re: Another day in your "conservative" LA House...

quote:

---

So we would be the only state in the country that doesn't fund colleges? Because I assume you would want to eliminate funding for LSU, LaTech, etc. Since higher education isn't owed to anyone and is a drain on the budget in your view.

---

No, I said get rid of TOPS. The taxpayer doesn't owe a scholarship to someone for graduating high school.

quote:

---

So we would be the only state in the country that doesn't fund colleges? Because I assume you would want to eliminate funding for LSU, LaTech, etc. Since higher education isn't owed to anyone and is a drain on the budget in your view.

---

quote:

---

No, I said get rid of TOPS. The taxpayer doesn't owe a scholarship to someone for graduating high school.

---

Uhm, what? So you want to send tax-payer money to colleges that let students enroll with an ACT of 16 (or lower), but not to students with ACTs of 22, 24 and 27 with more money for better scores? You don't seem to get it is a subsidy either way. But one (TOPS) is subsidizing strong students and the other (institutional support) just dumps money in a college.

quote:

---

Intellectually dishonest much? That’s not how it works.

---

Ignorant much? Yes it is.

Direct funds to colleges were cut. Tuition went up, it but so did TOPS. Funds shifted from general support of college institutions to college students.

When the media and liberals complain about cuts to higher education and increased tuition, they conveniently forget to mention the increases in TOPS.

People always complained about having too many colleges, but that was never going to change in this state. Instead the funding shifted via TOPS to stronger colleges (and indirectly the community colleges since they got more students).