Christian Academics Hiding on Campus

 By Professor Doom

     The recent documentary showing Christianity and bible verses being blocked on Pinterest as "hate speech," or at least controversial, whilst other religions get a free pass, not to mention a pro-Life organization being blocked as a porn site (and then the documentary being blocked on YouTube because reasons), leads me to a very slowly growing issue in higher ed.

 

     The culture of fear which encompasses many of our campuses is due to the ideological takeover—say the wrong thing, and it’s off to re-education camp. It’s been known for years that if you have conservative views, it’s best not to mention them until after tenure, which for many faculty means “never.”

     It’s possible to keep your mouth shut and not talk about conservative ideas for years, but what happens if you happen to be part of another group converged campuses despise, Christians? Oh, you don’t need to wear a crucifix, you can avoid the death-sentence of proselytizing on campus, and with discipline you can keep your mouth shut when Jesus or Christian beliefs get besmirched…but some parts of Christianity are tough to hide.

      Take down the crucifix (or two) in your home? Ok. Perhaps you can rationalize to co-workers why you’re putting your kids in private schools (you are an educator, after all). But what happens if you’re caught in the grocery store or eating out after church on Sunday? You’ll be caught dead to rights…and your career will be stunted.

      Think I’m joking? A recent letter reinforces some things I’ve seen with my own eyeballs:

Quiet Christian Academic Resisters

 

      I know, a letter is simply an anecdote, but I feel the need to confirm the things this letter says:

 

…American academics with tenure who will not “stand up” against the SJWs.

 

        While tenure is often presented as “job for life,” the protections from tenure aren’t that great—it basically means that if you’re fired (and you absolutely can be fired), you have the right to fight for ten years or more to get your job back. Not everyone has that kind of strength or wealth to spend. Of course, today tenure can be retroactively removed…it means nothing.

      So no, tenured professors won’t speak out any more than the “temp” faculty. Yes, in theory, if all the faculty rose up simultaneously, perhaps it would work. Trouble is, admin controls hiring, and “spinelessness” is as much a part of the job description as “supports social justice,” has been for years. I’ve been on campuses where the bulk of the faculty were invertebrates…nobody is going to speak up for you if try to say something even so feeble as “it’s ok to be white.”

I wanted to assure you that there are many professors (tenured and not) in this country who are steadily taking positions informed by their Christian beliefs week in and week out. They know that in doing so they are gradually giving their administrations and coworkers a treasure-trove list that is updated, recorded, and hidden away in the faculty file record…

 

     Again, I saw things in my “permanent record” as faculty at a scammy school (I was on good terms with the head secretary; she was fired for warning family away from the community college….so I got to see some things), yes, they really do keep a long-running record. When it’s time to get rid of you, you can bet things you said and did a decade or more ago will be brought up.

      Granted, anyone following the news, where even a supreme court nominee has to answer for alleged things he did in high school, won’t find such a claim surprising.

       If the rules suddenly change so that “having a Crucifix on display in your home” is now a hate crime, you better believe they’ll bring up mention of such in that file. I know, the gentle (and somewhat ignorant) reader might find this outlandish, but when one considers how much “our” culture has changed in even the last five years (try telling a “gay joke” today, for example), it’s no stretch to be concerned at these files, and what’s in them.

 

“…American academics could be doing more (as we all could) to speak up against the errant ideologies held by the SJWs.”

      Errant ideologies? Errant! That’s bold talk. You better believe this is an anonymous letter. I’ve long since lost track of the number of pointedly anonymous complaints against what’s going on in higher ed today. I’ve had people laugh at the things I say because of my  “ridiculous” pseudonym…but I do it in homage of all the anonymous complainers (CNN tracked down and threatened to have killed the guy who made a meme they didn’t like, in a matter of hours—not days!—so I have no illusions how well I’m protected by my public anonymity).

For what it’s worth, we (as parents) are not actively trying to encourage any of our three children (about the same ages as yours) to pursue academia as a way to support themselves or their families in adulthood…

 

     Truly, one of the most damning indictments against an industry is when people in that industry do not wish to subject their children to it. I still remember the look of disgust on the Dean’s face when I suggested she send her children to the school she was Dean at…it was one of many hints that something was going far wrong in higher ed. Luckily, a “medical oops” killed my son before I would have to make the decision about if he should enter higher ed. I grant I probably would still do so, but I would watch over him very, very, closely when he did so, being careful to see he went to one of the few legit schools remaining.

      …they need to have some kind of vocational training (electrician, plumber, etc…???) to fall back on when their Christian principles get them into “trouble.”

 

     Christians, or various branches of such, have been targeted for oppression as much as (if not moreso than) any other religion, and have a strong tradition of being able to hide well (there’s even a well-hidden Christian culture in China, able to survive Mao).  It’s no great stretch to believe Christians on campus are already going into hiding…it’s simply prudent behavior based on what we’ve seen in the last few years.

      They’ve come for the people who care about students and education more than loot. They’ve come for people with integrity. They’ve come for the conservatives. Yeah, I can see why Christians might be a little worried they’re the next to be taken off campus.

 

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

 

College Loses $11 Million For Sponsoring Racial Protest...And $33 Million More In Punitive

By Professor Doom

    Oberlin College has made my blog a few times, as its convergence, takeover by Leftist ideologues, causes it to behave in ever more insane ways.

     Most recently, Oberlin harassed a baker who dared to get some of the students arrested for shoplifting, as well as physically assaulting the shopkeeper. Although the kids initially denied it, eventually they plead guilty to the charges, but not before Oberin's admin launched a hate-filled campaign against the bakery--supporting the violent criminal students (who fill the pockets of admin via the student loan scam) rather than getting rid of people who clearly aren't there for the education.

     In addition to calling the baker RACIST, the school even organized dangerous protests outside the bakery. The baker, naturally, thought this was too much, and decided to take them to court for the school's racism and instigation of violence:

“..sued Oberlin and dean of students Meredith Raimondo for slander. The lawsuit accuses college staffers of encouraging protests against the bakery by cancelling classes, distributing flyers, and supplying demonstrators with free food and drink. It claims that in a protest, Raimondo used a bullhorn and distributed flyers that said the bakery is a "RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”

     The school of course denied everything, even though there was plenty of video, eyewitness testimony, and other physical evidence. Why would they bother with such a denial? Because admin are used to resolving such things in the kangaroo campus court system, where they can "legally" destroy evidence and throw out cases for lack of evidence. They never lose in that system.

      Trouble is, the baker isn't subject to that system, and so took them to the "real" court system, where admin couldn't just threaten the judge and jury into doing whatever they want. How'd that work out for Oberlin?

The $11 Million Libel Verdict Against Oberlin College Is A Threat To Colleges Nationwide

     I've lost track of how many times a supremely confident college admin gets completely toasted once they're put in a system they don't completely control. Of course, admin doesn't have that much skin in the game, as the college, not the actual human beings performing the acts, will pay the fines. At worst, the administrators involved will cry all the way home to their lakefront properties.

      The article I'm quoting from is one of the few that actually thinks this verdict against the oppression of Oberlin is a bad thing, and there is potential for things to get even worse for Oberlin:

An Ohio jury has awarded Gibson’s Bakery $11 million in damages in its libel suit against Oberlin College. This week, that same jury could award punitive damages that would increase the total amount of damages to more than $30 million.

    If this seems excessive, keep in mind Oberlin has basically destroyed this bakery. There will never be an apology from Oberlin or otherwise an admission of error. That arranging and inciting the protests in no way helped education is besides the point, as far as Oberlin is occurred.

     In fact, the jury today awarded an additional $33 million in punitive damages. Forbes is against that, too, but based on Oberlin's behavior, I see the jury's point.

      But why is a verdict discouraging getting involved in racist activity a "threat" to colleges nationwide? Be prepared to laugh:

However, Oberlin’s most important defense is far more meritorious. (I should disclose here that I am an Oberlin alum.) The college should not be held legally responsible for statements made by students or faculty who are not speaking for the college as a whole.

     I agree with the part about students and faculty but a dean was involved. Faculty cancelled classes to make the riots/protests larger...but admin didn't penalize faculty for doing so. Admin allowed resolutions to pass, without challenge, calling the bakers RACIST. 

      Bottom line, the ideologues running the school absolutely were using the power of the school to destroy a bakery. It's a shame the ideologues won't be held responsible for it, however.

The student senate is not controlled by the college and allowing the senate to post its resolution on college property is not tantamount to an official endorsement of that resolution.

       Again, I agree, but...the school could have come out on the side of truth. Because our schools regularly shut down and remove signs saying things they don't agree with, I think it's fair to consider signs on campus not taken down to be delivering messages the school approves. They shouldn't have it both ways, and the jury agreed.

Gibson’s attorneys also made much of the fact that some Oberlin administrators attended the protests. But, of course, Oberlin would want to have a presence at the protests to ensure both student safety and that students were respecting the law. This verdict tells colleges that if they send administrators to watch out for student safety they can be sued for millions of dollars. 

      This is a nice spin, and if "student safety" were why admin was there, the author would have a point. Too bad about the evidence showing the dean was encouraging the protest. Honest, if our schools could get out of the racism business and focus on education, this stuff would be a non-issue.

       Despite the author's admitted bias, he does concede Oberlin did wrong:

None of this is to say that Oberlin or its students acted well. All three of the students at the center of the controversy pled guilty and conceded at their sentencing hearing that they were not racially profiled. The protests against Gibson’s were organized before there was any reasonable opportunity to ascertain the facts and were an ill-advised rush to judgment.

      What entity organized the protest? Who endorsed the cancelling of classes? Who endorsed the libelous signage and flyers? Who provided refreshments at the protest? If it wasn't Oberlin, and the jury sure believed it was, then who?

      A great quote from the dean with the bullhorn:

Meredith Raimondo, The Oberlin Vice President and Dean of students, texted other administrators about a faculty member who was critical of how the college handled the situation, writing, “(Expletive) him, I’d say unleash the students if I wasn’t convinced this needs to be put behind us.”

     Considering admin's typical respect and professional treatment of faculty here, I'm hard pressed to hold this particular faculty responsible for the college's behavior, though I expect the dean will (expletive) him at some point. The faculty who marched in lockstep with administrative desires? Well, maybe they believe in this gook, or maybe they simply feared the dean...there's an implicit threat in the above that I expect would be expressed more explicitly in mandatory faculty meetings held about this affair. My  own eyeballs have seen similar, after all.

     The gentle reader should note carefully the lack of the word "former" in giving the long, long, title of the dean here. Could it be fear she might "unleash the students" that's prevented her removal? That would be speculation on my part...but it once again provides evidence that the students didn't magically appear at the bakery. Moreover, faculty are right to fear the dean's unleashing of students upon them.

But to punish a college for not reining in its students, administrators, and faculty even when they are not speaking on the college’s behalf represents an extraordinary threat to academic freedom and to freedom of speech.

      Seeing as colleges regularly rein in anyone on campus who expresses thoughts not approved of by admin (or as the dean so eloquently puts it, "(expletive) him"), then, yes, they need to take responsibility when they express libelous or otherwise damaging things. 

      Again, the whole issue could be avoided if schools got out of the racism business...that won't happen on converged campuses, however.

The jury pool, in this case, is from a community that is significantly more conservative than the college is.

      Of course, most every campus is run by ideologues who don't remotely accept (or tolerate) the beliefs of the taxpayers supporting them. Perhaps we should consider how that happened, and change it?

      Alas, Forbes doesn't allow comments, so there's no way to judge how wrong most people consider this article. As I endure what I hope to be my last round of experimental chemo, I have no choice but to wonder if I'm alone in thinking Forbes is a bit off the mark here.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Forgiving Student Loans Is Useless Without Punishing The Thieving Schools

By Professor Doom

     Another election is on the horizon, and already politicians are getting votes in the usual way: promising “free stuff.” Normally, I’m against the notion of getting something for “free” from the government, but I have an exception for student loan forgiveness, for many of the victims of our higher education system.

      Lest the gentle reader think he detects the smell of…hypocrisy, I point out that many student loans were for nothing, as the so-called education and degrees were bogus. So, the government isn’t giving something (student loan forgiveness) for something (degrees and education), it’s giving nothing (fake money created from nothing) for nothing (a worthless degree).

      Determining who exactly would be eligible for such forgiveness is straightforward: any student willing to forfeit his degree and all college credit, working at least 2 years in a job where the degree/education is of no market value, should be eligible. That’s just a stray thought, and I admit it has room for exploitation, and it’s unlikely to be used because there’s too much money to be made off kids suckered by this system. The student loan forgiveness idea has a bigger problem, however:

      The scammy schools (this includes, for-profit, non-profit, and state schools) are off the hook for ripping off students, and making a fortune off them even as the taxpayer was forced to provide that fortune via student loans.

      We can forgive the loans, but as long as we allow these types of schools to get away with it, we’ll just have this problem again in a few years. In fact, the problem will be bigger—if students know that mass forgiveness is likely to happen, they’ll be willing to take out even bigger loans! So, the promise of student loan forgiveness by some political candidates is just typical government: creating bigger problems while trying to solve other problems government created (it’s similar to how amnesty for illegal aliens, given in the past, has worked out for today…).

      This is why when I mentioned student loan forgiveness, I also mention fixing accreditation—every school taking student loan money is accredited, and accreditation rules can shut down those schools in a heartbeat any time they want…just need to enforce the rules. I’d love to claw back the money from the thieving schools (more accurately, the “leaders” of such schools), but I know that’s politically and logistically difficult. Shutting them down is comparatively easier.

    

      A recent article in the Washington Examiner actually manages to express ideas I expressed years ago, though they know nothing of accreditation (forgivable, almost nobody knows anything about it), and never gets around to suggesting even roughly how to punish the schools:

There's no point forgiving student loans if you don't punish their schools' greed

     It’s certainly a good title, let’s see what they have to say:

Warren wants to eliminate some or all student debt for those with incomes as high as $250,000. Those making less than $100,000 annually stand to benefit most, with forgiveness of up to $50,000 of student debt. She wants to finance this (of course) with a wealth tax on fortunes greater than $50 million.

      Warren’s ploy is a good one: we have around 50,000,000 voters with student loan debt, and average debt is around $30,000 (both numbers are rising fast). So, offering the equivalent of free money could capture 50,000,000 votes, not bad at all. I’d hope those 50,000,000 are educated enough to know a critical theorem about the existence of free lunches, but I know about how very little most of them learned while racking up those debts.

Until market discipline is imposed on free-spending and tuition-hiking college administrators, no amount of loan forgiveness will ever be enough to give students a fair deal for their money.

      The above is certainly correct. You know how we’ll get market discipline? End the student loan scam. The paper doesn’t have the balls to say that. Oh well.

This is also why Obama's administration controversially, but to our mind admirably, cracked down on the many for-profit colleges that had sprung up to take advantage of the over-generous government subsidies that were coming ultimately at students' expense.

      The paper nearly snaps its back putting praise on Obama but…no. Student loan debt went up over half a trillion dollars under Obama’s reign, well more than doubled. I sure don’t recall any “crack down” beyond one big school. I’m not saying Obama is responsible for our student loan mess (he honestly isn’t), but I’m hard pressed to give him credit for slowing it down when all measures saw acceleration.

The decline and fall of the traditional model of the university is probably just around the corner, and everyone should be cheering it on. Instead of propping up institutions whose relevance is already waning, government should support state-level efforts to make higher education more affordable through online learning and other means of modernization of reputable educational institutions.

--emphasis added

      I’m not convinced the paper is right about this. Gatherings of scholars, the traditional model of a university, have occurred in every civilization, over the course of thousands of years. Now, our system of student loans has warped this, and it’s clear the paper believes “traditional model” is the same as “today’s model.” This is patently false. The days of today’s model of the university (most places), as a central indoctrination center to push ideology and extract student loan money, are probably numbered, but the traditional model of gatherings of scholars is unlikely to end (in fact, proto-universities, of scholars gathering away from “traditional” schools, are starting to form anew, these gatherings often supplemented by internet connection, of course).

     “Online learning” just isn’t going to help, neither lowering prices nor addressing the real problem of worthless degrees, as I’ve discussed in detail many times before.

By expanding their educational programs to a broader base,…

     I’ve deleted the rest of the quote because of the sheer idiocy of it. We already have huge online schools, they already have a massive base…and they’re failing hard, burying students in student loan debt for worthless degrees. It’s a real shame the paper doesn’t know easily accreditation could fix this problem, and an even bigger shame is the article doesn’t allow comments so readers such as myself could help them out.

www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

Admissions Scandal Libertarians Losing Their Way

By Professor Doom



     As I’ve mentioned a few times, my political leanings are Libertarian, though I find myself ever more understanding humanity is a long way from being evolved sufficiently for Libertarian ideals to work. That said, Libertarianism, basically the opposite of Socialism, hasn’t gotten over 100,000,000 people killed like Socialism…granted, this is most likely because it’s never been tried, even as we continue to find willing populaces willing to try, yet again, Socialism.


      The Mises Institute supports Austrian economics, one of the foundations of Libertarianism. I saw an article on MI’s site…the author really missed the huge point, even as he said many of the things I’ve already said.


     Economic Stratification and College Admission




     Let me go real quick over the libertarian position on people paying extra money to get into private schools: so what? If I were in McDonald’s (bear with me), and some guy paid an extra $100 to cut in front of me…I might not like it much, but I wouldn’t feel completely outraged. 


      Many of our theme parks, in fact, offer a “fast pass” option, where visitors can pay that kind of money just to cut lines (I’ve used it, in fact, saves a couple hours of standing in line on a typical day).


      “But only so many people can get accepted, those bribes are hurting the poor!” is the basic of the counter-argument, but…no. There are other schools, and ivy league schools are never going to be able to take everyone, anyway. I’m not saying there weren’t some fraudulent aspects of the admissions scandal, but…in principle, letting the wealthy pay extra for admission into an expensive school is hardly a bad thing.


       I again point out that it’s always been this way to some extent. The “bribe money” was normally given to scholars however, who would use the money for scholarships for poor kids to get into school, or otherwise improving education, instead of enriching our admin.


    But the article I’ve linked doesn’t mention any of this, and goes in every other direction:


American politicians are demanding that college be free and open to everyone, but at the same time they are helping to create a political economy that demands a college degree even for lines of work that should not require higher education at all. As this country makes the unfortunate transition from an entrepreneurial market economy to one that is becoming increasingly dependent upon political power, college takes on an oversized role. The greatest irony is that higher education in the USA is becoming as important to one’s financial future as it was in the former Soviet Union even outside the so-called professions.




      I…um…no. A supreme court ruling a few generations ago is what led to this “college degree is mandatory” madness. “Government created the problem which government is now trying to solve” is a common Libertarian theme, but a Libertarian site should do a better job of correctly identifying how the problem was created.


     The author, much like I did, points out Bill Gates managed to do fine without a college degree, but uses it not to demonstrate how a degree really isn’t necessary for success, but rather as a lead-in to the benefits of entrepreneurship: 


Entrepreneurial skills are internal, and while one can teach about entrepreneurship, it is difficult, if not impossible, to teach someone how to be an entrepreneur, yet those are the skills most needed for a market economy to grow, expand, and prosper. In reality, the success of the professions depends upon the strength of the business sector, which in turn depends heavily upon the success of American entrepreneurs, and yet, entrepreneurship does not depend upon the prestige of higher education.




     All well and good, but I’m not sure how this relates to the admission scandal. He then goes on to rail against the USSR, again not much of a factor in the scandal. While what he says it true, railing against the evils of the USSR is a bit dated.


     It’s pretty much how he finishes off:


The U.S. economy has not yet reached the miserable Soviet standard, but as state power over the economy grows, and as more and more Americans demand a socialist regime, we are seeing the emergence of what Florida State University economist Randy Holcombe calls political capitalism. According to Holcombe, political capitalism is defined as “an economic and political system in which the economic and political elite cooperate for their mutual benefit,” and in which “the profitability of business is determined by political connections rather than by the satisfaction of consumer preferences.”




      Again, the above is true, and it does seem like my successful friends are strictly those with political connections. But I still think there’s more worth saying about the admissions scandal, and the very first commenter agrees with me:


One question related to this "scandal" that has not been asked -- but which is a stark reminder of the state's brutality -- is why on earth anyone should get thrown into a brutal cage (prison) for the relevant actions? Why is cage time always the state's answer? Let the universities involved take action against the relevant individuals, either suing for compensation for losses suffered, if applicable, or excluding them from future interaction.




     Indeed! The parents of the kids are going to jail over this, some of them, and I’m hard pressed to understand the exact crime, why it should be a crime, and why a jury trial is out of the question here (granted, only a jury filled with Libertarians would be sure to let the parents go, but still…).


     I really do love sites with comments sections, because so often those comments point out glaring issues ignored by the site, such as the above.


    Another commenter misses a point, but it’s easy to miss:


I can't for the life of me understand why the only people I see getting crucified in this are the parents, who just used their own money to advance the interests of their children, while the people and colleges that were more than happy to be corrupt, have skated through without a blemish.




      Why are the colleges getting away without a scratch? An easy question any Libertarian can answer: they’re politically connected. I’m not convinced these bribes are fundamentally illegal, but if offering a bribe is illegal, taking one should be too, right? If the schools/admin aren’t going to take a penalty here, then the parents shouldn’t either. Neither should in my opinion, of course, although it should be shouted loudly how this bribe money isn’t going to help education, like it used to do in the past.


      Anyway, not every Libertarian article is a winner, so I guess I’ll let it slide…shame the government can’t turn down the opportunity to put more people in cages, though.



www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

National Review: End Student Loans

By Professor Doom



    It’s no secret I’m against the student loan scam, but I’ve been fairly alone in identifying one of the two core problems with our higher education system (the other is corrupted accreditation). Don’t get me wrong, the Leftist takeover, student-as-customer paradigm, adjunctification, bureaucratization, boiler-room classes, and quite a few other problems are all issues…but these all only exist because of the two core problems.


      Our course, our “mainstream” media doesn’t seem to see any problems here, and anyone who questions the narrative of “all is well (outside of the evil orange man)” is branded as “alt right” or a Nazi, or sexistracisthomophobe. A recent site I’ve heard called “alt right” actually dares to say what I’ve been saying for years:


An Idea for Student Loans: Get Rid of Them



     Just as my plan is simple (shut it down immediately), the National Review likewise sees things as straightforward, keeping it to three steps, though I’ll clarify:


Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans.




      That’s the key part of my plan. Our government needs to get out of the loan-making business. Just as government-backed loans warped real estate, so too have they demented higher education beyond recognition of what it’s supposed to be. Government needs to also get out of the loan-enforcing business, as it’s the reason we have so many students ridiculously deep in debt for bogus education—neither the Federal government nor any private banks worry about the loans being for a bogus product, as the government will enforce recovery of the loan.


     Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions or, if that seems too heavy-handed, require the application of ordinary credit standards in any private educational lending, treating the student himself as the main credit risk in all cases, including those of secured or unsecured loans taken out by parents or other third parties for that student’s educational expenses.




       This does seem a bit heavy-handed and needlessly complicated. Without Federal enforcement of recovery, banks would be on the hook for loans going into default…they’ll be applying credit standards in any event. I suspect the banks will figure out very quickly that it’s a bad idea to grant loans for bogus educations.


And 3: It should make student-loan debt dischargeable in ordinary bankruptcy procedures.




     Federal enforcement of recovery is a factor in why bankruptcy doesn’t get rid of these debts. As much as I hate retro-active changing of agreements, I think we need to do the above, insofar as the judge in the procedure will have the opportunity to see that the loan was made on false pretenses of a legitimate education being provided. Seeing as most loans were fraudulently made, we should open this possibility, even if looking at it on a case-by-case basis would be problematic. We have around fifty million people with student loan debt, so that’s many cases…maybe a blanket repudiation would be better, simply as a matter of efficiency.


It is time to shut down the Bank of Uncle Stupid.




     The National Review thinks the government is “stupid” for making these loans, and I certainly see their point. I do feel the need to point out our government may be “stupid like a fox,” if the gentle reader can forgive the mangling of the cliché. 


     Our higher education administrative caste rakes in huge amounts of money from the student loan scam, and many of those administrators are drawn from our political caste…the same set of politicians profiting so greatly from the student loan scam are the same ones who keep the scam going. Our government may be stupid, but the people setting up the “stupid” system are doing great by it. It’s why there’s no political momentum to stop a system ruining the lives of tens of millions of our citizens supposedly being represented by our government.


A senior official of my alma mater, the University of Texas, once caused a stir by confessing — in public — that UT Austin doesn’t need to charge tuition at all but does so mainly as a population-control mechanism. The problem, he said, wasn’t money as such but the fact that the state would not let him raise admissions standards.




      It’s really worth pointing out most everyone in the state school system, looks at the taxpayer support, looks at the old buildings long since paid for, looks at all the tax breaks…and realizes we’re grotesquely overcharging the students. Most state schools (particularly the ones using minimally paid adjuncts) can address their overhead--actual expenses, not counting plundering fiefdoms and million-a-year Poo-Bahs--for a class with what 2 or 3 students are paying for it. Private schools run around 5 students a class before they turn a profit in terms of direct costs (fewer for pure online).


       And yet we commonly have classes with a hundred or more students. The profit margins are huge here…and yet tuition keeps rising, as does the number of Vice Presidents of Excellence in campus fiefdoms no student or faculty will ever see.


If you make a few gazillion dollars available to finance tuition payments with underwriting standards a little bit lower than those of the average pawn shop, you create a lot of potential tuition inflation. Another way of saying this is that if Uncle Stupid puts a trillion bucks on the table, there are enough smart people at Harvard to figure out a way to pick it up.


--NR is wrong here, the underwriting standards are much, much, lower than a pawn shop’s, as no collateral whatsoever need exist.




     The National Review advances a “theory” about the rising tuition, namely the idea of inflation. They mean inflation in the economics sense, instead of how most people view it, as rising prices. Economic inflation refers to an increase in the money supply. The National Review is certainly correct that rising tuition is due to the huge increase in the supply of money for tuition, provided by the student loan scam. 


     Good for them, for getting this right in an article I’m quoting from April of 2019. Thing is, Libertarians have been explaining this concept for decades now, and I encourage the highly motivated reader to read the works of the great Ludwig Von Mises to get a grasp of economic theories that actually work for humans, instead of Keynesian theories which really only work for governments and people connected to the same.


So, let’s cut the Gordian knot here. Don’t reform student lending, don’t try to lower the interest rates or create special debt subsidies for college graduates who follow careers of which the people with political power approve. Just get rid of it. With a meat ax.




      Ultimately, the plan is simple. It’s a shame only “Nazis” can see what needs to be done here, but the source of the idea is irrelevant next to the validity of the idea. The author of the piece I’m quoting from doesn’t understand the reasons why this simple idea has not been executed long since, and he doesn’t understand how universities of today work, either:


There are lots of smart people at the universities. Or so we’re told. If they can’t figure out how to teach the liberal arts or accounting without dipping into the Bank of Uncle Stupid with both hands and all available snouts, then maybe somebody else should give it a try.




     Oh, there are smart people at the universities, and they’re teaching liberal arts, accounting, and quite a few other subjects. The teachers, the faculty, aren’t the ones dipping into the Bank of Uncle Sam, it’s the ”leaders” running the universities. Those “leaders” are also the ones, to a great extent, responsible for making Uncle Sam so willing to write the student loan checks, alas. While you can certainly point the finger at the faculty for turning over the reins of power to the plunderers who run the system now, that happened long ago, and the finger-pointing is likewise irrelevant compared to what needs to be done now: End. The. Student. Loan. Scam.



www.professorconfess.blogspot.com

More Money To Be Wasted On Failed Community Colleges

By Professor Doom



     It really is remarkable how when a government program or agency fails, the response is to pour even more taxpayer money on it. Just as the epic failures of our CIA/FBI/Military on 911 only led to huge expansions of their already huge budgets, so too do we see the same thing when it comes to government higher education:

Reinvesting in Community Colleges



    In my book I detail the massive potential for academic fraud in our higher education system, a potential that has been almost fully realized in our community college system. Some highlights from my blog:


70% of community college students fail.


90% of community college is high school or lower level work. About 25% is 6^th grade level.


Community College is unhinged; what they put on paper  to show accreditors is nothing like what actually goes on in the classrooms.


On time graduation rates of 0.6% or 0.7% are common, and few schools break 20%.


     The above are either my calculations based on studies, or studies themselves, or actual data provided by the schools themselves. The article I’m quoting from gives different numbers, but not much different:


About 62 percent of students entering community college fail to complete a degree or certificate within six years, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.




     I say about 70%, they say about 62% of students fail to get a degree within 6 years...but either way this is ridiculous for a 2 year school. Imagine if you went to a restaurant, told you up front there was a 2 hour wait, paid exorbitantly for a meal, and got nothing after 6 hours…how long would that restaurant stay in business? Would there be calls to pour more money into it? Of course not.


      The reason why community colleges fail so hard is because they’re designed from the top-down with fraud and plunder in mind. Faculty are utterly powerless there, as they never had any power to begin with, unlike our state universities, where, for example, the remnants of that power managed to eventually reveal the systemic fraud at UNC (it took 18 years but still…).


      The gentle reader can guess that the reason we should pour more money into this colossally failing system will be diversity:


Community colleges enroll large numbers of low-income students, who increasingly are students of color.




     “Increasingly”? But the narrative is only “people of color” are low-income, or at least that’s what the narrative says. Still, why don’t they mention that these are the people being most ripped off by this system?


“The federal government continues to increase the Pell Grant, which all of us support, but there is some feeling among members of Congress that states need to do their part as well,”




     The Pell Grant scam is the most glaring example of the extreme fraud inherent in the community college system. The grant is often for more than tuition, so students get “refunds” on their grant, on a holiday that you won’t find on the academic calendar: Check Day. This is the day the refunds are given to the students, many of which disappear from campus, never to return. Attendance typically drops 50% or more after Check Day.


      There are wandering herds of students who go from campus to campus, collecting these free checks. There’s no way to track them, because our hordes of ridiculously highly paid administrators (the Poo-Bah can be paid more than the total tuition collected, due to extensive taxpayer support) don’t have time to record the names of students ripping off the system. That 90% of the Pell money goes to the college might be a factor here in why this fraud is systemic. I’ve covered this in some detail before, however.


Private, four-year colleges spend an average of $72,000 per full-time student each year, the report found, which is five times more than the $14,000 community colleges typically spend. Public universities spend $40,000 each year on full-time students.




     They might spend that kind of money, but they sure don’t spend it on the students. A typical college adjunct gets $2,500 to teach a course, and a student can easily take 4 courses a semester (i.e., 4 adjuncts). A college class can easily have 30 students (with hundreds quite possible), so we’re looking at around $666 a year being spent on the student. The rest of that $14,000 goes to admin.


     Honest, pouring more money into this system is pure stupid. Why are we doing this again?


…as we move to a higher population that is more African American and more Latino, there is less enthusiasm among some parts of the American voting public for investing in those students and communities.”




      Gee whiz, playing the RACISM card? The systemic academic and fiscal fraud has nothing to do with it, really?


“…the country should create a national lunch program for higher education.”




     Seeing as the bulk of community college work is high school or lower level material, this makes a little sense in that respect, but…NO. These students are now adults, they have cars, they have cell phones, they can feed themselves without taxpayer support, honest. Community college students have been feeding themselves for many decades now, we don’t need to waste tax dollars on that as well.


     This is honestly where we’re at now: our public education system has failed so horribly that incoming “college” freshmen read at the 7^th grade level on average. Most of them are piling into community college, where most of them fail utterly, with a few managing to pull off some worthless associate’s degree that means nothing. This system has failed horribly, and we think the problem is that the free tuition isn’t enough, they also need free lunches as well.


     And if you don’t buy into it, you’re a RACIST. 


     Unbelievable.



www.professorconfess.blogspot.com