On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 23:01:44 -0500
> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Would it have been any more precise if I'd said "political leaders
>> and policy intellectuals and others with power over public finances"?
>
> Yes, it would have been more precise, and the advantage of that
> is that it would have been obviously wrong -- or let's say, greatly
> oversimplified. Some of these people have come around to thinking
> the proles should have nothing; others still think they need lots
> of indoctrination.
So why are state legislatures cutting aid to state universities? The better to indoctrinate?
Why this?
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/College.html
> These costs are keeping students from poorer families out of college. Thanks to the invaluable work of Tom Mortenson, publisher of Postsecondary Education Opportunity, we’ve got an excellent handle on how this has played out over time. Overall, 17% of Americans had a bachelor’s degree by age 24 in 1970. By 2008, that had risen strongly, to 29%. But, as the graphs on the top of p. 5 show, this increase has been driven mainly by the children of the well-off. The share of kids from the bottom 25% of the income distribution getting a degree by 24 rose from 6% to 9%; for the top 25%, it rose from 55% to 95%.
More from the non-smart-alec(k):
> Education is one thing; the institutions that currently purport to
> provide it, quite another.
Easy for you to say, comrade.
Doug