Should scientific research be solely funded by the private sector?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grants
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
100 replies · 17K views
drankin said:
I just tax dollars being doled out that we can no longer afford. It's that simple.

I think this is a very simplistic view of our budget problems and greater economic problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Evo said:
Some of Evo Child's friends get Pell Grants. One guy comes from a home where his father is a brilliant mathematican turned homeless meth addict, his mother remarried an alcoholic turned crack user.

He's doing outstanding in school. The money allowed him to move away from his parents, and go to school, and he also works full time. It's really not that much money per student.

People that try to assign derogatory labels across the board to kids in need really disappoint me. Maybe Pell Grants should require that a certain GPA be maintained and if you drop out, you have to repay them.

I wouldn't mind seeing some modest GPA requirements on pell grants. I would also like to see a stop on federal funding of these online for profit universities / degree mills.
 
drankin said:
I just tax dollars being doled out that we can no longer afford. It's that simple.

SixNein said:
I think this is a very simplistic view of our budget problems and greater economic problems.

Indeed. Before college I worked assembling electronics and wire harnesses - low wage positions.

I would not have been able to finish college had it not been for Pell grants.

Now I earn a good wage, and pay taxe$$$ on it. I've more than paid off the investment that government put into me. It was a smart investment. Education usually is.
 
Evo said:
Agreed. If Pell Grants can help kids get out of the destructive cycle that would put them on our wellfare rolls, it's worth it. I don't think it should be a hand out without qualifications though. That's what needs to be changed, attach some accountability to it. Given to the right students, it can mean becoming independent, responsible, educated adults and that means that their offspring will be less likley to be on our wellfare roles.

Honestly, Evo. I now give to young pre/adults to help them in their education. I'm finally doing well in life after growing up in "poverty" (the US equivalent) to be able to give back. For me it takes a couple of qualifiers. I have to get that they have the intent and character to improve their situation beyond where they are from. There is one young man I'm very excited to help. Great with his money and has the intelligence to break out of the "class" he grew up in.

And everything is based on performance. If this particular young man begins to struggle and decides it's not worth it, they I'm not going to financially back him.

The federal government absolutely does not have the resources to do a simple thing like this. What I can do with very little money would take our great federal government 5-10 times the BS&money to do.
 
While Pell grants are a form of welfare, they have more stipulations attached to them and they're seen as a truly upward enabler, not a restribution. Also, the amount of money put into the Pell grant is far less than general welfare. Because of that - I don't group Pell grants with some of the other social programs that tend to perpetuate the conditions that they try to fix.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but people don't look at Pell grants and say 'well, maybe I'm better off not working so I qualify for a Pell grant' like happens with unemployement and general welfare.
 
QuarkCharmer said:
I thought they do? (At least the GPA part)

The GPA requirement is a 2.0.
 
SixNein said:
The GPA requirement is a 2.0.
That's probably why I never heard them mention GPA, they are all way above that.
 
SixNein said:
I wouldn't mind seeing some modest GPA requirements on pell grants. I would also like to see a stop on federal funding of these online for profit universities / degree mills.

THIS is the biggest problem. I heard something like 90% of all federal funding in regards to financial aid goes to places like University of Pheonix and these other diploma mills. One of our former students worked at I think either UoP or ITT Tech and apparently most of his job was trying to get money for the university.

SixNein said:
The GPA requirement is a 2.0.

Except isn't this pretty much most universities requirements for all students before they start kicking you out? At my university, I believe you can go below a 2.0 for a semester but after that, they may kick you out.
 
Pengwuino said:
THIS is the biggest problem. I heard something like 90% of all federal funding in regards to financial aid goes to places like University of Pheonix and these other diploma mills. One of our former students worked at I think either UoP or ITT Tech and apparently most of his job was trying to get money for the university.



Except isn't this pretty much most universities requirements for all students before they start kicking you out? At my university, I believe you can go below a 2.0 for a semester but after that, they may kick you out.

I'm not going to name any specific colleges, but yes there are diploma mills that are ******** and sucking up federal money. Humorously, conservatives seem to defend the practice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profit-universities/
 
I thought they do? (At least the GPA part)

No; the sole qualifier is financial need.
 
Evo said:
Agreed. If Pell Grants can help kids get out of the destructive cycle that would put them on our wellfare rolls, it's worth it. I don't think it should be a hand out without qualifications though. That's what needs to be changed, attach some accountability to it. Given to the right students, it can mean becoming independent, responsible, educated adults and that means that their offspring will be less likley to be on our wellfare roles.

Unfortunately it is quite easy to bs that you need the money, though the government should not revoke a program intended to help because a few people abuse the system.

russ_watters said:
Wow, that's a great propaganda sounbyte that misses the entire discussion of the thread! Congrats!

Thanks bro, just doing my part.
 
talk2glenn said:
No; the sole qualifier is financial need.

They also have to maintain satisfactory academic progress defined by the school. And at most places, the student is required to maintain at least a 2.0.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/aideligibility.jsp?tab=funding
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SixNein said:
Humorously, conservatives seem to defend the practice.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profit-universities/

There is nothing wrong with for-profit higher education. TO me, the only difference between a for-profit school and a non-profit school is that at the end of the day, one needs to have spent all its money. Up until now, the reasons non-profit universities didn't stoop to such sleezeball tactics is that they didn't really need to. Now, combine government cuts with the recent surge in higher education attendance, non-profits are using their own tricks. You can easily find countless articles detailing how many universities have emphasized the social aspect and party lifestyle in universities and pushed the actual education quality aside so they can rake in more money.

Hell, look at the payroll at any public university. Administrators get more money than most CEOs get. I think higher education all around has become a racket.

khemist said:
Unfortunately it is quite easy to bs that you need the money, though the government should not revoke a program intended to help because a few people abuse the system.

Can you name any system in the world with 0 accountability and oversight that deals with these quantities of money that isn't heavily abused?
 
SixNein said:
I'm surprised anyone could get upset about pell grants.
Me too. It really seems like a non-issue. Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country. Most of the money that's given to the rich doesn't go into the general economy, but rather stays in the financial sector, where it's hoarded or wagered in the financial markets.

So, yes, Pell Grants are welfare to the poor. And that's mostly a good thing, because welfare to the poor benefits the general economy and therefore the country.
 
ThomasT said:
Me too. It really seems like a non-issue. Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country. Most of the money that's given to the rich doesn't go into the general economy, but rather stays in the financial sector, where it's hoarded or wagered in the financial markets.

So, yes, Pell Grants are welfare to the poor. And that's mostly a good thing, because welfare to the poor benefits the general economy and therefore the country.

You say this as if universities are run by people that aren't rich. Over here in California, San Diego State, in the middle of the biggest budget crisis in our states history, just appointed a new President with a salary of $400,000.

And let's not even start talking about the actual chancellors of these state systems.

Plus, imagine if 5,000 students at any decently sized university end up getting $100k over the course of their studies in financial aid and end up working at starbucks, that's half a billion dollars wasted, easily, at just one university. And that's NO exaggeration. I think the recent estimates are that 50% of students right now are going to leave college jobless. And when you finish college and aren't applying what you learned (if you learned anything), that knowledge slips away fast.

Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.
 
Pengwuino said:
You say this as if universities are run by people that aren't rich. Over here in California, San Diego State, in the middle of the biggest budget crisis in our states history, just appointed a new President with a salary of $400,000.

And let's not even start talking about the actual chancellors of these state systems.

Plus, imagine if 5,000 students at any decently sized university end up getting $100k over the course of their studies in financial aid and end up working at starbucks, that's half a billion dollars wasted, easily, at just one university. And that's NO exaggeration. I think the recent estimates are that 50% of students right now are going to leave college jobless. And when you finish college and aren't applying what you learned (if you learned anything), that knowledge slips away fast.

Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.

Your over estimating the value of those pell grants by a long shot. Even with the recent boost, the pell grants are only like 5k a year. People aren't exactly making out like bandits.
 
SixNein said:
Your over estimating the value of those pell grants by a long shot. Even with the recent boost, the pell grants are only like 5k a year. People aren't exactly making out like bandits.

Sure but these are order-of-magnitude estimates. There aren't only 5,000 students doing this per university (realistically it'd probably be a better estimate to go per year at a few thousand per year) and there isn't only 1 university in this country. You can easily go into the tens of billions of dollars per year.

This isn't spare change.
 
ThomasT said:
Most of the money that's given to the poor goes directly into the general economy, and so is good for the country.
So what??! It's still spending borrowed money! You're advocating doing more of what this bill is supposed to start to FIX. That flawed thinking is why we're here, talking about an unsustainable debt!

Question: if spending money to help the poor is such a positive thing even in the face of debt, why don't YOU give all of your money to charity, then go borrow as much as you can so you can give more? Please answer, it's a serious question. If you're not doing it now, there must be a downside. What is it?
 
Last edited:
Pengwuino said:
I see them less as welfare and more of simple subsidies.

I have not read through all of the comments, but this. As far as I know, the Department of Agriculture pays farmers to leave their land without any crop. But, then again, the majority of farmers tend to vote for the Republican Party, whereas the majority of students are pro-Democrat. The tea-party is, first and foremost, a wing of the Republican Party.
 
russ_watters said:
Correct: this provision was inserted to buy democratic votes, while farm subsidies buy republican votes.

Wow, your logic is flawless.
 
Dickfore said:
Wow, your logic is flawless.
? Its realism. If you disagree, please explain why you think this provision was added to a completely unrelated bill.

Or was there a bigger point to your post that I missed? If so, please clarify.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
? Its realism. If you disagree, please explained why you think this provision was added to a completely unrelated bill.

Or was there a bigger point to your post that I missed? If so, please clarify.

Please explain how one buys a vote.
 
Dickfore said:
The tea-party is, first and foremost, a wing of the Republican Party.
I would rather say the tea-party is more closely aligned with the Republican Party's platform and so you see the majority of the members, especially members who successfully ran for office, are Republican in party affiliation. However, it is a true grass-roots political manifestation, not an astroturf creation of the Republican leadership, so I would contradict your statement there.
 
jambaugh said:
However, it is a true grass-roots political manifestation, not an astroturf creation of the Republican leadership, so I would contradict your statement there.
What does 'grass-roots political manifestation' mean? The only political organization in a Democratic society is a Political Party that runs on elections. Is it possible for a person to be a member of two different political parties simultaneously? Will the members of the Tea Party run on some elections under the Republican Party banner or the 'Tea-Party' banner?
 
ThomasT said:
And that's mostly a good thing, because welfare to the poor benefits the general economy and therefore the country.

I dispute this statement. I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector. Enforced charity fails on three fronts.

Firstly as coerced redistribution of wealth it is not subject to the judgment of the individual donating the wealth and thus the recipient develops no sense of gratitude to the person who via his knowledge and character is able to produce that wealth. He does not seek to emulate the producer but rather is grateful instead to the politician who use the power of the state to transfer the wealth.

Secondly since the distributor of that wealth is not the one who had to produce it, he does not best understand the value of that wealth, what is required to produce it, and thus how best to distribute it in terms of who is most deserving. To prevent favoritism he must abide by an objective policy of distribution which in turn is subject to manipulation and corruption by the potential recipients. They will behave in a way to better qualify for the largess instead of behaving in a way to free themselves from the need for that largess. I recall a woman on PRN complaining about her inability to find a job with her "Masters of Women's Studies Degree". A find degree I am sure but not one conducive of producing the wealth she desires to keep her supplied with food clothing and shelter if she does not already have the means.

Thirdly since the producer of that wealth does not have any choice in its redistribution he looses some incentive to produce it and more importantly looses more incentive to "pay it back" through private sector organizations.

I'm surprised that those same people who argue that charity is necessary because it benefits all cannot also carry that logic through to recognized that the producers of wealth also recognize that fact (if true) and thus do not need to be coerced into doing what is in their best interest...that by coercing them you belie your belief in the truth of your words.
 
Pengwuino said:
You say this as if universities are run by people that aren't rich.
What makes you say that?

Pengwuino said:
Over here in California, San Diego State, in the middle of the biggest budget crisis in our states history, just appointed a new President with a salary of $400,000.
What's that got to do with whether Pell grants are welfare or are good for the economy?

Pengwuino said:
And let's not even start talking about the actual chancellors of these state systems.
Ok. That would be off topic anyway.

Pengwuino said:
Plus, imagine if 5,000 students at any decently sized university end up getting $100k over the course of their studies in financial aid and end up working at starbucks, that's half a billion dollars wasted, easily, at just one university. And that's NO exaggeration.
The Pell grant money that gets put into the general economy, and I assume that that would be a good portion of it, isn't wasted. It helps the economy, and, therefore, is good for the country.

Pengwuino said:
I think the recent estimates are that 50% of students right now are going to leave college jobless. And when you finish college and aren't applying what you learned (if you learned anything), that knowledge slips away fast.
I agree that for lots of, maybe most, people college is more of a social than an academic thing.

Pengwuino said:
Your idealistic dismissals should be rethought.
What idealistic dismissals? My point was that Pell grants are welfare, and that that welfare helps the economy whether the Pell grant recipients eventually land high level jobs or not.
 
jambaugh said:
I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector.
I have to disagree with that for the time being. But I'll consider your points further, and if I change my mind then I'll post something wrt that. If you would like me to address your argument point by point then I'll do that when I have more time, and have thought about it some more.
 
Dickfore said:
What does 'grass-roots political manifestation' mean?
"Grass-roots" means organized from bottom up, i.e. a spontaneous organization of individuals with like minded ideologies. The civil rights movement began as a grass-roots political manifestation... individuals began protesting, then organizing their protests, then politicians latched on (a good thing, mind you) and now we have a new amendment to our constitution. "Political manifestion" means a manifestation (phenomena, happening, ...) within the arena of politics. Need I break it down further?

The only political organization in a Democratic society is a Political Party that runs on elections.
Within the Democratic party, itself a large body encompassing a broad range of ideologies, you have more specific organizations of individuals with specific goals on guiding the platform, you have the http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/" .

Is it possible for a person to be a member of two different political parties simultaneously? Will the members of the Tea Party run on some elections under the Republican Party banner or the 'Tea-Party' banner?
As yet the Tea-Party Movement is not a political party. It is more a caucus like my examples above working within the political parties. It has membership in both parties: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie" .

As far as party leaders are concerned, the Republican leaders are still trying to figure out how to deal with the Tea Party. Some of the Democratic leadership have tried to paint them as insignificant and as bigoted hillbillies but that has mostly failed.
 
Last edited by a moderator: