DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

Smedley said:
 Interesting graph, but note the below, which shows that a good chunk of tuition increases over the years can be explained by a simple economic axiom: the value of the underlying product is higher (yes, they are inflation-adjusted numbers). 

I'm not really sure what the data in this graph really means.  In that time period, our labor demand has shifted.  Gone are the decent/well paying union jobs for which a HS diploma was sufficient and there are now a lot of jobs that have shifted salaries much higher in certain areas (e.g., finance and law).  This chart also doesn't show the impact of advanced degrees - and I'm guessing that the number has increased substantially.  Without knowing more about the data used to generate that chart, it really doesn't mean all that much.

Note free college is not all peaches and cream.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/bernie-sanders-and-other-democrats-are-embracing-free-college-europe-shows-theres-a-cost/2019/06/25/2939047c-8bc4-11e9-b6f4-033356502dce_story.html?utm_term=.6b4fd46812d7

Smedley said:
Note free college is not all peaches and cream.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/bernie-sanders-and-other-democrats-are-embracing-free-college-europe-shows-theres-a-cost/2019/06/25/2939047c-8bc4-11e9-b6f4-033356502dce_story.html?utm_term=.6b4fd46812d7

 To be fair, though, Americas colleges do waste a ton of money, including public money, on ridiculous **** to woo students. How many states is it where the highest paid public employee is a college football or basketball coach?

Oh yeah. 39. 

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/college/the-highest-paid-public-employees-in-39-states-is-a-coach.html

I'm looking forward to tomorrow's and Thursday's debates. As of now I'm in the Warren camp, though if the debates shake things up so that some of the lesser polling candidates start to look more plausible my preferences could shift.

ridski said:

 To be fair, though, Americas colleges do waste a ton of money, including public money, on ridiculous **** to woo students. How many states is it where the highest paid public employee is a college football or basketball coach?
Oh yeah. 39. 
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/college/the-highest-paid-public-employees-in-39-states-is-a-coach.html

The football coach at my alma mater was one of those 39. His salary in 2017 (the year for which the original ESPN article got its figures) was $2.3 million. Last season, the football team cleared $22.4 million in profit for the school.

ETA: By my count, 35 of those coaches are running programs in Power 5 conferences, which bring in big bucks. Whether public colleges should be in that business at all is a good question, of course, but are the salaries wasteful spending?

We thought Pete Buttigieg was qualified to be president. Then a shooting showed how mistaken we were

Everyone got so carried away with the Mayor of South Bend that few stopped to question his credentials

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-police-shooting-town-hall-video-2020-campaign-a8973046.html

A Lot of Bernie’s Support Seems to Be Drifting to Warren”: As Sanders Reprises Greatest Hits, Elizabeth Warren Is Surging

The Massachusetts senator’s marathon tactics are paying off. “What new energy or idea is he bringing to the table?” says a longtime Sanders ally. “Warren has outmaneuvered him on policy.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging

DaveSchmidt said:
The football coach at my alma mater was one of those 39. His salary in 2017 (the year for which the original ESPN article got its figures) was $2.3 million. Last season, the football team cleared $22.4 million in profit for the school.
ETA: By my count, 35 of those coaches are running programs in Power 5 conferences, which bring in big bucks. Whether public colleges should be in that business at all is a good question, of course, but are the salaries wasteful spending?

 Without those teams how high would the tuition fees be? 

Athletics departments that make more than they spend still a minority

We could argue the value of athletics to the educational experience, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are cash cows for the schools.  The above link is from the NCAA itself.

mrincredible said:
I'm gonna just leave this here.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/elizabeth-warren-jumps-out-big-lead-moveon-poll-n1021191

 Wow, can't wait to see how she does tonight. Trying to decide what beverage goes with a first debate night. I'm thinking Corona Light with a slice of lime.

phenixrising said:

A Lot of Bernie’s Support Seems to Be Drifting to Warren”: As Sanders Reprises Greatest Hits, Elizabeth Warren Is Surging
The Massachusetts senator’s marathon tactics are paying off. “What new energy or idea is he bringing to the table?” says a longtime Sanders ally. “Warren has outmaneuvered him on policy.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging

 Warren does seem to be outdoing Sanders at this early juncture. Like her or not, on issues like M4A and student debt, she’s putting out thoughtful and nuanced policies that at least have a chance of being accepted by voters outside the progressive voting bloc. Bernie’s strategy seems to just be “go as far left as possible on everything.”

ridski said:

 Without those teams how high would the tuition fees be? 

ml1 said:

Athletics departments that make more than they spend still a minority
We could argue the value of athletics to the educational experience, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are cash cows for the schools.  The above link is from the NCAA itself.

Remember, we were talking about athletics departments at flagship state schools (the ones where a coach is the top-paid state employee). The football and basketball teams that those coaches run are indeed cash cows, putting their departments squarely in the minority that make money or break even. 

Without those teams and their multimillion-dollar coaches, the athletic departments aren’t anywhere close to being solvent. So if you wanted an athletics department without those teams, tuition costs would be higher. As it is, I think the going salary rate for football and basketball coaches at flagship state universities has little effect on tuition, and if anything it’s probably downward.

In the end the states are paying vast staffs of people to perform a job that should be funded by professional leagues and teams. Sports are a very important part of academia, but there is a huge difference between the amateur athletics competing in the US, and just about everywhere else in the world. These are tax-payer funded minor league amateur youth teams. I know that's where you get your professionals from, and not from professional league schools, but IMHO it's still a waste of state money.

leaving aside the question of whether or not coaches are the highest paid employees at a given university, the article linked above noted that in the most recent year, only 24 FBS schools' athletic departments finished in the black.  That leaves a lot of states with flagship universities that are subsidizing athletics.  Again, we can debate whether having big time athletics is a good thing or not.  But among the hundreds of schools with football programs, athletics for most is a money-losing proposition.  New Jersey's flagship state university's athletic program needs $33 million a year in subsidization from funding sources outside the department.  

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/02/01/rutgers-athletics-bottom-big-ten-revenue-and-victories/2748374002/

In terms of recruiting students, it may be that the money spent on athletics is more cost-efficient than marketing and advertising, so maybe it's money well spent.  But I don't know too many schools outside the 24 that make money who have done any sort of cost/benefit analysis of big time sports.

Overview for tonight's debate:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/us/politics/democratic-debate-night-1.html

and to get back to the topic of college tuition, personally I don't think it has to be "free college" or nothing.  I think the goal, however we get there, should be for higher education to be as affordable for future students as it was for the Baby Boomers.  If it was possible to make college affordable for an enormously large generation of students, there isn't any convincing argument that it couldn't or shouldn't be done now.

If we're going to be honest our generation of Baby Boomers as a whole has taken an awful lot of benefits from this country and then decided that we should pull the ladder up behind us.  And then deride the current generation of young people as entitled whiners looking for "free stuff."  But we got all that stuff, if not free, at very low cost.

ml1 said:

That leaves a lot of states with flagship universities that are subsidizing athletics.  

That, like Rutgers’s $33 million subsidy, was a snapshot. Last year, my alma mater’s athletics program made $2.1 million. The year before it was $10,000. Maybe in that 2014 study it was among those in the red (and maybe by only $10,000). The idea isn’t that departments are money-makers in every given year. It’s that they generally pay for themselves over the years. The 24 figure doesn’t tell me how many are in that category. (The current revenue situation at Rutgers, during its Big Ten transition, isn’t static, either.)

Again, we can debate whether having big time athletics is a good thing or not.  

Yup, already agreed. A boldface IMHO says it all.

ml1 said:
and to get back to the topic of college tuition, personally I don't think it has to be "free college" or nothing.  I think the goal, however we get there, should be for higher education to be as affordable for future students as it was for the Baby Boomers.  If it was possible to make college affordable for an enormously large generation of students, there isn't any convincing argument that it couldn't or shouldn't be done now.
If we're going to be honest our generation of Baby Boomers as a whole has taken an awful lot of benefits from this country and then decided that we should pull the ladder up behind us.  And then deride the current generation of young people as entitled whiners looking for "free stuff."  But we got all that stuff, if not free, at very low cost.

 Or you could look at the fact that Baby Boomers were drafted yet fought to end the draft and the Vietnam war, never heard one say "why don't these kids have to go?" Also for all of us feminists who fought for a woman's right to choose, we are still fighting to hold onto a right we no longer need. 

Most of the volunteers that I know are Baby Boomers.

So is Elizabeth Warren.

Morganna said:
 Wow, can't wait to see how she does tonight. Trying to decide what beverage goes with a first debate night. I'm thinking Corona Light with a slice of lime.

 One of the more thoughtful questions about the event!  

Hopefully the Moderators questions will be half as good.

I seriously doubt that athletic spending is anything more than a small contributor to surging college costs.

The bigger reasons are more luxurious facilities, higher healthcare costs, and a huge expansion of university administration.

NYTimes 2015.

By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

Forbes 2017

During the 1980-1981 school year, public and private institutions spent $20.7 billion in total on instruction, and $13 billion on academic support, student services and institutional support combined, according to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics. By the 2014-2015 school year, total instructional costs had climbed to $148 billion, while the same grouping of administrative expenses had risen to $122.3 billion.

Put another way, administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%.

I don't support "free" public college, as either Warren or Sanders, promises unless there were simultaneous measures put in place to restrain waste, and Sanders (at least) has already ruled that out. 

Also, creating "free" public college through the states is problematic, because many states won't/can't increase their own contributions.  

Finally, I don't think the government's support for college students should be contingent on whether or not they attend a public college or a private college.  If a student wants to attend a private college and pay more for that, I don't think he or she should lose federal money he/she would be eligible for at a public college.  

If only public colleges are "free," then the non-elite private college will struggle badly with enrollment and very likely close.  The closings of private colleges would be disruptive and very costly for the federal and state governments since public enrollment will soar. 

STANV said:
 One of the more thoughtful questions about the event!  
Hopefully the Moderators questions will be half as good.

 Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd rarely disappoint.

On her first couple of seasons Rachel ended certain nights with a cocktail demo, she was a mixologist in her former life.

Runner_Guy said:

Forbes 2017

Put another way, administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%.

Something took a bite out of instructional spending, but it doesn’t appear that it was administrative costs, which were steady in percentage terms. Does the article (which I don’t have time to read at the moment) say what it was?

Morganna said:
 Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd rarely disappoint.
On her first couple of seasons Rachel ended certain nights with a cocktail demo, she was a mixologist in her former life.

 If I watch from home I'll have wine.

I have received an invitation from the Warren Campaign to a "Watch Party" in South Orange, so I may be driving and will have to stick to soft drinks if I go.

I’ll tune in for sure but I can’t see myself going the two-hour distance either night. These early debates can be quite boring IMO.

Morganna said:

STANV said:
 One of the more thoughtful questions about the event!  
Hopefully the Moderators questions will be half as good.

 Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd rarely disappoint.
On her first couple of seasons Rachel ended certain nights with a cocktail demo, she was a mixologist in her former life.

 Didn't you mean to say that Chuck Todd ALWAYS disappoints? He's the worst of all of the major talking heads. And Maddow is way too full of herself these days. She has become annoying to watch.

I'm probably not going to watch.  Certainly not for very long if I do.  With all those bodies on the stage, each candidate is only going to get a few minutes to speak.  So the substance is going to be pretty meager.  And for better or worse (IMHO it's worse), the coverage of the debate is going to be the reality of the debate that most people will experience.  With most people not tuning in, they're going to know only what the pundits tell them happened.  The perfect example of this phenomenon was when Al Gore won his first debate with W Bush according to the first impression polls.  But when the Beltway crew got done obsessing over Gore's sighing during the debate, he was then perceived as a loser.  It sucks that the gatekeepers get to focus the electorate on trivialities, but it is what it is. 

Here we go again with the whining:

NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”

Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

He is a selfish piece of ****.

Morganna said:
 Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd rarely disappoint.
On her first couple of seasons Rachel ended certain nights with a cocktail demo, she was a mixologist in her former life.

 OMG, I could not disagree more!  Those two are my least favorite news personalities.  I absolutely despise them both.  I think she's up there with Alex Jones for conspiracy theories and he's dumb as a stump.  They are both totally in the tank for the establishment and I expect they will be providing questions as directed by their corporate overlords.  He was cited in Wikileaks as working unethically in the Clinton campaign. I'm sure the Progressive candidates (which is Gabbard tonight) will not be treated well.  Hopefully Tulsi gets asked something better than "Why did you meet with Assad?"   They can at least do better than that.

So, we have a wide range of MOL opinions!  We better open a separate thread for thisl-

BG9 said:
Sanders Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner

Yes, do make sure Trump gets re-elected if you don't get the nomination.

 I'm so glad he answered like this--he's had enough of the stupid shaming.  How many times has he been asked this?  No other candidate gets asked this question (and no one since Bernie has been asked for taxes).  Enough.  He's not putting up with crap anymore and the establishment reportes can shove it.  Good for him!

PLUS-- from the day he announced he has said he would support the winner.  This is just a gotcha question.