Some people couldn't afford to "ejjicate their chillin" [elitist wording there, eh?] if they had to pay for it. That's the reason public schools came into being - the people decided an educated citizenry would be an asset to our society.
What is the voodoo about class size?
Not a problem, as far as I'm concerned, if the room is designed to hold that many, as large lecture halls are. You must also realize that those in college classes choose to be there. They aren't mandated by the law, their parents, or the juvenile court judge.
But they don't, so either they're not qualified to do anything else (unlikely) or that they found their appropriate level of compensation in the labor market.
I love teaching, and I choose to do it. Before I chose to teach, I probably made more than you do. I can afford to do it, because my husband has a good job. That doesn't mean I can't see the pros and cons.
In any case, my point wasn't to complain about my job. My point is, Perdue isn't exactly pandering to teachers' unions.
You're letting your subconscious collectivist conditioning show here. The people didn't decide anything the bureaucrats did. A lot of people don't like public education and choose to send their kids to private school or home school. A lot just look at as taxpayer funded day care. As far as affording it, if there weren't the high tax burden for the innumerable collectivist wealth redistribution and social engineering programs, most of us could afford a whole lot more than we do.
You must also realize that those in college classes choose to be there. They aren't mandated by the law, their parents, or the juvenile court judge.
Yes, exactly my point about public education. It is a government mandated system, not a free market system. If people had the choice they might choose something else.
I love teaching, and I choose to do it.
So in your case the money isn't a factor, but you like the job. I nevertheless suspect that you wouldn't do it for free. Money is always a factor, maybe less a factor in your case than others. but I'm sure it's still there.
Before I chose to teach, I probably made more than you do.
My, what an arrogant comment (and irrelevant too). It's always possible, but the odds are about 50 to 1 that you're wrong.
I can afford to do it, because my husband has a good job. That doesn't mean I can't see the pros and cons.
You just made a good argument that you should be paid less :-)
My point is, Perdue isn't exactly pandering to teachers' unions.
By spending the taxpayer loot rather than decreasing the tax burden he's pandering to someone. for road construction read pandering to construction contractors (who by the way were the driving force behind the recent Gwinnett county sales tax referendum calling themselves "Citizens for fair tax" or something totally misleadling like that) for education read pandering to teachers unions.
The fact remains when you increase the state budget you're taking money from the ones who earned it and spending it on those who whine for it. When government spends money, it spends it on something that is politically driven, not market driven.