Thursday, March 04, 2010

Why You Shouldn't Send Your Kids to Antioch College

In reality, this isn't really a "new" post. It is just a re-posting under a title that is more appropriate given what has just happened and some good advice for any parents in Ohio thinking about pissing away their hard earned money.

So permit me to recap;

Mom of Antioch College graduate comes in and goes to bat for "Antioch College" after I link to the Spearhead's article citing its closure, claiming her daughter got a "great" education and "immediately" found employment in her field.

I make "cynical" "evil" "republican" "nazi" predictions that her daughter majored in a worthless subject and the only reason she found "employment in her field" was because her "field" was essentially subsidized by either charity or the taxpayers. In other words, she doesn't produce anything of economic value to society and is literally a parasite.

Readers of Cappy Cap come to bat IN STYLE and prove;

1. Her daughter works at a community theater
2. That receives money from charity
3. Most of which is from the Ohioan taxpayer

The overall lesson to learn here is that Antioch College, as well as many others, simply just produce what could be considered "economic parasites" who instead of "lowering themselves" to collecting a welfare check, engage in faux, fake "professions" or "careers" all of which are economically no different than collecting a welfare check in that it is still paid for by others. They just go through the facade of having a "job" presumably to make themselves feel better.

So here is the question to would be Antioch students and parents;

Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that if it requires a government subsidy and the taxpayers to finance you, that you are indeed an economic parasite?

We all hate GM and the federal bail out.

We all hate the big banks and the bail out they received?

What about the millions of worthless degreed people who only have jobs because the tax payer is forced to provide them some make-work job that produces nothing society wants?

If you have the cognitive dissonance skills to tolerate this hypocrisy, then send your children to Antioch. If not, then send them somewhere else.


Anonymous said...

Why single out government and nonprofit workers as 'parasites'? What about the military, police, emergency responders? Are these parasites too? How about people who work in industries that have benefited from government spending: finance, oil, auto, military contractors, road construction. All parasites? Show me a sector of the economy that does or even could function with no government interaction. Show me a functioning capitalist economy without a robust government providing infrastructure and enforcing the rules of the game. Why are decisions made out of altruism (charity) or out of the collective choice to fund a social priority (taxes) any less valid than decisions made out of self-interest? And in the field of education, do you really argue that for-profit universities (most famously the University of Phoenix) do a better job of educating students than state or nonprofit schools do?

Norm said...

Military, Police, firefighters (law courts and prisons too,): We transfer this work to government bodies because a) it is required for a smooth function of society, b) these are truly a "Public Good" in that the benefit cannot be denied to those who do not wish to pay: My home is defended by the army regardless of my payment and c) we do not wish to hand over coersion activities to private bodies. The rise in private arbitrators (law courts), secuity services (private police) and the existance of mercency military forces does demonstate people really want this stuff and are willing to pay for it. In Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railroad and Canadian National Railroad still have there own private force for policing their corporate lands, paid in full by their shareholders.
Schools (good schools, too!) existed long before public schools. Still do and for which parents pay big bucks to ensure their children are educated. The drive for public financed schools in North America was to integrate immigrants to our ways. It wasn't until the Great Depression that most jurisdictions dropped fees for grades 7 to 12. The Public Good part of schools was essentially complete by grade 6: the lad or lass could read, write, do their sums and understood the basic civics of the nation or Empire. Anything beyond that was mostly of benefit to the student not society so fees were charged. During the 1930's it was deemed expident to keep the little ones in school until 17 so they would not enter the workforce and increase unemployment rates.

Hot Sam said...


The military, the police, and emergency responders are providing PUBLIC services.

Not all goods and services provided by government are public goods. A "public good" is shared equally in consumption by all.

A hamburger is a private good. If I eat it, you cannot. The military is a public good. My consumption of military does not deprive you of any consumption of military.

The Justice system, roads and bridges, traffic signals, are all public goods.

Health care, food, housing, jobs, electricity, are NOT public goods - they are private goods. If I get an appendectomy, you cannot use the resources that went into that. The doctor won't see you now.

Few here condone corporate welfare, but government expenditures toward the provision of public goods are necessary. Tanks and fire trucks need fuel. That's not a "subsidy", it's a purchase.

Other areas where government action is likely appropriate: externalities, natural monopolies, asymmetric information - all known as "market failures." An electricity distribution system is a natural monopoly. It makes no sense for 30 firms to string lines everywhere. So government either owns or franchises and regulates a monopoly. But it can privatize the generation and transmission of electricity.

Mail service is not a natural monopoly. Neither is trash collection, ambulance, schools, or fire departments. That is why many communities have privatized these.

Arts funded by charity are fine. The Captain's point is that the dancer relying on charity is no different than a beggar. They are counting on your sympathy and generosity, not your true valuation of their services.

Arts subsidized by government draw too many resources into it. These resources could be better spent in other uses. If the art can't pay for itself, it ain't worthwhile.

ALL universities are "for-profit". They ALL receive government grants and subsidies. UoP at least runs an efficient operation. The nation's top colleges waste taxpayer money left and left. Proprietary schools do FAR MORE to help struggling students than any public or private university. RETENTION is key for their profits. Most public universities don't care if students don't show up to class or drop out, except minorities and athletes who get SPECIAL resources.

Harvard gets the top students in the nation. UoP gets the students who slipped through the gaping holes of the public education system, or are nontraditional students who cannot attend college full time.

UoP does a really good job with the type of student they get. Brick and mortar is better, IMHO, but that's not an option for many people.

We don't support government funding of worthless degrees either from Harvard or UoP.

A parasite is an organism that takes in more than it gives. Most of the arts and the soft sciences qualify as that. The world DOES need Sociologists, dancers, and artists. We just don't need as many as we subsidize.

Frankly, many of those we subsidize really SUCK at what they do! That's why they can't earn their salt.

Anonymous said...

Captain, look at this:
Doug Borntrager looks like a typical политический руководитель. He would fit well to stalinist Russia.
He might be preparing some cultural putsch :)

PeppermintPanda said...


I think you completely misunderstand what is being said. I don’t think the intention of the post (or previous similar posts) is that all government or non-profit workers are "worthless" or are somehow bad people for doing their job.

What the Captain is talking about is the amount of "rent-seeking" behaviour within the government, pseudo-governmental bodies, and semi-government funded non-profit organizations; where these institutions provide products and/or services that people would not be willing to pay for. His (reasonable) hypothesis is that the creation and expansion of these institutions is heavily driven by the over-graduation of people with (highly political) liberal arts degrees.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 5:55 AM, buddy you just don`t get it. People do not have a choice about paying their taxes. If you don`t pay your taxes, people with guns will show up at your house. That is why tax money should only be used for essential services like police, the military, and emergency services. Therefore, the use of tax payer funds to support Alternative Theatre, is a violation
of the sacred aspect of tax funds. People should have the freedom to spend their money, on whatever form of entertainment they enjoy. But taking their money and forcing them to support Alternative Theatre, is an immoral practice.
In the earlier days of the American Republic, no one would have believed that tax money would ever be used for such nonsense.
I would also add farm subsidies, NFL stadiums, and a long list of other non essentials, to the list of wasteful spending.
Have you ever wondered why the growth of government just keeps getting bigger and bigger? It is because they keep inventing more and more, stupid things to spend tax money on. This madness can not continue forever. Just ask someone from Greece, how things will work out.

sth_txs said...

Well, there are many private sector jobs that rely upon government regulations to exists.

I worked in consulting engineering several years ago; a substantial part of this firms profit came from government work at the local, state, or federal level.