What's wrong with using the term freeware?

Nothing is wrong with using the term, but I would never suggest somebody actually use freeware. Especially in an educational setting, it would be better to use Free Software.

They also have wireless whiteboards called PROMETHUS (IIRC) where the teacher can display stuff from an overhead projector on the screen and use the whiteboard as a touchscreen.

So while teachers have to pay for paper for their students they get tons of 'electronic' goodies which I never had in the late-80s in JrHigh/HS.

PS. As a side note, I think for education related purchases a ton of products come from overseas (ie China/Tiawan), with computer/electronic purchases so much of the budget, and many paper-based products (textbooks) being produced in China with cheap paper prices.

The way I see it our conversation here and the original statement by the candidate provide prima facia evidence of the problem existing.

I don't see how that follows, Steve.

So if we accept Gammon's Law is at play what do we do to overcome it? Like the law of gravity we can know it's there but just maybe figure out a way to subvert it. We fly without breaking the law.

Okay Gammon's "law" is nothing like the the law of gravity. Gammon's is more akin to Murphy's law- a trite cute saying that encapsulates a world view that is equally trite and probably less cute. It is not rigorous. Consequently no Gammon's law is not at play here because it *never* is actually at play. It's a joke, not something to take seriously.

It's obvious we have a problem and as a parent shopping colleges it seems like a big one to me.

If it were truly obvious we wouldn't be disagreeing that a problem even exists. And yet here we are.

I'll continue to occupy that annoying solutions space for a while. The way I see it our conversation here and the original statement by the candidate provide prima facia evidence of the problem existing.

So if we accept Gammon's Law is at play what do we do to overcome it? Like the law of gravity we can know it's there but just maybe figure out a way to subvert it. We fly without breaking the law.

What fundamental mechanism can be changed in order to (baby steps first) slow down the rate of growth for the costs of education? K-12 we know salaries make up over 80% of expenditures, what about higher ed? Is it unchecked administrative growth? Who could have an influence over that? Is it useless programs that serve just a few but eat up dollars? Is it too much money going to research and graduate programs rather than funding the primary responsibility of educating undergrads?

These and other questions need to be answered at each and every college and university. It's obvious we have a problem and as a parent shopping colleges it seems like a big one to me.

There, fixed that for you.

What's wrong with using the term freeware?

The government gives me, say, $4000 for college and asks that I work for the government for, say, two years after I get out of college, during which time I will be paid for that work. That's "indentured servitude"?

You can easily operate most office tasks on free software.

There, fixed that for you.

Non of them work after school at Dunkin Donuts. And our district is one of the poorest in our state and they pay teachers some of the least.

Nope, what happens in districts like ours, is the teachers get out of college, come to our district for 2-3 years, get just enough experience under their belts and then move on to the higher paying districts. But even the first year teachers aren't working at Dunkin Donuts.

As for college-I think making it free would just turn college into high school plus.

While I think every student who wants to go, should be given the tools to get there, college shouldn't be overly promoted. I think a lot of kids arent meant for college-either because they can't do the work or they aren't interested in college.

Trade schools and apprenticeship programs may be the better option for a lot of students, but all anyone talks about is college, college, college.

And I agree that making it free would only make it more expensive and probably make education worse over the long haul.

Money in and of itself is not a solution to a problem.

The costs for computers is negligible in the K-12 budgets I am personally familiar with.

I find that hard to believe when you have elementary schools that can't provide students with paper.

Besides, in just about every industry, including education, the bulk of "computer" costs these days are for software, not hardware.

That's really not even remotely true. You can easily operate most office tasks on freeware. Free hardware is rather harder to find. The companies paying big bucks for software either have very specialized needs (which doesn't apply to k-12) or are buying stupid licensing arrangements with big name vendors for no good reason (*cough* Microsoft *cough*)

Even so, Moore's Law is still in effect. But, hey, there aren't any semiconductor fabricators where I work, so I'll skip that appeal to authority

You should probably skip it because it has nothing to do with the matter. Like at all. Doubling the number of transistors per unit area every 18 months says nothing at all about the resulting cost of the computer, only the cost per unit of computing power. But the continual ratchet effect between increased processor capabilities and increased software demand on those capabilities means you need ever more advanced computers to do essentially the same task (just with more bells and whistles- such as retarded animated paperclips asking you if you really want to do something, *cough* Microsoft *cough*).

In any sufficiently large population, half the members are, by definition, below average. This applies to everything from next year's freshman collegiate classes to comment threads.

If college was free it would be over consumed, a situation that already exists. Quality universities would need to play games in order to have sufficient attrition to maintain brand quality.

Meanwhile, degree factories would thrive. Their primary criteria would be to collect tuition from as many students as possible for as long as possible.

Total spending would increase dramatically, while the quality of a degree would be debased. Traditionally college has been for people with above average intelligence. Populist rhetoric sounds nice but would not do society any good.

There are a great many college students who do not apply themselves to attaining a degree and are in well over their ability to do the coursework. Many public colleges use and abuse the freshman and sophomores as cash cows. Collect tuition and have grad students teach them. Make college free and you will see many more of these students who just aren't serious about education.

I don't fundamentally agree with your contention that a person not serious about education shouldn't be in school. Given the nature of college that seems the best place for them to be since it gives them the opportunity to explore different possibilities without be shackled to some random job.

Furthermore if we are going to argue that disinterested students shouldn't be in school why does that only apply to colege? Why not start kicking out the high schoolers who slack off? Middle schoolers? Elementary schoolers?

There's a point to education, even if the subject isn't always eager for it. Especially in a democracy where important decisions are made by the suffraged community as a whole.

Twenty five years ago colleges relied on large mainframe computers but today students own their own laptops with more computing power. The cost of computers is immaterial to the cost of higher ed.

See my reply to Michael above.

Let's look for solutions to control costs rather than make excuses for why costs are high.

because you haven't demonstarted that there is a real problem here before you want to jump into what we (annoyingly) refer to at work as "the solution space."

1968? I think some of them had computers, yes.

Literally, yes, a few. The integrated circuit was invented at the beginning of the 60s. The point is that compared to 68 when maybe a few major universities had a working computer the ubiquitous nature of the hardware on modern campuses for every field is quite different.

Um, I don't see how that has changed since 1968. If anything, a research computer today costs less than a similarly leading-edge computer in 1968 would have cost (adjusted for inflation).

In the first place we aren't just talking about computers but *everything.* As an example, no medical school worth a damn can be without myriad radiological instruments, most of which were not imagined in 1968 (PET, CAT, MRI).

Second, we aren't just talking about the cost but the ubiquity. Maybe in inflation adjusted dollars a supercomputer in the late 60s would cost three or four times a modern supercomputer but if you have a thousand more of them across the country now as opposed to then the net cost will obviously be much higher.

Again, I'm not sure that's actually the case.

Trust me on the semiconductor fab question. I work on a campus with three of them.

Tlaloc, there is no such thing as "free" college, somebody somewhere is paying the bills.

That's why I put free in quotes.