T1B

Screw_Michigan wrote:I actually pity you.

Wow. You got me. This breaks my heart.

trev wrote:Exactly Mikey.

There are small scholarships, which he'll apply for and probably get. But any significant academic scholarships and my son is in the same boats as Mikey's.

I would bet money BTH did not get a free ride on academics alone.

By the way, (this will shock the libs) but I am all for helping the disadvantaged student. I just think it goes a little too far in the other direction.

Scroll up and notice this:

BtH wrote:The people of Alabama fully fund my legal education

Doesn't he live in Alaska or something?

My kids both got pretty lucrative offers, not even solicited, from multiple schools in the South. I guess they're looking for brainy kids who can teach the other students to talk like normal human beings or something. My boy could have gotten a free ride at U of Oklahoma for four years because of his National Merit standing. OK, Oklahoma may not technically be in The South, but he wasn't ready for the culture shock. I don't blame him.

Is it asking too much of Trev to crawl out of her vodka and tonic long enough to read for content?

My kid is a California boy too and I can see how that would be a problem Mikey. :)

B, I've heard college is free in Alaska, don't know about Alabama. Quit nipping at me.
You aren't an S_M.

Mikey wrote:Oklahoma may not technically be in The South.

It damn sure is.

~The Big XII minus II

trev wrote:I would bet money BTH did not get a free ride on academics alone.

Well then, genius, what else do you think he got a free ride on, other than academics alone?

Screw_Michigan wrote: Well then, genius, what else do you think he got a free ride on, other than academics alone?

Testicle juggling and cock swallowing.

Mikey wrote:You really are a blind fool.

Publicly funded universities have contributed, and still contribute, in huge ways to state and local economies, by attracting brainpower and businesses, and serving as technology hubs.

I'm not sure, but that may be why all of the states in the union have public university systems.

Could be just a liberal conspiracy, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

Fun rant, Mikey, but I didn't say I was against publicly funded state universities.

poptart wrote:

Mikey wrote:You really are a blind fool.

Publicly funded universities have contributed, and still contribute, in huge ways to state and local economies, by attracting brainpower and businesses, and serving as technology hubs.

I'm not sure, but that may be why all of the states in the union have public university systems.

Could be just a liberal conspiracy, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology.

Fun rant, Mikey, but I didn't say I was against publicly funded state universities.

Gee you sure like to backpedal and/or deny that you said what you said when confronted with your own stupidity.

the great equivocator wrote:I can't say I like the idea of the state taking money from Joe to pay for Tom's kid's college, regardless of what he is studying.

Even so, philosophically, I'm not in favor of "the state" (which is a fancy way of saying THE PEOPLE) funding someone's education.

In what way are publicy funded universities not an example of "the state" funding someone's education, or taking money from Joe to pay for Tom's kid's college?

Should be interesting to see how you back out of this one.

What difficulty do you have, Mikey?


Do students pay tuition to attend a state university?
You know, from their own pocket?

Of course they do.


So fine, if you want to attend, pay the freight.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of Tom being made to pay Dick's kid's tuition.

poptart wrote:Do students pay tuition to attend a state university? You know, from their own pocket?

:doh:

You really are quite thick. Every university in the country is awash with public dollars. Even the private ones.

College tuition? What is wrong with you people?

Coto de Caza is burning!

Reportedly heterosexual married couples are looting homosexual businesses.

Mvscal and fliends are squaredancing around some poor faggot they pulled out of a Jetta. Squashed his head with a faux travertine cinderblock.

poptart wrote:What difficulty do you have, Mikey?


Do students pay tuition to attend a state university?
You know, from their own pocket?

Of course they do.


So fine, if you want to attend, pay the freight.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of Tom being made to pay Dick's kid's tuition.

Really pops, are you really this naive or are you just trolling?

Tuition at UC is about $12K per year. Not cheap but less than 1/3 the cost of an equivalent tier private school, and not nearly enough to cover the costs.

Where do you think the rest of the money comes from? Does it grow on trees where you live? What's the difference if the state gives a student a $24K per year scholarship to attend a $40K per year school, or if the state just covers that $24K by charging a reduced tuition?

...commence equivocation and splitting of hairs in 3...2...1...

Mikey wrote:

poptart wrote:What difficulty do you have, Mikey?


Do students pay tuition to attend a state university?
You know, from their own pocket?

Of course they do.


So fine, if you want to attend, pay the freight.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of Tom being made to pay Dick's kid's tuition.

Really pops, are you really this naive or are you just trolling?

Tuition at UC is about $12K per year. Not cheap but less than 1/3 the cost of an equivalent tier private school, and not nearly enough to cover the costs.

Where do you think the rest of the money comes from? Does it grow on trees where you live? What's the difference if the state gives a student a $24K per year scholarship to attend a $40K per year school, or if the state just covers that $24K by charging a reduced tuition?

...commence equivocation and splitting of hairs in 3...2...1...

this leads to the next question.

Why is 24K not enough to cover tuition?

There was a time when college tuition was affordable, then the gubmint jumped in and like all things gubmint, costs have spiraled out of controlled.

Most undergrad stuff does not require someone with half a dozen letters on the end of his name. Infact, a good bit can and often is, taught by grad students. A university president doesn't need to make a half million a year.

About 15 years ago or so, Ct decided the state university campi weren't pertty enough and they spent many millions making dorms look pretty and lots of other shit.

Are the students any better educated than the ones 25 years ago that lived in dorms that looked like low cost public housing (which it is). No they aren't.

smackaholic wrote:This leads to the next question. Why is 24K not enough to cover tuition? There was a time when college tuition was affordable, then the gubmint jumped in and like all things gubmint, costs have spiraled out of controlled.

I'm sure those costs have nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of top level talent in the private sector going through the roof. Or that all costs have risen due to that pesky little thing called inflation.

Most undergrad stuff does not require someone with half a dozen letters on the end of his name. In fact, a good bit can and often is, taught by grad students. A university president doesn't need to make a half million a year.

They don't make 500k here in New York. SUNY college presidents don't even make half that amount. But I'm sure a bunch of private school administrators do. Now what was that you were saying about the "gubmint" raising costs?

About 15 years ago or so, Ct decided the state university campi weren't pertty enough and they spent many millions making dorms look pretty and lots of other shit.

More likely than not they also did other "minor" things like Asbestos abatement and weatherproofing. But hey, if you want an asbestos free, energy efficient dorm room, buck up and go to Yale. Right?

Are the students any better educated than the ones 25 years ago that lived in dorms that looked like low cost public housing (which it is). No they aren't.

And you can back that assertion up how?

Grad students have been teaching for years. The problem is that at a lot of professors at major universities are paid on their ability to obtain grant funding for research. And that’s what they spend their time doing. Research, not teaching. And it gets quite competitive when schools are bidding for the people that bring them max research dollars.

Consequently, labor costs keep escalating which drives up the cost of tuition. It’s been going on for quite some time. You can blame the government for providing reasearch money, I suppose.

The whole college admissions thing has gotten way out of hand lately, with the US News rankings at least partly to blame.

Most of the top HS seniors are competing to get into the top ranked schools - Harvard, Yale, Stanford, U of Chicago, etc., etc., while the lower ranked schools are competing to attract the top students because the higher their average SAT scores are the better they look in the rankings. The top schools don't worry about that - they compete to try and get the lowest acceptance rate, which is an indication of how many students apply.

The kids read the rankings and they all want to go to the top schools. Often a lot of thought is not put into how well a school will match the student's abilities and aspirations. Mid-tier schools have a hard time attracting top students because they all want to go to Yale, but Yale isn't necessarily a good match for everybody that applies there.

The "top" schools can charge just about whatever they want. They'll always find enough students who can pay the freight. Thay way they can hire the best faculty, and provide nice amenities. Then the other schools follow suit, raise their fees and build plush dorms and recreational facilities to attract more students. It's a viscious circle.

My kid was a National Merit finalist, mostly because of a high score on the PSAT when he was a junior. A lot of schools were recruiting him just because of that, but is it really an indication of how successful a student is, or will be in college? I don't think so. He could have gotten a full ride at Oklahoma. He got letters from Texas, Rice, Vanderbilt, and probably 40 or 50 others. But the "top" schools don't recruit, and don't offer academic scholarships. And he wasn't ready to move to Oklahoma, Texas or Tennessee.

We made it a priority to move back to CA 11 years ago, and one of the main reasons was to have access to the UC system. It was, and still is, probably the best deal going for a quality education. It has its disadvantages though. It's gone downhill, I think, with rapidly rising costs, lower quality and crowded conditions but it's still one of the best deals going for in-state students. We are trying to put our kids through school, at least undergrad, with no debt. With two in the system this coming year it will be hard though. Grad school will be up to them.

Why aren't you griping about imaginary conspiracies to prevent your sons from getting scholarships because they are white males, Michael?

Screw_Michigan wrote:Why aren't you griping about imaginary conspiracies to prevent your sons from getting scholarships because they are white males, Michael?

He calls himself Mikey on here you gay bird. Give it a rest. I think the absence of BTH proved my point.

I am happy with my son's and their education thus far. Because I mention that they aren't
given the same breaks as poor minorities is just a fact.

I will have no problem making sure my kids go to the right school that doesn't cost too much. I have a senior in college and a senior in high school. So far, no debt.

Melt much, you frigid old maid?

Should I just ignore you instead?

That works for me too.

trev wrote:I think the absence of BTH proved my point.

What exactly was your "point" again? That he isn't on a full academic scholarship...strictly because you said so? And some inane jackassery about your son, as if that has anything to do with BtH?

BtH is a very infrequent poster. His absence likely doesn't prove anything, except for the fact that his priorities rank real life slightly ahead of arguing with ignorant, sauced up bitches on the internet.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Why aren't you griping about imaginary conspiracies to prevent your sons from getting scholarships because they are white males, Michael?

Just because I know that the entire higher education system has conspired to keep my son from getting scholarships doesn't mean there's anything I can do about it. Except bend over an take it, I guess.

My other kid (daughter) actually did get an academic scholarship to a UC campus. One of very very few.
It covers her tuition and fees. Until this year that is, when everything went up 30%.

BSkunk wrote:You really are quite thick. Every university in the country is awash with public dollars. Even the private ones.

No shit, Sherlock.

Mikey wrote:Really pops, are you really this naive or are you just trolling?

Tuition at UC is about $12K per year. Not cheap but less than 1/3 the cost of an equivalent tier private school, and not nearly enough to cover the costs.

Where do you think the rest of the money comes from? Does it grow on trees where you live? What's the difference if the state gives a student a $24K per year scholarship to attend a $40K per year school, or if the state just covers that $24K by charging a reduced tuition?

Mikey, both you and BSkunk want to look at this through the lense of what a person might be entitled to, rather than through the lense of protecting the personal liberties of the citizens.

Taxpayers pay for roads (even though they may never drive on them) and fire departments (even though they may never need the service) and other things, because they are recognized to be good and necessary for the overall benefit of the people.

Taxpayers pay for schools - grade schools, middle schools, high schools - and state U's - because they are good and necessary for the overall benefit of the people.
Fine by me.

Some taxpayers will never have children who use the schools, so yes, they are "hosed" in a sense, and it is inherent that many "Toms" will pay for the schooling of "Dick's kids."

But it's like paying for a fire dept which you may never need.
Or paying for roads you may never drive on.
I don't have a problem with it because it is for the overall need of the community.

The state U's are built, they operate, and they can charge a lesser tuition - because of taxpayer funding.
Good by me.

But there still IS a tuition that must be paid.

That is where I draw the line.

You can make Tom pay to put up the school (even though he never has children), but you ought not ask him to fund another individual's attendance there, or anywhere else.

You can have Tom contribute to the building of roads, because they are for the overall need of the community, but you ought not also ask him to help buy Dick's kid a CAR to drive on the road.

Dick can pay for his own kid's car to drive on the road that all the Toms paid to have built and operate.

Here's another question concerning academic scholarships and to a lesser extent athletic ones.

Why have them at all?

You got a smart motivated kid? Good on you. I am sure he will be a success some day and will have no trouble paying off his student loans.

The athletic scholarships at least make some sort of financial sense in that they may actually pay for themselves, particularly on the div 1 level. But having scholarships for field hockey at a public school is bullshit and I don't care what that other prop has to say about it. MY tax dollars should not be spent on jodi and her lesbo team mates.

I actually believe that....get this.... no one should be forced to pay for someone else's stuff. An edumacashun is just "stuff" when it comes right down to it.

I do believe there is a place for gubmint support at the college level. I am a huge fan of community colleges which, believe it or not, actually teach the same fukking thing at a fraction of the cost. I went to Uconn for a year before achieving double secret probation. At this rather well thought of public university, I sat through ms. cougar's calc course and was completely lost. Here ability to actually teach was pretty much non existent. Maybe it was her lucious lips or rather nice breastusus for an older gal. Maybe it wasjust that I wasn't ready for college (I sure as hell wasn't). A few years later while in the navy, i took a calc PACE course. Pace courses are courses taught aboard ship by college teachers who think it would be fun to take a med cruise aboard a navy ship. this dude, who i am fairly certain was gax, was a CC teacher. He could teach calculus to a gold fish. He was fukking nails!!!!! His ability to explain WHY a fukking derivative works was just amazing. I still have the text book and a notebook full of notes from that class. I am 100% sure that had he been teaching that calc class at Uconn rather than ms slightly older but still hittable, I would have gotten out of there with at least a B.

So, for anyone wanting to pooh pooh the CC system as some sort of inferior college system, GFY.

smackaholic wrote:I am a huge fan of community colleges which, believe it or not, actually teach the same fukking thing at a fraction of the cost.

You can definitely get your core requirements dealt with more cost efficiency at a CC than at a 4 year institution. And honestly, it really doesn't matter where you took calculus or American Literature 1865-1945. You're going to get what you put into those courses. However, a CC will afford you a better pole position on the grade curve. Quite frankly, in the average CC classroom, 20-30% of the kids have no fucking clue about even the basic elements of the curriculum. So that 100 level survey course that in an ultra competitive 4 year school you might pull a B in becomes an A when you factor in the lower grading standards caused by the lower 30% moving the curve.

I went to Uconn for a year before achieving double secret probation. At this rather well thought of public university, I sat through ms. cougar's calc course and was completely lost. Here ability to actually teach was pretty much non existent. Maybe it was her lucious lips or rather nice breastusus for an older gal. Maybe it wasjust that I wasn't ready for college (I sure as hell wasn't). A few years later while in the navy, i took a calc PACE course. Pace courses are courses taught aboard ship by college teachers who think it would be fun to take a med cruise aboard a navy ship. this dude, who i am fairly certain was gax, was a CC teacher. He could teach calculus to a gold fish. He was fukking nails!!!!! His ability to explain WHY a fukking derivative works was just amazing. I still have the text book and a notebook full of notes from that class. I am 100% sure that had he been teaching that calc class at Uconn rather than ms slightly older but still hittable, I would have gotten out of there with at least a B.

So, for anyone wanting to pooh pooh the CC system as some sort of inferior college system, GFY.

No doubt CC profs are far more attuned to the art of teaching. There is almost zero grant work to speak of at that level and the teachers there generally don't have the god complex that your average Phd possess in spades. And they are definitely more available to the students than almost any 4 year school prof I've ever known.

Who would have thought we would have something to agree on?

Agreed with the sentiments on CCs. I only wish I would have taken more classes at KVCC when I was living in Kzoo and going to WMU.

That said, the big problem now is that CCs are filled to capacity and qualified students are having problems getting into classes, nevertheless classes they need. Hopefully one of trev's sons won't try to attend a CC because then she'll be bitching that there's a conspiracy to keep white males out of CCs.

Screw_Michigan wrote:That said, the big problem now is that CCs are filled to capacity and qualified students are having problems getting into classes, nevertheless classes they need.

The local CC I am attending now has plenty of classes. The hard part is getting them at a time that is agreeable with the other required classes. For example, I would have taken golf last semester (mandatory PE requirement) but it always conflicted with my other classes. Same thing with fall semester. So instead I'll take a class in stress management during winter intersession. Otherwise it has been a great experience and I'll be counseling my son to take as many core classes at the local CC as possible before heading off to the big ivy covered, charging out the ass 4 year school.

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:That said, the big problem now is that CCs are filled to capacity and qualified students are having problems getting into classes, nevertheless classes they need.

The local CC I am attending now has plenty of classes. The hard part is getting them at a time that is agreeable with the other required classes. For example, I would have taken golf last semester (mandatory PE requirement) but it always conflicted with my other classes. Same thing with fall semester. So instead I'll take a class in stress management during winter intersession. Otherwise it has been a great experience and I'll be counseling my son to take as many core classes at the local CC as possible before heading off to the big ivy covered, charging out the ass 4 year school.

I think many parents in this area have the same idea.

I went to the local HS's jazz band concert this spring. They introduced all the seniors and their plans. Better than half are attending MCC, the local CC. Most of these kids are pretty good students who you'd have thought were going to be going to 4 year schools. I think the combination of lean financial times and people being sickened by the price hikes at the big schools has caused this.

A result of this, i think will be a narrowing of the talent gap. CCs aren't just the college version of votech anymore.

I attended a CC for 1 year out of high school. I actually had 2 golf scholarship offers, but turned them down. I was "in love" with both Texas A&M (which I was accepted to, but not to play golf) and a gal. We actually stayed together for 5 years and even got engaged, but that ended as soon as I graduated college.

Anyhow, in hindsight, it was a good move. I was immature as hell and probably would have drank myself into a coma had I gone off to school on my own at 18. In high school, I never had to study for tests and pulled off all A's in my classes. Round 1 of tests in CC kicked my ass. I didn't study much and got Ds and Cs in the first round of tests. FUCK! You mean, you have to STUDY in college?!?!?! I busted ass the rest of the first semester and got a 4.0. From that first round of tests on at the CC, I took college seriously. Although, I will admit, I hardly ever cracked open a textbook. Teachers typically test 90% on material covered in class and 10% textbook. I never missed a day of class in college, took good notes, studied those and left the book reading for those who wanted a perfect 4.0. I ended up with a 3.8 overall without reading more than a few chapters.

So, I too think the CC route is a great way to start, especially for those core competency classes that will transfer.

Marriage isn't a right, but the state does provide privileges through that institution. Thus, they can't deny access to that institution w/o due process.

Jsc810 wrote:You'll find the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration, under certain unalienable rights that were endowed by our Creator.

You believe in a Creator when it's convenient. Otherwise, a fetus isn't a creation worthy of pursuing happiness, but a parasite.

You will also note that there is not a gay exception in the Declaration or in the Constitution. All men, all citizens.

Because gays and gay marriage, by definition, aren't capable of creating life... a life that you would deem worthy of stamping out, when convenient.

Can you even begin to fathom the disgust that I have with you and your position, sir?

I guess not. You keep posting.

Happy 23rd B-day to my daughter today. Thank God JSC wasn't her father, she may not have made it to her 1st.

So you believe that the Creator cited by the founders in the DoI doesn't exist, yet still find room to petition the founders for redress when it furthers your fallacious argument.

Hypocrisy 101.

War Wagon wrote:So you believe that the Creator cited by the founders in the DoC doesn't exist, yet still find room to petition the founders for redress when it furthers your fallacious argument.

Hypocrisy 101.

Actually, Hypocrisy 101 would be saying that you want the federal government out of people's lives, but you're fine with them being in people's bedrooms.

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Marriage isn't just a right, it is a fundamental right

The question isn't whether marriage is a fundamental right. It is. And Prop 8 does not interfere with any man's right to marry a woman or with any woman's right to marry a man.

The question is whether the U.S. Constitution includes some provision that prohibits the People of California from maintaining the legal definition of marriage as only including a relationship between one man and one woman. You got anything in your "living breathing Constitution" that speaks to that? Or are we going to stick with the right to become happy argument?

Where in the Constitution does it say that gender is an acceptable barrier to receiving equal rights & privileges?

Comparing inter-racial marriage to gay marriage is a strawman. You should know that.

Then again, you're dumber than a box of Diego's, so I'm not surprised you'd try to use that analogy.

War Wagon wrote:Comparing inter-racial marriage to gay marriage is a strawman. You should know that.

Talk about tired, weak arguments.

If you're going to say that there's a difference because sexual orientation is a choice, then please provide where in the Constitution that heterosexuality is a protected class.

88 wrote:Marriage has always been defined as a legal relationship entered into by one man and one woman.

Not true.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Comparing inter-racial marriage to gay marriage is a strawman. You should know that.

Talk about tired, weak arguments.

If you're going to say that there's a difference because sexual orientation is a choice, then please provide where in the Constitution that heterosexuality is a protected class.

The truth, which no one wants to acknowledge, is that unless and until a homosexual states his or her sexual preference, no one knows. Thus, a homosexual becomes a member of a class by choice.

Agreed....but that's second class. When they are denied the legal & economic privileges that hetero couples enjoy w/o due process, they are being treated as second class citizens. And that is unconstitutional. The second line of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that clearly - w/o any denotations of exceptions for gender.

Marriage has always been defined as a legal relationship entered into by one man and one woman. There are many people (homosexuals and heterosexuals) that want this definition expanded to cover additional relationships. If they succeed in amending the US Constitution or convincing their individual state legislatures to amend the definition of marriage to include such relationships, then I have no beef. The People will have spoken. But they do not want to spend the effort or time, or cannot motivate a sufficient number of the People to accomplish this task. So they are going to get 8 appointed judges to do it for them (1 District Court judge, 2 Circuit Court judges and 5 Supreme Court justices). I cannot understand how any rational person (other than those blinded by their own desire for a particular outcome) can look at the twisting and distortion of our political process and feel happy about it.

So ending slavery was a twisting/distortion of our political process.....way to go, 88pikkkle.

88 wrote:Slavery was not ended by a declaration by the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional, dolt. Slavery was ended by two executive orders (known as the Emancipation Proclamation) and three amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Why don't you go ahead and hook me up with an amendment ending Slavery. Tread lightly you stupid fuck.