Comic Genesis Forums

Bengaley wrote:

UncleMonty wrote: I would say, that if you are receiving your assistance as unearned charity at the hand of the government, then yes - you should not be allowed to vote until you are earning your own income. On the other hand, if you have instead received a loan and are compelled to pay it back within a set period of time, then I personally wouldn't call that charity. It would be better for everyone concerned if your loan was through a nongovernmental source, but that's beside the point at the moment.

Right now, less than half of Americans with the right to vote actually do so. I believe that percentage would improve if voting was shown as something to value, and to attain through personal effort.

So.

If I throw away my chance at actually getting an education beyond the highschool diploma, and thus any chance of an okay-paying job, and instead concentrating on cashier-level positions in retail companies and hoping for a chance at promotion there...

Then, and only then, I should be allowed to vote.

That, and do you know how many students default on their loans? Too many.

I don't see what your last idea has to do with the subject addressed, though. I feel my vote has a weight to it, so I use that weight...

(And I voted Republican in the last two elections here, because I disagree with the local politics the Democrats are espousing. At least, the ones in power.)

Please refrain from putting your words into my mouth.
I said nothing about you throwing away your education. I suggested you should pay for it.
See the word "loan"? Learn now - Earn later.
Buy your education the same way you buy a car or a house. Or take a corporate job training course and become a machinist or a welder to earn enough to go to law school.

I won't even touch our massively-broken K-12 public education. I'm talking about higher education.

If a student defaults on a loan, the same thing should happen as does when someone defaults on a home loan or car loan and has nothing of value to repossess. They get arrested.
Then they get work wearing an orange vest, cleaning litter from the roadside. Hopefully at minimum wage, until their loan is paid.

TMLutas wrote: There is a very good chance that if taxation weren't so heavy, there would be an awful lot more private scholarships. Private scholarships have the advantage of not depending on the whims of the politicians to fund them next year. They are generally funded out of the investment income from large donations from wealthy people. In the end, the goal is the same, increase the number of highly educated people so that parental economic circumstances do not lead to wasted talents who could have done great things if they only had been supported properly.

So, which would be better at accomplishing the common goal of an optimally educated populace, a state scholarship or a private one? And if the latter, what is the best way to shift from a system dominated by the former to one dominated by the latter?

I believe education is the single largest line item for taxes, atleast in most states.
If you want an educated population you need to replace the government sponsered one with a privately funded one which is affordable..
It needs to be financially viable on it's own merrits..
IE: Run it like a buisness, not a charity, or non profit.
The student is only able to move on once they can demonstrate MASTERY of the subject. I believe the technique is called "Learning for Mastery" and though the buzwords may be new, the concept is ancient.
Other Buisnesses can *scholorship* by offering to back refunds, or cash prizes for being able to pass the MASTERY tests along the path to the skills they need.
IE: When you can pass the test, you get a financial reward in either returning the money you spent so far, paying for the next section, or to spend however you choose, as well as possibly being offered a job.

The public education system ( including the incompitent college system ) is not going to go away until after it has lost a majority market share to a strong competitor.