I saw this post the other day and was suspicious when I read the phrase "legislative appropriations to higher education" being compared to U.S. military spending. This could mean anything! The point the author is trying to make is that government investments have not declined, while costs meanwhile have soared due primarily to higher spending on administration. Fredrik deBoer does a proper refutation of the article. "He cites essentially none of his data," argues deBoer, and "he constantly mixes federal and state spending." Worse, "Campos is contradicted by other data that actually spells out a methodology and where the numbers came from." Campos focuses on the larger overall cost of the system, but as deBoer, far more students are enrolled today, and the government investment per capita has dropped. To me, the core question is, why would the NY Times publish such sloppy argumentation in the first place? There was once a time when the newspaper had standards. Those times are long gone. Via Bryan Alexander.
Today: 0 Total: 19 [Direct link] [Share]
View full size
