Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
Author Message
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #161
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 07:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You are correct, many kids are getting inundated with college names thru athletics. However, Ohio State killing it on the gridiron is not attracting Connecticut students. Alabama isn't attracting the best and brightest from the nation because of their trophies. Most of us are choosing which university to attend based on price, scope of degree offerings and geography. In fact, I didn't emphasize the geography point enough. A number of states have more than one prominent university, and I would contend that the students you described above are choosing the closest one that fits the bill for offering a wide variety of choices. Most of the P5 and G5 schools are commodity schools. An undergrad degree in English, mathematics, economics will basically be the same.

Your contention is that sports is the difference maker. It's not. It's a combination of price, quality and geography. Conference affiliation plays no role.

Alabama is the fastest growing flagship university in the nation. It aint due to the astrophysics department. There are mulitple reasons that football makes a difference. There are some kids who wont even consider a school that doesn't play major football. There are others who equate FBS football programs with prestige or being a "major" university. There are reasons that only one school has dropped from the FBS ranks over the lastvious reasons. quarter century.


Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?

Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.

Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..

When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.

Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.

So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.

Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.

One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).

That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.

Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.

On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.


The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage in having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor. Over the long term, the economic benefits of higher wages and the resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that per student subsidy and then some. In public policy, you get more of things you subsidize---that is in fact, the whole purpose of the subsidy. So, I don't think the legislature is bothered by there being more higher education students. That's clearly the whole goal of the subsidy. Its obviously a widely held theory---why else would Alabama be offering subsidies for OUT OF STATE students to come to school in Alabama? They are trying to lure students there to increase the attractiveness of their workforce.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact we pour tons of money into it. THATS why the colleges are having to teach kids things they should have learned in high school. At the state level, I assume it goes back to my first point---the state wants more educated work force and they don't care if they need to do some remedial work in college first (I guess they figure better late than never). That said, it makes sense to have a path to higher education for kids that were immature in HS but get serious later on.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2017 04:12 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-01-2017 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #162
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Alabama is the fastest growing flagship university in the nation. It aint due to the astrophysics department. There are mulitple reasons that football makes a difference. There are some kids who wont even consider a school that doesn't play major football. There are others who equate FBS football programs with prestige or being a "major" university. There are reasons that only one school has dropped from the FBS ranks over the lastvious reasons. quarter century.


Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?

Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.

Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..

When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.

Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.

So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.

Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.

One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).

That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.

Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.

On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.


The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

With all due respect, you keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and avoiding the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not, even though you seem reluctant to acknowledge that.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2017 04:28 PM by SMUmustangs.)
03-01-2017 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #163
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-15-2017 10:46 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Why would a taxpayer in Alabama want the school's enrollment to increase? What is the benefit?

Remember a student at a state university on average, pays only about 1/3 of the total cost of their education. It is probably a lot less when you consider the cost to build new classrooms etc. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers and donors.

Naturally school administrators want enrollment to increase for obvious reasons. Job security, ratings etc. No doubt winning football does increase donations, but a lot of that goes to athletics..

When my daughter was entering college, the State of Texas offered something called Tuition Equalization Grants to any student that would attend one of the private schools in the state in lieu of attending a State school. My daughter went to a private school and collected several thousand dollars in TEG grants.

Why did the State do this? Because of the cost to build new classrooms, housing etc. Plus the fact that the State pays a portion for the cost of each student's education.

So the argument that football increases enrollment at Alabama is correct........ BUT that does not mean it is a positive thing or is desirable for all concerned. Because is is not.

Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.

One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).

That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.

Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.

On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.


The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not so good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.

In short--yes---I think attracting more kids to college is a good thing. By extension, I think using athletics to do so is also a good thing. I do believe it creates a more educated and effective work force that in turn attracts business to Texas.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2017 04:35 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-01-2017 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #164
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sorry about that. I must have missed your response. I think the overall general answer is the legislature believes a highly educated workforce is the key to a successful economic future for the state.

One of the things the state legislature is concerned about is "brain drain". Bright kids who leave the state for college have a good chance of never returning. This brain drain is something the legislature wants to avoid (which is one reason the legislature is trying to develop more Tier One state supported higher education options outside of Texas and A&M).

That said, the reality is the state school system is receiving a lower and lower percentage of tuition support from the state. That's not limited to Texas---its a national trend. This year, due to lower oil prices and reduced tax revenues, all the state supported higher education options are facing budget cuts in the current legislative 2-year state budget session.

Long story short, the state's portion of tuition support for higher education students is dropping---not increasing---and has been for years.

On a side note---One area of savings for students attending school that I never see addressed is books. Ive got two kids in college and I know there are text books that are over $300 dollars for some courses (one accounting text was over that amount for example---many many text books are well over $100). It would not cost the state a dime to reform this aspect of higher education. If I can buy a printed hardback John Grisham book for $25, then no text book should cost much more than that (since we are not paying John Grisham millions to write it). Statewide standardization of text books for "basic" courses like history, government, English should be part of the reform. The same could be done for many courses in education, business, engineering, etc. Going to a digital books system on a common platform would reduce costs even further. I just think that's a place where simple state regulations could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the actual costs of higher education for state students and it wouldn't cost the state a dime.


The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.
03-01-2017 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #165
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

I think you make some reasonable points---I just think its too harsh. Lots of people are not serious in HS or are simply forced to attend subpar primary education. If we can get them up to speed and graduate them from college---Im ok with that. That said, I completely agree with your point that we shouldn't be subsidizing economically worthless degrees.
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2017 06:19 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-01-2017 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #166
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-28-2017 09:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The legislatures are missing the point also. The college administrations are very self serving. They evidently do not care about the students or the taxpayers. They water down courses to keep students in school and worse offer degree programs that are worthless. Recent statistics show that 50% of college grads in the last five years cannot find employment in their major. That defeats the argument of brain drain or developng a highy educated work force for economic development.

In some states colleges admit up to 47% of their entering freshmen that are not qualified to enter college. Therefore they must take remedial courses that they did not take in high school. Why do colleges let them in school? Because it makes them money. The student and taxpayers pay the college the full tuition and fees and the college has a grad student that is paid minimum wage teach the course instead of a professor paid $100,000 per year.

Another problem is that students take up to 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program, thus adding to the taxpayers expense.

I could go on forever, but suffice to say, having successful athletic programs to attract more students is not a positive thing for state schools. Long story short, all states may or may not be decreasing support. I have no way of knowing that.......... but they are still paying huge sums to support the schools.

For example in Arkansas , 55% of the TOTAL state budget goes for education. That includes all public schools of course.

I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.
03-02-2017 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #167
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 01:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.

Right---that's what communist countries do.

However, I completely agree that there should be some sort of economic underwriting component in the student loan industry that looks at the relationship between the degree to be obtained to the debt being accrued. There should be some sort of formula that considers the median income in a degree field when loaning money for a student to major in that field of study. Such a ratio relates directly to the economic benefit of the debt and the ability of he borrower to repay the loan in the future (which ought to be part of any reasonable lending decision). Just loaning any amount to anyone with no accountability for the ultimate viability of repayment is the same formula for disaster that gave us the mortgage loan meltdown in 2008.
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 01:40 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-02-2017 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #168
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 01:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.

First point...State legislatures could do it. The Governor of North Carolina thinks it can be done

Second point....I suppose I worded that poorly. I did not mean students would be forced to go the votech route. The State of Oklahoma has an excellent vocational education system. Students that choose not to go to college for whatever reason, can enroll in one of the many Votech schools operated by the State where they can learn a viable trade such as Machinest, auto mechanic, draftsmen etc.

I was suggesting that more high schools offer students a CHOICE of two tracks, possibly starting in the 10th grade. One would be college prep courses and the other would be a Votech track. Some high schools are already doing this.

If a student completes the college prep track he/she should be adequately prepared for college. Eliminating the wasteful college remedial courses. The Votech track would either prepare a student for a job or accelerate their completion of a Votech education.

Attackcoog said that some students for whatever reason did not complete the needed courses in high school to enroll in college and therefore should be given a second chance to complete those courses in college i.e., the wasteful remedial courses. Then they should go back to high school and complete those courses.

It is folly to think every student should go to college, let alone graduate. If every kid gets a college degree who will drive the eighteen wheelers, taxi cabs and stock the shelves at Walmart, fix the plumbing and haul the trash? College graduates? No offense to those people, those are honorable trades. You just do not need a college degree to be one. If every kid goes to college, the courses and degree programs will be watered down and many, if not most will be wasted time and money.
03-02-2017 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcats#1 Offline
Ad nauseam King
*

Posts: 45,310
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 1224
I Root For: Pony94
Location: In your head.
Post: #169
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 01:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 03:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the state thinks more long term. They see a long term advantage is having an abundance of highly skilled/educated labor force. Over the long term, the economic benefits and resulting increased tax revenue will pay for that one time cost.

Frankly, if I have an issue, its with the reluctance of the state to recognize the current 1-12 public school system is still failing far too many despite the fact pour tons of money into it.

The second issue I have is school loans are too easy to get and are given out too freely without any real test as to whether or not there is a true long term economic benefit to the student. If a kid spends 100K getting a degree in theatre costume design, what are her real chances of earning above the median average income for a person with no college degree? The student should have that knowledge prior to taking out 100K in loans. Additionally, the lender should have that knowledge as well. Right now---nobody seems to care about that aspect of financing higher education---which is unfortunate, because the type of situation I mention are exactly the most likely to result in financial hardship or default.

This easy school loan money is precisely the reason schools are under little pressure to control costs. They know 17-18 year old students have ready access to huge sums of borrowed money that seems "free" at that point in their life (of course, later these students will find its anything but free). The British have a great term for buying on credit---they call it "buying on the never never". That's what many kids are doing.

The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.

maybe Pitt should not suck at everything before you post
03-02-2017 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #170
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 03:57 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 01:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.

First point...State legislatures could do it. The Governor of North Carolina thinks it can be done

Second point....I suppose I worded that poorly. I did not mean students would be forced to go the votech route. The State of Oklahoma has an excellent vocational education system. Students that choose not to go to college for whatever reason, can enroll in one of the many Votech schools operated by the State where they can learn a viable trade such as Machinest, auto mechanic, draftsmen etc.

I was suggesting that more high schools offer students a CHOICE of two tracks, possibly starting in the 10th grade. One would be college prep courses and the other would be a Votech track. Some high schools are already doing this.

If a student completes the college prep track he/she should be adequately prepared for college. Eliminating the wasteful college remedial courses. The Votech track would either prepare a student for a job or accelerate their completion of a Votech education.

Attackcoog said that some students for whatever reason did not complete the needed courses in high school to enroll in college and therefore should be given a second chance to complete those courses in college i.e., the wasteful remedial courses. Then they should go back to high school and complete those courses.

It is folly to think every student should go to college, let alone graduate. If every kid gets a college degree who will drive the eighteen wheelers, taxi cabs and stock the shelves at Walmart, fix the plumbing and haul the trash? College graduates? No offense to those people, those are honorable trades. You just do not need a college degree to be one. If every kid goes to college, the courses and degree programs will be watered down and many, if not most will be wasted time and money.

I don't think anyone is saying every student should go to college. Thats pretty much a straw man argument. Hell, 12% of students don't even finish high school. So, theres no concern that everyone will get a degree. Heres the basic numbers. Of those that graduate from HS, only about 68% go on to college. Of the kids that enroll in college---only 58% graduate within 6 years in Texas. Basically, that's about 35% of the work force obtaining degrees. As a reference point---in 2009, nationally, about 30% of all adults had a degree. So Texas would be slightly above the national average.

Im simply saying there should always be a path to college for every individual at most any juncture in his life. I have no issue with the system being subsidized by the state to try to control the cost.

Frankly, I think Gov Perry was on the right track with his $10K degree proposal. Id love to see Texas utilize standardization in course materials, books, and lecture material to create a series of state approved college degrees in common subject like business, marketing, teaching, and computer science. Such a degree would rely heavily on the existing community college systems and would be supplemented by internet courses running out of one of the state system colleges (maybe Texas State?).

Its possible to get a 4yr degree plan down to $10K. The program Perry created does this, but its very limited and requires attendance at specific schools (so the cost is really much higher if you cant commute to those schools). What I'd like to see is something that utilizes community colleges, the internet, and satellite campuses to offer a $10K 4-yr degree could be completed in most any county in Texas and would actually produce a solid quality graduate. That would eliminate a lot of the cost for both the state and the students.
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 05:00 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-02-2017 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #171
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 04:04 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 01:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The point I keep trying to make is they are not getting an abundance of highly/skilled educated work force. Now or long term. The legislatures are letting the colleges get by with charging inflated prices and dispensing inferior education. Enrollments are increasing at the taxpayers and students expense, but too many are not prepared to get a job.

You keep bringing up all kinds of stuff and dodging the issue we started out discussing and that is whether or not it is best for all concerned to fund winning athletic programs to attract more students at state colleges. I think I have justified why it is not.

I guess I just don't agree with your blanket assumption that current college grads suck. I'd say current grads are probably what they have always been. Some really good, most mediocre, and some not good. Also---if your point is our college grads are not improving our work force---then what alternative work force are you planning to use exactly? Are you actually suggesting that we are worse off with our current crop of college grads than just using the raw work force being turned out by our current primary education system? Because, in reality--- that's the only alternative to college grads we have. By the way, if you think unemployment runs high among college grads---I'd suggest you look at the rate for HS grads and non-HS grads (which is your alternative work force you are advocating).

Look, I do agree that there is a greater sense of entitlement among the current generation and in many---a poorer work ethic---but I don't think you can pin that on colleges. It started long before they got to college.


I never said all college grads suck. So forget that. Those students that graduate from high school that have not completed courses to get into college should not be admitted. Colleges should not be allowed to offer degree programs that are worthless. The Governor of North Carolina has proposed that colleges should have to prove their grads are getting jobs in their chosen major or drop the major.

The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

I guess you just don't want to admit that funding winning athletic teams to increase enrollment is not a good thing for all concerned.

Say what you want, I am not wasting any more time.

First point in bold - you can't do that. HOWEVER, the student loan programs COULD be restructured so that taxpayer money that is directly handed out to the students is wasted on garbage. A litmus test where a degree that can yield tangible employment opportunities is OK to fund thru the gov't student loan program would be appropriate IMHO.

Regarding your second point, I agree in principle. However, it again removes opportunities for students to pursue what they wish in their own lives. It could potentially funnel kids into suboptimal career tracks at an early age when they may be better suited for higher level work if not for a lack of maturity or even learning disabilities. Einstein would have been a plumber under this set up.

maybe Pitt should not suck at everything before you post

Thanks. Forgot the original purpose of the thread. Yes, I support a G5 playoff and championship. I think it will be a great benefit to the G5 and AAC in particular.
03-02-2017 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #172
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-01-2017 04:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The alternative is simple. Students that are not college material should be enrolled in vocational education courses. They could even start in high school and then pursue a trade school education.
Welders, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics etc., can find work, contribute to a needed work force and make a good living.

Amen! but not by force as you corrected yourself in a later post. We need to be introducing trades earlier and more often as a viable alternative. Many trades have better income opportunities than most of the liberal arts 4 year degrees.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 10:49 PM by Hood-rich.)
03-02-2017 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #173
Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
The group of 5 playoff idea has gone away in this thread, but it's true that some college grads do suck ! I've dated a few so I know it's true...
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2017 09:28 AM by JHS55.)
03-07-2017 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #174
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-07-2017 09:27 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  The group of 5 playoff idea has gone away in this thread, but it's true that some college grads do suck ! I've dated a few so I know it's true...

We really don't need to know about your activities in certain Montrose bars
03-07-2017 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CenterSquarEd Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 514
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Siena
Location: Albany, NY
Post: #175
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-02-2017 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Thanks. Forgot the original purpose of the thread. Yes, I support a G5 playoff and championship. I think it will be a great benefit to the G5 and AAC in particular.

It should be a +1 format. Let these conferences play their bowls as they please. After the bowls, a new selection committee chooses the best two teams to play for this G5 Cup.
03-07-2017 08:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #176
RE: Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
The idea is going away. If the idea even existed. Dennis Fraud talked to a guy at NIU named Frazier and wrote a fake news bait click "article". No one wants this.

Cheers!
03-07-2017 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #177
Group of Five Playoff Idea not going away
(03-07-2017 07:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 09:27 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  The group of 5 playoff idea has gone away in this thread, but it's true that some college grads do suck ! I've dated a few so I know it's true...

We really don't need to know about your activities in certain Montrose bars

LoL... yikes ! .......not!
03-08-2017 04:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.