Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 20
-
College Costs
[Read the article: Have we fallen behind our parents?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since only about a quarter of all Americans get a college degree, and since most politicians come from the upper 1% of income, I don't think there are enough financially squeezed middle class college graduates to force politicians to do something about college costs.
Look at Hillary Clinton. All she wants to do is suck up to uneducated white voters. If she, and other politicians, can make a living with these voters (as the GOP has for the last 30 years), there will be no impetus to listen to the concerns of college graduates. Even though the long term fortunes of our country are tightly tethered to how productive educated adults are.
Besides more money for loans and scholarships, the whole college thing needs to be rethought. Major universities are too sprawling and costly to meet the needs of most young adults seeking an education. Why should my tuition money be going to subsidize foundering acting and dancing programs, art, sociology, or classics programs that can't make it on their own? Don't get me wrong, I like the classics, but who wants to spend his middle age years making monthly payments so a class of 4 students can read Homer? I read Homer too -- after I graduated.
We need a new model for universities. Online schools are a good start, but lack the face-to-face interaction so important to education. I think what we need is community-based universities. A big school like, say, Brown, creates a four year program for a degree. Brown determines the textbooks, the coursework, and offers extensive online support. Then Brown franchises 20 people in say, Nashville, to teach the curriculum to students. The teachers contract with maybe 300 students to teach them the curriculum. There would be no school buildings or stadiums or cavernous libraries. The teachers would hold classes in their own homes to keep costs low, or use local public facilities. A chemistry teacher, for example, could rent space at a local high school or community college. An English teacher would use Brown's online reference library, the local public library, and Amazon.com to meet the students needs.
Such a program would not work for students who want to study nursing or rocket science, but for the average liberal arts student or business major, it would work just fine. At the end of the four years the student would get a diploma that says he or she graduated from a Brown-approved college program. It would not carry the prestige of the full university, but in time, as more people graduate from such schools, the value of the degree would appreciate.
I would be willing to bet such programs would cut costs in half, if not more. Schools would be smaller and more intimate, and students would get what they need from college education, without having to pay for all the extraneous stuff that busts the wallet and is of no long term benefit.
-
The Reason for the Home Game Difference
[Read the article: Third quarter's the charm again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's obvious. San Antonio is has an elevation of 600 feet. New Orleans is at sea level.
In the lower elevations the air is thicker and the younger, skinnier Hornets cut through it with more ease. At 600 feet, the thin air allows the Spurs to move faster, thus keeping up with the young, quick Hornets.
It's so obvious I can't see how anyone would have missed it.
-
Indoctrination
[Read the article: The atheist and the creationist: Can't they just get along?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not a creationist, but I am a Christian, and I find the tone of this letter offensive, though not for the reason one might expect.
It doesn't bother me that the writer is an atheist. We have those, and always will. Nor does the writer's obvious arrogance bother me. He seems to delight in telling us that his friend realizes religion is "full of holes" and thinks it is funny that his friend has periodic episodes of doubt. (Personally, I think anyone who never doubts his own views is dangerous, but that's another story.)
What bothers me is the statement that teaching creationism is akin to child abuse. As if children are little machines that we program, and they grow up and simply spout off whatever garbage is dumped into their heads when they were young.
If that were true none of us would ever think anything their parents hadn't thought first, something we all know is not true. By thinking this way, the writer buys into the same silly logic conservatives use when they say college professors are brainwashing their students into liberalism.
In the 1960s and 70s, we had some of the most liberal university faculties in history, and the kids then certainly played the liberal part. But what happened? The kids grew up, became Reagan Republicans, and were much more conservative than their parents, often more conservative even than their great grandparents. If colleges are so good at brainwashing students, why did the 80s and 90s produce so many MBAs and yuppies? Because -- surprise! -- the kids took in what their liberal profs had to say, and rejected it.
People think for themselves. They grow up, and come up with their own ideas. Anyone who thinks he cannot outgrow his indoctrination needs to look at his own mother and ask if his opinions are co-identical with hers. I know my mom and I think differently.
If your own mom can't perfectly indoctrinate you, nobody can. Religious belief is not brainwashing, and it changes as people grow up. Mine did. Worrying about kids that are being taught creationism is worrying too much.