An amazing quote.

[Tallman]

Pat and Drake,

Yes Pat I do know that there are limitations set by the colleges, but my question is concerning government regulation? Am I to assume by your answers that you believe that the government should regulate what field each kid should go into if the government is funding their education?

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I think it would probably work out more as a selection process of those students who excel in whatever field the govt. may deem beneficial to the country's interests. Now, who decides what is in the country's best interest . . . .

My point is we should encourage those who are capable, not so much tell them what they should be studying. If they want to study something, they can obviously find other ways to pay for their education.

 

[patandchickens]

Personally I don't see any major reason for gov't quotas. I am certainly not "in favor of" them.

But OTOH I also don't see that it would be the total end of the world if there *were*. Honestly. Aside from it being another little step away from free-market regulation if you consider that an important virtue, I truly do not see that it would have any meaningful bad consequences that don't already happen anyhow.

I am not actually sure where this whole bit about quotas comes in, in the first place. I thought that DrakeMaiden was just talking about ensuring that the brightest students in whatever field could afford to continue their studies. How does that translate to government regulated quotas??

Confused,

Pat

 

[Big Daddy]

would we want to try the same thing, while throwing in $200k for tatoo removal for gang members? Or $1.8m to study swine odor in Iowa. No brainer there hogs stink when they poop as do chickens, as do cattle, as do humans!! Oh boy what is this world(country) coming to?

Have you actually seen those items in the bill with your own eyes? If you haven't you shouldn't put them on her. If you have give a link to where others can see the bill and the lines you are talking about. Sounds like something Rush created to rile people up. Only believe 10% of what you hear on AM radio or any media for that matter. That 10% is the call letters for the station.

 

[Big Daddy]

I feel that high schools should have 3 different curriculum's. College bound, general education, trades oriented. If a kid goes the college route and keeps above a 3.5 or so and gets a good score on his ACT then the state should pay for his or her tuition. Continued tuition would of course be based upon grades. The student would pay for housing or live with his parents. Tuition would be cut off if GPA dropped. Tuition for that semester would be owed back to the govt. Some of the more developed countries in the world do this right now. Currently you have to come from a wealthy family or get a lot of student loans or take the 10 year route to get a bachelors degree. That's not really right. Tuition for the segment specified would probably be under a billion dollars a year. By today's standards that's not much when the govt is involved.

Training a student that is not inclined towards school work is also a worthwhile investment. many of those students drop out before graduating. Some of the trades pay well and would help society. We need to drop the me 1st mentality. That is why our nation is having such a hard time. Too many me 1st people out there. If you help our neighbor {thats figurative by he way) You help yourself.

 

[Tallman]

Personally I don't see any major reason for gov't quotas. I am certainly not "in favor of" them.

But OTOH I also don't see that it would be the total end of the world if there *were*. Honestly. Aside from it being another little step away from free-market regulation if you consider that an important virtue, I truly do not see that it would have any meaningful bad consequences that don't already happen anyhow.

I am not actually sure where this whole bit about quotas comes in, in the first place. I thought that DrakeMaiden was just talking about ensuring that the brightest students in whatever field could afford to continue their studies. How does that translate to government regulated quotas??

Confused,

Pat

Here is the way I see it. When the government doles out money, they want a say so as to how it is used, and in all practicality it should be that way. Just look at the last fiasco with the TARP money.

Many people seem to think that the government will just help or pay completely for a kids college, but the kid would continue to have total freedom to enter whatever field he or she would like to study. From my perspective, I would say that the government would control and regulate the field that the kid would be required to study if that kid was taking government money. If people do not see such regulation as a problem, then there is no problem. I for one just see it as another loss of freedom for both the kid and the taxpayer. The kids loose the freedom to choose their field of study, and the taxpayer would be funding college kids who might be pursuing an education in an area that they, the taxpayer, do not agree with. In any case, that's the way it always has been for the taxpayer. We have all had to watch the government "invest" in things that we don't agree with while we pay the bill. An example would be war. There are many taxpayers who have had to help fund wars that they as taxpayers were totally against. So it goes with government.

On the other side of the issue, with government funding, we would have the bright kids assured of a college degree who would not have had the chance otherwise.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

To add to what Big Daddy said . . . those students that drop out before graduating high school tend to be the ones that drag down the common denominator for what is learned in high school. If they are trained in something that interests them more, then the teachers would be freed up to focus on the students that are more likely to graduate and continue their education. Again, JMO.

Tallman -- I don't think it is so much a loss of freedom for the student, so much as if you want X you will have to play by Y rules. If you don't want to do Y, find your own way to get X.

 

[Tallman]

To add to what Big Daddy said . . . those students that drop out before graduating high school tend to be the ones that drag down the common denominator for what is learned in high school. If they are trained in something that interests them more, then the teachers would be freed up to focus on the students that are more likely to graduate and continue their education. Again, JMO.

Tallman -- I don't think it is so much a loss of freedom for the student, so much as if you want X you will have to play by Y rules. If you don't want to do Y, find your own way to get X.

And while I am finding my own way to get to X, I still have to pay for Y.

 

[reinbeau]

I have found closed minds in both the highly educated and in the high school graduate - I actually find it offensive to use that as a dividing line (there is little that offends me, but this does - as I have no degree, yet am somehow capable of following politics, business and real life pretty well). I know many intelligent people who haven't a wisp of common sense, and some 'non educated' types who I would love to see running things. Especially lately

IQ's don't impress me. Intelligence combined with common sense and a logical train of thought does.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I said there were exceptions on both sides.

High school doesn't teach a lot of critical thinking skills. That doesn't mean people aren't capable of learning them on their own or through their life experiences. Some will, others won't.

I'm mostly just expressing frustration with certain people I've dealt with lately in my real life who will not listen to another side or point of view that differs from their own. It is exasperating and does not lead to good decision making.