Guccifer casts out Hillary

[kandrathe]

Well, rights are rights.

That's the U.N. charter\declaration though. While it is nice and all, and to be more serious while the UN charter contain some agreeable things. It's probably more practical to discuss the U.S. and the states laws on the matter, when you're discussing education in the USofA.

Yes. I feel in many ways the UNCHR is more comprehensive, and built upon various western nations constitutions. My unspoken premise being that the US has not determined basic education (or others like health care) as a acknowledged right, while many, many other nations have included basic education within the legal rights of their citizens.

The best we can do therefore is to refer to the Bill of Rights, and their foundation from Lockian natural law;

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)

It is not mentioned by either natural or legal rights in our constitution, therefore, in the US we consider it important enough to have compulsory k-12 education, but I don't feel it is guaranteed. Why not?

Being educated has actually been mandated for k-12 for many years. Adding in four more years of liberal arts is probably not crucial for the national well being, and is probably a large waste of money.

Yeah, kinda agree on that. 4 years for college or uni, depending on the programs can be just a cash grab. It wasn't that long ago when 2-3 years was the average for college. Just informally chatting with some faculties, again this also depends on the program but in general. The ones I've talked to seem to regard 2 years is very do-able for serious students. 3rd year is either for an apprenticeship \ field work, final proving project, or final polishing of skills that are near mastered already. 4th year...really seems to be mostly a way of some schools to extend tuition fees. Unless the vocation you're going for is medical doctor or rocket surgeon, IMO I rarely see a good -academic- reason for a 4th year.

The system of accountability in higher ed in the US is a bit convoluted. The states authorize the higher ed institutions to educate in their state. They base their authorization on national accreditation bodies, like the Higher Learning Commission, to review each institutions commitment to program quality and sound fiscal operations. They provide the backbone to rooting out the bad actors by withholding or revoking accreditation. The federal government doubles down by denying loans and grants to students pursuing unaccredited programs. On the one side then you have the masses of consumer demand for programs, and on the other you have the institutions building that product, within the oversight of the HLC and similar accrediting bodies. We are required to submit comprehensive fiscal and academic information to the HLC annually, and once you are in "good standing" they only do a very detailed review of operation once every 10 years, although if anything of substance occurs they will intercede in the interim. If they discover anything of concern in their review, the institution is put onto probation until the concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. If the concerns are not addressed adequately, the institutions accreditation will be revoked. When in a probationary state, the detail reviews are more frequent until you again are considered to be "in good standing" (i.e. doing it the way they want you to do it.)

That said, in the US, we sort of let students choose where, and how much, higher education they will consume, whether it is good for them, or not. The federal and state government has limits on the number of years you can get financial aid, but has not stepped in (much yet) to evaluate their ROI, so currently, student are "free" to choose what they want to learn in higher ed.

What might make more sense is to rethink k-12 into a k-10, then add a vocational 11-14 fours years that are Gen Ed if you are on a college track, or technical if you are moving into the trades.

It's ambitious, it does have a good chance to work if the details are fully examined and critiqued. But it's an uphill battle you're facing here. If the technical side is relegated and treated as a low tier option like what I'm seeing in some cases currently, it's doomed to failure. If the college track prep course is treated as just hypothetical only, with no regards to the practical, or observational and research skills. It's doomed to produce walking Ids who does not understand the difference between a thesaurus, and a dictionary.

I'd agree, especially if the bulk of general education can be accomplished in grades 11-12, instead of their college freshman, sophomore years. In Minnesota, we have a statewide program (called PSEO, paid for by the taxpayers of MN. Also, called Dual Enrollment) that allows students in grades 11-12 to attend college courses for credit, instead of a high school course. Our university is seeing many new enrolled student entering as sophomore, or juniors. It's becoming normal to see the bulk of new students entering with 16-48 college credits completed. We had one musical prodigy last year who at 16 years old, entered as a Senior, and graduated 18 months later at 18. Then began her MFA, which I've no doubt she'll get before she's 20.

You are spot on though in focusing on the 2nd class nature of "trades" educational programs. My opinion is they need to be shaped, and held more accountable by the industries they serve. One of the more renowned around here is Dunwoody, which is non-profit, and accredited like other colleges and universities. They have a post program placement rate of 97%.

It would probably also burn you to know the government will earn $110 Billion from student loans over the next decade. So, that loan's interest rate hides what amounts to an education tax. The original intent of the Perkins and Stafford loan plans were to make them a zero sum for the government. That is, the interest rate would be enough to sustain the program. No profits.

Hmm, how did that shift happened exactly. I'm curious about the specifics, was it related to the 2007 investigation of U.S. federal student loan practices.

Here is a brief history of Federal Student Loans in the US. It sort of went from a good idea by Milton Friedman for the government to promote higher ed by investing in people, to the federal government squeezing out private lending and running loan programs instead of banks. As it works now, those who attend colleges and universities, who are mostly middle class and up, benefit at the expense of all tax payers. In other words, it is the lower, and middle middle class who subsidize the higher education of the middle middle, and upper classes.

Friedman's original proposal was that a student would get a "free education" in whatever program they desired, in return for a fixed % of income repaid over a fixed period of time. Students who chose lucrative fields, or were "lucky" in their career paths would pay more (although the same %), and those who chose lesser paying, or who were less "lucky" would pay less. This would socialize both the gains and losses in our investment in students.

Currently the loan program is more onerous for those who do not complete or who are unlucky, and beneficial for those who end up in higher paying professions due to their investment in their education. In other words, now, we socialize the losses, but most of the gains go to the student in whom we the taxpayers have invested. Friedman would oppose the Federal Student Loan system as it now stands.

I'm not sure all the history of the Perkins Loan, but it has been fixed at 5% for awhile. The other major student Loan program, Stafford, is indexed to the prime rate + x%, where X is determined by Congress. In 2008/9, Congress did away with the indexing for new loans, making them a fixed rate, now it is 4.29% for both subsidized, and unsubsidized Stafford program loans.

Now, being the biggest provider of loans and Pell grants, the government is flexing their muscles with Gainful Employment rule making. In essence, the direction this is taking will squeeze out the arts and humanities, in favor of programs that are very vocational (higher earnings) in nature (e.g. business, education, sciences, engineering, etc). If you had your heart set on being a philosopher, or archaeologist, then in the future, you'll be hard pressed to find any institution that can offer you that type of program. I'm guessing that the government will not stop at "for profit" institutions once they've kicked some behinds for awhile (2-3 years). All institutions need to report Certificate level programs, and for profit institution must report on ALL program levels (Certificate, Associate, Bachelors, Graduate, Doctoral).

The unstated goal of the government "force" in this gainful employment law is to deny federal funding to "for profit" institutions that offer a plethora of simply obtained and expensive Certificates for everything from Applied Animal Behavior, to Welding. The governments measure will be the wage rate increase of the graduated student, compared with the loan default rate for every program. In this case, if the preponderance of students are making bad choices, it is the institutions programs for which funding will be cut. If people were getting sick by insisting on eating meat raw, you'd resolve the problem by shutting down those vendors who sell to the ones who get sick. Not so fair to the people who are just selling a product. In this regulatory change, an institution will not want to have low completion rates, nor would they want low employment success for students after completion. It will do two things; 1) schools will be more selective in to WHOM they sell (able to complete, and employable), and 2) they will modify their programs to enable more "success" which may be detrimental to the trade skills required. The intention is to shut down this type of education, but I don't think all the consequences of the impact have been thought through. For example in Truck Driving, maybe the programs DO create an educational standard that employers rely upon to determine qualification. Without this type of program setting an education standard, perhaps it will require employers to hire more people without any credentials, resulting in more accidents.