5 ms·

Too bad, I don't want to be fired. The tech program is bad, it's bad because there is not funding and instructors are a revolving door due in part to that. We h

Too bad, I don't want to be fired. The tech program is bad, it's bad because there is not funding and instructors are a revolving door due in part to that. We have private industry instructors hire on, look at the state of the institution, and run. The only things that can be even partially funded are classes and dedicated individual student projects. There is 0 budget outside of that. Alumni don't make enough to be contributing any significant amount of money. Programmers outside of Cali bubble economy are not making that kind of bank. I'm telling you the facts of what I've personally worked with and how students are being scammed by this system for political gain.

gamblor956 4y ago
And I'm telling you that if your school was for-profit, it would be even worse. For-profit schools are significantly worse than non-profit schools in every way. And it seems that your real beef is that the taxpayers have decided not to provide adequate funding to the school for basic supplies. You should take that up with your fellow taxpayers, not the school.
- devwastaken 4y ago
  Public schools are for profit, that profit comes out of tax payers against their will. Just because they have a tax free status doesn't mean they're not lining their pockets with money. Given the massive artificial increases in costs - they are. I've seen it happen in realtime. This doesn't even approach the problem that industry and academics are seperated worlds. Unis lie and tell you everything is "in demand" yet students graduate and no one will even look at them. The most funding for effective programs comes from private industry. Companies will spend far more than state or federal on real programs as long as they're not attached to universities. That tells you something right off the bat. High schools get far more money than us. Private industry should be the one footing the bill and are the most knowleable about what industry wants. We do not yet have a system of this so you don't have any examples to base your claim from. For this to happen we need to first remove all higher public education funding to force companies to build their own. Before you make bogus claims about "general education" there is nothing learned about humanities or general knowledge at a uni that isn't better done with a YouTube video. The instructors don't know how to teach and can't engage students with effective knowledge.
  - bumby 4y ago
    >profit comes out of tax payers against their will. And there we have it. The "taxation is theft" heuristic that snaps your perspective into focus. >Private industry should be the one footing the bill and are the most knowleable about what industry wants. Are there any instances where you think this breaks down? There are some industries that very likely would not exist without initial government support because the initial risk was too great or the payoff too vague. I'm not sure aerospace would exist, for example, without the public shouldering the bulk of the initial risk. (That shouldn't be conflated with the stance those industries can't mature to a point where privatization is better).
    - devwastaken 4y ago
      Taxation is theft. That's a fact. In some circumstances that's a necessary evil. However that does not make it always proper to do. You're looking for a way to strawman this instead of addressing the argument. There is little done in modern academics that legitimately drives innovation. Only select institutions, with significant ties to private industry, generate papers and innovation. Largely these are still already done in R&D at a company somewhere. Public funding for education that works is effectively subsidizing costs for private industry. Public funding that doesnt work is incompetence that benefits no one other then government employees, and that makes it equal to theft. Therefore, we remove the subsidy, and students that are worth investing in will be paid for by the billions that companies have sitting around collecting dust.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Taxation without representation is theft. If you live in a modern western democratic society, that is not the case. In my experience, in both academia and industry, industry often gets the better deal. They can effectively socialize the risks to the public sphere and then when there's a clear path to make profits, take the reins. I think that hybrid system tends to work the best to mitigate the evils of both sides. A good example is SpaceX. There would be no SpaceX without NASA and most of the earliest flights were self-insured by the govt. Their SpaceAct agreement allows them to have access to all the support and expertise of NASA as long as they share their data. In exchange, the dinosaur of NASA has some new innovation led by the private sector. Once they proved themselves competent, their customer base expanded to private companies because the risk was now lower. I don't think any of that was likely to happen in a non-hybrid approach.

gamblor956 4y ago

And I'm telling you that if your school was for-profit, it would be even worse. For-profit schools are significantly worse than non-profit schools in every way. And it seems that your real beef is that the taxpayers have decided not to provide adequate funding to the school for basic supplies. You should take that up with your fellow taxpayers, not the school.

devwastaken 4y ago
Public schools are for profit, that profit comes out of tax payers against their will. Just because they have a tax free status doesn't mean they're not lining their pockets with money. Given the massive artificial increases in costs - they are. I've seen it happen in realtime. This doesn't even approach the problem that industry and academics are seperated worlds. Unis lie and tell you everything is "in demand" yet students graduate and no one will even look at them. The most funding for effective programs comes from private industry. Companies will spend far more than state or federal on real programs as long as they're not attached to universities. That tells you something right off the bat. High schools get far more money than us. Private industry should be the one footing the bill and are the most knowleable about what industry wants. We do not yet have a system of this so you don't have any examples to base your claim from. For this to happen we need to first remove all higher public education funding to force companies to build their own. Before you make bogus claims about "general education" there is nothing learned about humanities or general knowledge at a uni that isn't better done with a YouTube video. The instructors don't know how to teach and can't engage students with effective knowledge.
- bumby 4y ago
  >profit comes out of tax payers against their will. And there we have it. The "taxation is theft" heuristic that snaps your perspective into focus. >Private industry should be the one footing the bill and are the most knowleable about what industry wants. Are there any instances where you think this breaks down? There are some industries that very likely would not exist without initial government support because the initial risk was too great or the payoff too vague. I'm not sure aerospace would exist, for example, without the public shouldering the bulk of the initial risk. (That shouldn't be conflated with the stance those industries can't mature to a point where privatization is better).
  - devwastaken 4y ago
    Taxation is theft. That's a fact. In some circumstances that's a necessary evil. However that does not make it always proper to do. You're looking for a way to strawman this instead of addressing the argument. There is little done in modern academics that legitimately drives innovation. Only select institutions, with significant ties to private industry, generate papers and innovation. Largely these are still already done in R&D at a company somewhere. Public funding for education that works is effectively subsidizing costs for private industry. Public funding that doesnt work is incompetence that benefits no one other then government employees, and that makes it equal to theft. Therefore, we remove the subsidy, and students that are worth investing in will be paid for by the billions that companies have sitting around collecting dust.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Taxation without representation is theft. If you live in a modern western democratic society, that is not the case. In my experience, in both academia and industry, industry often gets the better deal. They can effectively socialize the risks to the public sphere and then when there's a clear path to make profits, take the reins. I think that hybrid system tends to work the best to mitigate the evils of both sides. A good example is SpaceX. There would be no SpaceX without NASA and most of the earliest flights were self-insured by the govt. Their SpaceAct agreement allows them to have access to all the support and expertise of NASA as long as they share their data. In exchange, the dinosaur of NASA has some new innovation led by the private sector. Once they proved themselves competent, their customer base expanded to private companies because the risk was now lower. I don't think any of that was likely to happen in a non-hybrid approach.