Dropping the Sat Requirement Is a Luxury Belief

Re:Dropping the Sat Requirement Is a Luxury Belief by docandrew on Sunday March 05, 2023 @05:21PM (#35034752)

So far you’ve used straw man (you don’t support poor kids going to college?) and an ad-hominem (complaining that people who aren’t you are making money…) attack in your responses, which indicates a lack of argument in good faith.

I spelled out pretty clearly why somebody might have issues with taxpayers subsidizing the tuition of a Harvard graduate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dropping the Sat Requirement Is a Luxury Belief by torstenvl on Sunday March 05, 2023 @05:53PM (#35035076)

You said you opposed federal funding here. Pell Grants are federal funding. Accurate descriptions aren't straw men.

You expressed disapproval of the fact "[t]hat public funds can go to private schools like Harvard."

I tried to guess what you might mean, but it appears you've found those guesses insulting. So why don't you just clear it up so we aren't left guessing? What are the specific changes to federal law you propose as an alternative?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dropping the Sat Requirement Is a Luxury Belief by docandrew on Sunday March 05, 2023 @06:16PM (#35035281)

It’s not about specific changes to law, it’s about the principle of “Organizations with $50B in the bank probably don’t need federal funds.” Having them put skin in the game with an endowment tax would also be acceptable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dropping the Sat Requirement Is a Luxury Belief by sokoloff on Sunday March 05, 2023 @05:53PM (#35035077)

It’s not a straw man when poor kids do literally use federal grant programs to attend Harvard. It’s not a distortion or exaggeration of the original objection that federal monies went to Harvard.

[ Parent | on HN ]