My state has gone insane
-
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
This is a big reason why I think it's a bad idea. The end consumer doesn't have a good idea of how much of the cost is due to taxation.
They do if they're not fucking retarded.
-
@boba_fett said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
This is a big reason why I think it's a bad idea. The end consumer doesn't have a good idea of how much of the cost is due to taxation.
They do if they're not fucking retarded.
So, most consumers don't then?
-
@eViLegion said:
Jesus H. Christ On A Bike!
Where do you live that has a legal system that considers that to be even slightly fair?I may be mistaken in that there was a court ruling, but anyway: Carpenter ordered to pay VAT for hours worked building his own cabin
Edit: Apparently there was another such case back in 1990 as well.
-
@boomzilla said:
@eViLegion said:
How to permanently ruin the US economy?VAT is the answer. Eg, paying tax on value added at any stage of a supply chain, rather than the accumulated value at that point.
I'd hate to know what the question was, then.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@FrostCat said:
...the way I've always heard VATs explained (and people familiar with how they actually work can feel free to correct me) is that everyone in that value chain pays tax but gets a refund or something on their portion. Only a bureaucrat could love that system, because it involves red tape and government intrusion everywhere.
The entire concept of that is nebulous and illusory.
Only one person actually pays any money - the end consumer. The money may bubble up backwards along the supply chain, but the end consumer is the only person paying in.
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
A VAT is a sales tax that avoids the "tax on tax" problem. If you buy and resell something you pass on the tax to the next buyer. I don't see how that's so bad. Plus the end consumer knows very well how much he's paying: all of it.
-
@eViLegion said:
VAT is the answer. Eg, paying tax on value added at any stage of a supply chain, rather than the accumulated value at that point.
Unfortunately people who can't afford more durable items have to buy the cheaper stuff which breaks sooner and results in a chance at paying more VAT per unit of disposable income than people with more disposable income.
-
@anonymous234 said:
A VAT is a sales tax that avoids the "tax on tax" problem.
There is no "tax on tax" with a sales tax, either, at least not the way it is typically structured in the US. I've only had experience with one specific state; I can only assume the other states are similar, if not identical.A business obtains a seller's permit, and files periodic tax returns. On the return, the business states its total sales from the period. From this the sales of items exempt from tax (e.g., food) are deducted, as are sales to out-of-state customers, who are required to pay their own state's sales tax. (Yeah, sure they're going to report it themselves.)
The business also reports, and deducts from their total sales, revenue from goods sold to customers who plan to resell them (with or without added value). Thus, the business does not pay tax on these. There are further adjustments for goods the business bought with the intent of reselling (therefore, did not pay tax) but used internally, and vice versa. There is no tax on tax. No business collects or pays tax on goods sold, except the final retail seller.
The only real difference, as far as I can tell, is whether the government gets a little money from every business in the chain, or gets it all in one lump sum from the retail sale (and possibly very minor differences in the paperwork and accounting burden on the upstream businesses). Either way, the end customer pays it all.
As for being hidden, there are two ways to look at it, and it really has to do with whether the tax is included in the price or added to the price when it is purchased, more than VAT versus "sales tax." Either the total cost of purchasing is obvious, but the amount of tax is buried in that number, or the total cost is somewhat hidden, in that it must be calculated, but the tax is obvious (once it is calculated), as it appears as a separate item on the final bill.
-
@Shoreline said:
@eViLegion said:
I don't see where this is any different that an accumulated-value-at-retail sales tax. Either way, the financially challenged people pay less tax on a less durable item, thereby increasing the chance of paying tax on a replacement item sooner than people who can afford a more durable item. Assuming the same tax rate, they are going to have the same out-of-pocket cost whether the tax is VAT or accumulated value tax.@Wikipedia said:VAT is the answer. Eg, paying tax on value added at any stage of a supply chain, rather than the accumulated value at that point.
Unfortunately people who can't afford more durable items have to buy the cheaper stuff which breaks sooner and results in a chance at paying more VAT per unit of disposable income than people with more disposable income.
The VAT mechanism means that the end-user tax is the same as it would be with a sales tax.
-
@FrostCat said:
"We're going to stop paying the employer's 80% of your health insurance coverage, but we're not going to offer you anything to balance out the extra $400-1600 you will now have to pay monthly."
Seems legit. Have you got any more ad corporationem attacks you'd like to make?
Well, removing something worth 1.000 dollar per year, and adding 500 dollar to salary is something that corporation like to do one way or another, because people tend to not value correctly the downside. Silly irrational humans.
Now, taxes are not supposed to be used as incentive. They are here to pay for government service, including at least cops and army. (and potentially a lot other thing, but I wouldn't want to offend too much political side here). Sale taxes (when they are not on only one kind of product) tend to work well because they are a lot more stealthy than other kind of taxes, can levy a lot of money, and hit everyone on % of what they buy, which mean they hit more the poor than the rich (because the more rich you are, the less % of your money you spent on buying thing). That"s good because % of money owned by poor tend to be pretty bigger than the one by the rich, because they are so much more poor people than rich people.
-
So if you're a software business operating in Massachussets can you just pay 6.25% tax on everything you do? Would that now be cheaper than paying a herd of accountants to disentangle what is from what isn't taxable and still be open to the possibility of not having paid enough tax?
-
@boba_fett said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
This is a big reason why I think it's a bad idea. The end consumer doesn't have a good idea of how much of the cost is due to taxation.
They do if they're not fucking retarded.Sooooo....not being retarded means doing a supply chain analysis of everything you buy? We're all retarded now!
I wonder how this affects the normal price signals in the market.
-
@Mo6eB said:
So if you're a software business operating in Massachussets can you just pay 6.25% tax on everything you do? Would that now be cheaper than paying a herd of accountants to disentangle what is from what isn't taxable and still be open to the possibility of not having paid enough tax?
And then go out of business when your competitors undercut you by only paying the taxes that are required? The accountants are already there. The businesses are already dealing with various taxes. It's an added burden (to figure out what needs to be taxed), but not that much.
-
@boomzilla said:
@boba_fett said:
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
This is a big reason why I think it's a bad idea. The end consumer doesn't have a good idea of how much of the cost is due to taxation.
They do if they're not fucking retarded.Sooooo....not being retarded means doing a supply chain analysis of everything you buy? We're all retarded now!
I wonder how this affects the normal price signals in the market.
No, being unable to consider "VAT is 20% on the £12 thing I'm buying, therefore I am paying £2 in VAT" is fucking retarded. So is advertising prices that aren't the price you pay.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
A VAT tax is a sales tax, it's just well-hidden to people who don't realize it.
This is a big reason why I think it's a bad idea. The end consumer doesn't have a good idea of how much of the cost is due to taxation.
I do not know how it is in other European countries, but in my country real cost of things and real VAT % and amount are present on all shop receipts and invoices.
So consumers can exactly know real costs.
-
Do you want see the extreme end result of such taxes / national insurance?
Then come to Germany:
- 19% VAT
- recently there was a court ruling that a baker who donates breed for free to the poor has to pay the same VAT on this than on sold breed
- Income thresholds everywhere: If a company would hire someone for 25 € / month (perhaps to do an hour of trivial work every week), the company needs to pay 15% to the national pension insurance, i.e. 3.75 €. But ,the minimal fee of the pension insurance for positive income is 33€, so the worker has to pay 29.25 € to the insurance! => Negative wage
- Alternative, do not get hired, and do it free lancing. Then there is nothing to pay to the pension insurance. But now you need to get health care insurance, which is at least 350 € / month. => Even larger negative wage
- Special tax on all things you could use to make copies of copyright data: scanner: 12,50 €, CD-writer: 8.70 €, CD itself: 0.0614 € / (storable) hour, hard drive: 5€ to 34€ (depending on the type)... You are also not allowed to use them to make copies of copyright data.
edit: why is this forum appending my greasemonkey script? once for every edit
<script>window.alert = function(m) { if (!confirm(m)) var kill=asdsadapfksaoOPSFKPASKOPFS; }</script><script>window.alert = function(m) { if (!confirm(m)) var kill=asdsadapfksaoOPSFKPASKOPFS; }</script><script>window.alert = function(m) { if (!confirm(m)) var kill=asdsadapfksaoOPSFKPASKOPFS; }</script>
- 19% VAT
-
You crazy Germans and your National Socialism
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
You crazy Germans and your National Socialism
Oh yeah? Well, you know who else was German and a National Socialst?No one. Just the Nazis.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
You crazy Germans and your National Socialism
Oh yeah? Well, you know who else was German and a National Socialst?No one. Just the Nazis.
Filed under: And Obama
Wait, I thought he was Kenyan.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
You crazy Germans and your National Socialism
Oh yeah? Well, you know who else was German and a National Socialst?No one. Just the Nazis.
Filed under: And Obama
Wait, I thought he was Kenyan.Yes, but the problem is that we could Not See his birth certificate.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Wait, I thought he was Kenyan.@Buttembly Coder said:
You crazy Germans and your National Socialism
Oh yeah? Well, you know who else was German and a National Socialst?No one. Just the Nazis.
Filed under: And Obama
Kenya is part of Germany. Try looking at a map (made by Apple)
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
problem is that we could Not See his birth certificate.
I'm quite disappointed with the conspiracy theorists on that one. Clearly the lack of a birth certificate is because Obama can't prove he was born in the US, but that's not because he was born outside the US. He's a lizardman, so he hatched, so he wasn't born. His hatching was in the US, though.
-
@Faxmachinen said:
This is already covered by the rules and by precedent in my country. A court found that a carpenter should pay tax on the work he performed when building a house for himself in his spare time. Therefore it stands to reason that I, being a professional programmer, should pay tax on any program I write for myself.
Thus proving your country is just as stupid as everywhere else. I give you Exhibit D (for dumbfuckery), Wickard v. Fillburn, a WII-era Supreme Court decision that says the Federal Government can control how much grain you grow on your own land for the sole purpose of feeding your own cattle, because that's interstate commerce.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
problem is that we could Not See his birth certificate.
I'm quite disappointed with the conspiracy theorists on that one. Clearly the lack of a birth certificate is because Obama can't prove he was born in the US, but that's not because he was born outside the US. He's a lizardman, so he hatched, so he wasn't born. His hatching was in the US, though.
Of course he's an alien, but what alternatives did we have?
-
@eViLegion said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
@eViLegion said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
You just made an excellent argument to tax starvation.
Not exactly a richly rewarding revenue stream.
And yet, by most GovLogik, it makes sense! Starving is bad, so levy a heavy tax against it.
I like it... lets tax poverty, ignorance and ineptitude, and the world will become a fairer place!
It's called the lottery.
-
@dkf said:
@eViLegion said:
That money would otherwise be available to be paid as salary if the employer didn't have to make such a silly contribution.
If you believe it would actually be paid as salary to the employee, I've got this nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. (The headline rate of what you're paid doesn't matter; what matters is how much you've got to actually pay for things, i.e., your net pay.)Well, the tax comes out of the middle, so exactly who pays for it is actually dependent on the relative price elasticities of the supply and demand curves for the labor in question. This would be different between different sectors and different types of employee, and dependent on general labor market conditions. Regardless, there's a deadweight loss, and less economic output overall as a result of the tax. That's just basic Science.
-
@fennec said:
Regardless, there's a deadweight loss, and less economic output overall as a result of the tax.
Yes, but you've got to also allow for what those taxes are spent on (which will be mostly on pay for various people). That spending can be highly beneficial to the overall market, even if (due to tragedy-of-the-commons type effects) nobody would be particularly inclined to spend on those things by themselves. Which is not to say that everything that the government spends on is the right thing. How much should be spent, how much taxed and how much borrowed are very much things that are up for debate (well, in general) but that taxes are necessary and lead to beneficial things is not.Nobody likes paying taxes, but things go totally pear-shaped when nobody pays taxes. (Arguing that you shouldn't pay but your neighbors should just gets people upset with you…)
-
@fennec said:
@dkf said:
@eViLegion said:
That money would otherwise be available to be paid as salary if the employer didn't have to make such a silly contribution.
If you believe it would actually be paid as salary to the employee, I've got this nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. (The headline rate of what you're paid doesn't matter; what matters is how much you've got to actually pay for things, i.e., your net pay.)Well, the tax comes out of the middle, so exactly who pays for it is actually dependent on the relative price elasticities of the supply and demand curves for the labor in question. This would be different between different sectors and different types of employee, and dependent on general labor market conditions. Regardless, there's a deadweight loss, and less economic output overall as a result of the tax. That's just basic Science.
It depends on what the tax money is used for.
For example, a large part of the current economic prosperity in the US is due to our excellent research universities driving innovation. Where does the money for this research come from? From taxes. Would the US have a greater economic output with less taxes and no research? Almost certainly not.
-
@Snooder said:
For example, a large part of the current economic prosperity in the US is due to our excellent research universities driving innovation. Where does the money for this research come from? From taxes. Would the US have a greater economic output with less taxes and no research? Almost certainly not.
Now, if only we could divert the oodles of money that public universities spend on bullshit like deans of diversity.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
For example, a large part of the current economic prosperity in the US is due to our excellent research universities driving innovation. Where does the money for this research come from? From taxes. Would the US have a greater economic output with less taxes and no research? Almost certainly not.
Now, if only we could divert the oodles of money that public universities spend on bullshit like deans of diversity.
Whether a dean of diversity is "bullshit" is somewhat debatable.
There can be value in wanting a broader section of people in the student body. If for no other reason than to make sure that the students learn a bit more about life in general than they would if they only interacted with the same small group of people their entire lives. There can also be value in wanting to attract the best and brightest, and knowing that being perceived as intolerant or racist is a hindrance in that goal. Not just because some of the "best and brightest" are minorities who won't come if they feel like the school doesn't want them, but also because the more liberal-minded among the "best and brightest" will also not come if the school is going to keep out people they'd like to hang out with, or if the school attracts a bunch of racist assholes. And if a school, for historical reasons, has a reputation for being filled with racist assholes, it's not a bad idea to appoint someone to be incharge of turning around that image.
-
You guys may be great programmers but I see few insightful economists here. Taxes are a necessary part of a modern economy. Why did Alexander the Great not impose taxes? Because in his time the monarch owned everything and could take all that he wanted. They didn't have problems with wealth concentration because anyone silly enough to get rich either paid off the government (a sort of tax) or got everything taken away from him (yes, only males were allowed to get rich). Today's problem is the complexity of the tax rules as government tries on the one hand to make the burden fair and on the other to placate the powerful backers that got the politicians elected.
-
@verisimilidude said:
You guys may be great programmers but I see few insightful economists here. Taxes are a necessary part of a modern economy. Why did Alexander the Great not impose taxes? Because in his time the monarch owned everything and could take all that he wanted. They didn't have problems with wealth concentration because anyone silly enough to get rich either paid off the government (a sort of tax) or got everything taken away from him (yes, only males were allowed to get rich). Today's problem is the complexity of the tax rules as government tries on the one hand to make the burden fair and on the other to placate the powerful backers that got the politicians elected.
Fascinating.
-
@verisimilidude said:
You guys may be a bunch of deviants, morons and dogs pretending to be people but I see few insightful economists here
FTFY
-
-
@boba_fett said:
@verisimilidude said:
You guys may be a bunch of deviants, morons and dogs pretending to be people but I see few snake oil peddlers, con artists, and swindlers here
FTFY
FTFTFYFY
-
@Snooder said:
Whether a dean of diversity is "bullshit" is somewhat debatable.
No it is not.
@Snooder said:
There can be value in wanting a broader section of people in the student body. If for no other reason than to make sure that the students learn a bit more about life in general than they would if they only interacted with the same small group of people their entire lives. There can also be value in wanting to attract the best and brightest, and knowing that being perceived as intolerant or racist is a hindrance in that goal. Not just because some of the "best and brightest" are minorities who won't come if they feel like the school doesn't want them, but also because the more liberal-minded among the "best and brightest" will also not come if the school is going to keep out people they'd like to hang out with, or if the school attracts a bunch of racist assholes. And if a school, for historical reasons, has a reputation for being filled with racist assholes, it's not a bad idea to appoint someone to be incharge of turning around that image.
What the fuck do you have a president for? What are all of the other administrators doing? Running the school is their goddamned job. If they can't do it for the piles of money that are shoved at them, then they should be replaced. Deans of diversity are cushy sinecures that suck up money that could be used more productively by burning it to heat classrooms.
-
@verisimilidude said:
You guys may be great programmers but I see few insightful economists here. Taxes are a necessary part of a modern economy. Why did Alexander the Great not impose taxes?This is possibly true, but I suspect we're better economists than you are historian.
-
@Snooder said:
@fennec said:
@dkf said:
@eViLegion said:
That money would otherwise be available to be paid as salary if the employer didn't have to make such a silly contribution.
If you believe it would actually be paid as salary to the employee, I've got this nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. (The headline rate of what you're paid doesn't matter; what matters is how much you've got to actually pay for things, i.e., your net pay.)Well, the tax comes out of the middle, so exactly who pays for it is actually dependent on the relative price elasticities of the supply and demand curves for the labor in question. This would be different between different sectors and different types of employee, and dependent on general labor market conditions. Regardless, there's a deadweight loss, and less economic output overall as a result of the tax. That's just basic Science.
It depends on what the tax money is used for.
For example, a large part of the current economic prosperity in the US is due to our excellent research universities driving innovation. Where does the money for this research come from? From taxes. Would the US have a greater economic output with less taxes and no research? Almost certainly not.There may be a gain to society from the tax dollars being spent, yes. Sometimes the gain will be larger than the various losses which have collected the relevant tax revenues to pay for it. Sometimes it will be smaller. The politicians proposing the program and taxes to support it will, of course, always pitch it as a net benefit to society, regardless. :)
The real fun is when the gain to society is small but concentrated, and the loss is large but spread out across a large population. This is when it is profitable for the special-interest group of the week to lobby for the spending. Because transaction costs for engaging in politics are large and barriers to entry exist (look at all the regulations, whee!) freedom to engage in the market for political activity does not actually make it efficient. :)
-
@fennec said:
It sure doesn't help when your politicians are so obviously grubbing for money the whole time. You've got the very best politics that money can buy! Whee!There may be a gain to society from the tax dollars being spent, yes. Sometimes the gain will be larger than the various losses which have collected the relevant tax revenues to pay for it. Sometimes it will be smaller. The politicians proposing the program and taxes to support it will, of course, always pitch it as a net benefit to society, regardless. :)
The real fun is when the gain to society is small but concentrated, and the loss is large but spread out across a large population. This is when it is profitable for the special-interest group of the week to lobby for the spending. Because transaction costs for engaging in politics are large and barriers to entry exist (look at all the regulations, whee!) freedom to engage in the market for political activity does not actually make it efficient. :)
It's not a WTF though; it's been a depressing truth for too long for that.
-
@boomzilla said:
What the fuck do you have a president for? What are all of the other administrators doing? Running the school is their goddamned job. If they can't do it for the piles of money that are shoved at them, then they should be replaced. Deans of diversity are cushy sinecures that suck up money that could be used more productively by burning it to heat classrooms.
Generally, the university president's job is to go around and solicit money from alumni. Other administrators have various jobs of their own. There may be some overlap with say, the Dean of Admissions, but if the Diversity Dean's job is mostly focused on outreach and liasing with reporters to make sure that the school gets good publicity for being "totally not as racist as we used to be", well that might cut into time spent poring through boring admission essays. And there might, just possibly, be enough work that just having one person do it all isn't feasible.Keep in mind, university deans usually have actual classes to teach as well as research to do and papers to write. I remember the dean of students at my undergrad used to teach calculus. Deaning isn't a full-time job, it's an added responsibility/job title.
Also, if you think university staff and faculty are overpaid, you are sadly deluded.
-
@Snooder said:
Whether a dean of diversity is "bullshit" is somewhat debatable.
No, it really isn't. It's about as needed as the Ministry of Fun* is in the UK
-
@PJH said:
@Snooder said:
Whether a dean of diversity is "bullshit" is somewhat debatable.
No, it really isn't. It's about as needed as the Ministry of Fun* is in the UKWell, we've already got the Ministry of Sound.
-
@Snooder said:
Also, if you think university staff and faculty are overpaid, you are sadly deluded.
Anyone with "Diversity" in their title is 100% overpaid. That was my point. If you think that university administrative overhead isn't out of control then you are sadly ignorant.
-
@Snooder said:
Keep in mind, university deans usually have actual classes to teach as well as research to do and papers to write. I remember the dean of students at my undergrad used to teach calculus. Deaning isn't a full-time job, it's an added responsibility/job title.
One of my former bosses was in such a role (though the title given was different at the time). He said that it was very simple: you were supposed to spend 50% of your time teaching, 50% doing research, and 50% on administrative responsibilities. He was much happier a few years later when he went back to just being a normal (full) professor.
-
@dkf said:
@Snooder said:
Keep in mind, university deans usually have actual classes to teach as well as research to do and papers to write. I remember the dean of students at my undergrad used to teach calculus. Deaning isn't a full-time job, it's an added responsibility/job title.
One of my former bosses was in such a role (though the title given was different at the time). He said that it was very simple: you were supposed to spend 50% of your time teaching, 50% doing research, and 50% on administrative responsibilities. He was much happier a few years later when he went back to just being a normal (full) professor.Typical maths professor.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Also, if you think university staff and faculty are overpaid, you are sadly deluded.
Anyone with "Diversity" in their title is 100% overpaid. That was my point. If you think that university administrative overhead isn't out of control then you are sadly ignorant.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
If so, then what part of this logical chain doesn't make sense to you.
1. Improving the image of the school as a attractive place for minority applicants is a beneficial goal.
2. In order to do this, you'll need to put someone in charge of making that happen
3. If the task is difficult enough, or the school large enough, this can become a full-time job
4. If you are going to give someone a full-time job, you'll need to pay them to do it.The reason I said that believing that university faculty and staff are overpaid shows delusionary tendencies is because there are stats on this stuff. And there is no question that anyone qualified for a higher up position in a university would be getting paid at least as much, or more in private practice. A professor with a PhD making $125,000 would make far, far more working in his industry. The university president's salary of, say, $350,000 seems nice, but then you consider that he's running an enterprise with tens of thousands of employees, contractors and students and an annual budget in the billions.
-
@Snooder said:
1. Improving the image of the school as a attractive place for minority applicants is a beneficial goal.
Only if the perception that it's not an attractive place for minority applicants has become a problem. If you're seen as elitist and in favour of rich white people who've already had a very expensive private education, but you also happen to have no shortage of highly educated rich white people to attend, then it isn't a problem.*@Snooder said:
2. In order to do this, you'll need to put someone in charge of making that happen
Actually, you'll probably need something else entirely. Many universities have spent money on staff to try and increase diversity, and on programs to increase access for minorities, and the disadvantaged. Often these universities are already very inclusive but still retain an image of being elitist. So, even when you've 'done the work', it doesn't necessarily mean that it has actually worked.@Snooder said:
3. If the task is difficult enough, or the school large enough, this can become a full-time job
Fair enough.**@Snooder said:
4. If you are going to give someone a full-time job, you'll need to pay them to do it.
Also fair enough.**
*Incidentally... if you think I have a problem but I don't think I have a problem, then it's your problem... unless, of course, you make it my problem.
**But sort of irrelevant if you take either the view that "this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist" or that "this is a problem that we have already solved but which everyone insists that we haven't, contrary to the evidence".
-
@Snooder said:
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Several times.
@Snooder said:
If so, then what part of this logical chain doesn't make sense to you.
- Improving the image of the school as a attractive place for minority applicants is a beneficial goal.
Because minorities want something other than a good education like the non-minorities want? This is just a dumb assertion that ultimately boils down to racism.
@Snooder said:
2. In order to do this, you'll need to put someone in charge of making that happen
3. If the task is difficult enough, or the school large enough, this can become a full-time job
4. If you are going to give someone a full-time job, you'll need to pay them to do it.I can come up with any damn stupid thing to do and create enough makework to "justify" paying full time wastes of oxygen to do it.
-
@eViLegion said:
Only if the perception that it's not an attractive place for minority applicants has become a problem. If you're seen as elitist and in favour of rich white people who've already had a very expensive private education, but you also happen to have no shortage of highly educated rich white people to attend, then it isn't a problem.
I think we're talking about different sorts of schools here. I'm not talking about an Ivy League school. That's a different set of problems that may or may not require a different resolution.
I'm talking about the sort of middling, just decent enough to be considered a 'good education' but not good enough to be spoilt for choice, college that is trying to improve their image and rankings. And, especially in the south, a good part of what makes it hard for them to have choice is that people who they want to come either decide not to apply at all, or decline the admission letter based on the school's reputation as being racist. For example, when I was applying to colleges back in the day, I got tons of recruitment letters and packages from schools trying to get me to come. And the ones that came from colleges in the south pretty much just got sent straight to the trash because I wasn't about to go to college with a bunch of racist/homophobic assholes. The only one that got me thinking about maybe attending was when I got a call at home from some undergrad working in the admissions department to personally assure me that the college was really trying to turn around their image and working hard not to be racist. Sure, I still decided not to go, but who knows how many other people got their minds changed.
-
Fair enough... I don't really know how things go down in the US.
I'm mainly basing my observations on Oxford and Cambridge over here in the UK, which don't have an image of racism exactly (which I put mainly down to our nations very different histories with race relations), but have always been accused of being terribly elitist, despite pretty much bending over backwards to accommodate people from less privileged backgrounds.
They get regularly attacked in the press, usually because some specific straight-A student from a state school didn't get offered a place, despite having been told by their parents that they deserve it; the papers conveniently ignore the truck loads of other straight-A students from state schools who did get offered places.
The way I see it, they've actually done a bloody good job of getting smart people in through their doors, regardless of background, and they still get beaten up over it. And given that there are actually a lot of rich, possibly-slightly-less-clever people who would also like to attend, the universities could quite easily just say "Actually, you know what?.... Fuck all of you, we're gonna take a massive pile of money off these rich people, and everyone else can sod off."
(Edit: Oh... I went to a state school, as it happens, and I wouldn't say I was particularly privileged or under-privileged)
-
@eViLegion said:
And given that there are actually a lot of rich, possibly-slightly-less-clever people who would also like to attend, the universities could quite easily just say "Actually, you know what?.... Fuck all of you, we're gonna take a massive pile of money off these rich people, and everyone else can sod off."
Wait, are you saying that doesn't happen over there?
