calbear93 said:

---

At the risk of reviving an old discussion, what are your thoughts on this recent article from NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html

---

Quote:

---

Reading opposition to SB 50 and other efforts at increasing density, I'm struck by an unsettling thought: What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving "local character," maintaining "local control," keeping housing scarce and inaccessible the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out.

---

People are tolerant until what they claim to "tolerate" enters their neighborhood.

GBear4Life said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

At the risk of reviving an old discussion, what are your thoughts on this recent article from NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html

---

Quote:

---

Reading opposition to SB 50 and other efforts at increasing density, I'm struck by an unsettling thought: What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving "local character," maintaining "local control," keeping housing scarce and inaccessible the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out.

---

People are tolerant until what they claim to "tolerate" enters their neighborhood.

---

We are all tolerant and generous as long as it is in someone else's neighborhood and on someone else's dime.

I don't think re-zoning does much to help the housing affordability problem (except provide some new rental housing for the affluent and a cash cow investment property for millionaire investors), but it aptly highlights the frequent push-pull of political and moral rhetoric.

GBear4Life said:

---

I don't think re-zoning does much to help the housing affordability problem (except provide some new rental housing for the affluent and a cash cow investment property for millionaire investors), but it aptly highlights the frequent push-pull of political and moral rhetoric.

---

Absolutely agree.

I hear my rich liberal friends talk about how it was immoral to reduce income taxes while complaining that their taxes went up. I also hear them talking about how it is immoral to not have a more open border while claiming that homelessness isn't a problem of lack of housing but a problem of too many people in their cities.

Of course, I also hear my rich conservative friends talk about how immoral it is to allow abortion (which I agree with), but then not lift a finger to help underprivileged kids.

Maybe it is just the moral hypocrisy of financially secured, well-educated folks like those on this board (including me) who are quick to judge and slow to contribute.

76BearsFly said:

---

A successful business should invest in its core assets to make money. Our society's core asset is our incredible citizens. To make a profit, that core asset should be nurtured and invested in. Education and health care is key to productivity by the core asset. Right now the educational system is making money for the Banks with inflated tuition and non-dischargeable loans to finance same. Not prudent from a long-term societal perspective and certainly a failing business plan.

---

I agree with you. However, I believe most of the problems arose from social engineering. By providing government-backed loans, we created a distortion that disconnected price from value. We should force people wanting to go to college to assess value and price just like they do for almost everything else. When you have government subsidize, including through guarantees that are provided for free despite the guarantee having a value or by permitting the Feds to provide artificially low interest rates to banks, we will see bubbles and price distortion like what we see with college tuition, sub-prime mortgage and private equity investments. If college education is such a strong investment relative to cost, private lenders will be more than happy to provide loans without social engineering by the government.

If I viewed college education as an essential need, I would feel differently. However, I view college education as something that is important but not as essential as primary and secondary education, food, medical and housing. As a capitalist economy where individuals still control production and supply, there will be finite resources if we are to still encourage production. We may disagree on where that threshold is and what alternatives exist (e.g., the opportunity cost of working outweighs the after-tax income or corporate inversion to a jurisdiction with lower tax rate), but at a certain level of taxation, the revenues and productions will decrease.

The real question is, do we become a socialist economy where both the source of production and source supply are owned by the government? And if not and assuming limited resources from tax revenues, what do we prioritize? Why college over guaranteed housing? And if the government were to guarantee housing for everyone, should it be provided on an equal basis to everyone by the government? If not, why not?

I once read a quote that most of the evil in this world is done by those with good intentions. Some are done by megalomaniacs and sycophants in my own party (or former party) but many are caused by those who think only they know what is good and right.

One year later and the trolls return to their ancestral spawning grounds for a circle jerk of rwnj p*ssygrabbing. So you lads know each other? HAHAHAHA.

Whisper sweet trickle down and fascism in his ear!!! Shower her with flowers and golden...yeah PEE.

hubba hubba bubbas

GBear4Life said:

---

I say let's subsidize and/or pay for students with high marks majoring in fields that are in demand, and place thresholds to meet post-education.

No subsidizing mediocre students' $50k tuition to study lesbian dance theory and read second rate poetry all day, learning about safe spaces and Marx-for-dummies from deluded social deconstructionist professors.

These people end up trolling internet message board and arguing with themselves and yelling at anybody who will hear them like Another Bear.

---

Lesbian dance? Sounds hot.

Anyway, I say that this kind of thinking is short-sighted and will not have the desired effect. First of all, so-called "in demand" fields (I assume we are mostly talking about STEM fields here) are ALREADY going to attract students because of the free market offering them more immediate job prospects. No need for the government to further put its thumb on the scale and direct even more people into these fields (which might make them less desirable anyway).

Secondly, this idea that arts and humanities majors don't contribute anything to society or business is also a short-sighted one. Creativity and critical thinking don't necessarily get you a great job right out of the gate like more technical and vocational training does, but down the line it pays off to have people like this in the workforce. I have no issue with the government subsidizing this too.

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-13-as-tech-companies-hire-more-liberal-arts-majors-more-students-are-choosing-stem-degrees

https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-a-high-tech-world-humanities-and-other-liberal-arts-are-more-essential-than-ever

Forget loans and subsidies, just cap tuition at $5k-6k/yr for public/in-state and $10k/yr for privates. Force colleges to slash administrative costs and have them focus on their core mission.

Also, cap the price of textbooks, have affordable digital versions available, or at least keep a fair revenue margin above printing costs for textbooks. The artificially inflated textbook market is a good example of college costs spiraling out of control. You have the worst kind of planned obsolescence there, with textbooks for subjects like calculus, econ or physics getting completely redone ever few years.

OaktownBear said:

---

SRBear said:

---

They've got another idea for that money...


However, I am in favor of low cost education...I just don't trust the politicians to put the money where they say they will.

---

I'm not for or against this particular legislation yet, but the text of their proposition is very specific about where the money comes from and what it is allowed to be used for, and goes through great pains to close the loopholes that could get the money to the general fund or as claimed in another post to go to pensions or administration. This is a group that is ticked off about the abandonment of affordable higher education funding by the state legislature, so they are not approaching from a position of trust.

As I said, I don't know if I'm for this proposition or not, but I am for returning to the tuition free mandate, and I am very willing to pay my share for that. I'm infuriated by the generation before me who got a virtually free education and was also notorious for taking student loans and defaulting, and as soon as they got the benefit and started paying taxes decided people need to work for their education. My generation paid 10 times more in tuition than they did, and they've just kept on going with today's generation paying 100 times more. Under the current system a C student in high school with wealthy parents is more likely to get a college degree than an A student with poor parents. It is not only unfair, it is a stupid waste of resources. I believe the tuition free mandate was and is not only the right thing to do to create equal opportunity, I believe it was an investment that paid for itself many times in benefits to the state economy.

---

I'm actually for tuition free education without bankrupting taxpayers, especially when added to all the other programs like health care for everyone, housing for everyone, etc. I just think this benefit should be afforded to the top students, say 25% or 35%. My concern is coming up with criteria that the Felicity Huffmans of the world can't game. But I think bank rolling the top students and keeping them in California schools, is far better investment than the bullet train, and some other of the myriad of spending ideas going around Sacramento now without an adult Governor to bat them down.

I actually don't mind if this bill passes. Not that it ever would. It will not work the way proponents hope, but neither will it work the way doomsayers fear.

What would happen is a massive increase in applications to all UC & Cal State campuses. The actual number accepted won't really increase which will mean a huge decrease in acceptance rates. UCLA will go from the university with the most applications received each year to the most selective university in the country, far exceeding Furd or Harvard. Our fair UC Berkeley will not be far behind and will be the 2nd most selective school in the country. Chico State, always a popular choice for party hounds will become even more popular with your "living" aka party expenses paid for. It will be more selective than Princeton.

But keep in mind, the students that previously would have gotten into UC/Cal State schools generally still will. Almost all the new applicants will be HS grads that previously were uncompetitive and could not justify spending $100+k of their own money to fail at getting a degree. Now it's not their money, so why not?

The student overflow rejected by UC/Cal State will go to the community college system. Most students in that system will find classes unavailable as they will be immediately oversubscribed. The students hurt will be those who in current times make a serious effort to use the community colleges as a stepping stone to transfer to UC/Cal State as a junior. Good luck getting two years worth of classes at community college in anything less than four years.

If this bill were to pass, two years later serious repeal efforts would occur. They would fail, because California. Duh! Instead expenditures on this program would be frozen at current levels. Over the next 20 years what was a "free education" would become a subsidized education. In other words it would renew the level of higher education public subsidy that existed in California circa 1980. Not the intended result surely, and conducted in a wasteful manner as it would promote lethargy for a million or so 18yr olds who otherwise would have no desire to set foot inside a classroom. But hey, that's government for you.

Traditionally, subsidizing college tuition was a cash-grab for the upper middle class and the affluent. Legislators in tough times said NO MORE.

Problem is more lower middle class and poor HS graduates are applying for college over the same course of time tuition is rising rapidly. In '04 UC tuition was $6k/yr, is no $15k/yr. CSU was $2,500/yr. in '04, is now $6,500.

Not saying it's chump change for a middle class family, but financing $25k or $50k for a secondary undergraduate education as in investment in 40 years of earning potential is NOT a crisis. It becomes a mountain you can't see over when too many folks are graduating with $80k-$120k in debt and a film studies or psychology degree. Those are numbers that should be reserved for Doctors, lawyers, etc. Moreover, many of my peers (including some in my extended family) when I was an undergraduate felt that being an undergraduate entitled them to this conceptual paradise of having a vibrant social life and "free time". The idea of working 35 hours/week while going to school full time was an affront.

The state should have tiers where kids from affluent households may most or all the full cost of tuition etc. Only the bottom brackets pay the above subsidized cost. And borrowers should be evaluated and scrutinized for loans, cal grants etc.

Public college education in California is still insanely cheap -- it's simply not as insanely cheap it was two decades ago, or a generation ago.

76BearsFly said:

---

A successful business should invest in its core assets to make money. Our society's core asset is our incredible citizens. To make a profit, that core asset should be nurtured and invested in. Education and health care is key to productivity by the core asset. Right now the educational system is making money for the Banks with inflated tuition and non-dischargeable loans to finance same. Not prudent from a long-term societal perspective and certainly a failing business plan.

---

It's not an perfect comparison, but I spent some time working in countries where things like tuition fees were relatively unheard of until recently and it was expected that once you got through your undergraduate career, you were expected to pursue a graduate degree. Now granted, in these places, the same systems track folks far earlier who probably wouldn't go to college into trade programs and professional training. But that being said, the whole idea that the pursuit of higher education requires prior investment is unfathomable to a lot of folks there. And I would argue that the standard of living in these countries is better than most places in the US and their economic productivity hasn't been harmed. That's just the benefit of having polities that provide the necessary investment into their citizenry.

EDIT: There's a great article on the Atlantic that goes into why costs here have skyrocketed compared to international costs: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/why-is-college-so-expensive-in-america/569884/

California should lead the way in reducing cost of education. Not obfuscating costs by passing it through government via taxes.

The ONLY good thing about the current system is that everyone is aware of what a scam it is, because the wildly inflated costs directly impact them.

No one wants to reduce cost, though. They just want it to look free.

packawana said:

---

76BearsFly said:

---

A successful business should invest in its core assets to make money. Our society's core asset is our incredible citizens. To make a profit, that core asset should be nurtured and invested in. Education and health care is key to productivity by the core asset. Right now the educational system is making money for the Banks with inflated tuition and non-dischargeable loans to finance same. Not prudent from a long-term societal perspective and certainly a failing business plan.

---

It's not an perfect comparison, but I spent some time working in countries where things like tuition fees were relatively unheard of until recently and it was expected that once you got through your undergraduate career, you were expected to pursue a graduate degree. Now granted, in these places, the same systems track folks far earlier who probably wouldn't go to college into trade programs and professional training. But that being said, the whole idea that the pursuit of higher education requires prior investment is unfathomable to a lot of folks there. And I would argue that the standard of living in these countries is better than most places in the US and their economic productivity hasn't been harmed. That's just the benefit of having polities that provide the necessary investment into their citizenry.

EDIT: There's a great article on the Atlantic that goes into why costs here have skyrocketed compared to international costs: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/why-is-college-so-expensive-in-america/569884/

---

It is interesting that Purdue is mentioned specifically. Freakonomics just did a podcast about what Purdue is currently doing, successfully (so far).

How do we lower the REAL cost of higher education?

It's like how do you lower the real cost of real estate when the government is guaranteeing loans and politicizing the "everybody should be able to own a home" meme.

Schools can't survive without federal student financial aid, but they know that's guaranteed to the student to pay the school. The consumer (student) and the servicer (university) is immune from the actual impacts of lower/higher costs, similar to health care and real estate.

Cal88 said:

---

Forget loans and subsidies, just cap tuition at $5k-6k/yr for public/in-state and $10k/yr for privates. Force colleges to slash administrative costs and have them focus on their core mission.

Also, cap the price of textbooks, have affordable digital versions available, or at least keep a fair revenue margin above printing costs for textbooks. The artificially inflated textbook market is a good example of college costs spiraling out of control. You have the worst kind of planned obsolescence there, with textbooks for subjects like calculus, econ or physics getting completely redone ever few years.

---

You think all universities have to do will be to slash [unneccessary] administrative labor to balance their budgets? All the while dependent on state legislature budgets every year while being forced to freeze and cap tuition/fees indefinitely?

Agreed on the textbooks. What a scam and gravy train for publishers. Just add a new 12 page chapter and we can publish a new edition to sell!

GBear4Life said:

---

How do we lower the REAL cost of higher education?

It's like how do you lower the real cost of real estate when the government is guaranteeing loans and politicizing the "everybody should be able to own a home" meme.

Schools can't survive without federal student financial aid, but they know that's guaranteed to the student to pay the school. The consumer (student) and the servicer (university) is immune from the actual impacts of lower/higher costs, similar to health care and real estate.

---

My perception is that with the growth of student loans over the last 20 years we have experienced an even greater increase in the cost of education. So in effect, we make higher education more available to more students which is good, but at the same time have more students availing themselves of more funds. Commensurately, the entire expense side of the ledger was increased at various colleges. Salaries and pensions of tenured staff are certainly in the clouds.

There was always inflation in higher education. Having two children, four years apart I recall my expense situation at UCSB and UCD going from $9000/year total to $13,000 in those four years in the mid to late eighties. Currently we have a grandchild who just graduated from Georgetown two weeks ago. When she started, the cost was in the low 60s, when she finished in the low 70s. You have to be kidding. And as you well know, students are pushing and shoving to get in there with or without support, although admittedly most have some or a lot of help. Where is that extra $10,000 or 16% in four years going?

Yet we let this go along, even to the extent that many would cheat and lie to pay those increases. Something has been lost in values here.

My musings on how do we lower costs and increase access?

Stop stuffing more students in the top schools. It isn't cost effective. The infrastructure can't handle it.

Increase the use of JCs and CSUs. This allows more people to attend school close to home making use of family support for most of the cost of living. CA's CSUs and JCs offer an incredible amount of inexpensive education, high quality resources, and value. The focus on flagships and prestige schools for everyone broadly just doesn't make sense.

End compulsory school at 16 years of age. Let them choose to between earning a living or continuing on an academic path. Make JC resources cheap and highly subsidized for the first 3 years of attendance (based on full time units instead of calendar dates) to replace the last two years of high school and encourage people to re-enter education for skill upgrades. Keeping teens in high school 'prisons' isn't progressing their education or job readiness. The range in needs of the students is too broad. If people are ready to leave HS for advanced academics early or vocational work, then let them do it. If people want to stay for 4 years to get their skills up to par then they can do that as well.

There is so much emphasis on the prestige schools for social signalling. It isn't going away. Income and educational disparities aren't going away. We have elite institutions giving away their world class course content for free, academic knowledge and skills are more available to broader audiences now more than ever. It's the social stigma and virtues of signalling around elite diplomas and their validity in society affect on broad socioeconomic health that are at debate.

What is the problem we are trying to solve for?

Conversation I had last night with an end of career elementary school teacher:

She is very proud her late-20s aged daughter who didn't go to a prestige school is employed while many of her cohorts who did go to prestige schools (graduating with non-STEM degrees) are floundering and not finding employment.

I felt it was mainly a bit of gloating and making up for hurt feelings from the past.

Did the prestige school flounderers just choose poor job-choice majors?

Is it just the fruits of long term dedicated hard work vs talent playing out?

How much if any did school choice even really affect the outcome?

GBear4Life said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Forget loans and subsidies, just cap tuition at $5k-6k/yr for public/in-state and $10k/yr for privates. Force colleges to slash administrative costs and have them focus on their core mission.

Also, cap the price of textbooks, have affordable digital versions available, or at least keep a fair revenue margin above printing costs for textbooks. The artificially inflated textbook market is a good example of college costs spiraling out of control. You have the worst kind of planned obsolescence there, with textbooks for subjects like calculus, econ or physics getting completely redone ever few years.

---

You think all universities have to do will be to slash [unneccessary] administrative labor to balance their budgets? All the while dependent on state legislature budgets every year while being forced to freeze and cap tuition/fees indefinitely?

Agreed on the textbooks. What a scam and gravy train for publishers. Just add a new 12 page chapter and we can publish a new edition to sell!

---

As Odonto pointed out above, we are in an inflationary spiral fueled by the availability of college loans. There is no reason for tuition to greatly outstrip inflation. If anything, new technology with the internet and teleconferencing for instance should instead have lowered the operating costs of education. There is no incentive to implement cost reductions in education, and every incentive to bloat their operation, especially on the administrative level.

We've reached a point where the basic mission of American higher education is no longer being fulfilled due to runaway tuition and student debt, those have to be scaled back. The tuition cap levels I've suggested above are similar to those currently in place in Canada, where colleges manage with less than half US tuition levels.

GBear4Life said:

---

Traditionally, subsidizing college tuition was a cash-grab for the upper middle class and the affluent. Legislators in tough times said NO MORE.

Problem is more lower middle class and poor HS graduates are applying for college over the same course of time tuition is rising rapidly. In '04 UC tuition was $6k/yr, is no $15k/yr. CSU was $2,500/yr. in '04, is now $6,500.

Not saying it's chump change for a middle class family, but financing $25k or $50k for a secondary undergraduate education as in investment in 40 years of earning potential is NOT a crisis. It becomes a mountain you can't see over when too many folks are graduating with $80k-$120k in debt and a film studies or psychology degree. Those are numbers that should be reserved for Doctors, lawyers, etc. Moreover, many of my peers (including some in my extended family) when I was an undergraduate felt that being an undergraduate entitled them to this conceptual paradise of having a vibrant social life and "free time". The idea of working 35 hours/week while going to school full time was an affront.

The state should have tiers where kids from affluent households may most or all the full cost of tuition etc. Only the bottom brackets pay the above subsidized cost. And borrowers should be evaluated and scrutinized for loans, cal grants etc.

Public college education in California is still insanely cheap -- it's simply not as insanely cheap it was two decades ago, or a generation ago.

---

They've been saying UC is still insanely cheap for decades as they keep raising the price. It isn't. UC tuition in 2019 is significantly more expensive than Harvard tuition in 1960 adjusted for inflation. The difference is that in 1960 middle class jobs for those without a college education were plentiful. In 2019 they are not. As college education rises more and more to the level of necessity, many more people are seeking it. The state has basically taken the approach that you need to have a college degree, so you will pay for one on your own and they can cut funding. So rather than having a reasonable shot at a middle class life with a free high school degree or nearly free college degree as you used to have, you now have to pay $150K as an entry free to even have a shot.

As for this concept of only paying for certain majors, making colleges basically vocational schools, it is based on a fallacy and is also massively shortsighted in the current job market. 1. People love to laugh at the philosophy major barista, but it isn't statistically true. Over a career, liberal arts majors make more money than majors like business. They start lower and rise higher. This was true 30 years ago and it is true now. People want to think that the concept of expanding the mind provides skills you can't quantify is touchy feely bullshyte, but statistics say otherwise. 2. The pace of technology change has made a 40 year career in a subject, whether business, or engineering, or law or even medicine where you only educate yourself to be a standard worker in the field very questionable. You better either get that doctorate and be one of the brilliant ones who tells others what to do, or you need to be prepared to be able to change career paths multiple times in your life. The fact is that liberal arts majors are on average more creative, flexible and innovative. For instance, in software development, companies are finding that anyone can learn to write code and they are dime a dozen. It is those that have ideas behind the code that succeed. And the fact is that AI is already starting to replace jobs that do not require creativity and innovation and I pity those that think a bachelors in engineering is going to set them up for a lifetime of affluence. They will come to difficult end if they don't do more.

I could have easily passed the bar with a 3 month course. A year job experience and I'd be able to do the job as well as any grunt lawyer. And believe me, I see those lawyers everyday. My well rounded education has been a differentiator for me in my job. You don't have to necessarily get those skills at university, but they seem quite difficult to come by for most without it.

HS buddy, basically a dumb surfer, no college, no law school, decided he could pass the bar and did. Took a prep class and read self study books. Frankly I thought that was pretty damn studly.

Another thought I had stems from an experience that our 49 year old daughter had years ago when going to. UCDavis. In her junior year she applied for, was accepted and took a semester in Australia at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. Her roommate at Davis did the same but went to the University of Sydney. Little did the ladies know, but found out quite quickly, that in Australia you apply for "University" and are accepted to one of the top four Univerisites in the country (Sydney, Queensland, Melbourne and I think Perth). You merit your way in. They had both been very good, but not great students at Davis, and had an academic experience that was much more difficult. Then after finals your results are posted in the local newspaper.

Wouldn't this be a possibility in the US? You are chosen. It is restrictive on tested merit. Then I would suggest these brightest of the brightest have their tuition fully paid so they can focus on advancing their merit to society.

The rest in Australia, by the way, rarely go far for college. Those who did not make it into those four Unis stayed close to home for their education. Those in Cairns stayed in Cairns, etc.

I had the experience of going to a high school awards banquet in SoCal last week. Of a graduating class of 650 their were 149 Valedictorians (4.0 GPA or greater weighted), 109 more 3.5-3.99 GPAs. Are you kidding me? Some student with a 4.0, 4.8 weighted was Scholar of Scholars. Then later in the program two young ladies were introduced as having scored 4 or higher on 8 or more AP exams. Immediately I thought there is your true Valedictorian and Salutorian. How in the hell do they separate the wheat from the chafe?

In all pre college schools there should be an academic curve such that society can select and provide for those who show the merit regardless of socio economic ability. Nurture them, scholarship them, cultivate them. Orange slices for all has to stop. As the aeronautical engineer said to the egocentric brain surgeon: "It's not rocket science, my friend"

Another Bear said:

---

HS buddy, basically a dumb surfer, no college, no law school, decided he could pass the bar and did. Took a prep class and read self study books. Frankly I thought that was pretty damn studly.

---

I'm not saying he/she lied to you - but this story gives me some questions re some unexplained details. Was this in California? If so, while a degree and a J.D. is not a requirement, it's close.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education

You need one of:

• Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA)
• Four years of study at a State Bar-registered, fixed-facility law school
• Four years of study with a minimum of 864 hours of preparation at a registered unaccredited distance-learning or correspondence law school
• Four years of study under the supervision of a state judge or attorney
• A combination of these programs

Did this person have any of the above? If so, I'm not sure if you can take the bar exam without them (though I have a feeling they would not allow you to take it without being qualified), but I don't think you'd be admitted.

Or perhaps this was some time in the past when this was not a requirement?

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another thought I had stems from an experience that our 49 year old daughter had years ago when going to. UCDavis. In her junior year she applied for, was accepted and took a semester in Australia at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. Her roommate at Davis did the same but went to the University of Sydney. Little did the ladies know, but found out quite quickly, that in Australia you apply for "University" and are accepted to one of the top four Univerisites in the country (Sydney, Queensland, Melbourne and I think Perth). You merit your way in. They had both been very good, but not great students at Davis, and had an academic experience that was much more difficult. Then after finals your results are posted in the local newspaper.

Wouldn't this be a possibility in the US? You are chosen. It is restrictive on tested merit. Then I would suggest these brightest of the brightest have their tuition fully paid so they can focus on advancing their merit to society.

The rest in Australia, by the way, rarely go far for college. Those who did not make it into those four Unis stayed close to home for their education. Those in Cairns stayed in Cairns, etc.

I had the experience of going to a high school awards banquet in SoCal last week. Of a graduating class of 650 their were 149 Valedictorians (4.0 GPA or greater weighted), 109 more 3.5-3.99 GPAs. Are you kidding me? Some student with a 4.0, 4.8 weighted was Scholar of Scholars. Then later in the program two young ladies were introduced as having scored 4 or higher on 8 or more AP exams. Immediately I thought there is your true Valedictorian and Salutorian. How in the hell do they separate the wheat from the chafe?

In all pre college schools there should be an academic curve such that society can select and provide for those who show the merit regardless of socio economic ability. Nurture them, scholarship them, cultivate them. Orange slices for all has to stop. As the aeronautical engineer said to the egocentric brain surgeon: "It's not rocket science, my friend"

---

47% of grades given out in high schools are A's. It is very hard for colleges to differentiate. If a kid gets a B parents scream bloody murder. A kid gets 89% in the class and a lot of the time if the teacher is asked they will round it to an A. When my daughter was in her freshman year she asked how colleges know what grade percentage you get (99%, 95%, 91%). Had to break it to her that if you get 90% it's an A and that is all they know. Morons and slackers get 90%. Plus almost every teacher has standard extra credit. I joked with my daughter to tell her math teacher that the 101.7% she got one semester was impossible and as math teacher he should know that.

Then of course you have all the weighted classes. Remember this when 1. Someone whose "brilliant" kid has a weighted 4.0 which is as easy to come by as a 3.0 was in your day is complaining that their kid didn't get into Cal or 2. When people claim that a 3.0 is an unreasonable standard for Cal athletes.

GMP said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

HS buddy, basically a dumb surfer, no college, no law school, decided he could pass the bar and did. Took a prep class and read self study books. Frankly I thought that was pretty damn studly.

---

I'm not saying he/she lied to you - but this story gives me some questions re some unexplained details. Was this in California? If so, while a degree and a J.D. is not a requirement, it's close.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education

You need one of:

• Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA)
• Four years of study at a State Bar-registered, fixed-facility law school
• Four years of study with a minimum of 864 hours of preparation at a registered unaccredited distance-learning or correspondence law school
• Four years of study under the supervision of a state judge or attorney
• A combination of these programs

Did this person have any of the above? If so, I'm not sure if you can take the bar exam without them (though I have a feeling they would not allow you to take it without being qualified), but I don't think you'd be admitted.

Or perhaps this was some time in the past when this was not a requirement?

---

Frankly I don't know the deal but he did it 20+ years ago. I can't imagine requirements were very different so I'd guess he went to night law school or a combo, and/or worked for an attorney. His only job as a lawyer has been as in-house counsel for a paper company, where he worked before and his dad worked for 40 years. I know he didn't go to college. I'd guess something goofy happened like the old in-house retired and someone said if he passed the bar he could have the job. BTW, he'd fit in at Dunder-Miffland. Still he passed and I've seen his linkedin page.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another thought I had stems from an experience that our 49 year old daughter had years ago when ...she applied for, was accepted and took a semester in Australia at the University of Queensland, Brisbane...
Wouldn't this be a possibility in the US? You are chosen. It is restrictive on tested merit. Then I would suggest these brightest of the brightest have their tuition fully paid so they can focus on advancing their merit to society.

The rest in Australia, by the way, rarely go far for college. Those who did not make it into those four Unis stayed close to home for their education. Those in Cairns stayed in Cairns, etc.

---

Keep in mind that of the approximately 400k high school graduates in Australia each year, only about 24k will get into the top 4 Aussie universities - that's about 6%. Can you imagine if we instituted a program in the US that awarded the top 6% of high school students with a free university education? The push back against elitism would be immense.

And in Australia too, times have changed. While in the time period your daughter went to Australia it was more rare, today about 50% of Australian adults have attended university. Just like in the US, the allure of building your own human capital through additional education is compelling for many. Restricting it to a few just seems feudal in comparison.

Cal84 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another thought I had stems from an experience that our 49 year old daughter had years ago when ...she applied for, was accepted and took a semester in Australia at the University of Queensland, Brisbane...
Wouldn't this be a possibility in the US? You are chosen. It is restrictive on tested merit. Then I would suggest these brightest of the brightest have their tuition fully paid so they can focus on advancing their merit to society.

The rest in Australia, by the way, rarely go far for college. Those who did not make it into those four Unis stayed close to home for their education. Those in Cairns stayed in Cairns, etc.

---

Keep in mind that of the approximately 400k high school graduates in Australia each year, only about 24k will get into the top 4 Aussie universities - that's about 6%. Can you imagine if we instituted a program in the US that awarded the top 6% of high school students with a free university education? The push back against elitism would be immense.

And in Australia too, times have changed. While in the time period your daughter went to Australia it was more rare, today about 50% of Australian adults have attended university. Just like in the US, the allure of building your own human capital through additional education is compelling for many. Restricting it to a few just seems feudal in comparison.

---

The elitism is academic, not financial. It would go to those whose merit deserves same.

Even back in the day when our daughter was going to school in Australia the numbers were a lot greater for students getting a University education. It was just the top four schools that selected the cream of the crop academically. That is the basis of my query if seeing it could relate to the US. We would have a tiered system somewhat as we do now with Universities, State Colleges, and Community Colleges. You would just need to show merit (not money) to go the the first. The others are to give a broad based education to benefit society at all levels. And yes, I acknowledge that there would be cries of elitism, but the elitism would not be based on "buying your way in", but on academic achievement. It would serve students of all levels.