• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LSU drafting 'academic bankruptcy' plan in response to state budget crisis

The economic literature and empirical data on the value of basic research suggests otherwise. Basic research has value and, without a public role, would likely be underfunded. Two papers (one older and one more recent):

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | Reasons for Public Support of Research and Development
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMACRO/Resources/UfukAkcigity.pdf

I never said government research doesn't turn out results, but only that the government has no business doing it.
 
These are not compatible in the least. Anything subsidized must be regulated, or it has no business being subsidized. I cannot stand to see private for profit entities being given no-bid contracts and billions in taxpayer $.

These governors need to either stand for the private sector as a matter of principle, meaning to not leech ANY public funds, or make a serious effort to improve public schools. The education of youth is a 'compelling governmental interest,' so it's entirely appropriate to both us public funds AND to regulate it. When you invite the for profit industry to do as they please, kids lose rights and there's no real accountability. You can say "well the parents can just send them to another school if this one decides 300 students and 1 teacher and no extracurriculars is most profitable." Well that's not an option in rural areas and what's to stop it from happening everywhere?

This all seems like nothing but complete greed and lobbyists. You think bobby jindal gives a **** about K-12 quality?

I've been arguing to replace a lot of high school and college with online education, but definitely not to transition it to for profit so that a handful of the governor's cronies can make out like bandits

Exactly this : private profit without public accountability ....not at all a good idea
 
Military equipment is also supplied by private interest.

And is purchased solely by the government - which is why competitive pressure does not reduce cost. When you allow have an actual market dominated by private purchasers and non-monopolistic sellers, you get the reduced price and increased quality that we would get from education, were not government the dominant purchaser at the collegiate level and nigh-monopolistic (certainly advantaged) seller at the primary level.
 
And is purchased solely by the government - which is why competitive pressure does not reduce cost. When you allow have an actual market dominated by private purchasers and non-monopolistic sellers, you get the reduced price and increased quality that we would get from education, were not government the dominant purchaser at the collegiate level and nigh-monopolistic (certainly advantaged) seller at the primary level.


Government buys who funds it the most.
 
I never said government research doesn't turn out results, but only that the government has no business doing it.

If the economic literature is right about the benefits of basic research and lack of such investment by the private sector (which focuses primarily on applied research), then the government would be acting in a fashion that would leave the U.S. worse off than would otherwise be the case, were it to abandon its role in basic research. Such changed position would not exactly be promoting the "general welfare" of the nation. IMO, there are many other areas that could be targeted for savings than the functions that provide empirically-demonstrated long-term societal and economic benefits.
 
They need to hire people with business acumen to run the University. When revenue falls you take measures to compensate. You reduce costs. You redouble efforts to get more donations from successful alumni. You don't whine and threaten. Life has its ups and downs. We all have to manage the downs the best we can.

You are exactly correct - my father was a VP at a major OH university before retiring 20 years ago.

Of course he has a PhD in education, but he also had extensive business experience and an MBA in finance.

He constantly battled with his fellow 'academics' to impart solid business practices into the university management.

He had responsibility for all of the satellite campuses, and set them up as individual profit centers - they began to make serious money, and became self-sufficient.

Upon his retirement, of course his position was filled with an academic.

All of the satellite campuses were raped for funding, and folded back into the main campus budget.

The satellite campuses are all now struggling to stay afloat, and the university as a whole is suffering badly.

Your assessment is exactly correct.
 
That's scary. So is there no party, only Elizabeth Warren, that cares about the cost of higher education? And yet, dems and repubs alike keep saying that no one can expect to "make it" without at least one college degree. WTF!!

I have an opinion. College aged people don't vote. If you cut their funding for stuff they like, no one cares. Cut social security...the world is on fire.
 
It's been done. Some latin American countries have been the testing ground of these market based/privatized schemes. Look here: Rethinking Schools Online

The most interesting comparison is from Chile, which has a long-standing voucher plan where pupils have been assessed regularly. The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package. It meets almost all the conditions of those in the United States who advocate "choice with equity," including fully subsidized, deregulated private schools competing head-on for pupils with deregulated municipality-run public schools in all metropolitan neighborhoods, from middle-class suburbs to low-income barrios.
One key feature of the Chilean plan was privatizing teacher contracts and eliminating the teachers' union as a bargaining unit. Teachers were transferred from the public employee system to the private sector. By 1983, even public schools, meaning those schools run by municipalities, could hire and fire teachers without regard to tenure or a union contract, just like any un-unionized private company. Another feature was to release all schools from the previously strictly-defined structure of the national curriculum and from national standards.
What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts. In 1985, the federal contribution was 80% of total educational spending, and total spending was 5.3% of Gross National Product (GNP). Five years later, the federal portion was 68% of the total, and the total had fallen to 3.7% of GNP. Private spending rose, but not quickly enough to offset the drop in real federal contributions. Most of the decrease in federal subsidies to education came at the secondary and university levels, where per student public spending dropped drastically.
The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families.
The education system in Chile is number one in Latin America.

Brazil Loses Out to Chile in New QS University Rankings: Latin America | Top Universities

as well as in other areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
 

So, we have great schools here too. They rank far better than Chile. Now back to topic, Chile's educational system has led to further stratisification. Many students were on strike also because privatized education in Chile has left generations of students deep in debt. We are heading in that direction.
 
So, we have great schools here too. They rank far better than Chile. Now back to topic, Chile's educational system has led to further stratisification. Many students were on strike also because privatized education in Chile has left generations of students deep in debt. We are heading in that direction.
Again, Chile has the best educational system in Latin America. You should select another country for comparison.
 
You are exactly correct - my father was a VP at a major OH university before retiring 20 years ago.

Of course he has a PhD in education, but he also had extensive business experience and an MBA in finance.

He constantly battled with his fellow 'academics' to impart solid business practices into the university management.

He had responsibility for all of the satellite campuses, and set them up as individual profit centers - they began to make serious money, and became self-sufficient.

Upon his retirement, of course his position was filled with an academic.

All of the satellite campuses were raped for funding, and folded back into the main campus budget.

The satellite campuses are all now struggling to stay afloat, and the university as a whole is suffering badly.

Your assessment is exactly correct.

Universities are businesses. They exchange services for payment. They must adhere to solid business practices in order to me successful in the long run. While public universities also have a government component supported by taxes, the same principles should apply. If a university is in financial trouble, look to the management for the cause, not government and taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom