Why do liberals think what you do in only in the confines a Unversity makes one "educated"? (unemployment, revolution)

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Could there be a more tragic commentary on the current state of conservatism and the GOP, than these open attacks on education and intellectual achievement... and this from the same party that gave us such famous conservative intellectuals as H.L. Mencken, Robert Taft, Thomas Sowell and William F. Buckley?!

Which ironically brings to mind a quote by another infamous conservative anti-intellectual, Spiro Agnew, that "we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism!"

Agnew didn't write those words. Another highly educated Republican intellectual, William Safire did, back when he was a young speechwriter. He and Pat Buchanan wrote almost every public utterance from Agnew's mouth.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

You can disagree without being a nasty jackass about it. (I take it you're not a Christian?)

Why would you automatically assume that ... aren't all Christians commonly considered dogmatic jackasses by the liberal world?

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Those are trade schools. Trade schools are clearly for trades.

Medical school is now a "trade school"? A Harvard Law School is a trade school now? Come on, get real ... and I don't know how to say that any more "politely". Believe me, I'm being polite.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

That's not what I took to OP to be talking about (and I clearly made the distinction in my post). I stand by my "absurd claim": undergraduate, liberal arts university educations were never intended to be vocational. They were intended as a means for intellectually driven people to challenge and improve themselves, to develop critical thinking skills, to indulge their curiosities about how the world works, and to provide an arena in which to challenge old ideas while cultivating new ones.

Liberal Arts Perfect example of what I'm talking about. First ... the majority of University educated people have historically been liberal arts graduates, with either a BA or BS degrees .... and they are vocational in the sense that one cannot get a decent job without it these days ... some may even claim you can't get a bad job without it (reference my example of the high percentage of McDonald's applicants having attended college).

But today's liberal arts have little in common with it's origins, dating back to antiquity when it was a means to define a free sovereign person from slaves and servants, and covered all of the relevant topics from Science to Philosophy, and everything in between. While today, it's an extension of the public school system, heavily influenced by modern progressive liberal politics which itself has little in common with 18th century liberal ideology. It's social engineering masquerading as higher education. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

To motivated learners, an undergrad education teaches one how to think, reason, approach complex problems, and to ask questions. It teaches one to love the pursuit of knowledge. Such educations certainly lead to better vocations and the ability to succeed at professional trade schools. It's a nice side effect.

Look ... when I attended George Washington University 35 sum odd years ago, it was already beginning to shift in an effort to "repair" the radical government distrust leftover from Vietnam ... while we had the advantage of actually bringing along with us some basic skills in critical thought taught us in public schools ... something that is no longer a priority of focus in k-12 public education. Today, the WHOLE FREAKING ENVIRONMENT has shifted to Statist Progressive Liberalism, away from the anti-Statist cynicism that defined the 1960's and 1970's. Any comparison must necessarily be a comparison of polar opposites, and that my friend, shoots this Unicorn of modern "critical thinking" in it's mythical head. Today, we see acceptance, not questions. We see belief instead of independent analysis. We see the resulting product producing the programmed, not the educated.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

That most Americans now look at an undergrad education as simply vocational is the major reason our university system is becoming watered down and turns out so many uneducated people. Students there for vocational reasons just want a degree - they're not interested in learning. They want A's without having to do any work or learn anything. Many even feel entitled to that. Most of the people in our universities have no business being there to begin with - they end up leaving uneducated and ruin the system for the people who actually should be there. I think it's gross the system passes people like that though. I'd like to see about a 50% fail out rate - instead, at most schools, you get a B just for showing up.

Here is where we agree, by George, miracles are possible! But I think we still disagree about the source and impact of this problem, as I tend to avoid blaming the victims while giving the "system" a pass. (probably that 1970's hangover that I never got over, thank God).

As I previously stated, 40 years ago, a college degree was still somewhat unique, offering a distinct advantage for securing the best jobs, but that value has certainly been diluted over the years to what it now represents ... which is not unlike a plain old high school diploma from my days in school, which used to be the major prerequisite credential.

Yes, we have seen a shift here that I have previously discussed as a byproduct of this disastrous ideology that began to take firm hold in the 1980's and 1990's, which thought to transform America from a manufacturing based economy to a technology based one, with everyone going to college to become that new technology based labor force. Problem is, 1) not everyone is qualified or has aptitude for that, and 2) after the mechanisms of this transformation were operating at full speed off shoring that manufacturing, slowly, the same scenario began in the technology field as well. And we had the "downsizing" craze .. and the "outsourcing" craze of the 1980's and 1990's .... I know, because the former Secretary of the Treasury, W. Michael Blumenthal personally led the charge on the hostile takeover of the company I worked for back then, who eventually absconded with my retirement and pension funds as he merged two of the top three largest computer companies in the world, which later imploded through 98% loss of it's stock value, long before such shenanigans became vogue.

So we displaced Millions of blue collar types ... trained them to wear a suit and a tie and program computers, then we shipped off half of those jobs to India the moment high speed telecommunications made it feasible to do.

Since then, we've been living on credit, and half of our GDP consists of buying and selling each other hamburgers and foreign made electronics. And now the piper wants his pay. And we're gonna pay out the yin yang, you can betcha last dollar on that. (trivia: do you know that McDonald's has it's own university? The Hamburger University? No BS .. it's true)



Is this the future of American Education? At least graduates from HU will have a job after graduating.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Again you bring up a trade school example really not relevant to my point. I agree, it doesn't make much sense to devote time and money to a vocational school, and then not enter that vocation. As to my friend, he was intently curious as to how life works, and he wanted to learn about it - he did. Now he wants to teach children - he does. He loves the learning he's done in his life, and he loves his job and feels he's making a positive impact in the lives of children. What the hell is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it. If he's got the money to lay out for a PhD, and decides to drive a bus, more power to him. But that was not my point .. my point was that we are in a free fall economically, yet we don't just promise these students the American dream is there for those with an education, we have them brainwashed to believe they can't survive without it. (we just leave out the part about how the real prospects of those promises are significantly exaggerated, while downplaying the extreme costs that they'll have a difficult time repaying).

So you tell me ... when an entire system is churning out masses of graduates who can't find a job .. is it the students fault, or is it the system?

We've got kids graduating high school that can't make change for a $5, and are reading on a 5th grade level. What possible chance do they have? Really? And is it any wonder these kids become drop outs, alcoholics and deviates? We have an educational puppy mill happening here where the primary and maybe the only concern is enrollment numbers and revenue, with costs so high, student loans make up a very large percentage of those costs. And those loans might just as well be called tax payer money, because that's what much of it is or eventually becomes.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Professional qualification? A PhD is a philosophy degree - not a vocational or professional one. And yeah, I might. I very much enjoy math (I've studied some very high level mathematics), an even if my job were gardener or elementary school art teacher, I'd love very much to have a PhD level understanding of math.

Baloney ... aside your example, care to guess the differential in pay between a Masters and a PhD? Care to guess? I tell you what ... if you want a faculty position at a top University, you'll quickly realize how "vocational" that PhD really is, and what your prospects are without it. A friend talked with the University of Texas about such a faculty position ... she was ABD ... they said come back when you've completed your dissertation and we'll talk.

I have noticed that you like to talk a lot of theory here .... while I'm focusing on real world practical reality.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

I don't agree with this entirely (it's a bit hyperbolic), but to a degree I do, and I also find it a problem. I attribute it to people treating post-secondary education as vocational - as a means to an end rather than something of intrinsic value. We've turned universities into nothing more that high school grades 13-16 and populated them with kids with little interest in learning who are only there to get through so they can get a better job and make more money.

I want you to look up the term "Statist". And really, carefully analyze it, along with your repeating thought patterns.

You are typical of the modern liberal in your defense of the system, and your propensity to blame the participants for the system's failures. You do it over and over again. Anything connected to the system automatically has legitimacy.

I'm not engaging hyperbole at all ... you even agree that college has become nothing more than an extension of high school ... you just aren't prepared to accept that this extends to the greater reality that it represents 4 additional years of statist propaganda and continued social engineering, and dumbing down.

That may seem like hyperbole to you, but is nonetheless true when critically analyzed, including careful consideration of the disastrous results we see all around us, and the mathematical unlikelihood of it all being incidental.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

I don't disagree that liberals can get group think sometimes. But your example stinks. Do you really thinkg that we think CO2 is a toxin? No, it is that it affects climate. And pumping a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere does not seem wise. All this disingenuous hyperbole doesn't help.

There is no better example. None. Of the many ill conceived ideas, this most recent AGW via CO2 is both the quintessential example of the power of propaganda and group think that has come along in the 20th Century.

It's become a religion of it's own, totally politically driven without an iota of legitimate science to back it. But the dogma will not allow a competing thought, let alone dissent of any kind, to interfere with it's course. Even when that evidence is overwhelming and deadly to the foundational concept.

Right from the very outset, the basic premise of CO2 caused global warming is preposterous, but that won't deter you or anyone else from continuing to make such irrational and nonsensical claims.

1) CO2 levels have historically been charted (Hundreds of Thousands of Years of climate data) to rise as a RESULT of periodic warming trends, which occurs on average about 800 years after a warming cycle. This fact should have be enough to end the ridiculous debate right from it's beginning ... but cause and effect seems to be a concept too complex for the liberal greenies. They apparently believe that it is the dented fender that causes automobile accidents, rather than the other way round.

2) Even upon having caught the fraudsters lying and manipulating the data, that is no deterrent to AGW believers, No, no, no. It was just a mistake!! We swear .... an honest mistake!!

3) When the data finally emerged (after forcing the release of the data) that during the period of the most intense propaganda about global warming ABSOLUTELY happening, we discover that it ABSOLUTELY wasn't warming at all, and the IPCC knew it, even while claiming the opposite! That's not a mistake ... it's a bold faced lie, and a fraud.

But not problem, they just quietly switched the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" ... that'll take care of that problem. So now, whether it gets warmer or cooler, it's still Climate Change ..... except it isn't really. Climate is measured over thousands of years ... not decades. And there is no place that the "Climate" has actually changed at all. The Tropics are still tropical ... the sub tropics still sub tropical, the Arctic still Arctic ... nope ... no change. Oranges still grow in Florida, not in Quebec. And the polar region's ice caps are actually expanding and not melting!!

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

But I would still rather listen to NASA scientist talk about global warming than Rush Limbaugh.

Then LISTEN to them ... because it's the administrators and bureaucrats at NASA promoting this fraud, while dozens of scientists at NASA are objecting strenuously .... to include a group of 50 former astronauts, and NASA scientists telling the bureaucrat/scientists to shut up about "Global Warming".


50 NASA Scientists Including Astronauts Issue Letter Rejecting Global Warming! « Political Vel Craft

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency


NASA admits all previous warming trends caused by sun « CRISISBOOM

Imagine that ... the Sun .... who would have figured that the Sun causes warming? Well, we knew that as children ... warmer in the day, and cooler at night. Not a complex theory.

So, this is a very poor tactic to use in support of other arguments ....if I were you, I'd let go of the Global Warming/CO2 thing. It's an obvious fraud and an even more obvious sign of gullibility and naivete.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Why would you automatically assume that ... aren't all Christians commonly considered dogmatic jackasses by the liberal world?

It's just that your nasty treatment of others (in this case me on this thread) seems very un-Christlike to me. I thought from other threads you identified as a Christian.

Medical school is now a "trade school"? A Harvard Law School is a trade school now? Come on, get real ... and I don't know how to say that any more "politely". Believe me, I'm being polite.

Yes. They are trade schools. They offer very different educations than a well balanced, general, undergraduate liberal arts education. Medical doctor and lawyer are trades that you have to go to a specific trade school to get a very specific education in order to practice. They're professional trade schools, but vocational schools still.

Liberal Arts Perfect example of what I'm talking about. First ... the majority of University educated people have historically been liberal arts graduates, with either a BA or BS degrees .... and they are vocational in the sense that one cannot get a decent job without it these days ... some may even claim you can't get a bad job without it (reference my example of the high percentage of McDonald's applicants having attended college).

Why are you rolling your eyes at the term "liberal arts." What's wrong with a liberal arts education in which you study math, the natural sciences, history, philosophy, language, and literature?

And what I've underlined is what I find wrong with the system. It was never intended to be vocational in that way, and shifting the system to that focus has largely ruined it. I think it's a joke that undergrad institutions these days offer degrees in things like "pre-law" or "pre-med."

But today's liberal arts have little in common with it's origins, dating back to antiquity when it was a means to define a free sovereign person from slaves and servants, and covered all of the relevant topics from Science to Philosophy, and everything in between. While today, it's an extension of the public school system, heavily influenced by modern progressive liberal politics which itself has little in common with 18th century liberal ideology. It's social engineering masquerading as higher education. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, the part I underlined is my complaint (although there still are some institutions that provide a very good classical liberal arts education in this country). Most of our institutions these days do not educate in the liberal arts sense - they simply serve as an obstacle "students" must overcome in order to gain employment. The rest of your post here is just conservative paranoia.

Here is where we agree, by George, miracles are possible! But I think we still disagree about the source and impact of this problem, as I tend to avoid blaming the victims while giving the "system" a pass. (probably that 1970's hangover that I never got over, thank God).

There is nothing wrong with it. If he's got the money to lay out for a PhD, and decides to drive a bus, more power to him. But that was not my point .. my point was that we are in a free fall economically, yet we don't just promise these students the American dream is there for those with an education, we have them brainwashed to believe they can't survive without it. (we just leave out the part about how the real prospects of those promises are significantly exaggerated, while downplaying the extreme costs that they'll have a difficult time repaying).

So you tell me ... when an entire system is churning out masses of graduates who can't find a job .. is it the students fault, or is it the system?

Both. I clearly think the system is ****ed up, but I also have little sympathy for lazy, entitled brats.

Baloney ... aside your example, care to guess the differential in pay between a Masters and a PhD? Care to guess? I tell you what ... if you want a faculty position at a top University, you'll quickly realize how "vocational" that PhD really is, and what your prospects are without it. A friend talked with the University of Texas about such a faculty position ... she was ABD ... they said come back when you've completed your dissertation and we'll talk.

What does the pay difference between people holding a masters or PhD have to do with whether a PhD is a degree of philosophy or vocational training? I think pay differences - and hiring in general - should be based off how well people are doing in their jobs (or in the case of hiring based off of the interview). This shouldn't come a surprise, but I don't think masters and PhD should be looked at as vocational nor as an automatic basis for a higher pay bracket.

I want you to look up the term "Statist". And really, carefully analyze it, along with your repeating thought patterns.

I don't need to look up statism is. And I consider myself a civil libertarian pragmatist who understands that some things are better done together.

You are typical of the modern liberal in your defense of the system, and your propensity to blame the participants for the system's failures. You do it over and over again. Anything connected to the system automatically has legitimacy.

Defense of the system? Most of my post focused on savaging what I find to be a very broken system. You're typical of a modern conservative who just likes to scream at anyone to the left of himself about being a statist enslaving himself to a collective evil. It's cliche at this point.

I bet that if you went back and re-read my posts on this thread, you see that you're attacking me on things over which we don't disagree that much or really aren't very consequential to any overall argument (like whether med school is vocational or not). You've just pigeonholed me as some sort of unthinking, brainwashed leftist and are automatically dismissing everything I say out of hand without really reading what I'm saying.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

It's just that your nasty treatment of others (in this case me on this thread) seems very un-Christlike to me. I thought from other threads you identified as a Christian.

I receive more than my share of flack and insults on a regular and consistent basis, which tends not to bring out the best of my nature. But it's the repeated counter points I get from the left side, particularly the nonsensical ones like "global warming" that tend to strain my patience.

What you refer to as me being "nasty" was simply my responding to a rather (IMO) inane comment dismissive of the obvious link between education and employment. To me that's like denying the link between bars and alcohol ... it's nonsensical, and so I just call em' like I see em'.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Yes. They are trade schools. They offer very different educations than a well balanced, general, undergraduate liberal arts education. Medical doctor and lawyer are trades that you have to go to a specific trade school to get a very specific education in order to practice. They're professional trade schools, but vocational schools still.

Well, we can argue semantics, but the reality is, Lawyers, Doctors, etc. have traditionally been viewed as "professional" careers, not to be confused with "tradesmen" careers such as carpenters, plumbers, welders, steam fitters and so forth. The BA/BS liberal arts degrees are considered undergraduate degrees, with post graduate degrees in law or medicine and so forth being continuing education in advanced specialization as an extension to, and not in lieu off the BA-BS. For example, Harvard offers both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and is not a "Trade School". ITT Tech is a trade school. There's a big difference, but you may call it whatever you like, because in America you have the right to be wrong.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Why are you rolling your eyes at the term "liberal arts." What's wrong with a liberal arts education in which you study math, the natural sciences, history, philosophy, language, and literature?

Because it's a traditional term that has no real meaning in it's broad modern application ... nothing anymore sinister than that. The eye roll was simply my way of saying that liberal art degrees today are not what they used to be.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

And what I've underlined is what I find wrong with the system. It was never intended to be vocational in that way, and shifting the system to that focus has largely ruined it. I think it's a joke that undergrad institutions these days offer degrees in things like "pre-law" or "pre-med."

Again, the part I underlined is my complaint (although there still are some institutions that provide a very good classical liberal arts education in this country). Most of our institutions these days do not educate in the liberal arts sense - they simply serve as an obstacle "students" must overcome in order to gain employment. The rest of your post here is just conservative paranoia.

Which answers your own question about my rolling eyes, but also contradicts the construction of your question that insinuated I was dismissive ... only to be dismissive yourself ... quite accurately I would say. Or, in more simplified terms ... an education puppy mill, as I stated earlier.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Both. I clearly think the system is ****ed up, but I also have little sympathy for lazy, entitled brats.

So you're saying its a perfect match? An effed up system which attracts lazy brats? Or could it be a failing system that produces lazy brats? I'm sorry ... but the "entitlement" thing is CLEARLY a product of progressive liberalism, as is the entire education system which has been dominated by leftist ideologies for at least 3 or 4 decades now. You cannot divorce that. It's yours .. you own it. And that ideology is substantially responsible for the failed primary education of these kids, which then finishes the job in grades 13-16 ... it doesn't start at grade 13.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

What does the pay difference between people holding a masters or PhD have to do with whether a PhD is a degree of philosophy or vocational training? I think pay differences - and hiring in general - should be based off how well people are doing in their jobs (or in the case of hiring based off of the interview). This shouldn't come a surprise, but I don't think masters and PhD should be looked at as vocational nor as an automatic basis for a higher pay bracket.

But it is .. that's the reality ... it's not what you think it should be ... but what it is in real practical terms. And by that practical measure, they all have "vocational" application. There is no demarcation line that separates them.

Originally Posted by hammertime33

I don't need to look up statism is. And I consider myself a civil libertarian pragmatist who understands that some things are better done together.

Defense of the system? Most of my post focused on savaging what I find to be a very broken system. You're typical of a modern conservative who just likes to scream at anyone to the left of himself about being a statist enslaving himself to a collective evil. It's cliche at this point.

I bet that if you went back and re-read my posts on this thread, you see that you're attacking me on things over which we don't disagree that much or really aren't very consequential to any overall argument (like whether med school is vocational or not). You've just pigeonholed me as some sort of unthinking, brainwashed leftist and are automatically dismissing everything I say out of hand without really reading what I'm saying.

To be honest, you've flip flopped right here in this one post. You challenge my dismissing of the value of college degrees today ... then you follow up by dismissing their value yourself. So if you don't know what you believe, how am I supposed to keep it straight?

You say I'm "attacking you" ... I am not. I'm challenging points you make ... and if I claim that a point is pure nonsense, that is not attacking you .. it is attacking the point. And at least I'm willing to take the time to explain my disagreement specifically ... unlike some others here that will take an entire post with several points and simply call it crap, with no further explanation or specificity.

And also, it's not like I am unfamiliar with your positions on other matters ... and you do take a predominant left stance the majority of the time. As for me, I am not a "typical conservative", because there is very little that I agree with on either side. I don't believe there is a conservative side in mainstream political discourse, and I can't even count how many times I've made this point clear.

For example, I am 100% against ObamaCare .... that many republicans share that view only means that in that instance, we are in agreement. To back up my previous point ... Romney has jumped on the anti-ObamaCare bandwagon, yet he supported not so dissimilar state legislation as governor. He's what I refer to as the stealth left wing of a totally left wing government, and whatever opposition he tries to portray himself as being, I don't see it as honest. Just more of the same false left-right rhetoric. Same holds true for Justice Roberts flip flop on ObamaCare ... obviously a false conservative for which the conservative justices have now turned their backs on.

Of course, Roberts was a Bush appointee, who I have also repeatedly charged with being as much, if not more left than Clinton was.

If you don't like much of anything you see happening in this country from a political perspective, including what both parties are doing collectively .... then you are a real conservative. If you do like the way things are going, then you are definitely a leftist liberal thru and thru. But if you only like what one side does, and not the other ... then you're totally lost in the false left-right illusion.

So you tell me which of those options best defines your view?

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38

Being educated is a byproduct of a number of factors including work and life experiences, social interactions, and emotional intelligence..basically none of which college can teach you. Some of my most successful friends worth millions now didn't even go to college, and some that did dropped out after a couple years to start their own gigs. Know some folks with PHds now working the barista at Starbucks, probably even a few on here complaining about how life isn't fair blaming someone else
Your work ethic , your ability to self teach, and how you manage your time and interact with others are all far more critical to ones success in life than getting a diploma, contrived from professors ..many of whom have probably never gotten their hands dirty in the real world.

This is just my humble opinion, but I believe an educated person - who has not attended college - would not discount the value of a college education and should be able to demonstrate an understanding of what a college education entails. You've failed at both.

All the qualities you've listed that you suggest "basically none of which college can teach you" are a huge part of the personal enrichment a college education provides. You fail.

If you want to talk about the "real world", a degree serves as a valuable filtration device for employers because it serves as proof of a basic education and basic competence.

[MOKAN]

Any takers?

[ambient]

Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38

Being educated is a byproduct of a number of factors including work and life experiences, social interactions, and emotional intelligence..basically none of which college can teach you. Some of my most successful friends worth millions now didn't even go to college, and some that did dropped out after a couple years to start their own gigs. Know some folks with PHds now working the barista at Starbucks, probably even a few on here complaining about how life isn't fair blaming someone else
Your work ethic , your ability to self teach, and how you manage your time and interact with others are all far more critical to ones success in life than getting a diploma, contrived from professors ..many of whom have probably never gotten their hands dirty in the real world.

True enough, but I witness a greater concentration of just blatantly dumb people among the ranks with no education beyond high school.

[MTAtech]

"Why do liberals think what you do in only in the confines a Unversity makes one "educated"?"

First, it would be nice if a thread about education was able to spell "university" correctly in the title.

Second, we have now 17 pages of comments on the presumption that liberals believe something that hasn't been demonstrated to be a fact. Who says liberals believe that?

[Kracer]

'Educated' is a legal term consistent with standard edu pathways.

Check the milemarker where you got off and that is how you determined your level of education. At any exit point you may be consider educated.

Education at universities got the biggest boost in the late 60s as a means to avoid the draft. Colleges became large business and in states like NJ they crank out so many teachers they need to be in colusion with politicians and teachers unions to ensure jobs for their 'offspring' and perpetuate the mass production of "teachers" to provide "education" and turn a handsome profit. 40 k a year at private colleges!! really!!!

Remember that colleges live off grants, most of which come from the government so it makes sense to 'court' the politicians and dance for their dollars. As such the independence of universities has morphed into dens of likeminded liberals to reflect the leanings of their federal handlers.

Results: more school districts and administrators in this one state than in many other states combined. the taxpayers don't seem to mind.