BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

oh so jay did take free money then, not even attributable to military service. he just took free money. why can't we just get over this simple (and quite harmless) fact, and debate properly? every single thread where you put on your hardcore libertarian/relapsed objectivist hat gets held up by this giant incongruence, jay. if supmind started talking pro-fascism we'd feel the same way. if androoz registered here for a discussion of string theoy, we'd have the same disbelief. everytime you spout "fuck big government, fuck free money" lines, we see an ex-military vet who grant-skipped his way through college. it retards discussion. can we just get a little consistency and veracity?

Child, just stop posting on the topic, you are completely fucking ignorant.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

child? i'm 23. and i never took a welfare handout and then claimed to be some anti-welfare staunch free-market libertarian. how about avoiding the futile attempts to patronize me, and just explaining the thorny issue?

I've explained it several times and yet you keep bringing it up, repeatedly, as if you have some massive issue to beat me down with.

You say I have some cognitive dissonance on the issue when I don't, at all. I say that the government should get rid of PELL grants because subsidies like that jack up tuition. You then say I'm trying to deny others what I received when that's not the issue at all. I want to see tuition lowered, not subsidies increased. Get rid of the grant and schools will be forced to lower their tuition in order to maintain their student populations. It's not rocket science.

This entire conversation was about abuse of the system. I didn't abuse the system. I took a grant that every low income student qualifies for and maxes out at $5,500 per year. Is that a lot of money? No, and it's even less when you realize that the annual cost of tuition in this country is approaching $20,000 per semester. In fact, 58% of American college students qualify for and receive PELL grants. It goes directly to the school, not into the pocket of the person receiving it.

So no, there is no cognitive dissonance, there was no abuse, you can stop bringing it up in every thread as if it's something that makes me a hypocrite or a liar, because it doesn't. Every time you bring it up, it makes you look completely stupid and petty.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

you really think the elite schools will lower their tuition if you get rid of government subsidies? examples abound of them doing the complete opposite.

most kids that go to Ivy leagues recieve quite a bit of financial aid. those schools get way more money from endowments than tuition. the subsidies affect across the board rise of college tuition. there are really really shitty schools charging 60k a year because they know they can.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

elite schools in the UK were all state funded across the board until about 2 years ago. now all their money comes from tuition, with hardly any government help. know what? all the elite schools still set their fees as high as possible. the schools don't bring down their fees in line with their reduced subsidy: they keep them high, justifying their high tuition fees with the high costs/expenses they are used to accruing with state subsidy. the only result is that the student is asked to go and loan more from private banks and loan companies. who are, of course, more than happy to oblige.

saying that schools lower their tuition when you remove 'inflationary' government subsidies is laughable. if you force the schools to fund all of their activity on tuition fee money alone, they will justify their continued high tuition fees on exactly that basis. people will just have to borrow more in order to attend-- or just not attend at all.

That's the difference between the US and the UK. Schools in the US are indirectly funded by the government through grants and what not (unless they're state public schools). Top Uni's have always been private in the US, cutting off the government won't really make a difference to the high ranking schools. it's apples and oranges.

except they won't 'get pushback'. a bunch of poor, talented kids won't be able to go. the children of the rich and wealthy, pretty much regardless of ability (because they need the numbers to make up for all the priced-out lot) will still go. you have a very optimistic view of how the higher-education sector will 'regulate' itself if the state steps back. universities operated as finishing schools and cultural kitchens for the children of the privileged class for centuries - that was their historical function. they're perfectly happy charging the already-good loads of money to educate their kids. that's the university performing its traditional role: enabler and educator of the ruling class minority.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-31 13:32:05)

I know several people who got priced out of Ivy universities. Three people in my graduating class were accepted to Harvard, but none of them could bear the cost so a most of them ended up going to Indiana on full scholarships. The people I know who went to Upenn, Stanford, and Princeton all come from rich families, too.
And on the other hand, there's my freshman roommates girlfriend who transferred to Cornell despite being a fucking idiot but her parents were loaded.

DesertFox- wrote:

I know several people who got priced out of Ivy universities. Three people in my graduating class were accepted to Harvard, but none of them could bear the cost so a most of them ended up going to Indiana on full scholarships. The people I know who went to Upenn, Stanford, and Princeton all come from rich families, too.
And on the other hand, there's my freshman roommates girlfriend who transferred to Cornell despite being a fucking idiot but her parents were loaded.

I'd take the loans if i got into harvard. you got that shit on your resume = 100% jerb

Jay wrote:

That's not how it works. Ivy league schools are happy to take money from children with wealthy parent, but the prestige of the school is based on the work performed by the less well off that aren't there just to socialize and earn gentlemans c's. Talented poor kids will never get priced out of those schools, and you damn well know that's true because you made that very argument when trying to troll that kid from Yale. Just shut up and go away already, I'm tired of arguing with you about everything. Your act is extremely old.

lol what? how is my current argument frustrating you? and where are you getting this from? top schools' reputations are held up by hard-working poor kids? i'm not sure you understand how university reputation and ranking is calculated. it's all based on postgraduate research output. a universities esteem has nothing to do with its undergraduates. that's why many 'top' and 'elite' universities have absolutely terrible track-records when it comes to teaching quality. universities are recognized worldwide because of their senior staff and their research influence... not poor kids getting great marks in their undergraduate electives. lol wtf.

and no, what generally happens is that these institutions do just price out lower-class or poorer students. universities are not the most social- or class- conscious places. true, they'll do a lot to incentivize talented and promising postgraduate researchers (especially foreign ones, in american HE), but as for undergraduate access? i think you'd be (deflatingly) surprised. the UK's higher-education has undergone just this change in the last few years, moving from state-managed funding to a "set your own fees and manage your own budget" laissez-faire approach. all the top universities pretty much in the first week of the new policy set their fees at the absolute maximum. if you're a poor applicant? too bad, better be prepared to loan to cover their costs. oxbridge for postgraduate actually ask you to 'prove' via bank statements and financial guarantors that you can meet the entire costs (including a very over-blown and oxbridge-esque estimate of typical 'living costs'), or they won't even look at your application. money matters. poor kids get priced out all the time. the state is pretty much the only true help in this regard.

i don't see any evidence anywhere that the 'free-market' or rampant privatization leads naturally to improved access/social mobility. everything i see points to the contrary. and yet you tell me to "go away" because my "act" is "old". lol wtf. i am making a rational argument. why does that frustrate you so much? is it possibly because making this argument hinges a lot on your own self-delusion? this is the only way you've come to terms with the pell grant, isn't it.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

I know several people who got priced out of Ivy universities. Three people in my graduating class were accepted to Harvard, but none of them could bear the cost so a most of them ended up going to Indiana on full scholarships. The people I know who went to Upenn, Stanford, and Princeton all come from rich families, too.
And on the other hand, there's my freshman roommates girlfriend who transferred to Cornell despite being a fucking idiot but her parents were loaded.

About 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, with over 60 percent receiving need–based scholarships.
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.e … index.html

Maybe they'd already filled their quota of Indiana bumpkins.

the current scholarship and bursary structure is propped up partly by huge endowments/alumni funds, and partly by subsidization, no? wouldn't the whole offer/access deteriorate if the state pulled its help/subsidy? i mean harvard is a bit of an exceptional example, because those few schools at the very top have so much money anyway that their scholarship schemes are always going to be generous.

Top schools in America receive enough endowments. They receive relatively little subsidies besides the indirect grants given out by state and federal governments. There is a huge problem in America with "for profit" universities charging 50k a year and the degree is practically worthless and those colleges would start dying out much much quicker if student loans aren't as heavily subsidized. oh shitty thing about student loans is that they're stuck to you FOR LIFE. Can't default on that shit, lolmerican freedumbs.

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

I know several people who got priced out of Ivy universities. Three people in my graduating class were accepted to Harvard, but none of them could bear the cost so a most of them ended up going to Indiana on full scholarships. The people I know who went to Upenn, Stanford, and Princeton all come from rich families, too.
And on the other hand, there's my freshman roommates girlfriend who transferred to Cornell despite being a fucking idiot but her parents were loaded.

About 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, with over 60 percent receiving need–based scholarships.
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.e … index.html

Maybe they'd already filled their quota of Indiana bumpkins.

You'd be surprised at how little a "need-based scholarship" actually is, especially at a private institution. My family basically got told to fuck off for need-based scholarships when my sister, brother and I were all in school at the same time and my parents made maybe $70k combined. I got $11-12k in grants and academic scholarships per year and still graduated with $20k in loans.

what school did you go to.

so what about that prosecutor and his wife being killed by those hoodlums?

from texas too