CDZ The Self Serving Mythology of Elite Universities

[jwoodie]

Why is it that we give such credibility to the students/faculty/alumni of "elite" universities such as Ivy League schools and UC Berkeley? Don't we understand that they are in the same business of self-promotion as the Kardashians? At most, these universities can claim the top 1% or 10% of high school students they admit are still in the same 1% or 10% when they graduate. Is this such a great accomplishment?

In reality grades, activities and ethnicity play determining roles in who is admitted. Grades are largely determined by dedicated memorization and desire to please one's instructor. Activities are often arranged by parents for the purpose of resume building, not social responsibility. Ethnicity is applied in the same way as a disability. Does this selection process really produce the best and the brightest?

The fact is that these individuals generally do best within organizations where credentials and pedigrees are most valued. Outside of this world, intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are the true ingredients of success.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why is it that we give such credibility to the students/faculty/alumni of "elite" universities such as Ivy League schools and UC Berkeley? Don't we understand that they are in the same business of self-promotion as the Kardashians? At most, these universities can claim the top 1% or 10% of high school students they admit are still in the same 1% or 10% when they graduate. Is this such a great accomplishment?

In reality grades, activities and ethnicity play determining roles in who is admitted. Grades are largely determined by dedicated memorization and desire to please one's instructor. Activities are often arranged by parents for the purpose of resume building, not social responsibility. Ethnicity is applied in the same way as a disability. Does this selection process really produce the best and the brightest?

The fact is that these individuals generally do best within organizations where credentials and pedigrees are most valued. Outside of this world, intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are the true ingredients of success.

Red:
The credibility given, regardless of how it's marketed or (mis) perceived by many folks, because by admitting only the top X% of applicants, the instructors at highly competitive schools can teach to a higher level. Simply put, it's a matter of standards and expectations. The instructors at highly regarded institutions can boost the standards and demand more sophistication of students for several reasons:

• The students in the class can reasonably be assumed to have fully mastered the critical thinking skills and methods associated with, say, AP level high school course work, and thereby set the bar higher for what counts as and "A," "B," and so on. That higher bar carries through all courses. Even the students who don't necessarily earn "As" will, nonetheless, have been exposed to a more complex and comprehensive body of thought, and they will eventually become able to use their broader and deeper perspectives in practical ways after graduating.
• The instructors can presume the students have a broader base of information learned, again raising the bar for the quality of idea generation and expression that can be expected of the students. For example, in an English composition class, a teacher might give a "B" because a student incorrectly used the conditional rather than subjunctive mood, or because their word choice carried an inappropriate connotation, or because they used the passive voice when the emphasis of the sentence should have been on the actor and not the action. At highly competitive schools, mechanical details like that may make the difference between an "A" and a "B," whereas at less competitive institutions, they are less likely to have so significant an impact.
• A school having more high performing applicants can teach at a faster pace. It may not need to do so, but with so many very bright and capable students, teaching at a faster pace separates the quick learners from the slower ones. If you've ever watches one of the competitive cooking shows, you've seen this principle in play. When the quality of "goods" delivered is super high from all contestants, the judges must resort to nitpicking to choose a winner. The same thing happens in schools. Quite frankly, it happens in the professional world as well.

Another thing that warrants the acclaim given to highly selective colleges and universities is somewhat intangible, but present all the same and there's a term for it: network. The fact is that the "world" of smart and highly successful people is relatively small. Like it or not, successful folks in a given discipline tend to remain so as their life goes on. They rise to the top of their field and it's all but inevitable that "so and so" will know "so and so" with whom one went to school. Truly, it even extends down to the high school level if one graduated from a very selective one.

The fact is that successful people tend to associate with other successful people. They also, just like folks who, for lack of a better term, are lower down the scale, tend to usher one another toward ever increasing opportunities for ever greater success. In this sense, birds of a feather really do flock together. Trite to say, but true.

Self Promotion:
University standings are important for attracting the most capable students. Mostly, IMO, however, universities claims about the quality of their education often has more to do with the potentiality of what a student can learn there than it does with what they actually learn.

I think, however, that the most important thing, from the institution's perspective, is the boost in revenue resulting from being highly rated, and I don't mean tuition revenue. I can plainly recall an undergraduate professor of mine who taught one class, but who had led numerous lucrative studies for governments and corporations. That he did generated huge sums of revenue, and it built his and the school's reputation for being among the premier experts and institutions for his field, and that led to ever more sources of research revenue. In scientific/technical disciplines, that research often leads to patents, which in turn generate vast streams of revenue.

The huge sums generated result in expanded facilities, more renown, etc. and one success begets others. Making potential partners aware of their record of demonstrated success.

Blue:
I'm not sure what your point is with this statement. What suggests to you that within academia, be it as magister or discipuli, "intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are [not] the true ingredients of success?" Those were the very qualities that allowed every successful person to be thus. Surely you don't think that pattern of behavior begins only after graduating?

 

[jwoodie]

Many "elite" law schools have lower percentile bar exam passage rates than LSAT scores. How do you explain that?

 

[Fishlore]

Why is it that we give such credibility to the students/faculty/alumni of "elite" universities such as Ivy League schools and UC Berkeley? Don't we understand that they are in the same business of self-promotion as the Kardashians? At most, these universities can claim the top 1% or 10% of high school students they admit are still in the same 1% or 10% when they graduate. Is this such a great accomplishment?

In reality grades, activities and ethnicity play determining roles in who is admitted. Grades are largely determined by dedicated memorization and desire to please one's instructor. Activities are often arranged by parents for the purpose of resume building, not social responsibility. Ethnicity is applied in the same way as a disability. Does this selection process really produce the best and the brightest?

The fact is that these individuals generally do best within organizations where credentials and pedigrees are most valued. Outside of this world, intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are the true ingredients of success.

Most universities are either sports centered or subsidized housing for published academic authors. Educating undergraduates is second priority. Nothing really wrong with that. Universities aren't high schools. College education is in large part peer-to-peer education. What makes elite university education so outstanding is the nature of the peer group.

Our elite colleges aren't where the problem lies. They are rolling in dough and can practice need free admission. If they want you, you're in. Financial details are worked out later. The problem is at the other end of the spectrum. Two-year college should be available tuition free for any qualifying high school graduate.

Many state universities have had state funding cut and tuition raised to the point that they are in effect private institutions. This is a very bad thing for our land grant universities which once played a driving role in social mobility. Federal subsidy should be used to allow every academically qualified applicant to enter.

Along with the government subsidy should go mandatory regulation to prevent "profscam" and money spent on non-academic frills and bennies.

 

[oldsoul]

Why is it that we give such credibility to the students/faculty/alumni of "elite" universities such as Ivy League schools and UC Berkeley? Don't we understand that they are in the same business of self-promotion as the Kardashians? At most, these universities can claim the top 1% or 10% of high school students they admit are still in the same 1% or 10% when they graduate. Is this such a great accomplishment?

In reality grades, activities and ethnicity play determining roles in who is admitted. Grades are largely determined by dedicated memorization and desire to please one's instructor. Activities are often arranged by parents for the purpose of resume building, not social responsibility. Ethnicity is applied in the same way as a disability. Does this selection process really produce the best and the brightest?

The fact is that these individuals generally do best within organizations where credentials and pedigrees are most valued. Outside of this world, intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are the true ingredients of success.

Most universities are either sports centered or subsidized housing for published academic authors. Educating undergraduates is second priority. Nothing really wrong with that. Universities aren't high schools. College education is in large part peer-to-peer education. What makes elite university education so outstanding is the nature of the peer group.

Our elite colleges aren't where the problem lies. They are rolling in dough and can practice need free admission. If they want you, you're in. Financial details are worked out later. The problem is at the other end of the spectrum. Two-year college should be available tuition free for any qualifying high school graduate.

Many state universities have had state funding cut and tuition raised to the point that they are in effect private institutions. This is a very bad thing for our land grant universities which once played a driving role in social mobility. Federal subsidy should be used to allow every academically qualified applicant to enter.

Along with the government subsidy should go mandatory regulation to prevent "profscam" and money spent on non-academic frills and bennies.

And who, pray tell, will pay for this "free" college you speak of? The "State"? That would be great, except for two "minor" points:

1. The "state" gets it's money from taxpayers, so, do raise taxes, or do we eliminate other entitlements? Either would be politcal suicide.
2. The states, and feds are doing such a bang-up job of educating our youth already...LOL Slipping scores across the board, huge drop-uot rates (especially for minorities and the poor), outdated books (because paying for faculty trips and "training" is more important), and the list goes on.

Federal subsidy should be used to allow every academically qualified applicant to enter.

And again, who will pay?

 

[Fishlore]

Why is it that we give such credibility to the students/faculty/alumni of "elite" universities such as Ivy League schools and UC Berkeley? Don't we understand that they are in the same business of self-promotion as the Kardashians? At most, these universities can claim the top 1% or 10% of high school students they admit are still in the same 1% or 10% when they graduate. Is this such a great accomplishment?

In reality grades, activities and ethnicity play determining roles in who is admitted. Grades are largely determined by dedicated memorization and desire to please one's instructor. Activities are often arranged by parents for the purpose of resume building, not social responsibility. Ethnicity is applied in the same way as a disability. Does this selection process really produce the best and the brightest?

The fact is that these individuals generally do best within organizations where credentials and pedigrees are most valued. Outside of this world, intelligence, ingenuity and perseverance are the true ingredients of success.

Most universities are either sports centered or subsidized housing for published academic authors. Educating undergraduates is second priority. Nothing really wrong with that. Universities aren't high schools. College education is in large part peer-to-peer education. What makes elite university education so outstanding is the nature of the peer group.

Our elite colleges aren't where the problem lies. They are rolling in dough and can practice need free admission. If they want you, you're in. Financial details are worked out later. The problem is at the other end of the spectrum. Two-year college should be available tuition free for any qualifying high school graduate.

Many state universities have had state funding cut and tuition raised to the point that they are in effect private institutions. This is a very bad thing for our land grant universities which once played a driving role in social mobility. Federal subsidy should be used to allow every academically qualified applicant to enter.

Along with the government subsidy should go mandatory regulation to prevent "profscam" and money spent on non-academic frills and bennies.

And who, pray tell, will pay for this "free" college you speak of? The "State"? That would be great, except for two "minor" points:

1. The "state" gets it's money from taxpayers, so, do raise taxes, or do we eliminate other entitlements? Either would be politcal suicide.
2. The states, and feds are doing such a bang-up job of educating our youth already...LOL Slipping scores across the board, huge drop-uot rates (especially for minorities and the poor), outdated books (because paying for faculty trips and "training" is more important), and the list goes on.

Federal subsidy should be used to allow every academically qualified applicant to enter.

And again, who will pay?

The estimated cost is 45 billion dollars a year, an amount easily raised by progressively taxing the income of wealthiest 1%. As our experience with the GI bill demonstrates, this cost will be more than recovered through the increased incomes and reduced dependency on jail and welfare of the student beneficiaries.

Your scorn for public K-12 education is an irrelevant trope. The government is not going to take over the colleges and universities, merely pay the tuition costs of students. Think of the idea charter schools for grades 13-16. Right wing quacks love charter schools -- problem solved.

 

[jwoodie]

"Tuition free education" is the pretext for forgiving student loans...for votes.

 

[oldsoul]

Your scorn for public K-12 education is an irrelevant trope. The government is not going to take over the colleges and universities, merely pay the tuition costs of students

And what will prevent the government from saying that they should have a voice in what is taught and how, since "they" are footing the bill? Any time government gets involved, even if just finacially, it turns into another entitlement program and boondoggle.

The estimated cost is 45 billion dollars a year, an amount easily raised by progressively taxing the income of wealthiest 1%

Because they are not paying their "fair share" already, right? Why is it that the left always wants the top 1% to pay for everything? What happened to people paying their own way? Student loans, Pell Grants, scholarships, ect. If a student, or their parents, have "skin in the game", they are far more likely to put forth the effort to do well and eventually contubute to society.

 

[Fishlore]

Your scorn for public K-12 education is an irrelevant trope. The government is not going to take over the colleges and universities, merely pay the tuition costs of students

And what will prevent the government from saying that they should have a voice in what is taught and how, since "they" are footing the bill? Any time government gets involved, even if just finacially, it turns into another entitlement program and boondoggle.

The estimated cost is 45 billion dollars a year, an amount easily raised by progressively taxing the income of wealthiest 1%

Because they are not paying their "fair share" already, right? Why is it that the left always wants the top 1% to pay for everything? What happened to people paying their own way? Student loans, Pell Grants, scholarships, ect. If a student, or their parents, have "skin in the game", they are far more likely to put forth the effort to do well and eventually contubute to society.

It is amusing to hear a rightie worried about government censorship of what what is taught in college as one of the right's favorite tropes is that college faculties are all Marxists whose instruction undermines the American Constitution. One would have thought that having post-secondary instruction under the supervision of Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert would be considered an improvement.

In any event, the federal government through its millions and millions of dollars in research grants etc. already has a great influence on what research universities do without having any detectable influence over what is in the curriculum. It just isn't an issue.

As for student loan "skin in the game," research shows that pattern to be quite the opposite of what my colleague suggests. The biggest student load debts are undertaken by strong students at public universities and repaid quite consistently. The defaulting students tend to be low-income and veterans suckered into highly profitable private on-line type schools because these students drop out at alarming rates and are unable to repay their more modest loans. These for-profit colleges are a scam. The free market idea when applied to education simply invites the sharks in to join the swimmers.

As for the top 1% paying for "everything," the idea is popular because that 1% has gotten almost all the new wealth created in the economic recovery of the past 7 years and now owns more of the nation's total wealth than the poorest half (50%) of the population. This imbalance is not only unfair, it is incompatible with a democratic Constitution.

 

[oldsoul]

Your scorn for public K-12 education is an irrelevant trope. The government is not going to take over the colleges and universities, merely pay the tuition costs of students

And what will prevent the government from saying that they should have a voice in what is taught and how, since "they" are footing the bill? Any time government gets involved, even if just finacially, it turns into another entitlement program and boondoggle.

The estimated cost is 45 billion dollars a year, an amount easily raised by progressively taxing the income of wealthiest 1%

Because they are not paying their "fair share" already, right? Why is it that the left always wants the top 1% to pay for everything? What happened to people paying their own way? Student loans, Pell Grants, scholarships, ect. If a student, or their parents, have "skin in the game", they are far more likely to put forth the effort to do well and eventually contubute to society.

It is amusing to hear a rightie worried about government censorship of what what is taught in college as one of the right's favorite tropes is that college faculties are all Marxists whose instruction undermines the American Constitution. One would have thought that having post-secondary instruction under the supervision of Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert would be considered an improvement.

In any event, the federal government through its millions and millions of dollars in research grants etc. already has a great influence on what research universities do without having any detectable influence over what is in the curriculum. It just isn't an issue.

As for student loan "skin in the game," research shows that pattern to be quite the opposite of what my colleague suggests. The biggest student load debts are undertaken by strong students at public universities and repaid quite consistently. The defaulting students tend to be low-income and veterans suckered into highly profitable private on-line type schools because these students drop out at alarming rates and are unable to repay their more modest loans. These for-profit colleges are a scam. The free market idea when applied to education simply invites the sharks in to join the swimmers.

As for the top 1% paying for "everything," the idea is popular because that 1% has gotten almost all the new wealth created in the economic recovery of the past 7 years and now owns more of the nation's total wealth than the poorest half (50%) of the population. This imbalance is not only unfair, it is incompatible with a democratic Constitution.

First of all the "oversight" you speak of would be an improvement, but that is not the point. Where, pray tell, does the US Constitution enumerate education as a power of the government? That is the point.
Second, ever heard of Common Core? If you think that would not come to higher levels of education, you are seriously deluded.
I would really like to see this "research" you speak of. Where did you find it. If I am wrong, I will admit it, but I need to see some evidence first.
As for your last point, is it really unfair to reward the people who risk the most with the greatest reward? Since we do not live under a democratic Constitution your arguement carries no water. We live under a republican Constitution, but I am sure you already knew that and it was mearly a mis-statement. Or was it?

 

[320 Years of History]

Many "elite" law schools have lower percentile bar exam passage rates than LSAT scores. How do you explain that?

I can understand easily how is a connection between LSAT scores and one's undergraduate school performance, and between one's performance in law school. Similarly, I think that one's bar exam passing rate/figures are correlated to one's performance in law school. That there is an observed coincidence such as the one you suggest above isn't shocking; however, I can't say with any credibility that it is a causal one. My gut says it's merely coincidental.

A study by the Law School Admission Council states that school performance and LSAT scores are the two best predictors of whether law school students will pass a bar exam. The organization makes that statement based on a "probability of passing" formula/model it developed for the study. Even though the researchers made that assertion, one that on the face of things would seem to suggest the sort of correlation you mention above, they make a point to state explicitly:

When LSAT score and LGPA were already in the explanatory model, the data did not show that greater odds of passing were associated with the clusters that included the most highly selective law schools or the highest credentialed law students. Instead, the model showed that for a fixed LGPA and a fixed LSAT score, the probability of passing the bar was higher for graduates of schools included in the cluster primarily populated by public law schools that were moderately selective and among the least expensive of all U.S. law schools. This cluster was labeled Cluster 3. Importantly, the parameters obtained from the model were based on observed data for this study sample and they helped explain the relationships that were observed. The model is not a causative model and does not imply that being in cluster 3 schools causes higher pass rates than being in cluster 1, 5, or 6 schools. Rather, it reports that for participants in this study, pass rates differed by law school cluster when LGPA and LSAT score were the same. Determining whether there is a causative relationship between law school and bar exam outcome and, if there is, identifying the factors that contribute to that relationship, should be the subjects of future research.​

The study referenced was published in 1998. I don't know if there are subsequent studies that examine the causal relationship of which they wrote. The dean of Southern Illinois University Law School thinks there isn't a correlation between LSAT scores and bar passage rates. For the New York Times (NYT), he stated, "Our experience has been that someone with a 147 score could pass the bar and someone else with a 160 could fail, so we don’t think that there is necessarily a relationship between the test and people’s ability to pass the bar."

If you happen to be asking why is the overall percentage of folks who pass any given year's bar exam lower than in prior years, you may want to look at the phenomenon of declining law school applications. It appears from the comments of Michael Allen, a managing partner at Lateral Link (a headhunting firm for lawyers), "[M]any law schools are resorting to transfers to boost their student body without affecting their U.S. News and World Report ranking. Because the ranking factors only first-year applicants, law schools can reap the benefit of lucrative transfer students while maintaining their status quo in the rankings."

Given that assertion, I think one would need to determine whether the folks who graduate from elite law schools and who don't pass the bar(s) for which they sit are largely transfer students (two year students of a given school) or whether they are evenly or mostly three year students of the school(s) in question. Additionally, based on the NYT article, it seems that there may also be a trend whereby law schools of all degrees of renown are willingly have first year classes comprised students who, overall, earned lower LSAT scores than did the first year classes from previous years.

So there you have my explanation:

• Increased numbers of transfer enrollees whose LSAT and undergraduate performance didn't permit them to gain first year admission to elite law schools.
• In the face of lower application rates, elite law schools have been admitting somewhat more less well qualified first year students.
  
  I didn't make the case for this above, but I think most folks can understand how, unlike other arms of a university, a law school depends heavily on tuition because the opportunity for research grants and commissioned studies is far lower than for any number of other disciplines. With that understood, the "profit" motive and its connection with the quantity of students admitted is pretty easy to see. In any profit driven endeavor, it's unavoidable that "good enough," as opposed to absolute standards of utmost excellence, becomes the bar (no pun).

I suspect that we'll observe a reversal in the bar passage rates if/when the pool of super highly prepared applicants increases. Too, I suspect that the cost of admission to elite schools plays a meaningful role in the quantity of highly qualified students they admit. A likely thing going on is that there aren't enough rich folks who can and will pay their way to law school actually applying to elite law schools. I don't know if that's so, but if it is, it would suggest that non-rich folks who apply and get accepted, but who don't receive enough scholarship support to attend, opt to go to "good, but not elite" schools that cost less. When that happens, it should come as no surprise, that elite schools will admit slightly less able rich kids in small numbers so that the school can still meet its funding objectives. We may not care for the idea that law school admissions has a business aspect to it, but given that they are so dependent on tuition, in periods of declining applications, the business imperative rears its head where previously it might not have.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Tuition free education" is the pretext for forgiving student loans...for votes.

??? That may be for current students and recent graduates, but once those individuals have moved out of "the system," if tuition is free, there'd be no loans to forgive. At that point, what would be the correlation between free tuition and votes?

 

[Fishlore]

Your scorn for public K-12 education is an irrelevant trope. The government is not going to take over the colleges and universities, merely pay the tuition costs of students

And what will prevent the government from saying that they should have a voice in what is taught and how, since "they" are footing the bill? Any time government gets involved, even if just finacially, it turns into another entitlement program and boondoggle.

The estimated cost is 45 billion dollars a year, an amount easily raised by progressively taxing the income of wealthiest 1%

Because they are not paying their "fair share" already, right? Why is it that the left always wants the top 1% to pay for everything? What happened to people paying their own way? Student loans, Pell Grants, scholarships, ect. If a student, or their parents, have "skin in the game", they are far more likely to put forth the effort to do well and eventually contubute to society.

It is amusing to hear a rightie worried about government censorship of what what is taught in college as one of the right's favorite tropes is that college faculties are all Marxists whose instruction undermines the American Constitution. One would have thought that having post-secondary instruction under the supervision of Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert would be considered an improvement.

In any event, the federal government through its millions and millions of dollars in research grants etc. already has a great influence on what research universities do without having any detectable influence over what is in the curriculum. It just isn't an issue.

As for student loan "skin in the game," research shows that pattern to be quite the opposite of what my colleague suggests. The biggest student load debts are undertaken by strong students at public universities and repaid quite consistently. The defaulting students tend to be low-income and veterans suckered into highly profitable private on-line type schools because these students drop out at alarming rates and are unable to repay their more modest loans. These for-profit colleges are a scam. The free market idea when applied to education simply invites the sharks in to join the swimmers.

As for the top 1% paying for "everything," the idea is popular because that 1% has gotten almost all the new wealth created in the economic recovery of the past 7 years and now owns more of the nation's total wealth than the poorest half (50%) of the population. This imbalance is not only unfair, it is incompatible with a democratic Constitution.

First of all the "oversight" you speak of would be an improvement, but that is not the point. Where, pray tell, does the US Constitution enumerate education as a power of the government? That is the point.
Second, ever heard of Common Core? If you think that would not come to higher levels of education, you are seriously deluded.
I would really like to see this "research" you speak of. Where did you find it. If I am wrong, I will admit it, but I need to see some evidence first.
As for your last point, is it really unfair to reward the people who risk the most with the greatest reward? Since we do not live under a democratic Constitution your arguement carries no water. We live under a republican Constitution, but I am sure you already knew that and it was mearly a mis-statement. Or was it?

I believe the Constitution enumerates the power of the government in education in the same section as it enumerates the power of the government in aviation. You aren't really going to try such a simplistic argument are you?

Common core is a voluntary set of goals established by a consortium of states, not the federal government. Despite its whipping boy status, common core set of standards for the AB or BS degree when funded by the government would be an excellent idea. Far too much bullshit and victim studies in today's undergraduate curriculum.

For government research funding at universities, try the Google. nsf.gov - Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
is a good place to start.

Your point about risk/reward and democracy/republic is obscure and, as far as I can tell, irrelevant.

 

[oldsoul]

I believe the Constitution enumerates the power of the government in education in the same section as it enumerates the power of the government in aviation. You aren't really going to try such a simplistic argument are you?

Aviation crosses state lines by the very nature of the business, therefore covered in the commerce clause, how does that relate to education? When did primary and/or secondary school districts start operating in multiple states?

Common core is a voluntary set of goals established by a consortium of states, not the federal government.

As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, participating in CC comes with huge finacial aid from the Feds.

For government research funding at universities, try the Google. nsf.gov - Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development - NCSES - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
is a good place to start.

Is this where you got your info, as I asked?

Your point about risk/reward and democracy/republic is obscure and, as far as I can tell, irrelevant

Obscure? The diference between a democracy and a republic is obscure? Wow, I guess you are not familiar with the differences then. As far as the risk/reward point, if that is obscure and therefore irrelevent, then I guess I now understand why you thing wealth re-distribution is such a good idea. If I risk more in a venture than you do, and it pays off, why should you get as much reward as I do? Likewise, if it does not pay off, why should you share in my financial loss?

 

[jwoodie]

"Tuition free education" is the pretext for forgiving student loans...for votes.

??? That may be for current students and recent graduates, but once those individuals have moved out of "the system," if tuition is free, there'd be no loans to forgive. At that point, what would be the correlation between free tuition and votes?

Step One is free tuition for current students (if Dems are elected).

Step Two is to address the "unfairness" of making former students keep paying for what is now free (if Dems are elected)

Step Three is to "forgive" student loans (especially for low-income Democrat voters).

You are correct that, eventually, there would be no student loans to forgive.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no such thing as "free" education.

 

[Unkotare]

The actual work at elite universities isn't so different from other schools. You can learn just as much at any reasonably good school. The value lies in networking and the doors that a degree from an elite school will open. And that value is very real, and worth every penny.

 

[320 Years of History]

The actual work at elite universities isn't so different from other schools. You can learn just as much at any reasonably good school. The value lies in networking and the doors that a degree from an elite school will open. And that value is very real, and worth every penny.

I'm not of the mind that one can learn "just as much" at "standard" universities, but without question I believe one can learn as much that matters at them as can one learn at elite institutions.

In fairness, my beliefs in that regard issue from my own and my children's experiences and learnings at so-called elite grammar through high schools. I have definitely made the assumption that the more advanced nature and scope of information I and they acquired in those institutions, and that those schools and their teachers were able to impart it, is extrapolatable to elite institutions of higher learning. That said, it's not as though I have experience with enough schools at any level of instruction to be 100% certain that the inferences I make hold true in all or most cases.

 

[jwoodie]

The actual work at elite universities isn't so different from other schools. You can learn just as much at any reasonably good school. The value lies in networking and the doors that a degree from an elite school will open. And that value is very real, and worth every penny.

I'm not of the mind that one can learn "just as much" at "standard" universities, but without question I believe one can learn as much that matters at them as can one learn at elite institutions.

In fairness, my beliefs in that regard issue from my own and my children's experiences and learnings at so-called elite grammar through high schools. I have definitely made the assumption that the more advanced nature and scope of information I and they acquired in those institutions, and that those schools and their teachers were able to impart it, is extrapolatable to elite institutions of higher learning. That said, it's not as though I have experience with enough schools at any level of instruction to be 100% certain that the inferences I make hold true in all or most cases.

I have attended almost every type of school and university. The differences between them, in terms of learning, are almost exclusively determined by the parents' attitudes about education.

 

[Unkotare]

The actual work at elite universities isn't so different from other schools. You can learn just as much at any reasonably good school. The value lies in networking and the doors that a degree from an elite school will open. And that value is very real, and worth every penny.

I'm not of the mind that one can learn "just as much" at "standard" universities.....

I've tutored students at all 'levels' of universities, and have found it to be the case. It even applies to the quality of professors as far as I have seen.