Petition to Stop the " National College Access Act"

[Saint Milei]

We the undersigned Atlasians strongly urge the Senate to resist and oppose any effort to maintain this bill without serious modifications.

All are welcome to sign the Petition. Additionally, there is a forum open to all regardless of political affiliation (forum will be in this thread).


Bill:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=381889.0

[Saint Milei]

Forum Speaker(s):
Deadprez

[Saint Milei]

This bill represents a gross overreach in the federal government's role in education. Furthermore, this bill will only create more harm done to the education system in Atlasia.


Section I and II:
The bill will remove two standardized tests that have been traditionally used to determine a college applicant's aptitude, while also nationalizing all testing services and creating one standard for students. This defeats the purpose of challenging the tests' ability to accurately determine aptitude. A better solution would be to remove any existing laws or regulations that prevent future testing companies from developing their own standard. There has been a duopoly on testing that should be critiqued, but creating a government run monopoly that is bound to fail and is impossible to critique only damages future scholars in the long-run. Furthermore, Section II removes AP exams which allows students to test out of freshman-level classes and reduce the cost of tuition. This is wrong, immoral, and honestly insane considering the fact that liberals campaign on reducing the cost of education for Atlasians. This will drive up the cost of education, force students to take classes they could place out of in high school, and reduce the incentive for colleges to lower tuition costs. This lets colleges continue to profit without providing a quality education for a lower cost.


Section III:

This section is interesting since Section III.3 gives regions the power to opt-out of any assessments in favor of regional assessments, but what is the point of doing this while also nationalizing testing? Regions are already using these testing services for college applicants. This forces regions to either create their own regional services or let some private company handle it. Couldn't a region just adopt the original standards? This seems like a smart way to avoid criticism of central planning by giving legal deniability, while at the same time having legal grounds to centrally plan.

Section IV:

This isn't thought out at all. What happens if your standards are actually bad and produce worse results? Are you just going to modify them until they meet some abstract standard the federal government believes is adequate? Section IV also doesn't go into enough detail about what tests should specifically be about. This needs to be critiqued by everyone. Where is the proof by lawmakers the current system we have doesn't work and there's an analysis proving that the proposed system will solve most problems?

Section V and VI:

Both sections should be removed immediately. The Department of Education deserves no power in setting prices, deserves no budget increases, and doesn't demonstrate a need to increase taxes in this bill. It sends the wrong signal to citizens when you increase funding, increase taxes, and subsidize the cost of books (which is just a transfer of the cost), while at the same time eliminating AP exams which are critically needed in a time of rising tuition costs.

[Former President tack50]

This bill represents a gross overreach in the federal government's role in education. Furthermore, this bill will only create more harm done to the education system in Atlasia.


Section I and II:
The bill will remove two standardized tests that have been traditionally used to determine a college applicant's aptitude, while also nationalizing all testing services and creating one standard for students. This defeats the purpose of challenging the tests' ability to accurately determine aptitude. A better solution would be to remove any existing laws or regulations that prevent future testing companies from developing their own standard. There has been a duopoly on testing that should be critiqued, but creating a government run monopoly that is bound to fail and is impossible to critique only damages future scholars in the long-run. Furthermore, Section II removes AP exams which allows students to test out of freshman-level classes and reduce the cost of tuition. This is wrong, immoral, and honestly insane considering the fact that liberals campaign on reducing the cost of education for Atlasians. This will drive up the cost of education, force students to take classes they could place out of in high school, and reduce the incentive for colleges to lower tuition costs. This lets colleges continue to profit without providing a quality education for a lower cost.


Section III:

This section is interesting since Section III.3 gives regions the power to opt-out of any assessments in favor of regional assessments, but what is the point of doing this while also nationalizing testing? Regions are already using these testing services for college applicants. This forces regions to either create their own regional services or let some private company handle it. Couldn't a region just adopt the original standards? This seems like a smart way to avoid criticism of central planning by giving legal deniability, while at the same time having legal grounds to centrally plan.

Section IV:

This isn't thought out at all. What happens if your standards are actually bad and produce worse results? Are you just going to modify them until they meet some abstract standard the federal government believes is adequate? Section IV also doesn't go into enough detail about what tests should specifically be about. This needs to be critiqued by everyone. Where is the proof by lawmakers the current system we have doesn't work and there's an analysis proving that the proposed system will solve most problems?

Section V and VI:

Both sections should be removed immediately. The Department of Education deserves no power in setting prices, deserves no budget increases, and doesn't demonstrate a need to increase taxes in this bill. It sends the wrong signal to citizens when you increase funding, increase taxes, and subsidize the cost of books (which is just a transfer of the cost), while at the same time eliminating AP exams which are critically needed in a time of rising tuition costs.

Ok, let's go part by part:

Section I: How is creating a government monopoly something bound to fail? Or how does it defeat the purpose of challenging the student's abilities?

Section II: Yes, this removes APs because I felt that, as a concept, they are a bad idea. People should not be advantaged in college, being allowed to skip classes and what not. However from what I have been told, AP tests really only allow you to skip "general education requirements"? If so, to be honest, I would amend the bill, or do another bill so that universities are forced to abolish general education requirements (this may have to be a regional bill though).

In any case let there be no doubt that I, alongside most of my colleagues in the Labor party I suppose; fully support reducing tuition costs to something reasonable or even make it completely free

Section III: Well, I personally believe the tests should be done at the regional level. I can certainly see the argument to involve the regions more in here. I will note that irl where I live, centralizing testing is the conservative position for what is worth

Section IV: Yeah I suppose Section IV.1 is not detailed enough. However, it can't be since education is still a regional matter. The Atlasian federal government really can't dictate to the regions what they can and cannot teach. It is not my intention to centralize education, so guidelines much more specific than that are not really an option. However, regions can pass big education reforms. In my time in the Lincoln Council we passed a huge education overhaul that was regrettably repealed I think. But it was still there.

Sections V and VI: I mean, this is just generic left wing stuff, and we have a Labor supermajority (well, more like we had one but whatever). I will say the original version of this bill paid for the nationalizations of College Board and what not by priviatizing 5% of the Postal Service, but that got amended.

[Arson Plus]

The AP classes are for people who are in "advanced classes", and for people in advanced classes, the course is harder then the general classes and unless people could move up grades in certain subjects, I'd oppose it the bill.

[Former President tack50]

The AP classes are for people who are in "advanced classes", and for people in advanced classes, the course is harder then the general classes and unless people could move up grades in certain subjects, I'd oppose it the bill.

I mean, I do think that people in high school should be taught the same, without discrimination good students from bad students

(yes I have very weird views on education for Atlasian standards)

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Education reform should focus on reducing the amount of credits students need to graduate. Most degrees should not require 120 credit hours - many of which are in general Ed classes - in order to graduate. College should be about specialization in a field of interest, not another high school.

[OBD]

I'm not opposed to this act on principle, but as an AP alum I see merit to having advanced classes for those who wish to take them. It's OK if AP classes are replaced by non-college-credit-granting classes, but there should be oppurtunities for folks to take classes appropiate for their academic level - especially in Math.

Also, schools could theoretically just switch to IB as an honors program.

[Saint Milei]

This bill represents a gross overreach in the federal government's role in education. Furthermore, this bill will only create more harm done to the education system in Atlasia.


Section I and II:
The bill will remove two standardized tests that have been traditionally used to determine a college applicant's aptitude, while also nationalizing all testing services and creating one standard for students. This defeats the purpose of challenging the tests' ability to accurately determine aptitude. A better solution would be to remove any existing laws or regulations that prevent future testing companies from developing their own standard. There has been a duopoly on testing that should be critiqued, but creating a government run monopoly that is bound to fail and is impossible to critique only damages future scholars in the long-run. Furthermore, Section II removes AP exams which allows students to test out of freshman-level classes and reduce the cost of tuition. This is wrong, immoral, and honestly insane considering the fact that liberals campaign on reducing the cost of education for Atlasians. This will drive up the cost of education, force students to take classes they could place out of in high school, and reduce the incentive for colleges to lower tuition costs. This lets colleges continue to profit without providing a quality education for a lower cost.


Section III:

This section is interesting since Section III.3 gives regions the power to opt-out of any assessments in favor of regional assessments, but what is the point of doing this while also nationalizing testing? Regions are already using these testing services for college applicants. This forces regions to either create their own regional services or let some private company handle it. Couldn't a region just adopt the original standards? This seems like a smart way to avoid criticism of central planning by giving legal deniability, while at the same time having legal grounds to centrally plan.

Section IV:

This isn't thought out at all. What happens if your standards are actually bad and produce worse results? Are you just going to modify them until they meet some abstract standard the federal government believes is adequate? Section IV also doesn't go into enough detail about what tests should specifically be about. This needs to be critiqued by everyone. Where is the proof by lawmakers the current system we have doesn't work and there's an analysis proving that the proposed system will solve most problems?

Section V and VI:

Both sections should be removed immediately. The Department of Education deserves no power in setting prices, deserves no budget increases, and doesn't demonstrate a need to increase taxes in this bill. It sends the wrong signal to citizens when you increase funding, increase taxes, and subsidize the cost of books (which is just a transfer of the cost), while at the same time eliminating AP exams which are critically needed in a time of rising tuition costs.

Ok, let's go part by part:

Section I: How is creating a government monopoly something bound to fail? Or how does it defeat the purpose of challenging the student's abilities?

Section II: Yes, this removes APs because I felt that, as a concept, they are a bad idea. People should not be advantaged in college, being allowed to skip classes and what not. However from what I have been told, AP tests really only allow you to skip "general education requirements"? If so, to be honest, I would amend the bill, or do another bill so that universities are forced to abolish general education requirements (this may have to be a regional bill though).

In any case let there be no doubt that I, alongside most of my colleagues in the Labor party I suppose; fully support reducing tuition costs to something reasonable or even make it completely free

Section III: Well, I personally believe the tests should be done at the regional level. I can certainly see the argument to involve the regions more in here. I will note that irl where I live, centralizing testing is the conservative position for what is worth

Section IV: Yeah I suppose Section IV.1 is not detailed enough. However, it can't be since education is still a regional matter. The Atlasian federal government really can't dictate to the regions what they can and cannot teach. It is not my intention to centralize education, so guidelines much more specific than that are not really an option. However, regions can pass big education reforms. In my time in the Lincoln Council we passed a huge education overhaul that was regrettably repealed I think. But it was still there.

Sections V and VI: I mean, this is just generic left wing stuff, and we have a Labor supermajority (well, more like we had one but whatever). I will say the original version of this bill paid for the nationalizations of College Board and what not by priviatizing 5% of the Postal Service, but that got amended.

Section 1: If your goal is just to create a monopoly, then sure, it wouldn't fail. But if your goal is to improve education, this government run monopoly will fail.

Section II: Why should people not be able to receive credits by examination? And if you think AP exams are an "advantage", are you also suggesting honors programs, college run placement tests, and exam exemptions should be eliminated as well?

Section III: Then what's the point of nationalizing this?

Section IV: If you are centralizing exams, you are creating a path to centralizing education.

[Former President tack50]

Education reform should focus on reducing the amount of credits students need to graduate. Most degrees should not require 120 credit hours - many of which are in general Ed classes - in order to graduate. College should be about specialization in a field of interest, not another high school.

I agree with this 100% actually. College should be about specialization and probably cut down to 3 years.

My question here would be whether a reform like that should be a regional reform or a national reform.

[Former President tack50]

Section 1: If your goal is just to create a monopoly, then sure, it wouldn't fail. But if your goal is to improve education, this government run monopoly will fail.

Section II: Why should people not be able to receive credits by examination? And if you think AP exams are an "advantage", are you also suggesting honors programs, college run placement tests, and exam exemptions should be eliminated as well?

Section III: Then what's the point of nationalizing this?

Section IV: If you are centralizing exams, you are creating a path to centralizing education.

Section I: So uh, why exactly would a government run monopoly fail?

Section II: I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college. Like I said to DTC I actually support getting rid of general education requirements. As for the other programs you describe, like for instance honors programs; I would be fine with them giving students scolarships or free tuition, but not allowing them to skip classes.

College should be for the specialized stuff you do not learn in high school

Section III: I mean, having stuff be ran by the regional governments is still nationalization? The regions are still part of the state after all

Section IV: Yes I know, but I do not want to centralize education too much. I am a big believer on the fact that education should be regional actually. But I don't think giving out some general vague guidelines is somehow undue centralization.

[Arson Plus]

The AP classes are for people who are in "advanced classes", and for people in advanced classes, the course is harder then the general classes and unless people could move up grades in certain subjects, I'd oppose it the bill.

I mean, I do think that people in high school should be taught the same, without discrimination good students from bad students

(yes I have very weird views on education for Atlasian standards)

I know many of my friends would be bored in normal classes for sure. There are Remedial classes for the kids who scored bad.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Education reform should focus on reducing the amount of credits students need to graduate. Most degrees should not require 120 credit hours - many of which are in general Ed classes - in order to graduate. College should be about specialization in a field of interest, not another high school.

I agree with this 100% actually. College should be about specialization and probably cut down to 3 years.

My question here would be whether a reform like that should be a regional reform or a national reform.

I want the reform to be done wherever possible. If this is not done nationally, I plan on introducing a bill into the southern chamber of delegates to reduce credit hours required in public universities from 120 to 90.

[tmthforu94]

Well at minimum, I hope the Senate removes the AP abolishment, I don't agree with the sponsors logic behind removing them. AP courses provide convenience and lower the costs of college, if anything the program should be expanded to better reach students in low-income and rural areas.

[Saint Milei]

Section 1: If your goal is just to create a monopoly, then sure, it wouldn't fail. But if your goal is to improve education, this government run monopoly will fail.

Section II: Why should people not be able to receive credits by examination? And if you think AP exams are an "advantage", are you also suggesting honors programs, college run placement tests, and exam exemptions should be eliminated as well?

Section III: Then what's the point of nationalizing this?

Section IV: If you are centralizing exams, you are creating a path to centralizing education.

Section I: So uh, why exactly would a government run monopoly fail?

Section II: I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college. Like I said to DTC I actually support getting rid of general education requirements. As for the other programs you describe, like for instance honors programs; I would be fine with them giving students scolarships or free tuition, but not allowing them to skip classes.

College should be for the specialized stuff you do not learn in high school

Section III: I mean, having stuff be ran by the regional governments is still nationalization? The regions are still part of the state after all

Section IV: Yes I know, but I do not want to centralize education too much. I am a big believer on the fact that education should be regional actually. But I don't think giving out some general vague guidelines is somehow undue centralization.

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.


"I mean, having stuff be ran by the regional governments is still nationalization? The regions are still part of the state after all"

Again, what's the point of centralizing i this is the case?





At this point, this bill just seems like an attempt to make the government do something it doesn't even need to do and the reasoning behind it hasn't been explained.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.

Well like I said it is debatable whether a bill to deal with gen ed requirements should be a regional or a national bill. But hey, if that is your wish I will more than gladly introduce such an amendment

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

The purpose of college is to provide an specialized education that cannot be achieved in high school. If colleges are giving credit for stuff done in high school, that kinda defeats their own purpose.

[Arson Plus]

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.

Well like I said it is debatable whether a bill to deal with gen ed requirements should be a regional or a national bill. But hey, if that is your wish I will more than gladly introduce such an amendment

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

The purpose of college is to provide an specialized education that cannot be achieved in high school. If colleges are giving credit for stuff done in high school, that kinda defeats their own purpose.

If you have to do that, how are college admissions supposed to work? If this happened, then people would have to buy their ways into college.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think people should receive college credits for stuff they do before college. There is a concrete program for college.

So because you have some random belief people dont deserve to earn credits before college everyone should suffer higher costs? You didn't add anything in the bill dealing with gen ed requirements. The cost is going to rise. Additionally, you still haven't provided a reasonable argument on why AP exams are a bad thing.

Well like I said it is debatable whether a bill to deal with gen ed requirements should be a regional or a national bill. But hey, if that is your wish I will more than gladly introduce such an amendment

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

The purpose of college is to provide an specialized education that cannot be achieved in high school. If colleges are giving credit for stuff done in high school, that kinda defeats their own purpose.

If you have to do that, how are college admissions supposed to work? If this happened, then people would have to buy their ways into college.

Why would this destroy college admissions? It's not like people will suddenly not have classes lol.

Also I certainly don't believe people would have to buy their way into college with this. There can be legitimate concerns about the bill but these are not some of them.

[tmthforu94]

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

I stated most of this before but will state it again:

- AP courses are much cheaper than the comparable college course as you only pay the test fee and textbooks, allowing students to save money on college and have a lower student loan debt burden.
- Students who enter college with AP classes graduate sooner, and such, can sooner contribute to the Atlasian economy
- AP courses are significantly more challenging than a regular high school course, teachers who teach it have to go through additional training and certification. Allowing students to have a challenge and statistically, students who take AP courses are better prepared for college. It also improves their admissions likelihood as completing these courses proves they can handle the rigors of college.

Do they have AP where you went to school, have you ever taken an AP class? Saying it isn't fit for college is a narrow-minded view if you've never done it, how can you speak on it? I hope you will do more research and reflection on this issue before pursuing it any further. "High school is high school and college is college" is a very poor justification for killing a program that helps students prepare for college and be more financially secure. The same can be said for dual enrollment programs.

[Senator Spark]

While I agree to lessen the standardized testing, I disagree with dispelling the AP program. Advanced placement courses enhance a student's ability to meet the demands of academic study in college. It helps prepare them immensely to begin thinking at a higher level. AP courses, upon receiving a passing score, can save students money in college credits. Why get rid of such a valuable program?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I thought threads like this only existed deep in the webs of my fondest memories.

[Former President tack50]

As for why killing AP is good, very simple. High school is high school and college is college and there should be little to no overlap between the 2. If there is something that you can do in high school that can give you credit for college; then it is not fit for college and should just be made mandatory in high school.

I stated most of this before but will state it again:

- AP courses are much cheaper than the comparable college course as you only pay the test fee and textbooks, allowing students to save money on college and have a lower student loan debt burden.
- Students who enter college with AP classes graduate sooner, and such, can sooner contribute to the Atlasian economy
- AP courses are significantly more challenging than a regular high school course, teachers who teach it have to go through additional training and certification. Allowing students to have a challenge and statistically, students who take AP courses are better prepared for college. It also improves their admissions likelihood as completing these courses proves they can handle the rigors of college.

Do they have AP where you went to school, have you ever taken an AP class? Saying it isn't fit for college is a narrow-minded view if you've never done it, how can you speak on it? I hope you will do more research and reflection on this issue before pursuing it any further. "High school is high school and college is college" is a very poor justification for killing a program that helps students prepare for college and be more financially secure. The same can be said for dual enrollment programs.

No I have not taken an AP class for obvious reasons Maybe I am being a bit narrowminded here. But I still think of high schools as something that should be uniform.

Mind you on principle I am not opposed to say, making AP's level the standard level in high schools. But that is probably a regional reform.

And let there be no doubt that I support measures to make college cheaper, including getting rid of dumb general education classes unrelated to your degree.

In any case, even if we were to keep AP, that is a single line in the bill though I would still prefer the program to be reworked or at the very least regionalized. Oh and it should 100% be ran by the regions, so nationalization is still in order.

While I agree to lessen the standardized testing, I disagree with dispelling the AP program. Advanced placement courses enhance a student's ability to meet the demands of academic study in college. It helps prepare them immensely to begin thinking at a higher level. AP courses, upon receiving a passing score, can save students money in college credits. Why get rid of such a valuable program?

Let's think of it the opposite way. If AP is so good, why not make it the standard and the norm, instead of the exception?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We live in a very contorted world where "nationalization" of anything with its empowering of the centralized state and bureaucracy is "necessary" for the sake of regionalizing something.

Regionalism isn't about the Federal gov't doling out the crumbs of the cookies it doesn't fancy taking for itself. Regionalism is about the preservation of powers that originally belong to the regions and minimizing the extent to which the Federal Gov't has usurped either legally or illegally said powers from the regions originally.

It is my contention that education by rights belongs to the regions, and that the Federal Gov't should support the actions of the regions to ensure resources are available and while some strings necessarily come along with this, those should be minimized. Nationalization of private property and entities is not part of that equation. The Regions can regulate said entities to service their needs and the Federal Gov't can back them up in that regulatory effort if necessary. Yet we keep getting back to "well you need to nationalize to do this, nationalize to do that". NO! You Don't!

Get outside of the centralist hive mind and consider the alternatives before making declarative statements that "this is the only way" when such is patently false.

[Mike Thick]

Gotta say that I agree with some of the criticisms here. IRL I took lots of their courses in high school, and they're likely to shave a year and $35k off my undergrad education.

As for whether AP should be "the norm": I get where Tack is coming from, but students have different needs and abilities. The reason they get college credit for AP is that the classes are the same level as college gen ed courses -- not every high school student is going to be capable of doing college level work in every subject, but some students aren't going to be challenged by high school level material. It might even be better to expand access to AP, so that the options kids have for classes don't vary wildly by zip code.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The AP program is a joke and in no way prepares students for college. If you get thirty of the highest-performing students in a room together and assign them one of your best teachers, you're obviously going to have a higher average GPA for the class compared to a "standard" course. That has nothing to do with the AP program itself, which wraps a vapid, uncurious curriculum around a $94 test that measures students' ability to follow mostly arbitrary instructions which bear no relation to anything they will be asked to do after high school. But it sure looks good on your resume.