Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The price is too high!

Dude and Val, I echo your advice on the ignore feature. I side-stepped my own rule to the thread’s detriment. Now, users will have to wade through an infinite regress of vacuous quotes, self-appointed editorializations with no reference to reality, false victim narratives, and obtuse questions that could be answered by even the most cursory reading of the resources requested, or previous posts.

As for the topic at hand, fundamentally, unwillingness to even consider some role for public financing of post-secondary education—where merit and need support it—boils down to prejudice and a naked desire to subvert those who are vulnerable for self-aggrandizement. It’s the robber baron mentality of the 21st century. As long as a class of people (economically disadvantaged minors) can be discounted and dehumanized through insistent denial of their different childhood conditions, made economically and/or socially inadequate for reasons almost entirely out of their control, the morally depraved will continue to perpetuate these cancerous narratives.

If the poor can be said to remain poor simply because they’re “too lazy” to buck up and accept indentured servitude, and be categorically written off as behaving like “entitled” spendthrifts—so the narrative goes—then we can save money for ourselves and our own elite families while superciliously purporting to be Superior Humans for the luck of the social draw from which we benefited.

Fast forward 30 years, and people who espouse under-investment in human capital will be lamenting the lack of a tax base with which to fund their retirement activities, and to support those institutions they take for granted. Privilege and self-interest are rarely self-aware; how else could one justify such societally irrational behaviour?

On at least those two occasions, others had first posted their interpretations or misinterpretations of what had been shared... I replied to these interpretations/misinterpretations with my own understanding of the posts. Why would it be fine for some to interpret/misinterpret... and inappropriate for other users to share their understanding of what was posted? This sounds like a double-standard. Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Board Rules do allow for disagreement.

Dude, please note that "Bloviate, much " is not an attack and does not violate Board Rules. Nor does it change the tone or justify subsequent personal attacks. Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Board Rules do allow for disagreement.

For some, the links/quotes may help provide context, as complications can occur in following conversations on a forum due to timing, chronological order, and number of participants.

This may be a gross misinterpretation of posts. Would you please kindly link to posts and quote the words which indicate to you that anyone on this thread has demanded punishing sacrifice from the poor to self-support? Possibly this is a strawman, misrepresenting an opposing view to make it easier to discredit.

Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Board Rules do allow for disagreement. Meanwhile, it appears that the purpose of your post is to vilify, malign, calumniate, traduce... veering off-topic to coalesce a group against those who may express an opposing view.

Dude, possibly this is a strawman, misrepresenting an opposing view to make it easier to discredit.

Please do not ignore that there already exists "some role for public financing (US taxpayer support) of post-secondary education-where merit and need support it".

Regarding the cost of college:
- Price generally moves based on supply and demand. There has been and increased demand for college. This may be based largely on statistics which showed that in the past several decades, in general, those with degrees earned more, in the economy which existed at that time. (Notable exceptions: Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg.)
- Some have argued for college as a means to become upwardly mobile, therefore a benefit to the individual.
- Some have argued from the perspective of societal need - what level of skill and training is required to be workforce ready, and employed in the economy of the future.
- Several have made unfounded assertions that more jobs of the future will require college degrees. Do you have a source which informs this view?
- With technology replacing many US job functions, some may believe that fewer jobs will require a degree. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics offers projections, analysis, reports, including required education levels.
1) Less than high school - 27%
2) High school diploma or equivalent - 39%
3) Some college, no degree - 1%
4) Postsecondary, non-degree award - 6%
5) Associate's degree
-- note: 79% of jobs do not require a 4-year degree or higher
6) Bachelor's degree - 18%
7) Master's degree - 2%
8) Doctoral or professional degree - 3%

Whether to pursue a degree, what to study, where to go, and how to pay remain individual choices.

For some, only an ivy or top-tier college will be satisfactory. These may provide a full ride scholarship based on need (not merit, as all students accepted into the highly selective colleges are considered academically meritorious).

For others, a public university may work. Addressing the causes of steep increases in tuition may be more effective in the long run, as compared to shifting greater tuition payment responsibility to US taxpayers... which may actually increase the rate of the rising cost spiral.

Indigo, because you saw fit to ask this of me first, and I gave you the courtesy of a response, it seems only fair that you answer your own question, in turn.

Do you pay US taxes personally, not by proxy through a spouse, family member, trust, or other income splitting mechanism? By this, do you pay taxes on personal income you earn from legitimate, objectively verifiable paid work recognized by the IRS?

1) What I asked of you was different, and pertinent to the discussion at hand.
2) Some may say that your post would not be described as "the courtesy of a response", but may be seen as baiting, insulting, and putting words in my mouth.

What I asked you, in context: This is not an absurd question (as you label it), but is pertinent to the discussion, as you have stated that US taxpayers should increase funding for college... but evidently are not a US taxpayer yourself.

What you asked of me, in context: Your question violates personal boundaries, and as you say, "should never be asked...".
The context in which you placed your question is one not germane to a discussion of college tuition.
The tenor may be seen as baiting, accusatory, and abusive.
Suffice it to say that I am a voting US citizen and do pay taxes to fund the US government.

While I welcome and respect all viewpoints,
1) I do not necessarily agree with all viewpoints,
2) I do not place equal weight on all viewpoints,
3) I believe that ultimately it is up to US taxpayers to determine how US tax money is to be spent.

Would you kindly provide link(s) and quote(s) showing where I posted this.
Otherwise this may be a strawman, misrepresenting an opposing view to make it easier to discredit.

Regarding the cost of college:
In addition to the thread summaries at the bottom of posts here and here...
- Some have shared success stories of creative solutions for funding college.
- Some have argued that college should be funded because high schools are not adequately preparing students with life skills?
- Some have argued that college should be funded by decreasing prison funding.
- Some have argued that public college should be funded by eliminating funding to (students attending) private colleges.

Are you (second person singular, not a collective noun including family or a spouse) a US taxpayer, indigo? That is the question you asked me. Why are you avoiding a perfectly simple question you felt was appropriate to ask me?

You have stated my answer is relevant to the discussion, presumably because you are attempting to paint my opinion on US treatment of post-secondary costs as irrelevant to the discussion on the basis of my not being an American taxpayer. I have an interest in seeing people in all societies achieve their potential, including Americans (several of whom I love, count as dear friends, or work with professionally), as is consistent with the objective of this forum.

Now, kindly answer your own question and stop bloviating. (By your communicated standard in this thread, my previous comment is inoffensive because the word was used technically correctly, and accompanied by a friendly emoji.)

Fair enough. I didn't want to treat my one previous experience as reflective of the individual but I've gotten enough feedback to know that the "ignore" function should become my friend, lol.

I'm not saying that your reinterpretations were a violation of board rules. I'm merely saying that I consider such discussions a waste of time. Bostonian and Old Dad are big boys, and capable of presenting their own arguments. If I've missed the mark on my interpretations of their posts, as the authors of such posts, they're best positioned to notice and correct me if necessary.


See, here's you offering your own interpretations again where they're not valid or useful, because you say this as if you have some sort of authority. You are not the person empowered with interpreting what does or does not violate the board rules. We have mods who do that.

If you had stated the opinion as your own, of course, that would be perfectly valid. Here's mine - it's most definitely a violation to state that someone was "talking at length, especially in an inflated or empty way," and that philly's subsequent responses contained the appropriate level of outrage for the situation.


If only someone had said something like, "private institutions are free to be as nakedly capitalistic as they like, but public institutions have a higher calling."

Oh, look, they did.

Public institutions have a mandate to provide a higher education as a public good, and are expected to cover their costs, with some help from the public as necessary. It is completely disconnected from supply and demand. This is basic stuff.


Who are "some"? Why not try setting aside the weasel words for a moment and actually take a position for once? What does indigo think about the price of a college education?

1) To some degree, we all interpret the Board Rules each time we post.
2) You, and others, have referred to the Board Rules over the years. There seems to be a double-standard.
3) I see nothing in the Board Rules which requires each viewpoint or opinion to be identified as such. Some may discern from the context, others may choose to ask clarifying questions. Unfortunately some may make assumptions... including negative assumptions.
4) Uncertain whether you are implying that I have misrepresented myself to be a moderator... but just in case you are: I have not.
5) Unfortunately, moderators tend to not be readily available on the weekends.

1) I did not say "talking at length, especially in an inflated or empty way". That is your interpretation/misinterpretation... a strawman, misrepresenting an opposing view to make it easier to discredit.
2) What I said was: The context was friendly, not offensive, followed by a wink emoticon.
3) There appears to be a double standard: You and others have judged and labeled several of my posts as: vaccous... not valid or useful... a waste of time... bloviating, etc. Yet I did not respond with outrage. Some may say that would be outrageous.
4) Some may say that the many posts discussing the word "bloviate" is an effort in feigning having been attacked... a trumped-up charge... raising "taking offense" to an art form... an over-response to "innocuous" triggers.


Aquinas, in case you missed it...
Asked - Do you pay taxes to fund the US government?
Answered - I am a voting US citizen and do pay taxes to fund the US government.
Please notice that these are the same wording and level of detail, not invasive, intrusive, or overly personal.


Summary of discussion points regarding the cost of college:
- I believe most posters have agreed the price of tuition at US public colleges is too high for many American citizens.

- There are differing views on whether:

- - a broad array of individual solutions are more effective, efficient, and serve more US citizens...

- - or whether making tuition US-taxpayer-funded would be more beneficial to more US citizens...

- - or whether some are looking to maximize benefit to those who are not US citizens, at the expense of American citizens.

- Some have shared success stories of creative solutions for funding college.
- Some have argued that college should be funded because high schools are not adequately preparing students with life skills?
- Some have argued that college should be funded by decreasing prison funding.
- Some have argued that public college should be funded by eliminating funding to (students attending) private colleges.
- Price generally moves based on supply and demand. There has been and increased demand for college. This may be based largely on statistics which showed that in the past several decades, in general, those with degrees earned more, in the economy which existed at that time. (Notable exceptions: Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg.)
- Student loans are a factor.
- College costs less in Canada, and student loans are dischargeable.
- Some have argued for college as a means to become upwardly mobile, therefore a benefit to the individual.
- Some have argued from the perspective of societal need - what level of skill and training is required to be workforce ready, and employed in the economy of the future.
- Several have made unfounded assertions that more jobs of the future will require college degrees. Do you have a source which informs this view?
- With technology replacing many US job functions, some may believe that fewer jobs will require a degree. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics offers projections, analysis, reports, including required education levels.
1) Less than high school - 27%
2) High school diploma or equivalent - 39%
3) Some college, no degree - 1%
4) Postsecondary, non-degree award - 6%
5) Associate's degree
-- note: 79% of jobs do not require a 4-year degree or higher
6) Bachelor's degree - 18%
7) Master's degree - 2%
8) Doctoral or professional degree - 3%

Whether to pursue a degree, what to study, where to go, and how to pay remain individual choices.

For some, only an ivy or top-tier college will be satisfactory. These may provide a full ride scholarship based on need (not merit, as all students accepted into the highly selective colleges are considered academically meritorious).

For others, a public university may work. Addressing the causes of steep increases in tuition may be more effective in the long run, as compared to shifting greater tuition payment responsibility to US taxpayers... which may actually increase the rate of the rising cost spiral.

How would you summarize the discussion of the OPs article so far, in this thread?

PS:
My interest in gifted issues is driven by seeing the need to pass along what I have learned, to the many newcomers who are seeking information to build a knowledge base.

No, what I quoted is the first dictionary definition that pops up when you google "bloviate." So not only are you failing to use "straw man" correctly, you're also failing to support your reasoning as to why it should apply in the first place.

Anyway, back to ignore, this conversation is beneath me.

You chose to forego the author's interpretation and utilize an unnamed web source to guide you in your interpretation.
Possibly subterfuge?

Worded another way, It's funny. You seem to be suggesting that you know my perspective better than I do. Why is that?
(borrowed language from someone whose posts you do not seem to find offensive)

A discussion point regarding the cost of college,
which may have been previously overlooked on this thread... now posted elsewhere:
Addressing the causes of steep increases in tuition may be more effective in the long run, as compared to shifting greater tuition payment responsibility to US taxpayers... which may actually increase the rate of the rising cost spiral.