Category: Education

People are stupid…

…and many vote.

Picture this: A fictional (but not as fictional as you might presume) politician takes the podium and says:

“If you elect me, I’m going to have the government borrow money in your name. We’re going to keep some of the money to fund programs and jobs to reward our friends and family with overpaid positions, but we’ll send some of it to you. Now, you’ll be on the hook for the full loan amount, even though you’ll only receive part of the proceeds. But don’t worry; we intend to tax your neighbor to make most of the payment (Shhh! Don’t tell them until after the election!). In any event, you’ll have money in your pocket now if you vote for me.”

How many of you would vote for a politician under such a promise? How many of you won’t realize that they’ve said the same thing to your neighbor, who is expecting you to make the payments on this loan? How many (or few…) would laugh this moron off of the stage?

Well, we’ll find out soon. President-elect Biden just made this promise to the residents of Georgia in an attempt to win two critical Senate runoff elections there:

“If you send Jon and the Reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door,” Biden said Monday while campaigning in Atlanta on the eve of the election. “It’s just that simple. The power is literally in your hands.”

Sadly, our education system has failed to teach citizens the basics of economics. Given the lopsided representation of the political parties in the education system (by a 2:1 margin), maybe this deficit in knowledge is by design? Unfortunately, the promise of other people’s money will probably win the Georgia senate races for the Democrats.

Safe enough to vacation, but not work?

Chicago teachers don’t want to return to school during COVID? Maybe they’d prefer to continue vacationing in Puerto Rico on the taxpayer’s dime:

Chicago Teachers Union leader under fire for pushing remote schooling while vacationing in Caribbean

Here’s the most interesting quote in this article from the vacationing union leader in question, Sarah Chambers, with respect to her willingness to risk COVID infection to vacation  but not to teach:

My doc said it’s extremely unlikely for me to get Covid again since I had it so badly,” she continued.

So she can justify vacation travel because her risk of re-infection is low, but Chicago taxpayers can’t use that same justification in asking her to return to the classroom? Where’s her empathy for all the people who can’t go to work because their children aren’t in school, people who – unlike many teachers – aren’t paid when they don’t work?

I hope you all realize soon that the teachers and their union are only out for themselves, and couldn’t care less about you or your children. The union is just another special interest group, wielding votes and political power to spend public money for their own benefit.

This again?

A recent National Review story makes the claim that Biden is now contemplating the forgiveness of $50,000 in student loan debt. Are you kidding me?

Schumer: Biden ‘Considering’ Forgiving $50,000 in Student Loan Debt via Executive Action

According to the story cited above:

“[Schumer] said they are calling on Biden to take executive action to administratively cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt for federal student loan borrowers with an income below $125,000, and to do so in a way that the borrowers would have no tax liability when they receive the forgiveness.”

Wait a minute – these students are making up to $125,p000 per year only because the American taxpayer loaned them the money to attend college. So now they want a nice Beemer to impress the ladies/gentlemen, but they can’t afford to pay back the student loan that made it all possible? Really?

I’d like to make a few salient points:

1) If we don’t collect this money from the students who benefited from the loans – money that was collected as taxes from hard-working Americans, money that we are counting on to replenish the accounts from which it was taken – then from whom will we collect? I know it’s easy to see this as “government money”, but it’s not – it’s your money. And without the return of these funds, the government won’t have the money to spend. That means they’ll need to tax you to make up the difference due to this obscene liberal vote-buying scheme.

2) What incentive do students have to work hard and finish college quickly, if staying a few extra years on the government dole will simply be forgiven?

3) What incentive do students have to choose a useful but difficult degree, like something in the STEM disciplines, if they don’t have to repay their student loans? What incentive do they have to NOT fulfill their pet desire for a “college” degree in a subject of great interest (or ease) to them, but of no or limited value to society?

DO NOT forgive these student loans, Mr. Biden. To do so will be an insult to American taxpayers and will incentivize poor decisions by college students. Is the lesson that we are not to be held accountable for our actions, that the government is always there to bail you out, really the message we want to send to today’s youth?

Oh, yeah – I guess it is. How else can we make sure that the next generation is dependent on the government (and thus politicians) for their daily alms?

Silly me…

Rewarding bad decisions/behavior

Warren urges Biden to bypass Congress and cancel student loan debt

After all, why should these young people be saddled with debt – debt that funded activities that benefited them alone? Debt which now prevents them from buying the nice new home they need to keep up with their more successful colleagues, or that flashy new car they so urgently need to attract a suitable mate? After all, it’s just government money; who cares that it actually belongs to the taxpaying public? And why shouldn’t you, Ms. Warren, and your Democrat brethren be allowed to use some of this “government” money to purchase votes? After all, it’s only about 1.7 trillion (yes – with a “t”) dollars, roughly equal to half of the projected federal deficit this year.

But wait! What about those of us who refused to incur debt to attend college? What about those of us who saved before college, begged our parents for money, studied hard so as to earn scholarships, worked through school, and lived frugally while at college so that we would be debt-free upon graduation? Or those who were responsible citizens and borrowed as little “government” money as they could, but made it a focus upon graduation to repay their loan? Would we get a rebate on our fees and expenses?

No? Doesn’t seem quite fair….so only the irresponsible who borrowed too much money to purchase a degree that was not sufficiently marketable get a a free ride, while the responsible among us are punished for our good behavior?

We complain when large banks receive government bailouts for their poor business decisions; after all, what incentive do they have to behave appropriately when the don’t suffer the adverse effects of their actions? Why, then, do we think it’s OK to reward poor education decisions (or to enable them in the first place with “government” loans not tied to the marketability of a particular degree)?

“… racist fu—– piece of sh– .”

But our education system is not biased…

College professors let loose profane criticism of Pence during VP debate

This article also cites an interesting journal article regarding the political leaning of professors in our academic institutions, exposing the purge of conservative (or, more correctly, non-liberal) voices. This purge results in a self-censorship of non-liberal students to protect themselves from the wrath of the remaining rabidly-liberal professors – many of whom claim that their bias has no impact on the work of their students. Yeah, right.

Read the cited journal article here.

Fighting non-racism with racism?

These students want to abandon non-racist policies and replace them with racist versions. Their argument is essentially that racist policies are acceptable if they help under-represented people.

Cornell faculty-student group demands racial quotas, criticizes ‘colorblind’ practices

They are buoyed by Dr. Ibram Kendi, the leader of Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research, who is touted in the same article supporting discrimination as a tool for creating racial equality. However, such discriminatory quotas will not resolve the root cause of the problem, and will introduce their own negative consequences.

Many universities have a race-neutral admissions policy. Why then is it assumed that race is the cause of admission disparities? It is not race that is preventing students of color from being admitted to these schools but rather readiness as measured by coursework, grades and standardized test results. If universities adopt a racial quota system for admissions then student readiness will not have to improve, since students would only have to compete within their own race for admissions. Readiness will not rise, and could actually fall. Would this be good for students?

And how should we deal with the disparity of readiness between students that a race-based quota system might cause? Should we have different classes based on preparedness? Would these classes likely fall among racial lines? How do you think this would impact race opinions on campus?

And what if we take this to the extreme, where students of some races have a generally different course set and grading criteria, all in the name of graduating more under-representing students? Do you think that this will go unnoticed by employers? What effect do you think this might have on their hiring practices? Do you think this will foster inclusivity – or racism?

The correct solution for under-represention in universities is not to establish racial quotas; it is instead to find the root cause of the under-representation and attack that problem directly. If readiness is an issue then we need to find out why and provide resources likely to overcome it. This will bring students up to the expected level, rather than having different levels based on race, and eliminate the potential negative consequences of a racial quota admissions system.

The fact of the matter is that racial quotas – like affirmative action programs – can establish a disparity between the qualifications of some students or graduates, creating an opportunity for racial bias. This is the exact opposite of the stated goals of such a quota system, and as a result these quota systems should be avoided. We should work instead to find the root cause of admissions disparities and then solve those issues directly.

Diversity – except in thought

ACLU staffer fumes at University for accepting Nick Sandmann, calls it a ‘stain’ on the school: report

Nice of this ACLU staffer to chastise someone for their political activities, don’t you think? But it gets worse; from the same article:

An assistant professor and diversity scholar at Transylvania Unversity, Avery Tompkins, shared a comment on the post before it was taken down, calling Sandmann’s “public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed,” adding that the young student must accept his class as gospel, The National Review reported.

Did you get that? A diversity professor is upset because a soon-to-be student has opinions that differ from their own – and insists that the student “accept as gospel” the professor’s views instead? How diverse of them…

Excerpts from other comments made by this “diversity professor” (cited in the above article):

Tompkins added that Sandmann … would see the professor “as part of some liberal brainwashing machine…”

Based on your comments, professor, I’m beginning to wonder about that too.