What's Up With The SAT Testing System?

Source

Preface

There are two principles I would like you to keep in mind, as you read the following remarks.

1. When a person is desperate to get something and, let us say, by some miracle he gets it---the thing he wants to do next is divorce himself from those original feelings of impotence just as quickly as he can. He tells himself that he has come into possession of the thing because he deserves it, that it was destiny that 'X' fell into his hands, that only he can properly wield 'X.'

The example I like to use is that of the movie director. Let us say, by way of example, that I---the person writing this---is a successful, major, big time movie director. Let us say that you, whoever 'you' may be, are an actor.

Let us additionally say that you and I are friends, as well as colleagues. Let us further suppose that you and I have been out of touch for a few years. Then one day we meet someplace for coffee; we talk and reminisce about old times, and all that.

Now you, the actor, put up a good front; but I happen to know a few things about your circumstances, which you choose not to disclose. I know, for example, that you went through an acrimonious, financially ruinous divorce. I know that your wife left you for your lawyer.

I know that your accountant ran off to Barbados, or someplace, with a whole lot of your money; and left many years of your taxes unpaid. I know that your widowed mother lives with you; and that she has dementia and diabetes; and that you will have to put her in a permanent care facility of some kind. I know that the medical bills are piling up and that you feel like your drowning.

I know that the business has been hard on you; you were a child and teen star; but you're having a hard time getting directors and talent scouts to take you seriously as an adult thespian.

Now suppose I, as the movie director, can make all the bad stuff go away; not by opening up my checkbook or billfold and offering you a "loan." No, I do this by offering you a role in my upcoming, sure-fire, blockbuster, blah-blah-blah movie---which, hopefully, does for your career what Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction did for Mr. Saturday Night Fever himself, John Travolta.


Preface (continued)

Stay with me.

Now then, you realize that neither of us are going to tell the "God's Honest Truth" about why I, the movie director, gave you, the financially strapped actor and friend of mine, the role. The truth would not make either of us look good.

If you're even a halfway decent actor, I'm going to fall over myself, publically, talking about how you were "perfect" for the role, or "born to play," Caesar or Bugs Bunny or that guy who plays the "mall cop."

And you, the actor friend of mine, whose bacon I pulled out of the fire, are going to agree, in your own humble way, of course. You will remember to thank God, your family, America (even if you're not from the United States), your first acting coach, and your high school debating team coach, when you accept your Academy Award.

Oh yeah, when you're up on that stage, you won't forget to thank me, will you? You can't do a famous Steve McQueen acceptance speech: "Groovy, thanks."

Anyway, that is the first principle I want you to keep in mind.

2. When there is a scarcity of resources, or a perceived scarcity of resources, this puts the authorities into a dilemma. The question is how to allot these now scarce resources. They must now---or feel as though they "must"---erect barriers to access. They feel as though they must now limit access to the "most deserving." Indeed, the very concept of "most deserving" becomes manifest in public policy.

Perhaps you have guessed, by now, that despite the title of this commentary, I do not really intend to discourse on the efficacy of the Standard Aptitude Test, as a means of allegedly testing a student's mental fitness for college.

Everybody already knows the SAT doesn't prove anything anyhow!

I am really just asking two questions: A) Why can't we have tuition-free education in colleges and universities in the United States of America, the way other advanced industrialized countries like ours have seen fit to provide to their citizens for decades now?

B) Why can't we have a general policy of open admissions to the colleges and universities of the United States of America?

Before we begin, let's talk about 'sour grapes.'

Let's talk about sour grapes. We get the expression from the fable about the fox who tries to get some grapes from a high tree branch. He tries different things and fails. In order to divorce himself from the feelings of weakness and incompetence and helplessness that attended his failure, he implies that he hadn't really been trying too hard, after all, and that, anyhow, the grapes are sour.

Remember the analogy I gave you, earlier, about the movie director-and-out-of-luck actor? Let us call that an example of what I like to call "reverse sour grapes." Stay with me because then I will show you a move I call "projected sour grapes."

Let's try telling the story of the fox again, using the term-techniques of reverse sour grapes and projected sour grapes. And let us add two more characters to our story: the Mighty Eagle and Mr. Monkey.

The Revised Story

The fox spies some delicious-looking grapes in a high tree branch. He tries and tries and tries ever so hard to get those delicious-looking grapes. The fox begins to feel bad about himself because of his failure; but since our friend here is not the most reflective, inward looking of souls, he immediately beats down these feelings; he does not allow himself to be this vulnerable.

Instead what he tells himself, what he almost makes himself sincerely believe over time, is that if he had really wanted those raggedly old grapes, they most certainly would have been his; and anyway, the fox had had it on 'good authority' that the grapes were ---wait for it---SOUR!!!

The Fox goes to his friend, the mayor of Blooming Forest Sanctuary himself, Mighty Eagle. Mr. Eagle is in a position to give his friend, the Fox, all the sweet delicious grapes he wants. And so, the Fox importunes his friend. Some say that the Mighty Eagle may have been reluctant, at first, but gave way when his friend got down on his hands and knees and even belly and begged like a... begged like a... well, beggar.

Mighty Eagle gave his friend, the Fox, a good supply of sweet, delicious grapes. This he did, even though it meant less grapes for Mr. Monkey.

Stay with me, the story continues. The Fox failed to get the grapes from the high branch of the tree and affected an indifferent dismissal of the same (sour grapes). Then he went to his friend, Mighty Eagle, and begged on his hands and knees and fox's belly for some grapes and got them (reverse sour grapes).

Neither the Fox nor Mighty Eagle will ever publicly admit the truth: That the former had given the latter grapes out of charity. Mighty Eagle will never publicly say that the reason he gave the Fox grapes, was because the two of them are long-time friends and Skull and Bones fraternity brothers from Harvard, or wherever, and that they are secret and long-time business associates.

Such an admission would not sound professional. Such an admission would not make either of them look very good.

Instead, Mighty Eagle will talk about how the Fox was the only creature in the forest who can "responsibly and ably" "administer" the grapes, and so on and so forth, yada, yada, yada... This rationalization is part of what I think of as the reverse sour grapes process.

Here comes the Monkey! Here comes the Monkey! And "projected sour grapes."

Mr. Monkey will say to Might Eagle, 'what gives'?, because he has received forty percent less grapes than he has at this same time last year.

Mighty Eagle cannot say: "I've given part of your share of grapes to my friend and colleague, the Fox because, well, he's my friend and colleague. Just deal with it."

As we have already established, such an admission would not look very professional.

Instead Mighty Eagle will say something like: Sorry, Mr. Monkey but times are tough all around. We all have to tighten our belts, you know. You see, we are in the midst of a third-cycle fiscal correction. Certain turbulences in the business cycle had necessitated that we undergo economic re-synchronization and budget reassessment; a reordering of priorities was necessitated to harmonize practices with our international trade treaty obligations...

None of that makes any sense, does it? Well, gobbledy gook seldom does, my friend. Gobbledy gook seldom does.

But wait, that's not all. Because the Fox will have something to say to the Monkey. The Fox, mind you!

The Fox---who had been down on his hands and knees and belly before the Eagle, because he had been too incompetent to get grapes for himself---will have the nerve to say something like the following to the honest Monkey:

You know, Mr. Monkey, those grapes really aren't very good for you! I mean having them so readily available to you based on Mighty Eagle's charity. Its really not very good for your character, don't you know. Such charity saps your will, your initiative, your work ethic. Nothing in this world comes for free, my man! (projected sour grapes).

And so on and so forth.

Is any of this starting to sound familiar? This is the very reason that folks on the left often used the word reactionary synonymously and interchangeably with "conservatism." It is because there is a species of "conservatism," in the United States of America, that does not appear to be genuine or one hundred percent authentic conservatism.

There is a "conservatism" that seems to say: Conservatism for you, but liberalism for me, please! To see what I mean in detail, I would recommend a very good book to you. Its a free online book written by an economist called Dean Baker: The Conservative Nanny State: How The Wealthy Use The Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer (free e-book, 2006).

In any case, the goal with "projected sour grapes" is to get the deprived, in this case, Mr. Monkey, to say that the grapes he has lost are sour.

It may very well be the case that Republican Richard Milhous Nixon was the last liberal President of the United States. He governed that way on domestic issues.

The Right, in the United States, has done a remarkable job in convincing the rest of us that the grapes are sour.

When Democratic President Bill Clinton declared that the age of big government was over, he was saying that the FDR/Harry Truman/Lyndon Johnson New Deal/Fair Deal/Great Society grapes had turned sour.

When Clinton signed a welfare reform bill that was widely regarded as harshly punitive, he said, in effect, that the grapes were sour.

And so on and so forth.

Does that make sense?

With those tools in place, the questions we're asking are: Why can't we have tuition-free higher education in the United States of America?; and Why are we so tied up in knots over standardized testing? That is to say: Why can't we have universal open admission to all colleges and universities in the United States of America?

Now, what I'd like to do is provide two case histories, indicating how I believe they conform to the formula I have laid out.

Is that good?

Does that make sense?

There is one more thing I need to make very clear before we proceed. In the revised fable I told, did you notice how the Fox transferred his own sense of incompetence to Mr. Monkey? Suddenly, Mr. Monkey is put on the defensive.

Let's get started.

Former President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan (1981-1989) was governor of California from 1967-1975.

Stay with me. Ronald Wilson Reagan was governor of California from 1967 to 1975. You will also recall that Mr. Reagan had been a former movie actor. That part is very important, for our purposes.

The movie business

In March of 1972 the trade publication, Variety, reported that MCA, the biggest movie studio in the world, owed 97 percent of its rise in profits to the new tax rules (1).

That means that without those tax rules, they would have only experienced a three percent rise in profits, doesn't it?

The state's fiscal innovations on behalf of the movie business

In the United States Congress legislation was passed allowing producers to understate their taxable gross income by twenty percent. Then -governor of California, Ronald Wilson Reagan, lobbied hard for the bill (2).

The 1971 Revenue Act allowed the film and television industry to define their finished product (movies and television programs) as equipment and machinery. In this way they would become eligible for the traditional 7 percent tax write-off for other kinds of industries, which had begun in 1962 (3).

Universal and other studios joined Disney in a law suit aimed at recovering back credits dating back to 1962. That suit was successful and netted another $400 million for the business. The credit was raised to ten percent and the benefits multiplied (4).

Additionally, there was a clause in the Revenue Act that allowed movie investors to get a one hundred percent, indefinite tax write-off on half of all profits from exported films (5).

Now then, it seems like the Hollywood movie business was having a very hard time in the late-1960s/early-1970s, doesn't it?

It sure does! And it sounds like they had to go on their hands, knees, and belly to the government for a bailout. They got what was, effectively, a bailout. This is the reverse sour grapes process.

Stay tuned for projected sour grapes. Hint: Its probably going to have something to do with college tuition.

Remember, Ronald Wilson Reagan was governor of California at this time.

You know what? Here's a little item from the New York Times Science section, dated December 28, 1982. The article is titled "California Weighs End of Free College Education" by Robert Lindsey (6).

You see, friends, once upon a time we did have tuition-free college, at least somewhere in the United States of America!

I quote:

"California's public system of higher education, long the envy of many other states, is edging toward acceptance of something even Ronald Reagan, as Governor, could not force upon it: tuition.

"The California Postsecondary Education Commission recommended earlier this month that the state abandon one of the cornerstones of its college and university system, a pledge that the state will pay instructional expenses for all residents.

"The recommendation was the latest evidence of deep stresses bedeviling the long-admired California system of higher education. In hindsight, many educators say, the system was allowed to grow too large in the 1960s and is now having difficulty adapting to the falling birth rate, a state fiscal crisis and changing demands from students" (7).

I am not saying that I have proven causation, even though I believe causation is indicated. I am saying that when we talk about why state and city budgets are always in the "red," and why they "don't have any money" for this and they "don't have any money" for that---the larger-than-life elephant in the room is the transfer of public resources to private, corporate profit. Furthermore, I believe that these resources are transferred for the reasons of psychological displacement I was talking about earlier: sour grapes-reverse sour grapes-projected sour grapes.

By the way, let me just mention this in passing. You know what else is a real budget drain on the resources of states and cities? That would be professional sports stadiums! Let me turn you on to a website, if you don't know: www.fieldofschemes.com

That's Field of Schemes!

Let's try it this way: My formula of "reverse sour grapes" and "projected sour grapes" was stated another way, far more elegantly and professionally, by one Dr. David Harvey, a radical social theorist, university professor, author, and activist.

In this passage he talks about the privatization phenomena; and he's talking about the late-1980s/early-1990s. As you read this passage, I also want you to think about the movie director-out-of-luck actor analogy I gave you before.

David Harvey: "In a desperate attempt to find more places to put the surplus capital, a vast wave of privatization swept around the world carried on the backs of the dogma that state-run enterprises are by definition inefficient and lax and that the only way to improve their performance is to pass them over to the private sector" (8).

Let's break that down

1. The "desperate attempt to find more places to put the surplus capital" is general business failure. The Fox fails to get the grapes on his own (sour grapes).

2. The "vast wave of privatization" that "swept around the world" is state bailout. The Fox has successfully appealed---on hands, knees, and belly---to Mighty Eagle. (reverse sour grapes).

3. The "carried on the backs of the dogma that state-run enterprises are by definition inefficient and lax" is the justification by which the Fox tries to escape his initial feelings of weakness and incompetence and helplessness, which caused him to have to go before Mighty Eagle on his hands, knees, and belly in the first place. (reverse sour grapes).

4. And, finally, "the only way to improve their performance is to pass them over to the private sector" part is an example of the (projected sour grapes) process. You see, it is not good to have such and such function in government hands!

The CUNY system, the City University of New York used to be tuition-free, once upon a time. Now it is not. Why?

You can read right on Wikipedia (City University of New York) the following: "In fall 1976, during New York City's fiscal crisis, the free tuition policy was discontinued under pressure from the federal government, the financial community that had a role in rescuing the city from bankruptcy, and New York State, which would take over the funding of CUNY's senior colleges."

There's a few things to say about this.

1. Why was the 1975-76 period considered to be a crisis?

You should know that the period after the end of World War Two until the mid-1970s, roughly 1945-1975, is considered to be the golden age of American capitalism. Basically the war had left all the other industrialized nations smashed. They had to rebuild by buying American stuff. What's more, they had to borrow American money to buy the American stuff.

But the thing is: Japan and Western Europe were not going to stay smashed forever. It sure is harder "competing" against healthy, industrialized economies than it is to enjoy an oligopolistic global position for three decades, in which the United States became, among other things, "the world's biggest creditor nation," and all that.

2. Who are "the financial community"? The financial community are banks. Banks handle the loans you all have to take out to go to college.

3. Because of the "economic crisis" of the mid-1970s, there was a business and industry "slow down" in the United States. This means that banks also suffered because this sector of the "financial community" had too few customers seeking to buy money from them in order to expand their businesses and hire more people, for one thing.

We have some evidence that the American business community, in the 1970s, were fraught with feelings of weakness, fear, helplessness, and incompetence---which they would have been anxious to displace.

Legendary public intellectual, scholar, activist, and author, Noam Chomsky, wrote this in a 2010 book:

"By the 1970s the business community was becoming concerned over the low rates of productivity and investment growth, as well as the failure of corporations to keep up with more advanced foreign methods." ---sour grapes---"The business press was calling for the 'reindustrialization of America'" (9) ---the Fox pleading to the Mighty Eagle on his hands, knees and belly for some sweet, delicious grapes (pleading for grapes).

Still quoting: "A major Pentagon program was rolled out in the 1970s, call MANTECH (manufacturing technology). It doubled its outlays as Reagan came into office. One of MANTECH's tasks was to design the 'factory of the future,' integrating computer technology and automation in production and design, developing flexible manufacturing technology and efficiency, in an effort to catch up with Japan and Europe" (10)---(the Fox gets the grapes from Mighty Eagle: reverse sour grapes).

Still quoting: "Under Reagan the Pentagon-supported research promoted new technologies in many areas including supercomputers, information technology, and further improvements to the Internet (initiated under Pentagon funding)" (11).

One more: "The Reagan administration also virtually doubled protective barriers, breaking all postwar records in protectionism. The purpose was to keep out superior Japanese products: steel, automobiles, semiconductors, computers, and others. The goal was not only to save domestic industries that could not compete, but also to place them in a dominant position for the 1990s --- now called a 'triumph of the market,' thanks in large measure to public subsidies, public sector innovation and development, protection, straight bailouts, and other devices" (12)---reverse sour grapes.

Now, we all know what the Reagan administration was all about in terms of domestic policy, right? I don't have to go into it, do I?

Take the term Welfare Queen. You can read this on Wikipedia: "The term 'welfare queen' became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore. Media hype from the 1980s to the 1990s also aided in perpetuating the idea. The term came under criticism for its supposed use as a political tool and for its derogatory connotations. Criticism focused on the fact that individuals committing welfare fraud were, in reality, a very small percentage of those legitimately receiving welfare. Use of the term was also seen as an attempt to stereotype recipients in order to undermine support for AFDC."

Still quoting: "The welfare queen idea became an integral part of a larger discourse on welfare reform, especially during the bipartisan effort to reform the welfare system under Bill Clinton. Anti-welfare advocates ended AFDC in 1996 and overhauled the system with the introduction of TANF. Despite the new system's time-limits, the welfare queen legacy has endured and continues to shape public perception."

I would call that projected sour apples writ large, the displacement of the business community's sense of weakness, fear, helplessness, and incompetence on to the rest of the population.

Other things happened in the 1970s. It seems that in 1973 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other cabinet members talked about using U.S. airborne forces to seize the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi (13).

Political economist Kevin Phillips explained that several factors gave rise to the temptation to invade those three countries; not least of which were: the topping out of U.S. oil production in 1970-71; and multiple Middle Eastern nationalizations of Western oil interests such as: (Iraq, 1972); (Libya, 1975); (Iran, 1979); (United Arab Emirates, 1967); (Algeria, 1969); (Nigeria, 1971); (Ecuador, 1973) (14).

I should say that there is a school of thought that believes that the Nixon administration colluded with the Saudis and Iranians to push oil prices sky-high in 1973. After all, it did far more damage to the European and Japanese economies than to the United States. The U.S. was not very dependent on Middle Eastern supplies (15).

In any case, the way it all worked out was that, in order to forestall an American invasion, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) agreed to uphold the dollar as the currency in which oil purchases had to be made. OPEC would also recycle those "petrodollars" through the purchases of US bonds and weapons systems (16).

That is to say, as Dr. David Harvey puts it: "US banks (rather than the IMF, which was the preferred agent of the other capitalist powers) gained the monopoly privilege of recycling the petrodollars into the world economy, thus bringing the Eurodollar market back home" (17).

What Dr. Harvey means by that is that the New York investment banks then took that incoming money (because it was inventory at that point, and not profit) and loaned it out to countries all over the developing world, countries like Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and Poland, for example (18).

I am not prepared to go into this, but it may be the case that the term loan, representing free and voluntary transactions, may be misleading. There may have been some coercion involved in getting some of these countries' leadership to "accept" the "loans" (19).

Finally, we are to understand that more than 40 countries, mainly in Latin America and Africa, had trouble repaying the 'loans,' when the interest rates suddenly rose after 1979. Mexico threatened bankruptcy in 1982. At that the United States promptly "invigorated" the IMF to get the money back. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) would become the "global debt collector," as Dr. Harvey would have it, and, thus, "structural adjustment" programs would proliferate around the world (20).

In this way, "New York became the financial centre of the global economy (this coupled with the internal deregulation of financial markets, allowed the city to recover from its crisis and to flourish to the point of incredible affluence and conspicuous consumption in the 1990s)" (21).

Question: Like EPMD once said, "So what'cha sayin'"?

Answer: What I am saying is: Look at this episode I have just described. Once again, it shows how the American industrial and financial community, during the 1970s, engaged in the sour grapes-reverse sour grapes-projected sour grapes process, to displace their own feelings of weakness, fear, helplessness, and incompetence, not only on to the broader domestic population, but on the foreign populations of dozens of other countries throughout the world

Question: Okay, I guess. But what does all this have to do with SAT testing again?

Answer: This clearest statement, I know of, about how the American big business and big financial community, engage in the sour grapes-reverse sour grapes-projected sour grapes process,---of displacing their own feelings of weakness, fear, helplessness, and incompetence on to others---as it specifically impacts education, comes from a sociologist called John Bellamy Foster.

In a 2011 article titled Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital we read:

"We live in an era of structural crisis associated with a new phase of capitalism: monopoly-finance capital. This phase is characterized by: (1) economic stagnation in the mature capitalist economies; (2) a dramatic shift to financialization, i.e., speculative bubbles as a means of economic expansion; and (3) the rapid concentration (and monopolization) of capital on a global scale. A consequence of the slow growth endemic to the developed economies is that the giant corporations that dominate today's economic world are compelled to search for new markets for investment, outside of their traditional fields of operation, leading to the takeover and privatization of key elements of the state economy. The political counterpart of monopoly-finance capital is therefore neoliberal restructuring, in which the state is increasingly cannibalized by private interests" (22).

Stay with me because we're still quoting Dr. Foster.

"It should hardly surprise us, under the circumstances that financial circles now increasingly refer to public education in the United States as an unexploited market opportunity --- or that the private education industry is calling for a further opening up of the multi-trillion-dollar global public education market to capital accumulation. Education, moreover, plays a crucial role in the development of the workforce, leading to growing neoliberal calls for its restructuring" (23).

Did you know that "financial circles now increasingly refer to public education in the United States as an unexploited market opportunity"?

And did you know that "the private education industry is," therefore "calling for a further opening up of the multi-trillion-dollar global public education market to capital accumulation"?

One more.

"The state of emergency of public education and the demand for its restructuring and privatization is to be viewed, then, as primarily the product of the current long-term period of economic and social instability. The structural crisis of capital as a whole is reflected in the struggle over schooling, which, far from being incidental to the system today, can now be seen as lying at or near its core. The result has been a resurgence of the long battle on the part of vested interests, to establish a commoditized school system, bringing education increasingly within the domain of the market. Every means is now used to achieve this end, including exploiting the contradiction of race and class, international competition, and economic instability itself" (25).

In other words, big business and big finance don't have anything better to do. If they had, they would not be doing education. Dr. Foster refers to a "state of emergency" concerning "public education and the demand for its restructuring and privatization."

What that means is that the big business and big finance community have made their hysteria, due to the "structural crisis of capital," our hysteria

Wrapping Up

A few things...

1. I am not saying that the business and financial community, in the United States of America, are responsible for creating the Standard Aptitude Test specifically.

2. I am saying something that everybody knows perfectly well: That the business/financial community is, however, the major driving force behind the intensified quantitative assessment of learning and the intensified privatization of education in the United States of America.

3. I am saying that ---and I hope I have demonstrated--- that the present attention of the business/financial community to education should not be taken any more or less seriously than as another investment opportunity.

4. For the business/financial community, education is an investment of last resort, so to speak, due to the "structural crisis of capital," which affords them few alternatives, a crisis which has required business to "search for new markets for investment, outside their traditional fields of operation, leading to the takeover and privatization of key elements of the state economy."

5. The "structural crisis of capital" has the business/financial community "shook,"---to use a certain vernacular. That is the feelings of weakness, fear, helplessness, and incompetence I have been talking about throughout this essay.

6. It seems to be a habit of the human organism, both as individuals and groups, to seek to "dump," if you will, our feelings of inadequacy on to others, thus clearing our own decks, as it were. Its like that movie being shown on ShowTime, It Follows. You have a ghost following you, and what you do is transfer your curse to another, so that "It" follows that other person instead of you.

7. Here's my oh so for real point: If the intensified quantitative assessment (and privatization) in and of public education in the United States of America, is---as I have maintained---the result of the direct manifestation of the business/financial community's "displacement" (through the sour grapes-reverse sour grapes-projected sour grapes process) of their own feelings of weakness, fear, helplessness and incompetence (by the way, I am not saying these feelings necessarily reflect reality; I am saying that I believe that is how I think the business/financial community feels, in the face of the "structural crisis of capital) on to other groups of people ------ then how can we actually ascribe objective value to the results?

I mean, isn't it like assembling a board certifying body composed of schizophrenics, obsessive-compulsives, various psychotics, and the like, to approve the licensing of mental health clinicians?

8. There's more I could say but I won't. I'll leave it there

9. Thank you for reading!

References

1. Russo, Gus. SuperMob: How Sidney Korshak And His Criminal Associates Became America's Hidden Power Brokers. Bloomsbury Press, 2006. 403-404

2. ibid, 403

3. ibid

4. ibid

5. ibid

6. Lindsey, R. (1982, Dec. 28). California Weighs End of Free College Education. (New York Times). Retrieved April 25, 2016.

7. ibid

8. Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital And The Crises of Capitalism. Oxford University Press, 2010. 28

9. Chomsky, Noam. Hopes and Prospects. Haymarket Books, 2010. 88

10. ibid

11. ibid, 88-89

12. ibid, 89

13. Phillips, Kevin. American Theocracy: The Peril And Politics Of Radical Religion, Oil, And Borrowed Money In The 21st Century. Viking (Penguin Group). 40-41

14. ibid

15. Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, 2003. 62

16. Phillips, Kevin. American Theocracy, 41

17. Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. 62

18. Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital.... 19

19. Perkins, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: The Shocking Inside Story of How America Really Took Over the World. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004.

20. Harvey, D. The Enigma... 19

21. Harvey, D. The New Imperialism. 62

22. Foster, J.B. (2011, January 7). Education and the Structural Crisis of Capital. Retrieved April 26, 2016.

23. ibid

24. ibid

25. ibid

More by this Author


2 comments

Frank Atanacio profile image

Frank Atanacio 7 months ago from Shelton

wow, this covered a great deal.. and you referenced so much.. which made it easier to ... digest? Once again you put together a very thorough hub.. good to see you my friend :)


wingedcentaur profile image

wingedcentaur 7 months ago from That Great Primordial Smash UP of This and That Which Gave Rise To All Beings and All Things! Author

Thanks, Frank! I'm glad to see I wasn't being too arcane and obscure. I worried about that.

Thanks again and take it easy.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working