I'm not seeing an ethical issue there. I don't see any connection at all. Government should be subsidizing education much more, in the form of reducing tuition and other fees at public universities, and by reducing student loan interest to a level well below free market rates, and by funding more scholarships and grants. Private universities don't directly receive government money and the government has no control over what they charge. It's a completely separate system. They're not for people on tight budgets; never have been. I got my degree from a state school. It was fine. I didn't even investigate any private schools. I haven't heard Bernie or Hillary say anything about changing the way private universities operate. I'm not sure why they would want to propose what would essentially amount to a government takeover of those schools, when it would be simpler and much cheaper to continue expanding the capacity of existing state schools, which are already public property. I'm also not sure it would be constitutional for the government to say that no university could operate independently of the government and set its own tuition rates. That's a free speech issue.
I see it in simple terms - for profit schools are by their very nature predatory, and they make use of very predatory loan practices. Their students comprise 12% of post-public high school education overall and yet 96% of those 12% have taken on high interest loan rates. I read this study the other day, if I had a PC I would provide links but I don't so please feel free to cross reference me. I find it disturbing that a supposed "public servant" has taken $16 million from a for profit school when for profit schools comprise a large chunk of the student debt this "public servant " pretends to want to ease. I actually find it disturbing how wealthy the Clintons are in general. This one just really hit a nerve as I know people who have been ripped off by for profit schools. This may be a small issue in the eyes of most people - after all, the Clintons are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. What's 16 million more? Anyways, call me simplistic but I feel like this illustrates a point I was trying to make in another thread about Hillary being a psychopath. Why would anyone who truly feels empathy for their constituents, in this case working class people who were lured in by the predatory practices of for profit colleges, accept $16 million dollars from this industry??
Wealth does not necessarily make for a bad President. Washington was worth $525 million in 2010 dollars, Adams $19 million, Jefferson $212 million, Madison $101 million, Teddy Roosevelt $125 million, FDR $60 million, Eisenhower $8 million, Kennedy $1 billion, Johnson $98 million, Clinton $38 million, Obama $5 million. ~ Business Insider Nor does it necessarily make for a good President.
Can you find an example of a predatory private college? All that comes to mind is disreputable online shit like the University of Phoenix. In general, I don't have a huge amount of empathy for people who sign up for something before they know what it's going to cost. I don't see private colleges as key players in the economic future of the average American young person. I don't care much what they do.
All decent or even great presidents but I find this disturbing. We truly are an oligarchy. I don't begrudge people their wealth but I would like to get it out of politics. Yes, exactly - the University of Phoenix. For profit schools are not the same as private schools. For profit schools are publically owned and traded companies. Some other examples are Virginia College, Trump University (lol), ITT, Strayer University. I looked up the tuition for a 2 year nursing program through Virginia College and it is about $49,000. Compare that to our local tech school here which offers the same degree (with a higher rate of job placement) for roughly $2000 a semester. I don't understand why people choose to enroll in these schools - I know the tech school here has a long waiting list for their healthcare programs so maybe that comes into play. I also know for profit schools use extremely aggressive marketing techniques and target single mothers and other low income people. They also use a lot of subterfuge as far as their job placement rates after graduation. They also have pretty low graduation rates. Several schools have been sued for fraud actually, amongst other lawsuits and investigations. For profit schools enroll 12% of the college population but comprise 31% of all student debt which is a very sizable chunk. They're pretty horrible.
As an employer, I wouldn't consider hiring someone with a degree from an online university unless there were no other applicants and I was in a rush to fill a position. I'm very skeptical of how much they know. Technically, any university that isn't public is private, no matter who owns it. There's not a lot of regulation. Accreditation boards look at academic standards, not ownership or finances. You could start your own university if you wanted to, and name it after yourself. (Actually, Mel U sounds kind of cool!) As long as we have any kind of freedom of choice in such matters, there will be people making bad decisions about how and where to spend their time and money. It's not up to the government to fix that. What I want to see is a return to the old days when tax revenues on large corporations and wealthy individuals were sufficient to subsidize state universities on a level such that ordinary middle class people like my parents could afford to pay college tuition for one or two kids without raiding their retirement fund. We've already proven it can be done. The economy was quite strong back then. There was usually sufficient scholarship money and grant money for the poor, so the main limiting factors in education were academic ability and willingness to work, which is the way it should be. We can't make it any more fair than that.
Ideally, they get invited for a talk and you can remove or affirm the skepticism! If there are enough applicants with great resumes (partly because of their degrees) the choice is easy of course and you can resort to just the ones with fine degrees. I know my resume sucks but I also know I'm a great and loyal worker (slightly depends on the job of course ). Not sure what kind of employer I would be in the end But I would try to hire one or two peeps with smaller chances. They just have to make a good impression in person (and not be unfit for the job naturally). I wouldn't only resort to the ones with great degrees.
I mean, I agree with you as far as a return to affordable state tuition. I don't think private institutions should be subsidized - I just think Bill Clinton made $16 million off a very sleazy industry.
I did some reading on Sanders before going to vote for the primary. What's all this about his 'love affair' with Russia during the Cold War era? This makes me a bit suspicious... but I still would like to see how things turn out, so I voted to keep him going at least. I don't like the idea of having close relations with the likes of Putin... but like I said, that was back in the 60's-70's. Also, I remember him making the news a few times for his radical outbursts during congressional hearings not long ago. My views on each and every candidate in this election are now completely mixed. Even so far as to say I'm discouraged at any outcome... Yet again.
Man, Mainstream media is horrible - I already knew this but it has been interesting, and so, so discouraging to watch the media steer this election. Even NPR, which up until somewhat recently was a last bastion for at least somewhat fair and balanced news, has really shown their true colors this election cycle. this morning there was some guy on the morning show, I'm not even sure who he was, espousing all the positive qualities of free trade and how the good outweighs the bad (no.) and then there was a commercial for Koch industries. Yup, on national public radio. This morning was the last morning I will ever listen to NPR's morning edition.
It seems even lefties can be conservative/reactionary regarding changes that would shake up the status quo. If the Kochs had an ad on NPR, the curtain was pulled back a little, but don't look! It's scary. It's rather obvious to me that if capitalism is going to continue be the dominant force in the US, major changes need to happen along the lines of money out of elections, tighter controls on the banking ststem, the elimination of off shore type loopholes that precludes HUGE corporations and individuals from paying a fair share of the "burdens"of running a civilized and equitable society and a return of the Fairness Doctrine to clip the wings of the right wing liars and the distortions they spew daily. (says captain obvious.)
Bernie Sanders is not an unknown commodity if you just do a little research. Like, just one hour could produce in insane amount of knowable commodities. (History on civil rights, health care, fighting big money, etc... that goes back decades.) (A record showing that he has held to the same beliefs for half a century, meaning you can count on him to pursue what he says he'll pursue when elected as our president.) And this whole "free everything" bullshit is just that... bullshit. He shows how he'll increase taxes and other money sinks in order to pay for his plans. And while his plans include free education and healthcare (as a couple examples), it's not just out of thin fucking air... it's a balancing of how government funds are applied. So... you'll be voting for Bernie Sanders then?
Very interesting. I find it interesting still though, that it's always he-said she-said. Where are the cold hard facts? (Maybe I missed them in the first link because they were speaking in legislature/lawyer terms... I get confused with too many names and I'm not quite awake yet lol) At least I think I know all that communist garbage is just childish slander now. The NY Times page I originally pulled my questionable info from did have a picture of Bernie wearing a Soviet coat of arms and a Soviet flag in the background (which was all black to enhance the simply delightful propaganda they were pushing). I probably should have known better honestly. Makes me want to go back to high school and study tactics in presidential propaganda again... Now, what about his publicized outbursts during congressional hearings in recent years?? Is it true he's out of the race? Or are his numbers just not high enough to be displayed anymore? (I sense another Ron Paul conspiracy happening) [I should really utilize the Great Google a little more often, methinks]
What outbursts are you talking about? Bernie is not out of the race, but he is consistently marginalized by the media.
