My parents. But I never sat in the driveway pouting and preventing them from pulling out until they promised they would do so.
By the way, I think you are quite off trying to compare the soco-economic structure of the modern nuclear family to that of a modern society. Apples to oranges, big time.
Agreed that the comparison is a stretch. I'm just saying we got a helping hand and I'm pretty sure it wasn't necessary for you to protest to get them to pay up.
The question is why should those that are lucky enough to be born into families with resources get things for free and the unlucky ones have to work for it all? From a moral standpoint I think it's wrong (that's what makes me a liberal), but I can see how others would disagree. From an economic standpoint I know it's inefficient. It's systemic educational nepotism to not let students compete in an open arena for resources. Not that I believe that our educational system should be a sink or swim system, just pointing out the flaws in the kind or reasoning that supposes one group has a greater sense of entitlement because they want the opportunity another group already has.
If I plan on going to grad school, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Now, if I decide to do this, I clearly am in the so called disadvantaged bracket when it comes to needing this necessary education to further my career. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to call up NYU, my local rep and The New York Times to rail against how the system is against me?
Maybe. But quite frankly I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I ever did that. Then again my literary hero is Howard Roark, so take it for what it is.
Obviously we get into a more interesting area with primary and secondary education and I would love to continue that discussion another time (it's similar to our views on healthcare).
But we're talking about the one of the most heavily subsidized public university systems in the country. California, with nonsense like this, has bred a culture of entitlement which only leads to a culture of dependecy and poverty. That's what I find immoral.
The reason they're complaining is not because they are desperately poor. They're complaining because for them it's been Christmas every day of the year on the taxpayer's tab, and now suddenly it's January.
1. Why are people who have to pay for their own education "so called disadvantaged?" It's not subjective they are at a disadvantage.
2. You paying for you own grad school is irrelevent. First, that's the "but I have to so why don't they" argument. Second, graduate programs vary greatly. For example, Sherwin is currently getting paid to get his graduate degree. Third, yes if you have a sound argument for why it is reasonable the state fund your education you should petition your representatives. Fourth, graduate programs are late enough in life that if one desires it is entirely possible to achieve a graduate program entirely on one's own without encuring excessive debt (not to mention they often come with stipends, grants, employer funding etc.)
3. You won't do this because you don't believe there is a sound argument.
4. I've already made the argument that the random assignment of the financial situtation of the family you are born into is not suffecient to allocate resources. Why not at least provide a minumum level of opportunity to let America's best and brightest have resources necessary to be the best and brightest?
5. California's relative subsidization of its educational institutions is exactly that, relative. How does comparing Cali's edu funding to that of other states advance your argument at all? Beside, your facts are wrong. California students pay about $1000 more a year in tution than the national average (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_314.asp). To be fair they also are afforded one of the best public higher education systems in the world.
6. "Nonsense like this" is an erroneous ad hominem.
7. California's poverty problems come more from under educated immigrants than a middle class sense of entitlement. Also could you please explain how would expectations of state aid for tution leads to poverty without coming from the "desperately poor?" Despite the conservative myth, welfare queens are the anomaly not the norm.
8. Yes they are complaining because what was once offered to them is being taken off the table, but that's hardly a cogent argument for why it should or shouldn't be on the table?
Welcome to Non Incautus. This is a blog written by a group of Washington & Lee graduates that focuses on contemporary issues, economics, politics, philosophy, movies, music, television and everything in between. It aims to educate and enlighten (the writers as well as the readers!) while fostering civil discussion and debate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho paid for your education?
ReplyDeleteMy parents. But I never sat in the driveway pouting and preventing them from pulling out until they promised they would do so.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I think you are quite off trying to compare the soco-economic structure of the modern nuclear family to that of a modern society. Apples to oranges, big time.
Agreed that the comparison is a stretch. I'm just saying we got a helping hand and I'm pretty sure it wasn't necessary for you to protest to get them to pay up.
ReplyDeleteThe question is why should those that are lucky enough to be born into families with resources get things for free and the unlucky ones have to work for it all? From a moral standpoint I think it's wrong (that's what makes me a liberal), but I can see how others would disagree. From an economic standpoint I know it's inefficient. It's systemic educational nepotism to not let students compete in an open arena for resources. Not that I believe that our educational system should be a sink or swim system, just pointing out the flaws in the kind or reasoning that supposes one group has a greater sense of entitlement because they want the opportunity another group already has.
If I plan on going to grad school, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Now, if I decide to do this, I clearly am in the so called disadvantaged bracket when it comes to needing this necessary education to further my career. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to call up NYU, my local rep and The New York Times to rail against how the system is against me?
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But quite frankly I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I ever did that. Then again my literary hero is Howard Roark, so take it for what it is.
Obviously we get into a more interesting area with primary and secondary education and I would love to continue that discussion another time (it's similar to our views on healthcare).
But we're talking about the one of the most heavily subsidized public university systems in the country. California, with nonsense like this, has bred a culture of entitlement which only leads to a culture of dependecy and poverty. That's what I find immoral.
The reason they're complaining is not because they are desperately poor. They're complaining because for them it's been Christmas every day of the year on the taxpayer's tab, and now suddenly it's January.
Tough.
1. Why are people who have to pay for their own education "so called disadvantaged?" It's not subjective they are at a disadvantage.
ReplyDelete2. You paying for you own grad school is irrelevent. First, that's the "but I have to so why don't they" argument. Second, graduate programs vary greatly. For example, Sherwin is currently getting paid to get his graduate degree. Third, yes if you have a sound argument for why it is reasonable the state fund your education you should petition your representatives. Fourth, graduate programs are late enough in life that if one desires it is entirely possible to achieve a graduate program entirely on one's own without encuring excessive debt (not to mention they often come with stipends, grants, employer funding etc.)
3. You won't do this because you don't believe there is a sound argument.
4. I've already made the argument that the random assignment of the financial situtation of the family you are born into is not suffecient to allocate resources. Why not at least provide a minumum level of opportunity to let America's best and brightest have resources necessary to be the best and brightest?
5. California's relative subsidization of its educational institutions is exactly that, relative. How does comparing Cali's edu funding to that of other states advance your argument at all? Beside, your facts are wrong. California students pay about $1000 more a year in tution than the national average (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_314.asp). To be fair they also are afforded one of the best public higher education systems in the world.
6. "Nonsense like this" is an erroneous ad hominem.
7. California's poverty problems come more from under educated immigrants than a middle class sense of entitlement. Also could you please explain how would expectations of state aid for tution leads to poverty without coming from the "desperately poor?" Despite the conservative myth, welfare queens are the anomaly not the norm.
8. Yes they are complaining because what was once offered to them is being taken off the table, but that's hardly a cogent argument for why it should or shouldn't be on the table?