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.
IMO, college education should be reformatted. The university core is not really necessary if elementary, Junior H.S and H.S does it job.
The University core should be just 1 semester. Business math, Business communications (written and public speaking), Microsoft Office, and Personal Finance. Afterwards, you can start your major. Potentially with the restructure a person can graduate with both a major w/minor degree.
College is way overpriced for the amount of actual class time that you receive. Don't get me started on the college textbooks that some teachers don't even use.
I was speaking to someone about this just last night, specifically about the professors that publish their own books (required for the course) or spending two to three hundred dollars for one text book but then the resale value is $20 if you’re lucky. I learned quickly and started renting the ones I could.
IMO, college education should be reformatted. The university core is not really necessary if elementary, Junior H.S and H.S does it job.
The University core should be just 1 semester. Business math, Business communications (written and public speaking), Microsoft Office, and Personal Finance. Afterwards, you can start your major. Potentially with the restructure a person can graduate with both a major w/minor degree.
College is way overpriced for the amount of actual class time that you receive. Don't get me started on the college textbooks that some teachers don't even use.
IIRC, I didn't have to pay for books at my university in Europe. It was an international private school, but whatever we needed, they gave us handouts. However, in the US, I definitely recall paying a pretty penny for my books at least for some classes, but that's what it was.
I don't necessarily agree with getting rid of the core. Nothing wrong with taking some general classes. I took Anthropology and Psychology as a freshman, even though they weren't needed for my major, but I learned something different. The professors for the Psychology lecture class wanted me to major in it, but I said no thanks. lol
I also found all of my English classes to be great for improving my writing skills even further, despite taking AP English in high school (didn't pass the AP exam for college credit, but it wasn't the end of the world). I had one professor for two Shakespeare classes that were excellent.
This is actually quite funny! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic, weren't you?
Dictionary
Search for a word
lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Learn to pronounce
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
IMO, college education should be reformatted. The university core is not really necessary if elementary, Junior H.S and H.S does it job.
The University core should be just 1 semester. Business math, Business communications (written and public speaking), Microsoft Office, and Personal Finance. Afterwards, you can start your major. Potentially with the restructure a person can graduate with both a major w/minor degree.
College is way overpriced for the amount of actual class time that you receive. Don't get me started on the college textbooks that some teachers don't even use.
It's all a scam
That's why Becky is in prison, because she tried to scam the scammers.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I'm an atheist who couldn't care less about others "family values".
Pretty sure there was a comment about family values and liberals not having them. I only referenced church people to have common set of ideas of what family values mean. It has nothing to do with being a theist.
Pretty sure there was a comment about family values and liberals not having them. I only referenced church people to have common set of ideas of what family values mean. It has nothing to do with being a theist.
These people are complete self destructive imbeciles
David Brooks is considered a moderate conservative.
Quote:
Brooks was widely regarded as a moderate conservative. Although he agreed with neoconservatives that the United States should use its military might to advance its interests abroad, he supported limited government regulation of the economy and even championed some liberal causes, such as same-sex marriage.
This link you posted is a story
Quote:
If you want to summarize the changes in family structure over the past century, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options. The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.
There is nothing untrue about this. I am a strong believer of both personal agency and extended family, even if that extended family is not made by blood ties. The nuclear family never really worked because it places too much burden on one individual when those responsibilities would be better served spread out.
Quote:
For another thing, nuclear families in this era were much more connected to other nuclear families than they are today—constituting a “modified extended family,” as the sociologist Eugene Litwak calls it, “a coalition of nuclear families in a state of mutual dependence.”
Even as a child, the mothers would be watching ALL of us and if one mom yelled at you, you better listen or there would be hell to pay.
Quote:
In short, the period from 1950 to 1965 demonstrated that a stable society can be built around nuclear families—so long as women are relegated to the household, nuclear families are so intertwined that they are basically extended families by another name, and every economic and sociological condition in society is working together to support the institution.
But these conditions did not last. The constellation of forces that had briefly shored up the nuclear family began to fall away, and the sheltered family of the 1950s was supplanted by the stressed family of every decade since. Some of the strains were economic. Starting in the mid-’70s, young men’s wages declined, putting pressure on working-class families in particular.
Ah the era that a few pull em up by the boot strap retirees use as evidence that they can do it, so can you.
Quote:
Over the past two generations, the physical space separating nuclear families has widened. Before, sisters-in-law shouted greetings across the street at each other from their porches. Kids would dash from home to home and eat out of whoever’s fridge was closest by. But lawns have grown more expansive and porch life has declined, creating a buffer of space that separates the house and family from anyone else. As Mandy Len Catron recently noted in The Atlantic, married people are less likely to visit parents and siblings, and less inclined to help them do chores or offer emotional support. A code of family self-sufficiency prevails: Mom, Dad, and the kids are on their own, with a barrier around their island home.
This is sad.
Quote:
Affluent people have the resources to effectively buy extended family, in order to shore themselves up. Think of all the child-rearing labor affluent parents now buy that used to be done by extended kin
These expensive tools and services not only support children’s development and help prepare them to compete in the meritocracy;
Affluent conservatives often pat themselves on the back for having stable nuclear families. They preach that everybody else should build stable families too. But then they ignore one of the main reasons their own families are stable: They can afford to purchase the support that extended family used to provide—and that the people they preach at, further down the income scale, cannot.
Below gets really into the heart of all the discussions in this forum. Seems cyclical and hard to dig out of.
Quote:
People who grow up in a nuclear family tend to have a more individualistic mind-set than people who grow up in a multigenerational extended clan. People with an individualistic mind-set tend to be less willing to sacrifice self for the sake of the family, and the result is more family disruption. People who grow up in disrupted families have more trouble getting the education they need to have prosperous careers. People who don’t have prosperous careers have trouble building stable families, because of financial challenges and other stressors. The children in those families become more isolated and more traumatized.
Many people growing up in this era have no secure base from which to launch themselves and no well-defined pathway to adulthood. For those who have the human capital to explore, fall down, and have their fall cushioned, that means great freedom and opportunity—and for those who lack those resources, it tends to mean great confusion, drift, and pain.
I love the conversation about some of the co-created spaces and forged families. This is what community means and a successful model for a "family" unit is.
And it gets sad again, and unfortunately true.
Quote:
For those who are not privileged, the era of the isolated nuclear family has been a catastrophe. It’s led to broken families or no families; to merry-go-round families that leave children traumatized and isolated; to senior citizens dying alone in a room. All forms of inequality are cruel, but family inequality may be the cruelest. It damages the heart. Eventually family inequality even undermines the economy the nuclear family was meant to serve: Children who grow up in chaos have trouble becoming skilled, stable, and socially mobile employees later on.
When hyper-individualism kicked into gear in the 1960s, people experimented with new ways of living that embraced individualistic values. Today we are crawling out from the wreckage of that hyper-individualism—which left many families detached and unsupported. Government support can help nurture this experimentation, particularly for the working-class and the poor, with things like child tax credits, coaching programs to improve parenting skills in struggling families, subsidized early education, and expanded parental leave. While the most important shifts will be cultural, and driven by individual choices, family life is under so much social stress and economic pressure in the poorer reaches of American society that no recovery is likely without som e government action.
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.
