• 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

What evidence do you have that 'they' don't want public institutions to exist?


http://openaccesslibrary.org/images/BGS220_Camille_B._Kandiko.pdf
The neoliberal economic agenda is leading to decreasing funding for public services around the world; in education, this agenda attempts “to weaken public control over education while simultaneously encouraging privatization of the educational service and greater reliance on market forces” (Berman, 2003, p. 253). Globally, decreased public funding of higher education is affecting institutions and systems (Prichard & Wilmott, 1997). Neoliberalism assumes that the market is more efficient than the state, so goods and services once considered public should become privatized, which also frees up capital for the market. “It seems that the policy of privatizing public science and its institutions has proceeded ideologically rather than by rational calculation. Such policies are assumed to fuel innovation and maximize wealth creation, but that is a highly contested assumption” (Atkinson-Grodjean, 2002, p. 72, emphasis in original). Higher education institutions must adjust, and are looking across borders for examples of adaptive and entrepreneurial organizations (Clark, 1998; Sporn, 1999).
 
http://openaccesslibrary.org/images/BGS220_Camille_B._Kandiko.pdf
The neoliberal economic agenda is leading to decreasing funding for public services around the world; in education, this agenda attempts “to weaken public control over education while simultaneously encouraging privatization of the educational service and greater reliance on market forces” (Berman, 2003, p. 253). Globally, decreased public funding of higher education is affecting institutions and systems (Prichard & Wilmott, 1997). Neoliberalism assumes that the market is more efficient than the state, so goods and services once considered public should become privatized, which also frees up capital for the market. “It seems that the policy of privatizing public science and its institutions has proceeded ideologically rather than by rational calculation. Such policies are assumed to fuel innovation and maximize wealth creation, but that is a highly contested assumption” (Atkinson-Grodjean, 2002, p. 72, emphasis in original). Higher education institutions must adjust, and are looking across borders for examples of adaptive and entrepreneurial organizations (Clark, 1998; Sporn, 1999).
Okay, so you have none. You could have saved yourself some needless effort by just saying so.
 
Okay, so you have none. You could have saved yourself some needless effort by just saying so.

Market driven policies are hardly new, obviously you have no knowledge of them. Feel free to keep yourself in the dark.
 
No, they are not new. That is why the link of yours to an opinion piece was unnewsworthy.

It's not an opinion piece. It's an academic one. Also, these policies are relatively new since more and more politicians from both parties are opting into representing them rather than preserving the existing system.
 
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?

Sure. Border security, for example.

When public education was almost entirely funded by government, education was incredibly cheap.

:prof wrong. Not only has that never been the case, feel free, for example, to take a look at the continued rising cost for our primary education system.

As universities have been caught up in the larger neoliberal trend toward privatization, costs have skyrocketed

:) This is also incorrect. Firstly, our country has always had private colleges, Secondly, every single state in the union spends more on it's public colleges now than it did in 2007. There has been no "neoliberalization" trend - what has occurred is that, spurred by government support, colleges have hiked prices faster than the ability of the state to keep up.

There is no reasonable argument to be made that government is the larger problem

That's interesting.

Um. You do know that the position that federal support to student loans is a major driver of the increase in tuition is such a crazy right-wing theory that it is the position of the current administration, who just admits that they don't know what to do about it, right?

Privatization is the problem. Running universities as businesses is the problem.

If I may quote Joe Biden on the matter: "in a pure free-market the college tuition would have to be lower".

Tuition is significantly higher, which should be impossible, as I was led to believe that private businesses were without fail cheaper and more efficient!

And, when government isn't screwing the market, it is.

There are two industries where government is the major purchaser, and heavily controls supply: Healthcare, and Education. There are also two industries where costs have skyrocketed well past inflation for decades without a corresponding increase in quality: Healthcare and Education.
 
There are two industries where government is the major purchaser, and heavily controls supply: Healthcare, and Education. There are also two industries where costs have skyrocketed well past inflation for decades without a corresponding increase in quality: Healthcare and Education.
That's because they are supplied by private interest whose interest is to make a profit.
 
That's because they are supplied by private interest whose interest is to make a profit.

:doh

Sure. That's why the price of personal computers has skyrocketed, wheres military equipment keeps getting cheaper every year. :roll:
 
It's not an opinion piece. It's an academic one. Also, these policies are relatively new since more and more politicians from both parties are opting into representing them rather than preserving the existing system.
If you prefer to call it an academic opinion piece that's fine with me. It's still irrelevant.
 
http://openaccesslibrary.org/images/BGS220_Camille_B._Kandiko.pdf
The neoliberal economic agenda is leading to decreasing funding for public services around the world; in education, this agenda attempts “to weaken public control over education while simultaneously encouraging privatization of the educational service and greater reliance on market forces” (Berman, 2003, p. 253). Globally, decreased public funding of higher education is affecting institutions and systems (Prichard & Wilmott, 1997). Neoliberalism assumes that the market is more efficient than the state, so goods and services once considered public should become privatized, which also frees up capital for the market. “It seems that the policy of privatizing public science and its institutions has proceeded ideologically rather than by rational calculation. Such policies are assumed to fuel innovation and maximize wealth creation, but that is a highly contested assumption” (Atkinson-Grodjean, 2002, p. 72, emphasis in original). Higher education institutions must adjust, and are looking across borders for examples of adaptive and entrepreneurial organizations (Clark, 1998; Sporn, 1999).

That sounds like conservatism lol, not "neoliberalism." I've honestly never heard that term

Democrats in office are rarely liberals. They're only trying to get re-elected and are discovering that since most voters never got a college education, they don't prioritize funding colleges. Don't conflate the two
 
These governors aren't cutting funds for higher education because of the quality. They cut because they don't want public institutions to exist. It's short sighted and will come back to haunt us.

That's likely true of republicans but the dems, no, it's that given the choice between raising taxes and cutting funds for our crumbling roads or other programs, preserving college funding brings in the fewest votes.

Although in many states, *everything* is getting cut and it's just that colleges are getting cut *more* than the roads, bridges etc.

It's short sighted in some cases, where even world class universities have faced massive cuts and have been rejecting in state apps more and more and may even privatize, but in other cases, the quality of education and research opportunities at these commuters and state universities is rather dubious. Does louisiana really need 12 public colleges?
 
Fine with me - I am TOTALLY against government funding of post secondary education except for essential degrees (doctors, engineers, etc. - NOT lawyers).
The idea that governments in ANY WAY fund such ridiculous subjects as Elizabethan Poetry majors or other nonsensical programs is ridiculous.
You want a degree in art - fund it yourself.
 
Fine with me - I am TOTALLY against government funding of post secondary education except for essential degrees (doctors, engineers, etc. - NOT lawyers).
The idea that governments in ANY WAY fund such ridiculous subjects as Elizabethan Poetry majors or other nonsensical programs is ridiculous.
You want a degree in art - fund it yourself.

Thank goodness you don't get to define "essential." Whew.
 
That sounds like conservatism lol, not "neoliberalism." I've honestly never heard that term

Democrats in office are rarely liberals. They're only trying to get re-elected and are discovering that since most voters never got a college education, they don't prioritize funding colleges. Don't conflate the two

Neoliberalism is simply a term (mostly used in academia) to describe market based policies. Both political parties have adopted and advocate many of these policies. Many of them have been determential to people around the world. These polices were once considered far right decades ago, now have moved center on the spectrum and are considered the norm by the many. Both parties are guilty believing education should be privatized and starving public funds is the fastest way to achieve it.
 
Neoliberalism is simply a term (mostly used in academia) to describe market based policies. Both political parties have adopted and advocate many of these policies. Many of them have been determential to people around the world. These polices were once considered far right decades ago, now have moved center on the spectrum and are considered the norm by the many. Both parties are guilty believing education should be privatized and starving public funds is the fastest way to achieve it.

Imagine they tried to privatize these 12 louisiana colleges, or every K-12. What this by necessity means is only a fraction of today's youth will have access to education. I dunno about you, but that result is not something i've ever heard as a goal by liberals or even dems.

In contrast, many repubs openly deride the "elitist" mentality that education be universal. It's a proudly anti-intellectual party, despite many of them went to elite schools.
 
When I was growing up, Republicans were derided as elitist and over-educated rich snobs (think William F. Buckley). Now they're derided as anti-intellectual rednecks. Pretty amazing that the stereotyping has spun 180 degrees in a generation.
 
Imagine they tried to privatize these 12 louisiana colleges, or every K-12. What this by necessity means is only a fraction of today's youth will have access to education. I dunno about you, but that result is not something i've ever heard as a goal by liberals or even dems.

In contrast, many repubs openly deride the "elitist" mentality that education be universal. It's a proudly anti-intellectual party, despite many of them went to elite schools.

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.
 
Here's the outcome:


Policy Futures in EducationVolume 10 Number 2 2012www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE
219
Neoliberal Education and Student Movements in Chile: Inequalities and Malaise

Neoliberal Education and StudentMovements in Chile: inequalities and malaise
CRISTIAN CABALIN

Instituto de la Comunicación e Imagen,University of Chile
ABSTRACT This article examines the major consequences of the neoliberal education systemimplemented in Chile during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet and how two important studentmovements contested this structure. In 2006 and 2011, thousands of students filled the streets todemand better public education, more social justice and equal opportunities. They rejected the free-market fundamentalism in education that has generated segregation, stratification and inequalities.Students have become important political actors who re-evaluated the discussion on education inChile. By doing so, they are rejecting the competitive and privatized nature of the current system,which is lacking in quality and equity, and they are demonstrating that new ‘social imaginary’ inChilean education is possible.
Introduction
Thousands of Chilean secondary and university students filled the streets of the nation for sevenmonths in 2011. They were marching to demand changes in the educational system that has beenunable to reduce the social and economic differences between poor and rich students. Five yearsearlier, in 2006, another student movement, known as the ‘Penguin Revolution’, foreshadowedthese protests and was the first major Chilean educational movement since the return of democracy in 1990 (Domedel & Peña y Lillo, 2008). Secondary students, nicknamed ‘penguins’ because of their black-and-white school uniforms, were in the streets demanding better publiceducation and more social justice in education.Both student movements shook the elitist Chilean democracy, characterized by low socialparticipation and the exclusion of citizens from the political system (de la Maza, 2010). Yet, themost important outcome of these movements was to generate a public and general criticismtowards neoliberal educational policies implemented in Chile (Anderson, 2011). These policiespromote the continued privatization of the education sector, which values the right of schoolchoice over the right to an equitable education, and also presents education as a commodity, whereschools are presented as a product to buy and sell. Due to this, students have made these factors themajor focus of their protests in hopes of steering away from neoliberal practices. The studentmovements surprised Chile, which is considered one of the most stable countries in Latin Americawith a sustained economic growth in the last decades (Ffrench-Davis, 2002). This economicadvancement, however, has been overshadowed by profound social inequalities produced by theneoliberal project. Chile has one of the most unequal income distributions in the world, with a Ginicoefficient at 0.54 (Sehnbruch & Donoso, 2011).Chile was the first neoliberal experiment in the world (Harvey, 2007). The dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990) imposed neoliberalism during the 1980s, following therecommendations of Milton Friedman, who was a mentor of an array of Chilean economists https://www.academia.edu/1836169/Ne...t_movements_in_Chile_Inequalities_and_malaise
 
including fully subsidized, deregulated private schools

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
 
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 $.

Because you have no idea why no-bid contracts are given out.
 
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.

Republicans huh.

Well let's look at the polar opposite to see how Liberal/Progressives approach the same issue.

Let's consider the One Party Liberal/Progressive state of California, home to most of the highest taxes and fees in the Nation.


Higher education: Brown's budget proposal calls for funding increase, tuition freeze - San Jose Mercury News

The state spends 40 percent less on each UC student and 36 percent less on each CSU student than it did 10 years ago in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to a report released last week by the California Budget Project.

This year, UC is asking for nearly twice the increase outlined in the governor's budget for the upcoming year -- an additional $125 million to expand, hire more faculty and defray some of the university's pension costs, said spokeswoman Dianne Klein.​
 
Back
Top Bottom