Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

NLRB boots idea of unionized college atheletes

When an NLRB director in Illinois made the decision last year to allow student athletes at Northwestern University to organize as a union it raised a lot of eyebrows. (How does one organize the labor of people who don’t get paid?) But that question has now been effectively scrapped as the full NLRB has said no to the proposal.
The National Labor Relations Board on Monday overturned a historic ruling that gave Northwestern University football players the go-head to form the nation’s first college athletes’ union, saying the prospect of union and non-union teams could throw off the competitive balance in college football.
The decision throws out a March 2014 ruling by a regional NLRB director in Chicago who said that college the football players are effectively school employees and entitled to organize. Monday’s decision did not directly address the question of whether football players are employees.
The labor dispute goes to the heart of American college sports, where universities and conferences reap billions of dollars, mostly through broadcast contracts, by relying on amateurs who are not paid. In other countries, college sports are small-time club affairs, while elite youth athletes often turn pro as teens.
From the beginning of this brouhaha I’ve felt that this was a solution in search of a problem. It seems to me that we either have to jointly decide that college athletes are amateurs or they are professionals. It’s a distinction which applies outside of colleges as well, and you can still compete in other sports at the highest levels while retaining amateur status. (The US Open in golf, for example. Also, almost all boxers start out as amateurs for a while before they can take their first professional fight.) If they are amateurs then they need to put in their time until they can turn pro. But if we are to treat college athletes as professionals who are owed some sort of compensation – particularly the football and basketball players – then the entire idea of this being a “side activity” in support of their education pretty much goes out the window.
But at the same time, it’s getting rather hard to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the system. We’ve seen far too many stories about student athletes who graduate and receive a degree and some of them can barely read. This is something of an embarrassment for those who wind up in the NBA or the NFL, but it’s an absolute disaster for the kids who can’t make the cut and find themselves out on the streets with a sheepskin, but no skills and no ability to get a decent job outside of sports. Still, it seems like setting them up with some cash while supposedly being amateurs working on their studies compounds the problem rather than confronting it.
One last point to note is the reaction of the NLRB themselves. If they say no to unionizing somebody… it must be a really bad idea.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Bernie Sanders Wants Huge ‘Robin Hood’ Stock Tax To Make College Free

Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate and self-proclaimed socialist who wants the United States to morph into a vast Scandinavia, is holding a Tuesday press conference to explain how he will soak the rich to make tuition at public, four-year colleges and universities free.
Sanders will propose legislation to fund his free-college scheme with massive new taxes on stock transactions, Bloomberg reports.
The Vermont senator’s bill, if passed, would add a 50-cent tax for every “$100 of stock trades on stock sales, and lesser amounts on transactions involving bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments,” according to a press release from a group called Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.


Friday, October 25, 2013

'Offensive' Halloween costumes banned by US university

University of Colorado Boulder tells students to avoid Halloween costumes including cowboys, indians, white trash or anything potentially deemed offensive University students in America have been told not to wear "offensive" halloween costumes including cowboys, indians and anything involving a sombrero.
Students at the University of Colorado Boulder have also been told to avoid "white trash" costumes and anything that portrays a particular culture as "over-sexualised" - which the university says includes dressing up as a geisha or a "squaw" (indigenous woman).
They are also asked not to host parties with offensive themes including those with “ghetto” or "hillbilly" themes or those associated with "crime or sex work."
In the letter sent by a university official students are asked to consider the impact that their costumes could have.
Christina Gonzales, the dean of students, wrote: "Making the choice to dress up as someone from another culture, either with the intention of being humorous or without the intention of being disrespectful, can lead to inaccurate and hurtful portrayals of other people's cultures.
People have also chosen costumes that portray particular cultural identities as overly sexualised, such as geishas, "squaws," or stereotypical, such as cowboys and Indians.
Additionally some students have hosted offensively-themed parties that reinforce negative representations of cultures as being associated with poverty ("ghetto" or "white trash/hillbilly"), crime or sex work.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Obama flaunts political power on college tour

The president likes to clothe his progressive beliefs in a comfortable toga of poll-tested generalities.
But on last week’s education “reform” tour, he stripped down to his ideological skivvies, oiled up his rhetoric, and flaunted his political power to enthralled academics, administrators and journalists.
He made clear that whoever has the gold writes the rules, to an audience of students and academics who know that 70 percent of students are funded by $150 billion in federal dollars.
“Taxpayers are often providing those families and students assistance, we want to make sure taxpayers are getting a good deal,” he said, while describing his ambitious plan to rate universities’ and colleges’ performance at a test to be drafted and graded by Obama’s progressive monitors.
Government expertise trumps the universities’ autonomy, and government’s priorities top Americans’ free-market preferences, Obama insisted.
“I’m in my second term so I can say it. … I believe, for example, that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three year. … The third year they’d be better off clerking or practicing in a firm, even if they weren’t getting paid that much,” said the president, who was acting as the nation’s law-school-dean-in-chief.
And also as the nation’s concerned-parent-in-chief.
“I know a lot of stories of people who are LGBT who come out to their parents, and their parents are supporting them financially for college, and when they come out their parents cut out that support,” said one of the attendees. “I was wondering if maybe in the future part of your affordability for college would be able to include LGBT people?”
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Friday, August 23, 2013

Obama Plan Encourages College Admissions to Discriminate Against Families Earning $60,000+

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND WHO HAS IT AND WHO WANTS IT.
President Barack Obama(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama’s college reform plan, released by the White House on Thursday, would encourage colleges to discriminate against applicants who come from families with total incomes of $60,000 or more by awarding colleges higher federal ratings and increased federal aid for admitting a higher “percentage” of students who receive federal Pell Grants, which the Department of Education says are for "low-income" students.
According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in the 2007-2008 school year, only 2.3 percent of undergraduates who were still dependent on their parents, and whose total family income was $60,000 or more, received Federal Pell Grants.
According to the College Board, in the 2010-2011 school year, only 5 percent of all Pell Grants were distributed to dependent students whose total family income was $60,000 or more.
Colleges that admit and graduate a higher “percentage” of students on Pell Grants--as the Obama plan would encourage them to do--will necessarily admit and graduate a lower percentage of students who are not on Pell Grants.
A college that based its admissions policies solely on the merit of the individual applicant--and did not consider the applicant’s family income or eligibility for a Pell Grant in deciding whether to offer the applicant a place at the school--could be penalized under the Obama plan with less federal aid for itself and for its students if its merit-only admissions policy resulted in a student body with a lower percentage of Pell Grant recipients than other schools. - 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Morning Bell: 4 Problems with Federal College Scorecards

Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to make “college more affordable, tackle rising costs, and improve value for students and their families.”
But a big part of the President’s plan includes creating a college rating system—a federal scorecard—to evaluate colleges on measures such as graduation rates, the number of low-income students served (i.e., the percentage of Pell Grant recipients), graduate earnings, and affordability.
Scorecards are a seductive idea. But having the federal government issue scorecards to measure college output would be a mistake. Four problems with the President’s plan:
1. Government says what’s best. As we wrote yesterday in National Review Online, for one thing, a monopoly government scorecard would inevitably reflect what bureaucrats—rather than parents, students, and scholarly communities—determine is or is not important in education.
2. Special-interest institutions with more clout could shape the standards. Existing institutions that are comfortable within the cocoon of protectionist accreditation would lobby hard, and no doubt effectively, for output measures that define success in their own terms.
3. Standard-setters would also control college funding. Educational institutions’ lobbying becomes particularly problematic when considering the second part of President Obama’s proposal: to then tie federal student aid to the new rating system by giving larger Pell Grants and lower student loan interest rates to students who enroll in colleges that fare well on the federal scorecard.
The logical outcome is a system that has the federal government handing out subsidies based on a rating system designed by the people handing out the funding. What could possibly go wrong?
4. We already have scorecards. A competing range of private outcomes-based scorecards already exists, sponsored by such outlets as U.S. News & World ReportForbes, ACTA, and Kiplinger’s. Each of these reflects the differing visions of quality held by different Americans, from post-graduation salary to the likelihood of a well-rounded education. A one-size-fits-all federal rating system is unnecessary and will likely trump these independent evaluators that parents and students have long trusted.
Via: The Foundry
Continue Reading....

Saturday, November 3, 2012

From 'hope' and 'change' to 'revenge'


Going off teleprompter yesterday, President Obama let the mask slip and revealed the ugliness at the heart of his political mission. Amie Parnes of the Hill:
President Obama called voting "the best revenge" on Friday at a rally in Ohio.

The line was a twist on Obama's usual "don't boo, vote" line that the president uses when crowds at this rallies boo Republican nominee Mitt Romney's name.
"No, no, no, Don't boo. Vote," Obama told a crowd in Springfield, Ohio. "Voting is the best revenge."
The media spinners will tell us that this is just a play on the old saying, "Living well is the best revenge," but in fact it reveals a disturbing consistency in the off-teleprompter comments of the president. Recall that he insisted a hike in the capital gains tax would be just, even if it resulted in less revenue. That is revenge against the successful.
Recall his Roanoke Doctrine: "You didn't build that!" The implication is that those who claim the credit (and reward) for building a business, do not deserve them, and that others deserve the fruits of their effort - a form of revenge.
Recall his comment four years ago to Joe the Plumber about spreading the money around. Once again, revenge against those who have earned more than others.
But what else would you expect from a man born to an anticolonialist, Marxist father and a mother who fled the United States to live overseas? What else from a man mentored by a communist, Frank Marshall Davis?  
What else from a man who passionately argued for violent revolution in college?

Via: American Thinker


Continue Reading...

Popular Posts