Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Aug 31, 2014.
Democrats are responsible for bringing difficulty and misery to people domestically. The Republicans are primarily in charge of screwing with people overseas. It's somewhere in the Constitution.
I was going to say that it's the same reason republicans are tone deaf on social issues, because it doesn't fit their world view.
But I may like CF's response better.
Perhaps like Obama most of them have never served and don't appreciate or understand the dangers, sacrifice, discipline and hard work required.
These for profit colleges are debt traps for most, but the military appeal of AMU seems to make it different.....to everyone but Harkin and Durbin apparently.
Dems answer to social issues, spend spend spend. The left is tone deaf to financial responsibility.
A local national charity recently starting requiring those who seek financial help to take a one hour budgeting class. But as to the topic of the thread, the military relies on the patriotism of its citizens to do a lot of dirty work then discards them as soon as the mission requirements no longer need them. Clinton called it a "peace dividend". Most of the ones who serve call it "getting screwed".
This issue is not about the military or about AMU specifically. It's about "for-profit" universities (and you have to love the pejorative nature of that term as if there's something intrinsically wrong about a company trying to profit off of a good or service). Brick-and-mortar universities are having a more difficult time competing with the convenience and price of distance learning, so instead of adjusting to the law of supply and demand, they are trying to legislate away the competition. Universities such as Oklahoma and Florida merely responded to the market by offering distance education programs that have all of the same benefits but also with the additional credibility of a known-brand diploma.
Harkin and Durbin don't give a damn about the poor, dumb veterans who don't know any better when they use their benefits at AMU; they care about the public university presidents who have been squawking in their ears.
Harkin and Durbin also care about taxpayers and the students that have been ripped off by for profit universities. Note the percentage of federal student loans and default rates for traditional universities compared with for profit schools. Not only are taxpayers left holding the bag when borrowers default on federal student loans, but the students themselves are also screwed since student loan debt cannot be erased through bankruptcy even in the case of students who have been the victims of de facto fraud by for profit schools.
For profit universities just mean they pay income taxes on their profits.
There is nothing benevolent about a non profit university because they often are very wealthy and make a lot of money.
I don't know anything about AMU and there are some decent for-profit schools, but there are also some whose primary focus is to be to attract students through high pressure or misleading sales pitches, get the students qualified for student loans and then separate the students from their loan money.
I've seen many students who've been suckered in to expensive courses that offer little substance and prepare them for nothing, many drop out in frustration at some point but are stuck with large student loan debt and some with lengthy contracts for additional "education" with the institution. Many of these schools target veterans.
Simple, they want the money spent on the military to go to entitlements. They can buy more votes that way.
One half of college courses could be eliminated and it would benefit both students and their cost of education.
I think the issue is that a much higher % of students at "for profit" schools are saddled with debt while obtaining a degree that in many cases isn't worth much more than a high school diploma.
Obama is weakening our military because it will be easier for America to fall with a weaker defense.
they're not 'tone deaf', they simply want better ideas.
Student loans are a separate issue. What Harkin and Durbin spoke to was about AMU specifically, veterans using their own benefits (no loans involved), and that these same veterans might not understand that AMU was not officially associated with the military. For the actual reasons I listed, they were using veterans to make an emotional argument for why "for-profit" schools are bad.
Now I have never taken an AMU class personally, but here are my observations as an "employer" (a military officer who has signed off on tuition assistance [TA] vouchers for junior service personnel and has observed these personnel in working conditions while they are working on their degrees):
1. Service personnel know exactly what AMU is and what it is not. None of them have ever been "confused" about its association with the military. Before any Marine can use TA, they must attend a "College 101" lecture that spells out issues such as these. The school's website (which you have to access to sign up for classes) is also very clear and overt about being a private institution. Anyone who thinks there is actually some confusion is extremely misinformed.
2. The nature of the distance education AMU offers is much more convenient for service personnel than most other options. They offer classes every 8 weeks instead of being tied to a quarter or semester system. Active-duty personnel find this fits much better into their schedules. Also they are not tied to specific classroom times that may work one week and not the next; they do their readings and write their papers according to their own schedule, not the school's. Ten years ago, the same personnel would have taken the same classes at a community college and have been at the mercy of the institution when it came to field exercises, etc.
3. The work they do to get their degrees is not the exact same that I did at UF, but it is real work and I see in a difference in their professional development. AMU is not a diploma mill. These guys are learning. For instance, last year I had a staff sergeant who was working on his bachelor's from AMU, and his professional writing skills improved remarkably in my observation.
4. AMU offers accredited degree plans that traditional schools do not, some of which are of more benefit to military and law enforcement professionals. For instance, the above-mentioned staff sergeant was an intelligence chief and is earning his degree in intelligence studies. This is an actual benefit to the organization that the closest brick-and-mortar public university can't offer. Another example: AMU offers a graduate certificate program in joint warfare. I dare you to find that kind of curriculum elsewhere; the demand for it isn't anywhere but at AMU.
5. The price is better for active-duty service personnel. TA covers the cost of tuition only (up to $250/credit hour). If a Marine takes a course through AMU, then he or she will have most of the tuition paid, be out of pocket for about $25/credit hour for an undergrad class, and out of pocket for books. The same Marine taking a class at a community college would also have to pay a number of student activity fees and such for services and infrastructure they're not going to use.
Now just so you don't think is a left-right issue, if two Republicans were saying the same thing (and some of them are; the public university lobby is also in their ears), I would be decrying their statements as ignorant as well. I'm telling you that in my experience AMU is provides organizational benefits and at a better price. If the public colleges want that business back, then they should try to match the service instead of trying to legislate themselves out of competition.
Well, let's just say we disagree on the value of a degree from a "for profit" school. An MBA from the University of Phoenix is not an MBA from Harvard, but it still has value in the business world over someone who doesn't have one. And who is going to rack up more debt that they will have a hard time paying off, the guy with an MBA from Phoenix or the guy who borrowed to get an MA in English from Harward?
I agree there is a problem with student debt in America, but I have a hard time blaming legitimate companies who are taking payment for a legitimate service. From where I'm sitting, the problem is a system that will lend anyone any amount of money they need for any degree program with virtually no vetting of the individual whatsoever. When a guy borrows the maximum amount of money while taking the minimum required credits to get the easiest and most worthless degree possible, is it the school's fault for taking his money? Hell, I don't even blame the dumbass who does that; I just feel nothing whatsoever when he's picketing with a mispelled sign demanding that those evil One Percenters forgive his student debt. Personally, I blame the system.
Good intentions can have bad consequences, and this is one of them. The federal government needs to get out of the student loan game. Banks can makes loans (or not) based on their reasonable assessments of the person's ability to repay the loan with interest, just like any other loan. If that means less people go to college, then all right. If that means that less people major in certain liberal arts, then all right. But that will eventually solve your debt problem as well as reduce the cost of an education due to drying up of all that "free" money coming in. It will also increase the value of a college education to what it used to mean. You may even find that it severely reduces the growth of "for profit" schools since the demand will naturally decrease along with the free money.
What are fat white liberal lawyers in DC not tone deaf on?
I think the TA program is great. I'm using it now to get an MBA through Webster while I'm at CGSC. ( I'm an Infantryman so marketability is at a premium). One of the biggest benefits is I get to save my GI Bill for my kids. Bottom line is TA will pay 250 dollars per credit hour at pretty much any accredited school a Soldier can get into. Right now all I have to cover is 90 dollars a credit hour. Webster is a resident course but some of my guys have done online courses with a pretty high success rate. It's not Harvard but it's accredited and local.
I think the issues some guys have is they compound the problem of having a career without a civilian market by getting a masters in that field. Same thing could be said for the MMAS (Masters of Military Arts and Science/Strategy). I don't think anyone is under the illusion that there is a huge market for a guy with a degree in counter terrorism. The only upside is usually that degree plan includes credit for other military training etc.
Who is your history professor at CGSC?