Originally Posted by wbroun
Way off topic here, but dude, why r u so ticked off at Ivy League grads? About a third of the kids I teach are genuine silver spooners, Little Lord Fauntleroys. The largest group are ambitious, hard-working upper- and middle-class kids. They've had many advantages, but they've also put in the effort. At least one-in-five are poor or working-class scholarship kids who worked hard and frankly possess great intelligence. Are they supposed to feel bad or uncool because they didn't go to a state school? What would you do with your child?
I was the token Southerner.
But who cares? I studied with whom I wanted to study: Porter, Lassiter, Stephenson, Christensen, others. Great minds, hard workers. I guess my state school, lower-middle class family roots didn't hurt too bad, eh?
Your take on the class makeup is about spot on. Except I think in grad school there were far fewer silver-spooners than hard-workers. And the silver-spooners (and others) who didn't work their butts off hit the screen.
I'm just really trying to think through why you would advocate state run ski resorts. As for Mass General, look at the taxes in Mass! No, thank you!
I like the market as it is. When I was a struggling college student I found ways to go skiing. It wasn't pretty (a pre-geeky awkward Ivy Leaguer); but, we had a blast. Now, we go skiing as a family and with friends and have a good time. We look for deals to save money; I don't care to be part of the "latest gear this year" crowd. But -- to each his own!
Skiing is a recreational activity. I don't care to impose on others to subsidize my fun just like I don't expect others--through the government--to pay for me to, say, drive in sports car races. Where would the subsidizing end? I say leave the markets alone and let them function. If enough people want to ski (that means they are willing to spend their money on it), then skiing will be available at the appropriate prices!