The Cellar - The Obamanation

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Obamanation (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19310)

In the past 30 years, proprietary schools have increased...I don't know, tenfold? In most cases, very high tuition and credits that will never transfer.

Private schools have always been expensive. Community Colleges have always been cheaper. 4 year state schools have always fallen somewhere in the middle.

But beware of the latest Clown College, who will gladly take all your money, give you a subpar Clown education, and you won't be able to go on to your Clown Bachelors or Clown Masters without starting all over.

The proprietary schools will survive (Phoenix, etc) because they advertise.

(small print in ads: "Credits are not usually transferable")
(ads should read: "Credits are not usefully transferable")

Their target audience is the unhappy-employed and jobless.
But this audience doesn't realize they probably will never
earn enough to pay back their loans.

Proprietary schools should not be eligible for governmental student loans.

AGREED! WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I think it's only recently those disclaimers have been there at all. I hear of commissions for enrollment which relies heavily on pushing loans so students can afford the tuition (forget any extra living expense money for transportation etc) and there have been all kinds of uncoverings of less than ethical practices...which really pisses me off because I am nothing if not ethical.

Ugh, but I better shut it. I don't need the NEXT CORPORATIONS TO GREED UP EVERYTHING jumping bad on me.

Agreed. The useless schools with useless degrees have found their niche as Lamp said.

The rest are still getting crazy. At least around here.
Note that the Comm College costs is based upon living and eating at home.

That brings me to the next insanity --- Books! They come to over $400 a freakin semester.
And when you sell them back - IF IF IF - they take them, you get about 25 cents on the dollar.
Many classes are only accepting new books. Its another racket of its own.

No doubt. And community colleges have stepped up to the plate, offering programs like PSEOP, and offering easily transferable associates degrees, modules, to defray costs before the student goes on to get their bachelor's at a 4 year.

There will always be players, but I think higher ed administrators have an obligation to the taxpayers to not just discourage and root out the players, but to NOT KNOWINGLY DANGLE FAKE CARROTS in the players' faces.

I have zero respect for anyone who does otherwise. I will not be working at Clown College.

Is it possible that part of the rise in college costs is the fact that everyone is expected to go to college now, even when they are not really suited for it, or they are getting a completely useless degree?

They'll charge whatever the market will bear.
The reality that more kid are going only adds to that. Additionally with all the loans the the gov't offers, it makes it easier to raise costs while at the same time people don't feel it till after the fact. Then you end up with so many kids who have degrees (See Clod's point) that the degree's value is vastly diminished. No prob - get a master's or a PhD... more debt .... Then reality hits as the bills come due.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 770564)

Wss ^

I find this really interesting. This is a real problem in the Uk now. Not in terms of rising college costs, though they are a factor for a different set of reasons, but but in terms of forcing large swathes of youngsters down a university route who could once have entered the field as apprentices or trainees with only college level (pre-bachelors), or school leaver level qualifications.

The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.

All the polytechnics became new universities, and all the colleges started investigating degree confirment relationships with universities, to increase access for hard to reach communities. Loads of new degree courses sprang up. Degrees in things that were once taught through doing the job alongside experienced colleagues.

A-level courses (pre-degree) began to reflect the new degree options, as pathways to those degrees were needed. Kids taking so-called 'soft' courses at this level would find when they came to university applications, that they were disadvantaged for all but the technical, or career specific degrees that those a-levels were designed to fill. Last couple of years universities have started being a bit more vocal about schools making pupils aware of this when they come to choose their subject paths.

The rush for everybody to go to university, meant a corresponding rush for everybody to get the right pre-degree qualifications, which upped the entry level expectations for starter level jobs generally.

Getting a-levels at the age of 17/18 used to mean something in the workplace. Many lower management or supervisory jobs required a couple of a-levels and a couple of years in-house experience. Goodluck getting anything like that now without having a bachelors degree under your belt.

And not just a bachelors either. With so many people getting degrees there are way more first class degrees around now. A Second Class degree used to be a respectable achievement. Even a 2:2 set you apart from the mainstream. Now a 1st class degree is pretty much expected for entry into a lot of professional fields.

The pressure on young people to follow an academic, or pseudo-academic route is tremendous. The current massive hike in fees may well stall that.

Quote:

The last government had the brilliant idea of trying to tackle social inequality by channelling more people into university. Great. Sounds a good idea, in theory, that increasing educational opportunity for the lower economic communities in particular might assist in tackling generational poverty and lack of expectations. But then they got silly about it. They made their target that 50% of young adults would go to university. Fifty fucking per cent.

We have 68.1% and they're rioting in the streets over inequality. Meanwhile an HVAC guy came out here beginning of the summer, diagnosed and replaced a fan in an hour, and it cost $600.

Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be lawyers
Don't let 'em get papers and duh-grees and such
Make em get plumbing tools, drive an old truck

I believe there were four critical factors that pushed the US down that road:
"Sputnik"and "Civil Rights" and "Viet Nam" and "Cancer"

Before the 60's and after WW II, the G.I. Bill made college accessible for all veterans.
With very exceptions this remains true even now.

Sputnik put an enormous amount of government $ into college and university systems
Not just for engineers, but for all the sciences and general education.

Before Civil Rights, the US had a long history of educational segregation.
The HBCU's were the only institutions available for most
black students.... all the most so for poor, black students.
Opening all colleges and universities set off the ugly debates
about "quotas" and "reverse discrimination" and "un-qualified"
students that continues to this day.

Viet Nam deferments and percent of non-whites "in country" were matters of life and death.

Cancer, like sputnik, changed the entire structure of government-funded research,
primarily in medical sciences (NIH), but for most other granting agencies and foundations.

The sum of these four is that the better (non-MacD) jobs now require paper credentials.
Unfortunately, the 4-yr and graduate degree have less meaning as evidence of learning.
They are the union-card necessary (but not sufficient) to get past the employer's receptionist.

The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup

Quote:

Yesterday, the White House announced Daley’s departure — Daley will now co-chair Obama’s re-election campaign, which basically means raising huge amounts of money from his Wall Street friends — and unveiled his replacement as Chief of Staff: Jacob Lew. In 2010, Lew became head of the Office of Management and Budget when Peter Orszag left and then, a couple months later, accepted a multi-million dollar position as a high-level Citigroup official. Lew has spent many years in various government positions, but he has his own substantial ties to Citigroup. Here is what Lew was doing in 2008 at the time the financial crisis exploded, as detailed by an excellent Huffington Post report from last year:

[Lew] oversaw a Citigroup unit that profited off the housing collapse and financial crisis by investing in a hedge fund king who correctly predicted the eventual subprime meltdown and now finds himself involved in the center of the U.S. government’s fraud case against Goldman Sachs. . . .

[i]t is his few years at Citi — in particular the one year he spent at its then-$54 billion proprietary trading, hedge fund and private equity unit — that’s likely to raise the most eyebrows in the coming weeks as Lew faces a Senate confirmation hearing.

Especially his unit’s investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market to collapse — a reality suffered by millions of American homeowners.

In particular, the Citigroup fund run by Lew, Citi’s Alternative Investments, invested heavily in the hedge fund of John Paulson, “who made billions off the deterioration of the housing industry by making bearish bets on securities tied to home mortgages — particularly subprime home mortgages.” One of Paulson’s largest bets at the time involved Goldman Sachs, which the SEC has now charged with “defrauding investors by creating and selling exotic securities tied to subprime home mortgages in 2007 without disclosing that they were handpicked by a hedge fund [Paulson] that was betting on them to fail.”

Link

Is this the change you were looking for?

And "you" is ??? ,,,,,,,,,,,, Maybe it's Eric Cantor

The Huffington Post
Luke Johnson
Posted: 1/9/12

Jack Lew Biography: Meet The New White House Chief Of Staff

Quote:

As the White House's budget director, Lew has received
praise for working with Republicans, even from one of Obama's harshest critics.

"No one was more prepared and more in tune with the numbers than Jack Lew,"
said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a 2010 Politico profile
during the height of the debt ceiling fight last summer.

"He was always very polite and respectful in his tone and
someone who I can tell is very committed to his principles.'"

you = Lamplighter or any other poster.
Do you have any thoughts on the actual post, the article or who he's chosen or would you prefer to just turn it onto the other team?

My first (and only) reaction so far is that Obama still thinks he can negotiate with Cantor and that crowd. :sniff:
Of course we both know that's not going to happen... til after 2012 ;).

I actually have no opinion on Jacob Lew... never even heard of him before this appointment.
But apparently the ChiefofStaff is a close, personal working arrangement,
so as far as I'm concerned Obama, and any President, can have whoever he wants.
The "whoever" serves "at the pleasure of" so it's not like a judge, etc.

I think his post did answer it.