The all-inclusive Rutgers dumpster fire thread... | Page 436 | Syracusefan.com

The all-inclusive Rutgers dumpster fire thread...

I am fundamentally opposed to schools using endowments for sports. Beyond that, I believe most schools have lost their way, and will not remain viable long-term in their current model. Lots of endowments are going to be at risk.
I’m fundamentally opposed to schools with billions of dollars in endowments jacking up tuition at a record pace.
 
I’m fundamentally opposed to schools with billions of dollars in endowments jacking up tuition at a record pace.
Just have your kids take out loans to pay for majors that are useless, then they can default, or struggle to pay and will beg the government for help to relief them of their promise to repay. All part of the big plan.
 
I’m fundamentally opposed to schools with billions of dollars in endowments jacking up tuition at a record pace.
People get mad at me, but if government is going to assist with college education, they should only assist with professions which have a need and which will support fiscal responsibility.

We have need of engineers, scientists, technicians, medical personnel, etc. Do we really need as many psych, poly sci, anthropology and sociology degrees? Put the government's support behind the country's needs, it's not a difficult concept.

Further, the if a bank does not believe a student can pay back the loan (aptitude, future earnings, opportunity/job market for degree, etc.) It should be a good indicator that the student and/or the degree may not be worth supporting with government funds.
 
People get mad at me, but if government is going to assist with college education, they should only assist with professions which have a need and which will support fiscal responsibility.

We have need of engineers, scientists, technicians, medical personnel, etc. Do we really need as many psych, poly sci, anthropology and sociology degrees? Put the government's support behind the country's needs, it's not a difficult concept.

Further, the if a bank does not believe a student can pay back the loan (aptitude, future earnings, opportunity/job market for degree, etc.) It should be a good indicator that the student and/or the degree may not be worth supporting with government funds.
A choice of school should also be commensurate with anticipated pay level too. Why would someone go to Harvard to be a social worker for example?
 
People get mad at me, but if government is going to assist with college education, they should only assist with professions which have a need and which will support fiscal responsibility.

We have need of engineers, scientists, technicians, medical personnel, etc. Do we really need as many psych, poly sci, anthropology and sociology degrees? Put the government's support behind the country's needs, it's not a difficult concept.

Further, the if a bank does not believe a student can pay back the loan (aptitude, future earnings, opportunity/job market for degree, etc.) It should be a good indicator that the student and/or the degree may not be worth supporting with government funds.
In theory what you say makes sense, but it's a slippery slope. Many jobs require that the applicant have a bachelors degree without the requirement that the degree have anything to do with the job. And I'm willing to bet if someone researched it, we would find a system like that would place people in lower socio-economic positions at more of a disadvantage. Also, there are quite a few people that go to grad school for a specific career oriented degree after graduating with an undergrad degree that's unrelated. Some of those people wouldn't have that opportunity in such a regimented system.

The idea of loan forgiveness seems stupid to me, unless it's a deal made up front to encourage people to enter fields of greater need.
 
In theory what you say makes sense, but it's a slippery slope. Many jobs require that the applicant have a bachelors degree without the requirement that the degree have anything to do with the job. And I'm willing to bet if someone researched it, we would find a system like that would place people in lower socio-economic positions at more of a disadvantage. Also, there are quite a few people that go to grad school for a specific career oriented degree after graduating with an undergrad degree that's unrelated. Some of those people wouldn't have that opportunity in such a regimented system.

The idea of loan forgiveness seems stupid to me, unless it's a deal made up front to encourage people to enter fields of greater need.
If you want loan forgiveness just go work for an employer that will pay for an education ... there are many out there that do. Asking for loan forgiveness is ridiculous. As for socio-economic its all about what a student will put into an education .. the home life is what matters. Honestly the education system is such a joke now it actually makes my head hurt.

In areas with economic challenges they simply pay the poor tax (i.e. buy lotto tickets) and hope a scratch off changes their fortune. You can sign up for a training class on Udemy, pay a few hundred for a PersonVue certification test and get a well paying job for less than what people spend in a few months on scratch offs.
 
In theory what you say makes sense, but it's a slippery slope. Many jobs require that the applicant have a bachelors degree without the requirement that the degree have anything to do with the job. And I'm willing to bet if someone researched it, we would find a system like that would place people in lower socio-economic positions at more of a disadvantage. Also, there are quite a few people that go to grad school for a specific career oriented degree after graduating with an undergrad degree that's unrelated. Some of those people wouldn't have that opportunity in such a regimented system.

The idea of loan forgiveness seems stupid to me, unless it's a deal made up front to encourage people to enter fields of greater need.
It's far less a slippery slope than paying for useless degrees. Your arguments are as useful against you as they are for you. I.e. jobs which require a degree without a field of study are more likely to be filled by fluff degrees. Likewise, graduate schools accepting any undergrad as a prerequisite for acceptance into a grad program are also likely to add more fluff degreeholders than useful degree holders. In both cases, fluff degree holders with higher gpas may get the job over better qualified non-fluff degree holders with lower gpas.

That is where the market element comes in. Banks, when they are backing the loans, are fiscally minded and can be reasonably sure a degree in a particular program from a particular school has a value of X. However, lending without liability (government backed ducation loans) removes banks from liability and the general safeguards in place for responsible lending. This applies to grants as well, taxpayers are not getting any bang for their buck.

Regardless, we should stay on topic and bash Rutgers for failing to educate their students sufficiently to get legitimate jobs and avoid a practice of "hiring" their own grads to pad their stats.
 
It's far less a slippery slope than paying for useless degrees. Your arguments are as useful against you as they are for you. I.e. jobs which require a degree without a field of study are more likely to be filled by fluff degrees. Likewise, graduate schools accepting any undergrad as a prerequisite for acceptance into a grad program are also likely to add more fluff degreeholders than useful degree holders. In both cases, fluff degree holders with higher gpas may get the job over better qualified non-fluff degree holders with lower gpas.

That is where the market element comes in. Banks, when they are backing the loans, are fiscally minded and can be reasonably sure a degree in a particular program from a particular school has a value of X. However, lending without liability (government backed ducation loans) removes banks from liability and the general safeguards in place for responsible lending. This applies to grants as well, taxpayers are not getting any bang for their buck.

Regardless, we should stay on topic and bash Rutgers for failing to educate their students sufficiently to get legitimate jobs and avoid a practice of "hiring" their own grads to pad their stats.
I didn't say grad schools simply accept any undergrad as a prerequisite. For example, I took an athletic training class from a athletic trainer at SUNY Oswego. I forget what her undergrad was, but it had nothing to do with biology, healthcare, or sports. Somehow, by the end of her undergrad career she realized she wanted to be an athletic trainer. After she graduated she had to take extra prerequisite classes that pertained to athletic training and the GRE. She went to grad school and now, she's had a long career as an athletic trainer. Had she not gone to school in the first place she likely never figures that out. And I think that is even more likely the case for kids that come from socio economic backgrounds where neither parent is college educated and kids don't have the first clue of how to navigate college. And high schools do a horrible job of assisting those kids.

I agree higher education is screwed up. It's all about the money. There's no reason that over the course of about 10-15 years physical therapists went from needing a a bachelors degree to a doctorate. The rhetoric was that the higher degree should command more respect from MDs. There are a number of career oriented fields that require a more advanced degree than necessary, and you need the undergrad degree before you can get the grad degree. Most people aren't doing much with an undergrad in exercise science, but that is what is used most often as a "pre-physical therapy" degree. If banks don't issue loans for them, then it's just the kids with rich moms and dads that get to go to PT school. I also think far too many kids are steered to college when they would be better served in career tracks that involve apprenticeships. There's nothing wrong with being a welder, an electrician, a plumber, a HVAC technician, etc. But there's an implication in our culture that people that do that kind of work are less than those that are white collar professionals and so I think many people stay away.

You're right though, lets get back to bashing Rutgers. It's what they deserve.
 
He “will be” decommitting. Will there be a ceremony at an appointed time where he takes off a Rutty hat and puts it back on the table or tosses it aside?
I can see the ceremony now. He solemnly removes his Rutgers hat to reveal...his hair shaved into the shape of a camel toe.

(Forgive me Father for I have sinned)
 
I remember Schiano was one of the first college coaches to recruit Europe. He is always looking for new places to find people so desperate that would be willing to consider going to RU,

Desperate times call for desperate measures. This will probably make Rutgers better. Pretty sure Rutgers has produced more stars in this industry than any other college in the country. A lot of these people are alums.
 
I remember Schiano was one of the first college coaches to recruit Europe. He is always looking for new places to find people so desperate that would be willing to consider going to RU,

Desperate times call for desperate measures. This will probably make Rutgers better. Pretty sure Rutgers has produced more stars in this industry than any other college in the country. A lot of these people are alums.
SU produced Lexington Steele
 

Similar threads

    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
0
Views
584
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
1
Views
752
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Thursday for Football
Replies
3
Views
579
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
3
Views
955
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
4
Views
910

Forum statistics

Threads
170,622
Messages
4,902,047
Members
6,005
Latest member
CuseCanuck

Online statistics

Members online
255
Guests online
1,376
Total visitors
1,631


...
Top Bottom