Are CEOs Overpaid? Not Compared With College Presidents (cbsnews.com) 309
schwit1 writes: For outrageous executive earnings, don't look to Wall Street -- look to academia. High pay for CEOs attracts annual attention and recitations about the immorality of capitalism, but when the focus is on average CEO pay, they make less than half the annual earnings of college presidents, according to CBS News. The average CEO earns $176,840 annually, an amount that would make a university president into a pauper. In academia, college presidents earn $377,261 annually. Americans outraged and indebted by high college costs will be quick to draw the parallel between a college president's pay and their tuition bill. Correlation, though, doesn't imply causation. College presidents aren't always the highest-paid college employees -- athletic coaches often earn more. Regardless, college presidents "are well into the 99th percentile of compensation for wage earners in the United States," Peter L. Hinrichs and Anne Chen noted for the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:4, Insightful)
classify the businesses into upper, middle and lower groups and redo the comparson.
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they fuck up really bad do they still get the golden parachute?
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:4, Informative)
They do in the state that I live in.
Public uni presidents have contracts with big payouts for leaving early (usually under bad circumstances) and a generous pension and nice payout for retiring (usually under normal or good circumstances).
It is very lucrative.
Pay is over $500K per year -- really over $500K -- for the flagship uni for our state.
(As are most premier state unis in all the USA.)
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:5, Insightful)
They typically stay in their position. It's hard to fuck up in these circles short of a little boy sex scandal; if you can't manage the money well, you just raise tuition and the higher your tuition the 'better' your school is considered to be.
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:5, Insightful)
A university president makes little compared to a university football coach. The absurdity is incredible.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that bother you? (Score:2)
It varies by school but college football generally pays for itself.
Re:Why does that bother you? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few of the big name schools make money from their football programs, most lose money.
Most lose money on the football program itself, but it still pays for itself or even brings in a lot of money through *donations* that they are able to encourage because people respond irrationally to football.
Re:Why does that bother you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd that the NFL needs to go begging for public funds to build their stadiums, isn't it? Those billionaire beggars have no shame.
Re: (Score:3)
1) those stadiums aren't just for football.
2) no city is obligated in any way to build a stadium for the NFL. And the NFL isn't obligated in any way to provide team for any particular city....
Re: (Score:2)
So that makes public funding of billionaire's profit-making machines OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Football showed a profit before title 9 forced all the major universities to create all the minor sports programs you mention.
It's going to be real hard to convince me that football doesn't turn a profit at any school with more than a 10,000 seat stadium. Which is all the Division 1 schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it a supply and demand situation that sets the salaries or is it like some other situations where you have an in club who give themselves or each other raises?
In the context of college football/basketball coaches (and ONLY for these two sports which actually make money for a college - the rest are Title IX welfare recipients), it is exactly supply and demand. There are a very limited number of head coaches in these sports who can demonstrate a sustained ability to win. The ability to win (and the stature of the coach and his proven ability to but his players into the NFL/NBA) drives the quality of the recruits for the school. The quality of the recruits and the quality of the coaches together drive the ongoing success of the program, which turns into moving up to better athletic conferences which generate more TV revenues for the school and its athletic program. While most of that money goes right back into the athletic program, it also constitutes in effect free advertising for the university/college as a whole and drives student application interest. A winning football/basketball program creates a virtuous cycle, whereas a losing program creates a downward spiral. Hence the tremendous competition for the best coaches and market-driven pay.
While some may earnestly question the value of a top-tier athletics program to an institution of learning, that free advertising is hard to deny. Would you have ever heard of smaller schools like St. John's, Georgetown, or Gonzaga without their basketball programs? Would the names Notre Dame, Alabama or Oregon State carry any cachet outside local areas if it weren't for their football teams? How many students applied to these schools who otherwise wouldn't because they knew and loved these schools for their athletics?
I got my undergrad degree at a small school (University of Richmond) with a good academic reputation but little national brand name recognition. Yet I know that my undergrad alma mater's admission applications go up every year after it makes one of its irregular trips to the NCAA Tournament... so the colleges overall are clearly getting something out of it, and as long as the athletics programs are paying for themselves, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hark! Is that another thing wrong with America that I hear?
Re: (Score:2)
So what though? If you're an American, then I don't hear you trying to solve anything. If you're not, then why should anyone in America spend one second caring about your opinion?
Well, at least you've immediately demonstrated beyond doubt that you're definitely an American.
Re: (Score:2)
College football coaches?
Re: (Score:2)
Not strictly true. At my alma mater the football program brings in MUCH more money than it costs. It finances the rest of the sports programs and contributes significantly to general fund.
Re: (Score:2)
A university president may make $500K, but s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students, a campus of 250+ buildings and an endowment of a billion or more. I'm not sure they should be compared with the set of all folks calling themselves CEO.
On the other hand, CEO's are at much greater risk of being prosecuted for the actions of employees.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, CEO's are at much greater risk of being prosecuted for the actions of employees.
Do you have any stats handy on how likely CEOs are to be prosecuted for "actions by employees"?
AFAIK few CEOs have been prosecuted for anything in recent decades, and usually it is for their own direct transgressions. Law-breaking ordered by a CEO is not "actions of employees". And paying civil fines is not "prosecution".
Re: (Score:2)
...s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students...
Hmm, 1 employee for every 6 students... I think maybe I found the cause of your spiraling university cost problem.
Re: (Score:2)
...s/he oversees 5000+ employees, 30,000+ students...
Hmm, 1 employee for every 6 students... I think maybe I found the cause of your spiraling university cost problem.
Yes you are right - the size of the administration relative to the student body has doubled in the last couple of decades, without any evidence that I know of that they were "under-administered" before. And the growth of university administrator salaries is part of this "management" bloat.
In both U.S. corporations and at colleges and universities we need a movement back to earlier, more sane, levels of staffing and pay.
Re:Seriously thats how they compare? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm sympathetic to that view, just because you are necessary doesn't mean you are important [despair.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Ouch. Let's remember the saying of St. Adams, though...
"if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion."
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you remove the students, there's no University either. The students should be paid the most, followed by the professors.
Re: (Score:2)
The students are essentially the customers: They pay for the benefit of getting an education... or at least for the opportunity to get an education (they may completely waste that opportunity...)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
College sports actually makes a lot of money for colleges that are put to use in the academic programs.
Unfortunately, what you said about the athletes is true. They do get the chance to get a college degree from a decent school where they might not have made admissions otherwise, but frequently they are treated as products that bring in sports money and don't always have success academically. For that reason alone, I probably wouldn't be all that upset if they dissolved the NCAA and forced students to fir
Re: (Score:3)
In many cases, the sports make a lot of money that goes back into money-making sports. The money doesn't necessarily go anywhere useful, such as academia or even intramural sports. (I was once one of the least valuable players on a softball team that never avoided losing by the twelve-run rule in the lowest level of such sports. I got some fresh air and exercise, and had fun.)
Personally, I think the most impressive thing the NCAA has done is get people to believe that it's actually wrong to pay the at
Re: (Score:2)
The people at the bottom should probably be paid the most, because they're the ones that are actually essential to the whole operation.
And they are. But they aren't paid more individually (except perhaps in rare circumstances) because individually they are not more essential to the whole operation than a college president.
Why sir, that would be class warfare (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
classify the businesses into upper, middle and lower groups and redo the comparson.
I'm sure there's plenty of 5 person universities to keep the comparison fair.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is such a steaming pile a third grader could have done a better job. There are so many statistical fallacies here it makes climate denial blogs looks like paragons of statistical analysis.
News for nerds? This isn't even good enough for tabloid rags.
Is that really true? (Score:5, Insightful)
The average CEO earns $176,840 annually, an amount that would make a university president into a pauper
Are they including self-proprietorships or something?
Re: (Score:3)
or any other compensation (stocks ...)
Not Really 'CEOs': look at data (Score:5, Informative)
If you just look at the "Management of Companies and Enterprises" category then the average wage amount increases significantly to $210,120 but as you note there is no mention anywhere in the article at all about bonuses and it specifically mentions "wages" so I doubt that this is in any way representative of the actual compensation a CEO gets while the article clearly states that they included all bonuses paid to university presidents. This is clearly an appalling abuse of statistics and so any conclusions the article draws cannot be trusted.
In fact the last time the university where I worked advertized for a president four faculty from Arts wrote a joint, open application for the job (which was shared with the local media) to protest against these ridiculously high presidential salaries. As they pointed out you could hire all four of them, give them each a very significant raise (IIRC 50%) and still save money over the out going president's salary and this way they would be able to do four times as much work. Needless to say they were not offered the job!
Re: (Score:2)
University presidents should get a high salary - certainly higher than the faculty and staff that they manage unless there are exceptional circumstances e.g. Nobel prize winner - but I fail to see how $1m+ salaries can be justified.
If the university president manages to raise $50million in donations, he's worth the $1million salary. You justify it in practical terms.
The world doesn't pay you for studying hard, or because you have experience, or because you won a prize. It pays you in exchange for what you can give to it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you just look at the "Management of Companies and Enterprises" category then the average wage amount increases significantly to $210,120 but as you note there is no mention anywhere in the article at all about bonuses and it specifically mentions "wages" so I doubt that this is in any way representative of the actual compensation a CEO gets...
Yep. It is normal for top execs to have 100% performance bonuses, which they invariably get if they are simply competent enough to keep their jobs. You can see this stuff in SEC filings for publicly traded corporations. And even wage + bonuses does not take into account other methods used to enrich the guy at the top: stock options, severance packages, expense accounts, company cars, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Median is what you want to use to see how much pay the [average CEO] makes.
Mean is what you want to use to see how much [the average
salary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they just talking salary? As far as I know university presidents don't have stock options.
You called it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they just talking salary? As far as I know university presidents don't have stock options.
You called it. Stock, bonuses, and golden-handshakes are where the money is. The salary is just covering "base load", to keep the wolf away from the Yacht's dock gate while the company isn't doing well enough that the big bucks aren't flowing adequately.
That's why turnaround CEOs can do the "dollar a year salary" thing for P.R. without hurting themselves financially.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn around CEOs generally are experienced (i.e. loaded) and therefore could literally take zero compensation and not risk their lifestyle. Taking a high risk job with zero compensation guarantee is a good bet for them, if they win, they win big, if they lose, at least they weren't bored for those 2-4 years, and of course they're not putting their own assets on the line, just the company's shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn around CEOs generally are experienced (i.e. loaded) and therefore could literally take zero compensation and not risk their lifestyle.
This has more to do with taxes on earned income. If a CEO takes a $1M salary, the top tax rate for earned income is 39%. If a CEO takes $1 salary and stock options, he pays no taxes on the earned income and the top tax rate for long-term capital gains is 20%. Whenever a CEO takes $1 salary, he's not doing it out of charity.
Benefit to the College (Score:2)
Are they just talking salary? As far as I know university presidents don't have stock options.
It is also a profoundly stupid critique in the first place. University Presidents are not only responsible for the whole university, but they are responsible for bringing in massive amounts of money. Your job is not only to provide leadership and support leaders underneath you, but to bring in the millions of dollars in donations that your school can use to expand its programs, increase financial aid, and keep tuition increases low.
If you were on a University Board of Trustees, wouldn't you want to spend
Re: (Score:3)
Are they just talking salary? As far as I know university presidents don't have stock options.
A lot of companies are big enough to have a CEO but are not traded.
Re: salary? (Score:2)
Most CEOs work for privately-held, non-publicly traded companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but college presidents are "the elite". They got where they are by being intellectual and understanding things most us don't. CEOs -- by which I especially mean the CEOs of big companies -- got where they are by embodying the virtues and character traits most admired in our society.
Re: (Score:2)
One of your irony posts, I take it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sarcastic" would be closer to the mark :)
Re: (Score:2)
They have the golden retirement option that doesn't exist in the private sector. I have to put my own money away for retirement. And my health care isn't paid for before I reach medicare status. Nobody is paying me 80% of my current salary to not work when I'm retired.
Highly Misleading Title and Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
" If college presidents were to divide up their pay and write out checks to all their students, the per-person payout would be fairly low, amounting to no more than $300 per student."
The article is about the cost of overall administrative overhead, not just college presidents. The summary itself is even more misleading, as it attempts to compare base salary's between two very disparate fields. A CEO of a normal "wall street" company makes on average 20% of there income as salary. The rest of there income comes from bonuses, benefits and incentives. A large percentage of which is in the form of stock, something a college will not offer.
Wrong question (Score:2)
The question is phrased in a manner that is designed to draw out a pre-defined conclusion.
The question should be:
1. Are CEOs overpaid?
2. Are College presidents overpaid?
Re: (Score:2)
Same rational as above.
You can actually see this in the >a href="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-trends/2016-economic-trends/et-20160224-salaries-of-private-college-presidents.aspx">article data. The bulk of the population lies between 0-$500k (I do wonder exactly where they found those getting under $50k) and there is a tail out to insane $1m+ salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
"The article is about the cost of overall administrative overhead"
Yup. There's a question worth asking. And don't stop at CEOs and presidents. What do all of the people who "supervise" make combined, compared to the cost of the people actually doing the work, and the material costs of actually making something?
I just got an e-mail that someone was appointed to a newly created office of assistant dean (of the faculty, not the university). Apparently the vice dean got tired of doing all the work so he nee
Re: Highly Misleading Title and Summary (Score:2)
At $177K/yr income the 'average' CEO is not a 1%er, at $377K/yr the average college President *is* a 1%er - the cutoff to be a 1%er is around $275K/yr.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you bringing facts into a greed and envy discussion? It's supposed to be about how we should hate the 1% and want to rob them blind.
Well one of the facts is that not all of there are actually in the 1%. If you look at the distribution some are below $50k although I do have to wonder exactly what university/college they are president of at that salary level.
CEO get salary, bonus and stock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the connection... (Score:2)
Easy college loans inflates salaries for college presidents.
Easy Fed money inflates salaries for corporate presidents.
Reforms are long overdue for college loans and monetary policy. Reduce easy money, watch salaries deflate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to also add that from the end of WWII to the beginning of the 70's, a college grad could walk into pretty a job upon graduation.
What happened at the beginning of the 1970's? President Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard and inflation took off to devalue the dollar.
The new version is get a degree in a STEM field and you got it made is the new .... money major.
When I went back to college to learn computer programming and earn my technical certifications after the dot com bust, everyone told me I was crazy. Healthcare became the new money major. So everyone and their grandparents enrolled in healthcare classes. When I got started, I couldn't get a programming class because there were too many students. When I got done
also back then tech / trade schools where good (Score:2)
also back then tech / trade schools where good and they did not take 4+ years to get a job. Now we have lot's of people going to college that are better going some other place and we have tech / trade schools that are to much of a college and not just being about real job skills at just 1-2 years.
Big Education (Score:2, Insightful)
Brought to you courtesy of Big Govt handing out Big Money and encouraging Big Student Loans.
This is what happens when an industry is subsidized.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem high (Score:3)
Can offering a competitive salary for the college president improve a student's experience by 0.1%? I'm guessing yes.
Re: (Score:3)
I am going to guess no. I suspect that a bad president may be able to degrade a student's experience by 0.1%, but where is the accountability? CEOs and others can do a bad job and still get a golden handshake.
Taking your argument further, imagine that, as a successful employee, I increase the company's revenue by 10x my salary. I should be paid 10x what I am being paid, right? Except tha
Subject (Score:2)
...And let's not get started on college football coaches.
Re: (Score:2)
idiots or propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they total idiots, or being paid?
Of course the average CEO doesn't earn a killing. I'm a CEO. I make less than I did when I had a regular job.
The problem has never been the average CEO. The problem is the high-end CEOs. The guys who run banks, fortune 500 companies and such, who earn several thousand times what normal employees or, in fact, average CEOs make.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the high-end CEOs.
A problem for whom?
The megalo-CEO's like it just fine. The government creates a regulatory environment to ensure megalo-corps can out-compete the small businesses, precisely to create more ultra-rich.
Every politician who promises to soak it to the rich, to get votes, needs rich to soak, to get votes. In a democracy, they still need to get the votes, therefore they need to have the rich. Since they seek power most of all, and votes get them power, and votes require the ric
Re: (Score:2)
Compare what to WHAT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy moly, this story is a lot of horseshit. There are one thousand, eight hundred and forty five private universities in the US. In 2010, there were 27.9 million businesses in the United States, and 18,500 or so have more than 500 employees. That means that at least 27.8 million of those businesses are what you'd call small businesses, which can mean one employee who happens to be the CEO for his little corporation that sells t-shirts on Etsy. I guarantee that the average salary of one of those corporations with more than 500 employees is a great deal more than the average university president where there are more than 500 employees.
So what we have here are two things being compared. One of which is defined and the other which is not. Does anyone know what you get when you take the average of something that is not defined?
I swear to Jesus, it's no wonder people are so dizzy that they're willing to vote for the spawn of Biff Tanner and Benito Mussolini for president. This is what they get for news.
Small sample size (Score:2)
They compared the average salary of nearly 700 private, for profit colleges/universities against the average of all self-identified CEOs.
They excluded any president from a state college/university.
ridiculous (Score:2)
what's the difference ? (Score:2)
CEO / college president
They run the show and see to profits. They seek investors, do public relations and try to create a culture of success.
The problem seems to be that some expect college presidents to be saints, and therefore to work for a pittance. Since some schools are run by government, non-profits or churches should we expect that they are not a business? Well sorry, that's wrong. Schools are a business and their presidents are expected to bring in money just like any CEO.
Re:what's the difference ? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually college administrator salaries have increased far above (IIRC more than double) the rate of college tuitions (which is about three times the overall inflation rate), while professor pay has languished and benefits have been decreased, to the point where universities in particular have resorted to eliminating tenured and full time positions, keeping large teams of part-time instructors, kept judiciously below the number of teaching hours that would trigger full time benefits - shades of fast food!
The pay inflation of college presidents has far exceeded that of the average for corporate executives. This difference largely tracks the inflation of federal subsidies for higher education - in other words, the administrations have succeeded in rent-seeking at the expense of students and taxpayers. Today, with grants and loans, it is as hard for a family to pay for college as it was before the federal subsidies were expanded, while the taxpayer now has to toss in an additional large amount. The net result of the expansion of federal money has done nothing but line the presidential pockets.
CEO pay + Shares + Bonus + Insider trades (Score:2)
How many shares in Princeton are traded? Oh, wait, zero
Yet another example of selective citation by a rightwinger
CEO salary varies a lot (Score:2)
A CEO salary varies a lot. A small business CEO might even earn $0 for a few years. So of course the average is low.
Median income of Fortune 500 CEO (Score:5, Informative)
That's the search term I'd be looking for, to compare college presidents to CEOs. With that search term, I keep getting hits for average fortune 500 CEO salary, and the range is from 10.5 million [chron.com] to 13.8 million. [businessinsider.com]
Re:What does this have to do with technology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot does purport to be a tech news site, last time I checked, and this is neither "news for nerds" nor "stuff that matters" (unless you are one of the vanishingly few that happens to work in higher education).
Hate to break the bad news for you. Not all Slashdot readers live in their mother's basement. Most of us worked in the Big Blue Room with the Big Yellow Light upstairs (a.k.a, Real World). Some of us financial wonks don't mind see an article or two on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, then go to a DIFFERENT website.
This is scope creep and anyone here that's been up to see "the real world" should despise scope creep for the evil that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, then go to a DIFFERENT website.
I have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal. I'm here for the mind-blowing discussions.
This is scope creep and anyone here that's been up to see "the real world" should despise scope creep for the evil that it is.
If you don't like the content, why are you adding comments to the discussion? Be part of the solution, not the problem. Submit what you want to read.
Re:What does this have to do with technology? (Score:4, Funny)
And once you are a professional and seeing people on wall street that are essentially salesman getting 7 figure bonuses while our 401Ks get decimated by their "management fees".
You have two choices in the matter. You can be a victim and complain about being ass-raped by Wall Street. Or you can be proactive and start your own corporation, make money in a brokerage account, and contribute $53,000 per year into a qualified retirement (nearly three times more than you can contribute with a 401K and IRA).
Re: (Score:2)
...and that is the American Republican Delusion right there.
No, that's how the tax code is written. Play the victim game and stay poor. Play the corporation game and get rich. Your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Now get off my lawn.
Sorry, bud. The goatse posts were more frequent back in the day. I may have seen one or two in 2016. That's an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, this might be insightful if you're the kind of "financial wonk" that got their expertise from reading MSN Money.
I have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal. I'm here for the mind-blowing discussions.
It's just more click-baiting nonsense about "You should be *OUTRAGED* that these other people make more money than you."
If you don't like the content, why are you adding comments to the discussion? Be part of the solution, not the problem. Submit what you want to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
Are you saying nerds don't go to college and pay tuition? That they don't pay taxes that fund public colleges? That they don't work in corporations? That they don't hold stock in corporations? That they don't buy products of corporations? That they don't design things that require buying parts from corporations? That they don't vote? That they don't ha
Re: (Score:2)
This is politics, social justice, and class warfare nonsense that I have little interest in as a "geek" or "nerd". There's plenty of this nonsense in other outlets. I come HERE for the stuff that isn't EVERYWHERE ELSE.
Although some of rebuttals were nice examples of mathematics and logic and that kind of thing kind of borders on "geeky".
Lies, damned lies, and journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
No one says it, but if Bernie Sanders' free college plans are going anywhere, it means college and university employees will have to take drastic cuts in pay. Free college is completely unaffordable for any government budget otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Free college is completely unaffordable for any government budget otherwise.
Free healthcare burdens many a national budget with unsustainable debt but that doesn't stop politicians from promising even more free stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but we need to get the conversation going so we can hear the campus Bernie supporters say:
"Naw man, not us. We didn't mean us. Send your government enrorcers after some other guys! Please!? Fuck. Now I wish I'd been more of a grown-up and thought things through..."
Re: (Score:2)
Free healthcare burdens many a national budget with unsustainable debt but that doesn't stop politicians from promising even more free stuff.
A list of nations that have unsustainable national budget debt that can be traced to directly to health care, please? Because, you wouldn't just be making stuff up, right? (One or two examples won't cut it, if you can find any, since you are claiming this is a common pattern.)
U.S. private debt from healthcares costs can be shown to be a real problem [wikipedia.org] though.
Re: tip of the administrative iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a dirty little secret regarding the European 'free college' program - only qualified, prepared students get to attend college - it is a meritocracy, not a guaranteed entitlement.
In America we have a staggering number of college dropouts with debt accumulated taking remedial classes after high school.
In most European universities only the students that place well on standardized testing earn spots at 'free' universities. Academically-deficient high school graduates will never get the chance to attend university.
What's going to happen when inner-city parents realize all the 'free' university spots are filled with students that attended better schools in the suburbs? Will they demand universities lower their standards, demand their high schools get better, or demand affirmative action spots on campus?
Re: (Score:2)
Great points. Here's a good discussion about "Why can't America have what Europe has? [bloombergview.com]". It's about health care rather than college, but the realities aren't too vastly different. Also there's some honest discussion, so Trigger Warning for credulous people who believe the stories politicians tell them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a lot of Libertarian tripe (McArdle I'm looking at you). Don't be credulous about everything you read on Bloombergview.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of trying to start an online fight, you could just actually go read his idea [berniesanders.com]. But then that might take some actual effort and time away from your trolling. It's number 6 on the page, "FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STRE
Re: (Score:2)