Nonetheless, in the last week I have written to my legislators twice over stupid bills currently moving through the process.  That’s a lot.  I usually just throw my hands up in frustration, vote for the democrats even if it makes me uncomfortable and know full well my neighbors have negated the impact of my vote by pretty much always voting for the other guy.  (I abhor SB1070 as much as anyone, but make myself feel better about the whole thing by reminding myself that it’s almost certainly unconstitutional and should get shot down by the supreme court.)

What got me writing?

SB1467 – This is being called the G-rated bill.  It essentially says that all teachers, including state-funded colleges and universities, must comply with the FCC profanity and obscenity guidelines.  These guidelines are intended to protect CHILDREN.  Not legal adults, like you find in higher education.  More importantly, they are incredibly vague from the perspective of someone who teaches a course that involves Sexuality and Gender.  Psychology, Nursing, Physiology, Public Health, etc.  All have valid reasons to teach courses that would involve language that, to some, might violate those guidelines.  More importantly, the law includes punishments that start with 1 week unpaid suspension.  I would be unable to teach my psych 101 class, and many others would find it incredibly difficult to teach their courses as well.

HB2770 – This one basically creates a protected status for academics (in humanities, social sciences and arts only) who have different political perspectives than the mainstream.  Now, we all know that most people in education and sociology lean left, so this rule appears to be designed to make being a conservative a protected status.  The irony of that in Arizona is hardly lost on me, although it appears lost on them.  Beyond it likely being unconstitutional, this bill is unnecessary.  A conservative academic studying politics in the academy stated “our research offers little evidence that conservative students or faculty are the victims of widespread ideological persecution”.

HEY LEGISLATORS:  I haven’t the foggiest idea why you feel these bills are appropriate things to waste time on.  I have something better:  ”Nearly 70 percent of all homes with a mortgage in Phoenix area were under water at the end of 2010″  It’s 2012 and home values have either stabilized or continued to fall. My loan-to-value is 165%.  How about the legislature working to fix that instead of monitoring how I talk to adult  college students or creating foolish new protected classes.

Friday the US Department of Education released the repayment rates for student loans by institution.  This was anxiously awaited because the gainful employment regulations are going to require that for-profit colleges and universities have 35% repayment rates to be eligible at all and 45% to be unconditionally eligible.  University of Phoenix‘s stock went up because of a 44% rate, while most of the rest of the for-profit sector went down because of low repayment rates.

However those with low rates are in good company.  Other schools that don’t meet the 35% cutoff:

• Medical schools
  • Harvard
  • Loyola
  • Georgetown
  • Temple
  • Penn State
  • Tulane
  • Columbia
  • University of Massachusetts
• Law Schools
  • Seton Hall 29%
  • John Marshall 28%
• Public Schools
  • Tennessee State 22%
  • South Carolina State 17%
  • Delaware State 21%
  • Alabama State 14%
  • Virginia State 25%

(Rates are based on number of students paid in full or with a declining balance as well as how far the balance had dropped in 4 years.  To be fair to the medical & law schools, I also calculated the % of people making payments regardless of how much so far; those listed also had fewer than 35% of students making payments.)

So what’s my point?  The ability to pay back a student loan appears unrelated to where you went to school or even what you studied.  If someone who went to Harvard Med School can’t make a payment on their loans then the fact that many people who go to “lesser” schools can is nearly miraculous.  More specifically, these numbers make it clear that quality of degree and field are not as tightly related to repayment rates as one might previously have expected.

Second, University of Phoenix is achieving that repayment rate with 5.5 time more students than the next highest school.  (That also happens to be a for-profit; American Intercontinental University who is sitting at 39%).  In fact, to 50% repayment you have to go to the 5th school, Penn State (excluding the med and law schools) which has 12% of the students University of Phoenix does.

I really think that before this particular beating continues people need to take a better look at the numbers.  With an overall average of only 56% repayment, no one is doing particularly well, and many highly respected schools are doing worse than some of the for-profits.  Tarring and feathering an entire sector without looking at the bigger picture is unjust and makes it clear that this is a vendetta, not a fair and balanced discussion of the issues.

Another article came out today about how for-profit colleges and trade schools (lumped into one big indistinguishable mass) are using deceptive practices to convince students to sign up for expensive degree programs, then encouraging the students to take out massive student loans that they won’t be able to pay off when they graduate due to low starting salaries or no jobs.  It would be foolish not to acknowledge that some for-profit organizations do this, but it would be just as foolish to suggest that no not-for-profit ones do.

Tuitions are going up everywhere.  State support of public institutions is going the way of the dodo, with the most recent announcement being double digit tuition increases for the universities in Arizona.  In some cases, the for-profits may become the only place with the capacity to take students as budgets such as California’s cause even community colleges to turn students away.  The for-profits may still be more expensive the those public institutions with space, but the gap is closing quickly.

For instance, a full (no transfer credit) Bachelors in Education from the University of Phoenix runs about $43,000 (either online or in a regular albeit evening classroom format).  That sounds huge; how will a teacher ever repay that?  Of course, they could also go to ASU for around $33,000.  Assuming they lived in Phoenix already and that they could take the time off from their current job to get to the scheduled classes and that they could arrange transportation and child care (if necessary).  (The for-profits have few traditional students; most are working adults going back for a career change or enhanced qualifications.)

An Arizona teacher has a starting salary on average $31,000, which comes with the threat of layoff due to the state or a district being short on funds.  A back of the envelope payment calculation comes up with $497 per month for University of Phoenix vs. $382 per month for ASU.  With a take home of under $1955 per month averaged out over 12 months (assuming 18% of gross for taxes and benefits, which is probably low), student loan payments would eat up 25 and 20% of take home respectively. (I’m not even going to talk about private not-for-profits; even the middle-of-the-road ones often charge upwards of $18,000 per year AFTER financial aid.  For example, here is the small liberal arts school I went to for undergrad.  $25k per year for tuition alone is not uncommon.)  Even with the new Income Based Repayment (which would limit the amount to 15% of 1.5*povery rate, or $184 per month) this is still a heavy burden with really slow progress.

A new proposal takes this a step further, calling for schools to be required to keep debt (average debt per student) at or below 8% of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 25th percentile salary.  But there’s a catch; this only applies to proprietary (read: for-profit) schools and trade programs.  That’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

A new teacher from ASU is nearly as finacially underwater as a new teacher from University of Phoenix, yet the proposal is essentially a price cap on the latter but not the former.  I can’t think of a single justification for that beyond the irrational hatred many in education feel for for-profit firms trying to make it in their industry.

Obviously these firms fill some niche that the standard public colleges don’t.  It might be convenience, timing, far superior customer service (as long as you are enrolling for more classes, the for-profits will bend over backwards to help you get what you need), a lack of requirements for classes that appear unrelated to your career, or any number of other possible things.  From a purely dollar-based comparison they may look like a bad deal, but students don’t choose a school based strictly on dollars.  These other factors weigh in, and sometimes the convenience alone can be worth the price.

My point is that if we as a society believe these kinds of limits are valuable then they should apply across the board.  Firms who are deceptive in their recruitment techniques should be sued over it, regardless of their tax status.  The public education system is slow and resistant to learning from the for-profit sector despite seeing how successful that sector is, and that’s too bad.  As state funding drys up, public institutions are going to find even more pressure to drive up enrollment for additional tuition dollars and cut costs (including financial aid) to make ends meet.

So can we finally stop paying attention to such things and actually pay attention to issues and stands?  Palin may have a vagina, but that doesn’t make her pro-woman.  She is anti-abortion and pro teaching creationism in schools.  She has more administrative experience than Obama but almost no foreign policy or defense experience. 

It is imperative that we not let this election devolve into a choice between the chick and the black guy.  Both are lacking some experience.  Both are running with a very experienced running mate.  Let’s choose on issues and where the candidates stand.

The 5th amendment is there to protect you, especially if you are innocent.  Almost anything you say can be turned against you, no matter how innocuous the comment may seem.  The video shows you how it can be done. 

Also, watch the 2nd video further down the page which is a reply by a police officer.  He agrees that you shouldn’t talk to the police without a lawyer present.  He talks about the techniques that the police use to get people to confess or talk. 

The deck is stacked against you unless you have a lawyer with you, and even then it is very easy to trip yourself up.  As soon as you get your Miranda Warning, shut up and ask for a lawyer, no matter whether you are guilty or innocent.

Note, the exception is routine traffic stops.  If you are pulled over, the first thing you should to do is turn
your car off, turn the dome light on (if it’s nighttime), roll down the
window, and keep your hands on the steering wheel. Don’t immediately
reach into your glove compartment for your license and registration.
Officers want to be able to see your hands for their own safety. Wait
until the officer asks to see your paperwork before retrieving your
documents.

The first thing you should say to the officer is, “Hello officer.
Can you tell me why I am being pulled over?” The officer may give you a
hard time or say, “Why do you think I pulled you over?” Tell the
officer you don’t know. Most importantly, do not apologize after you
get stopped, because that can be considered an admission of guilt and
could be used against you later in court.

Show your identification if it’s requested. Be respectful and
non-confrontational. Refer to the police as “Sir,” “Ma’am,” or
“Officer.” Remain calm and quiet while the officer is reviewing your
documents. If the officer writes you a ticket, accept it quietly and
never complain. Listen to any instruction on paying the fine or
contesting the ticket, and drive away slowly.

Again, admit to nothing and do not apologize.  If the situation escallates, then ask for a lawyer.

In general, even when I abhor some of the specifics of the ACLU’s positions (they’ve supported the KKK, NAMBLA, etc) I agree that defending the constitution is  more important than the specifics of any one case.  However I can no longer support the ACLU.  They seem to have decided to pick and choose the parts of the Bill of Rights they are going to support.

“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.”

• Prior to Heller an older case (Miller), if read carelessly, left open the door for the 2nd Amendment as a collective right.  However even the DISSENTERS in the Heller case make it clear that the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.   How much clearer can it be?  
• The ACLU’s About Us page says:

• The ACLU has historically pushed cases to the Supreme Court in order to get precedent established.  Now that one has been established, ignoring it makes the ACLU hypocrites.

If the ACLU wanted to stay neutral, I would have been fine with that.  The NRA is more than capable of dealing with all the gun rights cases in this country.  But taking a position AGAINST the Constitution, AGAINST the Supreme Court, and AGAINST a civil right is unacceptable. 

The comments thread of that post is amazing – they have 1 person who agrees out of hundreds of posts, many who now intend to stop contributing.  Here are a few of my favorite comments:

70% Bill Richardson
68% Mike Gravel
64% Chris Dodd
62% Barack Obama
60% Rudy Giuliani
60% Dennis Kucinich
59% John Edwards
59% Hillary Clinton
56% Ron Paul
56% John McCain
53% Joe Biden
52% Mike Huckabee
47% Mitt Romney
42% Fred Thompson
41% Tom Tancredo

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

PETA euthanized 97.4% of the animals turned into their shelter in 2006.

The average animal shelter nationally euthanizes about 37.4% of the animals that are turned into it.

They argue that no-kill shelters don’t work.  They are wrong.

Moreover the idea that the “ethical” thing to do would be to kill a healthy and likely adoptable pet is utterly appalling.  I can’t imagine how they can justify itself to themselves, let alone sleep at night.  It makes me cry.