You're wasting your time, Todd.

fint starts this thread by making a big point about "Why are college tuition costs soaring".

When he gets pushed on this, he changes to saying no, the "why" of rising tuition costs has nothing to do with his point. "In all these posts, I have never even mentioned 'causes of and solutions for rising tuition costs' "

Instead, he switches his complaint to the media, which is his traditional fallback for everything.

Now he tries again to argue the cause of rising tuition. Now he seems to think that tuition prices can't go up unless there's an improvement in quality. Apparently he's not heard of supply and demand. Has the "quality" of a gram of gold gone up? How about a kg of copper? Check out the rise in their prices. Nor, apparently, has he heard of state budget pressures. Has the quality of state parks, local fire/police, etc gone up? Check out the rise in user fees, local taxes, etc.

If you try to actually discuss this, within a few posts he'll take refuge in "media bias" again.

Talking with cut & paste fint is a waste of time.

I did not read the whole discussion yet, but I`d like the make the following point: It is a falsehood to beleive that tuition costs pay professors salaries. Indeed, in sciences , the professors are responsible for funding the tuition costs of their students in MS and PhD through their grants. So, if the tuition costs increase, the burden is on the professors, not the students. Just tell your kids to study sciences, and they will be getting $20k/yr and have free tuition, while we get gray hair writing proposals to fund them.

Aurel

I guess you argument only works if you get someone to reply exactly as you wish...if not, you can always say they did and then answer yourself.

You guys simply cannot argue honestly. I cannot find where I started this thread by making "a big point about "Why are college tuition costs soaring." The only place that was posted was the label of the thread. I made it clear in my first post (other than the article) exactly what my point was. If you were honest, you would debate what I said my point was...not what you say it is. Now you stoop so low as to quote me out of context answering one of the earlier lies that was made about what I said earlier to imply I had somehow changed my mind. Sad and intellectually dishonest.
Of course I mentioned supply and demand on the first post I made after the article (5 pages of post ago). Reading comprehension problem? Now explain how that possibly applies to public institutions that are not in place to make a profit?...and exactly how does the price of gold effect education costs...unless you are gold-plating education? Please explain why the costs are up 40% is you can instead of discussing the price of copper or the quality of state parks.

If you had a single point that was not either dishonest or a personal attack, you might have a bit more success with the debate...but I guess that is a bit too much to ask.

Did you read what I just wrote Fint? Professors in sciences ARE responsible for providing the tuition costs of their students. What do you have to say about that, expert ?

Aurel

Yes I did. Frankly I was surprised that you wanted to discuss an issue rather than call me names...although....you threw in the sarcastic "expert" for good measure in this post. As I posted in the very beginning of this thread, my point is that the real problem Coulter points out regarding the parallels of increased oil profits and increases in tuition is "the difference in how the similar problems are addressed." ...That said, I am willing to address tuition costs if you wish.

If tuition costs are paid for by professors in science....why do they charge students tuition and why has the price risen 40%?

First of all, tuition costs have not risen 40% during the 4 years I have been at Rutgers. Maybe 10% at most. Secondly, tuition costs pay for the administrative staff who don`t bring any money in. Professors are the ones who bring external funding for research and students salaries, out of which 55% overhead goes back to the administration, pay for building maintenance, rents, etc...And of course, the less the State funds universities, which is the current trend at least in NJ, the more the professors have to bring external funding *not always taxpayers money* to compensate for the loss in State funding. Then, the administration raises tuition costs to tap into that new source of revenue. Hey, these guys bring money in, let`s tax it more...

Aurel

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/tuition_rising_.html


There is a bunch more...I'll endeavor to be bipartisan.

An oldie but a goodie:


http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/college/college.htm

Coulter is totally ignorant of the issue she is talking about, because she considers tuition costs as the main source of revenue in Universities, which is absolutely not the case. Comparing oil revenues with tuition costs revenue is simply laughable. Then, comparing professors salaries with Oil CEOs salaries is totally hilarious. I also have to agree with Tabs: not everyone is college material. And there have always been scholarships for poor brilliant people.

Aurel

Copy and paste some of the links in the verbiage:


http://www.qoae.net/posts/1142788947.shtml

What makes you think that? She did not say so in her article.

Why?...of course she was comparing rates of increase. Why should education be exempted from the "tests" or scrutiny that any other business or government entity would have to endure?

True, but that sure doesn't help the middle class family with multiple above average children. Most "scholarships" today are not true scholarships (other than ROTC)...as they are mostly concerned with race, ethnicity, and the income of the parent.

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050715/NEWS/507150410/1059

Hey guys, I am, like Todd...out. Between the robotic copypaster, and the nitpicker who wants to disccuss semantics, I would really be wasting my time. Seeya in another thread SmileWavy

Aurel

Facts have a habit of getting in the way. I hope you don't teach at Rutgers.

Thank God for tenure so liberal professors do not have to be concerned with such trivial things as facts and semantics....or be concerned about incorrectly paraphrasing others....but it does explain why they are so defensive....and don't want any sort of scrutiny of their work. See ya!

Just so you realize, Fint, I know PhDs at a private university that barely clear $20k a year. But if those profs. are liberal, will you tell me that at $20K their knowledge is overvalued?

I find it shameful particularly as some who'd like to make decisions about what is taught in our colleges are also in favor of wasting billions of dollars on ill-found reactions like Iraq, not to mention the multitudes of lives.

And speaking of liberal professors, I had a couple liberal profs introduce me to writers such as James Dickey, who if you've read any of his work, is anything but liberal.

If there are any full time employees of a University in the US that only make $20K per year...I would be amazed.....not just professors, but even cleaning staff.

If they are forcing their liberal indoctrination upon college students instead of allowing them to make their own moral and political values/judgment...yes...they are way overvalued...similarly if they have problems with facts and semantics as the liberal professor indicated above...their value is insignificant.

Tenure isn't teflon, Fint. Students can suss out bad one-sided professors...

We did it when I was an undergrad.