Colleges are way to expensive

[Guest lilbabynushi]

Colleges nowadays are too expensive.Once a child starts with high school..the parents start worrying about money.If the child is smart but poor he/she is intimidated by the fact that the smartness is of no use because they have no money to go to top private institutions.Some institiutions are expensive because of being branded.They are the ones with ppl who have studied in private prep schools and have a lot of money.Just because ppl with that social status attend these institutions the fees are high and other good students feel intimidated.I think the colleges should be reasonably priced because they all have to serve the same purpose:good education

[blike]

All states should start something like florida's "bright futures" scholorships. Basically the lotto money goes towards education. Anyone who graduates with over a 3.0 and a decent SAT score can get 100% of their tuition payed to a state school.

[Raider]

NO. Capitilism works. We're messing around with it too much as is. The government should not be backing any industry, including colleges.

[Glider]

Capitalism may work, but it is far from perfect. Don't you think that the government has any responsibility towards the people it (allegedly) represents?

 

Is backing industry, the main objective of which is profit, the same as backing education, the main objective of which is to educate the future captains of industry (not to mention medicine, science and government)?

If the government wants to lead a healthy and productive country, then isn't backing the education of the next generation of doctors, business execs, scientists, and indeed educators a sound investment?

 

Or, is education only the right of those who can afford it, regardless of merit? Is it the underlying principle of capitalism, that irrespective of your intelligence or latent ability and potential, money comes before all? That you have the right to an education (only if you can afford it), you have the right to health (only if you can afford it) you have the right to the persuit of happiness (only if you can afford it)?

 

Is it a sound philosophy to open the doors of Universities to people based only on their bank balance? Wouldn't this result in an occasional situation where Universities are put in the position of attempting to educate an idiot because he/she can afford it rather than an individual with great potential who can't?

 

In my opinion, money is not a valid factor for deciding who has the right to an education. Individual merit, on the other hand, is.

[fafalone]

the cost of public schools is fine, but private colleges are way too expensive.

 

and bright futures is bs, because 100% academic scholars pays $2300 for private college, when thens many state schools that are more expension (i think uf is 8000 or something)

 

i'm paying $32000 here at UM (next to nothing out of pocket because of scholarships tho)

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Glider

Capitalism may work, but it is far from perfect. Don't you think that the government has any responsibility towards the people it (allegedly) represents?

 

Is backing industry, the main objective of which is profit, the same as backing education, the main objective of which is to educate the future captains of industry (not to mention medicine, science and government)?

If the government wants to lead a healthy and productive country, then isn't backing the education of the next generation of doctors, business execs, scientists, and indeed educators a sound investment?

 

Or, is education only the right of those who can afford it, regardless of merit? Is it the underlying principle of capitalism, that irrespective of your intelligence or latent ability and potential, money comes before all? That you have the right to an education (only if you can afford it), you have the right to health (only if you can afford it) you have the right to the persuit of happiness (only if you can afford it)?

 

Is it a sound philosophy to open the doors of Universities to people based only on their bank balance? Wouldn't this result in an occasional situation where Universities are put in the position of attempting to educate an idiot because he/she can afford it rather than an individual with great potential who can't?

 

In my opinion, money is not a valid factor for deciding who has the right to an education. Individual merit, on the other hand, is.

 

I cannot agree more. As a person who works in higher ed, I see it all the time. If you are truly gifted, then almost any school will Pay YOU to attend. All your costs will be absorbed.

[fafalone]

Anyone who can't pay for college probably doesn't belong there. No matter how poor you are, if you work hard enough scholarships, grants, and loans will pay for AT LEAST state school. To not have enough money is a result of lack of these, which is related to academics, not financial status.

[dethfire]

budgets are extremely tight, what can ya do? either they raise tuition or they cut programs, either way people complain.

[T_FLeX]

Originally posted by DocBill

I cannot agree more. As a person who works in higher ed, I see it all the time. If you are truly gifted, then almost any school will Pay YOU to attend. All your costs will be absorbed.

 

 

I Looked this up real quick:

 

"The incidence of profound giftedness generally occurs in the population in about one in every 10,000 people"

 

What about the other 9,999 of us? Do we not deserve to go to college?

[spacemanspiff]

are all schools across the board becoming more expensive? or is it mainly the more popular schools?

 

don't most states have a state school that is much cheaper than some private colleges?

[fafalone]

Originally posted by T_FLeX

I Looked this up real quick:

 

"The incidence of profound giftedness generally occurs in the population in about one in every 10,000 people"

 

What about the other 9,999 of us? Do we not deserve to go to college?

 

Believe me I know plenty of the bottom 1% that are going to state school for free.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by T_FLeX

I Looked this up real quick:

 

"The incidence of profound giftedness generally occurs in the population in about one in every 10,000 people"

 

What about the other 9,999 of us? Do we not deserve to go to college?

 

Well, I can only consider myself as an example. When I was tested in the 1960's (before Dyslexia was understood) my AB IQ was 91. I was considered a "less than average student." They tried to convince my mother that I was simply an "Idiot" and that perhaps I would fit in better at a "special school."

 

35 years later, I have completed a BA, an M.Div and a MS, a Ph.D (Summa Cum Laude, 2nd in class) and nearly done my Ph.D in Ecology. Not bad for an idiot. My last 2 IQ tests were, 188 and 176.

 

I believe that Dr. Einstien said it best:

 

"The difference between genius and mediocracy lies not within intellegence, but withing determination."

 

Bill (The idiot)

[Dudde]

and if you have no time to fill out scholarships and grants stuff, then who cares right;)

 

there are several factors you have to consider, what kind of life the student leads, home life, etc.

[fafalone]

Well if you can't take time out of your drug dealing and gang wars... then you don't belong in college.

 

As if you'd not have time in school to begin with.

[Glider]

Originally posted by DocBill

Well, I can only consider myself as an example. When I was tested in the 1960's (before Dyslexia was understood) my AB IQ was 91. I was considered a "less than average student." They tried to convince my mother that I was simply an "Idiot" and that perhaps I would fit in better at a "special school.

 

I had to take the 11-plus at school. At that time, schools here had a 'streaming' system (thanks a bunch Cyril Burt!), and the 11+ was a test which determined which 'stream' you would be in throughout your school life.

 

There were two flaws with this system:

 

1) The assumption that you can predict scholastic ability from an exam taken by an 11 year old.

 

2) Cyril Burt was found to have made up his data in the research that led to the introduction of the streaming system, based on his own prejudiced beliefs.

 

As it turned, out the streams that pupils were put into as a result of their 11+ results were more robust predictors of scholastic outcome than the 11+ itself. This was due largely to the expectations of the teachers. After all, if you are given 'slow' kids to teach, what's the point in trying too hard? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy there. Shows the power of 'labelling' though.

 

I think IQ tests are excellent tests of one's ability to take IQ tests.

[fafalone]

IQ tests accurately measure potential, which is the point.

[blike]

what's the point in trying too hard? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy there. Shows the power of 'labelling' though.

 

My psych prof. mentioned a couple of studies that had been performed on this. I don't remember any details, but students who the teacher expected to perform better based on iq results (i think), did perform better, even when they were randomly assigned.

[fafalone]

The smartest students should be pushed the hardest.

[Glider]

Originally posted by blike

 

My psych prof. mentioned a couple of studies that had been performed on this. I don't remember any details, but students who the teacher expected to perform better based on iq results (i think), did perform better, even when they were randomly assigned.

 

Exactly. And students who the teacher expected to perform worse (based on randomly assigned IQ results), did perform worse. This supported the hypthesis that teacher expectation (as manipulated by randomly assigning IQ results) was at least as reliable a predictor of student performance as actual IQ test results.

 

Originally posted by fafalone

IQ tests accurately measure potential, which is the point.

IQ is supposed to equate to potential. However, there is debate concerning the validity and reliability of tests used to measure it.

 

The value for the intelligence quotient is reached by: (mental age/physical age) * 100. Therefore, any person whose mental and physical ages are the same will have an IQ of 100. IQ is normally distributed, and the population mean is 100 (SD :sim:15), so 70% of the population have an IQ between 85

and 115. All that is pretty straightforward, but the problem is, how do you measure 'mental age'?

 

People have been shown to achieve significantly different results on different tests of IQ, and also to have achieved significantly different results on the same test taken at different times. If IQ tests were both 100% valid and reliable, this couldn't happen.

 

Much of the problem stems from attempts to define intelligence. You cannot hope to measure something accurately until you can define exactly what you are measuring. For example, tests that require knowledge are measures of learning, not potential (intelligence). The results of tests given in English to someone whose 1st language is not English can be influenced by that persons's grasp of a second language (which is not a valid measure of intelligence). Tests that include cultural references will disadvantage those who come from a different culture than the one in which the test was designed, and so-on and so-on.

 

There is a lot of work going on addressing these issues, but IQ tests, though widely used, are neither 100% valid nor 100% reliable. Until it can be demonstrated that they are, the results of any such test should be viewed as an indication of potential in the broadest and loosest sense only, not as a definitive measure of a person's intelligence, and they should only be employed only by people who are aware of their limitations in order to avoid the serious negative consequences of false labelling.

 

The smartest students should be pushed the hardest

Arguably, but again, you have the problem of reliably and validly identifying the smartest students.