7 thoughts on “Before Colleges Get Bailouts”

  1. It’s not going to work to tell them how run Colleges.
    I would rather cut dept of Education budget and give them all the saving from terminating Dept of Education.
    What is dept of Education doing when there no schools operating now, why should I care which bureaucrats get fired- fire the fed bureaucrat and MAYBE Colleges would need less bureaucrats.

    I don’t think colleges should get a nickel, but give them all the nickels for money saved by getting rid of Dept of Education. And spent it whatever they want.
    But part kill dept Education, make student loans like every other loans- they can be wipeout in bankruptcy. So give them a pile cash, retroactively change that crazy privilege they get with student loans, and end stupid and useless Dept of Education.

    That should win you votes, trying to do more mirco managing Colleges will lose you an election.

  2. I am against bailouts on principle. At the same time I recognize that they are occasionally in the national interest. I doubt that this is one of those occasions. The educational system has a type of corruption that needs to be addressed. Much of that corruption is caused by the federally backed and non-bankrupt-able student loans. Paraphrasing Dave Ramsey, “If they think it is such a great idea to loan $100,000.00 to an 18 year old that has never had a job, then let them do it themselves.” Or, with no “free” money, there will be no corruption to get “free” money that isn’t there. Then competition in the real marketplace will address which colleges are essential and which are not.

    Top down solutions as suggested in the link have the problem that rules will be worked around in the long, and probably the short term. That’s not an administrator, that’s a tenured professor with no classes or such.

  3. It occurs to me that it makes sense for gov’t employees to be still getting a regular paycheck even though they aren’t doing any work. If they get furloughed, and go for unemployment, that’s still state money they’re getting, just from a different ledger item. It also keeps the unemployment numbers down (for political and psychological reasons) and prevents the unemployment system from collapsing from all the extra claims.

    That said, I still think they should all lose their phony-baloney jobs and be forced to deal with a little uncertainty instead of going on “staycation”* for several months.

    * I remember several bloggers (not here) actually called it that back in early March, how this was going to be no big deal.

    1. –* I remember several bloggers (not here) actually called it that back in early March, how this was going to be no big deal.–

      Florida death per million is now 85
      Florida has highest percentage percent of elderly population
      The virus has had more than 90% of total death be elderly.
      1000 deaths per million is .1%
      100 is ,01%, so .0085% have been killed in Florida>
      California has 73 deaths per million and younger population:
      .0071 percent have died in California
      India has 2 deaths per million:

        1. To clarify– “no big deal” meaning the shutdown, not the disease. They talked about how it was easy for them to just stay home and work, and have everything they needed delivered. As if all that stuff they order from take-out or from Amazon just magically appears on the doorstep.

          I knew one person, in a nursing home, with a feeding tube for years, who died because of this. Part of the 50% of the fatalities here in Colorado.

          But yes, if you are in good health, and not living in a nursing home or stuck in a hospital, it was not necessary to do all the things that have been done.

          As for the nursing homes, we need to find out why all the regulations and inspections and certifications and licenses and gov’t micromanagement didn’t seem to help, and if they made things worse. But I expect we won’t.

          1. I think New York City is what roughly happens with no lockdown. Or New York city is roughly 80% of what happens without lockdown.
            Because I think they started lockdown too late, but in terms death only {which I think is not most significant thing] if New York city had protected it’s elderly and not have any lockdown, they would have had fewer deaths.
            Which not saying a lot, because the massive surge in seriously ill was the bigger problem- and you would have got a lot more of that, without ordering the lockdown- which was about 1 week too late.

Comments are closed.