|
0 members (),
198
guests, and
24
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 948
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 948 |
For some reason this came to mind: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ncement-speech-brandeis-university-2013#And this comment on the speech: "I think, unfortunately, he's shooting the messenger. What's degrading BOTH art AND science today is the crude economic reductionism of the American right. When virtually ALL economic growth is concentrated in the 1%, the rest of us are focusing on survival. If anything is turning all of philosophy into economic utilitarianism, it's the success that the right has had in turning all of human life into a morality play where your very life depends on how much money you make, period. It's not science or 'scientism' which is doing this. We ourselves have chosen this path based on our fetish for economic success as the measure of man. When we cease to legitimize wealth as the basis of the 'meaning of life' then the arts will be safe, as will science. Until then, folks like Mr. Wieseltier will continue to get it wrong."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Constitutionally, they are collaborative and pro-social in their very souls. It would be a grave mistake to place a person like that into that kind of setting, where one regards peers as "opponents" in an elaborate and very, very expensive game of musical chairs. I don't think it's as much "opponents" as it is "enemies" or "existential threats". After all, there is only one winner. I wonder how many of these people can turn away from that worldview after age 40 and decide mankind should really be their business after all. That is, without having a nervous breakdown or other major ten-year emotional crisis first. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
For some reason this came to mind: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ncement-speech-brandeis-university-2013#And this comment on the speech: "I think, unfortunately, he's shooting the messenger. What's degrading BOTH art AND science today is the crude economic reductionism of the American right. When virtually ALL economic growth is concentrated in the 1%, the rest of us are focusing on survival. If anything is turning all of philosophy into economic utilitarianism, it's the success that the right has had in turning all of human life into a morality play where your very life depends on how much money you make, period. It's not science or 'scientism' which is doing this. We ourselves have chosen this path based on our fetish for economic success as the measure of man. When we cease to legitimize wealth as the basis of the 'meaning of life' then the arts will be safe, as will science. Until then, folks like Mr. Wieseltier will continue to get it wrong." It pretty much sounds like the Gilded Age. Which it is. It's also completely American and is one of America's economic modes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) Or, perhaps the Roaring Twenties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Gatsby_(2013_film) In today's metaphysical lesson, we learn that history doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
I don't understand gifted students intending academic careers (and their parents) who avoid the Harvards/MITs etc. because they are too "competitive". Gifted students need to measure themselves against other gifted students, and the most gifted students cluster at certain schools. Because is costs $250,000. So the choice is between the parents being able to ever retire vs. funding their kid's college. For instance, my BIL chose Duke over Harvard because of the 75% scholarship he received. What you describe is more representative of higher income families. For those with more typical incomes, Harvard would be cheaper than Duke because it provides more needs based aid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
I don't understand gifted students intending academic careers (and their parents) who avoid the Harvards/MITs etc. because they are too "competitive". Gifted students need to measure themselves against other gifted students, and the most gifted students cluster at certain schools. Because is costs $250,000. So the choice is between the parents being able to ever retire vs. funding their kid's college. For instance, my BIL chose Duke over Harvard because of the 75% scholarship he received. What you describe is more representative of higher income families. For those with more typical incomes, Harvard would be cheaper than Duke because it provides more needs based aid. I'm positive that their income was well under six figures. It's assets that kill you. So, they punish savers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Exactly. It often is a choice between being frugally responsible for your own retirement...
and paying for college. Or neither one.
We figure that we WILL be paying out of our pockets for pretty much any choice in higher ed. If your family income is anything close to 6fig, that's not a bad assumption.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
It's like Bostonian said: they go analyze your income, assets (except your primary residence these days) and savings to see how much they can gouge you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
I don't understand gifted students intending academic careers (and their parents) who avoid the Harvards/MITs etc. because they are too "competitive". Gifted students need to measure themselves against other gifted students, and the most gifted students cluster at certain schools. Because is costs $250,000.
So the choice is between the parents being able to ever retire vs. funding their kid's college.
For instance, my BIL chose Duke over Harvard because of the 75% scholarship he received. What you describe is more representative of higher income families. For those with more typical incomes, Harvard would be cheaper than Duke because it provides more needs based aid. I'm positive that their income was well under six figures.
It's assets that kill you.
So, they punish savers. There is the Simplified Needs Test http://www.finaid.org/educators/needs.phtmlwhich ignores assets for low enough income. For FAFSA (not CSSprofile) many types of assets are disregarded (not even reported). What types of assets are you talking about? And which means test.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
It's like Bostonian said: they go analyze your income, assets (except your primary residence these days) and savings to see how much they can gouge you. Giving this some more thought, it seems like most people would get significant benefit from these programs because they don't have much in the way of savings. It's not so much a trade off in their minds, since they don't really realize that they're trading off anything. Years ago, when you could actually make money off of interest or investments, this wasn't a problem. So, it's a wonderful system for the 1980's and 1990's. The problem being that we're in the 21st century now.
|
|
|
|
|
