SENATE BILL: National University and General Education Reform bill (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Sbane
Co-Sponsored by Scott (I think)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Requested for the Executive slot. Sbane, Scott, you have the next 24 hours to offer advocacy for this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

[Donerail]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

[Napoleon]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

This bill as written will also stimulate regional activity. For example, the Midwest and Pacific will have to debate and choose a location, or risk losing out, and also empowers the Oversight committee and the under-utilized SoIA position.

[Donerail]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

In other words, you want the federal government to expand into and "have a larger say" in yet another realm that's traditionally (with the exception of West Point, Annapolis, etc.) been the domain of the regions while attempting to drive out of business several private universities?

[Napoleon]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

In other words, you want the federal government to expand into and "have a larger say" in yet another realm that's traditionally (with the exception of West Point, Annapolis, etc.) been the domain of the regions while attempting to drive out of business several private universities?

No. Excuse me for being baffled at the suggestion that this bill would drive "out of business" several private universities, which are not even allowed to act as businesses, and would be unharmed by this bill considering the surplus of students, and offended at the suggestion that I want universities to fail. There is an increasing federal interest in higher education, especially with the nationalization of student loans.

[Donerail]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

In other words, you want the federal government to expand into and "have a larger say" in yet another realm that's traditionally (with the exception of West Point, Annapolis, etc.) been the domain of the regions while attempting to drive out of business several private universities?

No. Excuse me for being baffled at the suggestion that this bill would drive "out of business" several private universities, which are not even allowed to act as businesses, and would be unharmed by this bill considering the surplus of students, and offended at the suggestion that I want universities to fail. There is an increasing federal interest in higher education, especially with the nationalization of student loans.

Excuse me for not believing that a 50% tax wouldn't harm and potentially bankrupt universities.

[Napoleon]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

In other words, you want the federal government to expand into and "have a larger say" in yet another realm that's traditionally (with the exception of West Point, Annapolis, etc.) been the domain of the regions while attempting to drive out of business several private universities?

No. Excuse me for being baffled at the suggestion that this bill would drive "out of business" several private universities, which are not even allowed to act as businesses, and would be unharmed by this bill considering the surplus of students, and offended at the suggestion that I want universities to fail. There is an increasing federal interest in higher education, especially with the nationalization of student loans.

Excuse me for not believing that a 50% tax wouldn't harm and potentially bankrupt universities.

What universities do you think would be affected by it? Any real university would not be affected by this tax, the Student Loan Protection Act I sponsored and passed forbid federal loans from going to students at for-profit universities, widely regard as little more than a scam against minorities and impoverished young people. This tax limits them further and offsets any good they may have provided by strengthening career and vocational training at local community and city colleges.

[Donerail]

Basically, the idea of this bill is to assist regions in bringing in economic activity to areas that are in need of them and help transition our nation's education system into one that is more public, affordable, and useful to the students they serve.  This bill, albeit not a drastic change to the structure of our education system, will steadily put our nation's youth on the path toward success in a universal college system.

And to expand on my proposed alternative: use the funds you would be using to fund grants to the regions to create satellite campuses of existing regional universities in economically distressed areas, thereby not having to establish an entire new national university administration and having universities that come with a proven brand name already instead of an entirely new operation (thus helping with student recruitment as well). It saves money, and it makes sense.

Establishing a national university system would introduce competition to regional public universities, which should in turn force improvements. It allows the federal government to have a larger say in tuition costs and education quality. These campuses aren't meant to be just another generic public university, the goal is to develop a true world class university system, that rivals our most storied private universities.

In other words, you want the federal government to expand into and "have a larger say" in yet another realm that's traditionally (with the exception of West Point, Annapolis, etc.) been the domain of the regions while attempting to drive out of business several private universities?

No. Excuse me for being baffled at the suggestion that this bill would drive "out of business" several private universities, which are not even allowed to act as businesses, and would be unharmed by this bill considering the surplus of students, and offended at the suggestion that I want universities to fail. There is an increasing federal interest in higher education, especially with the nationalization of student loans.

Excuse me for not believing that a 50% tax wouldn't harm and potentially bankrupt universities.

What universities do you think would be affected by it? Any real university would not be affected by this tax, the Student Loan Protection Act I sponsored and passed forbid federal loans from going to students at for-profit universities, widely regard as little more than a scam against minorities and impoverished young people. This tax limits them further and offsets any good they may have provided by strengthening career and vocational training at local community and city colleges.

I've already requested specific names from the GM; to name just a couple universities, Full Sail University and Everest University would have this 50% tax and more likely than not go bankrupt. You're driving Le Cordon Bleu out of the country; these aren't scams, these are legitimate institutions and you're taxing them to death. And when these schools do shut down, and do leave, how do you intend to keep funding this new stuff you're setting up?

Senator Ben's amendment is a great improvement.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Napoleon]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

[Napoleon]

I've already requested specific names from the GM; to name just a couple universities, Full Sail University and Everest University would have this 50% tax and more likely than not go bankrupt. You're driving Le Cordon Bleu out of the country; these aren't scams, these are legitimate institutions and you're taxing them to death. And when these schools do shut down, and do leave, how do you intend to keep funding this new stuff you're setting up?

Yes, those are for-profit universities. They are not legitimate institutions of education.

[Donerail]

I've already requested specific names from the GM; to name just a couple universities, Full Sail University and Everest University would have this 50% tax and more likely than not go bankrupt. You're driving Le Cordon Bleu out of the country; these aren't scams, these are legitimate institutions and you're taxing them to death. And when these schools do shut down, and do leave, how do you intend to keep funding this new stuff you're setting up?

Yes, those are for-profit universities. They are not legitimate institutions of education.

They're accredited by ACCSC and ACICS, respectively. That makes them legitimate institutes of education.

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

It guts the bill by removing the part that's part of your vendetta against for-profit institutions of education.

[Napoleon]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

It guts the bill by removing the part that's part of your vendetta against for-profit institutions of education.

I love that you cry foul when Senator Seatown uses hyperbole against you but then you fling around loaded terms in every post you make. It's quite endearing.

I do not have a "vendetta" against for-profit universities. I am not out to get anyone. I seek to improve the quality of our higher education system, improve access for those less fortunate and those who face discrimination, and remove predatory tactics that put profit as their primary goal instead of education.

[Donerail]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

It guts the bill by removing the part that's part of your vendetta against for-profit institutions of education.

I do not have a "vendetta" against for-profit universities. I am not out to get anyone. I seek to improve the quality of our higher education system, improve access for those less fortunate and those who face discrimination, and remove predatory tactics that put profit as their primary goal instead of education.

You're bashing for-profit universities as "a scam against minorities and impoverished young people" and saying they're "not legitimate institutions of education", and I don't think all for-profit universities have to suffer a massive tax just because some of them use predatory tactics. Some for-profit universities are scams, yes, but that means we should put more focus into investigating those scams and exposing them rather than putting a blanket tax on all universities of a certain category.

[Napoleon]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

It guts the bill by removing the part that's part of your vendetta against for-profit institutions of education.

I do not have a "vendetta" against for-profit universities. I am not out to get anyone. I seek to improve the quality of our higher education system, improve access for those less fortunate and those who face discrimination, and remove predatory tactics that put profit as their primary goal instead of education.

You're bashing for-profit universities as "a scam against minorities and impoverished young people" and saying they're "not legitimate institutions of education", and I don't think all for-profit universities have to suffer a massive tax just because some of them use predatory tactics. Some for-profit universities are scams, yes, but that means we should put more focus into investigating those scams and exposing them rather than putting a blanket tax on all universities of a certain category.

They don't have to suffer a massive tax. They can reform their approach by transitioning from a business to a legitimate university.

[Donerail]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

It guts the bill by removing the part that's part of your vendetta against for-profit institutions of education.

I do not have a "vendetta" against for-profit universities. I am not out to get anyone. I seek to improve the quality of our higher education system, improve access for those less fortunate and those who face discrimination, and remove predatory tactics that put profit as their primary goal instead of education.

You're bashing for-profit universities as "a scam against minorities and impoverished young people" and saying they're "not legitimate institutions of education", and I don't think all for-profit universities have to suffer a massive tax just because some of them use predatory tactics. Some for-profit universities are scams, yes, but that means we should put more focus into investigating those scams and exposing them rather than putting a blanket tax on all universities of a certain category.

They don't have to suffer a massive tax. They can reform their approach by transitioning from a business to a legitimate university.

Do we have to de facto prohibit an entire business model? Could we make the tax so that it only hits specific kinds based on the geographic scope, certification, and ownership model so that we can hit the legitimate scams while not hitting your small graphic design/culinary schools?

[Napoleon]

If you have any specific ideas, I would be willing to take a look at them and consider its merit. As of right now, I can't think of any specific guidelines I would find acceptable. I generally think that education works best without a profit motive.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it's necessary that we have at least some competition in education, but at Napoelon said, schools tend to work best without a profit motive.  Finland is a perfect example of that, and they have one of the best education systems in the world.  Cooperation is what leads to academic success, and the current bill helps embrace that virtue.

[Napoleon]

Senator Scott, do you have any information about the Finland model that could potentially improve this bill? I have seen you mention Finland's education system before and am curious to hear more. Taking advice from the successful can't hurt.

[Donerail]

If you have any specific ideas, I would be willing to take a look at them and consider its merit. As of right now, I can't think of any specific guidelines I would find acceptable. I generally think that education works best without a profit motive.

How about waive it in the event that [5% student loans thing] plus the university is accredited by a member of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, part of Finland's success can be attributed to the way teaching is done.  Unlike in America, teachers there don't focus on exhaustive cramming and root memorization.  They assign less homework and allow students to use creativity to solve problems, and they assign no standardized tests except for the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school- basically the same thing as high school.  Teachers are trained to create their own tests and all students receive report cards at the end of each semester which are based on individualized grading.

They also strongly emphasize on holding teachers accountable, as all Finnish teachers are required to have a Master's degree in education and if a teacher is doing his or her job poorly, the principle is expected to notice it and deal with them.

It's funny how almost all the talk in America about education centers around competition, when in fact one of the most successful education models known to the world don't have competition as a driving force.  Programs like 'Race to the Top' and NCLB wouldn't dare be considered acceptable models in Finland.  And I should mention, parents do still have a choice in where their students go to school, but they're not very unique from each other.

To be fair, some in Finland have suggested that their model is not one that should be imitated in the US (though I will admit, I am ignorant as to why this is often claimed), but I still think Finland's a good country to look to when we think about how to change education in this country.  The bill we're currently debating doesn't change the way testing, grading, or teaching are done, but I believe that it's a great way to propel necessary change.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

How is this for-profit universities?  I'm not a fan of them to begin with, and will happily adjust the language, but I don't like us taxing tuition that schools receive - that money belongs to the institution.  And as for the location, I don't want to force regions to locate a school in a particular place of "economic distress."

[Napoleon]

That amendment just guts the bill. I would love to hear Senator Ben argue in favor of for-profit universities. I also object to removing our involvement in determining the location; this is federal money.

How is this for-profit universities?  I'm not a fan of them to begin with, and will happily adjust the language, but I don't like us taxing tuition that schools receive - that money belongs to the institution.  And as for the location, I don't want to force regions to locate a school in a particular place of "economic distress."

This isn't forcing regions to do anything. We are using federal dollars to build new, first rate universities in areas of economic distress so that we can stop the bleeding and reenergize areas in decline with bright and youthful people. The regions are given the option to recommend the city based on their own public education system and what areas could use the most help.

The tax only applies to predatory for-profit universities. Their students are already ineligible to receive student loans.