A lot of people who could have attacked America are dead. That may have not been the best outcome, but it is something.As are a whole lot of people who never would have. And some of their relatives and sympathizers now fall into the category of "people who could attack America".
What about the people who participated in 9/11? Can we say that all of those people were just angry at America for various foreign policy decisions and if we never interfered with the Middle East they would have no reason to ever attack us? Where does this line of thought end? If we take foreign intervention off the table now, where does it lead?
Why don't we take this to PMs or another thread though? If you think it's worth discussing further, that is. I just get angry with conflating Iraq and Afghanistan, because they are not the same. Our invasion in Iraq was unjustified, at least for the reasons given. There are a lot of dictators who harm their own people, if we go after one, why not all the others? Including those who only came to power because the United States. If you want to lambast the US for our actions taken in the past, we helped the Taliban come to power in the first place!
Maybe we should just discuss Obama's proposed action, whether we should invest in the future, instead of ruminating on the past. Because I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. I'd like to take advantage of it myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone you're in a joint business venture with tries the canard "we can't afford to expand our employee training" pointing out that we managed to afford that fleet of ferari's they wanted, and got, last year is a sensible counter.
So were the Taliban really good guys? Were we wrong about them giving shelter to Al-Qaeda? Am I missing something here? Why does the War in Afghanistan always get lumped in with the War in Iraq?And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuitionWhat's another $34 billion a year?Literally nothing.
The U.S. spent 6 Trillion dollars on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq with absolutely nothing to show for it. The sum of all federal student loans still outstanding is 1 Trillion.
If instead of pissing away life and treasure in the Middle East we had canceled all student debt then we could have taken the rest and funded this proposal for 134 years.
No, but the Taliban is back in Afghanistan even before we officially ended combat operation this very week. Al-Qaeda is still prolific. The Afghanistan war was a tragedy of errors. Its wasteful nature is rightly lumped in with Iraq, even if the reasons for starting it were better.
A lot of people who could have attacked America are dead. That may have not been the best outcome, but it is something.As are a whole lot of people who never would have. And some of their relatives and sympathizers now fall into the category of "people who could attack America".
What about the people who participated in 9/11? Can we say that all of those people were just angry at America for various foreign policy decisions and if we never interfered with the Middle East they would have no reason to ever attack us? Where does this line of thought end? If we take foreign intervention off the table now, where does it lead?
Why don't we take this to PMs or another thread though? If you think it's worth discussing further, that is. I just get angry with conflating Iraq and Afghanistan, because they are not the same. Our invasion in Iraq was unjustified, at least for the reasons given. There are a lot of dictators who harm their own people, if we go after one, why not all the others? Including those who only came to power because the United States. If you want to lambast the US for our actions taken in the past, we helped the Taliban come to power in the first place!
Maybe we should just discuss Obama's proposed action, whether we should invest in the future, instead of ruminating on the past. Because I'm not sure it isn't a good idea. I'd like to take advantage of it myself.
You should take a step back and read what I actually wrote. I said that the Afghanistan war was a waste of life and treasure. In that I am completely correct. Just because we went in to Afghanistan with reasonable rationale doesn't mean that it wasn't a complete frakking clusterfrak. The war was planned and run poorly. The same is true of Iraq. THAT is why I relate them, NOT because of their originating purpose.
By the time career criminals arrive at their prime years for crime (16-24), they've already rejected education as a pursuit in favor of crime. School is already free (compulsory, actually) at the point they are developing a criminal skill set. This proposal would have almost no effect on crime. (Throwing people in prison, on the other hand, is proven to be effective at lowering the crime rate. The so-called prison-industrial complex is the primary driver of the post-1994 drop in crime.)
Whoa, whoa... hold your horses there, DM Barcas. I would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY like to see you show data to prove that the prison-industrial complex has been the reason for the post-1994 crime drop. There are MANY who have tried to claim responsibility, but always inconclusively. Besides, the drop in crime happened not just in the US with its prison-industrial complex, but all around the rest of the world as well.
So, you claim it is responsible, let's see evidence.
|
There's a difference between the ideal and the implementation of a concept. In theory, there is a way to teach people how to learn by teaching them all the "useless" stuff taught in high school. That this doesn't happen is less a reflection on the concept of this plan, and more on a lacking execution.Consider something along the lines of this.So what we have is a situation where
We know that the current method of teaching people to learn doesn't work.
but we know that we can teach people useful stuff.
Instead of trying to find a hypothetical way of teaching people useless stuff so that it might, hypothetically, maybe, do a better job of teaching them useful stuff ... why don't we just teach them useful stuff?
The problem is, public schools are not about teaching kids how to learn. They are about teaching kids how to pass a specific series of tests.
Problem solving and critical thinking are not tested skills; little to no resources are invested teaching these skills.
|
|
Whoa, whoa... hold your horses there, DM Barcas. I would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY like to see you show data to prove that the prison-industrial complex has been the reason for the post-1994 crime drop. There are MANY who have tried to claim responsibility, but always inconclusively. Besides, the drop in crime happened not just in the US with its prison-industrial complex, but all around the rest of the world as well.
So, you claim it is responsible, let's see evidence.
The drop in US crime rates was briefly discussed in Freakonomics, which provided an interesting conclusion as to the cause.
I am inclined to agree with their answer.
Would you be interested in enlightening us?Whoa, whoa... hold your horses there, DM Barcas. I would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY like to see you show data to prove that the prison-industrial complex has been the reason for the post-1994 crime drop. There are MANY who have tried to claim responsibility, but always inconclusively. Besides, the drop in crime happened not just in the US with its prison-industrial complex, but all around the rest of the world as well.
So, you claim it is responsible, let's see evidence.
The drop in US crime rates was briefly discussed in Freakonomics, which provided an interesting conclusion as to the cause.
I am inclined to agree with their answer.
Abortion.
Please note: I don't agree with this.
In short: Roe vs Wade made it possible for poor women who knew they could not provide for their would-be child to have an abortion. With this option, the population where new criminals weould be recruited were never born. RvW was in 1973, and the drop began in the mid-nineties, so it makes sense.
I am not sure what to think. I consider it an interesting theory. That uncertainty is far from enough to accept unsupported ideas about how throwing people in prison has caused the drop.
Precisely.
On the original topic...I think it's a great idea. What they really need is something to reign in the University costs.
HOWEVER...I highly support the idea, BUT, it needs to have a clause that it is ONLY open to US citizens. Period. It can ONLY be used by citizens of the United States and ONLY citizens of the United States.
If we open it to everyone in the US or wanting to go to a US university...it's going to cost a LOT more.
On the original topic...I think it's a great idea. What they really need is something to reign in the University costs...Won't happen. Too much money to be made by the bureaucrats in higher education.
"Free" education really means Federal subsidies and if the Feds are paying for it... well, raises across the board! Champagne anyone?
It will also dumb-down the prestige of a college degree. It will become like a high school diploma - i.e. Did you show up most of each school year over the last four (or five) years? Great son, here's your diploma! <smiles>
Colleges are penalized for dropout rates as well so it behooves the bean counters running community colleges to give everyone a "pass".
On your first point I sadly agree. On your second point: already happened.
Problem solving and critical thinking are not tested skills; little to no resources are invested teaching these skills.
No disagreement there, but what makes you think this changes with college ? Especially the first two years.
Then we end up having to nuke the first country that picks a fight, though.Sounds like a feature, not a bug.
Problem solving and critical thinking are not tested skills; little to no resources are invested teaching these skills.
No disagreement there, but what makes you think this changes with college ? Especially the first two years.
That's before you get to the detrimental side-effects. Those first two years of college have a tendency to produce people whose knowledge of science makes mine look PhD-level.
Obama proposes free college for 2 years for students maintaining a 2.5 GPA.
Hopefully he will also propose the idea to forgive the first two years of student loan debt to everyone currently carrying a loan burden.
To clarify, what Obama is proposing is free COMMUNITY college.
A few decades ago, free community college was not that unknown.. California had it state wide, and City College in NYC was free as well. Note that free applied only to tuition, not other fees.
So, Obama is proposing something that we have had before.
(Throwing people in prison, on the other hand, is proven to be effective at lowering the crime rate. The so-called prison-industrial complex is the primary driver of the post-1994 drop in crime.)
Since when?
I'm all for this, but they should make the last two years of college free. The first two years of college are just a useless rehash of highschool.
What about community college students like me who haven't been to high school in a while, and didn't really do all that well anyway? My college GPA is about a point and a half higher than my high school GPA, I did not study any intermediate algebra, chemistry, or geometry, I got Ds in earth science, biology, and history, and what I did learn I forgot after leaving high school. This is not an uncommon type of student to encounter at a community college. These two years of rehashing high school are kind of necessary in my case, and I'm far from the only one in this position. Sure, Intro to Physical Geography was basically high school earth science, but I didn't remember high school earth science when I started the class. Now I do remember it, which is important because I need that baseline information to go and learn more advanced and complicated forms of geography at a university.
At least I'm done in another five and a half months. Come August I get to move on to university.
What about community college students like me who haven't been to high school in a while, and didn't really do all that well anyway?
Go havsies?
Don't need to pay if you get the four year degree?Fill out extra paperwork intent/rigmarole?
What about community college students like me who haven't been to high school in a while, and didn't really do all that well anyway?Go havsies?
Don't need to pay if you get the four year degree?
Fill out extra paperwork intent/rigmarole?
Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying make the last two years free in addition to the first two, while also disagreeing with how the first two years work.
Not quite. we've never had it on a nationwide scale, Western Europe on the other hand, has had it in quite a few countries for at least a century. I believe it's also fairly common in Japan and China.So, Obama is proposing something that we have had before.Obama proposes free college for 2 years for students maintaining a 2.5 GPA.
Hopefully he will also propose the idea to forgive the first two years of student loan debt to everyone currently carrying a loan burden.
To clarify, what Obama is proposing is free COMMUNITY college.
A few decades ago, free community college was not that unknown.. California had it state wide, and City College in NYC was free as well. Note that free applied only to tuition, not other fees.
I just remembered something relevant. As long as my grades are above a 2.0 average (I have a 3.81), I don't have to pay tuition. California has that for low income residents/people from California (Long story short, if you did three or more years of California high school and have a California high school diploma or GED, but are not a resident of California, you get treated as if you were a resident.).
* Free college/university/trade school (still have to pay for books, though).
* $940 monthly government stipend throughout (higher stipend available if you're a single parent (= double normal stipend) or a parent living with another student, have special needs etc.). Slightly lower stipend if you're living at home (i.e. with your parents). You have to pay taxes, although everyone has a deductible that covers most of the stipend.
* $480 monthly, tax free, student loan available (4% interest while in school, 1% afterwards (set by the national bank's bank rate (currently 0%) + a fee (up to 1%) or a deduction set by the government's budget each year)). Extra loan available for parents.
* Cheaper housing or dorms available for students.
* Cheaper public transportation for students.
I think Obama is being too unambitious. ;-)
Blinks/....Can i move there and be a student????
Blinks/....Can i move there and be a student????
Sure... although I'm afraid that you'll have to pay for college as a foreign student. I wish we had the monetary capability to open it up for everyone.
Well, that's a foreign student outside the EU, of course.Tuition fees
Higher education in Denmark is free for students from the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Similarly, if you are participating in an exchange programme your studies in Denmark are free. You also do not pay for tuition if you at the time of application have a:
Permanent residence permit (‘permanent opholdstilladelse’)
Temporary residence permit that can be upgraded to a permanent one (‘midlertidig opholdstilladelse mmf varigt ophold’)
Residence permit as the accompanying child of a non-EU/EEA parent holding a residence permit based on employment (§9a of the Danish Aliens Act - text in Danish)All other students must pay tuition fees.
Annual tuition fees for full-degree students
USD 8,000-21,000
Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay.Easily said when you are not having to come up with the $34 billion. Sorry, the US Government needs to cut spending, not come up with ways to keep spending it.To put it in perspective, federal government spending is on the order of $3.9 T-for-trillion dollars per year, so this proposal would cost about 1% of the total federal budget, less if the cost is (as propose) split 50/50 with the various state budgets.
As to where that 1% comes from.... well, federal spending on the Bureau of Prisons is about $7 T-for-trillion per year. (This doesn't include state spending.) The incarceration rate among people with a college education is about 1/3 the rate of people without, so we could literally cut the federal prison population (and budget) in half and pay for the entire program (even not using state support and cost sharing) without noticeable consequences.
Well, except for the noticeable consequences of a better lifestyle for almost everyone, because of the well documented effects that "more education is the closest thing we have to a panacea for a number of otherwise intractable social problems" (thanks, bug).
(This, of course, doesn't include other cost savings from the Department of Justice,.... notably, the reduced costs for law enforcement. Fewer crimes means lower investigative costs as well. It's long been known that every dollar spent on education delivers far more than a dollar in cost savings elsewhere...
The big problem with your numbers is that the largest section of the prison population hasn't graduated from high school. They wouldn't qualify to start with.
The big problem with your numbers is that the largest section of the prison population hasn't graduated from high school. They wouldn't qualify to start with.
Known problem. That's why the idea of increasing college education to reduce crime isn't really taken seriously by most politicians. That's also why a number of prisons have education programs.
Keep in mind that college graduates and prison inmate are partially selective: the smart, driven person willing and able to work within the system is more likely to end up in college while someone that isn't is more likely to wind up in prison. You can't just turn one into the other.
Which is why most politicians don't take the idea that education has any effect on crime seriously.
Which is why most politicians don't take the idea that education has any effect on crime seriously.And the fact that politicians don't take it seriously makes me want to look at it more closely. :)
Which makes you smarter than most politicians :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the time career criminals arrive at their prime years for crime (16-24), they've already rejected education as a pursuit in favor of crime. School is already free (compulsory, actually) at the point they are developing a criminal skill set. This proposal would have almost no effect on crime. (Throwing people in prison, on the other hand, is proven to be effective at lowering the crime rate. The so-called prison-industrial complex is the primary driver of the post-1994 drop in crime.)
The facts don't support your argument.
Prison inmates who participate in educational programs have a 43% lower recidivism rate than inmates who do not participate.
The prison-industrial complex has actually been shown to increase crime. It creates a network of information sharing and community building amongst criminals that further aids their criminal endeavors, especially organized crime. There's also significant evidence that the increase in prison populations is pushing higher and higher participation in prison gangs, which also results in higher participation in gangs outside of prison.
The drop in the crime rate is much more closely linked with the legalization of abortion.
Keep in mind that college graduates and prison inmate are partially selective: the smart, driven person willing and able to work within the system is more likely to end up in college while someone that isn't is more likely to wind up in prison. You can't just turn one into the other.
Are you claiming that there has never been a violent offender who went to prison, but was later able to turn their life around and become a successful and contributing member of society?
Keep in mind that college graduates and prison inmate are partially selective: the smart, driven person willing and able to work within the system is more likely to end up in college while someone that isn't is more likely to wind up in prison. You can't just turn one into the other.Are you claiming that there has never been a violent offender who went to prison, but was later able to turn their life around and become a successful and contributing member of society?
emphasis changed by me
Selectively ignoring explicit statements that contradict your premise regarding someone's statements is bad form at best.
A more accurate question would be, are you claiming you cannot turn someone without the above mentioned traits (smart, driven, willing to work within the system) and with the trait "got put into prison" into a productive member of society through college education in prison?
However, I have a feeling it was a hyperbolic statement actually meaning that it couldn't be done to perhaps a statistically significant degree, or perhaps a more opinion based meaningful or worthwhile degree.
The big problem with your numbers is that the largest section of the prison population hasn't graduated from high school. They wouldn't qualify to start with.Known problem. That's why the idea of increasing college education to reduce crime isn't really taken seriously by most politicians. That's also why a number of prisons have education programs.
It should also be noted that at the federal level, approximately 1/4 of the prison population has a college education.
|
|
The drop in the crime rate is much more closely linked with the legalization of abortion.
High poverty rates to tend to result in a low education level. High poverty + low education tends to result in a larger population of poor single mothers, perpetuating the cycle.
Legalized abortion is an option exercised most frequently within this same population, and breaks the cycle.
It may not be pretty, or socially acceptable, to link the two concepts, but the relationship is present. The fact that the idea is socially reprehensible prevents further research into the area, leaving the exact extent of the relationship behind legalized abortion and reduced crime unknown.
|
|
A second relationship that has yet to arise in this thread: increased education results in decreased birth rates. The most highly educated societies are experiencing a natural population decrease.
It takes an average of 2.1 children per female to maintain a stable population in a developed country. Japan has a birth rate of 1.37 children per female. Italy has an average birth rate of 1.41 children per female.
The reduced crime rates in Europe are due less to legalized abortion and most likely more closely linked to decreased conception rates. Unfortunately, natural population decreases can have their own severe economic impact.
Education is only one factor and it plays different roles.
Women who work and have a higher education tend to have fewer children.
At the same time, if things like education and various services are cheap or free, they don't act as barriers to having children, which increases the birth rate.
Also, Europe went through a similar change, though not as drastic as the US, in regards to abortion. While attempts at reforming abortion laws started in the 30's, it wasn't until the late 60's that laws were finally repealed.
The only major difference between the US and Europe concerning abortion is how we talk about it. The antiabortion groups are much more vocal and powerful here in the US (though they decidedly in the minority, albeit powerful). Otherwise the timeline is fairly similar.