• 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

Its interesting how people who scream the cost of attending a state university is exorbitantly high but expect taxpayers to assume the burden for those increases as well.

What would one expect from the intellectually bankrupt except tax and spend, or better yet, spend and then wonder where the funds will come from to pay for it.

But why shouldn't state universities try it? The government has gotten away with it for years.

Of course the liberal answer is to tax, tax, tax; your answer to everything.

Here's a hint: try fiscal responsibility for a change.

Here's another hint, think....how do private universities and colleges maintain a balanced budget, or more likely a budget that's in the black?

Public education is a losing endeavor, including some state university systems.
 
IMO, people don't realize the just kind of drastic funding cuts LSU is facing. Moody's lowered the school's credit outlook The Times-Picayune's blog related to that development revealed:

The state's college and university systems are facing as much as an 82 percent reduction in state financing in the next budget cycle. Louisiana's public colleges and universities, including LSU, also lack the ability to hike their own tuition rates, first needing approval from two-thirds of state legislators.

http://blog.nola.com/politics/print.html?entry=/2015/04/lsu_credit_rating_down.html

That's not a modest cut. That's a catastrophic one. Even worse, under state law, LSU has no ability to raise its tuition, so its latitude to develop alternative revenue streams is also impaired.

Maybe they should, oh, perhaps, not spend ridiculous sums on football?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064561898 said:
Its interesting how people who scream the cost of attending a state university is exorbitantly high but expect taxpayers to assume the burden for those increases as well.

What would one expect from the intellectually bankrupt except tax and spend, or better yet, spend and then wonder where the funds will come from to pay for it.

But why shouldn't state universities try it? The government has gotten away with it for years.

Of course the liberal answer is to tax, tax, tax; your answer to everything.

Here's a hint: try fiscal responsibility for a change.

Here's another hint, think....how do private universities and colleges maintain a balanced budget, or more likely a budget that's in the black?

Public education is a losing endeavor, including some state university systems.

They're not assuming any 'burden' lol, that's the point. These were publicly founded colleges that are being abandoned by the public. A 75% decrease in funding in a *single year* is going to have catastrophic consequences.

I guess your idea of fiscal responsibility is $500 per student, what louisiana will be covering next year. That's so preposterous and ignorant to blame the colleges for this crisis. Funding has never been so low since before WW2 and adjusting for inflation, probably never in their history

As for private colleges, most of them rely greatly on the federal loan system. They are also able to provide a flat tuition rate for ALL students. LSU is required to set tuition at a crazy low rate for in state kids, but not say, notre dame. The more elite private Us (ivy etc) get by on alumni donations and name recognition alone, something that's not in the cards for your typical commuter public school.

Even then a lot of private schools are in fact facing similar budget deficits. They just don't have to cope with a 75% cut in a single year
 
For Universities - Football pays big time.

Yet there would be no football without the U...

As for the sending of funds back to the academics, that isn't really true. LSU uses a donation system for preferred seating, which means it snatches donations away from the academics. Even at a relatively elite public school, i know of academic departments that have seen donations dwindle the past decade and want the football program reigned in

If LSU the college is in this position, football should be shutdown for a year or 2 until the ticket buyers get the message
 
Let's see if I understand the problem:

Government spends a crap ton on colleges, creating strong incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures. Government then subsidizes student loans, making the purchasers non-sensitive to price increases, creating additional incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures....

....and the proposed solution is more government?


45074752.jpg
 
Let's see if I understand the problem:

Government spends a crap ton on colleges, creating strong incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures. Government then subsidizes student loans, making the purchasers non-sensitive to price increases, creating additional incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures....

....and the proposed solution is more government?


45074752.jpg

No and yes- Whatever it takes to get value for the Govt money and the student.
But stats show govt funding has dropped over the years.
Educations does pay.
One issue on the biggest free trade deal upcoming is how little the US places towards, job training and infrastructure. 2 key components of an emerging and changing economy.
Other countries, much smaller than the US devote more to this as a % of GDP.
 
Yet there would be no football without the U...

As for the sending of funds back to the academics, that isn't really true. LSU uses a donation system for preferred seating, which means it snatches donations away from the academics. Even at a relatively elite public school, i know of academic departments that have seen donations dwindle the past decade and want the football program reigned in

If LSU the college is in this position, football should be shutdown for a year or 2 until the ticket buyers get the message
Mr. C I am missing the point you are making ref donations and seating? & yes I can be quite stupid at times.
 
No and yes- Whatever it takes to get value for the Govt money and the student.
But stats show govt funding has dropped over the years.
Educations does pay.
One issue on the biggest free trade deal upcoming is how little the US places towards, job training and infrastructure. 2 key components of an emerging and changing economy.
Other countries, much smaller than the US devote more to this as a % of GDP.

:doh

We are in the middle of a college bubble. If anything we need more people going into trade schools, and less federal money shoving the price of college ever-higher.
 
One more example showing us just how well Republican economic ideas work in the real world.
How big are the cuts to college funding?
One might almost think the modern Republican Party doesn't much care for public education. An article from February points out the tax cuts being promoted as economic boosters don't seem to be working too well and public education is suffering as a consequence.
Yes, higher education needs more of this. University of Chicago to spend $25,000 to teach students how to ‘hang out’

and this. 20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities | Zero Hedge

They may have rapidly declining educational results when compared with other countries but their self esteem is unmatched.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064561898 said:
Its interesting how people who scream the cost of attending a state university is exorbitantly high but expect taxpayers to assume the burden for those increases as well. What would one expect from the intellectually bankrupt except tax and spend, or better yet, spend and then wonder where the funds will come from to pay for it. But why shouldn't state universities try it? The government has gotten away with it for years. Of course the liberal answer is to tax, tax, tax; your answer to everything. Here's a hint: try fiscal responsibility for a change. Here's another hint, think....how do private universities and colleges maintain a balanced budget, or more likely a budget that's in the black? Public education is a losing endeavor, including some state university systems.
The left will want young people to be brainwashed by the liberal professors who form the majority in higher education, thereby assuring more prospective voters for their party. The same strategy has been applied to food stamps, open borders and Obamaphones.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064561898 said:
Its interesting how people who scream the cost of attending a state university is exorbitantly high but expect taxpayers to assume the burden for those increases as well.

What would one expect from the intellectually bankrupt except tax and spend, or better yet, spend and then wonder where the funds will come from to pay for it.

But why shouldn't state universities try it? The government has gotten away with it for years.

Of course the liberal answer is to tax, tax, tax; your answer to everything.

Here's a hint: try fiscal responsibility for a change.

Here's another hint, think....how do private universities and colleges maintain a balanced budget, or more likely a budget that's in the black?

Public education is a losing endeavor, including some state university systems.


No, that wouldn't be my solution. My solution would be to cut 60 billion from the defense budget (which is the estimated cost of providing free tuition to all undergrads at public schools in America, beyond what is already being spent), and divert that money into giving everyone free public education. If people want to go to Harvard, University of Chicago, Stanford, etc they would pay themselves (or with scholarships, etc). However, all public education should be free to everyone. That is a fantastic way to create a more capable and educated populace. We could afford that without any tax increase. Just by being fiscally responsible and cutting wasteful and pointless defense spending, we could offer universal free college educations to all who were interested. Sounds like a good bargain to me.
 
Sure, i guess if you keep eliminating professors and departments that make more than $250,000.00 / year, you'll eventually get to a spot where no professors make $250,000.00 /year.


The simple fact is, that the professors who make those sorts of salaries are in a few departments, and either those departments or those professors bring in huge amounts of money to a university. History is very important to study, but no one is getting grants to study 12 century Chinese bills of sale to better understand daily life in 12th century China. However, if a science professor is doing research funded by the pentagon, which brings in 10 million in grants a year to the university, he/she will command a much higher salary. Business schools, economics departments, law schools, etc also tend to bring in future endowments so they will also have a few professors with higher salaries.

However, the reason it is important to point out those exceptions, is because there are dozens of other departments where the salaries aren't anywhere near that level. So if you are crafting a larger argument, pointing to a few outliers, who almost certainly bring in large amounts of money to the university, and pretending that is the rule, it is disingenuous at best.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if I understand the problem:

Government spends a crap ton on colleges, creating strong incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures. Government then subsidizes student loans, making the purchasers non-sensitive to price increases, creating additional incentives for colleges to overspend on useless administrative and recreational expenditures....

....and the proposed solution is more government?


45074752.jpg


Is there any problem that conservatives see that can't be explained by too much government, or any problem that can't be solved by a tax cutting gun? When public education was almost entirely funded by government, education was incredibly cheap. As universities have been caught up in the larger neoliberal trend toward privatization, costs have skyrocketed. There is no reasonable argument to be made that government is the larger problem. Privatization is the problem. Running universities as businesses is the problem.

If you don't believe me, just look at the sham that is the for profit university.

The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges-Kiplinger

Tuition is significantly higher, which should be impossible, as I was led to believe that private businesses were without fail cheaper and more efficient!!! It must be the liberal media lying to me again!!
 
Last edited:
Is there any problem that conservatives see that can't be explained by too much government, or any problem that can't be solved by a tax cutting gun? When public education was almost entirely funded by government, education was incredibly cheap. As universities have been caught up in the larger neoliberal trend toward privatization, costs have skyrocketed. There is no reasonable argument to be made that government is the larger problem. Privatization is the problem. Running universities as businesses is the problem.

If you don't believe me, just look at the sham that is the for profit university.

The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges-Kiplinger

Tuition is significantly higher, which should be impossible, as I was led to believe that private businesses were without fail cheaper and more efficient!!! It must be the liberal media lying to me again!!

I've read that article in it's entirety, it was quite interesting so thank you, but it also does not seem to directly support what you are trying to imply...actually it could do the opposite. Sure, at face value with very little insight that's what it seems what the information in the article portrays, but I see a very different picture, and the author does a good job at citing the benefits and niches For-Profit universities fulfill... and the negatives that have arose. I would like to engage in a honest intellectual discussion.

The reasons for the problems displayed in the article are key, the students that tend to enroll in such universities do not tend to be academics, tend to be students that were not able to make it into a normal university, or dedicate the strict schedule and hours a normal university requires.
The programs also tend to be much more streamlined and less bloated than a normal university dedicating more focus on the skills and knowledge that is directly necessary for the very specific education track.
Both of these things fulfill a need in the market that typical universities are unable to provide(#1 because it would increase their cost dramatically and #2 it would require a whole different branch of the university that would operate independent of all the normal policies that wouldn't be sustainable or practical). They are able to provide secondary education to people that wouldn't of had it otherwise.
These university also do not obtain any of the substantial government aid that other universities do, which, inturn, comparing their tuition and judging their efficiency rate/(how responsible they are with the money) from that is dishonest.

A lot of the actual problems that was mentioned in the article was actually based off the students making poor financial decisions(Which since, the population of students tend to not be academics, but those that have struggled in the past, they are much more likely to do such a thing)

These relatively new for-profit institutions, since they are new, need time to be ironed out and acclimated into the market.Not only time, but also political support/and revamping of financial practice of public universities. Since it's a new phenomena there will be growing pains, such as lack of laws that are relevant to the new for-profit education market, lack of public information for the consumers(reputation of universities were more able to be under the radar since it's a new market), lack of time established as an accredited university(Since these are new universities with a different philsophy in education tracks, they are not accredited by the same national associations as the normal universities, but by local/growing associations that have not yet got the full respect of public universities(this is on them actually, national accreditation actually don't want new systems like this to take hold, because they are not a part of their own bureaucracy)

Trying to get all my thoughts on this down is challenging...but the point is, I dont think the article is showing a flawed idea that isn't working, but a growing educational system niche that needs help and time to flourish
 
Last edited:
:doh

We are in the middle of a college bubble. If anything we need more people going into trade schools, and less federal money shoving the price of college ever-higher.

Funny, the numbers say something which fails to support the bubble claim

Enrollment Falls at Colleges, Universities for Third Straight Year - WSJ

College and university enrollments slid 1.3% this fall to 19.6 million, dragged down by a 6% decline in students at two-year public schools and a drop in students over age 24.

It is the third straight year of declining enrollment at U.S. postsecondary institutions, after student populations spiked due to an increasing number of high school graduates and more adults looking to strengthen their résumés during the recession.

But demographics have since shifted, the job market is once again an attractive alternative, especially for older students, and costs are scaring some prospective undergraduates away from campus. Enrollments declined in 39 states and Washington, D.C.
 
Higher education and colleges is one of the few edges this country still has over the rest of the world. But the Republicans, because of politics are bound and determined to kill that edge.
 
Higher education and colleges is one of the few edges this country still has over the rest of the world. But the Republicans, because of politics are bound and determined to kill that edge.

Republicans want to damage higher education?! What?
 
I've read that article in it's entirety, it was quite interesting so thank you, but it also does not seem to directly support what you are trying to imply...actually it could do the opposite. Sure, at face value with very little insight that's what it seems what the information in the article portrays, but I see a very different picture, and the author does a good job at citing the benefits and niches For-Profit universities fulfill... and the negatives that have arose. I would like to engage in a honest intellectual discussion.

The reasons for the problems displayed in the article are key, the students that tend to enroll in such universities do not tend to be academics, tend to be students that were not able to make it into a normal university, or dedicate the strict schedule and hours a normal university requires.
The programs also tend to be much more streamlined and less bloated than a normal university dedicating more focus on the skills and knowledge that is directly necessary for the very specific education track.
Both of these things fulfill a need in the market that typical universities are unable to provide(#1 because it would increase their cost dramatically and #2 it would require a whole different branch of the university that would operate independent of all the normal policies that wouldn't be sustainable or practical). They are able to provide secondary education to people that wouldn't of had it otherwise.
These university also do not obtain any of the substantial government aid that other universities do, which, inturn, comparing their tuition and judging their efficiency rate/(how responsible they are with the money) from that is dishonest.

A lot of the actual problems that was mentioned in the article was actually based off the students making poor financial decisions(Which since, the population of students tend to not be academics, but those that have struggled in the past, they are much more likely to do such a thing)

These relatively new for-profit institutions, since they are new, need time to be ironed out and acclimated into the market.Not only time, but also political support/and revamping of financial practice of public universities. Since it's a new phenomena there will be growing pains, such as lack of laws that are relevant to the new for-profit education market, lack of public information for the consumers(reputation of universities were more able to be under the radar since it's a new market), lack of time established as an accredited university(Since these are new universities with a different philsophy in education tracks, they are not accredited by the same national associations as the normal universities, but by local/growing associations that have not yet got the full respect of public universities(this is on them actually, national accreditation actually don't want new systems like this to take hold, because they are not a part of their own bureaucracy)

Trying to get all my thoughts on this down is challenging...but the point is, I dont think the article is showing a flawed idea that isn't working, but a growing educational system niche that needs help and time to flourish

For-profit universities aren't new. The University of Phoenix has been around since 1976.
They aren't a good investment, generally, for students, who end up in debt with non-transferable courses and potential employers not impressed with their credentials because of the accreditation.

"The main expense of for-profit schools isn’t on education (like state schools, they pay the highly educated teachers very little), it’s on recruiting suckers/students to enroll. Google’s biggest customer, for example, is the for-profit University of Phoenix, which spends $200,000 a day on Google advertising."

Confessions of a College Professor: For-Profit College Degrees Are Worthless

The Problem(s) With For-Profit Colleges

For Profit Colleges: Maintaining a Permanent Underclass | Julia Meszaros

The Case Against For-Profit Colleges and Universities

The High Price of For-Profit Colleges | AAUP

https://www.insidehighered.com/view...s-went-astray-should-return-their-roots-essay

'Change.edu' and the Problem With For-Profits - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education
 
I've read that article in it's entirety, it was quite interesting so thank you, but it also does not seem to directly support what you are trying to imply...actually it could do the opposite. Sure, at face value with very little insight that's what it seems what the information in the article portrays, but I see a very different picture, and the author does a good job at citing the benefits and niches For-Profit universities fulfill... and the negatives that have arose. I would like to engage in a honest intellectual discussion.
I also hope we can hold an honest discussion but we need to look at the big picture here and not simply what one side or the other is saying. The links here come from the Miami Herald's investigation of "for-profit" schools in Florida

<snip>
. . . a need in the market that typical universities are unable to provide(#1 because it would increase their cost dramatically and #2 it would require a whole different branch of the university that would operate independent of all the normal policies that wouldn't be sustainable or practical). They are able to provide secondary education to people that wouldn't of had it otherwise.
These university also do not obtain any of the substantial government aid that other universities do, which, inturn, comparing their tuition and judging their efficiency rate/(how responsible they are with the money) from that is dishonest.
Reality tells us that much of the funding for these for-profit schools comes from government-subsidised student loans.

A lot of the actual problems that was mentioned in the article was actually based off the students making poor financial decisions(Which since, the population of students tend to not be academics, but those that have struggled in the past, they are much more likely to do such a thing)

These relatively new for-profit institutions, since they are new, need time to be ironed out and acclimated into the market.Not only time, but also political support/and revamping of financial practice of public universities.
<snip>

Trying to get all my thoughts on this down is challenging...but the point is, I dont think the article is showing a flawed idea that isn't working, but a growing educational system niche that needs help and time to flourish

As you can see I've edited celticwar17's comment because I didn't want to create a TL:DR post as follow-up but I probably have anyway.

These for-profit colleges have lots of "political support", which just happens to be a major part of the problems they have created.
Politicians cash in on colleges
Fr more than a decade, “accountability” has been the education buzzword in Florida.

Schools are assigned A-to-F letter grades, teachers are evaluated using a complicated mathematical formula and third-graders can be held back if they don’t pass a standardized reading test.

The rules are different at for-profit colleges. The Herald found that, despite fraud lawsuits and government investigations around the country, Florida’s Legislature continues to encourage the growth of the industry, which says it provides opportunities to disadvantaged students. Lawmakers have increased funding sources and reduced quality standards and oversight.

. . . continued in next post
 
I've read that article in it's entirety, it was quite interesting so thank you, but it also does not seem to directly support what you are trying to imply...actually it could do the opposite. Sure, at face value with very little insight that's what it seems what the information in the article portrays, but I see a very different picture, and the author does a good job at citing the benefits and niches For-Profit universities fulfill... and the negatives that have arose. I would like to engage in a honest intellectual discussion.

The reasons for the problems displayed in the article are key, the students that tend to enroll in such universities do not tend to be academics, tend to be students that were not able to make it into a normal university, or dedicate the strict schedule and hours a normal university requires.
The programs also tend to be much more streamlined and less bloated than a normal university dedicating more focus on the skills and knowledge that is directly necessary for the very specific education track.
Both of these things fulfill a need in the market that typical universities are unable to provide(#1 because it would increase their cost dramatically and #2 it would require a whole different branch of the university that would operate independent of all the normal policies that wouldn't be sustainable or practical). They are able to provide secondary education to people that wouldn't of had it otherwise.
These university also do not obtain any of the substantial government aid that other universities do, which, inturn, comparing their tuition and judging their efficiency rate/(how responsible they are with the money) from that is dishonest.

A lot of the actual problems that was mentioned in the article was actually based off the students making poor financial decisions(Which since, the population of students tend to not be academics, but those that have struggled in the past, they are much more likely to do such a thing)

These relatively new for-profit institutions, since they are new, need time to be ironed out and acclimated into the market.Not only time, but also political support/and revamping of financial practice of public universities. Since it's a new phenomena there will be growing pains, such as lack of laws that are relevant to the new for-profit education market, lack of public information for the consumers(reputation of universities were more able to be under the radar since it's a new market), lack of time established as an accredited university(Since these are new universities with a different philsophy in education tracks, they are not accredited by the same national associations as the normal universities, but by local/growing associations that have not yet got the full respect of public universities(this is on them actually, national accreditation actually don't want new systems like this to take hold, because they are not a part of their own bureaucracy)

Trying to get all my thoughts on this down is challenging...but the point is, I dont think the article is showing a flawed idea that isn't working, but a growing educational system niche that needs help and time to flourish

For-profit universities aren't new. The University of Phoenix has been around since 1976. They aren't a good investment, generally, for students, who end up in debt with non-transferable courses and potential employers not impressed with their credentials because of the accreditation.

"The main expense of for-profit schools isn’t on education (like state schools, they pay the highly educated teachers very little), it’s on recruiting suckers/students to enroll. Google’s biggest customer, for example, is the for-profit University of Phoenix, which spends $200,000 a day on Google advertising."

Confessions of a College Professor: For-Profit College Degrees Are Worthless

The Problem(s) With For-Profit Colleges

For Profit Colleges: Maintaining a Permanent Underclass*|*Julia Meszaros

The Case Against For-Profit Colleges and Universities

The High Price of For-Profit Colleges | AAUP

https://www.insidehighered.com/view...s-went-astray-should-return-their-roots-essay

'Change.edu' and the Problem With For-Profits - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education
 
Now that for-profit colleges are coming under the light of investigations, some of the people involved are playing the game by converting to "non-profit", which is still quite profitable for the insiders.
Keiser: not for profit but still lucrative
For many years, Arthur Keiser was the face of for-profit colleges — both in Florida and in Washington, D.C. Keiser chaired the for-profit industry’s D.C.-based lobbying group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), and presided over the Florida Association of Postsecondary Schools and Colleges, whose members are mostly for-profits.

But in 2011, the school that he co-founded and still runs, Fort Lauderdale-based Keiser University, made a dramatic change: becoming a nonprofit.
<snip>
Keiser is one of several for-profit colleges that switched to nonprofit in the past few years. An Orlando-area for-profit school, Remington College, also did so.

At a 2012 convention of APSCU, industry lawyers made a presentation that noted the “regulatory advantages” of going nonprofit — along with other potential perks, such as being exempt from property taxes and sales taxes. Arthur Keiser was chairman of APSCU at the time.
<snip>
. . . tax filings, which are public record, show that Keiser’s nonprofit conversion was achieved by Arthur Keiser selling the for-profit Keiser University to a smaller nonprofit controlled by the Keiser family, Everglades College Inc. Essentially, Keiser sold the left hand of his empire to the right hand.

Robert Shireman has filed an IRS complaint over the details of Keiser University’s conversion to nonprofit.
Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats

To pay for it all, Keiser made a $300 million loan to himself, and he’s now paying it back with college revenue — with interest.
<snip>
The records also show that 10 of the nonprofit’s campuses are paying rent to companies in which Arthur Keiser has an ownership interest.

The combined rent for those properties: about $14.6 million.

Lots more at the Miami Herald's page Higher-Ed Hustle

As I noted above, we don't want to look at just one report in regards to for-profit colleges, so here's another one
Dept. of Ed names 20 schools facing financial investigation after

The Department of Education released the names of 20 colleges and career academies after audits of their finances turned up “severe findings.”

Those 20 names round out the list of 544 institutions that have run afoul of Department of Education rules for managing their finances and face one of two levels of increased financial monitoring. More than half are for-profit colleges.

From last year an article in Bloomberg News shows that it's not just the feds looking at for-profit colleges
Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- For-profit colleges, bruised by years of investigations and rule-making, may face additional financial pressure from a new wave of state probes by attorneys general and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Education Management Co., the education chain partly owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Corinthian Colleges Inc.; ITT Educational Services Inc.; and Career Education Corp. have said since Friday that they’ve received demands for information from a network of at least 12 attorneys general. The Federal Trade Commission has stiffened guidelines for marketing vocational training programs, which many for-profit colleges offer.

The CFPB, created in 2011 to regulate financial products, has said it’s preparing to tackle student debt, which has climbed to $1.2 trillion and is pervasive among former students at for-profit colleges. Richard Cordray, head of the consumer bureau and a former Ohio attorney general, said in written testimony to a House panel yesterday that the bureau has received thousands of complaints and comments about private student loans and debt.

Editorial in NYTimes
The outrageous part is that these companies are allowed to leech off the federal government, getting as much as 90 percent of their revenue from federal coffers.

The state attorneys general have come to the conclusion that the for-profit sector needs more regulatory scrutiny. But well-paid lobbyists are pushing a different story in Washington, arguing that everything is just peachy as it is. If the federal government falls for that, billions of dollars will continue to be wasted and many more people will come to harm.
 
If you are running a business, you don't intentionally cut your own revenue so your example flaws flat on that alone. If a business commits to providing a product or service, then it attempts to find the revenue to provide that product or service. If there is insufficient revenue then it gets out of the business of providing that product or service.

Businesses normally do not reduce revenue intentionally. Revenue losses are not intentional, just like those of LSU. Loss of some revenue does not necessarily result in failure of the business. I'm puzzled about your comment. It doesn't make sense to me.
 
Wow! That's quite a solution. You must have a broad background in funding and governance and university administration. :roll:

My broad background is in business management.
 
Businesses normally do not reduce revenue intentionally. Revenue losses are not intentional, just like those of LSU. Loss of some revenue does not necessarily result in failure of the business. I'm puzzled about your comment. It doesn't make sense to me.

If you go with the business analogy, LSU is a division of the State Government of Louisiana. No business would intentionally reduce its revenue to where it could no longer adequately fund one of its divisions, in this case, LSU.
 
Higher education and colleges is one of the few edges this country still has over the rest of the world. But the Republicans, because of politics are bound and determined to kill that edge.
The sad fact is that education in the US is in a decline when compared with other countries and that you haven't heard of this, or would do any research to clarify, only lends to the fact.

Throw more money at them and there'll be more $250,000 professors but,despite ever-increasing budgets and resulting in increasingly negative results, the liberal answer to the problem will always be to send more taxpayer money to them.U.S. Students Slide In Global Ranking On Math, Reading, Science : The Two-Way : NPR

“The average American in 1940 had an 8th grade education. The post-war prosperity of this country was built by 8th graders. 8th grade America won the Second World War, and then bad that big post-war 1950s prosperity. Now we stay in school twice as long, have twice as much attention from school teachers, and for no purpose. The longer you keep people in education — if you pretend that college is universal, it becomes middle school. If everybody goes to college it’s middle school, that’s what it is, that’s what it will be. You take away so many people’s most productive years. It leads to later economic contribution, later family formation, it has all kinds of consequences. And the education that matters is still K through 8. Because if you screw up K through 8, you can spend the next 20 years trying to play catch-up, and it doesn’t really make any difference". - Mark Steyn
 
Back
Top Bottom