offered more courses on Chinese literature. It ultimately comes down to the university’s supply of faculty vs. the demand for different courses from students. You know your needs better than any of us, but what do you think of [this</a> plan of study](<a href=“http://www.math.umn.edu/undergrad/degree_requirements/#comp_appl]this”>http://www.math.umn.edu/undergrad/degree_requirements/#comp_appl)?
You either have something to offer them or you don’t. There’s nothing wrong either way, but they have no obligation to hire you.
That sounds like a fairly wasteful approach with lots of duplicated effort. The university infrastructure is capable of supporting many types of courses.
</li>
<li>There are a number of arguments in favor of having a diverse variety of people mingling on a college campus. Your stratification eliminates this possibility.</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li>While AMT may have valid complaints about the CS program at his school, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a program that combines both vocational and academic skills. It gives more depth to the industry-bound grad and some marketable skills if things go sour for the academic.</li>
</ol>
<p>“Actually, Eric took the first shot with his Tea Party comment, so shove it.”</p>
<ul>
<li>I didn’t get the impression he wanted to debate politics, and in any event, if you were serious about not debating it you could have refrained from playing his game.</li>
</ul>
<p>I didn’t get the impression he wanted to debate politics, and in any event, if you were serious about not debating it you could have refrained from playing his game. ~ AuburnMath Tuor</p>
<hr>
<p>No, he didn’t want to debate, he just wanted to take a smug shot. I guess you think that is somehow better.</p>
<p>Hahaha…</p>
<p>Philosophy and English (some form) and political science and history have existed for thousands of years. Economics, psychology, and sociology may be younger but are just as permanent. You will not be getting rid of them because you think THOSE FIELDS are responsible for our nation’s shortcomings in math and science - or because you think our nation, the United States, needs greater military might.</p>
<p>You might be more qualified to make that statement if you took courses in how international relations work, or the US Department of Defense and the US military. I’ve taken numerous. But you’ll just check out those books at the library, right?</p>
<p>“While AMT may have valid complaints about the CS program at his school”
<p>“No, he didn’t want to debate, he just wanted to take a smug shot. I guess you think that is somehow better.”
<p>A friend of mine is a photographer in Australia. Their student loan system makes a lot more sense to me. The state pays for education, then the student pays it back as a deduction directly from their paycheck. There is no need to mess with deferments or forbearances or worry about if they are going to have a job in 6 months. If they are working they are paying it back, if not they aren’t. Since she majored in the arts she is only required to pay back a percentage of the loan (I don’t recall the exact percent). AFAIK these are interest free loans, so it is handled by the state, not the banking system.</p>
<p>“I think your complaint is not really so different from an English major who wishes their school offered more courses on Chinese literature. It ultimately comes down to the university’s supply of faculty vs. the demand for different courses from students. You know your needs better than any of us, but what do you think of this plan of study?”
<p>“You either have something to offer them or you don’t. There’s nothing wrong either way, but they have no obligation to hire you.”
<p>“That sounds like a fairly wasteful approach with lots of duplicated effort. The university infrastructure is capable of supporting many types of courses.”
<p>“I don’t see anything inherently wrong with a program that combines both vocational and academic skills. It gives more depth to the industry-bound grad and some marketable skills if things go sour for the academic.”
<p>Hahaha…</p>
<p>Philosophy and English (some form) and political science and history have existed for thousands of years. Economics, psychology, and sociology may be younger but are just as permanent. You will not be getting rid of them because you think THOSE FIELDS are responsible for our nation’s shortcomings in math and science - or because you think our nation, the United States, needs greater military might.</p>
<p>You might be more qualified to make that statement if you took courses in how international relations work, or the US Department of Defense and the US military. I’ve taken numerous. But you’ll just check out those books at the library, right? ~ Peter Parker</p>
<hr>
<p>First, no one here is getting rid of any of those programs, however they ARE getting rid of themselves. As posted multiple times (incuding the article I posted) LA programs are waning, and many schools are terminating some LA majors due to them being a cost center. Many LA schools are closing entirely.</p>
<p>Secondly, taking a course about the DoD or IR doesn’t teach you squat. I was Poli Sci major with IR concentration, now I perform the actual job - not in a classroom, but in the real world. So I can say, with great expertise the differences between classroom and reality.</p>
<p>You can throw everything you learned in your courses, because 99% won’t apply on the job.</p>