We are the 99%/Occupy Movement

[LineInTheSand]

And no, they don't protest at Harvard and Yale and Princeton because those schools have exceptional financial aid programs that mean their graduates don't get saddled with excessive debt AND their graduates are among those that still have high job placement rates. There's no reason to protest.

Sounds like we don't need mandatory college then.

 

[New Kid]

Really? Do you really not see a benefit to having easier access to rigorous higher education options?

My response to the massive divide between the circumstances of grads of HYP and grads of other schools is disgust. And, for full disclosure, I write that as an alum of one of those schools. I reap the ridiculous benefits that are heaped on kids lucky enough to be semi-arbitrarily accepted to an elite school at the age of 17, and it makes me sad for a country that at some point aspired to be meritocratic.

 

[SamAca10]

Really? Do you really not see a benefit to having easier access to rigorous higher education options?

My response to the massive divide between the circumstances of grads of HYP and grads of other schools is disgust. And, for full disclosure, I write that as an alum of one of those schools. I reap the ridiculous benefits that are heaped on kids lucky enough to be semi-arbitrarily accepted to an elite school at the age of 17, and it makes me sad for a country that at some point aspired to be meritocratic.

What's wrong with meritocracy? Seems like the best way for things to be run. If you work hard, you get rewarded.

I wouldn't have had the opportunity for post-secondary education had I not worked hard so that I could go to college. I played with the cards I had, and it worked out by having a good work ethic in school and other pursuits.

 

[goaliedad]

I find this whole thread amusing as various posters pick apart all the various protesters and their situations.

I find the 99% movement to be a testament to the relatively orderly (although by no means perfect) way which various elements in our society express a dissatisfaction with what is (to them) an unexpected upending of the normal social patterns they have become accustomed to.

In many countries, when you have large number of university students who are frustrated in their aspirations, you see violent protests (can you say Tehran 1980) and general lawlessness take over until the authorities try to trample it or are overrun by it.

These folks are staging a typical left-of-center populist type movement. The technologies have changed and the media management is a new skill that didn't exist before the 24x7 new coverage, but it isn't that different from other similar disaffection going back a long way.

And in many ways it is the mirror image of the right-of-center Tea Party populist movement that nobody here seems to have noticed.

I look at both movements and become more cynical of how little understanding of history social movements these folks have as neither movement are based on an positive intellectually-based idea of governance. They are both reactionary "anti" movements and have very little (if any) chance of having a long lasting affect on the direction of the major political institutions (parties or governmental institutions like SCOTUS).

Perhaps it is a sign of the lack of education in the history of our country that nobody can put together a coherent work on how to change our institutions to govern a people who seem more ready to take each other's wealth (goes both ways) than to agree on a mutually agreeable division of wealth and social mobility. Our founding fathers had very different ideas of how much influence central government (and for that matter a central bank) should have on the nation, yet despite the turmoil of a revolution didn't turn on each other and in fact were quite supportive of the leaders of the party out of power, despite their philosophical differences.

Call me cynical, but both movements (99% and Tea Party) are more about power than about philosophy.

 

[LineInTheSand]

What's wrong with meritocracy? Seems like the best way for things to be run. If you work hard, you get rewarded.

I wouldn't have had the opportunity for post-secondary education had I not worked hard so that I could go to college. I played with the cards I had, and it worked out by having a good work ethic in school and other pursuits.

Because these days everyone needs a pat on the back and a trophy.

 

[New Kid]

Awesome post goaliedad. I think you hit more broadly on the point I've been rambling towards in these posts--and the reason I was even inspired to post. We have the opportunity to take constructive insight away from the 99% protests regardless of our own personal experiences with the individuals protesting (as well as the Tea Party movement, as you point out--I agree that they're mirror images). Both have valid criticisms to make about the current state of affairs in the U.S, and both seem to speak to the idea that everyday citizens feel less and less represented by the power structure in this country. It's the recognition of that seemingly pervasive feeling that seems important to me.

It's a testament to the US that these protests don't get violent, but it's depressing to see such antagonism in the rhetoric used to dismiss the protest messages. You can disagree with people personally and still see the validity of an observation they're making. I think the idea of generally absolving people of student loan debt is preposterous (it actually outrages me) and would certainly never agree to such a thing, but I think it's useful to acknowledge that there are recent grads saddled with unmanageable student loans not because they are stupid or lazy which has been thrown out over and over again on this forum, but because things went wrong in our economy and decisions that seemed reasonable 6 years ago now look unreasonable. There's desperation out there as a result. That makes sense to me.

And Sam--I meant to point out that a meritocracy IS what we theoretically aspire to and IS a good thing. I just don't think we currently achieve it in many areas of education. State universities have historically been our attempt at constructing a meritocratic system, but as they get more and more expensive, that becomes less true.

This is not because people want pats on the back (?), but because when educational options get prohibitively expensive for large numbers of folks, opportunity vanishes for those who are priced out. This doesn't only suck for the people who are priced out, it also sucks for everyone else because 1) we lose out on the potential contributions made by the people who have been priced out, 2) those people tend to feel disenfranchised and become less rather than more invested in our system of governance, and 3) we are forced to reckon more directly with the fact that we don't actually have a meritocratic system.

I know you're currently enrolled at the CGA and I think the service academies are much more meritocratic in terms of admissions and matriculation than almost any other colleges in the US because there is no fee to attend (and, in ways, because of the geographic distribution mandated at the other service academies). There is certainly a commitment and personal cost associated with enrolling, but students are free to make their decision unencumbered by immediate financial demands. If someone works hard and is accepted, they get to decide whether or not they want to make this commitment. That's remarkable.

My point is that there are collective benefits to a system that operates like this in addition to there being personal benefits for the individuals being given that choice.

 

[Luigi59]

And in many ways it is the mirror image of the right-of-center Tea Party populist movement that nobody here seems to have noticed.

Any valid and/or realistic comparison or examination of their goals would be in spite of the media attempts to paint these two dissimilar groups as sharing a common goal - change through grassroots movement. I'm not really sure how much influence the OWS movement will have on any elections (local or national), despite the media attempts to paint it as extremely relevant and "mainstream." The Tea Party however,has elected members of Congress serving right now, thanks to their grassroots movement.

However, the MSM treatment of the groups couldn't be more different, especially when it comes to the violence and criminal behavior occurring at a multitude of the OWS gatherings. According to the MSM, any (and all) of the violence and crime is being perpetrated by "fringe elements" of the OWS, and in some cases the group is even suggesting that "The Right" has planted these individuals. However, the Tea Party is 100% responsible for all actions of everyone at their gatherings.

And make no mistake, the media portrayal of these two dissimilar groups will be the #1 factor in how much influence they will have. As 99% of the voting population will never even see one of these rallies (TP or OWS) they will be getting their information from CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, or NBC. And each "side" will do nothing but polarize their factions even more than ever. Goebbels (mistakenly attributed of course) was correct when he said that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Just as those who count the votes are the ones who decide elections, those who control the media also control public opinion.

These OWS rallies don't really have anything to do with securing college loan forgiveness, as this thread might suggest. It may be a part of their rallying cry, but the vast majority of these OWS protesters never bring it (college loan forgiveness) up when they are asked "why are you here"? The overwhelmingly most common answers seem to be corporate wealth redistribution, increased socialism (and even communism), punishment of success/reward of sloth, and the total abandonment of our capitalist economic system.

 

[Packer]

It's a testament to the US that these protests don't get violent, but it's depressing to see such antagonism in the rhetoric used to dismiss the protest messages.

It is also depressing to see the antagonism and rhetoric used by the protestors.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Don't get violent? Am I the only one that's seeing the blood and hearing about rapes? It's a testament that they aren't cutting off heads "France-style" but to suggest in any way that there hasn't been a great deal of violence is sticking ones head in the sand.

 

[Luigi59]

Don't get violent? Am I the only one that's seeing the blood and hearing about rapes? It's a testament that they aren't cutting off heads "France-style" but to suggest in any way that there hasn't been a great deal of violence is sticking ones head in the sand.

They are now using biological warfare.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...ing-after-occupy-group-splatters-blood-urine/

The coffee and hot dog carts were located in Civic Center Plaza, the same location as the Occupy San Diego protesters.

Coffee cart owner Linda Jenson and hot dog cart operators Letty and Pete Soto said they initially provided free food and drink to demonstrators, but when they stopped, the protesters became violent.

“Both carts have had items stolen, have had their covers vandalized with markings and graffiti, as well as one of the carts had urine and blood splattered on it,” said Councilman Carl DeMaio.

In addition to the attacks, the vendors also said they recently received death threats.

After a relatively peaceful start, the “Occupy” movement has sparked violent clashes with police in Oakland and recently saw protesters push an elderly woman down a flight of stairs in D.C.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Weird, I don't remember the Tea Party peeing on private property and pushing old ladies down the stairs.


I was watching TV passively last night, and a Occupy banner caught my eye on Greta. It wasn't being talked about or anything....but I paused the TV and took a picture.

The banner was celebrating the "solidarity" of Canada and USA on Occupy....but spelled Occupy as "OCCPUY". Yes, please get these people jobs.... or educations....

 

[AF6872]

Fill in "Expected Family Contribution" and the schools mentioned have some great Financial Aid. Unfortunately EFC is outrageous and for a two income family with three children it works out to about one third to one half of your disposable income after taxes, insurance, mortgage and all government required payments subtracted from Gross. Tell me you don't need a loan to get a kid each year into an elite school. If you can more power to you.

"OCCPUY" = The new Liberal Arts Education = Basket Weaving.

 

[New Kid]

Schools vary (manipulate?) their interpretations of Expected Family Contribution based on a variety of factors. The EFC at one school can vary wildly from the EFC at another school. Seems strange, but that's how it plays out. Schools with fewer resources tend to expect greater family contribution somehow ...

But here's a web app on the Princeton website that actually shows you what you would pay to send a kid to Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/estimator/

Here's the equivalent page for Yale: http://www.yale.edu/sfas/finaid/calculator/index.html

I just put a scenario into each calculator for a family making a combined income of $120,000, that has some savings, and has three children. The different answers were ~$3,500 and ~$5,000 in EFC. That seems extremely reasonable to me.

Regardless, the point is that it's strange for hyper elite educations to be more affordable than state educational options, which they are. Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc. try really hard to make it so that anyone who is accepted can afford to enroll. But getting in is both very, very difficult and (admittedly, on the part of admissions) somewhat arbitrary (out of the pool of qualified candidates, which is usually 3 times as many students as they can admit).

 

[Jcleppe]

Fill in "Expected Family Contribution" and the schools mentioned have some great Financial Aid. Unfortunately EFC is outrageous and for a two income family with three children it works out to about one third to one half of your disposable income after taxes, insurance, mortgage and all government required payments subtracted from Gross. Tell me you don't need a loan to get a kid each year into an elite school. If you can more power to you.

"OCCPUY" = The new Liberal Arts Education = Basket Weaving.

Please tell me your not equating a Liberal Arts Degree to Basket Weaving

 

[MemberLG]

Schools vary (manipulate?) their interpretations of Expected Family Contribution based on a variety of factors. The EFC at one school can vary wildly from the EFC at another school. Seems strange, but that's how it plays out. Schools with fewer resources tend to expect greater family contribution somehow ...

But here's a web app on the Princeton website that actually shows you what you would pay to send a kid to Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/estimator/

Here's the equivalent page for Yale: http://www.yale.edu/sfas/finaid/calculator/index.html

I just put a scenario into each calculator for a family making a combined income of $120,000, that has some savings, and has three children. The different answers were ~$3,500 and ~$5,000 in EFC. That seems extremely reasonable to me.

Regardless, the point is that it's strange for hyper elite educations to be more affordable than state educational options, which they are. Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc. try really hard to make it so that anyone who is accepted can afford to enroll. But getting in is both very, very difficult and (admittedly, on the part of admissions) somewhat arbitrary (out of the pool of qualified candidates, which is usually 3 times as many students as they can admit).

I have a different view. Ivy's are not "trying to hard to make it so that anyone who is accpeted can afford to enroll." They are trying put an appearance that they care. First, they are rich enough that they don't have to rely of student tuitition to operate. Second, for every "poor" kid, there will a "rich" kid that pays full rate. According to the Princenton website, avearge aid is $36K. The University bill isn $49.9K. So on avearge each students paid $14K. My guess is that the average income of familes that send kids to Ivy schools are lot higher than a state school.

 

[AF6872]

Liberal Arts ranks 150 out of 173 Majors in unemployment percent. Then again it is above Studio Arts, Humanities and United States History. Then again, mine isnt that much higher on the same page.


http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

 

[HMQ]

Liberal Arts ranks 150 out of 173 Majors in unemployment percent. Then again it is above Studio Arts, Humanities and United States History. Then again, mine isnt that much higher on the same page.


http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

Interesting chart, which really, as much as anything, illustrates the laws of supply and demand. For example "Pre-law and Legal Studies" has a higher unemployment rate than Liberal Arts, Art History & Criticism, Music, Drama, and English Language & Literature, to name a few which some might characterize as "basket-weaving". (Not me, I am a fully employed Art History major )

 

[Packer]

I have a different view. Ivy's are not "trying to hard to make it so that anyone who is accpeted can afford to enroll." They are trying put an appearance that they care. First, they are rich enough that they don't have to rely of student tuitition to operate. Second, for every "poor" kid, there will a "rich" kid that pays full rate. According to the Princenton website, avearge aid is $36K. The University bill isn $49.9K. So on avearge each students paid $14K. My guess is that the average income of familes that send kids to Ivy schools are lot higher than a state school.

I think I missed your point. I find their motive irrelevant. $14K is one heck of a deal if you are an average income family if you can get in. I can't send my kids to a state school for that.

 

[Pima]

You also need to understand that when they say that amount, it is not necessarily all merit or grants, it can be loans and work study too. So in essence it is still more than 14K

 

[AF6872]

Best way to beat the EFC nightmare is have three kids in school at the same time. Planning, Planning, Planning. Knew someone who had two at an Ivy at the same time, so 25K each. Still tough but if he had three it would only be 16.6K each. Until two graduate. Then 50K for only one. Still the same amount each year but a lot saved.