I honestly, honestly wonder how such deceitful, thieving people live with themselves.
I think you're being a bit harsh here. One of the best ways to improve productivity in aggregate (and in return, get more tax dollars) is to improve[1] citizen's education.
I understand that there are potential pitfalls with what he's suggesting but to describe him as "deceitful and thieving" for suggesting something he thinks will help America is beyond the pale.
[1] Things like engineering and science, not gender studies or literature. Regardless of the merits of the latter two they don't really contribute to productivity.
Yes, but when you explicitly politicize the funding system you're going to get political results, like healthy support for "gender studies or literature" regardless of the demand.
Just look at the NYT article on a student with $100,000 debt from attending NYU; you had to go down 30+ paragraphs, to the 3rd from the last, to find out her major was in womens and religious study. An honest, non-political article would have brought that out earlier and as something more than an aside.
How that would play out with STEM majors ... I'm not sure. Starting in the '80s there's been an strong push on the supply side which we can see reflected in flattish salaries, so more subsidization instead of (or in addition to) more H-1B etc. visas might be an outcome. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Or take the worse fevered nightmares of the Left, would a President Palin mandate that all biology departments teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution? He who pays the piper picks the tune....
Yes, but when you explicitly politicize the funding system you're going to get political results, like healthy support for "gender studies or literature" regardless of the demand.
These things are already politicized. Right now, the system of higher education milks the public by convincing them to take on government subsidized debt. What if we eliminate the debt and make the subsidy direct? Does this have a negative impact on countries that provide free higher education?
(My question is open and genuine, not a stroke in a debate.)
President Palin? How about Attorney General Cuccinelli? A few minutes with Google should take you to coverage of his views on U. Va.'s research into global warming.
Given that I'm pretty well convinced that Michael Mann is a fraud, that Cuccinelli is just asking for info doesn't bother me at all. What's at issue is not his views on global warming but on Michael Mann's research while an employee of the state.
Just what sort of feedback system(s) do you propose for areas where we know peer review has been perverted (e.g. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419)
Public college education, which he writes of, has always been subsidized, hasn't it? As I recall from the 1970s, it was about 45% of private college education. Given that the principle is accepted, the question would be whether to extend it to complete coverage.
I honestly, honestly wonder how such deceitful, thieving people live with themselves.