Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't just venerate local control. We venerate the common man and common sense. Education is viewed as some sort of snobbish elitism. Those who are educated are supposed to have some how lost touch and even worse they have lost common sense and have become absent minded.
Ironic, isn't it, how those "one-size-fits-all commies" are actually the meritocracy, while the hyper-competitive, excellence-seeking USA, instead venerates local control - and assigns excellence (or lack thereof) by neighborhood? Likewise with those tree-hugging European "socialists". And pretty much any advanced or semi-advanced nation. They all have active and vigorous schemes of stratifying students based on ability, and offering the more-able the better academic options.
Also ironic, is how in most nations, the city is regarded as the aegis of culture and advancement, while in America, it's the countryside that's wholesome and upstanding, while cities are supposedly cesspools of turpitude, depravity and waste? Ah yes, that perennial Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian debate. History, one would think, has vindicated one side. American exceptionalism clings to the other.
Your response is hilarious 😆 for good reasons. I am not disagreeing at all! That was the look on their faces and the substance of some of their questions. What,why and how are your cities not the cradle of your tomorrow.
How and why do you not nurture your best to help build a better tomorrow for all?
Your response is hilarious 😆 for good reasons. I am not disagreeing at all! That was the look on their faces and the substance of some of their questions. What,why and how are your cities not the cradle of your tomorrow.
How and why do you not nurture your best to help build a better tomorrow for all?
It’s not hilarious. It’s the Faux News spin that gets white trash to vote against their economic interests by stressing lunatic fringe social issues. “They’re gonna take your guns.” Those brown people are gonna take your jobs.” “Them A-rabs is all terrorists.” School prayer. Flag burning.
It’s really effective. At least until the crazed economic policies of 2018 crater the economy. A national debt 2x GDP is not going to end well.
You should always be concerned when something is "sold" to you with a cartoon!
Ok, so my MIL was always poor - very poor. Lower middle class and approaching poverty level. Family of 4 - Dad never really made it in any job (did this and that, but no decent $$). Mom worked as an attendance lady in the school.
Their row house was worth very little. They had almost no savings. Yet:
1. They moved to Florida - there were great Florida communities with every service...and 50K for 2/2 condo (their row house sold for that).
2. She always had health care from the school system and also a pension. SS and Medicare also. For much of retirement their expenses were less than the monthly income stream, so they saved money. Dad died and Mom got a second lease on life - enjoyed herself and had what she needed (she is a depression baby, so doesn't need much).
In the end (she is still alive, but failing) she had a net worth of over 200K and the continuing income stream of perhaps $3500 per month. Sure, she won't be going to the 100K per year assisted living. But her health is failing and so she likely will have to go somewhere (Living with her son now - he doesn't take good care, and the cost of home care probably exceeds assisted living...let alone the social advantages.
We have offered to help but I doubt she will take it. Her son is looking to steal (waylay) all of that money as he thinks it is rightfully his (we think it's for her care!). In any case, I have other friends and relatives who have been able to find decent assisted living for as little as 60K per year. She's 97 and I doubt she has even 2 years left.
And so - if a very poor family can make it, so can a lot of other people.
I have 2 degrees, one of which is somewhat useful. I'm still not convinced we can't merely train high schoolers to do most jobs including mine which is an applied scientist role. The educational arms race is perpetuated by those with a vested interest in keeping it that way. Wealthy people use "lack of education" as a reason for keeping many competent employees salaries low. But many surveys show people don't actually learn anything in school. It's mostly signalling.
My grandfather worked as a union factory worker in the 50s-1990s and by the end was using computers and basic computer programming. My cousin who was a mechanical engineer at a production facility told him about his job and my grandfather commented he had done much of the same work before he retired. The only difference is my cousin had 100k of student loans and my grandfather bought a house at 25
I have 2 degrees, one of which is somewhat useful. I'm still not convinced we can't merely train high schoolers to do most jobs including mine which is an applied scientist role. The educational arms race is perpetuated by those with a vested interest in keeping it that way. Wealthy people use "lack of education" as a reason for keeping many competent employees salaries low. But many surveys show people don't actually learn anything in school. It's mostly signalling.
My grandfather worked as a union factory worker in the 50s-1990s and by the end was using computers and basic computer programming. My cousin who was a mechanical engineer at a production facility told him about his job and my grandfather commented he had done much of the same work before he retired. The only difference is my cousin had 100k of student loans and my grandfather bought a house at 25
There are multiple sides to this. Take the most venerated profession of all: medicine. How much of the daily job of a general-practitioner requires expansive and abstruse medical knowledge? I gather that nearly all of it could be absorbed by a generally-educated person, after a couple of years of on-the-job apprenticeship, shadowing a practicing medical doctor. But that’s not how the system works.
Likewise in science. Much of the practical “science” is the operation of equipment, the taking of data, the processing of data (most of it automated) and the writing of papers. It requires math, through the first two years of college; the equivalent of Freshman Composition, for writing-skills; and the rest could again be learned through apprenticeship.
However, every profession has its subtleties and its requirements for creative insight; otherwise it’s not a profession. True professionals don’t merely ply their trade using existing knowledge, but actively work to extend that knowledge… to do the experiments, document them and then advocate publicly for their conclusions.
For some more clarity, consider the reverse proposition. I am not a tradesman, and admire the acumen of skilled tradesmen. Take for example machining. I’ve dabbled in using a mill and lathe. I can do probably 80% of the work of an expert machinist, who’s not only properly trained, but who’s been doing this for 40+ years. Does this mean that that guy’s training and experience are superfluous? No, of course not… because of that other 20%, which I can’t do.
In sum, your grandfather could probably do 80% of what your cousin does. But could he do the remaining 20%?
There are multiple sides to this. Take the most venerated profession of all: medicine. How much of the daily job of a general-practitioner requires expansive and abstruse medical knowledge? I gather that nearly all of it could be absorbed by a generally-educated person, after a couple of years of on-the-job apprenticeship, shadowing a practicing medical doctor. But that’s not how the system works.
Likewise in science. Much of the practical “science” is the operation of equipment, the taking of data, the processing of data (most of it automated) and the writing of papers. It requires math, through the first two years of college; the equivalent of Freshman Composition, for writing-skills; and the rest could again be learned through apprenticeship.
........
I have been around the medical profession my entire working career. Believe me the knowledge required to practice modern medicine is all but beyond human capability. Physicians study and train for years and years before they even start to practice on their own. Then they face a lifetime of continuing education. I have had my share of poor medical diagnostics and inappropriate therapies. I research every physician I considering visiting. I only go to those from the best medical schools and general then look for those who are in very exclusive medical practice groups. Even then I have changed docs many times. In case you think I am being excessively cautious, I will remind you that the current estimates are that medical "errors" in the US cause nearly 300,000 deaths per year. The vast majority of the patients and their families never realized that anything went wrong.
When is comes to "science" we use the term vaguely. We often think of some sort of equipment operator, or tech or applications specialist. The more precise definition is expansion of our knowledge of the physical and natural world through experimentation, observation, and study. The key is expanding knowledge not just a tech field that applies what is known. When the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957 there was a lot of concern. How did the relatively primitive society manage to beat us into space. The bottom line was their German scientists were better than ours. Sadly, science education in the US was very far behind. Congress was willing to spend whatever it took but wanted instant success. Instead they learned how long it takes to educate a scientist who is working at the edge of discovery. Education begins with basic knowledge from grade school, then 4 more years of college, then an average of 4-5 years of graduate school. At which point the successful survivors of the system are ready to begin doing post doc work and competing for jobs. That is an average of 2 more years to begin a potentially productive career. Since the post Sputnik era, science education has sunk again. It is just too many years and too much work for little reward. It is easier to just import our scientists from abroad.
I don't think dumbing down education is a solution for the future. Future jobs need more highly educated workers than ever in the past. Those without education or high level skills have been sinking and that will continue at an increasing rate.
Unfortunately education is not keeping up. As more attend college, the requirements to graduate seem to be eroding at a rapid rate. Students want good grades for just showing up. Teachers are evaluated by the students. The logical outcome is not hard to understand. Years ago I was shocked to find out that college is now a 4 day a week endeavor. A full course load seems to have dropped to 12 credits. That is 4 courses that meet 3 times a week for a grand total of 12 hours.
I have been around the medical profession my entire working career. Believe me the knowledge required to practice modern medicine is all but beyond human capability. Physicians study and train for years and years before they even start to practice on their own.
I don't think dumbing down education is a solution for the future. Future jobs need more highly educated workers than ever in the past. Those without education or high level skills have been sinking and that will continue at an increasing rate.
.
Physicians obviously need education. But a full undergrad degree probably isn't all that helpful. Also medical errors can be at least partially attributed to the bizarre residency system. The American Residency has such extreme hours because it was started by a cocaine addicted nut job physician at John's Hopkins in the 19th century.
Because the amount of information and the high costs of doctors I wouldn't be surprised to see out of country reviews of patients by by physicians abroad using video chat and AI machinery that can help diagnose people in the next 20-30yrs.
Other jobs often have vague education requirements just to weed people out. But to make people competent at different skills employees need to be trained. That's why many jobs require so much experience leaving new grads out in the cold. Skills don't necessarily need to be acquired through college and are sometimes vague anyway.
Lower income students PROPERLY proportioned in suburban districts from their beginning public schools can escape their low income status.
My high school was approximately 50% affluent, 25% middle class, and 25% working class. It was overwhelmingly white, as was the county overall. There were more immigrant European kids than American-born racial minority kids. There was a significant minority of Jewish kids. (Just telling it like it was in the 1980s in this corner of "leafy" suburbia -- one or two black families, perhaps four or five Hispanic families -- de facto segregation largely devolved from historic housing discrimination.)
Anyhow, some of the brightest kids came from the lower incomes, and the school did a remarkable job getting all of the talented kids into college. I found the same was true at my East Coast liberal arts college -- some of the best students came from working class roots from Midwestern cities. Meanwhile many of the affluent high school kids went on to the big state "party" universities for degrees of ambiguous value.
Flash forward 30 years later -- many of those affluent kids are back in the same suburbs with kids of their own. I suspect a good number inherited money and never really worked in a career. But only a few of them achieved much professionally. The kids who did the best were the middle and lower class kids who worked hard. They largely moved out to the coasts and left the Midwest behind.
...When the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957 there was a lot of concern. How did the relatively primitive society manage to beat us into space. The bottom line was their German scientists were better than ours.
That is part of it. The other part is that by then, Russia had multiple generations of its own first-rate scientists, trained either in its domestic German-inspired universities, or in Germany itself. And fortunately, not all of these scientists were murdered in the orgy of political violence, 1917-1953. Indeed, for a time, to be a physicist/mathematician/engineer, was one of the most prestigious jobs in the former USSR. The society itself was shockingly primitive, in terms of say the majority of peasants in 1957 still not having indoor plumbing, and a large part of construction projects still being done with spades and shovels, as opposed to tractors. But it was a stratified society, with unabashed emphasis on advancing the sciences. If material comforts were at all prized, it was in Moscow or St. Petersburg, and even then, for those who were more equal than others.
It is easy to scoff and this, and perhaps rightly so. But for a cash-strapped society to rapidly improve itself, the effort was pretty spectacular… especially considering their self-inflicted injuries. Indeed, the great tragedy of modern America, is not at all that things are going badly, but rather, that given the resources and comparative peace and so forth, things ought to be going much better, than has recently been possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny
...Education begins with basic knowledge from grade school, then 4 more years of college, then an average of 4-5 years of graduate school. At which point the successful survivors of the system are ready to begin doing post doc work and competing for jobs. ...
Having survived those 4-5 years of grad school, and nearly burning out, I can’t disagree with your assessment. The key point devolves, I think, to the 80-20 rule: 80% of what’s needed, stems from 20% of the input. Or alternatively, the difference between a practitioner with extensive formal training, and an autodidact (or enterprising amateur) is maybe 20% of the professional load, while the aspirant is missing 80% of the professional’s education. But that 20% makes all of the difference. These numbers are admittedly arbitrary. Thinking about my own education and job, it’s hard to be unbiased, about what actually requires sophisticated training, and what – to borrow the phrasing from another of our recent exchanges, is mere common sense.
Going a bit on a tangent, I’d opine that the problem in modern America isn’t that our STEM PhDs are inferior, or too expensive to educate (though the latter is true). Rather, the opportunities for them are questionable. How can this be? Don’t we have a shortage of qualified people? Yes, and no. We have a shortage overall, of well-educated people, who are scientifically-minded and motivated to do fundamental research. But even worse is our shortage of suitable positions, where these folks could ply their craft, instead of spending most of their time on Powerpoint or prostituting themselves for funding. Increasingly, in R&D, the “D” is emphasized, the “R” diminished. And this, one gathers, bodes ill for long-term productivity growth… or ultimately, for increase in prosperity… or even more ultimately, a comfortable retirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender
...some of the best students came from working class roots from Midwestern cities. ... The kids who did the best were the middle and lower class kids who worked hard. They largely moved out to the coasts and left the Midwest behind.
Indeed. The Midwest can (and often does) do a fine job of parenting, launching forth its brightest. But where do these best-and-brightest end up? Many (most?), one figures, in the Coastal cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
