American Colleges Are Over $205 Billion in Debt, Harvard is $6 Billion in Debt

December 23, 2012

(Daniel Greenfield) The Student Loan Bubble is bad, but interestingly enough, as this New York Times article points out, the loan problem extends all the way up the ladder to the institutions of higher education who never seem to have enough money.

Remember that our financial experts come out of a system that is this deep underwater and they have a heavy investment is bailing it out.

Overall debt levels more than doubled from 2000 to 2011 at the more than 500 institutions rated by Moody’s, according to inflation-adjusted data compiled for The New York Times by the credit rating agency. In the same time, the amount of cash, pledged gifts and investments that colleges maintain declined more than 40 percent relative to the amount they owe.
While Harvard is the wealthiest university in the country, it also has $6 billion in debt, the most of any private college, the data compiled by Moody’s shows.
At the Juilliard School, which completed a major renovation a few years ago, debt climbed to $195 million last year, from $6 million in inflation-adjusted dollars in 2002. At Miami University, a public institution in Ohio that is overhauling its dormitories and student union, debt rose to $326 million in 2011, from $66 million in 2002, and at New York University, which has embarked on an ambitious expansion, debt was $2.8 billion in 2011, up from $1.2 billion in 2002, according to the Moody’s data.
The pile of debt — $205 billion outstanding in 2011 at the colleges rated by Moody’s — comes at a time of increasing uncertainty in academia. After years of robust growth, enrollment is flat or declining at many institutions, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. With outstanding student debt exceeding $1 trillion, students and their parents are questioning the cost and value of college. And online courses threaten to upend the traditional collegiate experience and payment model.

Student debt turns out to be only 5 times as high as the accumulated college debt, and that’s only at the colleges rated at Moody’s. What would happen if we added up the entire pile of debt for all institutions of higher education in the country? Somehow I think we would arrive at some very scary numbers.
The system is broken and spending its way deeper into debt. Tuition costs have risen dramatically and hardly made a dent in the tremendous piles of debt accumulated over the last decade.
It would seem as if Academia’s brokenness amplifies the brokenness of its graduates. It acts as a predictor for the entire broken system. Academia is a deadbeat metaphor turning out deadbeat students in a deadbeat nation.

Harvard borrowed $1.5 billion to pay its bills rather than selling off assets at a sharp discount. Its interest expense more than doubled from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2011, to nearly $300 million.

“The financial crisis has acted like a tidal wave that, as it receded, exposed certain vulnerabilities with a new clarity,” Harvard officials said in the November annual report.

That’s a fancy way of saying, “We’re morons.”


The Education Bubble

November 1, 2011
(Sultan Knish) Flip through enough of the 99 percent signs and you realize that the majority of that demographic aren’t complaining about the lack of financial regulation or income inequalities, so much as they’re upset that they took on loans to pay for college degrees to get jobs that don’t actually exist.

The fault here isn’t Wall Street’s, it’s a policymaking apparatus that decided the way to deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs was to get as many college graduates out there as possible to create the industries of tomorrow.
This was Clinton’s platform and it’s Obama’s “Winning the Future” platform, pump enough money into education and the jobs will create themselves. The Dot Com boom in the nineties seemed to back up that policy with entirely new companies springing to life with valuations in the hundreds of millions and twenty somethings at the helm. But a good deal of those companies were nothing more than the foam on another bubble– and more problematically the cream of the tech companies were created by college dropouts. Even more problematically, the tech companies liked to save money by importing Chinese and Pakistani employees on H1-B visas as cheap labor, while their lobbies insisted that this would protect “American” innovation.
But the real problem was that swapping manufacturing for college degree jobs solved nothing. American companies that manufacture anything become the tip of an outsourced iceberg. All the companies with the shiny logos depend on Chinese manufacturing and raw materials. They can’t create anything that the People’s Republic of China can’t take away from them when the time is right.
American companies aren’t outsourcing labor to China, China is outsourcing design and marketing to them and allowing them to serve as middlemen between Chinese manufacturers and American consumers, until a Chinese company decides to buy their product unit or its reverse engineered copies of their products are good enough that they invest the money in a marketing campaign to establish their own trusted brand.
And yet the tech industry is the closest to a college degree success story that we have. The failures are legion.
The problem with the “college degrees for everyone” approach is that creating more college graduates does not proportionally create more jobs, it creates more unemployed college graduates and devalues the worth of a college diploma. Too many college graduates mean that employers will look for higher degree levels. High school diplomas used to be a certificate of competence, then that was devalued through promotion in a system where teachers were expected to move students up to the next class no matter what. When college became the new high school, it was devalued in the same way. There are city and state colleges with students who are barely literate, not in the “kids these days use too many abbreviations” way, but in the “functionally illiterate” way.
If the goal is to move everyone to the highest level of education possible, the result will not be a more educated population, but an educational system with lower standards and a population that is less educated than ever because actual education becomes more inaccessible as the standards are lowered.
Make sure that everyone can “afford” to take out college loans and the marketplace will compete for students with traditional universities offering a large buffet of “educational choices”, most of which are not educational or represent any kind of career path outside academia, and private colleges offering useful sounding degrees that no employer will look twice at.
For the liberal politicians it’s a triple score. Money pours into academia which they can use as their own think tanks. The educational system gets four years or more to process students through more sophisticated indoctrination mechanisms. And then the students who can’t find jobs join the ranks of the usefully disaffected because somebody must be to blame… and it can’t possibly be the people pulling the strings of the people shouting at them through megaphones.

Clinton told working class voters that the manufacturing jobs were gone, but their kids would all have college degrees. Obama went one better by telling working class voters that they would be retrained to hold down “Green Jobs”, even as they’re falling faster than the Green companies and their sweetheart government pork. Those lies are what make the class warfare rhetoric out of DC so doubly despicable.
Politicians have never honestly talked to voters about what happened to the American economy, instead they fell back on the same mantra of opening up new markets through globalization and creating new jobs through education./
None of this is new. The country with the highest degree rate in the world is Russia. The USSR ran its citizens through its educational system at a rate that Elizabeth Warren could only gasp in awe at. But what was its education actually worth? About as much as American degrees are becoming worth. If you throw enough money and manpower at the educational system, you will have a really big educational system. What you will not have is anything of worth to go with it.
Only one country that has a higher degree rate than the United States has a higher per capita income and that country has its own oil industry. The usual handwringing that liberal pundits and politicians engage in over how the American educational system is failing compared to countries with higher degree ratios is wasted noise.These same statistics are trotted out to justify dumping more money into the black hole of an educational system under the pretext of job creation. But do the statistics even matter?
According to the OECD (another useless globalization organization wrapped around a WW2 fossil) the Israeli educational system is a hopeless failure. In its 2009 evaluation claimed that Israeli students were behind Turkey, Dubai and Russia in math and science. Yet peculiarly enough Israel keeps collecting Nobel prizes and turning out minor things like instant messaging, drones and Kinect. When reality contradicts statistics, it’s wise to go with reality. That’s a skill most politicians haven’t learned, but it’s a rather valuable one.
The universalization of education is not about remaining competitive in a global marketplace or any of that other nonsense piously repeated by politicians with their hands in more pockets than a thieving octopus– it’s about promoting the homogeneity of ideas across a population. Which is why the importance placed on universal education increases as a country becomes more culturally diverse or internally divided.
The original Department of Education was created two years after the Civil War. The Kalamazoo School Case, which set the precedent for forcing taxpayers to fund public education and created the entire system of property tax school robbery we live under today, took place during the same period. As was the National Education Association whose Committee of Ten played a key role in the standardization of the national curriculum.
A better name for universal education is federalized education, and there is very little difference between the two in the United States. The growing federal control of education is a mechanism for maintaining control of increasingly divided populations. It may be a failed mechanism, but like the rest of the government’s boondoggles, it long ago created a class of people who depend on the system and have a vested interest in its expansion.

When this is understood, the failure of innovation in the system is also obvious. The educational system is not a means of empowering thinkers, but of standardizing a static consensus of ideas. It’s a great way to learn liberal dogma, but an inefficient way of learning anything else. The expansion of the system is not about remaining competitive with China, just as funding more “Green Jobs” is not about “Winning the Future”, it’s about shaping the voters of tomorrow.
We’re not falling behind due to a lack of college graduates, but because we’re smothered by a system of stifling bureaucratic conformity that is far more concerned with its grip on power than with jobs or income. The resemblance to the USSR is not at all accidental.
The system would rather have 10,000 subsidized jobs that it creates than 10,000,000 jobs in the free market. It would rather have a middle class of 5 million college graduates, (40 percent of them government employees), than have a free market middle class of a 100 million, (only 30 percent of them college graduates and less than 0.5 percent of them government employees.) And it would rather have an angry mob camped out near Wall Street, than have a viable economy.
The educational bubble isn’t creating a new Middle Class that will keep social security viable, it is creating dissatisfied people who feel that they are entitled to better and don’t know who to blame. Like the rest of the government, the education bubble is too big to fail, which means that by the time it fails, so will the whole country.

oh… the pain! the pain! if only I had listened to myself instead of what my parents forced me to do.


Halloween Costume by Intolerant Fox

October 31, 2011

She majored in womyn’s studies and doesn’t know why she can’t find a job. Sadly I can relate with my BA that got me put in jail. Uh oh, forgot… can’t legally talk about that.


College tuition? It’s a ripoff! Postpone college until the bubble bursts!

October 19, 2011

Roommates argued over iPod before fatal stabbing

September 18, 2011
A 19-year-old Maryland college student was charged Friday with fatally stabbing her roommate inside their dormitory-style apartment after the two women argued about music playing from an iPod, police said.

Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism is to close at the end of July, sparking fierce objection from community.

June 13, 2011
Public relations for third world dictators want feminism not G-d. 
They want to promote their tyranny to the ladies who they hurt. 
Academia is money well spent for a government that abuses it’s uterus factory.  From the early thinkers in Greece it was always understood that the vast majority of the population is philosophically handicapped.  To reach this majority you sell the popular idea like a car salesman.  Telling women a backwards idea like feminism is the quick buck… the easy push.  It isn’t that these guys actually believe in Gloria Steinem… it is that she is not a threat to them… in fact she has gone out on a limb for the Ivy League Profit donors and protected their abuse of women to make a swipe at America men.  This is Vanity Fair not Truth. Yale is PROFIT$ from public relations not learning

Leaders of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) at Yale University were notified last week that the center was to be closed at the end of July, sparking a fierce round of objections, suspicions and conjectures in the US Jewish community, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Yale Initiative is intended to research international origins and manifestations of anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of prejudice. As part of Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the initiative also disseminates its findings and research to contribute to policy discussions.

Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center


The program was the first US-based institute to research global anti-Semitism, ranging from anti-Israel and anti-Zionism manifestations thereof to other forms of hatred expressed against Jews.

“The short story is this initiative, directed by a non-faculty instructor, was found in its routine faculty review to not have met its academic expectations and has been canceled,” Thomas Mattia of Yale’s Office of Public Affairs told the Post. “This singular action should be viewed in the context of all the continuing work in Hebrew studies at Yale and the provost’s pledge to fund other studies in the area of anti-Semitism.”

Sources who preferred to remain anonymous, however, said the closing of the center resulted from the center’s politically incorrect activities – that is, taking Muslims to task for anti- Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments.

Yale, sources conjectured, had been angling to mend fences with the Middle Eastern Muslim population, and the Yale Initiative was a thorn in the university’s side.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the center’s closure was particularly disappointing in light of the recent upward trends in anti-Semitism around the world.

“Whatever purported issues and problems arose regarding the Yale Interdisciplinary Center, what was required was a concerted effort to work out the problems rather than ending the program,” Foxman said in a statement. “Especially at a time when anti-Semitism continues to be virulent and anti-Israel parties treat any effort to address issues relating to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as illegitimate, Yale’s decision is particularly unfortunate and dismaying.

“The decision to end the Center was a bad one on its own terms, but it is even worse because it leaves the impression that the anti-Jewish forces in the world achieved a significant victory,” Foxman said.

Lobbying efforts are apparently under way to get Yale to reconsider its decision, sources said.

“We hope Yale will review this unfortunate decision so that YIISA’s critical work can continue,” American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris said.

“In our experience working with YIISA, AJC has been impressed by the level of scholarly discourse, the involvement of key faculty, and the initiative’s ability, through conferences and other programs, to bring a wide range of voices to the Yale campus.”

The Yale Initiative has been an important resource for understanding anti-Semitism, especially in its contemporary manifestations, Harris said.

“YIISA has made considerable contributions to the study of this immense contemporary challenge and lent Yale’s considerable reputation to an issue that remains quite serious,” he said. “If Yale now leaves the field, it will create a very regrettable void.”

Other activists working against anti-Semitism agreed.

“This is a big deal and a major travesty,” Ken Marcus, director of the Initiative to Combat Anti- Semitism and Anti-Israelism in America’s Educational Systems at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, told the Post. “YIISA was the most important university-based anti-Semitism research institution in North America. The decision to close it was clearly political, and it smells very bad. I hope it gets wide attention.” 




In the event, Yale’s stated reasons for terminating YIISA omit any mention of the 2010 conference or its subject matter. The university’s director of strategic communications, according to Abby Wisse Schachter who broke the story in the New York Post, asserted that the decision was made on the basis of YIISA’s failure to “serve the research and teaching interests of some significant Yale faculty and . . . [to] be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty.” Unspecified were the interests that were not being served or sustained, let alone the nature of the alleged failure.

To counter criticism of its action, Yale dribbled out a few additional statements. To Donald Green, the director of the institute where YIISA was housed, the problem lay both in YIISA’s professional standards and in its non-popularity: “Little scholarly work appeared in top-tier journals in behavioral science, comparative politics, or history. Courses created in this area did not attract large numbers of students.”

It may indeed be that course enrollments were low, but so are enrollments in any number of areas that universities deem worthy of study. In any case, such numbers are of little relevance to an entity like YIISA, which was by definition a research and not a teaching unit, and which held numerous events attracting public attention and open to the entire Yale community.

As far as publications are concerned, YIISA, just like similar centers and programs at Yale, published its own highly regarded monograph series that made its scholars’ work freely available for download. Since when is the wide dissemination of scholarly products no longer an important academic goal? Nor is Yale known for applying the “top-tier” criterion across the board. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, for example, is a center-Left policy group currently directed by the former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo. It attracts wealthy and powerful speakers, some of whom are or may become Yale donors, and releases its reports and findings not in so-called “top-tier journals” but in various house-branded forms. It is hardly unique in this.

But the pious invocation of “top-tier” academic journals with their hoary review processes is itself specious. Offering a comparison with YIISA’s record in this respect, Green touted the “extraordinary number” of articles in such journals produced by yet another Yale research “initiative.” This is the Field Experiments Initiative, dedicated to “randomized studies of voter mobilization, peer counseling of homeless people, campaign activities in Africa, and the persuasiveness of televised campaign advertisements.” The fact that the jargon-laden study of campaign advertisements yields more placements in academic journals than do analyses of anti-Semitism speaks dreary volumes about the gatekeepers of so much of contemporary scholarship, about the subjects they consider respectable, and about the standards of judgment they apply.

And here we return to the unspoken nub of the matter. At its 2010 conference, YIISA dared to tackle, openly, the single deadliest form of contemporary anti-Semitism, bringing together for this purpose a bevy of “top-tier” scholars from around the world. It was, clearly, the very holding of such an event that raised hackles from within and without. One response came from Maen Rashid Areikat, the Washington representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization: “It’s shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. . . . I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference.”

by Alex Joffe via JIDAILY



Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel’s ‘Expansion Over Security’ at UCLA Lecture on ‘Palestine in Crisis’

May 9, 2011

Chomsky changes his mind on WMDS in Iraq?

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there’s obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there’s no support for Chomky’s claim of “80 percent” across the region supporting Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, “a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat” (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

Pushing ‘Islamophobia’ at UCLA?

UCLA Palestine Awareness Week.

…Muslim Student Association Pledge of Allegiance:
Jihad is my spirit, I will die to establish Islam



But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what’s even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky’s America-bashing is observing the rock star status he’s afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I’ll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on “American imperialism” and “corporate dominance” were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm.

Without citing a single piece of evidence—
At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel’s crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I hope Chomsky starts listening before he dies

Read the Rest via americanpowerblog.blogspot.com


Leave a Comment » | academia, academic bias, Apartheid, California, Chomsky, college, Judea, Judea and Samaria, Nuclear Proliferation, Osama Bin Laden, South Africa, UCLA | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon