BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

This is getting out of hand.

I don't mind the meme. As your best friend on bf2s, I suggest you not buy another Paradox DLC vehicle. It is not worth it.

A lot of this talk about the GOP establishment not liking Trump is silly theater. The GOP hasn't done anything in the last 16 years to prove they wouldn't go right over the crazy ledge with Trump if he did win the nomination. The GOP has no values aside from enriching their donors.

The one thing I regard warily is "free" tuition for public colleges. Increased price/demand and an increased number of students who kinda-sorta-but-not-really want to be there but not really doesn't seem like a better way to improve the atmosphere for people who genuinely want to study or learn a new trade. There's not one Republican presidential candidate who I'm voting for this campaign, though.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I would be opposed to any sort of increase in funding for colleges without reforming how colleges can spend their money. Colleges do not need sports teams and stadiums. They don't need lazy rivers, arcades, and recreational rock walls.

I am a little bitter that as a commuter student I didn't get to take advantage of all the frivolous extras but still had to pay the same tuition as the south Jersey upper class dormers. I essentially subsidized their lifestyle. I know the liberal arts also subsidize the STEM students but at least their is a social utility to that.

No you didn't. You didn't have to buy a full meal plan or pay for a dorm room. STEM students get charged an extra fee every time they take a lab class, so you weren't subsidizing them either.

Not living in a dorm was your own choice. Don't be bitter.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The one thing I regard warily is "free" tuition for public colleges. Increased price/demand and an increased number of students who kinda-sorta-but-not-really want to be there but not really doesn't seem like a better way to improve the atmosphere for people who genuinely want to study or learn a new trade. There's not one Republican presidential candidate who I'm voting for this campaign, though.

All the European countries with free tuition put a ton of pressure on the students not to fuck off, and they weed out the people who aren't college material starting in like 8th grade. The same people that are pushing for free tuition here are also the "I'm gonna take five years to discover who I am and change majors seven times" types, the types that would be thrown out on their ear in Europe. Germany and Scandinavia view it as an investment in people who will hopefully improve their country, and expect results. People seeking the "college experience" full of booze and partying and living away from home in a dorm while fucking off in class should not receive a penny of support from the rest of us. I give zero shits about their student loan debt.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I would be opposed to any sort of increase in funding for colleges without reforming how colleges can spend their money. Colleges do not need sports teams and stadiums. They don't need lazy rivers, arcades, and recreational rock walls.

I am a little bitter that as a commuter student I didn't get to take advantage of all the frivolous extras but still had to pay the same tuition as the south Jersey upper class dormers. I essentially subsidized their lifestyle. I know the liberal arts also subsidize the STEM students but at least their is a social utility to that.

No you didn't. You didn't have to buy a full meal plan or pay for a dorm room. STEM students get charged an extra fee every time they take a lab class, so you weren't subsidizing them either.

Not living in a dorm was your own choice. Don't be bitter.

90%+ college sports programs lose money and it has to come out of the general fund to pay for them. That is in your tuition. My school had $3000 worth of activities fees. If the dorm fees and meal plans paid for any of that stuff, it would have been restricted to those student.

STEM classes are totally subsidized. Liberal arts classes only need a professor and projector. Lib arts students didn't need labs and equipment. Your lab fee didn't cover all that.

Sure it did, at a profit. Think of all the hundreds of students that use that lab equipment every semester. Undergrad science equipment is paid off quickly. Grad level science equipment is usually paid for by the government.

Budgetary secrecy has been straining internal campus relationships for quite some time. Yudof’s remarks about the humanities and social sciences needing subsidies provoked firestorms on faculty e-mail lists. These fields are tied to all others in a maze of commingled cash flows that would give migraines to armies of accountants. Universities are held together by “cross-subsidies,” and the general rule, as explained to UC officials last fall by Jane Wellman, executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, is that cheap programs subsidize expensive ones. Cheap programs include English and sociology. Expensive ones include medicine. This means that in the real world of higher education funding, English and sociology make money on their enrollments, spend almost nothing on their largely self-funded research, and then, in the cases I have reviewed, actually have some of their “profits” from instruction transferred to help fund more expensive fields. Without these cross-subsidies, plus the everincreasing clinical labors of its own overworked faculty, medical research would be losing money, as the research enterprise always does.

http://www.aaup.org/article/avoiding-co … xLEMDArKc1
I am sure you have some research material he doesn't

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

90%+ college sports programs lose money and it has to come out of the general fund to pay for them. That is in your tuition. My school had $3000 worth of activities fees. If the dorm fees and meal plans paid for any of that stuff, it would have been restricted to those student.

STEM classes are totally subsidized. Liberal arts classes only need a professor and projector. Lib arts students didn't need labs and equipment. Your lab fee didn't cover all that.

Sure it did, at a profit. Think of all the hundreds of students that use that lab equipment every semester. Undergrad science equipment is paid off quickly. Grad level science equipment is usually paid for by the government.

The vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter flat out said liberal arts students get shafted when it comes to cost

"The imposition of £9,000 tuition fees did affect the number of applicants last year," he says, "though that was in line with what we expected as many students who might have deferred their places during the previous year sensibly chose not to, UCAS applications have been back up again this year. Not to their peak, but to where they were in 2009. But we can't ignore the fact that the demographics are changing – the potential student pool has fallen by 60,000 this year or that student expectations have risen."

The new fee structure may have put more cash directly into the coffers – universities are about £1,000-£1,500 better off on every arts and social studies student (though down a bit for those doing heavy science courses) – but the gain has come with its own price tag. "Students are now asking themselves if what they are being presented with is a value for money £9,000 offer," says Smith. "And it's one they are fully entitled to make."

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-educa … unviersity

But I am sure you know more about how college budgets work than he does.

http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyas … on-amounts

We structure our fees based off future earning expectations from field and costs...

Law and Medicine are the ones that cost the most to actually run. Law professors aren't cheap to come by and medicine students need a pretty fancy equipment.

Also, at my uni, there is real evidence of 'inequity' in quality of faculty buildings. The arts kids get shafted with really not having their own building whilst the law, business, medicine, engineering (all types) get their own.

Protip: most people in my law cohort come from an arts background lol. There are just no jobs in arts.

Engineering/ research science cost more when you go up in difficulty.

This whole thing is another reason I am against Bernie Sanders free college plan. It would hurt poor people and redirect $50 billion dollars to the upper middle class. 80% of 4 year university students come from families with above average incomes. They are going to get degrees anyway. Free college is not going to suddenly make poor kids in Camden into STEM ready students.

The free community college program I can get behind.

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

I can't believe what jay is arguing here. undergraduate science provision costs a lot more than liberal arts: a flat fee for all courses definitely benefits the STEM undergraduates more.

There is a separate fee paid for labs. I think I paid $150 extra for every lab class.

i know of zero universities that charge their STEM undergraduates lab fees.

I know I paid an extra fee, but I don't think it was $150/course. Fucking hell, man.

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

i know of zero universities that charge their STEM undergraduates lab fees.

Must be an American thing

That's pretty shitty. over here we just have a flat course fee.

But STEM course are in general more expensive.

3: Law, Accounting, Administration, Economics, Commerce, Medicine    $10,440
2: Mathematics, Statistics, Science, Computing, Built Environment, Other Health, Allied Health, Engineering Surveying    $8,917
1: Humanities, Behavioural Science, Social Studies, Clinical Psychology, Foreign Languages, Visual and Performing Arts, Education $6,256

Cost shown is the annual student contribution amount for 1 Equivalent Full-Time Student Load

Also Jay, is it $150 every time you have a lab like 1lab a week = $150, 2 a week = $300, 10 in a semester =$1500 or $150 a semester for a subject with labs?

Last edited by DrunkFace (2016-04-17 20:12:14)

uziq wrote:

I can't believe what jay is arguing here. undergraduate science provision costs a lot more than liberal arts: a flat fee for all courses definitely benefits the STEM undergraduates more.

Medicine is expensive, most STEM degrees are mostly theory, the cost for theory courses is the same.
At Imperial much of the equipment dated from WW2, its not as if undergraduates are playing around with super-colliders or the latest electron microscopes.
Even medical students don't do a lot more than look through antique microscopes and chop up bodies which are largely free.