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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Napoleon]

I have no opinion on your new amendment. Whatever the Senate feels appropriate, I will support. I initially went with the Committee to give it some direct responsibilities, and I thought it might be onerous to get the whole Senate to vote on something particularly minor.

[Napoleon]

I feel that adding new campuses is an important issue, and something the Senate should address as a body.

That is fair. Do the Senators believe the funds assigned in sections 3 and 4 are adequate?

[Napoleon]

How much would we need in funds to make the public university system totally single payer?

Including public schools in the states, like UVA, UNC, etc?  Or just the universities created in this bill?

Yea Including schools like that and community colleges. Not including private or for-profit colleges. Also everybody only gets 1 shot at free education, the second time they have to pay.

Enough to buy off at least six other Senators to override my veto, on top of whatever other costs.

[Napoleon]

http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/2589-total-college-debt-now-exceeds-total-credit-card-debt
Well based on this that total college debt is growing at about $50 billion a year, so maybe in the range of 150 to 200? That seems to me fiscally realistic, if you impose some controls like I suggested, and end the federal loans for people that fail out of college/go to private colleges.

I think you are significantly underestimating the costs of this sort of thing, but if you want to get creative and find some ways to lower future or even current student debt we can look at those and see what works.

[Napoleon]

Scott hasn't posted in this thread since Ben posted his amendment, Mr. PPT.

[Napoleon]

We could put in a specific reference to the universities affected by my previous bill, then, to clear things up.

[Napoleon]

We could put in a specific reference to the universities affected by my previous bill, then, to clear things up.

Is the purpose to dissuade students from attending for-profit colleges by making it more expensive?

Sort of. We would rather see these institutions change their status than drive then out of existence.

[Napoleon]

I was thinking a large research university. 20,000 undergraduate students and about 8,000 graduate students.

I'd estimate a cost of about $1 billion in construction cost, and $700 million in operating expenses and salaries.

And how much do we currently spend on defense?  Just want some perspective here. 

Nearly $400 billion, if you include veterans' spending (which I think we should, it's a direct result of a bloated military budget), we are talking $600 billion or so. Our surplus is about $85 billion.

[Napoleon]

They can change their philosophy, then.

[Napoleon]

They can change their philosophy, then.

Why? Because you don't want to narrow the language to only cover for-profit schools - which you have stated is your intended target?
I don't understand the idea that a tax (which is really arguably a penalty) on for-profit schools only would be unconstitutional but that to extend it to all schools would be ok. 

I am only talking about the current language. It spends on what changes are made.

[Napoleon]

Four days, five days, whatever the length of time it has been this has been sitting too long with no discussion.

Well what were you waiting for? You could have opened a vote...I ask that this amendment be deemed frivolous, it has nothing to do with the sponsor's intentions and should be considered as a separate bill if the Senator feels strongly about this.

[Napoleon]

Four days, five days, whatever the length of time it has been this has been sitting too long with no discussion.

Well what were you waiting for? You could have opened a vote...I ask that this amendment be deemed frivolous, it has nothing to do with the sponsor's intentions and should be considered as a separate bill if the Senator feels strongly about this.

How is this substantiated? And why are you trying to micromanage Senate work?

I am the primary author of this bill and campaigned on these policies so it is my duty to fight for it to pass. I certainly wont sign what would be a hostile takeover of a decent bill if you want your idea to have a chance of getting signed into law you should go about it the right way. I don't see what is unfair about that. You have had plenty of time to put together your own bill instead of trying whatever it is your trying.

[Napoleon]

Four days, five days, whatever the length of time it has been this has been sitting too long with no discussion.

Well what were you waiting for? You could have opened a vote...I ask that this amendment be deemed frivolous, it has nothing to do with the sponsor's intentions and should be considered as a separate bill if the Senator feels strongly about this.

How is this substantiated? And why are you trying to micromanage Senate work?

I am the primary author of this bill and campaigned on these policies so it is my duty to fight for it to pass. I certainly wont sign what would be a hostile takeover of a decent bill if you want your idea to have a chance of getting signed into law you should go about it the right way. I don't see what is unfair about that. You have had plenty of time to put together your own bill instead of trying whatever it is your trying.

I can understand being passionate about something in politics. But it is no justification to use a heavy handed tactic to deprive someone who disagress with one the right to offer his ideas.

Yeah, that's absolutely awesome considering I am not depriving anyone the right to offer ideas, I am suggesting they go about it in the right way. Your hyperbolic campaign language doesn't change that. I want Seatown to realize that he would be more successful working with others than against them.