TAPT Version 70.0 Steve Dowden follows the rules

[AlexGreen#20]

54 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

you're probably paying the same so the university can reduce overhead by not splitting out course-by-course costs and instead charge per credit hour generally.

In "reality" you are very likely wildly underpaying for your "major" classes and subsidizing by overpaying for the gen eds. 

Would it be more palatable if universities charged 5x less for gen eds and 1.8x more for specialized courses?

i.e. you can pay $3,000 for Chem 101 and $3,000 for Advanced Mechanics of Materials OR you could pay $600 for Chem 101 and $5,400 for Advanced Mechanics of Materials. Would the bookkeeping breakdown this way result in less angst?

The net result is the same when you receive a degree. Same amount of money out of your pocket, but perhaps seeing where the money actually goes would be more palatable?

1. Yes, it would be far more palatable if costs were allocated like that. If college is an investment, people should be charged more than others if they are buying into the better major/investment. That's better than charging art history majors $250k for an investment that's likely going to only pay out $55k.

2. Class prices are hugely inflated. The biggest cost of these classes should be teacher salary. Even if you assume something egregious, say $500 per hour, 8 hours per week (4 in class, 4 out of class) for 20 weeks, that's $80,000 per class. Divide that by 20 students and you're looking at $4k per class. For a full course load that's $16k. Assume 100 students in a class like many are, and you're looking at $800 per class. Not even factoring in insane stuff like rent and insurance would process be as high as they are. 

3. You talk about the investment of college like it's somehow the free market. Yes, the payoff justifies itself, but the artificial scarcity created by the Universities and the state governments still results in people getting fleeced.

[Norm]

Norm's mom's husband finally made it home today. Have a Coors light for him. 

 

[Mr Bad Example]

4 hours ago, beekay414 said:

I'm literally arguing that you should only pay for your career path and I said as much. I'm there to learn how to become a journalist or camera man or whatever, I don't need to go into even more debt to learn about Genghis Khan or whatever. That's all I'm saying. Offer it up if it's important but don't put the burden of cost on someone trying to just get started in their life.

Being pinko commie scum, I sorta feel like EMPLOYERS should pay for the job training of new hires. 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Yes, it would be far more palatable if costs were allocated like that. If college is an investment, people should be charged more than others if they are buying into the better major/investment. That's better than charging art history majors $250k for an investment that's likely going to only pay out $55k.

2. Class prices are hugely inflated. The biggest cost of these classes should be teacher salary. Even if you assume something egregious, say $500 per hour, 8 hours per week (4 in class, 4 out of class) for 20 weeks, that's $80,000 per class. Divide that by 20 students and you're looking at $4k per class. For a full course load that's $16k. Assume 100 students in a class like many are, and you're looking at $800 per class. Not even factoring in insane stuff like rent and insurance would process be as high as they are. 

3. You talk about the investment of college like it's somehow the free market. Yes, the payoff justifies itself, but the artificial scarcity created by the Universities and the state governments still results in people getting fleeced.

1. Costs ARE allocated like that. It's just you see a total bill and not an itemized bill. These schools are non-profit. That being said, I am firmly in support society subsidizing ONLY those majors/careers with a forecast need.

2. Yes, they are inflated. But primarily due to the rising cost of service industry workers in general. Again, the schools are non-profit. US uni's have a higher payroll for support services relative to other countries as well, and more campus amenities. That all gets rolled into tuition at the end of the day, so your math is comparing apples and grenades. You're missing 80% of it.

3. Graduates of non-profit public universities are not getting "fleeced". That's absurd.

Edited December 3, 2021 by incognito_man

[Shanedorf]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If college is an investment, people should be charged more than others if they are buying into the better major/investment.

Out- of- state students pay significantly more than in- state students for the exact same education. And if you really wanna get crazy, check out the bill for international students. They're massively overpaying, based mainly on their current geography.

In the end, I think its like a cable/satellite bill where you pay for the entire bundle - even though there are tons of crappy channels you don't want. Consumers are pissed. So now we have the illusion of cord-cutting... when in reality- you end up paying about the same amount as before, its just split up into Hulu, Netflix and several others.
The illusion of choice and the illusion of sticking it to The Man.

If colleges went ala carte or charged by the major-  it would involve lots of slick repackaging - but I seriously doubt it would actually reduce the exuberant costs of attendance at these fine institutions

Basically... students get bent over either way -  while the colleges push their endowments into the billions.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

Basically... students get bent over either way -  while the colleges push their endowments into the billions.

While true, 98% of public university endowment funds are restricted and unable to be used for anything other than what the donor stipulated (i.e. can't be used for direct tuition reduction).

[AlexGreen#20]

3 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Out- of- state students pay significantly more than in- state students for the exact same education. And if you really wanna get crazy, check out the bill for international students. They're massively overpaying, based mainly on their current geography.

In the end, I think its like a cable/satellite bill where you pay for the entire bundle - even though there are tons of crappy channels you don't want. Consumers are pissed. So now we have the illusion of cord-cutting... when in reality- you end up paying about the same amount as before, its just split up into Hulu, Netflix and several others.
The illusion of choice and the illusion of sticking it to The Man.

If colleges went ala carte or charged by the major-  it would involve lots of slick repackaging - but I seriously doubt it would actually reduce the exuberant costs of attendance at these fine institutions

Basically... students get bent over either way -  while the colleges push their endowments into the billions.

Don't get me started on the absolute bull**** that is colleges and international students. Watching several universities shove all the international students into one degree track and then lower the standard, or excuse blatant cheating, or even look the other way on sexual assault, just so they can collect a cool $65k from that sweet oil money is grotesque. People should be in jail for it. 

[Leader]

Spotrac -  Percent Change of League Salary Cap/Tax Thresholds from 2011 - present

NBA - 93.6%
2011: $58M
2021: $112.4M

NFL - 72.9%
2011: $120.3M
2022: $208.2M

NHL - 26.7%
2011: $64.3M
2021: $81.5M

MLB - 17.9%
2011: $178M
2021: $210M

[Mazrimiv]

On 12/3/2021 at 7:04 PM, Shanedorf said:

So now we have the illusion of cord-cutting... when in reality- you end up paying about the same amount as before, its just split up into Hulu, Netflix and several others.
The illusion of choice and the illusion of sticking it to The Man.

If this is how you cut the cord, you didn't do it right.

[Old Guy]

Bob Baffert-trained Thoroughbred Medina Spirit, the 2021 Kentucky Derby winner, dies after collapsing post-workout (espn.com)

Sad to hear this horse died. Wonder if the doping had anything to do with it. 

[Shanedorf]

Bob Baffert = Bill Belichick 2.0, they even share the same "BB" moniker

Bob literally learned from the master...
"when the penalties pale in comparison to the victories stolen - cheat with impunity"

Baffert knows the racing commissions won't do much to him - and shining a light on his serial doping indiscretions are a stain on horse racing - so they keep slapping his wrist and he keeps on cheating (and winning)

[Leader]

Green Bay Gazette  -  Green Bay official wants lawmaker to explain plan to disband stadium district. 'Any good idea should be open to public scrutiny.'

State Rep. David Steffen has yet to present his plan to disband the Green Bay/Brown County Professional Football Stadium District to the Green Bay city council, but that opportunity might be coming.

Green Bay won't necessarily be the hardest sell for the proposal — that would be the Packers, who've made their opposition to the idea clear.

However there are questions to be answered about Green Bay's role should the stadium district dissolve, including how it would pay for its added responsibilities, such as stadium maintenance, said Jesse Brunette, city council president. Brunette said he's keeping an open mind. 

"The last thing we want to do is get legislation passed that is harmful to the city of Green Bay, the Packers and our community as a whole," he said. "There are many unanswered questions. I don’t want to haphazardly get the city involved in something we might regret."

Steffen, a Republican from Howard, would end the district and its seven-person governing board, which oversees the Green Bay Packers' lease at Lambeau Field, and pay to property tax payers some of the $81 million set aside for stadium maintenance costs through 2031.

In Steffen's interpretation, the stadium board has outlived its legislative purpose, which he said was limited to overseeing the construction costs related to Lambeau Field, ensuring the bonds were properly paid and overseeing the sales tax through its duration.

The sales tax was retired in 2015.

Under the proposal, which Steffen said is only a draft, the money set aside for Lambeau Field maintenance would be distributed to Brown County property owners in $600 checks. He also would give $7 million to other government and private entities, and $19 million to the city of Green Bay, which also would get proceeds from a 10% stadium ticket tax. 

The city then would be responsible for lease obligations now filled by the stadium board. Steffen has acknowledged the city might need to borrow money to meet the obligations, at least in the short term. That could be a hard sell to the city.

"The city of Green Bay is over $200 million in debt. Does the city and property owners have the appetite to support more debt?" Brunette said.

Brunette said he would invite Steffen to make a presentation to the city finance committee or the council as a whole. 

"Any good idea should be open to public scrutiny," Brunette said.

Brunette has concerns, particularly in regard to returning money raised through a sales tax to property owners only, which he says "has a populist feel to it."  

He's also realistic about how government works. He believes a mechanism would be needed to ensure there is adequate money for Lambeau Field maintenance. 

"Typically, in most governments, they are decent at constructing new things, but it’s always the maintenance that is one of the faster things to be removed from budgets," he said. "There could be the temptation to skimp on maintenance."

Just such a mechanism in the stadium district creation accounts for the money Steffen proposes to distribute.

[incognito_man]

4 hours ago, Leader said:

Green Bay Gazette  -  Green Bay official wants lawmaker to explain plan to disband stadium district. 'Any good idea should be open to public scrutiny.'

State Rep. David Steffen has yet to present his plan to disband the Green Bay/Brown County Professional Football Stadium District to the Green Bay city council, but that opportunity might be coming.

Green Bay won't necessarily be the hardest sell for the proposal — that would be the Packers, who've made their opposition to the idea clear.

However there are questions to be answered about Green Bay's role should the stadium district dissolve, including how it would pay for its added responsibilities, such as stadium maintenance, said Jesse Brunette, city council president. Brunette said he's keeping an open mind. 

"The last thing we want to do is get legislation passed that is harmful to the city of Green Bay, the Packers and our community as a whole," he said. "There are many unanswered questions. I don’t want to haphazardly get the city involved in something we might regret."

Steffen, a Republican from Howard, would end the district and its seven-person governing board, which oversees the Green Bay Packers' lease at Lambeau Field, and pay to property tax payers some of the $81 million set aside for stadium maintenance costs through 2031.

In Steffen's interpretation, the stadium board has outlived its legislative purpose, which he said was limited to overseeing the construction costs related to Lambeau Field, ensuring the bonds were properly paid and overseeing the sales tax through its duration.

The sales tax was retired in 2015.

Under the proposal, which Steffen said is only a draft, the money set aside for Lambeau Field maintenance would be distributed to Brown County property owners in $600 checks. He also would give $7 million to other government and private entities, and $19 million to the city of Green Bay, which also would get proceeds from a 10% stadium ticket tax. 

The city then would be responsible for lease obligations now filled by the stadium board. Steffen has acknowledged the city might need to borrow money to meet the obligations, at least in the short term. That could be a hard sell to the city.

"The city of Green Bay is over $200 million in debt. Does the city and property owners have the appetite to support more debt?" Brunette said.

Brunette said he would invite Steffen to make a presentation to the city finance committee or the council as a whole. 

"Any good idea should be open to public scrutiny," Brunette said.

Brunette has concerns, particularly in regard to returning money raised through a sales tax to property owners only, which he says "has a populist feel to it."  

He's also realistic about how government works. He believes a mechanism would be needed to ensure there is adequate money for Lambeau Field maintenance. 

"Typically, in most governments, they are decent at constructing new things, but it’s always the maintenance that is one of the faster things to be removed from budgets," he said. "There could be the temptation to skimp on maintenance."

Just such a mechanism in the stadium district creation accounts for the money Steffen proposes to distribute.

Steffen is an ambitious populist trying to capitalize himself on something that is financially nonsensical. 

[Leader]

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Steffen is an ambitious populist trying to capitalize himself on something that is financially nonsensical. 

Is this a state legislature - or local - matter?

[squire12]

NCAA women's volleyball national semifinals on ESPN.  

Awesome match thus far

Wisconsin vs Louisville