ekeavney wrote:Perhaps they aren't as bright as a 10-year-old.

Oops! Did I say Perhaps?

Sorry.

Ah, you caught my reference to Bertrand Russell's Unpopular Essays - from the Preface:

A word as to the title. In the Preface to my Human Knowledge I said that I was writing not only for professional philosophers, and that "philosophy proper deals with matters of interest to the general educated public." Reviewers took me to task, saying they found parts of the book difficult, and implying that my words were such as to mislead purchasers. I do not wish to expose myself again to this charge; I will therefore confess that there are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid children of ten might find a little puzzling. On this ground I do not claim that the essays are popular; if not popular, then "unpopular."

kylemittskus wrote:I hate every single one of them.

I was going to say they're not worth hating, but, then I thought better about it ....

I just shake my head at the utter dysfunction of the federal government and many state governments.

We would all be far, far better off if legislatures met only for a week or two every other year, or in true emergencies.

The fact that they're all in various capitol cities with nothing better to do that raise taxes and come up with new laws that don't solve anything, but usually result in more bureaucrats, more taxes (or at least more (deficit) spending), more nonsensical interference with the lives of ordinary people, and, of course, many unintended baleful consequences, strongly militates for reducing their power and limiting the occasions on which they can exercise it.

rpm wrote:I was going to say they're not worth hating, but, then I thought better about it ....

I just shake my head at the utter dysfunction of the federal government and many state governments.

We would all be far, far better off if legislatures met only for a week or two every other year, or in true emergencies.

The fact that they're all in various capitol cities with nothing better to do that raise taxes and come up with new laws that don't solve anything, but usually result in more bureaucrats, more taxes (or at least more (deficit) spending), more nonsensical interference with the lives of ordinary people, and, of course, many unintended baleful consequences, strongly militates for reducing their power and limiting the occasions on which they can exercise it.

Let's put this on a billboard. I don't think it matters what "side" you ride of the political coin; this is plain truth.

rpm wrote:I was going to say they're not worth hating, but, then I thought better about it ....

I just shake my head at the utter dysfunction of the federal government and many state governments.

We would all be far, far better off if legislatures met only for a week or two every other year, or in true emergencies.

The fact that they're all in various capitol cities with nothing better to do that raise taxes and come up with new laws that don't solve anything, but usually result in more bureaucrats, more taxes (or at least more (deficit) spending), more nonsensical interference with the lives of ordinary people, and, of course, many unintended baleful consequences, strongly militates for reducing their power and limiting the occasions on which they can exercise it.

/despair
/cry

rpm wrote:I was going to say they're not worth hating, but, then I thought better about it ....

I just shake my head at the utter dysfunction of the federal government and many state governments.

We would all be far, far better off if legislatures met only for a week or two every other year, or in true emergencies.

The fact that they're all in various capitol cities with nothing better to do that raise taxes and come up with new laws that don't solve anything, but usually result in more bureaucrats, more taxes (or at least more (deficit) spending), more nonsensical interference with the lives of ordinary people, and, of course, many unintended baleful consequences, strongly militates for reducing their power and limiting the occasions on which they can exercise it.

What astonishes me the most is that I had not even considered this. If congress only met for 2 weeks/year, it would necessitate a quick review of any backlog bills...they could spend the rest of the year working!

canonizer wrote:What astonishes me the most is that I had not even considered this. If congress only met for 2 weeks/year, it would necessitate a quick review of any backlog bills...they could spend the rest of the year working!

They'd spend the rest of the year fundraising and making wild claims about each other's perfidy. And in those 2 weeks a year, they'd get absolutely nothing done. Seems to me a "do-nothing Congress" is what we already have, and this would just institutionalize it. The inability of legislators to take action just puts more power in the hands of unelected beaurocrats.

canonizer wrote:What astonishes me the most is that I had not even considered this. If congress only met for 2 weeks/year, it would necessitate a quick review of any backlog bills...they could spend the rest of the year working!

I'll continue to (re)post the information that the folks in Congress don't want to publicize... They only work about 2 weeks/year anyway.

I also despair looking at the dysfuntionality of all governments. I wonder if its something about politics that either attracts people with no logic and willinginess to work, or do they become that way when elected. As much as I disagree with RPM on some issues, I would rather he was in congress or running for president than some of characters that do so now. It has become a circus, and while I will vote I do not see this country improving with the current political climate in washington.

I hate them hate them hate them hate them

tiger7610 wrote:I also despair looking at the dysfuntionality of all governments. I wonder if its something about politics that either attracts people with no logic and willinginess to work, or do they become that way when elected. As much as I disagree with RPM on some issues, I would rather he was in congress or running for president than some of characters that do so now. It has become a circus, and while I will vote I do not see this country improving with the current political climate in washington.

Yes. This. I crave an honest, intelligent debate. At least I'm smart enough to not hold my breath waiting for one.

klezman wrote:Yes. This. I crave an honest, intelligent debate. At least I'm smart enough to not hold my breath waiting for one.

Watching the candidates on the republic side I"m not holding my breath either. All that is going to happen is lots of slogans and buzzwords will be thrown out and nothing will get done. But maybe we will get some entertainment like Joe the Plumber or "You forgot poland"

coynedj wrote:They'd spend the rest of the year fundraising and making wild claims about each other's perfidy. And in those 2 weeks a year, they'd get absolutely nothing done. Seems to me a "do-nothing Congress" is what we already have, and this would just institutionalize it. The inability of legislators to take action just puts more power in the hands of unelected beaurocrats.

Maybe, but there would be less time to actually pass bad bills if they only met every other year for two weeks. And, if we eliminated their salaries and staff, we'd save a few billion. Require bills to be publicly posted for at least 30 days before any the election for session other than a true emergency, so people could comment and demand their representatives tell them how they'd vote on each bill proposed. Make it binding, so if a representative didn't vote the way he or she'd promised, the vote wouldn't count and the representative would be recalled.

The problem is people campaign on one set of promises and govern on another. No more. Make the promises binding.

tiger7610 wrote:I also despair looking at the dysfuntionality of all governments. I wonder if its something about politics that either attracts people with no logic and willinginess to work, or do they become that way when elected. As much as I disagree with RPM on some issues, I would rather he was in congress or running for president than some of characters that do so now. It has become a circus, and while I will vote I do not see this country improving with the current political climate in washington.

My blushes. I could never be elected, though, I'm too conservative and too classical liberal.

You're correct it's a circus. It's unlikely to get much better for at least a year or two; perhaps longer.

Getting big money out of politics won't work until there is little reason for big money to seek (economic) rents by influencing politicians to favor particular groups/industries/companies. The way you do that is to reduce the amount government can spend and the scope of regulation and taxation.

And, it won't get better until citizens get over the notion that there are free lunches to be had by voting for particular politicians. There is no free lunch to be had, and no one who isn't paying taxes should have a say in how much taxes citizens should pay.

rpm wrote:no one who isn't paying taxes should have a say in how much taxes citizens should pay.

I'm so depressed about politics right now, but one thing that would lift my spirits is a tax break. I'm feeling very squeezed lately. Which of the candidates is going to cut my taxes? Hey, politicians. Stay outta my bedroom, outta my medical treatment, and outta my wallet and we'll get along just fine. For now I hate you. So, so, much. I don't think I can even call myself a liberal anymore 'cause I'm too pissed off to give a The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) about anyone else.

chemvictim wrote:I'm so depressed about politics right now, but one thing that would lift my spirits is a tax break. I'm feeling very squeezed lately. Which of the candidates is going to cut my taxes? Hey, politicians. Stay outta my bedroom, outta my medical treatment, and outta my wallet and we'll get along just fine. For now I hate you. So, so, much. I don't think I can even call myself a liberal anymore 'cause I'm too pissed off to give a The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) about anyone else.

Not much to disagree with in your post. You know even though I'm pro-life and anti-happy marriage, I don't think the federal government ought to be involved in people's decisions one way or the other. Let doctors and hospitals decide what procedures they're willing to perform - subject to not killing viable infants in later pregnancy - and let women make their own decisions with the same caveat. Let churches decide what 'marriage' is and let the state only register a civil relationship: call it "Fred" and let people make whatever contractual arrangements they want for relationships -subject to laws against pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. if a state wants them - and inheritance. Let people liver their lives in peace and limit the federal government to what the Constitution actually expressly permits. Bah!

rpm wrote:no one who isn't paying taxes should have a say in how much taxes citizens should pay.

How would you implement such an idea? Would you ban non-taxpayers from voting?

coynedj wrote:How would you implement such an idea? Would you ban non-taxpayers from voting?

Also what about people who dont pay taxes, because they literally do not make enough money, and they get enough taken out of their paychecks during the year? I know my family earlier when we first moved to this county were in that position, and I'm myself in that position right now as a grad student.

coynedj wrote:How would you implement such an idea? Would you ban non-taxpayers from voting?

tiger7610 wrote:Also what about people who dont pay taxes, because they literally do not make enough money, and they get enough taken out of their paychecks during the year? I know my family earlier when we first moved to this county were in that position, and I'm myself in that position right now as a grad student.

It's a tough one, but the notion that someone who doesn't pay taxes can vote for politicians who promise to raise taxes on those who do pay taxes, in order to provide benefits to those who don't pay taxes, just deeply offends my moral sense.

The problem of the "have nots" with a majority despoiling the "haves" in the minority has been one of the major reasons the classical philosophers and historians rejected democracy as a viable form of government. It has been one of primary reasons ancient and medieval republics failed.

As long as everyone pays some part of every tax, you can let everyone vote. As soon as there are significant numbers, let alone a majority, who do not pay taxes, letting them vote creates a downward spiral which culminates in the fall of the republic and tyranny.

rpm wrote:It's a tough one, but the notion that someone who doesn't pay taxes can vote for politicians who promise to raise taxes on those who do pay taxes, in order to provide benefits to those who don't pay taxes, just deeply offends my moral sense.

The problem of the "have nots" with a majority despoiling the "haves" in the minority has been one of the major reasons the classical philosophers and historians rejected democracy as a viable form of government. It has been one of primary reasons ancient and medieval republics failed.

As long as everyone pays some part of every tax, you can let everyone vote. As soon as there are significant numbers, let alone a majority, who do not pay taxes, letting them vote creates a downward spiral which culminates in the fall of the republic and tyranny.

What about people who go through tax loopholes such as donating, writing off everything under the sun to get around taxes? By that token what do you count as taxes? Things that get taken out of our paychecks every 2 weeks? Or the taxes that people pay in April?

tiger7610 wrote:What about people who go through tax loopholes such as donating, writing off everything under the sun to get around taxes? By that token what do you count as taxes? Things that get taken out of our paychecks every 2 weeks? Or the taxes that people pay in April?

Assuming we agree that taxes should exist (I don't) -- easy. Flat tax every source of income, defined as a positive addition to a person's financial situation. Everyone pays. And everything that is income gets taxed that flat rate.

tiger7610 wrote:What about people who go through tax loopholes such as donating, writing off everything under the sun to get around taxes? By that token what do you count as taxes? Things that get taken out of our paychecks every 2 weeks? Or the taxes that people pay in April?

Depends on what the tax laws are. It's rare that people who reduce taxes by charitable donations pay no taxes - especially under current law. Write offs are more complex, because they usually relate to business expenses, most of which are legitimate. No matter what you do, there will be some people who try to game the system. You try to write the tax code to minimize the incentives for gaming, but you can never completely eliminate it. And, I guess as long as we have income taxes, I mean everyone who votes should be paying some income tax. The point is, if they vote to raise taxes, they're voting to raise the amount they're going to pay.

tiger7610 wrote:What about people who go through tax loopholes such as donating, writing off everything under the sun to get around taxes? By that token what do you count as taxes? Things that get taken out of our paychecks every 2 weeks? Or the taxes that people pay in April?

I would define people who pay no federal taxes as those who receive less back from the government when they file in the early part of the year before April 15th than they paid in throughout the previous year. In other words, paying a net positive tax amount for the year.

Just because the government withheld taxes from your paycheck throughout the year does not actually mean you paid taxes. An example I've provided in the past is someone I know who had $2K withheld the previous year but when they filed in April received back $10K. Not only did this family not pay taxes, but they received a certain amount of welfare in the form of earned income tax credit and the child tax credit.

Tax withholding does not equal paying taxes.

But this just accounts for federal income tax. It becomes a little harder to determine who is and isn't paying taxes when you consider other taxes such as state, FICA, and sales taxes. State could probably be evaluated with the same net affect pretty easily, but the other two, not so much.

kylemittskus wrote:Assuming we agree that taxes should exist (I don't)

Do you mean income taxes, or all taxes? How would we keep the roads maintained, etc.?

At one level, this whole proposal isn’t a big deal. With property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and the like, there are probably only a handful of people who pay no taxes in this country. And those few have withdrawn from society so thoroughly that they probably don’t vote anyway.

But I doubt that’s what is being suggested. I would guess that we’re talking about Federal income taxes here. And that would, absent a major and contentious change to the Federal tax system, deny the vote to a large number of poor people.

Let us have no illusions about what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about disenfranchising the poor.

But the contention remains – that the poor can vote in such a way as to raise taxes on the rest of society so as to fund programs for themselves. They can implement an immense system of wealth transfer, through their large numbers and the (comparatively) large wealth of the rest of society. And look at what their voting power has wrought – after all, the top tax rate is fully half what it was during the 1970s, and less than 40% of what it was during the economic boom times of the 1950s and 1960s!

Wait….. what?

This is starting to sound like a radical solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

coynedj wrote:At one level, this whole proposal isn’t a big deal. With property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and the like, there are probably only a handful of people who pay no taxes in this country. And those few have withdrawn from society so thoroughly that they probably don’t vote anyway.

But I doubt that’s what is being suggested. I would guess that we’re talking about Federal income taxes here. And that would, absent a major and contentious change to the Federal tax system, deny the vote to a large number of poor people.

Let us have no illusions about what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about disenfranchising the poor.

But the contention remains – that the poor can vote in such a way as to raise taxes on the rest of society so as to fund programs for themselves. They can implement an immense system of wealth transfer, through their large numbers and the (comparatively) large wealth of the rest of society. And look at what their voting power has wrought – after all, the top tax rate is fully half what it was during the 1970s, and less than 40% of what it was during the economic boom times of the 1950s and 1960s!

Wait….. what?

This is starting to sound like a radical solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

It makes little sense to talk about the specific rates at the upper reaches in the '50s and '60s, because of two crucial factors (1) they applied to far, far fewer people as a percentage of the taxpayers, and (2) there were substantially greater opportunities to avoid those high rates on the part of those nominally subject to them.

And, at that time, there were (1) far, far fewer households as a percentage of the population which did not pay any income tax, and (2) the amount of transfer payments were infinitely less.

What we've seen in the past 50 years is the dramatic increase of entitlement payments and an increasing share of total tax revenues paid by a decreasing percentage of the population. In short, as the voter base has been expanded to include 18-year olds and large numbers of others who do not pay income taxes (not just minorities, but as seniors have become more and more dependent on transfer payments and government programs, seniors), we have seen more political support for increasing transfer payments and a greater tax burden on the productive to support a larger and larger welfare state that is ultimately not sustainable without confiscatory tax rates.

chemvictim wrote:Do you mean income taxes, or all taxes? How would we keep the roads maintained, etc.?

Privatization. In truth, I know that a no-tax America is an utopian ideal, but I do think that moving towards that direction would be moving in the right direction. Disenfranchise the federal government and focus on local governments. And from there, the local government could use private companies on contract (like my trash is) to handle things that the govt runs. Education is perhaps the easiest example to point to. The system is f'ed. And money still goes into it. Get rid of the educational portion of taxes and privatize it. Student loans are another perfect example. Why the hell is the govt giving loans?! There already exist private companies who do so, not even mentioning the universities themselves. The government would be supporting businesses (small and large) and not be throwing our (tax payers) money into who knows what hole. The purpose of the govt, IMO, is to protect its citizens; not make money off of them.

Speaking of student loans why can I declare bancrupsy on gambling debts, and child support payments but not on student loans? This does not apply as much to me but more to my some of my friends who are stuck with student loans with very high interest rates, and sometimes really do have to choose between taking care of their kids and their health or paying for loans

tiger7610 wrote:Speaking of student loans why can I declare bancrupsy on gambling debts, and child support payments but not on student loans? This does not apply as much to me but more to my some of my friends who are stuck with student loans with very high interest rates, and sometimes really do have to choose between taking care of their kids and their health or paying for loans

My cynical response is that the govt protects itself before it protects businesses. One of the attorneys probably has real, legal answer, though.

tiger7610 wrote:Speaking of student loans why can I declare bancrupsy on gambling debts, and child support payments but not on student loans? This does not apply as much to me but more to my some of my friends who are stuck with student loans with very high interest rates, and sometimes really do have to choose between taking care of their kids and their health or paying for loans

kylemittskus wrote:My cynical response is that the govt protects itself before it protects businesses. One of the attorneys probably has real, legal answer, though.

Many of the earlier student loans were not made by the Federal government, but were guaranteed by the government. As college costs started to increase, students were borrowing more and in the 80s default rates started to become alarmingly large: 17+% by 1988, 22+% by 1990. There were stories in The New York Times about doctors and lawyers who had run up 20-50,000 in debt and who were simply not paying it, and stories about doctors and lawyers and others who declared bankruptcy shortly after finishing school in order to discharge their student loan debt.

When students defaulted or discharged their loan debt through bankruptcy, the taxpayers were left holding the bag.

As you might imagine, this did not sit well with ordinary voters, who made their displeasure known to their representatives who, in an extraordinary display of responsiveness to constituent ire (and to lobbying by lenders who would benefit.... but seriously, the constituent ire came first), made some student loan debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy, beginning with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (which made NDSLs nondischargeable), most student loans nondischargeable with the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, and, and virtually all student loans nondischargeable with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

The real problem is people borrow money for school without really thinking about how they're going to pay it back. Given that most of the taxpayers who are subsidizing students with these loans (when they're federal direct loans or when the government pays off a guarantee of a defaulted loan) don't have college, much less advanced, degrees, the lack of discharge provisions makes more sense: why should those without the benefit pay for those who received the benefit refusing to pay the loans back.

We should be more honest about student 'loans' in several ways: discriminate in loan amounts among different majors and reduce incentives to 'cheat'.

rpm wrote:Many of the earlier student loans were not made by the Federal government, but were guaranteed by the government. As college costs started to increase, students were borrowing more and in the 80s default rates started to become alarmingly large: 17+% by 1988, 22+% by 1990. There were stories in The New York Times about doctors and lawyers who had run up 20-50,000 in debt and who were simply not paying it, and stories about doctors and lawyers and others who declared bankruptcy shortly after finishing school in order to discharge their student loan debt.

When students defaulted or discharged their loan debt through bankruptcy, the taxpayers were left holding the bag.

As you might imagine, this did not sit well with ordinary voters, who made their displeasure known to their representatives who, in an extraordinary display of responsiveness to constituent ire (and to lobbying by lenders who would benefit.... but seriously, the constituent ire came first), made some student loan debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy, beginning with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (which made NDSLs nondischargeable), most student loans nondischargeable with the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, and, and virtually all student loans nondischargeable with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

The real problem is people borrow money for school without really thinking about how they're going to pay it back. Given that most of the taxpayers who are subsidizing students with these loans (when they're federal direct loans or when the government pays off a guarantee of a defaulted loan) don't have college, much less advanced, degrees, the lack of discharge provisions makes more sense: why should those without the benefit pay for those who received the benefit refusing to pay the loans back.

We should be more honest about student 'loans' in several ways: discriminate in loan amounts among different majors and reduce incentives to 'cheat'.

I can agree with that, but why do we allow other type of debt to be forgiven by bancrupcy. I feel like student debt is accumulated usually in an attempt to gain knowledge and try to make some sort of useful career (obviously not always the case), but I do not see any use of child payment debt or gambling debt to society.

rpm wrote:We should be more honest about student 'loans' in several ways: discriminate in loan amounts among different majors and reduce incentives to 'cheat'.

Which is why I think the universities should be the lenders. They're the ones "selling" theater as a major. They'd be pretty quick to eliminate BS majors if they realized that certain programs were more likely to default on loans.

kylemittskus wrote:Which is why I think the universities should be the lenders. They're the ones "selling" theater as a major. They'd be pretty quick to eliminate BS majors if they realized that certain programs were more likely to default on loans.

The problem with that is then we are selecting for "useful majors" such as biology, engineering and business. I think that we will end up losing out as a society by reducing our artistic population. That being said people in those majors should be prepared to know how they are going to earn back their money, and should have a backup plan. And I know plenty of theatre majors who are in no danger of defaulting. This is kind of what is happening in medicine where people are being forced to specialize in order to pay off their loans, and thus we have a shortage of primary care physicians and a glut of radiologists for example.

tiger7610 wrote:I can agree with that, but why do we allow other type of debt to be forgiven by bancrupcy. I feel like student debt is accumulated usually in an attempt to gain knowledge and try to make some sort of useful career (obviously not always the case), but I do not see any use of child payment debt or gambling debt to society.

Not all other debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy. Check out the FAQ Discharge in Bankruptcy on the US Courts website. You'll see that things like child support/alimony payments are not dischargeable.

As to gambling debts, they're not legally enforceable anyway, in most cases.

kylemittskus wrote:Which is why I think the universities should be the lenders. They're the ones "selling" theater as a major. They'd be pretty quick to eliminate BS majors if they realized that certain programs were more likely to default on loans.

I agree with this. In fact, before the feds became involved during LBJ's Great Society/War on Poverty, most financial aid was from schools and from private individuals/charities that set up scholarship funds. Most were grants, not loans, though there was a moral obligation to contribute, if the recipient was able, at least as much as he or she received in aid, back to the school or fund or to some other form of scholarship. We should get the federal government out of loans completely - including guarantees - and leave it to the institutions and private donors.

tiger7610 wrote:The problem with that is then we are selecting for "useful majors" such as biology, engineering and business. I think that we will end up losing out as a society by reducing our artistic population. That being said people in those majors should be prepared to know how they are going to earn back their money, and should have a backup plan. And I know plenty of theatre majors who are in no danger of defaulting. This is kind of what is happening in medicine where people are being forced to specialize in order to pay off their loans, and thus we have a shortage of primary care physicians and a glut of radiologists for example.

Letting the schools or other private groups determine who gets the funds and how much would alleviate most of this -- if the Actors' Equity wanted to sponsor a theater scholarship, it could, for example. There would still be some scholarships for majors other than pure practical majors, but there would be fewer, and (probably) the courses would be more rigorous.

I think you'd still see a reduction in the number of majors, especially the ones that most people agree don't provide either practical skills or the sort of classical education that made the graduate capable of higher level thinking, but I think enough of those things like various 'ethnic/gender studies' would still find people willing to pay for them they would not disappear entirely. Those sorts of things, and liberal arts majors generally, would just not be the refuges for those whom it hurts to think that they are now.

It is important to remember that the liberal arts curriculum of the century between about 1875 and 1975 was itself a reform - a modernization of the more classically oriented curriculum that developed in Renaissance Italy as more practical (the wisdom of the ancients rediscovered, history, etc.) than the medieval curriculum of the early European universities which centered on theology and scholastic theology. (the law (mostly Roman law) and medicine branches of the medieval university curriculum continued longer, and are more or less reflected with modernization, but not revolution, really, in our modern schools of law (though those in the US are common law, not civil law (except in Louisiana) and medicine)). As an aside, the theology curricula changed mostly during the Reformation - the Protestants of course, but also the Catholic universities through the Counter-Reformation.

University curricula develop over the centuries to meet societies' needs, but they ossify. As they ossify, they cease to meet societies' needs and either they curriculum reforms or the stuff the society needs done is done outside the university. Until the late 19th century, for example, most science was done outside of the university. And, most engineering curricula were not started within traditional colleges, but in separate institutions often known as 'institutes' or 'polytechnic' or the like. West Point was essential an engineering school with military training, as were the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel, all in the first half of the 19th century, and of course, this was the era that saw the creation of places like Renssaeler Polytechnical Institute. After Civil War, based on the 1862 Morrill Act, many of the various polytechnical institutes emphasizing science, technology and scientific agriculture were founded. Again, all outside of the traditional colleges.
.

kylemittskus wrote:Which is why I think the universities should be the lenders. They're the ones "selling" theater as a major. They'd be pretty quick to eliminate BS majors if they realized that certain programs were more likely to default on loans.

My goodness, that is a bit harsh isn't it? I happened to graduate with a degree in theater and I didn't default on my student loan and I was well aware I probably wouldn't find a job in my major. I will add that at the time I didn't need much money because I had the GI Bill as well as a state tuition grant due to my Army service and college costs were much lower then. (Tuition was $350 a semester!) I did get a fine liberal arts education though.

I truly believe the ruin of our already weakened higher education system would be hastened if said institutions limited their degree offerings to only those that promised gainful employment. Why should somebody studying law get a student loan? The US is saturated with lawyers and their are only so many ambulances available to chase. I would venture to say that most "business" degrees, at least at the undergraduate level are pretty worthless as well. How about English lit majors? What do you do with an English lit degree? Quote Shakespeare while you grill burgers? I believe in personal responsibility, if someone wants to major in theater, as I did, out of a love for theater and they need to borrow money to do that, then they realize they have to pay it back or suffer the consequences. There are ways to tighten the student loan process other than eliminating degree programs deemed to be "worthless".

Edit: N.B. My theater studies were focused on technical theater, the behind the scenes things and I did actually support myself for 5 years using the carpentry and electrical skills I learned in the theater.

tiger7610 wrote:The problem with that is then we are selecting for "useful majors" such as biology, engineering and business. I think that we will end up losing out as a society by reducing our artistic population. That being said people in those majors should be prepared to know how they are going to earn back their money, and should have a backup plan. And I know plenty of theatre majors who are in no danger of defaulting. This is kind of what is happening in medicine where people are being forced to specialize in order to pay off their loans, and thus we have a shortage of primary care physicians and a glut of radiologists for example.

To add to what rpm said, and to address your specific concern with the arts, I don't think a more focused, practical university curriculum would hurt the arts at all. History proves this. Go back 150 years when the liberal arts (which has now become a parody of what it was) was the focus of universities (not specialized training schools), the arts flourished. I'm not sure what specific arts you're talking about, or just generally speaking, but some of the greatest authors of the modern era (I'm a literate guy) were writing during a time where one could not go to school for "art" or "creative writing." I have personal experience with this from grad school. In my classes, we had MFA students whom I would get in discussions with about how they were wasting time, money, and filling my classes with their BS discussions that they pulled from "Writing Fiction for Dummies." True, the likes of Flannery O'Connor did attend an MFA program, but so did Nicholas Sparks... my point is that the arts will flourish as a necessary part of society without am academic how-to guide, largely because such a thing is absurd. As far as studying the arts, they would be studied in a true Liberal Arts program as facets of history/theology.

As to your second concern, my solution (because no one bad ever thought of it before ) would solve the issue of the incredibly large loan program. If universities or other private entities provided loans and grants, the interest rates could be lower. And by lowering them, the institution would be promoting philanthropy -- my university assisted me instead of drown me and therefore, I do things to help it continue that pattern. And they would make some money on the interest rates, as well. Right now, if SWMBO and I pay our loans on schedule, we will have ended up paying more than twice the original borrowed amount. This has nothing to do with the size of the loan, by rather with the structure of it. And it's BS. I should be paying for school; not paying for school twice over so that the extra can go right back into a broken system to perpetuate it.

The fact that the cost of attending a university has gone up so dramatically, and continues to do so, is absurd, especially considering the fact that our education system was better when there was less money and more students per class. Going to college becomes really easy when every single student can qualify for loans no matter grades, major, credit score, etc. It shouldn't be. And it allows, even encourages universities, trade schools, etc. to accept students of all types (including those who will predictably drop out and/or default) because they have no proverbial dog in the fight. The govt is fronting the bill and eating the left overs.

edlada wrote:My goodness, that is a bit harsh isn't it? I happened to graduate with a degree in theater and I didn't default on my student loan and I was well aware I probably wouldn't find a job in my major. I will add that at the time I didn't need much money because I had the GI Bill as well as a state tuition grant due to my Army service and college costs were much lower then. (Tuition was $350 a semester!) I did get a fine liberal arts education though.

I truly believe the ruin of our already weakened higher education system would be hastened if said institutions limited their degree offerings to only those that promised gainful employment. Why should somebody studying law get a student loan? The US is saturated with lawyers and their are only so many ambulances available to chase. I would venture to say that most "business" degrees, at least at the undergraduate level are pretty worthless as well. How about English lit majors? What do you do with an English lit degree? Quote Shakespeare while you grill burgers? I believe in personal responsibility, if someone wants to major in theater, as I did, out of a love for theater and they need to borrow money to do that, then they realize they have to pay it back or suffer the consequences. There are ways to tighten the student loan process other than eliminating degree programs deemed to be "worthless".

Edit: N.B. My theater studies were focused on technical theater, the behind the scenes things and I did actually support myself for 5 years using the carpentry and electrical skills I learned in the theater.

I think a large part of the problem is not the relatively few who study things like theater for true love of it, but the rather larger numbers who take refuge in various social science, arts and (yes) undergraduate business programs because they are easy and do not seriously distract from what those students perceive (at that point anyway) as the real purpose of college: drugs, sex, and rock and roll (and maybe intramural sport).

Far too few undergraduates have the seriousness of purpose it takes to really get something out of the humanities or serious social science. Of the social sciences, I take only history - if you think it's a social science, which I don't - and economics seriously. Political science is nonsense except to the extent it's political philosophy, and would be better kept in philosophy departments, and sociology is all nonsense.

The real problem with the liberal arts is that faculties do not demand the same level of rigor that faculties in the hard and applied sciences do. You and I may well have applied ourselves to studies in the humanities with the same effort we would have had to put into engineering or the sciences, but we were the exceptions, not the rule, even 40+ years ago.

rpm wrote:I think a large part of the problem is not the relatively few who study things like theater for true love of it, but the rather larger numbers who take refuge in various social science, arts and (yes) undergraduate business programs because they are easy and do not seriously distract from what those students perceive (at that point anyway) as the real purpose of college: drugs, sex, and rock and roll (and maybe intramural sport).

Far too few undergraduates have the seriousness of purpose it takes to really get something out of the humanities or serious social science. Of the social sciences, I take only history - if you think it's a social science, which I don't - and economics seriously. Political science is nonsense except to the extent it's political philosophy, and would be better kept in philosophy departments, and sociology is all nonsense.

The real problem with the liberal arts is that faculties do not demand the same level of rigor that faculties in the hard and applied sciences do. You and I may well have applied ourselves to studies in the humanities with the same effort we would have had to put into engineering or the sciences, but we were the exceptions, not the rule, even 40+ years ago.

Sigh. All too true. I must admit my first year I did indulge in some of the more frivolous pursuits you mentioned but I got serious after that!

Edit: I just read that playwright turned anti-communist activist and former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel died. I always admired him.

edlada wrote:Sigh. All too true. I must admit my first year I did indulge in some of the more frivolous pursuits you mentioned but I got serious after that!

Edit: I just read that playwright turned anti-communist activist and former president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel died. I always admired him.

May Havel rest in peace. A great man.

To your earlier part: nothing wrong with some reasonable indulgence in the sybaritic pleasures of undergraduate life as long as one keeps perspective and works as hard as, or harder than, one parties.

rpm wrote:May Havel rest in peace. A great man.

To your earlier part: nothing wrong with some reasonable indulgence in the sybaritic pleasures of undergraduate life as long as one keeps perspective and works as hard as, or harder than, one parties.

yeah, I totally had to leave my first school due to that exact thing. worked out though. I got to the second school (actually a better school, but was the hometown school) and it dawned on me, holy The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978), I'm paying for this, maybe I should get something out of it. another year older maybe?