Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the results of government education prove the government shouldnt be involved in education,,The government has a vested interest in an educated workforce and population in general. If anything, there should be more aid for studies and training for everything from truck driving to astronomy; from AI to X-Ray tech.
Only fools think we need less skilled people in the workforce.
We’ve built the greatest, most affluent, most dominant, strongest society in the history of the planet.the results of government education prove the government shouldnt be involved in education,,
tell that to the ever growing tent cities of homeless people across the country and the kids graduating from high school that cant pass basic math and english courses,,We’ve built the greatest, most affluent, most dominant, strongest society in the history of the planet.
They musta done something right.
If the state and federal government supported higher education at the same level as when the Boomers went it would not be an issue.The government has a vested interest in an educated workforce and population in general. If anything, there should be more aid for studies and training for everything from truck driving to astronomy; from AI to X-Ray tech.
Only fools think we need less skilled people in the workforce.
The government has a vested interest in an educated workforce and population in general. If anything, there should be more aid for studies and training for everything from truck driving to astronomy; from AI to X-Ray tech.
Only fools think we need less skilled people in the workforce.
You are a moron. The POINT is not that education is not valuable. The point is that the U.S. Federal Government, and specifically Congress, has no legitimate power to get into the education business, other than for its employees and the Armed Forces.The government has a vested interest in an educated workforce and population in general. If anything, there should be more aid for studies and training for everything from truck driving to astronomy; from AI to X-Ray tech.
Only fools think we need less skilled people in the workforce.
do you mean not providing funding and making the students fund their own education??If the state and federal government supported higher education at the same level as when the Boomers went it would not be an issue.
The government has a vested interest in an educated workforce and population in general. If anything, there should be more aid for studies and training for everything from truck driving to astronomy; from AI to X-Ray tech.
Only fools think we need less skilled people in the workforce.
I think it played a part. Its goofy how the mission creep also found it’s way into the equation though.The federal government's involvement in student loans is precisely the cause of rapid inflation in the cost of tuition of the past 30 years.
Mmmm no.You are a moron. The POINT is not that education is not valuable. The point is that the U.S. Federal Government, and specifically Congress, has no legitimate power to get into the education business, other than for its employees and the Armed Forces.
See the Tenth Amendment.
It is up to the States and the Private Sector.
And even aside from that ,all of the Federal money that has been spent and lent and granted has dramatically increased the PRICE of going to college, and the waste at colleges and universities, so even if it wasn't unconstitutional, it was (and remains) a bad idea overall.
then how come 75 percent of jobs dont require a college education,,Mmmm no.
Having more educated persons is better than fewer educated persons.
The opposite. An American would understand that state funding for universities has been significantly reduced over time. Historically the majority of state school budgets were provided by the state itself. That is no longer the case.do you mean not providing funding and making the students fund their own education??
Thats equivalent to $1,111 now for the entire year.In 1957, the Texas Commission on Higher Education proposed an increase of 150% in tuition to guarantee the funding of Texas public universities. The Texas Legislature approved a tuition increase for the academic year 1960-1961. In-state tuition for the nine-month long school year was $100, plus $36 in other fees and, out-of-state tuition was $400 plus $36 in other fees.
www.amortization.org
the discussion is about tuition and student loans not funding the schools,,The opposite. An American would understand that state funding for universities has been significantly reduced over time. Historically the majority of state school budgets were provided by the state itself. That is no longer the case.
The Cost of Student Living: Race, Finances, and Politics at UT Austin in the 1960s – Behind the Tower
Miguel Daza provides social and political context of student life in the era of the tower shooting.behindthetower.org
Thats equivalent to $1,111 now for the entire year.
What is $1 in 1957 worth in 2024?
What's the value of $1 in 1957 due to inflation?
Well, if you want to know what I think...If the state and federal government supported higher education at the same level as when the Boomers went it would not be an issue.
