Quote :

"They get out of school with a huge amount of debt that they never intended to pay back."

They legally cannot get out of this debt. So whether or not they intend to "stick it to the man" is really irrelevant.

Quote :

"Statistically speaking, I know that someone who gets a degree in african american studies or history is going to have a really hard time getting a real job"

Quote :

" They always intended to live a life of free expression and sticking it to the man, but what that really means is living on welfare."

Both of these quotes are funny to hear back to back....Keeping it just under the rug...

1/29/2013 3:55:28 PM

Quote :

"tax-payers' money being used for people to get statistically useless lib art degrees."

This is not specific. Its as broad as a claim as you could possibly make, and you're somehow outraged about it despite not having any numbers to suggest that its as cost detrimental as you claim.

1/29/2013 3:56:48 PM

Quote :

"Statistically speaking, I know that someone who gets a degree in african american studies or history is going to have a really hard time getting a real job. all i'm saying is that tax-payers' money should not be used for scholarships for statistically useless scholarships. however, I'm all for liberal arts majors being offered, and for liberal arts classes being required for all college majors."

But those jobs NEED to exist, and they typically pay less. So are you saying that only rich people should get degrees in history, and we shouldn't subsidized talented, motivated people?

1/29/2013 3:57:06 PM

Quote :

"They legally cannot get out of this debt. So whether or not they intend to "stick it to the man" is really irrelevant."

Oh really? How about the age-old method of enrolling in another (useless) class to get those deferred?

What about programs promoted by liberals aimed at some sort of forgiveness or bailout (again) funded by taxpayers?

What about the drag that such debt fundamentally creates when their minimum payments are more than half the cash they have on hand? Not exactly living a fulfilling life or going out buying things at the local mall are they?

In sticking it to the man they have ensured their life of being a boat anchor, and in the unique climate of 2013 you think this is acceptable? Yet I'm the one who is morally deprived, hmmm...

1/29/2013 4:00:21 PM

Quote :

"But those jobs NEED to exist, and they typically pay less. So are you saying that only rich people should get degrees in history, and we shouldn't subsidized talented, motivated people?"

no, i'm not saying that. as mentioned there are plenty of other scholarships available for these degrees. i'm just saying tax-payers' money shouldn't be ued for degrees that statistically don't lead to jobs that use the education those degrees provide.

1/29/2013 4:02:56 PM

Quote :

" and you're somehow outraged about it despite"

dude, this tactic is getting lame. i'm not outraged, i'm commenting on a message board. try to be rational, instead of pot-stirring antagonistic prick, and maybe you'll realize we probably don't disagree as much as you want to think we do.

1/29/2013 4:08:47 PM

conversely, what should we do if someone is an engineering major, gets a state-subsidized education at NCSU, then goes and works in the peace corp? ask for them to repay their tuition subsidy?

i worked for a leading business consulting firm, and many of my colleagues had humanities and social science degrees. and were quite successful. one of them was actually Pat McCrory's nephew. and either way, the thinking that the job someone gets directly out of college is indicative of their value, as a professional, to the state is highly flawed. and mccrory should know better.

1/29/2013 4:13:19 PM

fair enough, you make some good points. as with almost every issue, lots of gray area.

1/29/2013 4:20:25 PM

Quote :

"Oh really? How about the age-old method of enrolling in another (useless) class to get those deferred?"

deferred doesn't mean forgiven.

Quote :

"What about programs promoted by liberals aimed at some sort of forgiveness or bailout (again) funded by taxpayers?"

Such as? Or are you just upset at the idea of these programs despite the fact that they don't exist?

Quote :

"What about the drag that such debt fundamentally creates when their minimum payments are more than half the cash they have on hand? Not exactly living a fulfilling life or going out buying things at the local mall are they?"

How does this affect you, again?

Quote :

"In sticking it to the man they have ensured their life of being a boat anchor"

They're sticking it to the man by not being able to afford consumer goods at the mall? That what you're going with?

What are you so upset about, exactly?

Quote :

"try to be rational, instead of pot-stirring antagonistic prick, and maybe you'll realize we probably don't disagree as much as you want to think we do."

I don't think you know what the word rational means. You keep using it, but you don't demonstrate it often. We probably don't disagree that much. Me asking you to flush out your arguments doesn't equate to being an antagonist prick. I'm asking to provide specific data, because I think if you looked into it, you'd see that there's not a whole lot there, and that most of this outrage is really fabricated.


This issue boils down to a conservative governor trying to knock down one more wall that is barricading financial wealth for a select few people. That's it. Knock down every last liberal institution, and you can establish a society with a permanent underclass.

1/29/2013 4:24:31 PM

Quote :

"Why should their "fulfilling" college experience be subsidized?"

I guess it depends on if you think the primary goal of the public university system is to educate the populace or to turn them into productive workers.

If its the latter, then yes we should retool the universities into STEM-only and leave the arts, history, and language to the aristocrats.

1/29/2013 4:25:28 PM

^^^ agree! i think dipping our toes into something like this would open up a lot of issues and debate, to which there's no real clear cut answer. there's some definite logic to the argument "if your degree doesn't add value to the state, the state shouldn't directly fund it". the challenge is linking any specific curriculum to "adding value to the state". i would say that's probably nearly impossible to do.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2013 4:26:02 PM

The answer is pretty clear. Two things:

1) Stop subsidizing student loans. Lenders will decide which college majors and which individuals are worth risking cash on. None of these useless arguments about which majors are useful and which aren't - none of us are in a position to make those claims. No one is. In a system where there are no loan subsidies, it's actually possible that private lenders will loan cash to art/history/whatever students, if those students show considerable promise, and if there is a supporting job market.

2) It's important that this be done at the same time: allow student loan debt to be discharged. This will increase the risk for the lender by a huge amount. It wouldn't be a "sign on the dotted line" deal, it would be a real interview, background check, etc on the student. Obviously, discharging a student loan would wreck your credit, but it would keep things under control.

Yes, these two changes would drastically shrink the student loan market, and your average university bro (that, in reality, should be working on HVACs) will become a thing of the past.

1/29/2013 4:27:10 PM

^private lenders won't lend to anyone unless they're getting a return on their investment.

In other words, you're just taking the decision making out of the hands of the state, and into the hands of the banking and corporate elite.


Although, these days, there's not much difference.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 4:29:43 PM

Quote :

"deferred doesn't mean forgiven."

exactly, we're just creating a whole different class of working poor with these easy to get loans...the parallels to the mortgage crisis are uncanny, but nobody in a position to fix it seems to notice/care.

^^agree 100%

^the notion that the state should propogate the "american dream" in the form of home ownership worked out well.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2013 4:36:44 PM

What about letting educators run education, instead of a disconnected government bureaucrat stating polices that make zero sense, trying to run colleges?

You'd think conservatives would be against big [state] government swirling its corrupt fingers all through higher ed.

1/29/2013 4:39:47 PM

Quote :

"In other words, you're just taking the decision making out of the hands of the state, and into the hands of the corporate elite."

"The corporate elite" aren't the only ones that can loan money, but even if they were, it's preferable to the current system. At least when private banks make risky bets, they fail and aren't able to blow up the bubble perpetually, assuming there aren't any state-run "too big to fail" programs in play.

You can choose to leave a bank and keep your money elsewhere. On the other hand, if the government wants to piss away the money they took from you, you've got exactly one vote that means exactly nothing.

Quote :

"^private lenders won't lend to anyone unless they're getting a return on their investment."

Also, this is completely reasonable. Why shouldn't they get a return on an investment? If you're expecting a return, it's not an investment.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 4:42:40 PM

You're just shuffling absolute power from one entity into the hands of another.

I can never understand how you so intuitively understand the danger of letting the government amassing so much power, and yet so obstinately refuse to see the danger of letting that same power swing into the grasps of private interests.

1/29/2013 4:45:45 PM

Quote :

"You're just shuffling absolute power from one entity into the hands of another."

Businesses don't have absolute power. They aren't holding a gun to your head figuratively or literally. You can choose to bank at Wells Fargo, you choose to shop at Wal-Mart, you choose to pay tuition. You don't choose to be taxed and you don't get to decide how the money is spent.

1/29/2013 4:48:22 PM

Quote :

"Also, this is completely reasonable. Why shouldn't they get a return on an investment? If you're expecting a return, it's not an investment."

This is an argument for even higher interest rates, which would even further plunge the borrower into debt. What's the current student rate? 6.8%? How quickly do you think that would jump to 20%?

Quote :

"Businesses don't have absolute power. They aren't holding a gun to your head figuratively or literally. You can choose to bank at Wells Fargo, you choose to shop at Wal-Mart, you choose to pay tuition. You don't choose to be taxed and you don't get to decide how the money is spent."

I can easily deconstruct the power of private interests just the same as you do for the state. I could also sit here and say that in terms of education, the lender should only seek to break even, and not turn a profit. And I could tell you that you choose how the money is spent democratically. But you and I both know that those levers of government power are corrupted.

And to assume that they wouldn't be corrupted by private interests is beneath your level of understanding when it comes to the dynamics of amassing and maintaining power. Wells Fargo and Wal Mart didn't become behemoths because they play clean. How much choice do you really have when Wells Fargo and Wal Mart put all their competition out of business? You casually dismiss the idea of voting at the ballot while simultaneously promoting the idea of voting with your wallet. C'mon, man.


You wanna have a discussion, then let's have a discussion. But if we're just going to sit here and play the same private/public script that always gets played here, then wake me up when the show's over. I've seen that movie before. It sucks. Everyone dies.



[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 4:48:24 PM

Quote :

"I can never understand how you so intuitively understand the danger of letting the government amassing so much power, and yet so obstinately refuse to see the danger of letting that same power swing into the grasps of private interests."

but its not the same power. If allowed to, the risk associated with an activity limits private enterprise from acting foolishly. Problem with government in this situation is that it removes the risk and allows (likely encourages) both lenders and universities to do things they otherwise wouldn't.

1/29/2013 4:54:44 PM

Quote :

"This is an argument for even higher interest rates, which would even further plunge the borrower into debt. What's the current student rate? 6.8%? How quickly do you think that would jump to 20%?"

No, I'm not arguing for higher interest rates. I'm arguing for changes that would cause the student loan market to collapse almost entirely, requiring a restructuring of the university system, a reduction in tuition, and the likely closing of many private, "for profit" schools.

If loans can be discharged, that effectively pulls the rug from beneath the loan market. Lenders have been operating on the assumption that they can issue these loans with very little risk, and they've been right. It doesn't matter that you're giving 50,000 dollars to some college brah that is going to literally spend more time rolling joints than actually sitting in class, because default simply isn't in the cards.

Quote :

"I can easily deconstruct the power of private interests just the same as you do for the state. I could also sit here and say that in terms of education, the lender should only seek to break even, and not turn a profit. And I could tell you that you choose how the money is spent democratically. But you and I both know that those levers of government power are corrupted. And to assume that they wouldn't be corrupted by private interests is beneath your level of understanding when it comes to the dynamics of amassing and maintaining power. Wells Fargo and Wal Mart didn't become behemoths because they play clean. How much choice do you really have when Wells Fargo and Wal Mart put all their competition out of business? C'mon, man."

You didn't make an argument here, unfortunately, so there's very little for me to respond to. No one is going to risk losing money so that they can make no money. If you're arguing that the government can "just break even", that's not how it actually works. The government loses money on the loans, but since they've got a bunch of people paying in and a system built around providing unlimited funds, the waste is baked right into the economy. If some economic activity is inherently wasteful, having the government take over that activity doesn't solve the problem, it just dumps the waste on the people. We want businesses (i.e. "the corporate elite") to be the ones responsible for their wasteful practices.

We don't choose anything democratically, everything is chosen by bureaucrats, or at best representatives, and I may or may not have voted for the representatives that were elected. So, no, I don't agree with that.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 4:56:10 PM

Alternate Scenario:

Make state funded universities as $free as possible, however, make the degrees more difficult to get. Then if one has the ability, they are able to succeed without the judgements of some loan officer. There really are some quality jobs for liberal arts majors in our economy, but only the best students get those, and those types of jobs aren't as prevalent as quality jobs for STEM majors. If you only graduate the best/most determined students, then they will get jobs and be "productive" members of society. For those students that aren't able to graduate they can choose from a private college or a community college (which should also probably be made a little harder.)

1/29/2013 5:14:34 PM

Quote :

"We don't choose anything democratically"

You don't vote with your wallet, either. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Quote :

"We want businesses (i.e. "the corporate elite") to be the ones responsible for their wasteful practices."

And how do you suggest we do that, exactly?

1/29/2013 5:35:54 PM

our state funded universities are already dirt cheap for in-state tuition, with a lot of that cost being subsidized by taxpayers. If we're graduating students with worthless majors that won't help them contribute to the tax base in the future, then that was a bad investment of taxpayer money.

1/29/2013 5:37:29 PM

Quote :

"You don't vote with your wallet, either. That's the point I'm trying to make."

Aside from taxes, the direction of my wages is up to me. I choose which bank my money is deposited into, if I want it deposited in a bank at all. I choose if I want to spend money on rent or if I want to buy property. I choose which restaurants or grocery stores I want to shop at. The market has provided me several (usually hundreds or thousands) of options for every single good or service, and private solutions have also given me great tools to help determine which goods or services will best suit my needs.

I don't call it voting, I call it decision making. Individually, I choose where my money goes. Collectively, people decide which products/services they want to support. Intuitively, we all understand this - you'd rather be shopping or eating at the establishment of your choice than at the DMV.

Quote :

"And how do you suggest we do that, exactly?"

"We" don't do anything. If some business decides to invest in shitty technology that no one wants, or some store buys a few tons of perishable goods that go to waste, the loss is on them. They took the risk, so they make decisions about how to distribute the reward or the losses. If they lose enough, they go bankrupt.

1/29/2013 5:53:18 PM

Monopolies

1/29/2013 5:55:13 PM

The government is one. If we look back a century and examine these supposed "monopolies", the customers weren't complaining, their competitors were.

1/29/2013 5:59:21 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that a monopoly of power is only bad when it's in the hands of the state?

You seriously think that Wells Fargo, and Wal Mart, to use your examples, are free of criticism from the people?

Quote :

"If we look back a century and examine these supposed "monopolies", the customers weren't complaining, their competitors were."

You made this up. I don't understand how you understand the dangers of hierarchical power and endorse the breakdown of that power structure. But as soon as someone is turning a profit off that exact same abuse of power, you're totally fine with it.


[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 6:14:49 PM

Quote :

"If we look back a century and examine these supposed "monopolies", the customers weren't complaining, their competitors were."

Say what? Can you name a single person who supports TWC or Comcast?

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2013 6:51:30 PM

What is the $ value of having an enlightened and generally more intelligent population? People spent hundreds of years attempting to democratize education because the wealthy elites kept it unaffordable for the general population which in turn kept the lower classes subdued. Providing an education for its citizenry is the best way to prevent the government from being handed back to the nobles in the aristocracy.

I'm not surprised that the Republican plutocrats want to push this. Nothing can keep a population more docile than a bunch of idiots. This debate wouldn't even need to take place if: 1) the United States could keep up with the rest of the civilized world and have progressive tax policy which would make college available to more people and 2) grades K-12 did a better job at teaching humanities.

If you don't agree with that then you should really be arguing against the frivolity of the culture surrounding selecting majors that hold little value and will sink you into debt. If there's anything we can all agree on in this thread it's that the kid who spends 5 years at NYU learning about interpretive dance is probably pretty stupid. Parents, guidance counselors, and teachers should do a better job of imparting wisdom on that kid to make better decisions. Jon Stewart said on one of his shows recently that "we didn't change the first amendment to make racism or sexism illegal, we made it culturally unacceptable to be racist or sexist." I think that fits in this situation as well. If the state subsidizes an engineering degree then it should subsidize an English degree. Pulling back on liberal arts classes at this point would amount to a reduction in freedom.

Bottom line, this debate is stupid. Republicans want uneducated corporate automatons.

1/29/2013 7:03:24 PM

Quote :

"What is the $ value of having an enlightened and generally more intelligent population? People spent hundreds of years attempting to democratize education because the wealthy elites kept it unaffordable for the general population which in turn kept the lower classes subdued. Providing an education for its citizenry is the best way to prevent the government from being handed back to the nobles in the aristocracy."

Some people will never understand societal benefit outside of monetary value.

1/29/2013 7:04:54 PM

But..but...but Duke Energy provides you with electricity!!1 If you don't like our new electric overlords, then you may go live in a cave, and don't bitch about the polluted air/water as a result of less regulated coal-fired power plants.

And before any of you people say anything, ask Pat McCrony if Duke is really so heavily regulated by the state/fed government. . .

1/29/2013 7:05:30 PM

^^^^ He's going to say that it's a government-sponsored monopoly and that companies are free to enter the market. Then we're going to counter with the argument that building out infrastructure is an impossible barrier to entry. Then it's going to dissolve into a rhetorical pissing match where neither side can convince the other of their point.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2013 7:07:23 PM

Quote :

"Can you name a single person who supports TWC or Comcast?"

To be fair, they got their monopolies because the various state governments made it illegal to compete with them, same way AT&T did.

1/29/2013 7:09:50 PM

Barriers to entry

1/29/2013 7:12:10 PM

this movie sucks

1/29/2013 7:16:35 PM

Quote :

"To be fair, they got their monopolies because the various state governments made it illegal to compete with them, same way AT&T did."

I'd like to know how there wouldn't be a monopoly if telecommunications were completely privatized. How do you convince reluctant landowners to allow lines on their property? Whoever owns the existing infrastructure owns it all.

[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 7:24 PM. Reason : since this has turned into an anarchism debate]

1/29/2013 7:21:36 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to know how there wouldn't be a monopoly if telecommunications were completely privatized."

It's not like you don't already have monopolies now. How many cable and telephone providers do you have available at your home? A you satisfied with them and feel that there is no way that increased competition could improve your options and service?

Quote :

"How do you convince reluctant landowners to allow lines on their property?"

I'm going to go with "you pay them money", kind of like how they do cellular infrastructure.

Ultimately, I can buy that you could have monopoly situations occur with telecom infrastructure, but honestly we already have that now, and the government is doing a piss poor job of keeping competition up (there's what two baby bells that own 90 some odd percent of the phones in this country and they don't directly compete with each other)



[Edited on January 29, 2013 at 8:02 PM. Reason : Spellcheck]

1/29/2013 7:37:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to go with "you pay them money", kind of like how they do cellular infrastructure."

Not everyone can be bought.

1/29/2013 7:56:14 PM

Sick burn from McCrory to UNC

1/29/2013 8:00:51 PM

Quote :

"Not everyone can be bought."

You don't need to buy everyone, just enough people to set up your infrastructure. Besides, everyone has a price. He'll you'd probably get most people to sign on board if you just offered them free top tier service for life. For the rest, you pay them money, or eventually you reach a point where it's just cheaper to go around.

1/29/2013 8:07:36 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting that a monopoly of power is only bad when it's in the hands of the state? You seriously think that Wells Fargo, and Wal Mart, to use your examples, are free of criticism from the people?"

Having a monopoly on power and violence is the state. You can't point to any examples of a company that had a true monopoly on power. There are a handful of kinda not really examples of monopolies in certain industries, but the robber barons weren't going door to door with guns to build a customer base.

Quote :

"You made this up. I don't understand how you understand the dangers of hierarchical power and endorse the breakdown of that power structure. But as soon as someone is turning a profit off that exact same abuse of power, you're totally fine with it."

I don't think you fully understand my position. I don't have a problem with or see anything inherently wrong with hierarchies. It could definitely be argued that hierarchy can lead to inefficiency or can increase efficiency, but there's really no ethical problem with authority if people voluntarily submit to it. I have a problem with the initiation of force. As I've stated time and time again, Wal-mart is not forcing you to shop there. That's not to say their hands are clean; most mega-corps in the U.S. are guilty of leveraging the government gun for their own purposes, but the problem there is not unrestrained corporate power, it's that we created an all powerful gun that has the final say with no competitive force to keep it under control.

Quote :

"Say what? Can you name a single person who supports TWC or Comcast?"

I certainly don't. That's why I switched to Uverse. I've never been happier with an ISP, and it's cheaper than TWC.

This argument we've got to have a powerful state, otherwise corporations will take over is honestly an exercise in mental masturbation. It's akin to being diagnosed with cancer, and when the doctor prescribes treatment, you say, "Yeah, but what if I get Malaria?" Well, you can worry about that if and when it comes up, but right now we can point to the disastrous effects of the current system and deal with the hypotheticals later.

1/29/2013 8:16:25 PM

I must say that certain things don't belong at a public university (mostly art and music), but lit, history and social sciences do. Does he not understand how many lawyers and professors get those degrees?

Republicans are getting real agro about higher education though.

1/30/2013 12:38:16 AM

Who needs art and music?

It's not like those things ever mattered to society...

1/30/2013 1:15:48 AM

*Argues for freedom and liberty*

*Hates government intrusion into lives*

*Wants the government to decide what you can study in college*

*Is Conservative*

1/30/2013 1:48:38 AM

Quote :

"I'm arguing for changes that would cause the student loan market to collapse almost entirely, requiring a restructuring of the university system, a reduction in tuition, and the likely closing of many private, "for profit" schools."

And of course, with this, you are shutting out a huge portion of society from the opportunity to get an education that could potentially lift them out of their socio-economic class. You and I both know who would suffer from this, and it ain't the "college bruh" you're thinking about.

Quote :

"the direction of my wages is up to me. I choose which bank my money is deposited into, if I want it deposited in a bank at all"

C'mon. How many people saw their bank get absorbed by another bank within the past 4 years alone?

Quote :

"I don't think you fully understand my position."

Apparently not

Quote :

" I don't have a problem with or see anything inherently wrong with hierarchies"

That's funny, because when it comes to the power of the state, you absolutely hate it and advocate breaking it down. You get on your soapbox and speak about the dangers of concentrated power, and sound like a revolutionary, ready to speak truth to power and challenge the establishment.

But once someone whispers in your ear, "hey, if we get rid of the state, then private interests can come in and make a profit doing this" you become all:

Quote :

"As I've stated time and time again, Wal-mart is not forcing you to shop there"

Yeah, and you've been off the mark, too. There are towns that are food deserts, where the only source of fresh food is at a Wal Mart. Not only that, but Wal Mart is the largest employer in the United States (and they pay dirt-cheap, and half of their employees qualify for food stamps and medicaid---which means you are subsidizing the wealth of the Walton family, by the way).

What, you think these companies wouldn't immediately go back to having company towns, forcing their employees to live in company homes, and bring in the Pinkertons to escort strikebreakers who make less pay? Of course they would. And they'll happily crush every mom and pop grocery store along the way as they continue to grow unchecked.

Quote :

"This argument we've got to have a powerful state, otherwise corporations will take over is honestly an exercise in mental masturbation."

Only because you're ascribing it to people. There are plenty of people in this thread who would like to speak about divorcing corporate and state power. People who understand that one has already captured the other, and that you must first separate the two before you can discuss how much each distinct entity should have, and to whom each entity should be accountable.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,”

-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

1/30/2013 3:58:07 AM

of course he hates the liberal arts

I mean they're liberal

1/30/2013 6:42:47 AM

rofl what the fuck did FDR know about liberty?

1/30/2013 6:48:00 AM

What didn't he know?

1/30/2013 6:56:19 AM

Everyone seems to have accepted the biggest change he wants to make: for higher education to be about job creation. It's not and shouldn't be.

1/30/2013 7:56:29 AM