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.
That's why our country is a mess and going down the tubes. We have an economy that does not "embrace" education across all spectrums and we do not value an educated populace. The only thing we value are slave and serfs who required the necessary skills to serve their masters. College is a racket like anything else. It's propped up by banks and our debt based monetary system. The people at the top of these institutions are making a killing! It's the people at the bottom that always suffer. I say MORE Americans should major in history. Let's face it 99.9% of jobs out there in our corporate economy really don't require an advanced degree. Unless it's some highly skilled profession like mathematics, science, engineering, medicine etc. Most cubicle corporate M-F 9-5 jobs can be done with a high school education and computer skills and the right training by an employer.
That's the entire problem. We've been brainwashed into believing college makes us all smarter and better workers. So society requires a piece of paper to do a job and meanwhile everyone lines up to get one because it's required by our corporate overlords. Why can't companies and corporations invest the money nowadays in training and educating their own people? Why can't companies and corporations actually take the time and investment in screening their new hires regardless of their educational background. Some of the most intelligent people and hardest workers I know are not college educated. In fact I'd say college is having the opposite effect it's supposed to have. We have kids that are coming out of college with no real skills, no real knowledge about anything and they are all feeling entitled and expecting to make $75K right out of school at 24 YEARS OLD! LOL.
But you can bet your ass the banks and the financial companies on Wallstreet who are underwriting all these loans and funny money are making a killing. That's how the pyramid scheme that is the American economy works nowadays.
Being more educated does not mean you are smarter. Education fills in the void of ignorance.
The topic is the idea of reducing cost of education. Why do you claim it is a non-issue for conservatives?
It's a non-issue in that conservatives won't be the ones who oppose merit based college entrances. *Sigh* I thought we were making progress in this dialogue and already agreed on this point, yet you continue to deflect on it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
The argument that "we can't afford it" wasn't exactly off topic to which the response was offered.
Whatever, I'm not addressing that unless you want to start a new thread about the GI bill or whatnot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You're manufacturing a disconnect here when the point made was that people desire better prospects and that higher education is seen as one. Hey, if you want to push against higher education in your family, through your kids and grand kids and so on, it is still your choice.
Not a chance. My kids will go to college and earn degrees in fields where they will have marketable skills. Does it make sense to go $100K into debt to attain an Art History degree with no prospect of being employed as an Art Historian?
Yes, people desire better prospects but we (as a nation) are allowing universities to dictate fallacies about employment prospects for a myriad of chosen degrees. It's stupidity. You tell me why Indians major in the sciences, medicine, and technology. Their educational system isn't bs'ing them into thinking that they can get a degree in gender equality and make an actual living. And as a disclaimer, I have no problem with people getting these degrees as a hobby or interest, but don't expect government subsidies for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You're correct in that we weren't discussing what you responded with. My point, to repeat, was that the fear of having more educated populace is unwarranted and unnecessary. IMO, what a person desires, seeks and accomplishes should be determined by their talent and hard work, not by the amount of wealth they have access to.
Okay, but in the context of free education for the upper 25% (what you and I have been discussing as proposals), we need accountability. We need graduates to fill needed gaps, not to philosophize about dialectal differences between Aboriginal tribes of India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Because Americans have been a part of a pampered society and that is changing. But, why do you think that it would be any better for Americans to be uneducated instead? Would they then be able to compete with the Indians and Asians in general?
You are mischaracterizing my point. I don't yearn for an uneducated populace. I yearn for a more appropriately educated populace. Are our Art Historians really competing with the Indians or Asians, or are they working retail because they can't find a job in their chosen field? The whole point of public education is to fill societal needs. Trade schools, apprenticeships, mentoring/preceptorship, and targeted education all play a vital role in preparing for a productive workforce. Yes, institutions of higher education also play a role, but they shouldn't be looked on as the ONLY key to better prospects of gainful employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Universities and even book publishing houses are indeed into money making scheme. You can't blame them, considering the society that we've pushed for over the years. We will have to reap the results at some point in time, if not right now. Same story with the health care system. As for the perceived disconnect between degrees and actual work, it would be hard to disagree, but a perspective can change that. If education and degrees in general were merely about a specific task, that would be true. But there is a lot more to it, the idea of critical thinking for example. I'm a project manager (IT) and technically my major in robotics doesn't really come into play. But, the fact that throughout the academic years, the emphasis was on observation and analysis, and evolution of technologies. Any profession requires one to grow with the technology, sometimes drastically different from what would have been. If we were stuck with the norm, we wouldn't have anything new. We're no longer using land lines as THE technology to connect to the internet. I was working on FIOS about ten years ago, the abilities and experience acquired while pursuing my engineering that had telecommunications but using the early 1990s technology.
I could have chosen to "train" as a landline personnel, and re-trained to work on FIOS, but what required development work on the new technology? Education.
In your specific field, it worked out for you. In most, however, the degree in ancient hebrew studies doesn't translate quite as well ( no pun intended).
1. I know from personal experience that merit scholarships do exist and provide a great way to pay for an education. Generally, the biggest awards are institutional scholarships offered to entering freshmen.
But while I wholeheartedly recommend that college-bound students work hard in high school in order to earn scholarships, this is not a solution to college costs. The reality is that schools offer merit scholarships in order to get desired students. Students not significantly above the average profile for a school don't need to be recruited. Thus, only the top x% of entering freshmen can expect to receive merit $. There would be no need for scholarships if everyone got them.
2. While the OP makes some interesting suggestions regarding work-study-like educational offerings, I doubt whether such measures would make a major dent in college costs.
3. America's research universities contribute a lot to our country. While an argument can be made that national laboratories are an even better setting for advanced research, there is no doubt that we benefit from the efforts of our research universities today. However, I do not believe that every single university needs to be a research powerhouse. It doesn't take a Fields Medalist to teach Calc I. Expensive research faculty should be concentrated in flagship institutions and we should not reward schools for hiring top faculty outside the scope of their teaching mission.
4. Transparency is essential. Some schools do a good job of this; others do not. The first question that must be answered is: how much does it cost to educate a student here? The second is: why does it cost that much? It's impossible to set a budget if we don't know how the dollars are spent.
5. Tenure isn't common in any other industry. There's no reason it should be commonplace in higher ed.
6. College students should be able to read, write, and perform simple computations before they ever step onto campus. While I don't deny that a liberal education can have value, requiring students to take courses unrelated to their field doesn't make sense. Students are certainly free to stay a little longer and pay a little more to take those courses if they want to do so, but I don't see the benefit to elaborate graduation requirements. Except for faculty in departments that would otherwise be underenrolled, of course.
It's a non-issue in that conservatives won't be the ones who oppose merit based college entrances. *Sigh* I thought we were making progress in this dialogue and already agreed on this point, yet you continue to deflect on it...
Got evidence? I've personally seen a bipartisan opposition to the issue.
Quote:
Not a chance. My kids will go to college and earn degrees in fields where they will have marketable skills. Does it make sense to go $100K into debt to attain an Art History degree with no prospect of being employed as an Art Historian?
Well, my primary point is that it shouldn't force anybody into $100K in debt for anybody to get educated, regardless of the major. Now, why do you favor higher education? I thought you had a stance on it being unnecessary?
Quote:
Yes, people desire better prospects but we (as a nation) are allowing universities to dictate fallacies about employment prospects for a myriad of chosen degrees. It's stupidity. You tell me why Indians major in the sciences, medicine, and technology. Their educational system isn't bs'ing them into thinking that they can get a degree in gender equality and make an actual living. And as a disclaimer, I have no problem with people getting these degrees as a hobby or interest, but don't expect government subsidies for it.
Indians major in the sciences, medicine and technology because they have invested in an excellent public higher education system, allowing ALL to compete the best they can and reap the benefits. They also major in those areas because the culture is far more open to accepting the realities and preparing for them. Heck, I wouldn't mind sending my kids there to study, if they can manage to qualify.
In a system that rewards selling a rotting cow as healthy meat, why wouldn't universities try to sell anything they want to? Why not have a system that discourages that practice instead of limiting people's choices? If someone wants to be an arts major, why not?
The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.
- John Adams
It is funny that the founders were far more progressive in the 18th century than I see many people today.
Quote:
Okay, but in the context of free education for the upper 25% (what you and I have been discussing as proposals), we need accountability. We need graduates to fill needed gaps, not to philosophize about dialectal differences between Aboriginal tribes of India.
Who, and what, decided your career path for you, that you must fill in or get lost? Can I safely assume that you chose your own path, seeing your best interests to build a career like I did?
Quote:
You are mischaracterizing my point. I don't yearn for an uneducated populace. I yearn for a more appropriately educated populace. Are our Art Historians really competing with the Indians or Asians, or are they working retail because they can't find a job in their chosen field? The whole point of public education is to fill societal needs...
Not necessarily. The point of public education is to provide an easier access to education so people can pursue their dreams be it arts or science.
Quote:
In your specific field, it worked out for you. In most, however, the degree in ancient hebrew studies doesn't translate quite as well ( no pun intended).
Very few people choose such narrow fields. Demand and supply, via competence.
Got evidence? I've personally seen a bipartisan opposition to the issue.
Please, do provide evidence to that effect. You really believe that the liberal left won't voice accusations of racism? Tracking in high schools and middle schools has already been viewed as racist by the liberal left, why do you think it wouldn't be if that were used for college admittance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, my primary point is that it shouldn't force anybody into $100K in debt for anybody to get educated, regardless of the major. Now, why do you favor higher education? I thought you had a stance on it being unnecessary?
I pose this as an honest question, do you have difficulties in reading comprehension? Where have I ever stated that higher education is unnecessary? I repeat, traditional college and university education is not the best career path for a majority of high schoolers. The upper 25% or so, sure. The rest could be better suited to go to trade schools, engage in internships, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, etc. I personally favor higher education for my two kids because they will be suited for such an education as they are in the top 1 and 5% on nationally normed testing respectively. College/university is an appropriate placement for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Indians major in the sciences, medicine and technology because they have invested in an excellent public higher education system, allowing ALL to compete the best they can and reap the benefits. They also major in those areas because the culture is far more open to accepting the realities and preparing for them. Heck, I wouldn't mind sending my kids there to study, if they can manage to qualify.
So, what is it about our culture that isn't preparing our students as adequately as the Indians are? Could it have something to do with the fields of study that Indians pick vs. the ones that our students choose? And why do you think our students routinely choose fields of study that don't lead to gainful employment? Are you suggesting that we should emulate the Indian culture's attitude towards higher education and emphasize the sciences as opposed to basket weaving?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
In a system that rewards selling a rotting cow as healthy meat, why wouldn't universities try to sell anything they want to? Why not have a system that discourages that practice instead of limiting people's choices? If someone wants to be an arts major, why not?
You contradict your own assertions. You glorify the Indian culture and how they "happen to hold an edge over every other ethnicity in terms of income", and state "Indians make up only 1% of the American population and yet, 15% of Scientists, Doctors and Engineers happen to be Indians. In other words, an Indian American is 15 times as likely to be in one of those professions as an average American.".... yet they aren't the ones avidly pursuing worthless Art History degrees, are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Who, and what, decided your career path for you, that you must fill in or get lost? Can I safely assume that you chose your own path, seeing your best interests to build a career like I did?
I chose my career path based on interest and employability as well as potential for earnings. I would wager to guess than many college aged kids don't take employability and earnings potential into account when deciding on majors though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Not necessarily. The point of public education is to provide an easier access to education so people can pursue their dreams be it arts or science.
Then why do we, as a society, place any value on education if we're simply pumping out the art majors who can't find a job to save their lives? What benefit to society does that serve? I disagree. The importance of public education is to cultivate an appropriately educated and productive society... not to fulfill someone's lifelong dreams to study art history. Weren't you the one saying that we live in a pampered society? Telling kids that they can pursue whatever degree they dream of without regard to employability is pampering, not to mention a complete disservice to those kids. We now have a nation full of unemployed people with worthless degrees that taxpayers helped subsidize. Where is the return on that investment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Very few people choose such narrow fields. Demand and supply, via competence.
Many do choose worthless (read: unemployable) fields though, don't they?
Yes. I posted a link about this earlier in this thread. I know loads of college students, some with stellar grades, who did not get any scholarship money at all.
Did they apply for any? There are hundreds of scholarship programs out there.
We attend college to get EDUCATED, not to learn a SKILL.
If that is the case do it entirely on your own dime. No scholarship, no grants, no loans. (How do you intend to pay the loans off if you don't get a job?)
MOST people seek a higher education so they can land a better job.
Getting "educated" of and in itself is OK for self gratifaction. It is really what you do with that education that counts for most people.
Please, do provide evidence to that effect. You really believe that the liberal left won't voice accusations of racism? Tracking in high schools and middle schools has already been viewed as racist by the liberal left, why do you think it wouldn't be if that were used for college admittance?
Now you've managed to squeeze in "racism" into play. Going back the the idea of tracking and competence, how about me being an example who supports it, the evidence that the left doesn't walk in lock-step. Does that not apply to conservatives?
Quote:
I pose this as an honest question, do you have difficulties in reading comprehension? Where have I ever stated that higher education is unnecessary? I repeat, traditional college and university education is not the best career path for a majority of high schoolers.
And have you not read that my point isn't about forcing people into higher education but about making it accessible to all. When you're arguing with me on that, I must assume you're opposed to it.
Quote:
So, what is it about our culture that isn't preparing our students as adequately as the Indians are? Could it have something to do with the fields of study that Indians pick vs. the ones that our students choose?
This thread illustrates plenty of what we're about. Couple of weeks ago, I was in India and hosted by a family with two kids. Both parents being doctors, I asked the kids (about 10 and 5) what they wanted to be. Well, it didn't surprise me the older wanted to be a doctor. The younger, more playfully, said she wanted to be an airline pilot and would like to fly me to India regularly. Trust me, both kids will be tracking for a career, likely in medicine, science or engineering. This is the norm over there. The talk about... higher education is unnecessary doesn't exist. There is no life for people who think like that. Here in America, I've had colleagues who were high school drop outs. Clearly, things came in easy here. And trust me, that is NOT the future.
Quote:
You contradict your own assertions. You glorify the Indian culture and how they "happen to hold an edge over every other ethnicity in terms of income", and state "Indians make up only 1% of the American population and yet, 15% of Scientists, Doctors and Engineers happen to be Indians. In other words, an Indian American is 15 times as likely to be in one of those professions as an average American.".... yet they aren't the ones avidly pursuing worthless Art History degrees, are they?
They pursue where they see an opportunity. This is no glorification, it is the reality. Why do you feel we couldn't do that?
Quote:
I chose my career path based on interest and employability as well as potential for earnings. I would wager to guess than many college aged kids don't take employability and earnings potential into account when deciding on majors though.
That is your opinion, which you should keep to self and not make it an agenda to push for certain policies. Respect an individual and their choices. They stand to benefit or be at the receiving end from whatever they go for.
Quote:
Then why do we, as a society, place any value on education if we're simply pumping out the art majors who can't find a job to save their lives?
Do you want education to be limited to only Science, Engineering and Medicine? Trust me, there is room for EVERY discipline. Social engineering is a dictatorial trait. Let people decide what works best for them.
Quote:
What benefit to society does that serve? I disagree. The importance of public education is to cultivate an appropriately educated and productive society... not to fulfill someone's lifelong dreams to study art history.
That would be because you've a very limited idea of the world and its needs. But, are you all about this disgust of yours towards arts and its studies or do you have something to contribute towards the title of the thread which is about cost and education?
Now you've managed to squeeze in "racism" into play. Going back the the idea of tracking and competence, how about me being an example who supports it, the evidence that the left doesn't walk in lock-step. Does that not apply to conservatives?
As if this is something new? Why do you think I mentioned Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson several posts back? Of course there will be cries of racism! Glad to know you don't follow lock-step with your party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And have you not read that my point isn't about forcing people into higher education but about making it accessible to all. When you're arguing with me on that, I must assume you're opposed to it.
Pick a stance. You also stated that you would be in favor of only allowing the top 25% go on to publicly funded higher ed... to which I agree. I assume where we disagree is that I don't see the societal benefit in higher education for ALL paid for by the taxpayer. The top 25%, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
This thread illustrates plenty of what we're about. Couple of weeks ago, I was in India and hosted by a family with two kids. Both parents being doctors, I asked the kids (about 10 and 5) what they wanted to be. Well, it didn't surprise me the older wanted to be a doctor. The younger, more playfully, said she wanted to be an airline pilot and would like to fly me to India regularly. Trust me, both kids will be tracking for a career, likely in medicine, science or engineering. This is the norm over there. The talk about... higher education is unnecessary doesn't exist. There is no life for people who think like that. Here in America, I've had colleagues who were high school drop outs. Clearly, things came in easy here. And trust me, that is NOT the future.
... because they are majoring in high demand fields of study. And again, I never said that higher education is unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
They pursue where they see an opportunity. This is no glorification, it is the reality. Why do you feel we couldn't do that?
It's not that we can't, it's that we don't. Pampered society, as you so eloquently put it. "Pursue your dreams"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
That is your opinion, which you should keep to self and not make it an agenda to push for certain policies. Respect an individual and their choices. They stand to benefit or be at the receiving end from whatever they go for.
I respect an individual's choice to pursue whatever field of study they choose. Just don't look for government handouts so that you can learn about Art during the Byzantine period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Do you want education to be limited to only Science, Engineering and Medicine? Trust me, there is room for EVERY discipline. Social engineering is a dictatorial trait. Let people decide what works best for them.
Yes, there is room for every discipline. I'm asserting that we should incentivize people to go into fields where there is high demand though. Publicly funded higher education for degrees in fields of high demand is what I am espousing. Privately funded higher ed for all others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
That would be because you've a very limited idea of the world and its needs. But, are you all about this disgust of yours towards arts and its studies or do you have something to contribute towards the title of the thread which is about cost and education?
No disgust whatsoever. If you want to pursue a worthless degree, don't expect the taxpayers to fund it. That's my point. Publicly funded education for the top 25% of students who pursue degrees in fields of high demand. Pretty simple and directly contributes to the discussion of cost.
Gotta run, it's been fun.
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.
Going back the the idea of tracking and competence, how about me being an example who supports it, the evidence that the left doesn't walk in lock-step. Does that not apply to conservatives?
