Damn guest bloggers! Always screwing up!

Time to abolish the federal Department of Education then.

Nah, it's the pointy hat. And he wears it every day.

Brooks is ingenious and evil, from the podium provided my the NYTimes he crafts an argument against tax relief that would benefit all Americans - while ignoring the Bush tax cuts that further enrich the rich and imperil the economic future of the whole US.

More specifically it's foolish to say that "the percentage of Americans that graduate has barely budged."

It might be that there really is no causal relationship between Federal spending and graduation rates. That would be bizarre. Education is not an inferior good (good for which you purchase less as your budget grows).

One possible explanation for the "barely budged" idea is that the Census Bureau summary statistics on educational attainment generally lead with "percentage of the population aged 25 or older", which means that you have to keep reading through tables to identify recent graduation rates, as opposed to population averages. If that's the only number that you look at, then yes, those numbers have been unimpressive. But that's some pretty serious hackery.

God damn it, Kevin, he's always wearing his hack hat.

How many are dead and maimed from this grossly offensive shithead? He should be pillioried every weekend on the Mall instead of being published.

We'll get you bloodthirsty yet, Kevin Drum. The blogofascists are still watching you, hombre.

Oh God it's Mr. Glastris, sorry about that.

Yeah well we got Kevin, he wouldn't make that kind of mistake anymore. It's these blundering guests that are behind, as usual.

Paradox: Paul Glastris wrote this post, not me. I've been boycotting NYT columnists ever since Times Select went into business.

"Hackery"? Come on. If Jimmy Breslin were dead, this would make him roll over in his grave. There is a plain English word for describing an increase from 19% to 29% as "barely budged". That word is "lie". Check your dictionary.

I betcha the increase in 2-year degrees has been bigger than the increase in 4-year degrees.

2-year colleges have proliferated like crazy.

The percent of 25- to 29-year olds who completed at least some college increased from 36% to 57%.

The percent of 25- to 29-year olds who earned a bachelor's degree increased from 19% to 29%.

So half of all students who begin college don't finish? What an incredibly sad state of affairs (wonder how many drop out because they can't afford it...)

So we increased the college graduation rate by 10% by putting 18% more high school students into college? (not necessarily the same people, mind you, but...)

Who care that lots of people drop out of college? Lots of people go back to college, too.

And paying for college makes that all the easier, which is the important, part, right?

"I've been boycotting NYT columnists ever since Times Select went into business.

Posted by: Kevin Drum"

It just occurred to me, maybe that's the whole POINT of Times Select ... to insulate their pea brain columnists from the whips and scorns of blogosphere contumely.

I'd like to hear anyone argue that there has not been a direct corollation between the amount of federal guarantee a student can get for his/her loans and the amount professors and colleges decide their pearls of wisdom should cost. The only result is that the categories of jobs you need a meaningless credential for is increased and the lower middle class is ever-more burdened by a crushing debt load to subsidize the acedemic/industrial complex.

The resurgence of the Irish economy in the last decade and the net positive return migration of Irish from the US to Ireland is being attributed in part to the Irish government's substantial higher education subsidies.

When conservative pundits like David Brooks are predisposed to argue against government involvement in anything they overlook important facts and trends that lower the quality of their journalism.

Well, its fine and dandy to educate all but trying to employ all is another issue rarely discussed; for, that would challenge our present economic model of whatever it is for today, much like whatever it is today for the war on terror. Defaults on education loans will rise along with the foreclosure rate in this country. Higher education is becoming cost prohibitive, and since employment sucks, the return on investment is beginning to suck. No one can compete with government subsidies of higher education overseas to turn out $20,000 per year world class engineers (so, "they" say). Yep, for decades, there were no qualified Americans, and now we have no qualified Americans to do even high skilled construction work or manufacturing. Wow!

Do we make that 67% number for high school graduates who immediately enter college "better" by making it higher? Or lower?

You only have had to go to college once to figure out that a substantial number of freshman aren't ready for it. This doesn't mean so much freshman who need a lot of remedial courses, but kids who were academically competent in high school and unprepared for either the academic pressure or the social environment in college.

The light of intellectual curiosity doesn't go on for many people until well after their 18th birthday, one reason the old GI bill was such a success. We are way too focused in this country on college attendance and graduation, as credentials, tickets to punch on one's way to better things. Congratulating ourselves on putting a lot of kids into college who won't get as much out of it as they would by waiting is a poor way to exercise our concern about education.

Yet the percentage of Americans who graduate has barely budged. The number of Americans who drop out of college leaps from year to year.

This is a typical rightard argument, comparing percentages to raw numbers. Guess what Bobo, if the percentage of Americans who graduate hasn't changed, and the number of dropouts has increased dramatically, it means a hell of a lot more Americans are going to college!

The democratic plan isn't meant to increase graduation rates, extra federal aid isn't going to change that, but by allowing more students to matriculate, more will graduate.

My guess is that Bobo understands this, but chooses to misrepresent facts.

... and excuse me for wondering about that $750 billion dollars that the feds have "spent" on financial aid.

I note a) that the feds currently provide around $70-80 billion annually in various forms including, especially, LOANS and b) that that there is currently about $400 billion in outstanding loans.

Granted there may be a higher than normal rate of default on those loans, although I believe steps have been taken to reduce that problem. But beyond the fact that the program has done demonstrable good, I'm skeptical that the feds have, in any reasonable sense of the word, "spent" $750 billion.

So half of all students who begin college don't finish?

Um, no.

Half of all people 25-29 who have at least started college have not received a four year degree.

Some of those people dropped out.

Some of those people were seeking a two-year degree or some other certification short of a bachelor's degree that required college course work, or just taking one or a handful of community college courses for professional or personal development; they didn't "drop out", they were never seeking a bachelor's degree.

Some of those people are still in school at the time, either because they are taking longer than usual or because they started later.

this is the best blog I have ever come across...all of you posters are so clever and witty...i feel so inadequate posting...i am not worthy...

effective advertising
http://www.office-humour.co.uk/movies/3928/

his hack had was put on with superglue decades ago.

he cannot stop wearing it.

David Brooks, being a conservative, looks at facts that refute his ideology and remains totally convinced that his ideology is right.

Brooks fancies himself to be an accomplished social scientist. He somehow caught that George-Will-I-am-pretty-smart-guy virus. But he’s a very poor social scientist. I have never seen him get anything right.

It amazes me how conservative ideologues sit around reading each other and get so impressed with each other.

Think about it. Do his observations on this subject make ANY sense? I’m middle-class and I’m trying to help my son pay for college right this minute. As I am writing the checks, what kind of idiot tries to convince me that federal aid does not help.

Brooks is no hack. HE'S A LIAR. Crafty, subtle but a deliberate liar nevertheless.

His general technique always begins with feigning a posture of concern or fake curiously about some issue and then weaving a fabric of lies to advance his nasty right wing agenda. He does this by either leaving things out or just plain making things up.

For example, in one of his column a couple of months backs he wrote:

"Today, when the left feels disinherited, liberals seize upon the conspiracy fantasies of Kevin Phillips, whose book 'American Theocracy' is in its fifth week on The Times's best-seller list."

No where in the column did he mentioned that Phillips (who was critiquing the Bush family) is a noted conservative with a successful track record of political prognostication for Republicans. The unwary reader is left with the idea that Phillips is just some "Liberal Nutcase" nutcase conspiracist who take advantage of "his liberal readers' ignorance."

Two things in that column that Brooks says of Phillips is simply a projection of Brooks' own mendacity:

"He is a master of slicing reality so that it conforms to predetermined conclusions."

And he practices "...intellectual dishonesty on stilts."

If 67% of high school graduates are enrolling in college, and 57% later claim to have completed "some college"... does that mean 10% enrolled but never showed up?

Maybe it means they dropped out during their first year, and therefore didn't "complete" anything. Or else it was the graduating class of 2004 that had a 67% college enrollment, but the class of 1993 (the 29-year olds of 2004) enrolled at 57% or less.

Someone above mentioned the benefits accruing from the Irish expenditure on higher education. In a similar fashion, Indian Institutes of Technology, whose graduates have spawned the Indian software industry, were built by the Indian government, and the students essentially get free education.

brooks' hack hat is frickin' crazy-glued to his empty head.

According to the U.S. Department of Education and the Census Bureau, the percent of high school graduates who immediately enrolled in college the fall after graduation increased from 49% in 1972 to 67% in 2004.

Obviously there is a connection between the rise in the number of college students and global warming.

Brooks also conveniently ignores the fact that the cost of a college education has gone up a lot faster than inflation and that without these programs the graduation rate may have declined.

I cancelled my subscription to 'the Atlantic Monthly' ( 15 years )over David Brook's inanities. He is the King of non sequitur and other loigical fallacies. Bo-Bos in paradise indeed.

Hotspur: Brooks is no hack. HE'S A LIAR.

Agreed. Your way of putting it fits in with the Jimmy Breslin school of plain English (methinks that George Orwell and Harry Truman would also approve).

Crafty, subtle ...

How, where?

Jew Math.

The HolyCo$t fable has a few math problems:

1948 Version of the fable:

Number of dead Jews = 6,000,000
Number of dead at Auschwitz = 4,000,000
Number of dead Jews at Auschwitz = 3,500,000
Number of dead Jews outside Auschwitz = 6,000,000 - 3,500,000 = 2,500,000

1990 Version of the fable:

Number of dead Jews = 6,000,000
Number of dead at Auschwitz = 1,500,000
Number of dead Jews at Auschwitz = 1,000,000
Number of dead Jews outside Auschwitz = 6,000,000 - 1,000,000 = 5,000,000

The problem is damn clear:

In 1948 Jews claimed that 2,500,000 Jews died outside Auschwitz.
In 1990 Jews claimed that 5,000,000 Jews died outside Auschwitz.

This is a result of their reducing the number of Auschwitz dead (by some 2.5 million), but refusing to reduce the overall 6,000,000 claimed Jew deaths.

So are Jews NUTS, or just NOT very good at math.

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until 1989 (note the "4 million" victims).

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

I don't know if Brooks is right or wrong, but I can't help but wonder why the refutation involves picking only certain age groups.

If 67% of high school graduates are enrolling in college, and 57% later claim to have completed "some college"... does that mean 10% enrolled but never showed up?

No.

Or else it was the graduating class of 2004 that had a 67% college enrollment, but the class of 1993 (the 29-year olds of 2004) enrolled at 57% or less.

Close. The statistics, though, clearly say that the 57% was for 25-29 year olds, not just the 29 year olds. But, yes, the 2004 number for both groups are for 2004, not the same people at different ages.

Plus, of course, the 57% is not an indication of the rate that those 25-29 immediately enrolled in college after graduating from high-school, but the percentage of them that took some college coursework at any point prior to the time of the survey.

I don't know if Brooks is right or wrong, but I can't help but wonder why the refutation involves picking only certain age groups.

Do we make that 67% number for high school graduates who immediately enter college "better" by making it higher? Or lower?

You only have had to go to coll　“南门至文昌门内正在维修的一段城墙突然出现土层滑坡，该处路段已经封闭。” ">ege once to figure out that a substantial number of freshman aren't ready for it. This doesn't mean so much freshman who need a lot of remedial courses, but kids who wer　　新华社北京7月25日电 中国外交部副部长杨洁篪25日与安提瓜和巴布达、巴哈马国、巴巴多斯、多米尼克国、格林纳达、圭亚那合作共和国、牙买加、圣卢西亚、苏里南共和国、特立尼达和多巴哥共和国的代表在北京举行了中国和加勒比建交国外交部间第三次磋商。 ">e academically competent in high school and unprepa　【提要】为了向中国“渗透”，盘踞在“金新月”的国际贩毒集团近两年越来越多地采用搭乘国际航班的贩毒方式 ">red for 　据中国日报特稿 美国前总统克林顿在黑人中曾拥有很高的支持率，因此在卸任后才会把办公室安置在黑人文化重镇、纽约哈莱姆区，并在入驻当天受到盛大欢迎。 ">either the academic pressure or the social environment in college.

The light of intellectual curiosity doesn't go on for many people until well after their 18th birthday, one reason the old GI bill was such a success. We are way too focused in this country on college attendance and graduation, as credentials, tickets to punch on one's way to better things. Congratulating ourselves on putting a lot of kids into colleg

I can’t help but feel that if the eventual Demcratic nominee could create workable proposals for health care reform ( including Medicare), higher education financial aid, and a common sense approach to terrorism he/she might win by default.

I am getting the sense that the vast majority of Americans know that as far as Iraq goes, we have stepped into a huge pile of dog sh*t and there is no way we are going to come out of it smelling of roses. A moderate approach (split the difference between Bush and the “pull out tomorrow” crowd would be satisfactory.

But Bobo is on TV, like, all the time. I don't think he'd be on all those shows if he didn't know what he was talking about, do you?

Percent of Jews who immediately enrolled in college: 84 percent.

Percent of Jews who completed at least some college: 92 percent

Percent of Jews who earned a bachelor's degree: 114 percent!

See? SEE?

Hey, why would we want to spend $750 billion on education over 30 years (much of it on loans that ultimately get repaid) when we can spend $320 billion in three years in Iraq? And look what we get in return - well, uh, stay the course, you know, evildoers, bring 'em on...etc.

Paul, I think you too suffer from Kevin Drum syndrome -- you believe the arguments of someone who appears to debunk something you don't like, but you don't check HIS facts before shooting your mouth (fingers) off.

Mr. Carey only offers one argument and one cite to "refute" Mr. Brooks, The percent of 25- to 29-year olds who earned a bachelor's degree increased from 19% to 29%. (Mr. Brooks claims that "the percentage of Americans who graduate has barely budged." [in the past three decades]

Here are Mr. Carey's problems:

1. He is citing census data which carries this caveats:

! Interpret data with caution (estimates are unstable).

1Included in the totals but not shown separately are those from other racial/ethnic categories.

NOTE: The Current Population Survey (CPS) questions used to obtain educational attainment were changed in 1992. In 1994, the survey instrument for the CPS was changed and weights were adjusted. See supplemental note 2 for further discussion of the CPS. Some estimates are revised from previous publications. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Study Supplement, 1971–2005, previously unpublished tabulation (November 2005).

We don't know where Mr. Brooks gets his figures from (from the colleges, perhaps?), so we can't evaluate his data. But we do know that many more people claim to have college degrees than actually have them.

And even the census tables referenced by Mr. Carey show that the numbers peaked in 2000 and have fallen off since.

So, I think Mr. Brooks is quite on point to question what we're getting for our tax dollars and I don't think you ought to give up your day job.

But we do know that many more people claim to have college degrees than actually have them.

well, we know of one, a Mr. Rogers. Other than that, just a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit.

We don't know where Mr. Brooks gets his figures from (from the colleges, perhaps?)

perhaps, or perhaps he pulled it out of his ass. But you swallow it.

Oh, I wouldn't use the word foolish...

It's great to see Democrats being concerned about Americans going to college.

Unfortunately, almost all Democrat leaders want to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens and give them to illegal aliens.

So, amidst all this self-congratulatory talk, perhaps someone could explain to us why Democrats want to give citizens of other countries who are here illegally something that they took from U.S. citizens.

If you aren't familiar with this scam, here's more information on the DREAM Act

Norman Rogers: We don't know where Mr. Brooks gets his figures from (from the colleges, perhaps?), so we can't evaluate his data.

So instead of calling Brooks a liar, we should simply say that his statements have no credibility whatsoever. Perhaps you're right.

In all fairness to Brooks though, he may have taken advice on finding credible sources from Judith Miller.

If I get to be a NYT columnist, can I also pull data out of my ass and fail to cite the source?

We should all be thankful for the watcher - usually you have to visit a psychiatric hospital to have such insightful and Jew-laden conversations. And the food is so much better here.

Just a note on this:

Here are Mr. Carey's problems:

1. He is citing census data which carries this caveats:

! Interpret data with caution (estimates are unstable).

To be clear, that means that if there's an exclamation point next to the data point on the table, interpret with caution etc. etc.

None of the data points I cited have exclamation points next to them. No instability problems there.

As for:

But we do know that many more people claim to have college degrees than actually have them

We know nothing of the kind. And even if there were some upward bias in the numbers, there's no reason they would be more biased in 2004 than in 1972; the point is not the absolute percentage but the fact that the percentage has gotten substantially larger.

"Obviously there is a connection between the rise in the number of college students and global warming."

Specifically we need to look at how much the air has been heated since Brooks graduated from college. And is it too late to revoke his student loans?

Mr. Brooks has NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to question how our tax dollars are used for education as he has been one of the chief enablers of a GWB fiasco that has led to our government pissing away 100s of billions of our tax dollars.

Paul Glastris: "Guess [David] Brooks is wearing his hack hat today."

He must've thought it was Friday, and therefore time to appear with Mark Shields on PBS' "Newshour with Jim Lehrer". Our household and our neighbors have a running bet as to which Brooks persona will show up on that program -- the conservative but thoughtfully responsible journalist, the rabid right-wing partisan hack, or a distasteful combination of both.

dd: "... 为了向中国“渗透”，盘踞在“金新月”的国际贩毒集团近两年越来越多地采用搭乘国 ..."

Well, you know, two can play at that game -- 与安提瓜和巴布达!

Actually, anemic growth turning into stagnation and then decline would be exactly what I'd expect of college attendance and graduation since the mid-eighties. It was at that time that the double-digit inflation of tuition started and when the GOP began to succeed in cutting grant programs and increasing the interest rates on student loans. That lier Brooks is backdating the trend to the seventies to blame the programs that the GOP subsequently starved of funds blunting their effectivness rather putting the blame where it belongs on cuts to student assistance and grants to institutions.

Unfortunately, almost all Democrat leaders want to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens and give them to illegal aliens.

I don't see that anywhere...

...Mr Drum, can't we get someone to delete these off topic things which barely are a coherent message? The ones in Chinese Traditional are the weirdest.

Who believes that Brooks had ANY numbers? I think it works this way: Brooks gets an idea/opinion and then just writes a column to support it...facts/statistics/numbers have little to do with it...member he's a REPUBLICAN HACK!!!

We don't know where Mr. Brooks gets his figures from (from the colleges, perhaps?), so we can't evaluate his data.

As a journalist, Norman, don't you think he should reveal where his numbers come from? Since he didn't, we are free to criticize them.

And you cannot argue that his comparison of percentages to raw numbers is valid. In fact, his scenario totally undercuts his argument. Not to mention, Bobo creates a strawman by saying that increased aid doesn't impact graduation rates. Well, duh, why would increased federal aid impact graduation rates? That's not the goal of the aid program. The goal is to allow more students to enroll, thereby increasing the number of students who graduate.

Get it now, Mormie?

Brooks.

Just doing what he can to keep the wealthy undisturbed and the middle class in its place - anxious enough to manipulate and overworked enough not to have time for political involvement.

Long live our Straussian masters.

Kevin, can you PLEASE ban Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, lying bastard "watcher"? He drags down every thread he can find.

mhr:

That's right, to hell with all those clowns who study the humanities as well. We should especially eliminate help for those who study history (like me). While we're at it, let's strangle aid for those studying literature, the arts,and philosophy as well. I mean, when has humanity ever been enriched by this crap?

A society's members need to know where that society has been and where it might be going. People need to understand the human experience in all its variety and complexity. They need to explore the reality of other people's lives. And they need above all a sense of self, of who they are and how they got that way. The "hard sciences", as valuable as they are, cannot provide all of these insights. They can contribute to them, but the idea that they are all that is necessary is wrong-headed in the extreme.

Why are the military academies the only higher education institutions the US government has no problem subsidizing?Tells you something about America.

We should have subsidized academies of humanities AND science. And how about an academy of peace -- put our country's best minds to studying the conditions of stable, peaceful coexistence?

That is what we all want, after all, isn't it?

He is being sneaky with his numbers, but he is saying something that is "true" in the loosest sense of the word. If in 1972, 36% of 25-29 yrolds had some college, and 19% of them had a BA, then the "Graduation rate" (conditional on goinng to college) is 19/36=.5277 . . .

In 2004, those numbers are 57% and 29%. The graduation rate (conditional on attnedence) is 29/57=.508772

So the "Graduation rate" has been going down despite massive federal funding. This is a trivial point, because the number and percentage of graduates COMPARED TO THE POPULATION is increasing, which is the point of the programs.

If you believe that the most able are the most likely to attend college (other stuff equal), then the fact that we were able to nearly double the attendence rate without suffering big declines in graduation rate (because of the lower average quality of college attnedee) is really astounding, and I think most Americans should be proud of this achievement.

Brooks is using statistics to kindof lie.

Incidentally, the difference between the 67% of highschool graduates planning to go straight to college and 57% of people aged 25-29 who have "some college" is probably being explained by the different base populations for these figures. A non trivial people drop out of highschool, but nonetheless survive to the age of 25. These people didn't go to college, and so adding them into the percentage lowers the number.

Also, this is all survey evidence (even if the census runs great surveys). Many highschool seniors may say they are planning to go straight to college, but are not being realistic in those plans and never end up going. Some people who go to college but never go to class (I had a friend in Highschool who carried a 0.0 GPA at Cleveland State uNiversity) may feel saying they had "some college" was exagerating. Also, some people who got vocational education, etc. may be reporting no college, even though they may have counted that as going to college when they were asked as seniors.

MHR:

"What increased college attendance will get us is many more graduates with majors in sociology, social welfare and ethnic studies. I would be more generous with federal help to students who need financial aid only on condition that they major in mathematics or the hard sciences. chemistry, biology, physics etc. A pox on the so-called "social sciences."

1. There is no evidence that increased college attendance would increase majors in the social sciences over the hard sciences. Why is it not more logical to assume that increased numbers of students attending would result in roughly the same increase in all the possible major areas of study?

2. Zeitgeist is a big factor in determining what areas of study are more likely to be chosen. I'm 60, and went to college in the 60s (and graduated). At that time, many students chose philosophy or political sciences or sociology. Today and this has been true since the 80s, many students choose business and far few choose philosophy or political sciences. I don't have cites at hand, but this is an empirical observation from the fact that I am a librarian and a veteran of university libraries of 37 years.

3. While I agree with encouraging more students to choose the "hard sciences", I would add one more category. I would give full scholarships to any students majoring in Arabic or Farsi and/or Middle Eastern Studies. Also Chinese. With the proviso that they work as translators or in embassies or other foreign services work, for 5 years.

I don't know the percentages, but no one can dispute that the number of Muslims or Chinese who speak English far outweighs the number of Americans who speak either of these languages. Particularly Arabic. I think this gives the Arabs/Iranians or the Chinese a very substantial advantage in diplomacy and figuring out where our weaknesses are.

Obviously Brooksie hasn't paid tuition fees or books lately, hasn't watched tuition and fees and books rise by 10-15% year after year and doesn't realize that student loans rates just went up almost 2% in one jump eff July 1st, and has not had to join the reserves to get tuition assistance and has not been sent to Iraq for a year and thereby had one's college education interrupted.He does not know how hard it is to get through what used to be 4 years school, but for many it takes a lot more, cause mommy and daddy don't pay all the bills.

Eventually the colleges and universities will die the death they deserve. I can't think of any other item for purchase that is so completely overpriced. Online universities will drive down the cost of college education, and will have the added benefit of granting the opportunity to younger people. It would not surprise me to see graduates as young as 14 or 15 being very common 25 years from now.

Online universities will drive down the cost of college education, and will have the added benefit of granting the opportunity to younger people.

Online universities (and distance/correspondence education in general) requires a different set of learning skills than brick & mortar academies, and probably more in the way of self-discipline and control; I doubt very much their increasing prominence, if and when it occurs, will radically lower the normal age of admission, and I'd be even more surprise if it lowered the normal age of graduation.

Plus, I don't see physical schools being rivaled by online institutions, either for quality or affordability, for education in any of a wide array of fields where the physical institution provides shared access to specialized resources useful to education to which distributed access is impractical; lots of laboratory sciences fall into this category, for instance.

Remember those long ago days when David Brooks was being portrayed as a kinder, gentler, thinking man's conservative. I never thought I would say it but it makes you wish we had Safire to kick around again. At least he understood the middle class. I recently met a 23 year old kid who had a 4 year behavioral science degree and was nearly $50,000 in debt in school loans! She said all her friends were also in debt like this but they don't need any help!

Well, its fine and dandy to educate all but trying to employ all is another isue rarely discussed; for, ha would challenge our present economic model of whatever it is for today, much like whatever it is today for the war on terror. Defaults on education loans will rise along with the foreclosure rate in this country. Higher education is becoming cost prohibitive, and since employment sucks, the return on investment is beginning to suck. No one can compete with government subsidies of higher education overseas to turn out $20,000 per year world class engineers (so, "they" say). Yep, for decades, there were no qualified Americans, and ow we have no qualified Americans to do even high skilled construction work or manufacturing. Wow!



Well, its fine and dandy to educate all but trying t