College Debt, Speech,....

This was meant to be a serious debate topic, an attempt to get some insight from others. General board is over there, if you've no comment on the letter. Thanks ;)
 
So reading this, the 1st thing that caught my attention was that the problem isn't really about academic excellence it's the fact that there is a declining market for their services. They are looking for ways to get more kids thinking college is for them.

The 2nd thing is that from Perdue's perspective, there is a problem with the product coming out of high school. Not ready to go to college. That to me seems like an indictment of the K-12 education system and instead of working with the state and local school boards to fix it for everyone, the idea is to hand select some people for extra attention so they could qualify to attend.

Appealing to recent graduates to pay it forward is interesting, but you have to wonder if they'll feel the same way when they can't afford a home or car and how long it will last on a voluntary basis. Some of it has merit, but as some others have mentioned eventually you're going to have to get to pricing class hours on a variable basis to account for the relative value of the class with regard to job prospects and income potential. Whatever that happens to be, you've got to get the cost of a social degree down to $40K or so and $80K for engineering. Of course that sets up paying professors and instructors different amounts based on the relative vale of their degrees.
 
eastisbest said:
In my defense, I wrote "SOME MIGHT say...." I think an individual would have to look up the definition of purpose of a land grant university and decide for themselves, socialist or not or to what degree.
Click to expand...

The purpose of Land Grant colleges was to educate students in the agricultural and mechanical arts, research agriculture and basically provide info to help farmers. Students had to pay tuition. Unless you consider science a socialist movement, not sure what the socialism aspect is. Increasing productivity and knowledge in the practical arts isn't exactly a socialist concern, more of a conservative one , especially in the time frame when the Land Grant schools were formed. Social engineering through education is a relatively recent development.
Education in the US "jumped the shark" when all the 60' draft dodgers started to get positions of power in the educational system. There used to be more of a balance between schools of thought and you were alllowed to express it without threat of violence.
 
Termite2

What did you think about the part, reducing the number of years for a Liberal Arts degree from 4 to 3?

Termite2 said:
The purpose of Land Grant colleges was to educate students in the agricultural and mechanical arts, research agriculture and basically provide info to help farmers. Students had to pay tuition. Unless you consider science a socialist movement, not sure what the socialism aspect is. Increasing productivity and knowledge in the practical arts isn't exactly a socialist concern, more of a conservative one , especially in the time frame when the Land Grant schools were formed. Social engineering through education is a relatively recent development.
Education in the US "jumped the shark" when all the 60' draft dodgers started to get positions of power in the educational system. There used to be more of a balance between schools of thought and you were alllowed to express it without threat of violence.
Click to expand...
Of course that definition is archaic. Land grants are not restricted to those vocations nor even to be public but the intent was, who they "serve."

The part I thought some might see as "socialist" (see SWMCinci's response) and that you left out, Land Grants as Daniels has defined them (or as I interpeted his definition) targets a certain demographic.

They're or at least Purdue is not by design, best in first. They're meant to "serve the people."

Termite2 said:
Social engineering through education is a relatively recent development.
Click to expand...

Not remotely recent according to my history books but not a discussion meant for this thread either.

Termite2 said:
Education in the US "jumped the shark" when all the 60' draft dodgers started to get positions of power in the educational system. There used to be more of a balance between schools of thought and you were alllowed to express it without threat of violence.
Click to expand...

Is that supported or some belief of yours? I think there have been extremely liberal thought in University way before Vietnam. I might be of the same opinion the war exasperated but also would have no support for the statement. My EXPERIENCE is that the MORE radical thought comes from those Profs that actually went through the war, not those that "dodged" it.
 
SWMCinci said:
Appealing to recent graduates to pay it forward is interesting, but you have to wonder if they'll feel the same way when they can't afford a home or car and how long it will last on a voluntary basis.
Click to expand...

My thought too. Should there be a different interpretation of the program as it's coming from a public University? Though from Purdue's operating expense, the funds for the program are technically public no? I like the idea of the program, I really do but if I'm to dissect it objectively, isn't this a "government" loan?

You mention the idea of varialbe costs/credit. Have the effectually addressed that with the 3 year liberal arts degree? Essentially the degree is costing 3/4ths what is used to, no?

SWMCinci said:
So reading this, the 1st thing that caught my attention was that the problem isn't really about academic excellence it's the fact that there is a declining market for their services. They are looking for ways to get more kids thinking college is for them..
Click to expand...

Not "their" services per se. They restricted enrollment and tuition (and surprisingly dorm rates) has been frozen since 2012 up to 2018.

The Stanford Prof was refering to the "business" in general. I suspect the Stanfords and the Purdue's of the world will be the survivors. I think he explained how. By focusing on incubating business. Note the number of business start-ups and patents. This part I thought VERY consistent with his conservative background with the exception, isn't this government competing against private interest?

SWMCinci said:
The 2nd thing is that from Perdue's perspective, there is a problem with the product coming out of high school. Not ready to go to college. That to me seems like an indictment of the K-12 education system and instead of working with the state and local school boards to fix it for everyone, the idea is to hand select some people for extra attention so they could qualify to attend.
Click to expand...

Not the product in general. He mentions minorities and first generation. You say they are not working "with" the K-12 system but the article does mention, on their nickle they are working with Indianapolis by opening a school to address that issue with the intent that if successful, it will be expanded to other parts of the state.

Does that not address your concerns? Or does this fall into "social engineering? The school is open to anyone in the Indianapolis district but was purposefully physically located in a lower income, high minority region.


SWMCinci said:
Appealing to recent graduates to pay it forward is interesting, but you have to wonder if they'll feel the same way when they can't afford a home or car and how long it will last on a voluntary basis.
Click to expand...

My thought too. Should there be a different interpretation of the program as it's coming from a public University? Though from Purdue's operating expense, the funds for the program are technically public no? I like the idea of the program, I really do but if I'm to dissect it objectively, isn't this a "government" loan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top