Friday, June 17, 2005

Follow the Money

Says Schlafly, and who can disagree with her?

Here in her column at her site The Eagle Forum she's making an argument (not one that hasn't been made a bazillion times by her ilk) that over here on university campuses we professors hate America so much that all we are teaching in the campus, anymore, apparently, is how evil Bush is -- or something.

(Her logic sort of collapses halfway through the essay.)

Here's one bit, though:

Repeated surveys report that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors by about 10 to 1, but that ratio doesn't begin to reveal the outrageous leftist culture to which college students are subjected. Many professors are Marxists or other varieties of radicals who hate America.

Note the, uh, evidence of "outrageous" leftist culture?

Yeah, me too.

She has more "evidence" later.

The most frequent complaint I hear from college students is that professors inject their leftist political comments into their courses even when they have nothing to do with the subject. An anti-Bush tirade, for example, might stream forth without warning in math class.

Or, then again, it might not.

What college student (students?) told Schlafly this happened? What math professor did this? What did this "tirade" consist of? How many times has this happened? On what campuses? Can we investigate these allegations? Hmmm. No.

What do we call these sorts of claims, class?

But toward the end, ah, toward the end, this is where she really gets on my last nerve.

Meanwhile, tuition and fees were up 10.5 percent last year and 14 percent the year before. Over the last 25 years, tuition increases have annually exceeded the consumer price index by 3.5 percent.


The scandal that over 30 percent of university students do not graduate within six years is a direct consequence of the easy availability of government grants and loans. Why hurry if your easy-going campus lifestyle is heavily subsidized, even for taking remedial courses to learn what you failed to learn in high school?

There is no evidence that the taxpayers are getting more for our money, or that students are learning more, or even that additional revenues are spent on instruction. The average score on the Graduate Record Exam is lower today than in 1965.


The only way to put a lid on tuition prices is to eliminate the tremendous incentive caused by government subsidies. Follow the money

Okay. This is either pure ignorance -- possible, I suppose, but unlikely -- or a wilful attempt to mislead her audience.

Universities are not raising tuition in a gleeful attempt to sucker more money out of the public. I am almost positive Schlafly knows this. (I could be wrong. She could be so ignorant about the way higher education is funded that she does not know this.) Universities are raising tuition every damn year because the states are cutting our funding and the federal government is cutting our funding every damn year. And they are doing this -- why? Because folks like Schlafy have, every damn year, said O! O! Personal Responsibilty is a Good Thing! Make the Student pay for Her Own Education! Why Should the State Pay!

So the student is paying.

As a result?

The student is working full-time while the student goes to school. Because otherwise the student can't afford tuition! Which is now out-of-bounds for all but the richest of our students. Even with grants and loans! (Which I bet you anything Mrs. Schlafly knows.)

As a result?

Students are taking five to six years (and yes, sometimes longer) to graduate.

And, as a result? Yes, they are doing badly on their GRE exams. Hmm. Why might that be, Mrs. Schlafly? Because I'm spending my class time dissing Bush? Or because my students are spending sixty hours a week working at Wal-Mart and the local pizza joint to make ends meet because you and your ilk decided it wasn't the FUCKING AMERICAN WAY to provide them with a decent education and a decent living wage?

Follow the money.

Yeah, let's do that.

1 comment:

zelda1 said...

I know some of those students who work full time, go to school full time, some have children, and most try to make the dean's list. I know many who live off of grants and loans and let me add not a good existence. They are not getting thousands of dollars over the cost of their tuition and cost of books, they are in fact getting so little above that they are never able to make it stretch for an entire semester. They live on ramen noodles for weeks at the end of their semester. This must be that fat of the government she was talking about, the milking the system, the robbing from Americans. Most can't go to the dentists or the doctor and if they do own a car, they can't afford car repair, now there's an incentive to stay in school. I watch them sit through lunch without eating or eating very little, and trying to buy food for them is impossible as they say nope not hungry, and it makes me so damn mad.
I can't imagine how some of the people think that denying education to those who are economically disadvantage is going to make this a better country. And what the fuck is wrong with Marxism. I think, and I am always right, that Karl Marx had a real good idea and it is man who fucked it up. Why do we need a seperation of class and why do we have to have a poor working class and a rich sitting-on-their-ass taking jet trips around the world wearing clothes that cost more than a poor man's wages plastic surgery to make them look younger or older or bigger breasted while the poor can't even afford a filling for a cavity. How can any one think that is right?
How can anyone think it is right for a little girl or boy to stand in school with holes in their shoes and a coat that is either too large or too small while they worry about the school supplies they can't get because it isn't pay day yet and then the little rich kids prance around in a different pair of shoes every day and more than one coat, and who needs more than one, and cool and extravagant school supplies. Is that fair to the poor children who have nothing. How can that be good for America?
And what about the babies, oh yeah, they get formula free through wic but what if you have a baby who requires more than the average formula and the wic office only gives you average amounts of formula. If there is no one to buy the formula for the baby, the mother, in order to stretch what she has, dilutes it. The result is a baby not getting enough calcium and eventually other things like anemia develops and if they are denied their rich formula for very long they end up with lethargy and are unable to develop properly. That is real good for America.
Let's not forget the old people and some of the immigrants who are living off of stolen food or cat food just to have enough to eat. That is another real good for America things.
Who are these heartless conservatives who want to deny the basic rights of shelter, food, water, and education to the poor?