White House Asks Colleges to Sign Sweeping Agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump and MAGA are so angry, so vindictive, so nasty. He is not trying to make America great again. He is just trying to make the other side miserable.

I am a broken record but I will say it again. There were a lot of problems in this country. DEI was overboard. Schools went to far policing thought. But this is not the solution. And anyone who thinks so is a brainwashed moron. The fact that tens of millions of Americans think that this is OK is truly scary.

Can we just secede and be done with it? Unfortunately Trump would see that as "losing" so would never let it happen. Despite being the biggest loser out there. And anyone who is OK with him is also a loser. He is a truly pathetic child. He can rot in hell.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In theory, if they sign, they need to eliminate tuition for anyone studying the “hard” sciences such as Math, Biology et al.

I think this means anything they deem as a difficult science though last I checked, Math isn’t a science at all.

Guess everyone will double major in Math even if you are just getting Cs.

That's only for Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Harvard.

Huh?

The “free tuition for hard science majors” rule only applies if the endowment is over a certain size.

At less wealthy schools it would produce a very troubling effect, where most of the class is trying to major in hard sciences and the professors are required to fail a certain number or the college will be in the red. Weed-out courses on steroids.

Well it’s any school that has an endowment that averages $2MM per student or higher.

I think on the initial list it may be all of the schools…maybe not Arizona?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Letters on Wednesday were going out to solicit agreement and feedback from Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, Brown University and the University of Virginia, according to an administration official."

Who's going to sign this first? My bet: Vanderbilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some very good ideas in this agreement.

Okay but it’s October 2. How on earth are families supposed to make informed decisions about where to apply by November 1 when there are tectonic shifts in the landscape every other day?!

Welcome to running a business in this political environment.

[Anonymous]

“You can either have research for things like childhood cancer, quantum computing, and astrophysics run by our best universities or federal agencies. Or both”.

MAGA: How about neither. None of the above. Let’s just skip all that, push Trump coins, and blame Tylenol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the responses from liberals/Dems/anti-Trump folks, it is easy to see why Republicans control all branches of our federal government.

Liberals don't respond with a focus on issues, they focus on personal insults and live in an echo chamber of denial. Folks, if you don't like the policies of our elected Republican government at the federal level, you need to win elections, not live in a fantasy world of echoed opinions & hatred.

Really? You support the president who posts juvenile insults on social media

Yes, because he is far superior to the option presented by the Democratic Party last November--which showed a lack of respect for voters and for our nation.

Also, our President posts inflammatory rhetoric because it will occupy the minds and time of the far left liberals. It's a diversion tactic which works quite well.

So…you don’t sound at all socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think that’s what is confusing most of us.

No fiscal conservative supports tariffs, taking government stakes in companies and other socialist policies.

WSJ just today wrote an article about how much Trump’s and Mahmdani’s economic policies align. How the government launching a website to sell drugs is kind of the same as the government operating grocery stores.

Well, I am, yet I still believe that our President is doing more good than harm.

Tariffs can be an effective tool toward fairness in trade. Currently, there are imbalances which disfavor America and the current Administration is trying to correct this through negotiations forced by the imposition of tariffs.

I get that many do not like the means used by our President to get a desirable end, but President Trump is taking tough measures to make a better America. Cliche ? Yes, but still true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump and MAGA are so angry, so vindictive, so nasty. He is not trying to make America great again. He is just trying to make the other side miserable.

I am a broken record but I will say it again. There were a lot of problems in this country. DEI was overboard. Schools went to far policing thought. But this is not the solution. And anyone who thinks so is a brainwashed moron. The fact that tens of millions of Americans think that this is OK is truly scary.

Can we just secede and be done with it? Unfortunately Trump would see that as "losing" so would never let it happen. Despite being the biggest loser out there. And anyone who is OK with him is also a loser. He is a truly pathetic child. He can rot in hell.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the responses from liberals/Dems/anti-Trump folks, it is easy to see why Republicans control all branches of our federal government.

Liberals don't respond with a focus on issues, they focus on personal insults and live in an echo chamber of denial. Folks, if you don't like the policies of our elected Republican government at the federal level, you need to win elections, not live in a fantasy world of echoed opinions & hatred.

Really? You support the president who posts juvenile insults on social media

Yes, because he is far superior to the option presented by the Democratic Party last November--which showed a lack of respect for voters and for our nation.

Also, our President posts inflammatory rhetoric because it will occupy the minds and time of the far left liberals. It's a diversion tactic which works quite well.

So…you don’t sound at all socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think that’s what is confusing most of us.

No fiscal conservative supports tariffs, taking government stakes in companies and other socialist policies.

WSJ just today wrote an article about how much Trump’s and Mahmdani’s economic policies align. How the government launching a website to sell drugs is kind of the same as the government operating grocery stores.

Well, I am, yet I still believe that our President is doing more good than harm.

Tariffs can be an effective tool toward fairness in trade. Currently, there are imbalances which disfavor America and the current Administration is trying to correct this through negotiations forced by the imposition of tariffs.

I get that many do not like the means used by our President to get a desirable end, but President Trump is taking tough measures to make a better America. Cliche ? Yes, but still true.

Again...tariffs are an instrument used mostly by socialist economies. Supposedly we love Argentina and the president down there has removed all tariffs because it made domestic industries inefficient and expensive.

Tariffs are not part of a fiscally conservative economic policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the responses from liberals/Dems/anti-Trump folks, it is easy to see why Republicans control all branches of our federal government.

Liberals don't respond with a focus on issues, they focus on personal insults and live in an echo chamber of denial. Folks, if you don't like the policies of our elected Republican government at the federal level, you need to win elections, not live in a fantasy world of echoed opinions & hatred.

Really? You support the president who posts juvenile insults on social media

Yes, because he is far superior to the option presented by the Democratic Party last November--which showed a lack of respect for voters and for our nation.

Also, our President posts inflammatory rhetoric because it will occupy the minds and time of the far left liberals. It's a diversion tactic which works quite well.

So…you don’t sound at all socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think that’s what is confusing most of us.

No fiscal conservative supports tariffs, taking government stakes in companies and other socialist policies.

WSJ just today wrote an article about how much Trump’s and Mahmdani’s economic policies align. How the government launching a website to sell drugs is kind of the same as the government operating grocery stores.

Well, I am, yet I still believe that our President is doing more good than harm.

Tariffs can be an effective tool toward fairness in trade. Currently, there are imbalances which disfavor America and the current Administration is trying to correct this through negotiations forced by the imposition of tariffs.

I get that many do not like the means used by our President to get a desirable end, but President Trump is taking tough measures to make a better America. Cliche ? Yes, but still true.

The bot is back.

[Anonymous]

Trump and his donors want to keep our country dysfunctional and polarized. We keep getting these nonsensical policies straight out of Orwell's 1984 dystopia, instead of competent leaders and smart policy.

The normal things in the agreement: Should tuition increases be frozen, not sure but slowed, sure. Should foreign entry to universities be capped at 15% - at most universities in the US they already are below that rate. Should grade inflation be quelled - yes at the high school level, but why are colleges on the hook for that?

Some of the more ridiculous things in the agreement: Should universities be forced to create special "safe spaces" for conservative thought and conservative people because they are less popular now - no, that's treating maga like snowflakes who can't make an argument or have any power on campuses unless they're coddled and the environment is rigged in their favor. Should campuses not balance for gender - no, a more normal gender ratio reflecting american society makes for a more healthy college environment and most importantly: college is a product and a balanced gender ratio is what college students of both genders want! Taking away colleges freedom of curriculum, expression, thought, ability for staff to share their political opinions - wrong and not what we pay to go to university for.

[Anonymous]

Trump and his donors want to keep our country dysfunctional and polarized. We keep getting these nonsensical policies straight out of Orwell's 1984 dystopia, instead of competent leaders and smart policy.

The normal things in the agreement: Should tuition increases be frozen, not sure but slowed, sure. Should foreign entry to universities be capped at 15% - at most universities in the US they already are below that rate. Should grade inflation be quelled - yes at the high school level, but why are colleges on the hook for that?

Some of the more ridiculous things in the agreement: Should universities be forced to create special "safe spaces" for conservative thought and conservative people because they are less popular now - no, that's treating maga like snowflakes who can't make an argument or have any power on campuses unless they're coddled and the environment is rigged in their favor. Should campuses not balance for gender - no, a more normal gender ratio reflecting american society makes for a more healthy college environment and most importantly: college is a product and a balanced gender ratio is what college students of both genders want! Taking away colleges freedom of curriculum, expression, thought, ability for staff to share their political opinions - wrong and not what we pay to go to university for.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the accidental double post!

[Anonymous]

There is no way that USC can freeze tuition. They don’t have that level of endowment and inflation is not zero.

[Anonymous]

This is a disaster and anyone who applauds this "compact" is woefully unaware how it will affect them.

[Anonymous]

Gavin Newsom's response: California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students.