posted
By comparison to other fundamental places of education, at least. Since I've been teaching in a public school, every year we have had issues with not having enough books. We can't send teachers to educational experiences that would help them teach better. We have schools that are physically falling apart.
Pretty much every university with which I am intimately familiar has undergone unbelievable growth in the last two decades. Shiny new buildings are constantly going up. Buildings that are examples of resource-wasting architecture, with energy-inefficient construction and tons of wasted space. But they are impressive and often beautiful. They also litter their campus with bizarro modern sculptures and other stuff whose educational benefit is debatable. I'm not saying I don't like the stuff, but modern sculptures every block or so, stadiums on campus, spiffy new buildings, and million-dollar coaches whose contract details we can't see (even in a public university) all seem a little bit silly when you look at how underfunded education at other levels is.
Especially when you consider that not everyone goes to university, but most people would benefit directly from a better-funded K-12 educational system.
In Florida, we divide lottery proceeds 50-50 between universities and K-12 education. (The lottery is a whole 'nother scam, but I don't want to go there now.) We also have a system of sholarships for deserving high school students, called "Bright Futures Scholarships" that help any qualified Florida student to attend a Florida public university. Thing is, those scholarships come out of the K-12 side of the lottery earnings, since the students are in high school when they apply for them. So they actually take money from the schools that are struggling to get by, with class-size and employee retention issues, and give it to the university system which has so much money it doesn't seem to know which gaudy undertaking to try next! Gah!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough, even public universities are relying on by far mostly private funds nowadays (this of course varies by state and university). I think IU's at under 25% public monies currently, for instance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nice thing about universities is that you usually can see where your money went. It sure doesn't show up in the "quality" of "education", but at least one can look at the pretty buildings...
On the other hand, where does the money go for grade school? Public schools get something like $10,000/year for each student, but teachers are grossly underpaid, there are insufficient books, and teachers have to buy their own supplies. And their buildings aren't all that, either. What the heck, over?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what the stats are, but I know the U of U gets tons of private funds. For instance, every thing on campus is named after someone. When the shiny new (and very badly built) music building went up, just about every single room was named after someone (private donor). I'm surprised they didnt name the bathrooms after someone... Someone missed their chance to have their name remembered by every student! Who could forget a bathroom with a name? Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great blanket statement: "Universities are overfunded" GIVE ME A BREAK. You frankly have no idea where the money for "shiny new buildings" comes from, and you would be scandalized by what public university students pay each year in tuition, plus books here in california. I am no expert on state and local budgets but I know that it doesn't work the way most people think it does, very often money is granted a university system for SPECIFIC needs, so its not like they all get together and say "hey we need to be new and shinier," its simply easier to get the taxpayers/lawmakers to finance superficial, and often not superficial changes in architecture.
My school, UC davis, recently managed to build a 63 million dollar performance hall, the passing observer might say: "those uc regents and their shenanigans! wasting our money on beautiful performance halls." Well the hall was paid for in full by an endowment from a local family, and named in their honor, it had NOTHING to do with the public, and it was a generous gift. I would like to see all the "wasted money" you see being spent there in florida, somehow I doubt your a qualified observer, even if you are a public school teacher. If anything we ought to drastically increase the money we spend on all public schools, including and especially k-12, not give people excuses for saying education can bear any more cuts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Orincoro here. Every one of the fancy schmancy buildings on my campus is heavily funded by private donors. Government money goes primarily to research and other potentially useful purposes... the window dressing is paid for by rich alumni and philanthropists. Whether *private citizens* should be using their money to pretty up colleges instead of donating to other causes is another debate entirely.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguably, universities in Cali are underfunded. It used to be that you could get a second-rate education at a Cal State university for free, but now we have to pay $1400 a semester for it, and about $500 for books on average. Okay, it's still less that $2000, but compared to how it used to be...
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
um, where did I say that this was a public funding issue? I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while our other educational institutions go without. I'm talking about my state's specific practice of raping the k12 budget to send even more money toward the universities.
Also, I refer you to my opening sentence:
quote:By comparison to other fundamental places of education, at least.
As for the blanket statement, it got your attention didn't it?
You frankly have no idea what I know and what I don't know, so quit with the personal BS and just rebut the point. If you can't make an argument without resorting to shouting and baseless personal comments, then your point of view isn't worth much.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Athletic facilities are typically paid for with athelic earnings. That's why the powerhouse schools have the best facilities -- they made that money.
Also, I'm with Orincoro, tuition helps out a ton. And for every campus with shiny new buildings there are several with dilapidated teaching facilities.
Of course, it's still an order of magnitude up from public schools.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while our other educational institutions go without.
I'm on our planning and budgeting committee. And here's the problem: most of the flashy stuff at our college, the "Wow! How did they afford THAT!" stuff, is directly donated. Only 15% of our donations go to the general fund, which is used to pay normal expenses and salaries. Around 30% goes to scholarship funds, which help cover tuitions for the needy. And the rest is earmarked by donors -- usually with their names attached prominently in some way -- for "flashy" stuff, whether it's a new building or a shiny sculpture or just a semi-rare Japanese cherry tree.
So when you walk around our campus, it's easy to get the idea that we're made of money. But we're seriously stretching to keep our faculty and staff paid, and are constantly having to juggle the merits of tuition increases against, say, upgrading our computer equipment. Because no-one is interested in donating half a million dollars to buy some Dell desktop PCs, not when they can start construction on a dorm with that money and get it named after themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's more like breaking even - if the student was going to come anyway, they would have paid tuition. The money was donated, but it went to the student.
In other words, the university did not gain materially from the donation, because they have only the funds from the students tuition. If the donation was general instead of scholarship, they would have had the money from tuition AND the donation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, I get what you're saying, but the way I see it, the university was just handed $30K (or whatever a year of tuition there costs) of income to use as they like. Whether it came from the student's parents or from the family of Arthur L. VanDelay III, the university is still up $30K. And I'm betting that a lot of wealthy families donate specifically for scholarship funds, so it's entirely possible that this $30K would not have otherwise been donated.
I'm feeling contrary this morning. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's more like breaking even - if the student was going to come anyway, they would have paid tuition. The money was donated, but it went to the student.
But there's no assurance that they would have gone to a FL university without that scholarship.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus I don't know how it is in your area of Florida, but here there are some K-12 Schools that have scads of money (high property tax base) and pretty new schools with all the bells and whistles and programs.. .and then others that are falling apart, ragged books, insufficient facilities, etc.
Our state has been trying to "balance" the funding formula for years to prevent this huge Have/Have Nots appearance in schools across the state. As far as I know, they have not come up with a solution.
And school budgets are so weird anyway -- the state gives you so much money, and you have to spend it by the end of the year, or else you dont' get as much the next year. So there is no incentive to budget, save and long-term plan because the money is always in a state of flux...
posted
After reading your post, I also had the impression you were talking about overfunding of universities by the state. I was going to make sure you knew that O'Leary's salary is paid for by alumni and not tax dollars (I assume you're talking about UCF), but I guess you know that.
Are there any prohibitions about donations to public K-12 schools? If I make a sizable donation to a public school, do I get any say in where it goes?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related note, I read an interesting book a couple of months back called "Universities in the Marketplace" (my wife dubbed it the most boring book ever, but I enjoyed it). It's an interesting study by a former Harvard president on the ways in which University funding (primarily private funding) opens it up to bias, cheating, and academic irresponsibility.
One point made in the book, just to pick on JT, is that for most universities athletics are at best a gamble and at worst a money pit. Those stadiums often aren't paid for by tickets or booster donations, but are built on an expectation of increased tickets and booster donations because of the improved facilities. It's a debt game that can pay off big if you're Michigan or FSU, but generally ends up hurting the University.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I agree with 'generally' not paying off.
Most major schools around here (the South) sell out every home game (football -- the golden goose). They make a ton on merchandise, concessions, sponsorship, and booze.
Of course, in the mid majors that's probably not the case. But in the major conferences, I doubt if many of them are losing money on athletics.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are there any prohibitions about donations to public K-12 schools? If I make a sizable donation to a public school, do I get any say in where it goes?
I believe this will vary from state to state but in our case anyone can make a donation but it has to be approved by the School board and they do not want any money with 'strings' attached to it, or if there are strings the School board wants the authority to divert some of the money to wherever it pleases
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that a large amount of the funding of public and private universities comes from private donors, I'd like to quickly throw out there the idea that it's not acceptable for the government to, in any way, discourage or not allow donations to these universities, even when there are K-12 schools that desperately need the funds. I bring this up because of Icky's statement:
quote:um, where did I say that this was a public funding issue? I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while our other educational institutions go without.
While we may prefer for private donors to contribute funds to the K-12 schools that need them, rather than attempting to get their names on buildings or sculptures, and even think it’s morally wrong for them to be “wasting” funds on splashy architecture, I don’t think it’s the government’s place to step in and legislate that. And because the private donations go towards buildings and sculptures, it's still necessary to have public funds going towards computer labs and faculty scholarships.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:they do not want any money with 'strings' attached to it, or if there are strings the School board wants the authority to divert some of the money to wherever it pleases
One county I lived in previously would accept donations to build high school stadiums. For budget reasons, stadiums were considered a luxury when building a new school, so they were not included when building a new high school. If the school wanted it, they would have to get almuni, parents, local businesses, etc. to fund it. I don't remember how it turned out, but I think it was stopped for the reason that Farmgirl mentioned - schools in affluent neighborhoods would get enhancements that other schools would not.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ratcliff Stadium Home of the Odessa Permian Panthers. High school stadium that's the size of a universities, built by private donations. Let's hear it for the Booster Club.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there was a study done for TitleIX testimony before Congress which showed that even most of the top football schools were losing money on their teams: the most prominent money-loser was FSU, specificly mentioned because they had won the national title in the previous year.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to see it, if you have a link. I'll stop saying that if there's evidence to the contrary. It just seems so counterintuitive for all these schools to be spending all this money on athletics if none of them are making a profit.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, I'm not calling for the government to step in and regulate stuff. I'm just venting.
If I were to call specifically for something, I would call for the state of Florida to fund Bright Futures scholarships from out of the university budget, instead of from K-12 funds. But that would drastically narrow the scope of this thread, wouldn't it?
Zan, I find the dealing that formed a private corporation to pay O'Leary's salary, so that the Sunshine Law could not be invoked, extremely shady, regardless of who's paying it. But then, I have issues with the whole way the rehabilitation of George O'Leary has taken place, and I believe UCF has sold out in a big way.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because no-one is interested in donating half a million dollars to buy some Dell desktop PCs, not when they can start construction on a dorm with that money and get it named after themselves.
We actually bought 24 laptops with donor money for a classroom that is named after the donor. But note, the donors MUCH rather wanted the best furniture and the idea of buying better computers and get cheaper furniture was out of the question.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
But they're winners now, and that's the only thing that matters, right?
I agree with you about the Bright Futures scholarships. I didn't realize that the money for that came out of the K-12 budget.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My dad is the chairman of the special education department at his college. Just this week someone donated a million dollars to the department. Something about being grateful for the hearing aid one of the faculty helped him get. That's pretty darn grateful! I should ask him what the department is going to do with a million dollars.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That actually reminds me of a situation that took place at my college in Montana.
A girl who went there died in some tragic fashion (I don't mean to belittle it, but I really don't remember how she died, and it was long before I got there), and her parents wanted to show their gratitude to the school and its students for everything they'd given the daughter.
So they donated a million dollars (or right around there) for the construction of a non-denominational chapel (the school didn't have anything right on campus).
The problem was two-fold. One, the site where the chapel would go was school property (school property in this case was state propery). Two, Montana isn't what you would call a religious state. Which isn't to say that there aren't religious people there, I just didn't see near the concentration of them that I was accustomed to in the south.
So some students, faculty, and alumni protested the construction of a religious symbol on state property, and what would've been a beautiful gesture got the rug pulled out from under it. This was winding down when I arrived, and I was shocked at the way everyone had behaved.
I still am, actually.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took a class on sports managemennt last semester. One of our three major papers was anaylzing whether or not college sports actually contribute money to the university.
posted
Oh, and I also don't think universities are overfunded, but I go to a private school that is now ridiculously in debt from paying all its full-time faculty and staff for a semester in which no one's tutition money counted.
Seriously though. Sure, schools have some nice buildings. But honestly, I'm sure they could all use some more money because they probably need to revamp the dorms or work on their wireless network. And it's very hard to get donations for that purpose.
My kids school system just got finished building a new high school, renovating the middle school, and now are adding on to the elementary school.
Meanwhile, at the local university where I attended classes I saw tons of broken desks, no room - communications was in the Humanities dept but the Hum building was so crowded their offices are blocks away.
Buildings were run down and in terrible repair. But, UAB hospital expanded and added a new, state of the art ER room. Most of the money sent to the university winds up in the medical and scientific research programs, Arts and Humanities doesn't get much at all.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: um, where did I say that this was a public funding issue? I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while our other educational institutions go without. I'm talking about my state's specific practice of raping the k12 budget to send even more money toward the universities.
\
You just contridicted yourself, you just said it has to do with public funding
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My experience, like Belle's, has always been the opposite.
My high school had massive amounts of construction while I was attending. Part of it was necessary since part of the building, which was the original 40 yo-plus high school, had walls filled with dangerous material. Other building were simply an excuse for something fancy and a way of keeping students from transferring to all the new public schools going up around town. In the last 4 years, there have been 4 new 5A-sized high schools in that town. Each one had just TONS of cutting edge computers and equipment.
Now my university, which is one of the least funded in the state, has been cutting corners for years in order to stay competitive in spite of being in the red. Now a post-Katrina Louisiana government has frozen spending and cut budgets. Many of my professors who are used to teaching advanced undergrad seminars are now being forced to teach English 101 instead because they have to accomodate freshman rather than students trying to graduate. The dorm that I thankfully moved out of this year is practically condemned and needs to be torn down. With no money to do so, our private honors dorm is having to move students across campus to live in a newer, louder, less exclusive apartment complex built last year.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: um, where did I say that this was a public funding issue? I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while our other educational institutions go without. I'm talking about my state's specific practice of raping the k12 budget to send even more money toward the universities.
You just contridicted yourself, you just said it has to do with public funding
No, I did not. I talked about general principles, and then gave a specific example. I am neither making this point excluvively about public funding, nor do I feel the need to exclude a discussion of funding at all.
But thank you for not shouting at me. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
As for the blanket statement, it got your attention didn't it?
I am not trying to provoke you personal Icarus, but this really is the kind of logic that gets you called out in a personal rebuke. Your proud of an attention getting post why? Everyone here has soundly refuted your point, so you have only called attention to your minority view in this case, and I do not believe you have defended it well. IF that's personal BS, you invited it in the earlier post. Sorry.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone here has soundly refuted your point
Are you reading the same thread I am? It looks to me like you've missed his point entirely. I certainly haven't seen it refuted.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ratcliff Stadium Home of the Odessa Permian Panthers. High school stadium that's the size of a universities, built by private donations. Let's hear it for the Booster Club.
Isn't it bigger than Robertson Stadium, home of the Houston Cougars? It looks that way...
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone here has soundly refuted your point
Are you reading the same thread I am? It looks to me like you've missed his point entirely. I certainly haven't seen it refuted.
His point as far as I have seen it refuted is that Universities are funneling money from the public into flashy construction work. Many have pointed out that his views of budget issues are misinformed, and not universal, because a great deal of money comes from private donors. He was not making an argument that K-12 needs to be better funded, it was an assumtion made by everyone in the thread, as it is a ubiquitous concern which I do not refute. His logic I can and do question, we have been reading the same thread after all
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point, as I took it, was that in at least one state money is being taken from K-12 funding to go to colleges and universities which have other sources of funding including private donors. Whereas k-12 schools rely on state funding for all of their needs, including buildings.
I certainly didn't see "everyone here" refuting that point. In fact, I saw some agreement with it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not aware that my point has been "soundly refuted" at any point. I guess that's the "declare victory and withdraw" school of debate, huh? Are you friends with whoever wrote those two abortion arguments in those two other threads?
It's pretty standard to phrase your thread title in such a way that it distills your thesis to a bare minimum. People who want to get all the subtlety and nuance, if any, of your point of view, can then decide to read the thread. There they can find out why you are making the statement you are making, and choose to address parts of your logic. I'm sorry if you find this disagreeable, but there just isn't room in one line for a detailed explanation of most people's point of view. Most people don't think in soundbytes.
(I titled this thread as I did because in another thread ricree101 asked me to make a thread in which we could explore the issue without diluting the thread I had posted in. That's the reason why I started this thread, and that's why I started with a broad statement, which I explained in the text of my post, which you appear to have merely skimmed.)
As of this moment, there are 38 replies in this thread not written by me.
Thirteen of these discuss the distinction between public and private funding, and the preference of private donors to donate for "showy" things instead of infrastructure. I think this is an interesting facet of the topic to explore, but I think these posts neither refute nor defend my thesis, but rather explore the issue.
One questions where the money we do pour into K12 schooling goes, and asserts that it doesn't seem to make it to the teacher or the classroom. Actually, I agree, and think this would be a great area to explore further, even if it does lead to a partial refutation of my thesis. (Something I would not concede has happened yet, though, since this topic has not been fully explored.)
One makes a joke. Jokes are always a nice way to lighten up any thread.
One disagrees on the basis of how much it costs to go to school. I don't find this to be conclusive, but it certainly could be grounds for further discussion.
Seven discuss the role of athletic funds.
Three state that in their area, it is K12 schools who seem to have a lot of funding while the universities are falling apart.
Five discuss the feasibility of private donations to public K-12 schools. (I am including Kat's here, though I don't know if I read her intent correctly.)
One disagrees without really providing much evidence or reasoning to the contrary beyond, "They need the money."
Three enter into a meta-discussion of your assertions of the merits of this thread.
Two compare stadium sizes relating to particular high school stadiums and one particular university stadiums.
Five scream like a howler monkee and fling feces in an attempt to shut down discussion. (These are all by you, by the way.) They shout, make personal statements, and assert that this topic has been shot down, but don't really add anything substantive themselves.
(The numbers don't add up to 38 because some of these posts count in multiple categories.
Seriously, now, disagree if you want. But your tone is entirely inappropriate and not one that I have earned.
quote: this really is the kind of logic that gets you called out in a personal rebuke.
The only person who has attempted to "call me out in a personal rebuke" is you. Why are you the arbiter of who deserved to be called out? Are you incapable of debating, and is this why you must shout and "call me out" instead?
posted
I skipped some of this thread, so if this has been said before, someone can correct me.
But I don't think "Universities are over-funded" is a correct blanket statement. Tuition at Oakland University, a public university in Michigan that I attend has gone up 15% a year for the last few years due to budget cuts that result in reduced state funding. I'm studying to be a high school teacher.
What's the point of putting more money into public schools and out of colleges, if college is too expensive for me to go, in order to gain the education I need to become a teacher in the first place?
Edit to add: This isn't just my university, universities all over Michigan for the last few years have faced an average of 8% raises in tuition on top of what you might call the usual rise in costs. It's all from a withdrawel of state funding, as these are all public institutions that I am talking about.
Further, K-12 institutions around here are funded more by the cities they are in for things like text books and construction than by the state level.
posted
Considering that tuitions are skyrocketing all over the nation, I don't think the problem is that universities are over-funded. I would say that they're under-funded, but public schools are under-funded much, much more.
That lottery situation sounds pretty crappy. Do the colleges and universities in Florida really need as much money as all the public schools put together?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering that tuitions are skyrocketing all over the nation, I don't think the problem is that universities are over-funded. I would say that they're under-funded, but public schools are under-funded much, much more.
I kind of agree, which is why my first sentence within this thread was the specific caveat that I meant specifically by comparison to other levels of education.
Still, I believe large universities, for whatever reason and from whatever source, use money on extravegant things, which is galling when I see lower schools going without.
I think we should question why tuition is skyrocketing when universities are using money in this way.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, your original post points to fancy buildings, abundant public artwork, and arguably overfunded athletic departments as the main evidence that universities are overfunded. Many of the subsequent posts that you claim "do not refute your thesis" are explaining that most of these things are often not funded with public money at all, which tends to be true in my experience.
At my university, I do not believe the athletic department gets one dollar of public funding. Their revenue comes directly from ticket sales, alumni donations, licensed team logo merchandise, tv/radio rights, and other miscellaneous sources. So the fact that the head football coach makes a million dollars a year is entirely a function of the fact that the athletic department makes enough money off of the football program to support that kind of salary, and in no way indicates misguided funding priorities on the part of the government. I suppose you can argue that the private funding given to the athletic department is misguided, but that is really a decision to be made by the individual donors.
So yes, I agree it is possible that universities receive more than their fair share of funding when private and public expenditures are considered in aggregate. However, most of the private donations are earmarked for purposes other than the normal operation of the university. Thus, any shift in public funds from post-secondary schools to K-12 schools would have to be offset by a corresponding tuition increase for all university students. Maybe you believe that would be a fair trade-off, but I believe most public schools are at least adequate the way they are, and that university tuition is already higher than most students can afford without picking up unreasonable amounts of debt. To sum it up, more overall funding for education would be a good thing, but I don't think universities should have to give up any of their operating budget to improve K-12 education.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My university doesn't even have a football team, but we do have top level basketball, soccer and swim teams, among others. The Grizzlies even went to the NCAA basketball championships last year.
Thus, I really don't understand where the money is going and why tuition is skyrocketing at such a rate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
etphonehome, I think your post is reasonable and balanced. However:
quote:Thus, any shift in public funds from post-secondary schools to K-12 schools would have to be offset by a corresponding tuition increase for all university students.
I actually don't believe I have called for this to happen. I think talking about whether the inequity I perceive can be fixed, or how, are both valid avenues for discussion. Truly. However, you can't rebut me by responding to a course of action I have not recommended.
quote:of the subsequent posts that you claim "do not refute your thesis" . . .
It sounds to me like you may be misinterpreting the intent of my prior post. I am in no way finding fault with the majority of the posters, or trying to dismiss their posts. I am contesting Orincoro's specific assertion that I have been unambiguously proven wrong and that this discussion is closed and that I deserve to be personally insulted, shouted at, and criticized for daring to post this thread.
If you believe that this discussion is closed and that I am not worthy of basic human dignity, then I would ask you why you would bother responding to one such as me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt like I needed to add something to this thread, but the best I can come up with is Puppies!Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
