dc.

Appreciate it. And I agree with you on CC-route. Against the preferences of our counseling dept who like to promote 100% 4-year college numbers, more and more of our students have been going the 2-and-2 route. Especially if you don't know what you're going to do in college. Why waste so much money on pre-reqs and core classes? Most of my students that get the cost lecture/discussion are 4-year bound... but it really opens their eyes about how big the in-state/out-of-state difference is and how long it can take to "break even" on debt, loans, or just having to make up more of your money spent ... as I said, they walk out joking that "you just told us to never go to college!" but by the end of the year come back talking about making smarter decisions. Luckily, I have the freedom (and time) in my classes to bend to current events and student events! Mostly.

Well, I don't disagree there. The money is out of control, even in state

Im done on the liberal arts stuff; I think we just see different value there and without numbers is all in the dark. I don't like the out of state stuff either, but I just meant they are not abandoning the state because the state regents encourage it. Similarly, while I have students disappointed they can't go to UMD or Towson, I have very few who don't get in to at least one state institution. So I don't really think it's costing us anything in that sense. And I don't think they are doing it on purpose more than any other school in any other state. It's back to the whole system being stupid. But then again, the desire of so many of my students to go out of state and sirens an extra 100k just because it's cool... Well that's silly too. I do a whole lesson on those cost and loans with my students. They say I'm telling them not to go to school, but the end result is more pick in state... I think it's a winner.

I guess I'm saying: 1. There arent as many 30 student departments as you think. And while a business make might night need soc101, he needs something like it. So you'd still be keeping that SOC professor on so he could teach business classes focused on that. 2. Towson and UMD aren't going against the board, they are doing what the board wants them to... Milking out of state kids for higher tuition because the school needs the money.

Just adding on, I think we need more training in writing, ethics, etc that many liberal arts provide - and our other fields from engineering to business to medicine need this most of all. That doesn't mean, of course, that I support every last program focused on these fields. Just that they don't need to be slashed simply because there aren't lots of jobs starting with "sociologist" I also think there are so many misunderstandings re Bernie's free college plan. Including that it's not a matter of the govt just paying tuition, it's about funding schools in a way that makes tuition unnecessary. The two sound similar but are markedly different. In the end, I still agree with the idea that "college or bust" is the wrong message. And a lot of it came from a combo of the 90s tech boom making some skills more needed (and some manufacturing skills less needed) and NCLB which pretty much set an official federal marker for schools to get kids there to "compete" with international schools. But the flaws in the legislative pay in particular are astounding. It corporatized the entire education system from k-college, from lessons to testing. It made schools more like industrial factories than before, which isn't a good thing.

I'm down with a lot of the above, but disagree on the liberal arts elimination. If taught well and with appropriate expectations, we need more not less in the way of liberal arts. The problem is people's expectations of what liberal arts gets you... It gets you the chance to take on a lot of problems and work your butt up in a lot of fields. But it didn't guarantee you well paying or "in your field." Liberal arts is about thinking and studying and writing. We still need plenty of that. Just don't expect to get paid as a professional philosopher or start out making huge bucks for writing grants etc

Yeah, again, I'm pretty sure it's been me all along. Especially the stuff on social security.

Those are awful. The one I posted, there was at least a warrant and the chips even let the guy go home and come in later. Sounds like they were almost laughing with him. Problem there is systemic, not the cops - not that it's much better. The public records one is telling of our society though. Remind me of Spotlight (movie)

Where our world is going wrong: Man arrested for failing to return VHS tape... in 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/man-rents-vhs-tape-doesnt-return-it-ends-up-in-handcuffs.html?action=click&contentCollection=Job%20Market&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article Bigger crime might be that the rental was Freddie Got Fingered.

WTMD has been playing this song almost on repeat. It's pretty darn catchy. Though, the Genghis Khan reference is intellectually lazy to me... Ha. Anyway, the video cracked me up. Bravo.

I've heard a number of crazy reports recently about jobs in demand... I want to say they are expecting a GAP of 10m engineers in the next decade. 10m! The other was 500k current trade jobs needed - HVAC, electric, plumbing. Huge gap of people, either college and "too good" for them or not making it past HS. Medical field needs tons of help. Nurses, PAs, all other assistant fields... My brother is now a respiratory therapist with shock trauma. (Part of this links to need for elderly care re extending life) I'm sorry that manufacturing jobs are leaving, but that's a short term hurt. Once it was agricultural jobs leaving and then artisinal jobs... And people were mad when that happened too. But we've got to keep moving. And to tie back to the campaign... I give Rubio lots of credit for his plan to focus on community college and trade schools. What doesn't get similar coverage, I think, is that Bernie's plan on college including expanding those programsa s well. It's not a promise to give everyone a diploma; it's a promise to make the options affordable if you're ready. (Too many sadly still aren't ready or willing for trade school work)

Also for the record, Social Security has contributed less than 200b to our 19t deficit. So I'd say it's not really contributing. To tie several strands together though, a primary reason for that is that we have more retired people than ever before and living longer after retirement (though, not as long as Europeans). So we've gone from about 20 workers per retiree to 2 workers per retiree. Demographically, this isn't changing any time soon. In fact, it will continue to get worse. We're having fewer kids and living longer. Social security was supposed to help you for your final three or so years, now it's supporting people for an average of 10-15. Which is part of the reason we need more immigrants to keep our workforce functioning and substantial in size.

Just for the record, you keep saying Dee, but with the exception of one post Dee wrote to me, you've been talking to me all day. As for the state of the economy, I'd argue it's better than most think right now but still flawed. I'm sure we'd disagree in the flaws. But to me a large part of the problem is a workforce that hasn't adjusted to modern realities. There are good, high paying jobs in desperate need of employees but many Americans continue to avoid those fields and our schools continue to pump out underwhelming students. No blame in that statement, just analysis. There are jobs and fields desperate for workers, just not always where we have seen them in the past.

Then I'd REALLY have too much time on my hands. Trouble.

Please do. And I am a sucker for responding to trolls too often...

Socialist policies and socialist states are different.

I never said Greece wasn't socialist. I said they are not Marxist, but that's a different debate that you still can't sort. I said their (Greece's) Democratic socialist policies did not cause their debt crisis so much as their fraudulent, corrupt tax system did combined with a less industrial economy than Western Europe. If you can't distinguish between types of socialism at this point, USSR vs modern France, then we might as well stop discussing anything. Apparently the world is black and blacker to you.

Only two or three nations has even really begun to truly industrialize by 1850. That's my point.

Spring break. Too much time on my hands. We'll restart on primary coverage.

I am happy your family is living longer. I know many people living long lives as well. Our next lesson though will be in statistics. Americans, as a population, don't live as long as others in similar economies. Period.

The end. I am not a liberal, by the way. I have some liberal views, certainly, though I am not a fan of the label and I don't affiliate. The primary liberal view is a healthcare system that provides for everyone. Right now we ration healthcare by those who can afford it which I think is a moral failing. So the view there isn't even really economic or political, it's moral and religious.

Your lack of understanding is impressive. This article is about political parties who align as officially being "socialist" and their election losses. But, of course, you ignore that the winners in these elections - the more "conservative" groups - are still socially democratic. They are not repealing or even proposing to change universal healthcare. In fact, even though the Conservative Party has been in power for several years in the UK now, ... what exactly has changed in their "socialist" medicine and welfare programs? Nothing. This article is from 2009. Since then, of course, France elected a socialist president (Hollande) and socialist parties have come roaring back in many places. Angela Merkel, for example, is still in power in Germany now 7 years later. Oh, and I thought you'd like this, from your article:

Ok. I'm done with this one. 1. CNBC - liberal or not, who cares - the "article" is a commentary by a single person. It's not a "report" - it's an opinion. That's why there's the blue box under the title that says "Commentary." The commentary, by the way, blames Greek pension plans for public workers. 2. If I were to argue it, it was Greece's corruption, especially in its taxation policy, that made it run out of money. And of course that they had an economy that couldn't handle what they were selling. We have an economy that can handle it. In fact, many would argue, we need to - as the healthcare costs reports above note. Basic analysis by all sides shows that a single payer system here could REDUCE costs for most people, help the economy, etc etc. Yes, we'd likely have to raise taxes in the range of 2-5% over a period of time, but the savings to your wallet would total more than that. The point is, it is possible to provide social services and maintain a healthy economy. The fact that Greece did not because of lying, corruption and fraud, is not proof of a poison system. 3. Yes, in 1860, prior to the industrialization of the 1870s-WWI, when almost all economies in the world were agrarian... the US Confederacy had the 4th largest economy in the world. Congrats! Now, of course, 150 years later, successful and large economies are no longer agrarian. I am surprised I had to write that sentence. The Economist on the crisis: "Debt in these countries has become a burden not because of government profligacy but because each enjoyed a decade of low interest rates and was then hit by the financial crisis. Easy credit fuelled debt in households and the financial sector. The European Central Bank oversaw a binge of cross-border lending. In the crisis unemployment and hardship have deepened, increasing the bill for welfare. Some countries, such as Ireland and Spain, have needed to find money to prop up their banks. These new expenses fell on the state just when tax receipts collapsed—catastrophically in countries that had seen a property boom." Oh, and this one: "First things first, Greece is not a socialistic country — though it did recently elect the left-wing Syriza party to office, which explains the current standoff between Greece and the neoliberal Troika. The reality is, compared to other European countries, its social expenditure-to-GDP level does not even make in the top ten list. France, Finland, and Belgium spend the highest social expenditure-to-GDP levels, according to the OECD, while even Germany, which has been the foremost advocate of austerity, had a higher social expenditure-to-GDP level than Greece in 2014, as well as in 2009. Furthermore, many of these high social expenditure countries, such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, have significantly lower debt-to-GDP rates than the United States. High social expenditure, or what O’Reilly calls “socialistic policies,” cannot be blamed for what is happening in Greece, because countries with more comprehensive welfare programs and higher social expenditure, like in Scandinavia, are fiscally healthy. The true problem with Greece is as much cultural as it is economic, and the problem of corruption runs deep. Greece has a very long history of corruption and tax evasion, going back to its four century rule under the Ottoman Empire."

In the United States, we spent 16.9% of our GDP on healthcare in 2014. The next highest was Netherlands at 11.6%. The OECD average is under 10%. Spain and Greece spent about 9.4% of their GDP on healthcare. And yet, in the US, life expectancy is 78. In almost all other OECD nations, especially in Europe, it is over 80. In Spain, it is 82. And best of all... they're getting better and better in the last 30 years while we are, well, not. In OECD nations, life expectancy has increased on average by 5-7 years. In the US, it has only increased by about 3 years. (over the last 30). Yay us! http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-GREECE-2014.pdf http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

Funny how you AGAIN cite a story that doesn't actually have the Obama threat in it. It includes Cruz's response to Obama saying "I want a full budget." But none of the words in that entire piece belong to Obama.