That's exceptional, America!
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
That's exceptional, America!
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that America's solution to competing in the global economy is to make it harder and harder for people -- especially regular middle-class folk -- to attend college:
What do you get when college costs skyrocket but incomes barely budge? Yet another blow to the middle class.
"As the out-of-pocket costs of a college education go up faster than incomes, it's pricing low and medium income families out of a college education," said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of financial aid sites FinAid.org and FastWeb.com.
The numbers confirm what most middle class families already know -- college is becoming so expensive, it's starting to hold them back.
Over the last 20 years, the story notes, tuition and fees and public universities have risen by 130 percent. Middle class incomes have essentially not risen at all. You don't need a Ph.D. in math to grasp the significance. So this is the part where somebody steps in to solve the problem, right?
Right.
Financial aid: Meanwhile, the amount of federal aid available to individual students has also failed to keep up. Since 1992, the maximum available through government-subsidized student loans has remained at $23,000 for a four-year degree.
"There does seem to be this growing disparity between income and the cost of higher education," said Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "At the same time, there's been a fundamental shift, moving away from public subsidization, to individuals bearing more of the cost of higher education."
Of course, now we're realizing that it would cost billions of dollars to re-train undereducated American workers for the jobs that might actiually exist -- money that we don't have. Kind of like how we do things here in Pennsylvania, where we slash money for schools but make sure we fund the prisons where poorly educated kids end up.
If you're looking the balance in this country between what government does and doesn't do, the two things that always struck me as way out of whack are health care and higher education, both of which are seen as more of a basic right in most other industrialized nations. How can we say that everyone in America is entitled to education through 12th grade, and then we stop them four unaffordable years short of the educational level that's needed for so many critical jobs? Would we fund a police department that only patrols 75 percent of the city? Or course not. So why have we turned college into a playground for the kids of our oligarchs, with the middle class watching on the other side of the fence?
Comments (116)
Of course he didn't do those things, msl. That would be dismantling the "Reagan Revolution", and as I said, we would clearly "be complaining about conditions" that would be much worse had that revolution not occured. See....it's easy to make those kinds of statements, isn't it. I mean, as we've been told repeatedly, even though the promise of the stimulus to lower unemployment below 8% hasn't happened, imagine how bad it would have been without the stimulus.— legatus- It's a fair debate, either way, and if you're taking a stand on one issue, it doesn't mean you have to necessarily agree with another. I may suppose the stimulus didn't go far enough, without inconsistency in my belief the Reagan revolution went too far. I wouldn't hold you to your perceived inconsistency, as long as your reasoning was consistent and true to facts.
- Yes, Legatus, Obama's raised your taxes back to 1980, reversed Homeland Security and defense spending, put the noose back on Wall Street, and bragged about increasing heating oil assistance for the poor and sticking the bill on the rich. Obama didn't get Osama, either.
- "Except we're now complaining about conditions that have developed since the Reagan Revolution, are we not?" Well, imagine how bad it would've been without the Reagan policies then! (Hmmmm....where have I heard that line of reasoning before? Oh, that's right..."the economy/unemployment would be worse without the Obama policies".)— legatus
- JFK also cut taxes. Bush Sr and Clinton raised them. Regardless, the government continues to spend more than it takes in. Friedmans second point is right, Volcker who was appointed by Carter, raised rates to lower inflation, causing a temporary recession. Not sure of Reagans regulatory record, but am sure that we have more regulations now than then, and the agencies budgets have also increased.— RG
- Why not mention the taxes lowered on capital gains, RG? No? Wold you seriously advocate a return to tax rates before Reagan, incl a top rate of 70%? As for regulations, if you're counting federal register pages, imagine all the trees cut down to print the regulations needed to repeal or weaken the old ones, not o metion the tax code. Then consider the new regulations needed to implement the changed priorities of government since the Reagan insurrection - e.g., our defense build-up and modernization, the War on Drugs and other moral hazards, by God, Homeland Security, welfare and public housing reform, etc. So don't give me quantity. Give me quality.
- Knocking down strawmen again, MSL?— RG
- Just killing time, RG. Still haven't gotten an answer to whether we the People need a nation anymore.
- Reagan also raised taxes to protect SS. Why no mention of JFKs tax cuts? Regulatipns have not decreased. The Federal Register has grown and so has enforcement agencies budgets. Strong defense was around before Reagan, he didnt get us involved in Korea or Vietnam.— RG
- Not from Milton Friedman in 2004: "President Reagan had extraordinary success in changing the course of non-defense spending. The trend before Reagan is one of galloping socialism. Had it continued, federal non-defense spending would be more than half again what it is now. Reagan brought the gallop to a literal standstill. He did so in three ways:
• First, by slashing tax rates and so cutting Congress’s allowance.
• Second, by being willing to take a severe recession to end inflation.
• Third, and in some ways the least recognized, by attacking government regulations." - Poverty and mlrtality rates arent the sole control of government. Think medical breakthroughs and economic conditions. Its also hard for statists to brag about poverty rates while simultaneously complaining about the declining middle class and income inequality. As for literacy rates, I doubt we're much better off. The schools just graduate the problems to the next grade. Cant complain about outdated education models while also bragging about government education, MSL.— RG
- "Think medical breakthroughs and economic conditions." . . How'd all that happen under the heel of Big Gubmint? Neither one of us can have it both ways, eh RG? Except we're now complaining about conditions that have developed since the Reagan Revolution, are we not? Lower taxes, less government regulation, trickle down, privatization, welfare reform, strong defense, yada yada. Coincidence?
- "Theyre just now realizing government cant hold up their end of the bargain." . . . . .It's human nature, RG. But if they want literacy rates, mortality rates, and poverty rates like ther grandfolks remember from before the New Deal, they can always vote Republican. It's still their choice.
- You're right David, I dont give a rats rear about you.— RG
- Perhaps I should have said the nasty election of Andrew Jackson was a middle class revolution, a bit closer to the truth, the first real sign of a burgeoning class war between the gentry and a growing bourgeosie, but then who sold it out?
- People gave up the responsibility of educating their kids, the responsibility to save for old age, the responsibility to research what they buy or invest in. These were transferred to government, and now people complaon that their kids are dumb, that they are broke, and that corporations run things. Congrats on outsourcing responsibility. Someone once said smething about trading freedom for security. People wanted protection from their own bad choices. Theyre just now realizing government cant hold up their end of the bargain.— RG
- msl, rg and the rest of the clueless right wingers do not know what they believe but regurgitate talking points from radical Ayn Rand influenced think tanks. They do not care about America, only themselves, elitist tight wing wackos. Now, I have no time today as I am in the last leg of my Phillies Marathon, 4 games in 48 hours, it is brutal on me and I am only watching.— DavidAG
- RG, perhaps we're wrongly assuming we the People had anything to sell,trade, or give away in the first place. I was chastised by some righties here, not too long ago, about claiming that the Revolution in 1776 was a middle-class revolution. Oh no, they said, it was the blessing of the rich, the landed gentry, and wat middle class? T rest of us were mere peasants, eating the crumbs of those Randish heros. So, isn't it then a question of who was doing the selling and who was doing the buying?
- When people expect the government to take care of them, and grant it the powers to do so, they shouldnt be surprised when those powers are than exploited by the highest bidder.— RG
- Yeah government can protect people from human,nature. Government was not bought from day one. It was a slow process as government expanded. That why lobnying has continued to increase,.the more,laws DC writes, the mote lobbyists show up to get their share. Stop writing laws, stop lobbyist influence.— RG
- "Government grew because people wanted to be protected and insulated from any potential risk." . . . . Oh my, you do have a sense of human nature after all. Now, let's try it this way - Government grew because capital wanted to be protected and insulated from any potental risk, the biggest one being the People and their human nature. No?
- Wall Street just figured out how to rig the game, they bought government after government had expanded well beyond its needed size." . . . . Well, if I can't blame Rand for your naivete, who do I blame? The politics of "size" of government is parochially just a question of allocation between the states and central goverment, the latter's strength being exactly what capital needed from the founding of this country, as you know, what with the spectre of local mob rule and all that. It's been thusly "owned" from day one. So, do we still need a nation or what?
- Government grew because people wanted to be protected and insulated from any potential risk. Now people are shocked that the firms who the gov regulates have captured gov, and those negative effects arent preventable.— RG
- Ive never read Ayn Rand, so you can stop blaming a long deceased writer for our ills. Wall Street just figured out how to rig the game, they bought government after government had expanded well beyond its needed size. Who would want to buy a limited government when you can buy a large one whose reach extends into nearly everything?— RG
- Obama gets to ignore the War Powers Act because apparenly our bombing of Libya doesnt qualify as "hostilities". Way to push that imperial presidency even further then Bush.— RG
- RG, Wall Street buys and sells our government as so much common stock on the big board, but let's not quibble. You're obviously stuck in some Ayn Rand fantasy about the tyranny of the masses, the People being the problem not the solution, conceived when communism was a perverse reaction to a world beyond our shores that had yet to realize the enlightenment, stuck in the feudal concepts of man as chattel. But the fundamental question remains, do we need a nation today?
- Its also not the mob behind our current issues, its croynism and dishonesty at the government level.— RG
- Wall street has power because government has partnered with it. This is what happens when government expands its scope and power. Its also what happes when people abdicate responsibility to government and ask it to take care of them, instead of simply staying out of the way. The gov buys off the masses with some token entitlements in exchange for ever increasing power.— RG
- As llong as the people dont force their views on others, via mob rule, I'm fine with it. I think the gov can provide basic services,.police, courts, minimum safety nets. It should not attempt to direct the nation economically or educationally.— RG
- LOL, well, mob rule is what you can expect without gov, and you know that but can't seemto admit it. And I guess I'd prefer the views of the People over the views of Wall Street, but that's just me. It was the desire of our Founders to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. We've been there, done that. Now we find our posterity in the hands of global forces beyond our control, the "mob rule" that gives you nightmares. What's your defence?
- RG, seems to me that it would be better to cede power back to the People, and let them decide our national goals and how they should be executed. Time for a new national constitutional convention, imho. Thus, the question - do we need a nation at all?
- Doesnt seem like a great idea to cede a bunch of power to politicians so that they can run the country as they see fit, does it?— RG
- If states are impediments, then we certainly dont need a national, one size fits all model for education.— RG
- Bird, instead we get liberals and conservatives fighting over an economy that no longer exists. Consider Rick Perry's thinking that restoring states rights is the solution, when the free markets have done far more than any federal program to create a nationally integrated, unitary economy, rendering states irrelevant, if not impediments, to competitive global commerce.
- "Is there any reason for that other than the failure of our school systems to prepare students for life in the working world?" . . . . Birdie, its a failure of leadership at all levels, is it not? We need a national economic vision wiling to accept that the manufacturing sector is dying a natural death, that IT is the future, and that children need preparation from the moment they can talk developing analytical and communication skills. We're wasting education resources on second-wave schools designed to make children conform to traditional factory demands, for what?
atkins the only thing I can type is please, just keep posting. It's important for readers to understand the mind of the quintessential conservative: overtly racist,
Now there's a laugh remind me who was it on this blog not so long ago quoted the mantra of Aryan Nation and the KKK that 'in their eyes mixed race children are an abomination' ? and yet Bill is racist ?.— PAEnglish
Comment removed.- Markets are closed, Murray. Go get your broom.— A Friend
- Don't know why this didn't post the first time but has anybody noticed the inverse relationship of Murrayman to TPS post.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "You're right. Let them foreign students learn all that high-falootin' technology and stuff. Who needs it to flip their burgers?"
MSL did you see the story I posted about President Obama announcing a plan with Community Colleges to introduce a certification for manufacturing jobs. The idea is that the students would be certified to provide businesses a base of workers to replace the 55+ workers who will be retiring from the manufacturing industry.
My thought is that it is doubtful that many of those retiring have any post HS education yet we somehow need to replace them with people who do. Is there any reason for that other than the failure of our school systems to prepare students for life in the working world? Like I said when I originally posted it - these students now have to go into debt to pay for Community College when 30 years ago the certification they are getting was the equivalent of going to a VOTECH HS.— bird11 - Murray my man, really, enough with the "this is what I learned in college" comments. It's meaningless blather and adds nothing to your posts.— m13sully
- Oh my -- like I stated before it's like arguing with a child. I realize I've said I know people without finance degrees. They still have degrees. They were allowed an interview because they had degrees. But that's reality. Back to your 'the way it ought to be' world - At the point four years removed from HS, it appears that the education received by the college graduate prepares them to be more suited toward being better employees. Sure there are exceptions (Lewie Ranieri!), but overall -- pfffft - no I won't offer proof, other than reality. atkins I have the sneaking suspicion that you are again and that at some point have been on some sort of entitlement, disability, program.— Murrayman
- Comment removed.
- Murray, your misquoting is disturbing. You left out "specialized". And it wasnt one anecdote. You yourself mentioning knowing people in the industry who don't have finance degrees. This evidence stands to reason that specialized knowledge obtained through college is not necessary to enter the field.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Brendan, the AFT has a Higher Education and theres also the AAUP.
MSL, once again you assume technology requires 4 year degrees. I know computer programmers that only took a few specialized classes. But nice false analogy that no degree means flipping burgers.— RG - The gym reply was due to some sort of backhanded insult wherein yoga = feminine,etc. It's untrue. The grammar point was legit in context because truly, it was easy to flub what bp was stating, due to sentence structure. "Plenty of people in finance don't need degree" -- see there is where you're mistaken - no amount of evidence, anectdotal or otherwise, were provided demonstrating this. It was one person, and their credentials are dubious until further notice. It's a terrible sample, and I can state this with confidence because I was trained in college to understand what a proper sample entails. No one suggest lib arts was 'necessary', merely, in demand. Put it this way, if your resume says Swarthmore, Middlebury, or Williams, you'll get an interview at the top money shops (for an entry level position).— Murrayman
- "Unfortunately, its become a mantra that college is absolutely necessary." . . . . You're right. Let them foreign students learn all that high-falootin' technology and stuff. Who needs it to flip their burgers?
- @save the republic: I didn't know that college professors were members of the teachers union. Oh, RIGHT: they're not. clown.— brendancalling
- I don't know if I need a college degree to make this analysis but has anybody noticed the number of Murrayman post is inversely related to the number of TPS post lately??— bird11
- Murray's been reduced to grammar flaming on a blog comments section, as well as bragging about his weightlifting. Pathetic and insecure.— RG
- Murray, I didnt demand anything. I questioned the status quo mantra that college is necessary for certain jobs and industries. Since anecdotal evidence has been provided that plenty of people in finance didnt need a specialized degree, I find it hard to believe that an unrelated liberal arts degree is somehow absolutely necessary. Why do employers require it? I think birds post comes closest to explaining the reason, the primary and secondary levels have failed. College has become a very expensive marker.— RG
- Oh I'm sorry, bp,phily, it was your awful sentence structure that threw me: "Although I do have a degree, it's not in finance OR business. There are plenty of people in all areas of finance without them." Gee how could I have possibly thought that 'them' was the non-finance degree referenced in the previous sentence? Anyway please, please, please, name some of the titles of these finance jobs? Collections? Back office stuff? bp you're in finance what method of calculating returns, between time and dollar-weighted, is preferred within the industry, and why? BTW I don't do yoga I throw around weight in the gym that would break you.— Murrayman
- Yeah there was nothing overt about the snide soda (grape and orange!) remark. Nope. Notice RG makes the assertion, separate from the way it actually is, and then demands the proof. Uh, the burden is on you. Vanguard requires a degree. Go ahead and tell us why not again? Sure the first argument was smacked down. One poster, 'in finance' suggested that a finance degree was not needed, not that a degree wasn't needed, which of course is your nonsense argument (either both in reality, or in the alternate reality).— Murrayman
- Comment removed.
- Race card! On top of that, Murray can define what a quintessential conservative is by making blanket, shallow statements.— RG
- Murray, I wasnt arguing over how it currently works, but rather why it has to work that way. Your oh so reasoned answer seems to be "because". This is after your first argument, that it requires special knowledge, was smacked down by other posters. You then moved onto the odd judgement argument.— RG
- atkins the only thing I can type is please, just keep posting. It's important for readers to understand the mind of the quintessential conservative: overtly racist, insulting to one's family (including dead mother, and incapable of making a reasoned argument (note: teacher salaries are responsible for tuition inflation, even though it was noted that INCOME is flat). I would love to see the study showing teacher salary being the cause of inflation (regardless of political affiliation even though atkins assumes ALL are democrat, which is untrue considering my Dean was Repub., actually a highly visible Repub).— Murrayman
- Comment removed.
- Heres what you should do. Get 100 applicants without degrees and have them apply for a position in finance. Or randomly select 100 finance/accounting positions and see how many require degrees. RG I don't bother defending my position with you - it's a losing proposition -- you are incapable of reason. "Why can't one learn judgment in the workforce again" - go ahead and put that in your app letter to Susquehanna or over to Turner. Apparently it is thought that the ability to show sound judgment is better learned in an institute offering advanced degrees when it comes to an industry like finance. "Do you have any proof" - lol - uh, my eyes tell me it is so. "teaches you judgment, and that is whats important over specialized knowledge" - like I said, there's no kidding you (obviously this is not my assertion as of course a good program does teach the very difficult specialized knowledge needed to perform a job in finance).— Murrayman
- You're failing to defend your assertion that a four year degree is necessary to analyze an investment. Now you appear to be claiming that college teaches you judgement, and that is whats important over specialized knowledge. Why cant one learn judgement in the workforce again? Is it necessary to pay so much tuition for it? Do you have any proof that good judgement is actually learned in college?— RG
- You know us cowardly, lying, two-faced liberals, RG.— Hamlet
- MSLs onto something. We need another world war so more people are eligible for the GI bill. As a plus, GDP will go up as gov spends on the war effort.— RG
- RG - nice! Now I'm backtracking? You stated a degree wasn't necessary, and I pounced. Now you're saying that I only stated a finance degree was needed to perform in that industry? No, no - I don't care how to tell you how a liberals arts degree 'teaches' one how to evaluate an investment. Instead, I'll leave you to research Hagstrom's "Investing: The Last Liberal Art". Essentially anyone can learn the mechanisms, etc (time vs dollar weighted returns, for ex.). But you need to do something with that information - you need to make judgment.— Murrayman
- Yet, you arent principled enough to put your money where your mouth is and move there, huh Hamlet? Instead you resort to lying. Telling.— RG
- Murray, care to tell us how a liberal arts degree teaches one how to evaluate an investment?— RG
- Don't have to, RG. Whenever I'm in Europe I tell everyone I'm from Canada.— Hamlet
- "So why have we turned college into a playground for the kids of our oligarchs, with the middle class watching on the other side of the fence?" . . . . . Now that's downright silly, Willy. First of all, college has always been a playground for the spawn of oligarchs since the days of papyrus scrolls and cuneiform. What equalized the playing field (yeah, pun intended) was the GI Bill after WW2. My father was able to launch a career as a cartoonist, thank you very much, next to the oligarchs at the Art Institute of Pgh, and he recalled to me once how he and his fellow GIs outvoted the pampered oligarch brats when they wanted the school to pay for fancy class rings. Anyway, the GI Bill was one of the pillars giving rise to the American middle class, along with GI home loans, etc. Maybe that era is over. America is dying a slow painful death, and in the grand scheme of things, that too may be part of the natural course of human history. The righties may be doing us all a favor by dismantling it, peice by piece. In the vacuum will arise a new democracy and a new dream.
- Murray's calling us simple folk stupid for not appreciating his brilliance. He may stomp his feet next. Note the backtracking, where he is now admitting plenty of people can be ssuccessful in the industry w/o a finance degree.— RG
- bp.philly clearly you're in finance because you are virtually illiterate. No one was suggesting that you need a finance degree to "be in" finance (whatever be in means). Would you care to expound on what you do? In fact, many quite capable analysts I know didn't have a finance degree (a high number of liberal arts degrees). Of course this goes to my point - higher education isn't merely about training in technical skills but rather accruing knowledge and the proper measure of judgment. The contention, again from the blighted thinking of RG, is that a degree isn't needed at all. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that atkins has no higher education whatsoever? RGs contention is that somehow the financial system would have not failed or would have been less likely to fail if those in finance, most with degrees, would have not had them? atkins you being embarassed by my intellect is a compliment. You are the definition of a dolt. tjm the answer is 'demand', pure and simple.— Murrayman
- Hamlets always so worried about what other countries think of him.— RG
- >>>>"Hey, spiral man. What is the unemployment in spanish, or polish? BTW, jobs are lost overseas due to bruising U.S. regulations and high corporate taxes." We SOOOOOO need better education in this country! That statement is a good example of why rest of the industrialized world thinks of Americans as ignoramuses! Ignorant cowboys with too much military power. Well, we keep this up and that’s all we’ll be. That dream of being the best country in the world will be a distant memory we tell our grandchildren. Yes, Johnny, we were really something once…— Hamlet
- But Will, WHY has the cost of attending college risen so drastically? Its more than doubled since i left school more than a decade ago.— tjm333126
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- The exploding cost of college starts once again with our sub-standard public school system and its inability to hold students accountable for basic math, reading, and science skills. The statement that a student isn't performing at his/her grade level should never be made because if a student can't perform at his/her grade level they should never get passed along to the next grade level.
Businesses know this so they don't want to hire high school graduates - a recent Philly.com story had about 25% of Community College students needing remedial math or reading. Businesses look for the college degree because they hope the colleges have weeded at the failures of the lower school levels. And colleges know this so they can charge students who are actually capable and want to be productive members of society inflated tuition fees because it is the only way they can get into the workforce.
Businesses need to know that a HS diploma represents a person who has achieved academic success and not just someone who showed up to sleep in class every day.
— bird11 - Comment removed.
- Hmmm, I wonder what the drivers are of increased cost of a college education. Let me take a wild guess. Health care costs. If we ignore the root cause and don't address it, we're all fooling ourselves. Health care costs is the number one issue making america less competative but Republicans have no plan to address it.— MikeP
- Comment removed.
- Finance aint exactly dealing with rocket fuel or war. Youre the one who claimed that a degree was necessary to analyze investments. Apparently, the geniuses who ran their firms into insolvency via leverage didnt learn too much.— RG
- You know there have several space shuttle disasters perhaps aerospace engineering degrees are not needed to work in NASA? There have been numerous military disasters in US history perhaps West Point is not needed? Strangely it was Philosophy of the Mind class where I learned about the relationship between avarice and immolation.— Murrayman
- Hey murray how many finance degrees did it take to wreck the industry through overleveraged investments? Thank goodness they got those essential degrees.— RG
- "A four year degree is not needed for finance" -- in fantasy land. "If you know math and receive "some" on the job training, you can work in finance" - lol. Right now I'm hearing "Don't Get 2 Close 2 My Fantasy" in my head. Some thought to quote Judge Smales(?) on here. I'll quote Thornton Mellon: "Yeah, tell that to the bank".— Murrayman
- Instead of trying to find solutions, we should just keep trying to find someone to blame. It's way more effective... apparently.— Pearz36
- A four year degree is not needed for finance. How many finance students are now learning that their investment in the degree wont pay off. If you know math and receive some on the job training, you can work in finance. Its the learned idiots running around claiming the stimulus investment paid off.— RG
- Finance = no degree needed. That's one of your best yest, RG. We don't need to evaluate an investment we'll just surmise whether it'll payoff and when, if at all. Let me guess - you didn't actually find data on this you intuned it? Actually the govt. loan program accelerates aggregate demand where otherwise, students would not be able to afford it. As a result there is a bulge in higher education, where the top schools can inflate any time they want without much recourse, where the middling schools are continually scrounging, and the lower tiered schools remain affordable. Anyway if you or your kid gets into a top school you beg, barter, borrow, and steal to get them to attend and graduate.— Murrayman
- Agree with RG. How many useless marketing, communications, etc degrees are needed in the world? Fact is, middle class is falling apart because our standard of living (two cars, ipods, plasma tvs, 300 cable channels, etc etc) exceeds what blue collar middle class jobs can pay. They love our old manufacturing jobs overseans because they dont think everyone, no matter the job is entitled to all the things we have grown to think are common place in America. Really we should be sending more student to trade schools and the like. College degrees are for fields such as hard sciences, teaching, etc... What does a business degree mean? If someone doesnt go to college but takes over the family business after working in it for years do they have less accumen than someone how got a degree in generic "business"? Assuming everyone is entitled to and should get a four year degree is crazy.— Greg S
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Archie, you're leaving out the UK, France, and Italy as countries struggling with UE. And you may want to check immigration laws and labor flexibility in the Nordic countries. They allow very little immihration and have little employment regulation. Also, it appears Germany's been fonancing its export model by having their banks buy sovereign debt from the PIIGS. Itll be interesting to see how that plays out.— RG
- So if income is not rising and college costs are, where will the gubmint get the money to further subsidize college except taking it from those who income is not rising through higher taxes? Ohh...., THE RICH! THE RICH! Typical libz.— savetherepublic
- I would bet a paycheck that most of the kids who end up in prison are products of government schools, especially government schools in urban liberal strongholds such as Philadelphia.— jmc
- Financial aid is the reason the cost of college attending college has gone up so dramatically. If a college knows it can charge a certain amount based on the loans available, why not charge it. The way to bring down the cost of college is to limit the loan amounts. The loans are impacting the market price.— Captain Terrific
- Hey, spiral man. What is the unemployment in spanish, or polish? BTW, jobs are lost overseas due to bruising U.S. regulations and high corporate taxes.— philly2flag
- None of this makes any difference as long as we have a huge supply of shovel-ready projects. Oh, hahahahahaha.— philly2flag
And people like Archie who keep comparing the U.S to clown countries like Sweeden and the Netherlands are hopeless. Just move there if it's so great.
The world needs ditch diggers, too.- "Over the last 20 years, the story notes, tuition and fees and public universities have risen by 130 percent."
Gee, I expect Harry Reid and Dick Turbin, uh, I mean Durban to hold hearings and haul up all the presidents of "Big College" for highly televised hearings and demand why they are so greedy so the poor chilluns can't go attend their favorite schoolie school.— blackhawk90 - Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too— DuncanIdaho
- You also may want to challenge the assumption that the current economy requires college degrees or four years of higher education. Do engineers, doctors, and other super specialized, knowledge intensive professions require degrees? Probably. Do finance, computer programming, retail, marketing, manufacturing, etc? Probably not. A few classes in that field and/or training, would most likely suffice. Unfortunately, its become a mantra that college is absolutely necessary.— RG
- Two college campuses that I drive by frequently West Chester and Lincoln U always have construction going on, is all that really necessary?— TKL008
- Comment removed.
- Not even close Bloaty. Do you always make these "facts" up?
Try facilities and administration at the top, then security. A university with 75% of tuition costs for faculty??? Only in your teabaKKKing dreams. When are you going to get a clue?— Les Ismore - Here's a thought, how about colleges lower the cost.— TKL008
- Don't be silly. That would impinge on those in the teachers unions. Can't do that. What's wrong with you? — savetherepublic
- Comment removed.
- "that always struck me as way out of whack are health care and higher education, both of which are seen as more of a basic right in most other industrialized nations." Are jobs flowing to these other nations? In other words, have their investments paid off? Last time I heard, we lost manufacturing jobs to countries that paid less, not more.— RG
- Unemployment in German is 6.3% and only 4.2% in the Netherlands. The GDP is growing by 5.5% in Sweden. It is true that Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland are hurting (mostly because of stupid financial policies), but the rest of "socialist" Europe is doing as well or better than the U.S. on health and the results of higher education. We are not LOSING manufacturing jobs--our own corporations are throwing them away, or at least throwing them outside our borders.
- All donations for the "Archie Relocation Fund" to move him to Europeland can be called into 1-800-328-7448
- Just another way to concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few by keeping middle class and poor kids from being able to attend the best schools.
And of course the big finance folks who brought you plastic legal loansharking love it when they can get their hooks into folks early.
Also makes for a compliant herd of sheeple for a labor pool, helping depress wages because folks in that kind of debt will put up with anything to protect their jobs.
Oh yeah, it's all the public sector unions' fault.— Mr. Baseball - "Just another way to concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few by keeping middle class and poor kids from being able to attend the best schools."
What an inane post. Why don't you ask "Big College" why thier tuition has increased 130%?
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: