I think that the greatest change in the University system would be to drop the requirements for general education outside of your major and minor. These requirements just subsidize the classes that no one wants to take from professors who have majored in subjects that are not financially supported by anything other than recursive academic requirements.

If you drop the general ed requirements, and double up on the teachers who are teaching courses important to the degrees that people are actually seeking, students can get through college at a more rapid rate, taking few courses.

This is what should happen to the brick-and-mortar academic institutions at the same time that the MOOC's present a path for education online.

Jan

Ending teacher tenure in elementary and secondary schools is one thing. (Private school teachers do not have tenure as we understand it.) Ending it at the university level is something else. In this case the argument for eliminating it, is that those who have guarded the granting of tenure, have acted in bad faith and used such grants to stifle debate rather than protecting it.

And of course that is the lesson that the DemReps wanted you to learn. They attacked Perot's daughter because that was the chink in his armor, imo (speculation without support) he was later 'allowed' to return to the race because it served the one party's purpose, to convince you and others that no one would ever win except a DemRep. As long as GOP voters never un-learn that lesson, they and the country will be enslaved by your own votes and consent.
There IS NO SLOW ROAD. The GOP has done MORE damage than the Democrats because when the GOP is in power there is no opposition to bigger government.

I voted for Ross Perot like a lot of people and that got Bill Clinton elected and Hillary into national politics. Do I wish that the race had only been between Perot and Clinton? Absolutely, because Perot would likely have won. But history has shown that third parties have consistently done nothing but split votes away from the Republican candidate - allowing the uber-statist Democrats to gain power. It happened with Roosevelt's Bull Moose party and it continues to happen today.

What I'm hoping is that the entire Republican party collapses due to the Tea Party's pressure and a new political party rises to be the main contender to the Democrats/Progressives. Until that happens, however, it's a choice between a fast road or a slow road to enslavement.

Voting for an independent with integrity is not 'doing nothing.' Its do what you can to oppose statists. In fact, the only peaceful chance that the Republic has is if all the GOP supporters finally recognize they have been conned for 50 years and vote for independents with integrity. There will never be another Reagan in the GOP. That is the opposite of what they want, and they will never allow it again. The GOP is the enemy of liberty.

As long as the country hasn't gone completely over to statism, there is always the chance for reform. I can either vote for a Democrat and hasten the decay and decline (and my own) or I can vote against them in hopes of getting another Reagan. If I do nothing, I allow others to determine the course of events. Until there is an actual Gulch to retreat to, this seems a defeatist attitude to me.

No, you don't. There is no lesser of two evils.
You obviously see the problem with the GOP.
If you continue to vote for them you might as well put a gun to the head of the Republic and pull the trigger. Every vote for the GOP and the Dems is a wasted vote.

Don't vote for a statist GOPpleganger(tm).

I'll vote for him over Hillary, because when it comes to President I have to take the "lesser of two weevils" (pardons to "Master and Commander") approach, but I would love to have a better option!

That's what I thought.
Much better than Scott Walker, and any other candidate that runs in the DemRep Party.
Don't waste your vote on Walker!

Though I am reminded often by my teenage daughters that I fully qualify to run ;), I wouldn't stand a chance in the political arena. I'm too ideological (with an emphasis on logical) to be a politician and I'm strictly honest. I just can't give those roundabout non-answers to questions that politicians live on nor could I put up with all the incompetence in government. If I got appointed to be a chief bureaucrat it would be a nightmare scenario for that agency, because I'd quite frankly gut the thing and re-structure it and then promptly get fired!

Thanks for the insight!

Are you willing to volunteer, blarman?

Personally I am not ready to promote any of the candidates yet. I was simply stating a my perspective of Scott Walker and since I live in WI I have watched him closely. Would I vote for him, absolutely. He could very well be my first choice too, if he steps up to the plate and leads live he did 4 years ago. Problem as I see it, he is listening to his handlers and not following his values. In other words, he's playing the political game and that does not work for me.

Who would you promote instead?

Don't get me wrong, I like Governor Walker but he is not the best candidate. He could be if he starts to act with courage but since Act 10, which was his first action when he was elected I have been very disappointed in him. He shifted toward the center and has lacked courage and the boldness that it will take to put this country back on the correct course. Don't take my word for it. Look him up and hold his feet to the fire.