The Biden Administration and All Things Politics


Avery

Well-Known Member
I'm creating this thread to talk about politics and things not pertaining to Trump. As enticing as the impeach Trump thread has been, he's no longer president and I'm tired of talking about him. I also don't think it's the place to talk about the new admin.

Anyway, I read today that Biden is against the $50k debt cancellation of student loans and I'm actually okay with this. I don't think people going to Ivy League schools should get to do so for free. Moreso than that, how are we going to pay for this?

Cancelling up to $10k in debt or allowing up to $10k in college loans to be written off on taxes is easier to stomach. Make college more affordable, loans interest-free provided regular payments are made (exceptions for hardships) and you can get kids into schools without sacrificing their financial future.

I would honestly like to be more radical and really understand the need for two years of general as I find these to be a waste of time and money for 'allied' courses that may have nothing to do with your major. Maybe reduce them down to one year as a starting point. Kind of feel like we have four years of college for the sole purposes of collegiate sports which is funny as those students are usually only there because they have to be in order to meet 1 year deadlines for NBA or 3 year deadlines for NFL.
 


Beer

Well-Known Member
I'm not opposed to getting rid of student loan debt, in fact I think it makes sense in a lot of ways. But then what? What do all the colleges do? What happens to tuition? A **** ton of things that would need to be worked out first, and that will never happen so I'm not counting on it.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
I'm creating this thread to talk about politics and things not pertaining to Trump. As enticing as the impeach Trump thread has been, he's no longer president and I'm tired of talking about him. I also don't think it's the place to talk about the new admin.

Anyway, I read today that Biden is against the $50k debt cancellation of student loans and I'm actually okay with this. I don't think people going to Ivy League schools should get to do so for free. Moreso than that, how are we going to pay for this?

Cancelling up to $10k in debt or allowing up to $10k in college loans to be written off on taxes is easier to stomach. Make college more affordable, loans interest-free provided regular payments are made (exceptions for hardships) and you can get kids into schools without sacrificing their financial future.

I would honestly like to be more radical and really understand the need for two years of general as I find these to be a waste of time and money for 'allied' courses that may have nothing to do with your major. Maybe reduce them down to one year as a starting point. Kind of feel like we have four years of college for the sole purposes of collegiate sports which is funny as those students are usually only there because they have to be in order to meet 1 year deadlines for NBA or 3 year deadlines for NFL.
This is something we have got to at least talk about.

Historically, tuition scholarships or grants have fueled higher tuition. And lower scholastic values. That's what funds the general ed crap and irrelevant stipulated classes.

I think online universities make more sense than brick and mortar "traditional" institutions. I'd go for ending the various monopolistic strangleholds. Incentivize online programs. Cheaper and better education, saves kids a lot of moolah.
 

Avery

Well-Known Member
This is something we have got to at least talk about.

Historically, tuition scholarships or grants have fueled higher tuition. And lower scholastic values. That's what funds the general ed crap and irrelevant stipulated classes.

I think online universities make more sense than brick and mortar "traditional" institutions. I'd go for ending the various monopolistic strangleholds. Incentivize online programs. Cheaper and better education, saves kids a lot of moolah.
Athletics dominate the collegiate landscape and the amount of budget they have is downright sickening. I can't imagine most board of trustees would be willing to flush $20M to drop a low-performing history professor as opposed to that coach who didn't get you more than one bowl berth.

I'm all in on the online perspective - provided they are accredited institutions with a good experience, makes much more sense to not riddle students with not only their college debt but room and board, overpriced parking passes and inflated book prices, etc.

If online learning would have been an option when I was younger, I would have gone that route for sure. The college experience taught me many things, but I gladly would have lived with my parents a few years and worked part-time vs. finding that roommates are awful, your stuff stolen and looking forward to it simply being over more than anything.

Your experience may vary, but life comes at you fast and trying to raise a family with car payments, rent, etc. under the bedrock of student loans sets nobody up for success.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
I think online universities make more sense than brick and mortar "traditional" institutions. I'd go for ending the various monopolistic strangleholds. Incentivize online programs. Cheaper and better education, saves kids a lot of moolah.
On-line learning, especially asynchronous on-line learning, is inferior to in-class instruction. Retention rates go into the toilet.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
I would honestly like to be more radical and really understand the need for two years of general as I find these to be a waste of time and money for 'allied' courses that may have nothing to do with your major.
Part of the educational mission is producing people who are capable of adapting to changes in the market and in life. If anything, two years of gerneral education is too small. If you really want so narrow a learning opportunity, do an apprenticeship program.
 

Avery

Well-Known Member
Hat tip to politics, but Rush Limbaugh has died at 70 of lung cancer complications.

Didn't agree with his political ideology, but cancer is a bigger foe than any one person.

 

Avery

Well-Known Member
On-line learning, especially asynchronous on-line learning, is inferior to in-class instruction. Retention rates go into the toilet.
I would value a live-classroom environment for sure - and absolutely no reason you couldn't do this via video-conference. 80% of college structure is probably asynchronous anyway in terms of writing papers, reading, etc. That said, see no reason why a person sitting on a computer paying attention/non-attention is any different than a class hall with 300 students sitting in the back paying attention/non-attention.

Now recorded live sessions and being able to have those does add some flexibility for those that can't make a certain time period - different strokes for different folks. The institution isn't going to care if you're paying attention or not, they're getting your money regardless so it's up to the student to actually put up the effort to get it done. I would agree that these are more prone to feeling like you're going through the motions - I also could probably count on one hand the actual times a classroom discussion was more valuable than something I read in a book.

Working and studying from home can be isolating, but much of that is also on the individual. If you're willing to forego the social side of things, it can be rewarding.
 

Eminence

Well-Known Member
Fixing the university system for the future is the top priority - divorcing it from athletics, expanding trade schools/community colleges, get back to a university system that does what it's intended to do (places of research to prepare researchers/educators/other professional+ level degrees), not a daycare for 19-22 year olds that everybody goes to after high school (some of that 'fixing' is providing a better HS education that prepares more people for the work force through trades/general life skills).

I'm also not particularly worried about paying for student loan forgiveness, we've spent that on Covid relief at this point (and are planning to spend a solid amount more), Trump's tax cuts were approximately equal to it, a Trillion dollars is a lot (1.7 actually I think), that's undeniable, but it's not that much to the US government. If y'all want to means test it some at the top then I guess. But it's money we largely owe to ourselves that would see significantly more young people actively engaged in the economy.

Disclosure - got about 20k left on my student loans.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
On-line learning, especially asynchronous on-line learning, is inferior to in-class instruction. Retention rates go into the toilet.
It would be prudent to examine the study purporting to support this finding.

Online schooling gets the same people riled as school choice, student vouchers for private schooling, or busting the teacher unions. Expect no actual honesty in these debates from those quarters.

When I found my own efforts failing, I signed my girls up for online school. They liked the teachers there, who were very good imo. They outgrew that, and then we put them in the public schools. They were instant leaders in their classes on virtually all subjects.

The social aspect of public schools is perhaps the strongest card in the game.

My own experience in public schools was pretty good. A lot of excellent teachers. I just think the indoctrination nowadays is insufferable.
 
Last edited:

One Brow

Well-Known Member
I would value a live-classroom environment for sure - and absolutely no reason you couldn't do this via video-conference. 80% of college structure is probably asynchronous anyway in terms of writing papers, reading, etc. That said, see no reason why a person sitting on a computer paying attention/non-attention is any different than a class hall with 300 students sitting in the back paying attention/non-attention.
In my undergraduate days, I took perhaps 2 classes with a roster over 35. Let's not pretend 300 is the norm.

Yes, we actually tell our students they should expect to do 1.5-3 hours of work outside the class for every hour in class, so 80% is not too much of an exaggeration. However, the difference between 80% and 100% asynchronous is vast.

The difference between following a lecture in person vs. on-line is so hard-wired into our brains (the sensual part of the experience is very different), that I find it difficult to believe you don't notice it. These things matter in student learning.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
It would be prudent to examine the study purporting to support this finding.

Online schooling gets the same people riled as school choice, student vouchers for private schooling, or busting the teacher unions.
This comes directly from my department chair, talking to those of us teaching a completely asynchronous class, on the extra attention we will need to spend on student involvement to keep them invested in the class. SWIC has been doing asynchronous classes for a few years now. It has nothing to do with school choice, nor vouchers, nor the teacher's union.

Expect no actual honesty in these debates from those quarters.
It is so you, that the groups that your don't trust regarding good teaching practices are precisely the groups representing actual teachers.

My own experience in public schools was pretty good. A lot of excellent teachers. I just think the indoctrination nowadays is insufferable.
You prefer the indoctrination we got as children?
 

Top