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

I was speaking of many things. It's pretty clear that you prefer arguing over reading comprehension.

here's my original quote:


Note that the language is "life skills". So, I was not speaking exclusively about "financial literacy".

I understand that you're a frequent poster on this forum but is that the reason you're also so generally unpleasant to others? I moderate on another forum and there's always a few people who think that their history with the community entitles them to be belittling and condescending to others.

As I said to you the last we engaged in a conversation, I'm surprised to find such a person on a website that's supposedly about helping parents better advocate for group of kids that are treated unfairly.

You seem indifferent to how your attitude could actually drive away those people who come here looking for assistance. But I'm also 99% sure that you don't care and prefer playing "queen of the castle" whenever you encounter people and opinions you don't like here in your special place on the interwebz.

Otherwise, why else would you throw around "bloviate" given the length and tone of your own posting?

philly103, your post contains several personal attacks, which are disallowed on this forum. While you label me as unpleasant and belittling, I will disagree, and assert that I my posts are factual, unemotional, add to a knowledge base, and provide many links to resources. Your experiences with others on a forum you mentioned moderating have nothing to do with me.

While my fact-based responses do not need to conform to your taste, in pointing out your recent change in topic, possibly you would have been more pleased had I said...?
You were speaking of life skills such as financial literacy... now jumped to character building, art, and music.

Rather than prefer argumentation, as you suggest, I prefer clarification, defining and understanding what the issues and areas of agreement/disagreement are. I also notice apparent philosophical inconsistencies and inquire about those. Occasionally this brings out more context which was in the poster's mind but not expressed... adding to a common knowledge base. I believe these approaches show I value reading comprehension, although you stated that you believe I do not.

You asked, or rather theorized, why I used the word 'bloviate', which you seemed to find offensive, as you used an emotionally-charged phrase, claiming I threw the word around, which would tend to indicate either frequent overuse and/or weaponized language. The reason I used the word "bloviate" is because it is my understanding that this word means winding speech, off-topic, such as filibustering, kitchen-sinking. The context was friendly, not offensive, followed by a wink emoticon.

You called out the length and tone of my posts.
- The length of my postings is the minimum number of words which I find will provide clarity of my position, as well as provide sources which inform my view when available.
- The tone of my posts is fact-based and not emotionally charged.

Back on topic:
- 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.

Back on topic:

As a nation we already make primary and secondary education completely free. Additionally, we spend billions of dollars subsidizing tertiary education.

However under our current model, we spread those billions around in such a fashion that still leaves students figuring out how to handle the significant additional costs. This is in stark contrast to the primary and secondary model where we completely subsidize the public education and allow people to pay for private options if they so choose.

Economically, the amount of money we spend subisidizing private tertiary options could make public tertiary education completely free or significantly reduce the cost if it was re-allocated exclusively to public institutions.

This would then result in a model that parallels the primary and secondary model where public education is extremely low cost and private education is privately funded.

I've already posted links 2 pages ago with the 2012 financial numbers and a link to an article purporting to demonstrate how.

If college education is increasingly important for our society, and it appears to be so, there's little reason to not re-organize the financial model to maximize the societal access.

Philly103, would you please link to posts and quote phrases which you find to be condescending and/or disparaging?
Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Board Rules do allow for disagreement:Philly103, would you please link to posts and quote phrases which you find to have a devolving tone?
Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Again, Board Rules do allow for disagreement.

What is the purpose of this portion of your post?

It may be easier to follow your posts if you provided a link, for continuity. In re-reading your various posts, if I follow correctly, you believe that college tuition should be free... to meet the needs of the students... to enter most industries... workforce-ready, also college-ready, life-skills ready? (will look for links and update if/when found... or edit this segment based on posts found)

Nor do I make personal attacks.
Nor place negative labels on those who may offer a different viewpoint.
Nor participate in any form of name-calling.
Nor participate in PMs to discredit others (although I, too, have received such PMs, soliciting my participation).

Philly103, would you please link to posts and quote phrases which you find to be aggressive and/or confrontational?
Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement. Again, Board Rules do allow for disagreement.

Philly103, in this post, you did not respond to my thoughts on-topic. To summarize, I see:
- 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.

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

Some may say this is projecting onto me, as I have addressed statements made, while you have posted personal attacks.

I've said my piece on my opinion of your posting style. If I'm wrong, only your actions will demonstrate it.

I then posted an entirely separate post on the topic at hand. There's your opportunity.

Some may say it is not an arbitrary line, but approximates:
- the age of majority (legal adult, citizens can vote, etc)
- the end of secondary education (high school graduation) for most students... (although not those accelerated, dual-enrolled, etc)

It's arbitrary because it has no relationship to education. You can't drink until you're 21. You can't run for Congress until you're 25. We have a variety of age cutoffs for a variety of things throughout the country, none of them are any more targeted to public education than any other.

And while it is the end of secondary education, the point of my posting is that it's arbitrary to stop public education at secondary education when we know that a decent portion of the population will be engaged in tertiary education.

In 1950, 34% of the population had completed high school. In 2016, 33% of the population had a 4 year degree. Yet we funded public education through high school in 1950. Just looking at education trends, the attendance and completion of college in this country is already at the point where we felt complete funding was necessary for secondary education.

Philly103, I agree with much of what your written, including your good points regarding free tertiary education. It all boils down to whether or not we want our society to thrive. If we do, we can’t have people being yoked to educational debt.

The one thing I disagree with strongly is that you’re engaging with a person who is essentially a troll on threads like this one. She has been warned by the moderators (more than once if memory serves) about attacking people, and my solution is to use the “ignore this user” function.

I see the value of debate, and would not say this about any other user on this board. In this case, though, there’s no point in engaging with someone who is merely trying to push buttons.

indigo, in reply to your multiple posts to me upthread:

I’ll leave it to you to educate yourself on the Canadian education system, as well as to read the articles linked and evaluate for yourself the degree to which correlation and causation are disentangled. I am disinclined to offer a course in basic statistics here. Here’s a good primer on empirical causation in social sciences.

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view...56.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-049

As to my position on free public education, I recommend you actually read my comments rather than selectively interpreting them. If you are unable to understand my position after repeated explanations, it is your responsibility to address that personal gap outside the context of this forum.

As to your absurd question about whether I pay US taxes, of course not. I pay taxes (on earned income, etc) in the jurisdiction to which I am a citizen, and provide private charity where I am not on a needs-based ranking, to the extent that my finances allow.

Since you asked and I answered, a little quid pro quo seems fair, though such a question would never be asked in polite company. (I’m seeing this as a teachable moment, and you’ve abandoned all pretense of reciprocal politeness, so why not?)

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? If not, who is suppprting your lifestyle, one which allows you to post amply during conventional work hours? You seem to have a fundamental view that everyone can self-support, irrespective of the hand life deals them.

Clarity, please. If you’re going to stand on your soapbox and demand punishing sacrifice from the poor to self-support, and ask intrusive personal questions of others on a public forum, kindly make yourself an example. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

This is basically what I was referring to earlier when I said I see it more as a pathology than as a system of beliefs, because it's basically a philosophy of, "Screw you, I got mine!" Society and sociopathy don't tend to get along well.

Plus, there's another failure of self-awareness, because the people who espouse this don't even recognize how much help they got along the way of allegedly doing it all on their own.

Nobody does anything on their own. Everyone gets help.