[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

In that situation, you would feel short-changed. I came of age in the gilded '90s and early '00s, and I know the "script" of "Do good in school, go to college, and you'll get a great job right away and have a happy life" was strong, irresistable even. We all grew up getting everything we ever wanted or needed handed to us simply on the basis of our existence. Every kid got a trophy, everyone is "special". For the first time in our lives, life isn't going according to the script we were all sold, and it's an incredibly wrenching experience.

I hear what you're saying on personal responsibility, but where is the personal responsibility for the people who sold the lie? Were your hypothetical loans-for-rental properties true, the banks would be liable for fraud and we would be entitled to restitution, espescially since, and this is important the banks lied about the rental market with collusion with the realtors. It's been documented that law schools and medical schools are inflating their post-graduate employment rates and encouraging loans and debt that simply cannot be repayed on the promise of a high-paying legal or medical practice; I would not be surprised if undergraduate institutions were doing the same.

Personal responsibility, yes, but the limit to personal responsibility ends when the person has been defrauded, or made a decision based on false information. There is a difference between failing and being set up to fail, then profiting off the failure.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Strongly suggest reading up on MLKjr and Gandhi for inspiration on a Christian approach to progressive change without violence. I'd also suggest this book.

I like MLK and Ghandi, but both of them were assassinated. Don’t you know I’d rather live with white guilt than red martyrdom? [/whine]

I guess the question is if it is possible make progress without bloodshed, if the dialectic demands someone die – be they the oppressor or the oppressed organizer. Civilization itself was founded on murder when Cain killed his brother and was cast out to form his own city. Life after the fall is hard.

Christian history, I am afraid, shows us which side is supposed to die — and it is us.

I will definitely check out the book, though. Amazon has a copy for $0.02.

As a footnote, I'm always intrigued by conservative Catholics who will belabor people with nonsense about the magisterium's infallible direction on various social/theological issues, but who suddenly find the Catechism's chapter on Catholic social teaching irrelevant.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

...but who suddenly find the Catechism's chapter on Catholic social teaching irrelevant.

Because it's just code language used by social progressives. Duh!

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

I like MLK and Ghandi, but both of them were assassinated. Don’t you know I’d rather live with white guilt than red martyrdom? [/whine]

Rimshot!

I guess the question is if it is possible make progress without bloodshed, if the dialectic demands someone die – be they the oppressor or the oppressed organizer. Civilization itself was founded on murder when Cain killed his brother and was cast out to form his own city. Life after the fall is hard.

True, but I don't see where the dialectic of the left requires death; what am I missing?

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

True, but I don't see where the dialectic of the left requires death; what am I missing?

I suppose that -- if it is a requirement -- it is implicit rather than explicit. Progress does not seem to unfold without someone dying; death, after all, could only be defeated through death. Whether that is a requirement or only a natural part of the progression in regard to human politics, I don’t know. The left tends to have more martyrs than the right.

[Ridley's Own]

I think I'm getting confused; I thought you meant that the Left requires someone to die for the sake of progress... That the Left is the one doing the killing. Not sure that's what you're saying, though.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I think I'm getting confused; I thought you meant that the Left requires someone to die for the sake of progress... That the Left is the one doing the killing. Not sure that's what you're saying, though.

Yes and no. I think I’m being unclear. I’m not even sure what I’m saying.

What has traditionally been called “the radical left,” communism, anarchism, whatever, inevitably calls for some kind of bloody overthrow. That is a well-established part of the dialectic. Cf. The Communist Manifesto, which states that the proletariat will eventually have no option BUT to violently throw off their shackles. There are also plenty of tales of radical leftists who were pre-emptivly martyred by the man, but he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

The religious/Christian left has traditionally called for non-violence whilst doing its organizing, and consequently, when the powers that be/status quo feel threatened, it is the protesters are the ones who suffer the truncheon, fire hose and sword.

Either way, someone dies. MLK’s idea that love will eventually win is nice, but I think one has to think about that in terms of the eschaton. And maybe that is the key, to think of social change in terms of resurrection, redemption and new creation. Let the blood of the martyrs water the seeds they have planted.

*****

The centrist left, which does not have the moral compass of Christ and the saints to guide them nor the guts of the radical left to take real action, is ineffective — Marx called them the “democratic bourgeoisie,” stating that their goal was to get workers to compromise for the status quo while convincing them what had happened was a win for the oppressed.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Right, They have to work harder. What's the college's incentive to change? Moreover they don't have to have that 1 million students when all they have to do is either raise tuition or draw down endowments or receive extra funding from the state (which is the case for public schools). Colleges and Universities do not react the same way a hair salon (and I don't think you think it does either; the comparison strains credulity) because colleges and universities do not sell a product. A diploma from Harvard and a diploma from UT are functionally the same document, but people are more than willing to pay $200,000 for the one from Harvard and $40,000 for the one from UT. And even if Harvard raised tuition to make up for a loss in student loans, people would still go there.

They do sell a product... Its a piece of paper at the end of 4 years. What makes schools so special that all 5700 of them would be able to operate with a million less students? Raise tuition? Great now 500,000 less students will be able to go. Not happening. I already discussed Harvard. It is not an example of the average university. Not in the least bit. There are very very few schools with such prestige, and with billion dollar endowments.

Could states subsidize schools more? Perhaps. That would be a possibility but it wouldn't likely be enough to stop schools from changing their business models.

Again, not necessarily; you're assuming that colleges and universities are, essentially, working within a business model. They aren't. They're non-profits. And even the for-profit colleges would go out of existence without student loans. There simply is no incentive anywhere for the system to change.

Except there is, and they are. Non profits still have business models even if their objective is not to make money. The ones that don't eventually shut down. Everything needs to predict how much money is coming in and how much is coming out. To determine their financial stability. Some schools have differentiated themselves in a way that price does not determine the elasticity of their enrollment numbers. Others are much more prone to it. They need to stay competitive, and would need to adapt, even if not immediately to stay afloat.

My first university shut down because enrollment numbers were to low for to long. My current university is merging its campuses to save money so it can survive. It has to cut costs to keep tuition low to survive, or it loses more students to the more prestigious school in the city.

Anyway I'm not sure what you are advocating? Are you pro-government backed loans? Or you don't believe guaranteed loans have a visible effect on tuition prices or enrollment?