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.
Call me crazy, but I support higher education not only for the job-seeking potential, but also because it helps the human mind reach its full potential. There's already enough stupidity in this world--we don't need to create even more by limiting students' ability to learn.
If you think that diverting state funds away from lazy career students is "limiting students' ablility to learn" then we do have a big problem in this state. There is a difference between supporting higher learning and supporting mediocrity in higher learning. A teacher is not an example of mediocrity in higher learning. A grades-struggling NFL player (who probably would have made it to the NFL with or without college) is though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recip
I will say we need to fix our approach to higher education in general. I think we have swung too hard towards the concept that all students should go to 4-year college. While everyone should get some form of education after high school, a 4-year degree for everyone is a misguided goal.
Exactly!!! However, the universities have learned that "more butts in the seats = more dollars to the universities". So we really can't blame the schools. What needs to change are the rules behind the funding. I have nothing against the dead-broke artists of America. However, do they really need an expensive (and state subsidized) education from a respected name brand such as Chapel Hill? If they choose to go that route with their Chapel Hill education, should the state pay them the same percentage of dollars that's being paid to more needed fields in this state?
Again, I'm more interested in seeing how McCrory plans to fix this problem. I'm not the ones waving my fist at McCrory as if there's no problem at all.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 01-30-2013 at 09:34 AM..
If you think that diverting state funds away from lazy career students is "limiting students' ablility to learn" then we do have a big problem in this state. There is a difference between supporting higher learning and supporting mediocrity in higher learning.
McCrory wasn't commenting on "lazy career students". He was commenting on entire curricula that he deems less worthy than basic jobs training.
Even the likes to Albert Einstein was a (you guessed it) high school and college dropout.
Einstein had a teaching degree from Zurich Polytechnic and a PhD from the University of Zurich. Seriously dude, like five seconds on google will tell you this. Your argument would be greatly aided by brushing up on basic facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
Again, I'm more interested in seeing how McCrory plans to fix this problem. I'm not the ones waving my fist at McCrory as if there's no problem at all.
The thing is, it's not as if there aren't problems, but this isn't one of them. And the proposed "solution" only makes things worse.
Exactly!!! However, the universities have learned that "more butts in the seats = more dollars to the universities". So we really can't blame the schools. What needs to change are the rules behind the funding. I have nothing against the dead-broke artists of America. However, do they really need an expensive (and state subsidized) education from a respected name brand such as Chapel Hill? If they choose to go that route with their Chapel Hill education, should the state pay them the same percentage of dollars that's being paid to more needed fields in this state?
First off one does not simply go to UNC Chapel Hill, the large majority of applicants cannot get in due to their 31% acceptance rate and while I 100% agree that in the case of for profit schools buts in seats means more money, in terms of public schools that operate below cost that is not the case.
Secondly if anything relative to other public schools UNC is much smaller. It has no where near the enrollment of peer schools such as UC Berkley, UT Austin, or UW Madison.
Thirdly as ArbyUNC and others have said you are not going to be able to separate the "lazy" students from the good ones based on major or some other arbitrary criteria. The result is that all you are going to do is make the entire thing more expensive for everyone which is what the GOP wants.
I myself got one of those liberal arts degrees and it worked out great.
Einstein had a teaching degree from Zurich Polytechnic and a PhD from the University of Zurich. Seriously dude, like five seconds on google will tell you this. Your argument would be greatly aided by brushing up on basic facts.
FWIW, I never stated that Einstein didn't eventually obtain a degree (go back and read my post). However, he did struggle in school and he did drop out from what I've read. 2 seconds on google would have taught you that.
Ah yes, let's consult random internet link, arbiter of all known facts and knowledge. Thank you for enlightening us mere plebs with the guiding wisdom of random internet link. On the plus side it's starting to make a lot more sense why you're so gung ho for McCrory's idiotic plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Secondly if anything relative to other public schools UNC is much smaller. It has no where near the enrollment of peer schools such as UC Berkley, UT Austin, or UW Madison. .
Not really. Berkley's got about 35k and Carolina has about 30k students, with a multibillion dollar endowment. It's a large university by any measure.
Yes, and those Facebook employees (liberal arts college educated people) are all working for a college-dropout CEO/Founder who was just too smart for the broken system of education that we have here in America. True or false?
FWIW, the same thing can be said about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (both dropouts). Even the likes of Albert Einstein was a (you guessed it) high school and college dropout. Thomas Edison never even bothered to go to college. My point is that colleges don't create free thinkers. It's actually the other way around; free thinkers are the founders of colleges and universities.
FWIW if you look at statistics there is a much larger pool of college graduates that are the big influential people then non-college grads and in terms of employment college grads dominate.
You are basically cherry picking exceptions and holding them out as the rule.
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.
