Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Month: December 2008 (page 2 of 2)

The College Affordability Myth

Today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel features a blaring headline warning that some group has given Wisconsin an “F” in helping students with college financial aid.  Sounds pretty serious  – we must really be falling behind other states in offering financial aid, huh?

Well, actually, no.  Forty-nine of the fifty states got grades of “F” for affordability, which might make one think this bogus “study” might just be a crass ploy by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to push for more taxpayer money.  And one would be right.  Couldn’t the Journal Sentinel just as easily have written the headline “Wisconsin Keeping Up With College Affordability?”

You may notice that college “affordability” to university bureaucrats always means “more taxpayer money,” never “keeping tuition down.”  Universities never like to keep college affordable by charging less for their services – they only consider college attainable when they can jack up tuition, then get the state to pump more taxpayer money in to subsidize the college educations of the poor.  This allows them to continue paying their armies of administrators their lavish salaries.  They get you coming and going.

In fact, in terms of “affordability” in the sense normal people would define the word, Wisconsin is doing extremely well.  Wisconsin ranks second to last in the Big Ten in tuition, even after Governor Jim Doyle proposed significant increases in the 2004 and 2005 school years.  Here’s the list of resident undergraduate tuition at Midwestern Big Ten schools, courtesy of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau:

Michigan $9,798
Illinois 8,634
Michigan State 8,262
Minnesota 8,599
Ohio State 8,082
Indiana 7,652
Purdue 6,458
UW-Madison 6,280
Iowa 5,612

Ah, but you see, Wisconsin is not “affordable,” since we’re not spending enough taxpayer money on financial aid.  Or are we?

In the 1998-99 fiscal year, the state spent $17.5 million on the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) for UW students.  By 2006-07, that number had more than doubled, to $39.2 million.  (Although, admittedly, it dipped slightly in 06-07 after an immense 22% one-year increase in 2005-06.)  Much of that WHEG increase was implemented to make up for the aforementioned tuition increases meant to offset a general purpose revenue cut to the UW in the 03-05 biennium.

The Measuring Up “study” on which the Journal Sentinel breathlessly reports takes none of this into account.  Nor does it take into account the quality of a university.  Let’s say, for argument’s sake, the University of Mississippi funds a slightly higher percentage of pell grant recipients than Wisconsin.  Does that mean Mississippi is a more desirable school to attend?  Does the fact that (to their credit) the UW-Madison offers a world class education so cheaply factor in at all?

If Wisconsin is serious about keeping school “affordable,” it should look at holding down tuition – not raising tuition, then turning to the taxpayers for even more money to allow lower income students access.  In fact, some studies suggest that increased financial aid has the effect of increasing tuition – if universities know so many government loans and grants are available, they can raise tuition to take advantage of the inflation.

UPDATE:  John Hood at the National Review adds some worthwhile observations.

The Mystery is Gone

So tonight I finally got around to watching the last episode of \”The Pickup Artist 2\” on TiVo.  (Unsolicited side note: TiVo is perfect for hipsters who want to show that they\’re into a TV series, but not so into it that they actually rush to the TV when it is on.  It\’s a perfect way to appear to remain detatched, since caring strongly about anything other than Barack Obama is frowned upon.)

For the uninitiated, The Pickup Artist series airs on VH1 – it is a reality show where some gangly Canadian bozo who dresses like a space pirate deems himself the \”Master Pickup Artist,\” and teaches a house full of dorks all the tips to pick up women.  This man goes only by the sobriquet \”Mystery,\” and molds twitchy little freaks into sleazy douchebags who get spray-on tans and wear their headware askance.

For some reason, I can\’t look away from this show.  (Unsolicited side note #2: I subscribe to the Chuck Klosterman theory that there is no such thing as a \”guilty pleasure.\”  Either something gives you pleasure, or it doesn\’t – and if it does, there is absolutely no reason to apologize for it just because some hipster jackass might look down on you for it.)

Every week, the contestants go on \”field tests,\” in which Mystery sends them into a local bar to use whatever invaluable tips he taught them that week to pick up chicks.  The show goes to great lengths to point out that the entire field test exercises are done via hidden camera in real bars with real people.  In many cases, these aspiring lotharios strike out in such spectacular fashion that you actually have to shield your eyes from the painful awkwardness exuding from your television.  But in some instances, the contestants get a phone number, or even a brief makeout session based on their newfound skillzzzz.

But in the real world (in which I sometimes live), these \”field tests\” raise some questions.  At some point, the show\’s producers have to convince the targeted women in that bar to sign a waiver to use their image and voice on television.  This would have to be done after their encounter with the twitchy, freakish contestant.  At this point, the woman would know that she has essentially fallen prey to a scam, which for 98% of human history may have actually embarrassed her a little bit.  But apparently, the desire to be on television at all costs is so strong, they go ahead and sign a waiver saying \”I agree to be on television to show my parents that I am willing to get drunk and play tonsil hockey with a nerdy stranger who just duped me with some pickup ruse.\”

The series finale was interesting, as well.  For one of the field tests (see below) the final two contestants were released into the wild, and the first one to kiss a girl won the contest.  The flaw in this game is obvious: it doesn\’t take into account quality.  One of the contestants could make a bee line for the first ugly woman in the bar, throw out their standard pickup line, and be having a tongue fight within minutes.  What exactly does that prove?

This year\’s winner was the large-lipped Simien, and there\’s an 80% chance he\’s gay.  (One of the previous episodes, in which one of each of the contestants\’ \”friends\” was brought to the house from back home,  heavily alluded to this fact.)  And he really had the lamest pickup line, (or \”opener,\” as Mystery calls it) and he beat it to death.  (\”What movie is \’nobody puts baby in a corner\’ from?  DIRTY DANCING!\”)  His pickup line almost made \”I like pickle juice\” (which was actually used to great effect by a contestant) seem erudite.

Finally, in the last episode, Mystery stocks the house with \”perfect 10s,\” of which the two remaining contestants must choose one to successfully seduce.  (In some cases, the only \”10\” in that house could be achieved by standing three hoochies together.)  Mystery claims that these women are his \”friends.\”  Yet all of the techniques the two romeos use are methods taught by Mystery in Season One of the show.  So if these women were really Mystery\’s friends, wouldn\’t they have watched the show last year and been able to recognize the dopey tricks being played on them?

The real star of the show, however, is Mystery, who treats the entire affair as an infomercial, getting people to sign up and pay thousands of dollars for his traveling seminar on picking up women.  And if you\’d like, you can also fork over some cash for a book detailing his methods called \”The Game.\” The seriousness with which Mystery takes his instruction simply has to be a put-on.  There\’s just nobody that can be that earnestly ridiculous without it being an act.

To get a flavor of the show, click below and see our last two contestants work the room.

How About Media Reform?

A couple weeks ago, I explained how a Democratic Legislature could begin to micromanage political speech to their advantage by passing a partisan version of campaign finance “reform.”  Today, the Wisconsin State Journal interviews all the usual suspects cheerleading for these new laws.

The article, which identifies some potential roadblocks to passing “reform,” includes quotes from five proponents of new laws regulating political speech (Sheridan, Erpenbach, Ellis, Heck and McCabe), and one quote from an opponent, attorney Mike Wittenwyler.  Wittenwyler’s quote mostly deals with the issue of taxpayer financing for campaigns, which is really more of an ancillary issue.  To his credit, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker’s spokeswoman dodges the issue, saying they want to work on a bill that will “pick up support from Republicans.”  In Capitol-speak, that means they don’t really want to do anything, because they can pass whatever they want without a single damn Republican – they just want to be able to blame the GOP when nothing passes.

But given the imbalance in quotes, you’d think hardly anyone opposes campaign finance “reform.”  This isn’t a surprise, given the cheerleading newspapers all over the state constantly do in an effort to shut down political speech during election time.  If groups can’t spend money to disseminate their speech, then newspapers think they will become more relevant.

Of course newspapers, who should be the staunchest defenders of free speech, are all for shutting down speech that isn’t theirs.  Imagine the Legislature passing a bill saying the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or the Wisconsin State Journal had to report the names of all their subscribers and sources of income to the state before they could write a political editorial or endorse a candidate.  Think they’d approve of that restriction on their free speech rights?

Of course not.  But that is exactly what they argue should be imposed on any group that doesn’t happen to be a newspaper.  Unless you have been blessed by the all-knowing editorial boards of this state, they argue you shouldn’t have the First Amendment right to criticize your government.  Instead, you’d be silenced unless you run through a mountain of red tape, reviewed by the very government you’d be trying to criticize, and subjected to the same retribution by those government officials.  There’s a reason we vote anonymously – and that anonymity should apply to political speech.

In case after case, courts have rejected the government’s attempts to micromanage the political speech of its citizens.  Most of these cases stem from the federal McCain-Feingold law, which purported to eliminate money from the political system.  In fact, it has done nothing but drive it down into these 527 groups, where it is harder to trace.  And large portions of the law have been struck down by the courts as undue restrictions on political speech.  There are terrorists who have a better won/loss record in the U.S. Supreme Court than senators Russ Feingold and John McCain.

Yet, given reporting on the issue, you’d never know how often these laws are struck down by the courts.  This article only makes mention that if a law were enacted, then those “shady” groups would file a lawsuit.  But then again, you can file a lawsuit against your coworker for having excessive nose hair – it doesn’t mention that those lawsuits actually have a solid track record of succeeding.

Just once, it would be interesting to see a newspaper report on the issue of campaign finance reform without treating it as if it were some necessary “reform.”  Imagine a story in the State Journal with a headline “Democrats Push for Campaign Speech Restrictions,” which, incidentally, is an entirely fair way of portraying the issue.  Don’t hold your breath.

The One Thing the Packers Have Going For Them

\"\"

A few years ago, everyone scoffed at Al Gore for his goofy proclamation that the debate over global warming was \”over.\”  Yet I am about to make a similar statement with regard to the only issue in Wisconsin that really matters:  After yesterday\’s game, the debate about Brett Favre is now over.

In the aftermath of Favre\’s whole prima donna act, some of you may have simply looked at the New York Jets\’ record, compared it to the Packers\’ record, and made your decision on the validity of the decision to go with Rodgers based on that alone.  If you have said something to yourself along the lines of \”we had everyone coming back from a 13-3 record, and now the Jets are good and the Packers aren\’t,\” then I have news for you – and I cannot mince words on this – you are an idiot.

Despite Rodgers\’ herculean effort yesterday (298 yards, 3 TDs), the defense and special teams once again let the team down, giving up 35 points – after forking over 51 points on Monday night.  It wouldn\’t have mattered if the Packers alternated Jesus Christ and Barack Obama at quarterback yesterday.  It wasn\’t Rodgers\’ fault Mike McCarthy called a ridiculous third down running play with the fullback on the goal line with a minute and a half left – after Rodgers had picked apart the Carolina defense at will while marching them down the field.

Find me a first year quarterback that has had the success Aaron Rodgers has.  What he\’s done has been brilliant – it\’s not his fault Mason Crosby missed a potential game-winning field goal in Minnesota by three feet.  It\’s not his fault teams return kickoffs to the 50 yard line every time.  It\’s not his fault the defense allows one of the top 3 receivers in the NFC to run free with the game on the line.  Those of you who are dying to be critical of Ted Thompson are actually right – but because he has failed to put together a decent defensive line, not because of his decision to keep Rodgers over Favre.

So if you\’re still yearning for the days of Brett Favre – the one, incidentally, who did nothing in his team\’s embarrassing home loss to the Broncos – then feel free to jump ship and root for the Jets.  We\’ll be over here in Wisconsin with the Pro Bowl quarterback for the next decade, while Jets fans will be dealing with Favre\’s Hamlet routine in the offseason.  And when Favre is riding a tractor in a couple years and the Packers are still competitive because of their quarterback, you can send all of us an apology when you come crawling back.

SIDE NOTE:  Not to make excuses for the rest of the team – because they have been bad – but has anyone actually looked at how difficult the Packers\’ schedule has been?  Not only has it been hard, it may be historically hard. (Also the name of a movie on the Spice Channel.)  Through 12 games this year, the Packers have played exactly two teams (Detroit, Seattle) with losing records.  The other 10 games have been against teams .500 or better (Minnesota 7-5, Chicago 6-6, Tampa Bay 9-3, Carolina 9-3, Tennessee, 11-1, Dallas 8-4, New Orleans 6-6, Indianapolis 8-4, Atlanta 8-4).  Combined, those teams have won 72 and lost 36.

By contrast, of the Packers\’ 13 wins last year, nine came against teams that were .500 or worse:

Philadelphia (8-8), Minnesota twice (8-8), Denver (7-9), KC (4-12), Carolina (7-9), Detroit twice (7-9), Oakland (4-12), Saint Louis (3-13)

Those thinking this team was going 13-3 again with Favre based on what they did last year need to seek medical attention immediately.

Newer posts »