posted
This is what I originally wrote for this week's column, but I knew when I submitted it that there was a good chance it wouldn't fly. My editor doesn't want me getting too editorial...
Which means I'm free to post it here as a Hatrack exclusive. Enjoy. Discuss.
Liberal media 1, Rush 0 By CHRIS BRIDGES TWENTY-FOUR/SEVEN
All in all, this hasn't been a good week for Rush Limbaugh. The only way the king of the conservative talk shows could possibly have gotten more bad coverage would be if he admitted to groping Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In case you don't follow football, the news, late night standup, Rush's show, or have just awoken from a coma, ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh to be a sports analyst for the "Sunday NFL Countdown" pregame show based on his love of the game and their love of higher ratings. It was hoped that having him there to talk about the Cowboys' blocking game would kick things up a notch and spark some controversy.
It worked, too. There was a 10% increase in viewers the nights he was on, and that's not even counting the snipers.
Which leads one to wonder what ESPN was expecting, exactly. Rush just sat there and did what he does, which in this case was to suggest that Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb -- who is black -- didn't deserve all the credit he was getting from the media -- which is, presumably, liberal. Was anyone really surprised at this? Anyone? Rush is famous for his beliefs in the secret nationwide liberal conspiracy and its far-reaching fingers of moral turpitude and welfare handouts, it's only natural he'd see the secret masterminds behind the National Football League.
A more diplomatic commentator might have suggested that McNabb wasn't really doing too well this season and wondered aloud why the media was making a darling of him. Arguably more defensible, and it would have allowed the viewers to make up their own bigoted reasons. But that isn't Rush's style, which is damn the public relations, full speed ahead. Admirable, in a twisted sort of way.
Besides, he was probably doped up on painkillers at the time. But that's a different media circus.
Personally I think this has gone far enough. I can't stand seeing a great American like Rush Limbaugh ridiculed. It's time we came clean. There is, in fact, a liberal media conspiracy. We're all a part of it, even the so-called "conservative" channels.
Our goal: the erosion of America's moral fiber. We won't rest until marriage is open to any gender, number, or species combination. We will not breathe easy until underage premarital sex is mandatory and abortions are offered two-for-one on Tuesdays. We will not pause until every child has a chance to thrive in a single-parent home. We are relentless, we are mighty, and we rule the airwaves.
Doting on black athletes is only the beginning. We're also working behind the scenes to replace the original copy of the Constitution with a gender-neutral version that specifically prohibits anyone making anyone else feel bad, ever again. Plans are underway to remove all white males from positions of power or authority. Health care, housing, food, and video game consoles will be free for the taking. Me, I'm hoping to be given a spot on the special forces team that will put a transvestite Miss America in place by 2005.
The next pope will be gay, mark my words. And you'll like it, because we'll make up a Newsweek poll that says you like it.
"But FOX News is right-wing," you cry. It might seem that way until you consider the other shows featured on the same network. They may lure you in with fair and balanced reporting, but they capture your soul with blatantly sexual programming and moral-fabric-ripping reality shows. It works, too.
We steal children from their beds. We haunt the House of Representatives. We whisper invisibly in your ear when you vote. We can slide between shadows, and cannot be killed by conventional weapons. Moonlight shows us for what we really are.
Rush is the only one who can see us (except for Bill O'Reilly, and it's easy to poke him a few times and make him blow up on national television). We don't know how he got wind of us, but soon, very soon, he'll be discredited and reduced to doing cartoon voices or becoming an OxyContin spokesperson.
Foolish conservatives! Who will save you now? Bwahahahahahahaha!
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Politically correct racism is widespread and accepted. It is perfectly okay to speak of injustices against Blacks. However, if this is questioned in any way, as Rush did, the person asking the questions becomes a racist. It is totally beside the point that one agree or disagree with what Rush said. He is on the air to give his opinions.
Had Rush made some comment about Black quaterbacks, the labeling and anger would be understandable. However, the comment was about th media, and its bias towards Black quaterbacks. We hear all the time from people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton how corporate america shuns Blacks and keeps power amoung whites. Yet these characters are not labeled racist. This is because these are not racist statments. They are not racist when made by Rush about Black quaterbacks either.
To find truly racist statements, look no further than Chicago Cubs Manager Dusty Baker. He has claimed that Blacks are better at withstanding the heat of summer, and therefor are better baseball players. That is a statment the stereotypes a whole race of people, a racist statement.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I do consider Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton racist in that they appear incapable of seeing a situation without assuming it has racial underpinnings. If there are none present, they'll add some. "Racist" may not be the right word, though. "Opportunistic," maybe.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well msakaseg, what was the man's article about? If one is going to bring up issues like Rush Limbaugh, one must expect SOME sort of sociopolitical reaction.
Also, Mr.Bridges said this:
quote: Enjoy. Discuss
I was only following his instructions. Maybe I missed the part where it said one was not allowed to disagree with the poster of the article.
posted
Chris, I'm still laughing. *wipes away tears of laughter*
I so wish I had the email address of my roommate from 12 years ago, the rabid Rush fan. I'd love to send her a link to this thread.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, discuss all you like. I'm not telling you not to. And if I were I'd be out of line. It was inevitable, though.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MsaKaseg, you are not incorrect. I knew when I saw the word liberal that it would be charged topic. Add race and Rush Limbaugh in, and you get a fire-storm.
I would just like to point out that for a long time the public discourse on issues of race has been bullied by people who don't want to discuss the issue in a fair way. My stance on the issue is: Any favoritism or discrimination based on race, is immoral and unjust. Therefor, such programs as affirmative action which favors Blacks when hiring is considered, is a racist program. Many issues and perspectives can be brought to bare on this concept, but it always boils down to choosing people based on race.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I'm really up for another one of these threads, but I'll be in it for now.
So... Is noting general physical/medical differences between races racist? And is a system racist that, without any outside influence, tends to keep one race at the bottom and one at the top?
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If said system does not notice race in any way, no that system would NOT be racist. I defined racism as giving people benefits or harm based on race. If siberians tend to have more expirience mining coal, would a system that hires the most qualified coal miners be racist for hiring more siberians than other races?
Unless there exists documented evidence somewhere that black people are better at playing baseball, I would argue that this is a racist statment. It would also require one to believe the teams are more interested in the race of the players they employ than in their quality, because most baseball players are white or hispanic.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were documented evidence that blacks or Puerto Ricans were physically better suited to withstanding heat, would saying so be a racist statement? (Mind you, I have no idea whether or not such evidence exists.)
OK, so we've established your definitions. Would a societal system such as I've laid out be a fair one, even if it is not racist?
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept of fairness tends to be the breaking point in these discussions. In my opinion, equal opportunity is what I consider fair, not equal outcome.
Lets look at something like the SAT. This test is designed to predict the ranking of college students after their first year of college. It has been claimed that the test is racist because blacks tend to score lower on it than other groups. However, when compared with the actual data, the test actually overestimates the likely position of black students after their first year of college by several percentage points. Would you define the SAT's as racist or even biased?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is the author of the article? I would like some comments on all this, did you not wish to take part in the discussion?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my opinion, equal opportunity is what I consider fair, not equal outcome.
Is a system in which one race tends to have a preponderance of advantages leading up to the point of measurement actually an example of equal opportunity?
Actually, I don't consider the SAT to be racist. I think that the fact that black and latino students tend to get lower scores on average is more a reflection of the fact that they tend to be more poorly prepared on average. The test, in and of itself, is not racist.
quote: one race tends to have a preponderance of advantages leading up to the point of measurement
This is of course is referring to quantities outside of the system. If Blacks are not as well prepared for the SAT, that does not make the SAT racist, you agree with this point.
Equal opportunity also does not imply that everyone be born with the same amount of resouces. This is the concern of the parents. Equal opportunity only implies that no one should have a legal advantage over another. Basically, you can't make laws that affect people based on their color or creed, etc.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
There's a certain amount of pleasure to be gotten from watching self-righteous bombasts fall prey to the very things they abhor in the big bad world out there.
On the other hand, Rush is only human and maybe, one day, he'll realize that. The real thing that man arch conservatives worry about (in every generation) is a relaxation of our guard, I think.
You know...the world is going to heck in handbasket because it's now okay for ladies to show their ankles in public, or we've decided not to stone people for adultery, or whatever.
It's an age old problem and the true conservatives (meaning those who fight to keep things from changing at all) have a tough time of it because they are always forced to make "slippery slope" arguments and because they seem to set themselves up as the arbiters of what is moral and correct.
So, when a person like that shows themself to be all too human (having a drug or alcohol problem, a miserable marriage, a few abortions in their closet, etc.) it inspires an insidious glee in all those who just want people to make up their own minds and do what they believe to be best for them.
Sadly, when one of these "lions" dies roaring, what really happens is that the good of what they've said over the years is discredited and thrown out too.
I've never been a big fan of Rush Limbaugh and I never will be. I am, in fact, far too liberal to listen to the man without becoming either enraged or discouraged. I also wonder (as he said) whether or not the violence of my reaction to him might not be, in part, because he COULD be right about some things.
Now, all that uncertainty is gone. He's just another bigotted hypocrite. I am free to ignore everything he ever said, and anything that's been quoted to me by his numerous (and now obviously deluded and hoodwinked) fans.
Ah...for the peace and quiet of being once again unchallenged in my own liberal convictions...I thank you Rush! What a rare and potent gift you have given me by just being a regular human afterall.
quote:This is of course is referring to quantities outside of the system.
In the specific example of the SAT, yes. But in the larger example of the society as a whole, no.
quote:Equal opportunity also does not imply that everyone be born with the same amount of resouces. This is the concern of the parents. Equal opportunity only implies that no one should have a legal advantage over another. Basically, you can't make laws that affect people based on their color or creed, etc.
It's not really just "the concern of the parents," though. I've heard of a number of studies that show a strong correlation between kids graduating college and their parents graduating college, and a similar correlation of kids not being admitted to college and their parents not being admitted to college. It's one thing to say that bad parenting causes kids to do poorly, but it's another thing entirely when the resources are not even available to the parents. It's quite the vicious circle.
It all boils down to what you think the function of government is. It's also a cost-benefit analysis. Strictly speaking, affirmative action is not fair, true. You can even make an argument that it's racist. But I've never heard anyone say that it is not achieving its goal. No, the argument against it is that it's not fair to the caucasians, or, more generally, that it is racist in principle.
Let's look at who's being hurt by affirmative action. This is all just a thought experiment and I have no studies or statistics to back it up. If the government allows affirmative action in its current form (adding race as only one element of many, usually in terms of points assigned), the absolute highest performing students should still get into college regardless of race. And the absolute lowest performing students should still not get into college, again regardless of race. What happens is all in between the two extremes. Some minority students who are otherwise less qualified may get into some colleges in place of other, more qualified but majority-race students. In this case, those majority students are being harmed, sure. But how many of them won't get into some other school? Probably less than the total amount. And how many of those left will not eventually get a degree although they will have to go to community college first. Probably even less. Of those remaining, how many will be unable to lead any sort of successful life? Probably even fewer. Whereas the benefit is that you are giving the minority races a chance to catch up, to the point where affirmative action is no longer needed.
On the other hand, suppose there is no affirmative action? In theory, there will be a gradual change in the demographics of college admissions, and therefore in time the race representation in any given earnings bracket should eventually approach the same proportions as the race representation of the population in total. But given the vicious circle I mentioned before, this could take a long, long time, many generations. So, in essence, a lot more people are being disadvantaged by not having affirmative action than are disadvantaged by having it.
Now, there are some caveats. I'm not at all certain what the weighting for race in a "fair" affirmative action scheme should be, nor am I sure that the weightings used in most schools that have such programs are "fair." Also, affirmative action is, and should be, a temporary program. It should only exist until the playing field is actually level. Of course, I do recognize the inherent problem of defining when that point is, and who should define it.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not particularly liberal or conservative, and Rush annoys me, too
Though I am kind of confused why NOW he's in trouble for saying controversial things the Left doesn't like, rather than a few years, weeks, hours, or minutes before he made this dastardly statement.
I mean, his comment isn't racist in the sense of asserting that one race is inherently better than another. He's just throwing accusations of "reverse" racism at his opposition, like he always does. What makes this one statement so special?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that you can get away with a lot more on radio than you can on T.V.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect it's because of context, as was said. For my money the statement wasn't racist, although the underlying assumptions might be. Rush insinuated that the media offers preferential coverage to black athletes, presumably a liberal guilt thing. That's as may be. I can attest, as a member of the media, that there are in fact media outlets that purposefully pick and choose news and photos so as not to aggravate viewers, minority groups, or advertisers. However, the implication of Russ' statement was that the only reason McNabb would still be favored by the sports press despite his poor showing is because he's black, no other reason. No possibility that his personality carried him, or that his previous successes (of which there were many) convinced sportscasters that he was still the one to watch. There was also the implication that all media does this, and only clear-sighted people like Rush can see it. This is what angered people, I think, and what made Rush unsuitable for further commentary.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It all boils down to what you think the function of government is. It's also a cost-benefit analysis.
This is an intelligent statement. I would like to put forward that I think the main concern of the Feds should be to protect personal property rights. Assuming that each person owns him/her/its self, this would legalize drugs, since you are your own property, and may do with yourself as you please. However, acts like drunk driving would still be outlawed, since you put other person's properties at risk.
I do NOT see the government as a re-distributor of wealth.
quote: In this case, those majority students are being harmed, sure. But how many of them won't get into some other school?
This statement disgusts me. I am sorry to take it to that level, but it does. This is the moral equivalent of saying, sure we COULD allow blacks to use this restroom, but there's plenty of others all around, they can use another one. No one would let that stand.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me add to this discussion that my statement apply only to Federally funded institutions. I am of the opinion that the government may not force people to asociate with those one does not wish to. The freedom of asociation goes both ways. If a privately owned university wishes only to admitt black students, this is their right, so long as there are no federal funds involved. This all comes back to personal property rights.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, I'm sure there are people out there who would be disgusted by the viewpoint that it's better to condemn an entire race to generations of poverty and oppression than to inconvenience a few people who probably won't be all that poorly off anyway. There's a straw man to be constructed on either side, you see.
I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, though. I'm reasonably certain that I'm not going to change your mind. And I don't know that I'm even particularly interested in trying.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The straw man here is that without affirmative action, Blacks will be condemned to generations of poverty. You condemn Blacks to eternal poverty by claiming that they cannot improve without some government assistance. It is programs like welfare that doom the poor in this country to a lifetime of servitude.
And if you don't feel like you should be discussing this issue, by all means, don't.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not a strawman, actually. It is historically-proven truth.
Will all blacks be "condemned to generations of poverty"? Obviously not. But are the odds seriously stacked against many blacks, Latinos, and other minorities? That is obviously yes -- look at the socioeconomic data.
And studies are very clear: coming from a lower-income home reduces chances of successfully getting a degree; being the first member of your family to get a degree reduces chances of successfully getting a degree; having little community support from others with college degrees reduces chances of successfully getting a degree.
Is affirmative action the best answer? Likely not. But I've yet to hear a better one.
And I'll be happy to stop backing affirmative action as soon as white students with money and/or "connections" stop getting in unfairly.
It's called evening the playing field. It's not easy; it's not always comfortable, but it is necessary.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Premise: More people below the poverty line are of a minority race than are not.
Premise: It is as proven as can be proven about such things that a person whose parents didn't go to college is far less likely to go to college.
Premise: The proportion of people of underprivileged minority races who have college degrees relative to the overall population who have college degrees is far smaller than the proportion of people of underprivileged minority races relative to the overall population.
Premise: A college education greatly increases the likelihood of a good standard of living.
Inference: The lack of a college education decreases the likelihood of a good standard of living.
Inference: The lack of a college education increases the likelihood of living below the poverty line.
Inference: People whose parents did not go to college have an increased likelihood of living below the poverty line.
Inference: People whose parents did not go to college are not likely to have children who go to college.
Note: The low probability of a person attending college whose parents didn't attend college does not rule out the possibility, but, on average, it should not happen very frequently.
Inference: In the absence of an external stimulus, the proportion of people of underprivileged minority races who obtain college degrees will rise, but will do so very slowly.
Conclusion: In the absence of an external stimulus, the proportion of people of underprivileged races below the poverty line relative to the overall population below the poverty line will remain below the proportion of people of underprivileged races relative to the overall population.
Please point out the straw man, other fallacy, or other flaw in my logic. You may feel free to disagree with my premises, but that does not invalidate the logic. I understand that I was not accurately representing your position in my last post. I did so intentionally to try to show that you were not accurately representing my position in the post to which I was responding. As you can see, this does not lead to constructive, useful debate. Perhaps we should both try to avoid misrepresenting the other's position in future.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, it was not my intention to misrepresent your arguments. I apologize for doing this. I am in total agreement that the discussion should remain civil and constructive.
I do not dispute your logical construction. I would point out that the largest amount of poor in this country are white. Not as a percentage, but as an overall population. The problems of educating the entire society apply to all races. If one singles out individual races to make up for "past wrongs," one also singles out the other races for continued poverty.
The police department here in St.Louis once had a policy that for every 2 officers hired, 1 must be black. Now you can see what such a policy will lead to. I realize that university admissions are not on such a severe scale of racism is that, but the reality of the resentment it causes is identical.
I want nothing more than a civil discussion on this issue. Thankyou for participating in an intelligent way.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only element I think is missing from the logic is some demonstration that Affirmative Action is the best way to get miniority kids into college more often. For instance, is there a statistic available to show what percentage of children whose parents never attended college even APPLY to colleges? Changing the rules of admittance won't help if there aren't enough applications coming in to make a difference.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty much of the opinion that any driven individual can make something awesome of themselves, regardless of their race. The country is certainly open to educating and training people of all races, and here in Arizona, you can't cross the street without finding some program set up to help people get skills that ordinarily wouldn't have had any and couldn't afford to get any. I'm glad that it's so. IMO, the only problem for some individuals is self-esteem and motivation. There are programs for poor people, single parents, etc, so that really isn't an excuse in most cases. And I have never heard of a person that really wanted to go to school and worked hard to get there being completely barred from doing so. Maybe it was tougher, but it was possible.
What can we do about the self-esteem and motivation? I'm not sure, but I believe that AA only relieves the symptoms...it's not a cure. I don't think that arguing about AA is very useful, but I do think that a more effective way of dealing with these problems needs to be considered.
Now, I don't know what that is. I'm just your everyday nay-sayer. I have no good ideas. But hey, we each have our lot in life.
quote: . . . some demonstration that Affirmative Action is the best way to get minority kids into college more often. For instance, is there a statistic available to show what percentage of children whose parents never attended college even APPLY to colleges?
Geoff, the first year that the UC system stopped using affirmative action, the number of minority applicants AND the number of disadvantaged (that is, coming from households below certain income parameters) applicants dropped drastically. (This implies a drop in the number of disadvantaged minority applicants.)
Now, that may merely mean that they applied to schools that still had such policies. It's hard to know.
quote: I'm not sure, but I believe that AA only relieves the symptoms...it's not a cure.
Agreed. Trouble is, most of the people trying to get rid of affirmative action don't seem much interested in replacing it with anything better.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ARND makes a good point. Motivation is always a must for college goers. One cannot force persons to go to college who do not wish to. However, since our undergraduate programs are not full, I am certain that those who make the grade and wish to go, will be allowed. This is another reason why I think AA is a negative. Those who try, can go.
A MAJOR problem is the public grade school and high shcool system in our cities. This system can be worked in such a way that it properly prepares youths for college careers, but it is mismanaged. Money that could be used to improve schools is spent bailing out, bussing kids to other schools. There are many success stories in this field that can be emulated if the effort is there.
quote:I would point out that the largest amount of poor in this country are white. Not as a percentage, but as an overall population.
In a perfect world, no one would be poor. Well, in my opinion, anyway. But, in my opinion, a world wherein the proportion of poor minorities relative to all poor people was (were?) close to the proportion of all minorities relative to all people would be a better world than what we have now. This is, of course, a value judgment on my part and is not based on any particular reasoning. I just think that it's true.
quote:The problems of educating the entire society apply to all races.
True. And in my perfect world everyone would be educated. But, again, I think a world wherein the proportion of educated minorities relative to all educated people was (ARGH! subjunctive or not?) close to the proportion of all minorities relative to all people would be good.
quote:If one singles out individual races to make up for "past wrongs," one also singles out the other races for continued poverty.
Affirmative action is not, to my mind, singling out individual races to make up for past wrongs. It is singling out individual races to make up for present inequalities. And I don't really understand how affirmative action singles out the majority race for continued poverty.
quote:The police department here in St.Louis once had a policy that for every 2 officers hired, 1 must be black.
This is a trickier situation. In my opinion affirmative action exists to level the playing field, and should only be used on a temporary basis to accomplish that goal. I'm not really sure exactly what the goal of the St. Louis PD's hiring procedures were, nor exactly how they were implemented, but I could definitely see it as being a misunderstanding or misapplication of the principles of affirmative action.
quote:I realize that university admissions are not on such a severe scale of racism is that, but the reality of the resentment it causes is identical.
In my opinion, resentment is not the most important factor if the goal is truly equal opportunity.
quote:The only element I think is missing from the logic is some demonstration that Affirmative Action is the best way to get miniority kids into college more often.
Ah, but I never said it was the best way. I merely said it was a way. I wish I were brilliant enough to think of an optimal solution, but I'm not. So I will go with what solutions are available.
quote:For instance, is there a statistic available to show what percentage of children whose parents never attended college even APPLY to colleges? Changing the rules of admittance won't help if there aren't enough applications coming in to make a difference.
Now this is a truly substantive argument against, in my opinion. It's tough to say what exactly motivates the students to apply or not to apply. Certainly parental expectation, community standards, teacher expectation, peer expectation will all play a factor. It seems to me that one part of it might also be whether or not the student thinks of him/herself as being able to get in. But either way, I think that it's hard to argue that affirmative action gets no extra applicants. If it gets any extra minority students into college, then it must be accelerating the process of equalization. It may not be the best or fastest way, but it is a way.
Maureen, I don't really know what to say in response to your post. On the one hand I do agree that a truly motivated person ought to be able to get ahead no matter what, and maybe unmotivated people shouldn't get ahead. But it just seems like wishful thinking, to me. Policy should be aimed at how things are, or how the policy will steer things, not how things ought to be.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think this is a highly optimistic statement. I worked as an Upward Bound tutor with underprivileged high school students for three years in college. Now, most of my students were able to get into college (although it was a struggle for many), but some didn't, even though they wanted to. It's easy to say that those who try will go, but when you have parents pressuring the kids to go to work immediately, or parents who don't have the money to send their kids to school, even with financial aid, or any number of other community, peer, and family pressures, it becomes a lot less cut and dry.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get this. I was researching going back to school, and the Pell Grant covered the cost of going to the local community college. That's not exactly the greatest choice for schools, but I could have gone basically for free. I could have gotten a job and gone to a better school. There are a million ways for people to go to school on someone else's buck (to put it rather bluntly). Why do people say they can't afford to go?
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the one hand I do agree that a truly motivated person ought to be able to get ahead no matter what, and maybe unmotivated people shouldn't get ahead.
This I can also agree upon. This concept came up briefly in the nationalism-patriotism thread. In the end, person most concerned with an individual's situation is the individual. The government can only do so much.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, since our undergraduate programs are not full
You're kidding, right? This is true at some private institutions, but very few public ones!
Maureen, some people cannot afford to not be working full time. Adding school into the mix makes things very difficult, at best. And I could be wrong, but do Pell grants cover anything other than tuition? And they are not as easy to get as you imply, either.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cost of going to an instate university can approach $5,000 per semester. Living expenses can be reduced if the university is in one's home town. I don't think its too much to expect individuals to work and school at the same time. I did this for 4 years. 18 hours of classes and 30 hours of work. Its hard on you after a while, but this is the cost of improving your life.
I would ask then, what costs that are needs not wants are there that exceed 30 hours at $7.50 / hour - (college tuition + living) ?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You're kidding, right? This is true at some private institutions, but very few public ones!
