Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Economics of College
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A front-page headline in the New York Times captures much of the economic confusion of our time: "Fewer Options Open to Pay for Costs of College."

The whole article is about the increased costs of college, the difficulties parents have in paying those costs, and the difficulties that both students and parents have in trying to borrow the money needed when their current incomes will not cover college costs.

All that is fine for a purely "human interest" story. But making economic policies on the basis of human interest stories -- which is what politicians increasingly do, especially in election years -- has a big down side for those people who do not happen to be in the categories chosen to write human interest stories about.

The general thrust of human interest stories about people with economic problems, whether they are college students or people faced with mortgage foreclosures, is that the government ought to come to their rescue, presumably because the government has so much money and these individuals have so little.

Like most "deep pockets," however, the government's deep pockets come from vast numbers of people with much shallower pockets. In many cases, the average taxpayer has lower income than the people on whom the government lavishes its financial favors.

Costs are not just things for government to help people to pay. Costs are telling us something that is dangerous to ignore.

The inadequacy of resources to produce everything that everyone wants is the fundamental fact of life in every economy -- capitalist, socialist or feudal. This means that the real cost of anything consists of all the other things that could have been produced with those same resources.

Building a bridge means using up resources that could have been used building homes or a hospital. Going to college means using up vast amounts of resources that could be used for all sorts of other things.

Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.

Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.

That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.

When you pay the full cost -- that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses -- you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.

Whether someone goes to college at all, what kind of college, and whether they remain on campus to do postgraduate work, are all questions about how much of the resources that other people want are to be taken away and used by those on whom we have arbitrarily focused in human interest stories.

This is not just a question about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole society's standard of living is lower when resources are shifted from higher valued uses to lower valued uses and wasted by those who are subsidized or otherwise allowed to pay less.

The fact that the Soviet economic system allowed industries to use resources wastefully meant that the price was paid not in money but in a far lower standard of living for the Soviet people than the available technology and resources were capable of producing.

The Soviet Union was one of the world's most richly endowed nations in natural resources -- if not the most richly endowed. Yet many of its people lived almost as if they were in the Third World.

How many people would go to college if they had to pay the real cost of all the resources taken from other parts of the economy? Probably a lot fewer people.

Moreover, when paying their own money, there would probably not be nearly as many people parting with hard cash to study feel-good subjects with rap sessions instead of serious study.

There would probably be fewer people lingering on campus for the social scene or as a refuge from adult responsibilities in the real world.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
The Real World
People need to start being responsible for themselves and their families and pay their way in life. Whether it is a college education or a home mortgage loan, people must make responsible choices based on hardwork and what they can afford. I paid my own way through college. I did not expect the government to give me a free ride - even after my father passed away. I worked and saved my own money becuase my mother still had four other children at home she had to raise, feed, and educate. If I depended on Uncle Sam, I'd be uneducated nobody working in a dead end job.

Grow up Americans and be responsible for yourselves and your family. To expect someone else or the government to step in is a formula for disaster and it teaches our children the wrong values.

Re: GI Bill
Gaius Marius introduced a similar package for his soldiers, which the Senate opposed. It created a schism between the military and the government, and Republican Rome was plunged into civil war.

I love our troops. But I am always wary of government largesse.

Accept the queen's shilling, accept the queen's bidding.

Entitlement
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Nothing in there about a free college education. If it makes you happy, you're free to pursue it, but don't expect equal outcome.

Previous American generations were more of a savings culture. Our, and subsequent, generations are more spending cultures.

We need to learn from the past.

True cost of college
One wonders what the true cost of college would be without all the government subsidies driving the price upward.

Not fit to carry Dr. Sowell's socks
"I am on my third year in a California University"

That's all I needed to read. If you're a resident taxpayer of Commiefornia, your tax dollars are paying for the annexation of Commiefornia by mexico. Find out if your degree will be worth anything in pesos.

Get a Sowell book from the library. There's more knowledge in one of those than in four years of propaganda at Socialist U.


Government-created parasites
Mr. Sowell is right on the money, no pun intended, and way ahead of you crypto-Marxists.

Listen, Marxists, and yes, you are Marxists. Your language in these threads is a nearly word-for-word copy of classical Marxist and Marxist-derived thought. Word-for-word. You are not fooling anyone with your "Third Way" talk.

College grads are only paid more on average because SOME grads get a real education and put it to practical use, thus raising the average. Others do not. If not for the former, there would be no such thing as college grads making higher salaries. The latter get pseudo-educations and degrees, which are unproductive and useless in the real world. In other words, the latter parasitize on the former. Without government subsidies, the latter would not be possible.

Subsidization leads to parasitism.

Dave Adams:
“I think I've already shown with the example of the web browser that an enormous amount of wealth has been created in this country as a result of work done AT public Universities.”

An enormous amount of wealth has been created by work done at Microsoft too. Should it publicly subsidized? It was INDIVIDUALS who came up the browser idea and made it a success. They could have done that anywhere, whether they were working in their garage or at Harvard. Even if we erroneously attribute the development of the web browser to the public university, how does this justify public financing of “Marc Andreeson’s” education there? Did he not earn enough money from his work on the browser to pay back the university for his own education?

Dr. Sowell never said it was a zero-sum game, so why you want to debate that is a mystery to me. He said that we don’t have unlimited resources to give everyone everything they would like to have, and this is true. Please read my post from Wednesday, 2:34 p.m. for my own take on what the point he’s making. I’d be interested in your response.


Its not a zero-sum game
CW:

"Funny you should bring up the web browser. Do you think taxpayers should be subsidizing the education of the people already making millions –or billions – from the development of these products? Maybe average taxpayers should go back and reimburse Bill Gates for his partial education, eh? Actually I think he probably feels like he got his money’s worth."

The guy who developed the first web browser was a non-millionaire graduate student when he did it. Even at the most expensive private universities, I doubt that you will find more than a tiny fraction of Engineering or Science student aho are billionaires, much less millionaires. In the case of Marc Andreeson, his miniscule salary (and I mean miniscule) was payed by the taxpayers. Are you saying that that was a bad investment for the taxpayers?

By the way, what's all that that got to do with "going back and reimbursing" anyone? I'm making no such argument, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. We're talking about whether Universities should recieve public financing or not.

You haven't yet addressed my main point, which is that I believe Mr. Sowell is wrong when he assumes that the cost of public education is a zero-sum game. I think I've already shown with the example of the web browser that an enormous amount of wealth has been created in this country as a result of work done AT public Universities.



Dave Adams:
Funny you should bring up the web browser. Do you think taxpayers should be subsidizing the education of the people already making millions – or billions – from the development of these products? Maybe average taxpayers should go back and reimburse Bill Gates for his partial education, eh? Actually I think he probably feels like he got his money’s worth.

Fact is we also benefit from products and services developed by people who NEVER received a higher education, just as we benefit from people who paid for 100% of their education. In your web browser example, do you think that idea was passed down in a classroom, or do you think it was the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the individual that led to its development and success?

I think it behooves all nations to invest in education to the extent of making it attainable to a large number of people and, as you point out, we’ve already done that. This shouldn’t mean that everyone is entitled to a “free” education. Free is in quotes because it is a fallacy – a figment of the liberals’ imagination. As Dr. Sowell points out, education is like any other limited resource where, under natural circumstances, the competition for the resource results in the most ideally efficient use of it. In the case of higher education there are mainly two ways to compete: scholastic potential and money. Scholastic potential means the resource is focused on those people most likely to make the best use of it. Some people are willing to pay even when they don’t have the scholastic potential. This enables the school to expand its service to more people. It should be a win-win for everyone.

Instead you want taxpayers to provide a “free” education to anyone who wants it, regardless of ability and without regard to it’s limitations as a resource. As with liberals’ dream of socialized healthcare, this will only lead to a mediocre product and chaos in the system.

Clev-
Please stop! Your HILARIOUS remark about liberals thinking rebuttal is some type of cosmetic surgery.....My side still hurts from laughing over that one. And then, out of nowhere do you come up with this zinger:

“Most conservatives are religious and give to charity. They put their family ahead of themselves and help their kids pay for college. We believe in voluntarily helping deserving people get a decent education.”

Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaa!!! Oh, you're serious?
And who pray tell, are the deserving people you speak of?

In all honesty Clev, I do the same thing. When I donate clothes to the goodwill or salvation army store, I go back later and wait to see who picks out items I donated. If I see someone pick up one of my donated items, and I don't like the looks of them, I'll grab the item, and tear it to shreds, right there in front of them.

Because I want them to understand that I have decided, based on nothing really, well, except for my own grandiose, self importance, superior moral posturing, that they do not deserve my second hand clothes. See, same as you!


Peaches wrote:
"My husband was the first from his family to attend college. It was 1968 when he enrolled at University of Michigan. I remember thinking at the time that the government should help us, I felt he was deserving of a free ride through college.
There was no help available, so he worked nights at UPS sorting packages and droving 40 miles one way to Ann Arbor for classes during the day. I was working in retail sales for minimal wages. We did get school loans and somehow with 4 children and a house payment we managed to survive"

Peaches, that story is really lovely and all, and I am sure your house in Annie-get-your-gun Arbor was the bomb. But why don't you ask your Townhall partner-in-crime CW about his “analytical” tools that he likes to whip out every now and then, and see what he has to say about comparing attending college or buying a home in 1968 to 2008.

Peaches, Peaches, Peaches what am I going to do with you? You did NOT get it all on your own, you borrowed, and that is because of your poor economical skills, selfish indifference to other people, juvenile attitude and lack of economic understanding (ask CW, he knows all about this) You know better than to borrow one dime to build a foundation, get an education, start a family, buy a home, maintain your health or any other thing that would work in society as a collective effort, because a well adjusted, educated, healthy population can give back to society, how dare you!!

But you see Peaches, that is the real difference between Townhall and the rest of the population. Townhall folk like get all grumbly and stuff when taxes come out of their pitiful paychecks and tend to take out their frustrations on either women, liberals, Latinos, or Black people. But, I care about society as a whole, even you Peaches, and I welcome that taxes are part of what makes living, working, surviving and other tedious things possible, even for people that I may think are beneath me.

Speaking of rewards
"The question for liberals is this: why should taxpayers foot the bill for YOUR education when YOU’RE the only one who gets the reward?"

Because I'm not the only person who gets the reward, that's why. You responded to my post on your web browser; a piece of software that was conceived of and invented developed at a Land-Grant University as a result of a project sponsored by a Federal grant. Every person reading this page has derived an innumerable number of benefits from the work of people who got their education at a publicly-financed university.

I've never done anything nearly as useful as writing a web browser. But my first job right out of college was working on classified defense system projects for one of the major aerospace corporations. BTW, that particular firm had a policy of recruiting extensively from only eight or so Engineering schools. Five of them were Land-Grant schools. I was told that this was common practice in the Defense Industry.

S=CSU is supported by taxpayer funds
CW:

Last time I checked CSU and all but one of the other Land Grant Schools were publicly-supported institutions or higher learning. I applaud you and your husband for paying your expenses. My wife and I did the same. But surely you don't think that you paid 100% of the costs incurred to educate you? Was your tuition equivalent to the tuition of a private school? If not, you recieved a monetary benefit from the taxpayers of Colorado.

That isn't a bad thing IMO. Hopefully you would agree that by now you and your husband have returned some sort of value to society at large based on your publicly-supported college education. The main point of Mr.Sowell's article is that ultimately there is no need for CSU or any of the other Land Grant schools; he's telling us that they are somehow a net drain on the economy.

CW wrote:
"Now suppose that his analysis shows the salary increase will NOT be sufficient to repay his $20,000 investment, but he wants to do it anyway because he likes the idea of being a senior manager. Once again I would ask: why should anyone else have to pay for his economically poor decision?
This is the kind of analytical thinking that Blue and Anthony and other liberals resent having to do. As liberals they believe they are entitled to pursue career choices without regard to market demand, salary considerations or the cost of education. But the only way for them to do this is to force other taxpayers to subsidize their whims. It is a very juvenile way of thinking, in both its lack of economic understanding and its selfish indifference to what it costs other people."

Are your for real? So higher education is a whim. Well, I guess if you peaked at third grade, it would seem that way. I hope you break out those analytical tools when you convince your kids college is for sissies and that their whims will never amount to anything, and they can just be like dear ol' dad working those blue collar shifts until they fall into their grave.

Holy crap you people are easy to bait. I was giving hypothetical scenarios. You actually think that I would disclose to you people my real career or academic history or anything else about me?. This website and other hardcore conservative sites are so vile and self- righteous, you would come to my home, stalk and harass me to make sure that I am not living above my means.

Dave Adams & Morrill Land Grant Act
The Morrill Land Grand Act was sponsored by Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont, a Republican. It was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln, also a Republican. As with most gov’t funded programs it apparently invited plenty of waste and fraud:

“The Morrill Act committed the Federal Government to grant each state 30,000 acres of public land issued in the form of “land scrip” certificates for each of its Representatives and Senators in Congress. Although many states squandered the revenue from this endowment, which grew to an allocation of over 100 million acres, the Morrill land grants laid the foundation for a national system of state colleges and universities.”

“The land itself was rarely used for school construction but rather was sold off, with proceeds used to fund the school program. The system invited misuse by opportunists, and substantial portions of the educational land-grants never benefited education.”

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33

Education is like any other good investment. If you plan well and do your homework, you’ll get a good return. The question for liberals is this: why should taxpayers foot the bill for YOUR education when YOU’RE the only one who gets the reward?

GI Bill
The GI Bill is part of a deferred compensation plan, and is earned by those who serve downrange in harm's way.

Dave Adams - wrong again
Is ANYONE eligible for benefits under the GI Bill, or is it only available to those who served in the U.S. military? The answer is that it is only available to those who served – why? Because it part of their COMPENSATION in EXCHANGE for serving. Do you understand that there is a difference between compensation and money that’s given in return for nothing? Where the GI Bill came from is irrelevant.

GI Bill = Liberal program
CW:

Mr.Sowell doesn't say anything in his article about exempting beneficiaries of GI Bill funds, and by definition those funds ARE public financing.

In any case the GI Bill was a program pushed through by FDR Liberals during the Second World War. Conservatives opposed it. Mr. Sowell, I'm sure, deserved his publicly-financed benefits.

Its just strange to me that he doesn't mention the issue in his article.

Dave Adams:
My husband and I both received degrees from Colorado State University, and we both fully paid for our education with no public assistance. Since CSU is a land-grant college, how do you explain this?

Dave Adams:
The GI Bill is part of the compensation package promised to military personnel in return for their service. It is NOT a give-away. Many companies similarly pay for their employees’ education as part of their overall compensation. It’s the same thing.

Cleverness of me...
Thank you for your comment but I think it’s important to note that the illegal immigration example wasn’t off-topic because it went right to the heart of Dr. Sowell’s point, which is that the REAL cost of anything – whether it be education or immigrant labor – should be paid for by the people who use it and/or benefit from it. Only in this way will the price accurately reflect supply and demand.

Like you I support LEGAL immigration to the extent that it is appropriately market driven. Believe me, when immigrants wanting to come here must do so legally and pay for benefits as Americans do, they’ll be much less likely to vote democrat.

Public college is not a zero-sum game
Public financing of higher education has been a staple of American life since the enactment of the Morrill Land Grant Act, which was signed into law by Liberal former Trial Lawyer Abraham Lincoln. The act provided federal funds to pay for the individual states to purchase land for publicly-financed education. The stipulation was that the resulting institutions were to provide education in the Military, Agricultural and "Useful Arts" (i.e. what we now call Engineering). Literally millions of people have graduated from these Universities, and measuring the sum total of their effect on the American economy over the last 150 years or so is a task that appears to be beyond the capabilities of even Thomas Sowell.

Ok, fine.
But really if you don't like public college financing we should be debating this without taking advantage of the benefits of publicly financed colleges provide. This discussion really should be taking place via mail since the web browser was developed at a Land Grant School.

Oh, and Mr. Sowell should set an example and pay back any educational benefits he recieved through the GI Bill.

Thomas Sowell's article
My husband was the first from his family to attend college. It was 1968 when he enrolled at University of Michigan. I remember thinking at the time that the government should help us, I felt he was deserving of a free ride through college.
There was no help available, so he worked nights at UPS sorting packages and droving 40 miles one way to Ann Arbor for classes during the day. I was working in retail sales for minimal wages. We did get school loans and somehow with 4 children and a house payment we managed to survive. Now when we look back we feel it was only right that we pay our owe way. In the end we have appreciated life more, knowing we could do it on our own.

Don’t blame Blue and Anthony
As liberals they are incapable of understanding basic economics. If they did understand, they wouldn’t be liberals.

Blue says he wants to be a senior manager. Let’s say, for example, that it will cost him $5,000 a year for four years, or $20,000, to achieve this goal. A reasonable person would calculate what his expected increase in earnings would be over his life time and compare it to this $20,000 investment to decide if it was financially worthwhile. If it is worthwhile – that is, the increase will be more than enough to repay his investment plus improve his standard of living – why should anyone else have to pay for this? Isn’t he (and maybe his family) the sole beneficiary of the investment?

Now suppose that his analysis shows the salary increase will NOT be sufficient to repay his $20,000 investment, but he wants to do it anyway because he likes the idea of being a senior manager. Once again I would ask: why should anyone else have to pay for his economically poor decision?

This is the kind of analytical thinking that Blue and Anthony and other liberals resent having to do. As liberals they believe they are entitled to pursue career choices without regard to market demand, salary considerations or the cost of education. But the only way for them to do this is to force other taxpayers to subsidize their whims. It is a very juvenile way of thinking, in both its lack of economic understanding and its selfish indifference to what it costs other people.

Pick on "Blue" day
I am sorry you are getting such a beating "Blue". You sound like a hardworking conscientious person, and it is unfair for people to make negative assumptions about you or your character just because we disagree with you.

That said, I wanted to address you point about how if we don't spend government money education, it frees up funds to spend on other things. That is not how conservatives think. We look at less government spending as a way for people to keep their own money and spend it as they see fit (maybe on education?).

The war is irrelevant to this discussion.

Blue
I do not think that the conservative position, in general, is the sort of social Darwinism you describe. Most conservatives are religious and give to charity. They put their family ahead of themselves and help their kids pay for college. We believe in voluntarily helping deserving people get a decent education.

Now that we have the straw men out of the way, how do you respond to the observed tendency of people to be frugal with their own money, and spendthrift with government money? Do you reject the idea that colleges charge more than people can afford because they know that the government can be counted on to make up the difference? Do you think that YOUR tuition might be lower if colleges had to keep tuition costs within what the market will bear? Has your experience of working to put yourself through school made you a better person?

CW
Excellent points, if somewhat off topic. I am a big advocate for LEGAL immigration. When the Baby-Boomers retire we will likely face a labor shortage, which immigrant labor will help to offset. People who have the ambition and fortitude to move to another nation are the sort of people who succeed in America.

But illegals are a drain on the economy, and our social infrastructure. They are more likely to feel "entitled", since they felt that the laws restricting immigration did not apply to them. Worse, they tend to vote Democrat, when they shouldn't be voting at all!

Rebuttal?
Sowell writes an insightful column using facts, reason, and historical precedent to support his idea that subsidizing college education causes higher tuition and waste, and the best those who disagree with him can say is, essentially: "you're mean", or "you're senile".

The idea of rebutting someones position is providing your own facts and reason to show that the thesis presented is wrong. Neither Blue nor Anthony Thomas even tried to do that.

I guess liberals think "rebuttal" is a type of cosmetic surgery.

The Bigger Picture
The illegal immigration situation perfectly illustrates Dr. Sowell’s point.

Some people justify the presence of illegal immigrants by pointing to the cheap labor they provide. To them this justifies the enormous but hidden costs to our schools, our health care systems, our policing systems and our welfare systems. But by spreading these costs among all of the taxpayers, we’ve enabled the illegals to price legal citizens out of the labor market. After all, legal citizens have to earn enough to pay for all their own benefits – plus the higher taxes needed to support the illegals!

Some people like it this way because it means they get their yard work (or other labor) for a cheap price at the expense of everyone else (kind of like getting a cheaper education at the expense of everyone else). But let’s look at what would happen if we didn’t allow the hidden costs of illegals to be borne by taxpayers. Illegal immigrants would have to either pay for these benefits themselves or go without them. In order to pay themselves they would have to raise the price for their labor to the same price legal citizens would demand. The labor market would finally be competitive, and illegal immigration would suddenly become a much less attractive option.

In other words, by forcing the people who use the services of illegal immigrants to pay all of the true costs associated with those services, we would naturally fix the problem of illegal immigration.

The same is true for a college education. If the demand is there for college-educated employees, then the salaries will be increased to ensure the supply; and with increased salaries people will be able to repay the costs associated with their education. If salaries are not sufficient to make college worthwhile, this means the demand is not there. If the demand is not there, fewer people should be going to college anyway. The market naturally takes care of it if we can just keep the liberals from screwing it up.

Blue
Why don't you admit that you're utterly dependent on others to pay your bills. That's what it boils down to. If you're grossly handicapped, that's one thing. But if you are of sound mind and body, there is absolutely no reason to demand that other people pay your way through school. Nor is there reason to still be asking "you want fries with that"? Take all that energy you put into hating society and divert it into earning your own way!

Now that Blue is gone...

SJ Doc,

Thanks for the link. Very funny. As you so astutely figured out, I don't read the comic section of the newspaper anymore. To boot, I haven't watched TV for a couple of years and instead get my news on line from multiple sources.

I guess it makes me ignorant of some cultural references though I have in fact read a Dilbert cartoon.

I guess I yearn for the humor of Jack Benny, Bob Hope and a host of other good and witty people.

dbz77 wrote:
"If you do not trust private citizens, you can refuse to do business with them.
Some people do not trust the courts. What happens if they refuse to submit to the courts?"

Uh, why don't you get back to me when you have a real argument that actually makes sense.

Thanks for the fun evening! Bye now.

SNAFU Part II
Mark my words, when the eduction system in this country implodes and we enter a true crises scenario, as we have with the current health care system, you will be hearing of pressure from all sides calling for universal free education.

Speaking of health, I am a bit concerned about the state of your health. For four years and then through law school you implied that you got only two hours sleep, that must have taken a neurological toll on your brain as evidence in your comments.

And actually you are a whiner and sniveler of the highest order. Not only did you choose to make your life miserable while getting through college, you have taken the opportunity to moan after the fact about how difficult it was. I am willing to bet that you never let your family forget the sacrifices you made.

SNAFU.....Part I
SNAFU, no one should have to live that chaotically earning a college degree. That is too much for any one person to have to endure.

I mean you're implying that everyone has to be martyr and sacrifice family and sleep and work four jobs, while going to school and maintain a 4.0 GPA. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Hopefully, you were not driving your two sons around with that little amount of sleep too often, or operating heavy machinery. If your scenario here is real, I tip my hat to you, because you have managed a plethora of achievements all in unison. I nominate you greatest multitasker of the decade. I don't think that the average person could pull off such super star gymnastics, and are more likely to ask for assistance, or borrow money to get a college degree.

Look, you should be lucky there is not a greater movement or call for universal free education. In fact, you should be thanking your lucky stars that there is no universal free education, because you would have missed the opportunity to be a gigantic martyr. I am feeling New York Times Bestseller autobiography here about your superior moral posturing and how you neglected your family for your selfishness in wanting to become a lawyer. It would sell like hotcakes, trust me.

Blue
If you do not trust private citizens, you can refuse to do business with them.

Some people do not trust the courts. What happens if they refuse to submit to the courts?

Blue, what assumptions "again"?
You said "There you go again with your assumptions about me." Again? I've made precisely one post addressed to you, so it can scarcely be said I'm doing it "again"?

If you're tired of asking "do you want fries with that", then do what it takes to move up the ladder instead of whining and sniveling, and making excuses about it. I'm not going to repeat it, so take a peek at the first note I posted in this thread. Instead of gnashing my teeth, I manned up and gritted my way through college (and, later, law school). I didn't borrow money for school and I damn sure didn't rely on tax dollars; I worked hard to pay for my education.

If I could pay my own way, what makes you too good to do it?

Deacon wrote:
"I read some where that the need for an advanced degree was estimated at 30% of the jobs in the USA. So 70% of the rest of the jobs can get along just fine with high school education. If that is true then we have too many Colleges and Universities. If they were in a truly capitalistic world the cost of getting a higher education would be plummeting."

Good point, Deacon. Unfortuantely, logic such as yours is not welcome at Townhall. Case in point; no one responded to you because you are right.


Snafu wrote:

"If you've been working in "low level jobs" for twenty years, you need more than a college education will give you. Something more than education is lacking if you can't climb out of low level after that long. Motivation? Attitude? Sheesh..."

There you go again with your assumptions about me. As I said to another commenter, you don't know the first thing about me, so please keep your opinion about what I am lacking to yourself. Low level was a poor choice of words. I was implying that I generally am employed in coordinator/supporting positions even middle management, but my goal is upper/ senior management; however, not having a college education has worked against me in career choices.

But SNAFU, your attempting to pigeonhole me as some sort of immoral degenerate is probably more accurate. Between working full time, attending classes, volunteering at a rape crises center and after work tutoring English students at a community college for extra dough, my motivation and attitude are lacking.



SJ doc wrote:
"Cut off these supports, and the bursars must cut their tuition charges or suffer the legitimatization of competing educational service providers who can do the job more cost-efficiently.

Without government money available to their students, the ability to bleed their students will decline, and they must learn restraint."

Hmmmm, sounds like we have an anarchist here. Let's start with “competing educational service providers who can do the job more cost-effeciently.” You mean like, Halliburton Educational Services or perhaps Blackwater School of Learning?

The beauty of a democracy, I get to vote people out of office that do not have my best interests at hand. Your arguing for free market system that cuts out governmental control and leaves education to be dolled out by private citizens. And why would I would trust private citizens? Like I said, I can vote out people in a democracy; in your world we are at the mercy of private corporations with no recourse. And if you are suggesting that the kindly very wealthy are going to be lining up to set about funding for profit, private institutions for education so that people can afford it, you're in la la land.

Blue
If you've been working in "low level jobs" for twenty years, you need more than a college education will give you. Something more than education is lacking if you can't climb out of low level after that long. Motivation? Attitude? Sheesh...

CT,
What really irks me CT, is when people regurgitate tired terminology of conservative hacks. Also irking to me, is when people like you, assume in your limited and narrow minded thinking that I do not work as hard as you do. And you think I have not made sacrifices? You don't know the first thing about me. But if you want to get into a who-works-harder-than-who debate, bring it, chances are I am gonna beat you. And good for you, that you work like dogs to put your kids through college, if my folks were alive today, they probably would do the same. But they are dead and for twenty years I have worked in low level jobs barely getting by and now I want a better job for myself so that I can get out the trap of barely getting by.

But because you have absolutely no independent thought of your own, you parrot disingenuous comments like “I demand you pay for my needs” or “I don't appreciate the hard work people do and the sacrifices that hardworking people like you make.” No, actually I appreciate the government scholarship program that waives the cost of units I take each quarter. But I am sure it is much more fun for you to think that am just some loser who sits around watching TV and taking money out of the hands of good hardworking honest people like yourselves. Give me a break.

Blue - Gov't spending & its effects
--
Says Blue:

"So your solution is advocating less government waste on educating the population and more private funding of education. And as a result, people would learn to save their pennies if they want to learn. And the added benefit is, all that extra wasted money spent on educating people now can be used in 'alternative' ways. And what would that be? More war?"


Hm. I suspect we have a "Liberal" here.

At the very least, we've got an arrant statist, which defines in this context as someone who conflates government spending with "investment" (as if parasitic politicians have some special genius that makes them superior in judging where and how resources extorted from the productive private citizen should be allocated).

As has been observed, government spending - either through direct subsidization or the guarantee of student loans - has continually raised the availability of funds for college education ever since the close of World War II.

Colleges (as vendors of serices in this market) have kept their fingers on the pulsebeat of this funding, and have raised the rates of their charges accordingly, keeping the figurative knife to the throat of each student to compel the highest possible level of payment, up to and including the massive levels of debt with which we've been seeing young people emerge from college and grad school over the past thirty years and more.

Reducing government funding would mean that colleges and universities *MUST* reduce their own costs and charges in order to maintain share of market.

Cut off these supports, and the bursars must cut their tuition charges or suffer the legitimatization of competing educational service providers who can do the job more cost-efficiently.

Without government money available to their students, the ability to bleed their students will decline, and they must learn restraint.

--

Blue,
What you and others do not seem to appreciate is the hard work and sacrifices people have to make to earn their hard earned dollars. My wife and I both work full time, run a motel, run a real estate office, and keep several rental properties going, just so we can send OUR OWN children to college. What really irks me is the non-challant attitude of those who don't work half as hard, calling me cold and without compassion because I don't support paying for their needs. If it were only education, that would be one thing, but it's not. People like you demand we pay for a littany of other "needs" as well.

dbz77 wrote:
"When something is subsidized (like college educations), people tend to use more of it.
A college education uses resources which have alternative uses."

Ohhh, do mean like those welfare queens, getting welfare checks and driving Cadillacs?

So your solution is advocating less government waste on educating the population and more private funding of education. And as a result, people would learn to save their pennies if they want to learn. And the added benefit is, all that extra wasted money spent on educating people now can be used in "alternative" ways. And what would that be? More war?

And the people who are not deserving of the “private” funds that are dolled out, how do they get a college education? They just don't. And then what? More ignorant people? Another genius idea at Townhall.

My opinion Part 2


I remember one lady who worked her way through college typing reports for a doctor. After graduation she looked for a “real” job, and was shocked at what she was expected to do to earn a living, and the places she would have to work in, every day.

The doctor called and offered her double wages if she would type for him, but she said she was a college grad, and could not type for a living. I pointed out she would not be a typist, she would be the President of her own firm, and that has worked just fine for the past 30 years. And she didn’t have to pay for clothes, lunches, and transportation to some office, so she stayed home, took care of her baby, and lived happily ever after. Oh, she did get her “MR” degree at college, the best part of her education.

I reminded one G’daughter that what she learned was dependent on what she wanted to learn, not which place she wanted to spend her money, and spend her time. One of the most important thing one learns at a “high-class” college or university, is connections, other people who can be useful in later life.

Another G’daughter went to school with a lady who later married a billionaire, who soon died. What that might result in, no one knows, but what a wonderful acquaintance.

My opinion, Part 1


Many people are concerned about the drop-out rate for high school students.

I’m more concerned with the excessive number of people in college. Most of them would do much better if they were learning something of value to earn a living for the rest of their life, and English literature, underwater basket weaving, etc., just does not do it.

I was extremely lucky. I spent two years in High School, a couple of months at a University before I was bored out of my skull, but lucky of all luck some one invented computers about that time, and no one then or now, can possibility understand how I learned about computers while milking 50 cows morning and night. It’s been said I was too stupid to know how smart I was.

I have always wondered what I would have done for living if someone had not built the Whirlwind at MIT, the SWAC at UCLA, and the Johnnaic at the RAND Corp. And by the way, who else do you know who has spent some time working on three of those computers? I wasn’t the expert on any of them, but I was familiar.

I like the idea that if you invested the money instead of paying for a high-cost University, than got a job that was of interest, that was useful, you would be better off then a college grad who spent his years in a job he didn’t really like.

Was it Teddy Roosevelt who said, “Work hard at work worth doing.”

Cold Hard Truth:
What is with the “Kalifornia?” What exactly does that sum up? Are you in Kentucky?

Actually I do understand the article, thanks. But rather than sit around and discuss failed economic theories like unregulated, private, unfettered capitalist al la Milton Friedman that only benefit a small percentage of the population anyway, I thought I would just get to the bottom line. Sowell, is pandering to individuals like yourself who hold near and dear the belief that that government funding is for losers, privatizing everything, cutting out social safety nets, letting the “market work out the true costs” or some such nonsense is for the winners.

Okay winners, let's do it....cut out all the government funding everywhere, unregulated price controls and privatize everything.. Yea, you may lose about three fourths of the population in the transition, but they probably didn't deserve to live in the first place, right? And then what? After everything is all said and done, you have the working poor and the rich. Sounds great!!

And do enlighten me of nation that in any time in history under a strict capitalist economic policy had a free, educated, employed, healthy, population? Bolivia? No. Uh, Chile? No, not them. I know China? Oh wait...

college costs
Is it any wonder that we are losing jobs abroad when we have every Tom, Jane and Harry going to college and no one learning trades? Colleges are big businesses for the private universities and for the professors who earn tenure and never have anyone evaluate their proficiency, as if someone could do something about it if they did. The minorities are being shoved into colleges under the pretext that they will have a wonderful opportunity once a degree is achieved. Jay Leno's "jaywalking" is an excellent presentation of what our college students are learning - NOTHING!! Not all, of course, because scholars will learn no matter the conditions, but there are so many who probably should not have been awarded a high school diploma.

Audisomething writes:
“Are you studying Museum Studies or Gender Differentiation in Rock and Roll, or Sexual Healing --”

Yup, that's what I am studying at college baby, SEXUAL HEALING AND ROCK N ROLL... And your tax dollars are paying for me getting a degree in THE ART OF SEXUAL HEALING, and when I start teaching, your kids are going learn all about SEXUAL HEALING AND ROCK N ROLL BABY on your dime.

Grow up.

Lisa - Hm. Cultural disconnect here
--
Lisa says:

"You mention a degree in 'Smartology'...."


No, I referred to a sequence of cartoons in *Dilbert* (the comic strip) with reference to the continuing character of the Pointy-Haired Boss, who is described on the Dilbert.com Web site as follows:

"He's every employee's worst nightmare. He wasn't born mean and unscrupulous, he worked hard at it. And succeeded. As for stupidity, well, some things are inborn. His top priorities are the bottom line and looking good in front of his subordinates and superiors (not necessarily in that order). Of absolutely no concern to him is the professional or personal well-being of his employees. The Boss is technologically challenged but he stays current on all the latest business trends, even though he rarely understands them."


During the aforementioned series of comic strips (appearing in July 2006), the PHB is summoned to Human Resources to explain the embellishment of his résumé - which was under review in yet another business management spasm of fad-raddled cosmic stupidity - wherein he had listed his college as "The Einstein One" and his undergraduate major as "Smartology."

My purpose in mentioning the PHB's major in "Smartology," therefore, was facetious, a manifest of my antipathy toward the kinds of people who graduate from colleges with degrees in the previously mentioned "wacko-and-wog disciplines" and henceforth exploit those oversized parchment union cards to inflict themselves upon the small number of people who actually do something of value in the economy.


----
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy-haired_boss for further assistance in understanding the concept of the PHB.

College = Advanced Daycare
Since most institutions of higher learning take alot of tax dollars you'd think they at least be able to teach Government and or Civic well but, no such luck!

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/summary_summary .html

Take the quiz see how you stack up.

Leave the US for higher education
My daughter has earned excellent grades and achieved fantastic SAT and ACT scores, though she tested early. She is looking at Leeds, Oxford, and Cambridge because applicants apply for their majors- there's none of this liberal arts crud to contend with- and it takes 3 years to complete a bachelor's. The cost, including travel and the poor exchange rate, ends up being roughly 1/3 of the cost of an private college education here.

What's more, colleges in the UK don't demand that students volunteer for everything under the sun and spend themselves bleary-eyed for acceptance.

For my talented kids from school who want to be employable, I have seen good things happen at trade and tech schools. DeVry graduates do very well for themselves, as do those who are picked up for training by large automobile companies. Some of my former students who graduated hs a few years ago and took the aforementioned route currently make more than I do after 25 years in my field!

Lisa Wrote
Kudos to Rep. Jeff Flake

I admit it--I'm intolerant of whiners
I have absolutely no tolerance for people who whine and moan about how difficult or expensive it is to attend college.

I was a full-time student and worked one full-time job and *three* part-time jobs to not only pay for school but to support my wife and two sons. I averaged just two hours of sleep daily over the years I spent in school, but I maintained a 4.0 GPA. And it wasn't a cheap school, either: Emory University.

Those who are motivated to better themselves will find the way or make the way. Those who aren't simply want to suckle up to the public teat for their "entitlements".

Paying the Piper . . .
Dr. Sowell's point is well-taken that allowing tuition costs to weed out the truly undeserving is a valid point. Today's college graduate is unctionally on the same level--figuratively speaking anyway--as the past generation's high school grad. After all, it is commonly decried in this forum--and other outlets--that higher educational institutions are infested with Left-Wing professors so what exactly would be the point of making it easier for them to teach our children by guaranteeing every child funded indoctrination? There are many serious students who do deserve the privilege, yet we insist on watering down the intelligence pool by insisting that every party animal born to an American or alien parent(s) be funded just because we can afford it in our "bountiful" society. If one wants it, one should work for it. It will mean more in the end.

pb Your Economics of College post
Was both insightful and made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the humor and I agree completely.

Warehousing
I hate the stupidity of wasting valuable resources in warehousing the disrupting and unteachable element, whether it's high school or college. Unfortunately to send the bad or indifferent students out to shift on their own means more prison over-crowding and higher taxes to pay for them.
In case there's anybody out there who hasn't noticed, Legitimate Jobs that pay unskilled and undisciplined teen laborers enough to live on are pretty much an urban myth.
During our country's great depression, the government had a program that gave the unemployed and desperate the option of work camp. It was, I believe, called the 'Civilian Conservation Corp.' or CCC. It gave a lot of young people a chance to get out of the hole. You could learn a trade and get 'three hots and a cot' while you were doing it. Like a lot of ideas that worked then, I doubt it would pass the PC test now.
In Germany I'm told, at a certain point, the demonstrably poorer students are sent off to vocational school to be taught a good trade. Seems like a winner to me. Not much else I like about Germany but the beer.

Today, much of the American 'dad and mom' family tradition that raised good kids and started their ethics, religious and common-sense education from the cradle and kept it up till the kids left home has morphed into single parent hostels where the bread winner sees K-12 in the public school system as the end of their teaching and role-modeling obligation. We can too well see where that has led us.
Short of another depression, where you work or die, or a revolution that changes everything back to the way it was, I think we are stuck with what we have. Lord help us!

SJ Doc

You mention a degree in "Smartology" - I just have to share with you that my brother has a PhD in Physics, Masters in Chemistry, an Engineering Degree, speaks Chinese and German fluently, has an MBA and teaches computers and has a small business on the side.

I love my brother but I am not necessarily going to say that I think he degrees in "Smartology" are any more profitable than my English major.

SJ Doc

I don't believe I mentioned any of those fields. Since I took the post graduate work in order to increae my competency and better aid my clients I see your point. I also work with a corporation that does provide internally the mentoring and support that you mentioned.

Many fields offer tuition reimbursement in order to increase their stable of qualified reliable employees.

I still don't regret being an English major. Nor do I regret going into business for myself. They both have enriched my life in immeasurable ways.

Lisa - Not quite
--
Says Lisa:

"If you are an english, language or history major you generally can teach yourself anything because you can read and understand just about everything but high end math and physics."


Also pharmacology, physiology, pathology, microbiology, metallurgy, strength of materials, biochemistry, civil engineering....

There are a bunch of academic disciplines where "frontal assault" efforts at scholarship just won't confer competence.

Give me a few weeks and I can turn an average "wacko-and-wog disciplines" college graduate into a qualified EMT-D.

But that doesn't mean he'll be capable of running an Emergency Department, or even handling straightforward ACLS protocols with anything resembling effectiveness.

College education is supposed to strengthen the student with the ability to educate himself - providing the sorts of learning tools that facilitate further education on the matriculant's own hook.

This is true enough in the squishy subjects - like regulatory compliance, where I'm entirely self-taught in 21CFR matters and DHS constraints pertinent to continuing professional education for health care providers.

That kind of crap simply takes application.

Diagnosis and treatment - like industrial engineering, hydraulics, mining geology, toxicology - are higher-order disciplines that require not only prerequisite studies but also practice under supervision before proficiency can be attained.

Dealing with the average "english, language or history major" who is trying to work in a technically exacting area puts me too much in mind of Dilbert and his fellow engineers coping with their Pointy-Haired Boss.

Who majored in "Smartology."

--

High school drop out rate

Jack that is just ceding to the current drop out rate. Since most urban schools look upon the children in a utilitarian way and have given up on a whole bunch of them why not just give into the corrupting and destructive forces of elitism?

Because we want to give them choice and competition so perhaps their jobs as teachers might be tranformed along with the education opportunity each child gets.

The elasticity of the mind, expectation and self discipline have a transformation impact on the very children you would toss away as seen in the graduating rates at catholic schools in urban centers and the high percentage that successful matriculate to colleges. There are other successful urban models as well.

Mike
I suggest the solution is counter intuitive. We should redice the age at which mandatory schooling ends and is provided. Right now, it's 16. Some states really want to raise it to 18.

I suggest we drop it to 14 or completion of the 8th grade, whichever comes ever comes later. Thus, high school would become elective, and those who had no interest could be asked to leave. Those who were disruptive could be sent out.

This would, I believe, eventually result in a far greater number of students taking education far more seriously.

Redhead
Thanks for your support.

JM051-Dubious fool
Be gone ignoramous

SJDoc
All very fine. You are allowed to hate lawyers, but the nature of the law student hasn't changed much as far as I can tell. That hate Obama, also fine. Just another opinion.

And you are free to place differing values on different fields of study. As long as you accept that other might rank them differently.

As for getting in to med school? Seen it done a thousand ways. Law School is easier.

you also wrote"Which provides further support for my admonition to ignore your recommendations *UTTERLY* in any discussion of "The Economics of College" I already told you I would appreciate it if you ignored me, given the time savings and all.

The US has traditionally been a leader
among first-world producers because of it's capitalist system's can-do attitude fortified with good workers from good schools. Lately, as our kids (disciplined ala Dr. Spock) are submerged like slowly heating frogs in our growing socialist style of educational philosophy, we see a lesser return for our tax dollars. High school students who should have been diverted to trade schools are pushed into 2 yr college holding pens where they suck up enormous public resources. What a waste! Instructors are made to teach down, forsaking the better students. Imagine, highly educated and well paid instructors teaching grade school reading, writing and arithmetic to the growing percentage of junior college kids who are much more interested in their navel-lint and their text-messages than their lecturer.
But my, those dysfunctional chair wasters do have wonderful self-esteem! In their coming years of hardships I'm sure they will find great solace there.
How does the private sector deal with prospective mid-level workers who can't write a declarative sentence; or figure; or even read simple instructions? Why should an employer hire people who think punctuality is a 80's rock band? Or think (after expensive training) that "I Quit!" is sticking it to the man? Increasingly the employers don't. Instead, they pressure the government to allow them to, (or just not stop them)from hiring foreign workers. Hard working and willing to learn men and women from countries that too many publicly educated Americans couldn't find on a world map... Like Mexico.

Thank God for hamburger stands.

"Press the picture of Mr. Double Burger dear. No honey that's Mr. Monster fries. Yes dear I know you have a college degree. Let's try not to think about that, OK? Now let's try Mr slaw..."

English and History Majors

Alright - I've had enough of this beating up of English Majors. You need these people because this is what they are good at. They entertain with their wit, wisdom and humor - they work in communications, public relations and journalism and some even go on to get Masters or go to law school.

In my case, I've run a financial services business on an English major and financial continueing education for the last fifteen years and I am doing quite well.

If you are an english, language or history major you generally can teach yourself anything because you can read and understand just about everything but high end math and physics.

Fortunately there are folks like Dr Sowell willing to speak in English rather than formula. If an English major gets desperate, they can always take a class to cover what they can not comprehend on their own like the mysteries behind the tax code. (I must admit that after my income taxation class I just wanted to sit right down and rewrite it - I was that appauld.)


I would say that if
you had an ACU rating of less than 90% you were a liberal. Bush and McLame get liberal labels because they believe in BIG Government and socialism.

My feeling is that if you support the Constitution as it is written and amended then you are a conservative. If you believe in a rubber Consititution as amended by court action then you are a liberal.

LeftRudyRight
As an unbiased observer, I'd be willing to let Vic be the standard for conservatism. I haven't seen a liberal bone on him, for as long as I've been at TH. We may disagree sometimes on how best to implement the conservative agenda, but I don't think that the method disqualifies anyone. It's the overall philosophy.

Lulu
Yes, assisting low income families to access higher education is a legitimate federal role. Understnad, that's debatable, but only the broadest conext. If we are talking education only, the answer is yes.

In response to your question about educating other people's children, I would answer that the same way I did for others. You are not educating other people's children. You are educating the lawyers, doctors, nurses, researchers, accountants, writers, judges, jurors, investigators, technicians, computer programmers, and others upon whom you depend every day. Education has tremendous benefits to the society as a whole: are they invisible to you?

Now,we do overemphasize a college degree. Proprietray schools are a huge rip off, and we dont' do secondary ed very well. But trashing higher ed is not the answer to the issues.





Vic- moderates
I feel like I've been on this path just about every time I post on this site, but here we go again. I consider myself a moderate because there are some issues with which I agree with 'conservatives' and some where I agree with 'liberals', and, since I am man, I know that I'll never be anything other than completely not pregnant. Neither side can really seem to agree what a 'liberal' or 'conservative' is any more anyway, let alone have all the answers. I assume that Sessions and Demint agree with you 100% on every issue and McCain and Bush do not. Does this mean that you, Vic, are the standard for conservatism in the US? What about Buckley, Buchanan, Keyes, Watts or Sowell himself? Is there a definitive list out there that I can reference?

Jack
Again, you (willfully?) misunderstand. You assume I am “whining” about education by itself. I’m a union member who went back to school to get his engineering degree. I was told I was “stupid” to go back to school by my fellow “brothers.” I’ve seen whining about education. I ran the analysis, and found that although it would be over 15 years before I broke even, in the long run it was worth it; for me.

What I am talking about is the government’s involvement in the education system. This involvement results in many more of the fluff majors and classes. If those who elect them don’t have to pay the true cost, there will be more of them. It’s really simple economics. Supply and Demand. If the price is lowered artificially, or the supply artificially inflated, you get more demand. Those that are doing the buying, however, may not be in the need for the product. They may actually do better without it, and society as a whole may be better off without spending the resources necessary to subsidize their behavior.

Yes, I am suggesting that there are many in college, and many degrees offered that should not be there. To take a look at what Michigan ruth wrote just below your post, you will see: “what happens to our culture and our civilization without the English and history majors? who will write the books?” The answer, quite simply, is the same people who wrote the books in the past, before there were English majors. People with the talent and the will to entertain and enlighten others with their wit, their wisdom, and their story telling ability.

And if you really believe that your politicians are doing a cost / benefit analysis while looking toward anything but votes, you are highly delusional.

Lisa
There is an old chinese poverb that says on someone else you can see a fly, but on yourself you cannot see a dragon. Perhaps that helps to explain why liberals so easily see hyprocacy of Republicans and gloss over the same thing in Democrats and visa vera for Conservatives.

That is why I consider myself a moderate, you can call us wishy washy, but we can see the hypocracy of both parties.

Jack

Jack, you excuse your behavior. Didn't your mother teach you that unattractive behavior is its own author? Your reasoning is immature but you willingly cede to it. Definitely it says something about your character.

As the Pope says, I hope you find new direction in your life.

Jack - Problems with dummies
--
Says Jack:

"I indicated almost all students in the majors you disparage intend on grad school. The two most popular are law and medicine. Others in PHD programs. Got a problem with that?"


Like most physicians, I consider any increase in the number of entrants to (and aggregate rapacity of) the American legal profession to be a cancerous danger. Anybody with any appreciation of what's been coming out of law school in the past few decades - emphatically including Harvard Law Review editor Barack Hussein Obama - would *HAVE* to have "...a problem with that."

As for the number entering Ph.D. programs, it depends on what their respective areas of study might be. Some are useless, some aren't.

Regarding med school, there's no way that the course load needed to qualify for medical college admissions (or to pass the MCAT) can be dominated by "wacko-and-wog disciplines."

So it boils down to my earlier statement to the effect that "The key for most families is what gets our college-aged kids the best prospects for enhanced earnings?"

To which Jack replies:

"Maybe for you. Bu the key for me is whether my kids are studying a subject that makes them better thinkers. I have a long list of kids who struggle because their parents are forcing them to study a 'productive' subject, even though the kids interest lies elsewhere."


Which provides further support for my admonition to ignore your recommendations *UTTERLY* in any discussion of "The Economics of College" (Dr. Sowell's subject).

You are intent upon proving that your perspective is skewed.

Working as it appears you do on the strength of well-endowed scholarships for your clients drawn (by way of diversity programs?) from the "lowest economic strata in the country," you're buffered from the economic realities that most Americans have to confront, both as parents and as students.

--


Lisa
"I think it so easy to tear something down as HR and Jack are so eagar to demonstrate."

See, this is what I mean. I am here defending something, not tearing anything down. If I am trying to tear anythign down it is the bastion of ignorance in which so many conservatives live.

I think we should all
ask ourselves if it is a legitimate role of government to fund higher education -- especially at the federal level.

I also said this earlier today. Why should a retail clerk, truck driver, construction worker, etc. be asked to fund the college degrees of other people's children?

Honestly, if government would stop the aid