Republicans: College is Bad

[FaxModem1]

Newsweek

MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS SAY COLLEGES ARE BAD FOR AMERICA (YES, REALLY)
BY CHRIS RIOTTA ON 7/10/17 AT 1:42 PM
CLOSE
Disruptor-extraordinaire Peter Thiel says college is a big con and he’s going to fix it
U.S.COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESREPUBLICAN
The United States of America were much less divided just two years ago, when the majority of citizens largely agreed on some fundamental beliefs across party lines. Of those, that higher education leads to a better nation.

But in 2017, where it seems even nonpartisan issues and institutions have become boxed into sets of beliefs based on the major parties’ political agendas, stark divisions have been drawn on everything from the media to colleges and universities.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Follow
Chris Riotta ✔ @chrisriotta
The majority of Republicans now say colleges are bad for the US.
The country is divided over higher education. Yes, really.
(@PewResearch)
12:13 PM - 10 Jul 2017
27 27 Retweets 6 6 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
A Pew Research Center survey published Monday revealed voters have grown apart in their support of secondary education since the 2016 presidential election season, when a majority of Democratic and Republican Americans agreed the nation’s universities serve as a benefit for the U.S. Whereas 54 percent of Republicans said "colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country" in 2015, the majority now believe the opposite, with 58 percent saying such institutions negatively impact the state of the union.

As Republicans took to the campaign trails last year, with many candidates vowing to reverse course on former President Barack Obama’s student loan protections and his administration’s push for college affordability, voters identifying with the party sharply began to withdraw their support from universities altogether. Forty-five percent of Republicans said they believed colleges and universities had a negative impact on the U.S. in 2016, compared with just 37 percent the year prior.

"We don’t need the federal government to be involved in this, because when they do we create a $1.2 trillion debt," former GOP candidate Jeb Bush said on making college education affordable for all Americans. "We need to get back to training people in this country to do the jobs of the 21st century," Marco Rubio said, echoing the Republican Party's push for labor-skilled work and less federal involvement in college education.

"Why, for the life of me, I do not understand why did we stop doing vocational education in America—people that can work with their hands, people you can train to do this work while they’re still in high school, so they can graduate ready to go work."

GettyImages-619309896
Trump supporters booing as the Republican candidate criticized NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick during a campaign rally at the Bank of Colorado Arena on the campus of University of Northern Colorado on October 30, 2016, in Greeley, Colorado.
CHIP SOMODEVILLA, GETTY

The 21 percent increase in two years among Republicans is even more notable when compared with those who identify as Democrats—72 percent of whom say universities have a positive effect. That number has varied only a number of percentage points over the last few years.

2017 marks the first year Pew Research Center has asked the question and received a majority of responses from Republicans expressing their negative perceptions of higher education in seven years. Fifty-five percent of Americans overall still believe colleges and universities are benefits for the country, however.

Republicans also are becoming increasingly opposed to the media, with 85 percent of those surveyed saying the nation’s free press has a negative impact, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, Democrats are split on the issue, with 44 percent stating positive perceptions of the media and 46 percent expressing their distaste.

Trump has continued to blast the media as fake news throughout his presidency, repeatedly denouncing reports critical of his administration as outright lies. Meanwhile, 18 states have sued his Department of Education under Cabinet appointee Betsy DeVos for failing to implement a rule protecting student loan borrowers that should have gone into effect July 1.

[Zaune]

I could see an argument that saddling people with eye-watering amounts of debt just to achieve the minimum qualification required for any white-collar job and/or the cultural perception that anyone without a college degree is an uncultured moron really isn't good for the nation, but that's not what they mean, is it?

[Flagg]

I don't recall the source but 2-3 years ago I remember reading an article quoting a Texan Republican during the textbook updates (Texas has a lot of say into what goes into public school textbooks nationwide because they are made there) decrying the teaching of "critical thinking." I had never ever seen or heard anything like that before. I was flabbergasted. That's the only word for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Republican Party has long glorified ignorance and denigrated education.

I guess they want to ensure the perpetuation of their base.

[Zaune]

I don't recall the source but 2-3 years ago I remember reading an article quoting a Texan Republican during the textbook updates (Texas has a lot of say into what goes into public school textbooks nationwide because they are made there) decrying the teaching of "critical thinking." I had never ever seen or heard anything like that before. I was flabbergasted. That's the only word for it.

I remember that one as well. "Faith is purest when it is unquestioning", eh?

[TheFeniX]

Jeb Bush: "debt is bad, but just for me. I earned my money by being nice to grandfather! You being under a mountain of debt is the American way." Didn't the military just release a report that they can't account for upwards of $6.5 trillion dollars? Yea, off-topic, but whatever: "losing" money on an educated workforce is terrible when you can instead ship all those jobs overseas.

Even still, many Community Colleges offer vocational studies such as Automechanics and Law Enforcement. And ZOMG, so do 4 years colleges! INSANITY! But I read "Women's Studies" is a thing and I hate liberal arts (IT HAS LIBERAL IN THE TITLE) so, education is bad.

However, broken clock: I agree in full that vocational studies should really be brought back at the primary education level. I know so much about woodwork, electricity, electronics, metal working, etc due to these types of programs. I came out of high school with enough IT experience and references to actually put together a resume. How many kids can say they cabled, punched, and connected a Cat5 network and built the workstations and configured a hybrid Windows/Linux with dedicated servers, even setting up mock intra/inter nets?

But hey, cramming kids into more standardized testing classes is the wave of the future...... But it's cheap, so USA USA!

[aerius]

I can't completely disagree. The US College & education system in general is as or even more FUBAR than their healthcare system. At least with healthcare there's a shitload of people who want to burn down the existing system and put in some sort of universal healthcare like every other civilized country, but in education most people still think that throwing more money at it will somehow fix it.

[Elheru Aran]

I'll second the "we need more vocational education" thing.

Honestly: Higher education past high school is only really useful if you plan on following a fairly specific career path, and have the ambition and motivation to follow through. AND, it's only really going to benefit you (financially) if you *use* it. If your eventual career doesn't require all that work and expense, you just wasted 4+ years and whoever knows how much money.

For example: Would it be more efficient for a tech-nerd type to take 4 years of college for a BS Computer Science... those 4 years including stuff like Art and Biology, only vaguely relevant to the Comp Sci degree... or would it be better if instead their education was pared down what was required for the degree to courses that were directly applicable-- programming languages, electronic and computer hardware, constructing server systems, etc, and gave the Comp Sci degree for *that* in say two or three years instead of four or five? And if said tech-type nerd wants to take a few irrelevant classes because they want to have a mental break in between all the techy stuff, they want a minor, or the person they have a crush on is taking Lit 201... well sure, that'll be an extra $fewhundred, sign on the line here and show up at 9 AM Tuesday.

Part of the problem is that vocational education has kind of a blue-collar stigma. Sort of, "it's where kids go that can't hack college" or "that's for the disabled", instead of being a valid post-high school option for people who are either intellectually incapable of dealing with college or simply don't have higher ambitions.

[ray245]

I'll second the "we need more vocational education" thing.

Honestly: Higher education past high school is only really useful if you plan on following a fairly specific career path, and have the ambition and motivation to follow through. AND, it's only really going to benefit you (financially) if you *use* it. If your eventual career doesn't require all that work and expense, you just wasted 4+ years and whoever knows how much money.

For example: Would it be more efficient for a tech-nerd type to take 4 years of college for a BS Computer Science... those 4 years including stuff like Art and Biology, only vaguely relevant to the Comp Sci degree... or would it be better if instead their education was pared down what was required for the degree to courses that were directly applicable-- programming languages, electronic and computer hardware, constructing server systems, etc, and gave the Comp Sci degree for *that* in say two or three years instead of four or five? And if said tech-type nerd wants to take a few irrelevant classes because they want to have a mental break in between all the techy stuff, they want a minor, or the person they have a crush on is taking Lit 201... well sure, that'll be an extra $fewhundred, sign on the line here and show up at 9 AM Tuesday.

Part of the problem is that vocational education has kind of a blue-collar stigma. Sort of, "it's where kids go that can't hack college" or "that's for the disabled", instead of being a valid post-high school option for people who are either intellectually incapable of dealing with college or simply don't have higher ambitions.

Why not make vocational college an alternative to High School Education instead? Make it as an another alternative form of education after middle-school, while still ensuring it is possible for a vocational college grad to apply for university after 2-3 years? Isn't the bigger problem to do with high school diploma being essentially worthless as opposed to uni degrees becoming worthless?

[Elheru Aran]

Why not make vocational college an alternative to High School Education instead? Make it as an another alternative form of education after middle-school, while still ensuring it is possible for a vocational college grad to apply for university after 2-3 years? Isn't the bigger problem to do with high school diploma being essentially worthless as opposed to uni degrees becoming worthless?

Don't have time right now for a fuller answer, but that's a good thought, and as for your last question, it's a bit of both, a little more the high school degree being pretty much worthless but 4-year degrees are *frequently* not very useful, notably liberal-arts degrees. If you want to make money after uni, you get a business, science, legal or medical degree.

More later if I have time...

[whackadoodle]

I'll second the "we need more vocational education" thing.

Honestly: Higher education past high school is only really useful if you plan on following a fairly specific career path, and have the ambition and motivation to follow through. AND, it's only really going to benefit you (financially) if you *use* it. If your eventual career doesn't require all that work and expense, you just wasted 4+ years and whoever knows how much money.

For example: Would it be more efficient for a tech-nerd type to take 4 years of college for a BS Computer Science... those 4 years including stuff like Art and Biology, only vaguely relevant to the Comp Sci degree... or would it be better if instead their education was pared down what was required for the degree to courses that were directly applicable-- programming languages, electronic and computer hardware, constructing server systems, etc, and gave the Comp Sci degree for *that* in say two or three years instead of four or five? And if said tech-type nerd wants to take a few irrelevant classes because they want to have a mental break in between all the techy stuff, they want a minor, or the person they have a crush on is taking Lit 201... well sure, that'll be an extra $fewhundred, sign on the line here and show up at 9 AM Tuesday.

Part of the problem is that vocational education has kind of a blue-collar stigma. Sort of, "it's where kids go that can't hack college" or "that's for the disabled", instead of being a valid post-high school option for people who are either intellectually incapable of dealing with college or simply don't have higher ambitions.

Why not make vocational college an alternative to High School Education instead? Make it as an another alternative form of education after middle-school, while still ensuring it is possible for a vocational college grad to apply for university after 2-3 years? Isn't the bigger problem to do with high school diploma being essentially worthless as opposed to uni degrees becoming worthless?

Because that will increase the rate at which we will have people entering the economy? Especially entering the economy without "paying their dues", aka: taking on massive amounts of debt for shit degrees.

[ray245]

Because that will increase the rate at which we will have people entering the economy? Especially entering the economy without "paying their dues", aka: taking on massive amounts of debt for shit degrees.

That's already happening for people that went to vocational college. Moreover, there will still be people interested in entering universities because you would still want a degree if you need it for promotions and etc.

And you'll be able to ensure that you can get a steady supply of skilled labour in more technical fields.

[TheFeniX]

High school can and did support vocational classes in addition to basics. But vocational stuff costs money and it's harder to test on that than "The Civil war, fought over slavery, was not actually about slavery, but state's rights."

But politics and money is too tied up in the ISD system to make any real positive changes. When we're selling tomato paste on microwave pizzas as "a vegetable" and kids aren't allowed to watch presidential debates without express parental permission and even then: shit's broke. We're lucky were doing as well as we are.

Citation: married to a current teacher who works for the same ISD that chewed me up and spit me out. Things have actually become worse since I left considering AP classes are now a shit-fest. I know I shouldn't look, but the writing of her AP students...... Holy shit, they would have kicked my ass back down to Advanced or Academic if I turned the garbage these kids write.

And I can't even blame them for it because NCLB set us so far fucking back it's not even funny.

[Elheru Aran]

But politics and money is too tied up in the ISD system to make any real positive changes. When we're selling tomato paste on microwave pizzas as "a vegetable" and kids aren't allowed to watch presidential debates without express parental permission and even then: shit's broke. We're lucky were doing as well as we are.

I -think- ISD is 'Independent School District' (as opposed to an Imperial Star Destroyer) but I could be wrong... am I?

But yes, there is a -lot- of petty politics on the local and state levels tied up in education, and the way financial assistance for school districts is based upon test performance rather than anything else is screwed up.

Don't forget how in parts of the country (if not the whole country) some high school football programs can be worth almost as much as the rest of the school combined... high school athletics is ridiculous. Not quite as bad as college athletics, but it's up there.

[TheFeniX]

I -think- ISD is 'Independent School District' (as opposed to an Imperial Star Destroyer) but I could be wrong... am I?

Correct. In that ISD stands for Independent School District.

But yes, there is a -lot- of petty politics on the local and state levels tied up in education, and the way financial assistance for school districts is based upon test performance rather than anything else is screwed up.

Also of note are "food" companies who buy up all the uncooked ingredients from the school/supplier, grind it all into a paste, and sell it to students for (even though cheap) inflated prices. I can't find the report off-hand unfortunately, but it's big business to act as an intermediary for a school district. Much like MUD (Municipal Utility District) administration is passed onto private companies who handle everything and charge extra fees to taxpayers.

Don't forget how in parts of the country (if not the whole country) some high school football programs can be worth almost as much as the rest of the school combined... high school athletics is ridiculous. Not quite as bad as college athletics, but it's up there.

I live in Texas. I could rant for days.

[Elheru Aran]

So, in sum... American public education is totally fucked?

Well, I'm sure it's not -quite- that bad, but... yeah, it's pretty bad anyway, from at -least- late middle school or high school level all the way through college, mostly thanks to 'teaching the tests', lingering effects from NCLB, moves towards charter schools, a rise in the numbers of private schools (many of which have nearly no accountability to the states) and homeschoolers, and the ridiculous costs of education beyond the high-school level coupled with an insistence that said higher education is NOT optional "if you want a good job". Oh, let's not forget limited funding for -everything-... unless your school district does well in the tests and is mostly white and upper-class... but let it never be said that the footy team had to play in a shoddy stadium!

[ray245]

Why is anything that is related to national infrastructure and interest so shitty in the US?

Healthcare is in shambles, physical infrastructure like roads and bridges are a mess, education is pretty much all messed up as well. It just feel like the US is rather inefficient at spending money.

[Imperial528]

Because we've had decades of people living among structures (both physical and social) that were set up to run smoothly if they were maintained well, and they take one look at it and go "Hey I wonder how much money I can extract from this before it implodes. And I'll be rich by then so it's fine."

Bam, the United States.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Why is anything that is related to national infrastructure and interest so shitty in the US?

Healthcare is in shambles, physical infrastructure like roads and bridges are a mess, education is pretty much all messed up as well. It just feel like the US is rather inefficient at spending money.

Education is so wildly disparate across the nation for a few reasons. Among them is that funding for schools is mostly through local property tax. If property values are low, this'll jack over a school's funding. Then there's parental investment in a child's education. Kinda hard to help your kid out in school when you're working 80 hours a week. Kids in poverty often don't have reliable meals without discounted/free meal programs from school... Which requires funding.

Infrastructure gets a lot of its funding from taxes on gasoline, but those taxes for the most part have not been increased in decades. Part of why the US has such cheap petroleum-based fuels is because federal and state governments hardly tax them at all. Money collected via non-gas taxes may be "claimed" for infrastructure projects, but it can always get claimed by some other shit. What funding does get put toward roads goes toward the wealthier areas because they're more economically important, in theory.

Healthcare is an enormous mess, and many of the public healthcare systems are over-taxed to the point where they can hardly render services at the best of times... Unlike many other developed nations, the US has little to no regulation of how much medical services can charge. This jacks up costs a lot. Then there's student loan debt, which eats up a shitload of the earnings of starting medical practitioners of any field or level. Malpractice insurance is not cheap, either. And dealing with insurance companies is goddamn expensive, because each insurer has different paperwork they want filled out. And when they deny a claim that inevitably delays getting paid in-full as the patient goes to war with them and the insurer drags their feet.


One of the problems the US faces is that we haven't been expanding the number of government employees at the same rate as demand is placed on that government service. Then you get politicians in who decry how government sucks and can't get anything done, and when they're elected they promptly do everything they can to prove this.


The short answer to your question is: Incredible degrees of disparity in funding for everything, resulting in very skewed figures for how well-funded certain things are (education: where the well-funded districts that have a high degree of parental involvement are fucking fantastic, but poorer districts are... not) or what percent of funding is allocated to them. There's also the general allergy to regulations and a very high degree of belief that if you're poor you must be immoral and deserve it.

[Elheru Aran]

It also doesn't help that Federal oversight of public education basically boils down to 'do these tests every year' and 'they need to run a few laps and eat some salad'. Local education boards tend to have a ridiculous amount of power in comparison and effectively decide everything from what clothes children can wear in school to what they eat, and more critically, what schools get the most money and what they're teaching. The latter is mitigated to some degree by state involvement-- they can't outright cut off a school district, but they can come darn close.

There -have- been cases where the states step in and directly take over delinquent education boards, but they don't happen very often; usually what happens is that a school district chairman will get fed up with how little his district gets and complains, the state tells the board 'give him more money', they disburse a few dollars and call it a day, maybe the kids get some pepperoni on their pizza.

[Flagg]

A lot has to do with local level priorities. Some districts are excellent and have great graduation rates while the district next door is a dumpster fire.

I remember in FL we had the shittiest books, equipment, and a ton of classrooms in tornado magnet single wide trailers. Why? The huge number of elderly didn't want to pay higher taxes for education since their shithead kids graduated 30 years earlier in New Jersey.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, but you have to look at -why- the district is a 'dumpster fire'. Usually it comes back to how the money has been disbursed over time, migration patterns of the county residents, and whatnot. As noted above, wealthier districts tend to be that way because the rich people's kids (usually white) go there. Poorer districts... minorities, urban decline, low taxes, who the hell knows.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but you have to look at -why- the district is a 'dumpster fire'. Usually it comes back to how the money has been disbursed over time, migration patterns of the county residents, and whatnot. As noted above, wealthier districts tend to be that way because the rich people's kids (usually white) go there. Poorer districts... minorities, urban decline, low taxes, who the hell knows.

Yeah, and wealthy districts will usually have a higher number of 2 parent households where only one works full time so there is a higher amount of parental participation because you don't have a high amount of single (or both) parents working multiple jobs. I recall studies showing that higher parental participation led to higher GPA's and grad rates.

But I can say that for me, the school being a shithole with textbooks from before the Cold War ended gave the impression of low expectations along with not giving a damn. And the feeling became more than mutual.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, but you have to look at -why- the district is a 'dumpster fire'. Usually it comes back to how the money has been disbursed over time, migration patterns of the county residents, and whatnot. As noted above, wealthier districts tend to be that way because the rich people's kids (usually white) go there. Poorer districts... minorities, urban decline, low taxes, who the hell knows.

Yeah, and wealthy districts will usually have a higher number of 2 parent households where only one works full time so there is a higher amount of parental participation because you don't have a high amount of single (or both) parents working multiple jobs. I recall studies showing that higher parental participation led to higher GPA's and grad rates.

Also, having parents with university education around tends to encourage students because they see that the education has a decent end effect. At my school you could really tell whose parents had university educations and whose did not.

[Civil War Man]

One thing that may have gotten lost in the discussion here is that part of the sudden increase in Republican disdain for college is the spectre of liberal college students being allowed to protest when the administration or the College Republicans invite a right-wing speaker to the campus.