As intruiging as battling the differences in entitlements and resources for education as somehow autonomous from matter of race and class endowments, why can't the financing of universal education and universal health care be identical?
Here's an example: I once taught for the new experience, at a proprietary (for profit) junior college, a former "ladies" business school renamed as a college complete with dress code. I worked on a time clock with a time-card for hourly wages for teaching and my students were students who barely graduated from high school and rather than go to a public community college for which they were qualified, their families (parents) were seduced by the loans available to offset their household budgets and the students could be given the impression that they were joining a profession and their parents could claim they had a kid in college. There already exists universities that have a quasi-public financing element ( they are in a separate category called state-supported U.Pitt and Temple for example) among other combinations of titles when they got "merged" into the public system (Indiana's IUPU). So my question for your all would be whether there could be a single payer system (or shudder --- the "s" word to socialize/nationalize endowments) that would allow "national" merit to will out blindly and allow (perhaps an allocation system less screwy than ETS/ACT) the most intellectually qualified to go to the best schools regardless of constraint (the 800 SAT-score East LA kid to go to Harvard and compel the prep-school jag-off to go to Podunk JC). One person's socialism/anarchism is another's libertarianism if the goal is to achieve equity and excellence. Yes, I know the earlier PRC system of national testing had/has issues including the hiring of "ringers", but isn't the principle still sound? Ann _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
