Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 29

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

2010-11-03 18:12:44

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

what the fuck does population figures and growth have to do with tuition fees?

not producing what you can't pay for? right so you're saying high tuition fees are a form of population control now?

sorry but some of the things you americans say is flat fucking retarded. when i said i "valued your opinion" i didn't mean i wanted to hear some controversial, eugenic bullshit from a glen beck mouthpiece.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:13:47

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7104

Uzique wrote:
what the fuck does population figures and growth have to do with tuition fees?

not producing what you can't pay for? right so you're saying high tuition fees are a form of population control now?

sorry but some of the things you americans say is flat fucking retarded. when i said i "valued your opinion" i didn't mean i wanted to hear some controversial, eugenic bullshit from a glen beck mouthpiece.

money wise apply for fasfa for need base. most of the time you can get it.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-11-03 18:13:49

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7120|St. Andrews / Oslo

JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
With higher fees it'll just take longer to pay off. What's the problem?
That. Is the problem. It's yet more debt to pay off, adding another £24k to it is hardly an inconsequential increase.
60k at 100 a month would only take 50 years to pay off. Provided no interest would be added. It's not just the cost that bothers me, it's the fact that the Lib Dems were voted for by a huge body of students, almost purely for the fact they promised to abolish tuition fees.

As for not working hard enough, I missed out on an A by 1% in all 3 subjects. I would have been given a place at my chosen university had one of those grades been an A, my backup choice was ABB and said they would have normally accepted me had it not been for the larger number of applicants that year (due to the threat of increased tuition fees).
Clearly you should be blaming your parents for not saving any money for your school rather than the state.

Why should you be reliant on your parents getting you an education?

What if your parents just don't care? Tough luck?

You can say 'you get what you pay for' or whatever, but imo the best students should get to go to the best schools - it's only logical to me. I know you get chills at the pure thought of taxes and government-spending ( ), but to me state-funded education is important not only because education is vital to society, but because it's done at an age where the amount of money you have is generally dependent on your parents. I don't like the thought of our best professors being 'taken' by those with the most money, while our best young minds can't afford to get a great education.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2010-11-03 18:14:00

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
not producing what you can't pay for? right so you're saying high tuition fees are a form of population control now?

Ideally, yes. I'm not a eugenicist. I'm a misanthrope. There's a big difference.

2010-11-03 18:17:36

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Uzique wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
If you are good enough to get accepted to Harvard, make sure your parents make less than $100K. You'll then most likely get a full or almost full ride.
the point is that it's so fucking arbitrary to determine a young student's opportunities and capacity because of parental income. a young person with a lot of drive, ambition and will to work/learn should not be impeded simply because of the family or circumstance they were born into; education should be about rewarding merit and potential with easy accessibility to higher levels of research and tuition. anything that obstructs that is a violation of that universal right.

Life isn't fair. I'm not about to let the US Uni system become socialist. My parents worked hard, I work hard, so I can give my kids the best opportunity I can afford. So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no. As it stands right now, I have to save several six figures to send my kids to a top IVY league school, while mister blue-collar with six kids can send them all to Harvard for practically next to nothing. Fuck that.

2010-11-03 18:18:33

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Uzique wrote:
what the fuck does population figures and growth have to do with tuition fees?

not producing what you can't pay for? right so you're saying high tuition fees are a form of population control now?

sorry but some of the things you americans say is flat fucking retarded. when i said i "valued your opinion" i didn't mean i wanted to hear some controversial, eugenic bullshit from a glen beck mouthpiece.

For low income families, the more kids you have, the more government benefits you get...

2010-11-03 18:20:14

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7120|St. Andrews / Oslo

Ilocano wrote:
So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no.

Why not?

Because his parents weren't as good as your son's parents? Fuck. that. Why should that boy suffer for his parents' actions?

2010-11-03 18:20:44

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

Jenspm wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:

That. Is the problem. It's yet more debt to pay off, adding another £24k to it is hardly an inconsequential increase.
60k at 100 a month would only take 50 years to pay off. Provided no interest would be added. It's not just the cost that bothers me, it's the fact that the Lib Dems were voted for by a huge body of students, almost purely for the fact they promised to abolish tuition fees.

As for not working hard enough, I missed out on an A by 1% in all 3 subjects. I would have been given a place at my chosen university had one of those grades been an A, my backup choice was ABB and said they would have normally accepted me had it not been for the larger number of applicants that year (due to the threat of increased tuition fees).
Clearly you should be blaming your parents for not saving any money for your school rather than the state.
Why should you be reliant on your parents getting you an education?

What if your parents just don't care? Tough luck?

You can say 'you get what you pay for' or whatever, but imo the best students should get to go to the best schools - it's only logical to me. I know you get chills at the pure thought of taxes and government-spending ( ), but to me state-funded education is important not only because education is vital to society, but because it's done at an age where the amount of money you have is generally dependent on your parents. I don't like the thought of our best professors being 'taken' by those with the most money, while our best young minds can't afford to get a great education.

If your parents don't care you're more than likely fucked and a complete drain on society anyway. Kids learn from their parents and if the parents don't respect education you surely shouldn't expect the kids to turn out differently.

And the best students do get into college regardless of the cost. The best students earn scholarships.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-03 18:22:19

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

Jenspm wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no.
Why not?

Because his parents weren't as good as your son's parents? Fuck. that. Why should that boy suffer for his parents' actions?

So how about we put all children in government sponsored boarding homes from after their birth up until they become an adult? Let's level the playing field. Equal education, equal clothing, equal food. We'll even regulate the number of hugs given to each child daily.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-03 18:22:38)

2010-11-03 18:22:23

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

Turquoise wrote:
Uzique wrote:
not producing what you can't pay for? right so you're saying high tuition fees are a form of population control now?
Ideally, yes. I'm not a eugenicist. I'm a misanthrope. There's a big difference.

you're a fucking moron all the same so your controversial fox news opinions mean diddly-squat to me.

just don't post if your best argument for tuition fees is "just don't have children".

just don't procreate either because you may not be able to afford the health-care necessary for the intensive care of an ill baby?

sure is a shame your parents were rich enough to spawn you and give you the preserved luxury of an 'education'

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:24:45

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

Ilocano wrote:
Uzique wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
If you are good enough to get accepted to Harvard, make sure your parents make less than $100K. You'll then most likely get a full or almost full ride.
the point is that it's so fucking arbitrary to determine a young student's opportunities and capacity because of parental income. a young person with a lot of drive, ambition and will to work/learn should not be impeded simply because of the family or circumstance they were born into; education should be about rewarding merit and potential with easy accessibility to higher levels of research and tuition. anything that obstructs that is a violation of that universal right.
Life isn't fair. I'm not about to let the US Uni system become socialist. My parents worked hard, I work hard, so I can give my kids the best opportunity I can afford. So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no. As it stands right now, I have to save several six figures to send my kids to a top IVY league school, while mister blue-collar with six kids can send them all to Harvard for practically next to nothing. Fuck that.

you really believe the idealism that simply 'working hard' results in financial and economic results?

okay, a married couple who are both world-leading academics decide to start a family (they're humans as much as entrepreneurs are).

using a modest tenure-salary, they have to raise 2 children and educate them.

they've worked hard all of their lives, excelled in their field to the point of global recognition... but they can't afford top schools

they 'deserve it'? load of fucking nonsense.

HARDER WORK =/= BIGGER SALARY

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:27:37

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Jenspm wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no.
Why not?

Because his parents weren't as good as your son's parents? Fuck. that. Why should that boy suffer for his parents' actions?

John, above. Scholarships.

But to your questions. OK, I won't work hard anymore to save for their college education. I'll just fund private tutors and the like so they can maximize their chances to get into Uni. I'll let the government handle the tuition. Cool. Yeah, let's all do that.

Our Uni system is price structured. Goes from community college, state colleges, UC (Cali), and private. All but private are partly funded by the government. Ability to get into the various ones depends on ability to pay plus various merit/need financial aid. Works for me.

2010-11-03 18:28:31

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
you're a fucking moron all the same so your controversial fox news opinions mean diddly-squat to me.

Weazel News, not Fox.

Uzique wrote:
just don't post if your best argument for tuition fees is "just don't have children".

just don't procreate either because you may not be able to afford the health-care necessary for the intensive care of an ill baby?

sure is a shame your parents were rich enough to spawn you and give you the preserved luxury of an 'education'

I'm doing the world a favor by not having kids. Feel free to interpret that however you like, but I really would appreciate it if more of the world would return the favor.

2010-11-03 18:32:09

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Uzique wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
Uzique wrote:
the point is that it's so fucking arbitrary to determine a young student's opportunities and capacity because of parental income. a young person with a lot of drive, ambition and will to work/learn should not be impeded simply because of the family or circumstance they were born into; education should be about rewarding merit and potential with easy accessibility to higher levels of research and tuition. anything that obstructs that is a violation of that universal right.
Life isn't fair. I'm not about to let the US Uni system become socialist. My parents worked hard, I work hard, so I can give my kids the best opportunity I can afford. So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no. As it stands right now, I have to save several six figures to send my kids to a top IVY league school, while mister blue-collar with six kids can send them all to Harvard for practically next to nothing. Fuck that.
you really believe the idealism that simply 'working hard' results in financial and economic results?

okay, a married couple who are both world-leading academics decide to start a family (they're humans as much as entrepreneurs are).

using a modest tenure-salary, they have to raise 2 children and educate them.

they've worked hard all of their lives, excelled in their field to the point of global recognition... but they can't afford top schools

they 'deserve it'? load of fucking nonsense.

HARDER WORK =/= BIGGER SALARY

I don't mean hard work like working the fields all your life. Hard work as meaning maximizing income/savings to the best of your abilities. Getting that job/income revenue that will generate income to the level of Uni you hope your kids could get accepted to. Along with foregoing that extra vacation, the nicer car, that bigger house, so you can put more money towards your kids college education.

BTW, for those tenures, the kids would get a free ride at their Uni. I could get a job at USC or Cal-Tech, for example, and in a few years, my kids would have free tuition there. But then, I'd be making less than I make now.

2010-11-03 18:37:13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
Uzique wrote:

the point is that it's so fucking arbitrary to determine a young student's opportunities and capacity because of parental income. a young person with a lot of drive, ambition and will to work/learn should not be impeded simply because of the family or circumstance they were born into; education should be about rewarding merit and potential with easy accessibility to higher levels of research and tuition. anything that obstructs that is a violation of that universal right.
Life isn't fair. I'm not about to let the US Uni system become socialist. My parents worked hard, I work hard, so I can give my kids the best opportunity I can afford. So, by your standards, another kid from another family who's parents and grandparents did not work as hard as I did, but has the same academic drive and capability as my son, should have the same opportunity as my son? Hell no. As it stands right now, I have to save several six figures to send my kids to a top IVY league school, while mister blue-collar with six kids can send them all to Harvard for practically next to nothing. Fuck that.
you really believe the idealism that simply 'working hard' results in financial and economic results?

okay, a married couple who are both world-leading academics decide to start a family (they're humans as much as entrepreneurs are).

using a modest tenure-salary, they have to raise 2 children and educate them.

they've worked hard all of their lives, excelled in their field to the point of global recognition... but they can't afford top schools

they 'deserve it'? load of fucking nonsense.

HARDER WORK =/= BIGGER SALARY

They can save $4k a year and put their kids through college. It's really not that hard. If they can't afford the $4k a year they shouldn't have kids.

2010-11-03 18:38:55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

Ilocano wrote:
I don't mean hard work like working the fields all your life. Hard work as meaning maximizing income/savings to the best of your abilities. Getting that job/income revenue that will generate income to the level of Uni you hope your kids could get accepted to. Along with foregoing that extra vacation, the nicer car, that bigger house, so you can put more money towards your kids college education.

This makes too much damn sense.

2010-11-03 18:39:34

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7120|St. Andrews / Oslo

I'd hate to live in a society where the goal was to achieve the "maximum income/savings to the best of my abilities"..

As for your previous point: yes, I'd much rather see people spend money on tutors for their kids instead of placing them in a university they might not belong in..

2010-11-03 18:40:25

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.

john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:41:00

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Jenspm wrote:
I'd hate to live in a society where the goal was to achieve the "maximum income/savings to the best of my abilities"...

That doesn't sound so bad to me. Ambition is a good thing.

2010-11-03 18:43:28

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.

I think it's reasonable to encourage poor people to breed less.

2010-11-03 18:43:31

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

Ilocano wrote:
BTW, for those tenures, the kids would get a free ride at their Uni. I could get a job at USC or Cal-Tech, for example, and in a few years, my kids would have free tuition there. But then, I'd be making less than I make now.

i think you're really missing the goddamn point.

some people don't make the pursuit of money/profit their sole life ambition. some people live for other things, that are just as worthy as aspiring to the next fucking tax bracket. these people, too, are also humans and also want the same, basic liberal rights for their own children. and it IS a basic, liberal right of every free person in a democracy to be entitled to education: it's an absolute foundation-stone of civilization. suggesting that somebody who, for whatever reason, doesn't earn much money but is STILL an earnest and hard worker, 'deserves' the lack of educational opportunity is... madness to me. there's more to life than wanting to make a shit load of money to bungle your kid off to the designer-handbag equivalent of a private university.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:44:09

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

Turquoise wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
I'd hate to live in a society where the goal was to achieve the "maximum income/savings to the best of my abilities"...
That doesn't sound so bad to me. Ambition is a good thing.

there is more to 'human ambition' than a middle-management job selling lightbulbs for $75k/year you narrowminded yank

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-11-03 18:44:31

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|7055

Uzique wrote:
i think you're being extremely unrealistic if you think that 'average' families that can't afford to educate 2-3 children are only in that predicament because they are frivolous with their luxuries. i think it's a convenient marginalisation of a social injustice that you apply so that you can ignore or dismiss the iniquities of the price-structured education system; the reason the joneses down the road can't send their 3 kids to private school isn't because they want a BMW for each day of the week. with some examples, certainly yes, but that is almost definitely not the rule. i'm not a parent myself but i would think it's reasonable to assume that a strong emotional priority would lie in providing for one's children, rather than pursuing material benefits of a holiday in the alps or a bigger television for the living room.

john i really resent your attitude about "being a drain on society, anyway". what you are basically advocating is the progressive stratification of society along socio-economic boundaries; you're giving a big thumbs up to 'class war' and the 'wealth gap', essentially. we've had that in england for the last 100 years and, trust me, it's not as fun as you think. cultural, social and political ideologies develop a power hegemony if you let structures like that exist; put simply, if wealth, education and privilege are kept to one group, that group are pretty quickly going to develop a stranglehold on the entire direction of the state/nation. cumulatively, this denies the possibility of 'democracy', and the whole structure fails. even the social assumption that uneducated, intellectually uninterested, blue-collar parents "won't care" for their children's own education is fucking LUDICROUS. insane. i know many friends that have parents that did not graduate or ever attend higher-education, and they are earnestly supporting their own children on their individual choices and aspirations. stop chatting shit to make things convenient.

Come to Cali. I'll show you families living in the projects, six kids, but both mom and dad are driving Cadillac Escalades.

Regarding your second paragraph, the States are funny about opportunity and the like. The amount of Hispanic Republican congressman just now is a good example. I'd wager the UK doesn't have the same degree of opportunity. Landed wealth will always dominate.

2010-11-03 18:45:07

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6793|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
I'd hate to live in a society where the goal was to achieve the "maximum income/savings to the best of my abilities"...
That doesn't sound so bad to me. Ambition is a good thing.
there is more to 'human ambition' than a middle-management job selling lightbulbs for $75k/year you narrowminded yank

Yes, there is. But unfortunately, some people are literally only good for that.

2010-11-03 18:45:12

#100

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7120|St. Andrews / Oslo

Turquoise wrote:
Jenspm wrote:
I'd hate to live in a society where the goal was to achieve the "maximum income/savings to the best of my abilities"...
That doesn't sound so bad to me. Ambition is a good thing.

Ambition is in no way limited to income.. Hell, it's quite a way down on my list.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 29

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Tuition Fees - Standardised? Privatised?

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Board footer