|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
On March 14 2012 03:00 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. 90%? Yep, you're indoctrinated.
"Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Now before you post about citations, that very sentence has good citations [1-4] at the bottom of the page. This is why people need an education, so they stop with their conspiracy theories and listen to the scientists instead of a pundit.
|
On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases.
I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major.
I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas?
I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm].
Found a link with some stats - http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/default.aspx . Check out grad students debt. Crazy...
|
On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen.
So, you also have no sources? Here - Let me help.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/landuse.pdf
On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education.
Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society.
Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something.
"And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” "
http://blog.aacu.org/index.php/2011/03/23/how-to-prepare-students-for-success/
|
You go to get that piece of paper. It proves that you're willing to put up with all the bullshit to get a piece of paper to prove that you're willing to put up with all the bullshit.
|
On March 14 2012 03:37 illumiel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases. I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major. I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas? I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm]. Found a link with some stats - http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/default.aspx . Check out grad students debt. Crazy...
I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
|
When I studied physics I paid $100 per semester for expenses the university had only for me as for copied scripts, etc. and in these $100 was a ticket for all public transportation included in the area where the university was for the whole semester.
I think education MUST be free or cost as low as I paid. It should depend on your skill, not on the wealth of your parents. But instead of a high taxation to all workers in a state the universities should be funded by a law where the graduate after he successfully did his examn and starts working should have to pay 1% of his/her income to a fund which supports the universities. This fund will be split over all universities according to their needs.
This basically grants the independence of the universities. Businesses should kept completely out of the universities. This is science, not business. Universities should try to get neutral results and base their teaching on facts, not influenced oppinions.
|
Whenever I hear about the stories of bright, talented people who aren't able to go to university, I count myself as lucky that I am able to get a free university education, although I'll have to pay as roughly £3000 per year for accommodation, it's much better than living somewhere else and having to add on another £6-9000.
|
On March 14 2012 03:37 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen. So, you also have no sources? Here - Let me help. http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/landuse.pdfShow nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education. Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society. Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something. "And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” " http://blog.aacu.org/index.php/2011/03/23/how-to-prepare-students-for-success/ i don't think you need a college degree to vote responsibly. as someone said above, you can educate yourself better at your public library or online. hell, most people learn more from on the job training than they ever learn in a university. real life choices and experiences make people responsible voters, not econ101, polsci101, etc. i would love to have everyone who votes on a tax issue to have a firm foundation in economics, but thats just not realistic or necessary.
as for filling specialized jobs, that has more to do with people not wanting to go into those fields rather than the education being unavailable.
|
Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services.
While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy.
from: Bob Samuels: Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free.
|
On March 14 2012 03:37 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 14 2012 01:25 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
You've got to be kidding. Or maybe you're just so thoroughly indoctrinated that you think it's all just the way things should be. Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen. So, you also have no sources? Here - Let me help. http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/landuse.pdfShow nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education. Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society. Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something. "And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” " http://blog.aacu.org/index.php/2011/03/23/how-to-prepare-students-for-success/
It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit.
|
Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the very first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too).
|
Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
|
On March 14 2012 03:46 HomeWorld wrote: Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too). doesnt forcing people to take admission tests also cause class discrimination? sure, the really intelligent, poor people will get in because they are just naturally gifted, but i think the most likely scenario is that wealthy people are able to get private tutors, test prep, etc. that poor people can't afford.
in japan, they have cram schools for the specific purpose of preparing for admission tests. and they are expensive. but, if you dont go, you are shit out of luck at the admission test. when i was preparing for my bar exam, i went to a bar prep course that was like $4,000. if you cant afford that, you are almost guaranteed to fail. i havent heard of anyone who didnt take bar prep and passed the California bar.
|
On March 14 2012 03:40 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:37 illumiel wrote:On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases. I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major. I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas? I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm]. Found a link with some stats - http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/default.aspx . Check out grad students debt. Crazy... I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in.
You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places (philosophy is incredibly applicable to intellectual/political discussions, but we're talking purely day-to-day life here). However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful and you would be very, very hard-pressed to get the same skillset to such a degree elsewhere.
|
On March 14 2012 03:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:37 Treehead wrote:On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 01:32 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] Like what? Global warming? Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen. So, you also have no sources? Here - Let me help. http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/landuse.pdfOn March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education. Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society. Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something. "And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” " http://blog.aacu.org/index.php/2011/03/23/how-to-prepare-students-for-success/ It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit.
I... this paragraph is so purposefully wrongly stated it makes me so sad. Peter Thiel makes the case against college and higher education in a similar way, but we cannot have 300 million entrepreneurs. Right? Someone has to code, program, debug all that stuff. You can teach yourself that, or you can take courses. I don't know. Whatever, people are so.... depressing sometimes in their opinion
|
On March 14 2012 03:50 Freddybear wrote: Student loans are readily available. Oh, but some students want to take bullshit courses like "gender studies" instead of something that will actually be worth something. And then they complain when they're stuck with the loan payments for their expensive vacation.
First off, don't even start the argument about what constitutes a legitimate course of study. Just because you don't see the immediate application of something like "gender studies" doesn't mean that it isn't something useful to study.
Second, you sound woefully ignorant of the situation concerning student loans. It's a terrible system that accrues entirely too much interest and it is impossible to escape them even through bankruptcy/death. Furthermore, the ability to take out loans still depends on your parents' financial situation.
|
On March 14 2012 03:51 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:44 Wegandi wrote:On March 14 2012 03:37 Treehead wrote:On March 14 2012 03:09 Zato-1 wrote:On March 14 2012 02:17 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:16 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:10 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 02:05 Freddybear wrote:On March 14 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 14 2012 01:56 Freddybear wrote: [quote]
Do you "believe in" Global Warming because that's what you were taught to believe, or have you learned enough science to understand the theory and formed your own conclusions? Your idea is nice but you can't learn about everything. So sometimes you have to trust people who spent most of their life studying the subject. And so you are indoctrinated to trust people with a particular political agenda. Global warming is not political in the first place. You make it political. They have been studies on the subject, and if an overwhelming majority of scientists confirm it, yes I am willing to trust them. Not political? They aren't asking countries to spend trillions of dollars to fix it? Get real, dude. That's what makes it political. And no, I am not willing to trust them. Not when they try to smear their critics instead of answering their criticism with documented facts and valid arguments. Not when they hide their data and their methods from skeptics and critics. Not when they go about trying to suppress publication of articles that are critical of their methods. And most especially not when they lie about it when their methods are finally exposed. Source? Evidence? So something like 90% of the scientists are liars for some sort of world wide conspiracy? Seems legit. Trust the science, not the scientists. And the science suggests that there are slight negative feedbacks in our climate system which will lead to a slight global warming with our continued rate of greenhouse gas emissions and none of the climate catastrophes that the climate alarmists claim will happen. So, you also have no sources? Here - Let me help. http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/landuse.pdfOn March 14 2012 03:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:00 aderum wrote:On March 14 2012 02:45 dAPhREAk wrote: through high school, it should be free. college/university/technical schools, it should not be free.
basic schooling should be mandatory (and thus, free), so that the general population has at least a fundamental education and can function in society. however, higher education should not be mandatory and should not be subsidized. my primary reasons for this are that (1) its a waste of time and money for a lot of people (this is true for high school students as well coming from my background in a low economy public school district) since they waste it; and (2) a lot of people would just do it because its free and not take it seriously (as some already do because their parents pay). I am fine with the government subsidizing education (through financial aid, grants, scholarships, etc.), especially public colleges/universities, but I dont want to see a system where everything is paid for by the government.
i came out of school with approximately $100,000 in school debt, and I am doing fine. i planned ahead, worked through college/law school and only took on debt I knew i could pay back. I really dont understand this kind of logic, maybe its because im so used to the Swedish culture. Not having a free college/Uni makes it so that people who cant afford it/isnt good enough to get a scholarship never will be able to get a higher education. This also makes it so when that person gets children he/she wont be able to go to Uni, and so on. Of course this is not the case for every family but this is how it is in most cases. USA is (one of the or the only) industrialized country where you can look at a map at point at almost everywhere and say what kind of education they have there, and this is my opinion is not very good at all since it makes it so that people are trapped in low education just because their parents couldn't afford their own, or their college. For reference in Sweden all education is free, and you get approximately 412 dollars a month form the goverment. On top of that you can take a very low interest loan on roughly 883 dollar every month. higher education is really not that necessary for most people's lives, and, honestly, a lot of people dont deserve to go to universities/college (i.e., it would be a waste of everyone's time and money). in japan, a lot of secondary education (high school) costs money. yet, nobody looks at japan and says that they are lacking for education. Higher education is not that necessary for most peoples lives? This would be true - if we didn't live in a democracy. Voting for the people who move our nation necessitates that we be able to conceptualize the consequences of our actions. If we don't know anything about global warming, if we don't know enough to ask questions like "hey, isn't it weird that our regulators bought the idea that an oil spill in the gulf coast could never happen and then it did anyway?", and most importantly, if we don't know enough to fill the variety of jobs which require higher education (you can't exactly go and get a factory job these days, after all), we're in trouble as a society. Look at it this way - we have how many unfilled specialized jobs in the US? And we're in the midst of high unemployment? That should tell us something. "And policymakers need to take seriously the challenge of raising the bar for all students’ learning. As Brian Fitzgerald put it so well in his Times posting, however, “These points are moot, though, if we continue our systemic slashing of funding for public higher education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world, but as proportions of state support for higher education dip into single digits, we risk weakening the entire enterprise — in all fields — that undergirds our innovation and economic development.” " http://blog.aacu.org/index.php/2011/03/23/how-to-prepare-students-for-success/ It seems Brian Fitzgerald doesn't understand that innovation and economic development (aka entreprenuership) doesn't come from a piece of paper learning many times meaningless subjects that either have no productive merit, or are entirely irrelevant to the reason you went to college. Furthermore, I ever wonder how the United States underwent the transition from an agricultural society, to an Industrial one when there was little to no taxation and no Government-schools. It would according to him be impossible, yet it happened. Perhaps this means he should question his position, but then I would give him too much intellectual credit. I... this paragraph is so purposefully wrongly stated it makes me so sad. Peter Thiel makes the case against college and higher education in a similar way, but we cannot have 300 million entrepreneurs. Right? Someone has to code, program, debug all that stuff. You can teach yourself that, or you can take courses. I don't know. Whatever, people are so.... depressing sometimes in their opinion
Why not? In 19th Century America 75% of the populace were self-employed. With any understanding of economics you realize that higher population numbers are a positive, and therefore, more demand in more areas means more jobs / start-ups / ideas / etc. Our economic policies have created an environment which produces these large Corporations, highly compartmentalized institutions, mass rent-seeking via licensing / State-permission to live / make a living, etc. You have many cases where little kids lemonade stands are being shut-down because they don't have a city-permit. It's ridiculous. Then people wonder why things are so fucked up.
Whatever happened to apprenticeships? Trades? Skills? You don't need to learn about 15th century poetry, or humanities, or so-many other waste of resources that produce nothing in order to advance society and fulfill individual demands and wants. I do like Peter a lot :p (Fellow radical liberal and all)
|
On March 14 2012 03:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:40 Voltaire wrote:On March 14 2012 03:37 illumiel wrote:On March 14 2012 03:25 Voltaire wrote: In the US, getting a college degree is hardly about the education you receive. Essentially, going to college is the equivalent of paying a certain amount of money for university's name on your resume when you apply for a job. It's not about learning; it's just about getting the credentials necessary for a career.
Hardly any of the knowledge gained in college is actually used in people's careers in the US. There are exceptions, especially among engineering majors, but this is true for the majority of cases. I think you are not exactly correct. I know a bunch of engineering guys that work their asses off. I also know a bunch of econ/psychology/derpy majors just party all day. So how much knowledge you get out depends entirely on you and your major. I pay 5k+ per quarter at University of California Irvine. It is expected to increase to 7k next year. That is only for attending university, does not include housing/books/food. I think the policy US is trying to go at. Why educate our own people, when we can import them from overseas? I make quite a bit of money, I really do not know how people without a job/rich parents can afford this. But [sarcasm] we got really big army where people that did not get education can go [/sarcasm]. Found a link with some stats - http://www.asa.org/policy/resources/stats/default.aspx . Check out grad students debt. Crazy... I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that engineering majors tend to be among the few who actually use the information they gain in college in their careers. I'm not saying that people are spending their time in college partying or screwing around, I'm just saying that most of the stuff taught in college will end up having no relevance whatsoever to the careers that the vast majority of students end up in. You're failing to see the point of many degrees. It's not necessarily about the exact content that you learn - it's about the skills you learn through studying that concept. Take philosophy as an example. I'm currently studying it, and aside from going to graduate school for it (which I'm hoping to do), you can't really apply the actual content of studying philosophy to many practical places. However, the skills that you gain in critical/analytical thinking, analysis, writing skills, debate skills, speech skills, etc. are all incredibly useful.
yes those skills are useful...but does it make sense to pay 3 grand a quarter for such BASIC things? All those skills you listed can be learned outside of philosophy...they are useful, sure...but the fact that your core education and knowledge will not see the light of day in your field of work (unless you become a phil. prof.) is saddening and pitiful.
|
On March 14 2012 03:50 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 03:46 HomeWorld wrote: Education (even at high level as university) should be free by default. That's the so called government investing into the future of the country. This is how you ensure that you have enough qualified people that someday will take over current generation and ensure progress. To be honest, paid high level education is bullshit, it promotes discrimination (as in the more wealthy you are the better) instead of promoting really smart ppl. (in my case, in my country, high level education is free, but in order to get access to it you must prove it/deserve it [by passing entry exams that aren't the "so called walk in the park"]) I'm not going to say that US education (or other countries where education is a paid service) system is bad, but still, education is the first rock placed in a society foundation (and health care too). doesnt forcing people to take admission tests also cause class discrimination? sure, the really intelligent, poor people will get in because they are just naturally gifted, but i think the most likely scenario is that wealthy people are able to get private tutors, test prep, etc. that poor people can't afford. in japan, they have cram schools for the specific purpose of preparing for admission tests. and they are expensive. but, if you dont go, you are shit out of luck at the admission test. when i was preparing for my bar exam, i went to a bar prep course that was like $4,000. if you cant afford that, you are almost guaranteed to fail. i havent heard of anyone who didnt take bar prep and passed the California bar.
Seriously, you don't need tutoring or something else that involves money, unless you are really dumb or something like that. Pre-uni stuff (stuff required at uni admission exams are pretty much easy stuff), you do not need to be a rocket scientist to pass those exams, you only need to have a good understanding of what is required to pass that exam. Trust me, i was tutored and failed the first time, the second time i did/learned everything by myself and guess what, got maximum scores (math/physics). As some ppl would say wtf ::EFFORT::, but it worked. You don't need tutoring as long as you work off your ass (not learning but understanding)
|
On March 14 2012 03:43 Nagano wrote:Not only is higher education seen as a key to economic advancement, but if all 18-24 year olds were in college, we would reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million people, and fewer people would be in need of governmental assistance. Moreover, a federal program to fund higher education would relieve states of having to fund these institutions, which would free up money for other needed services. While the US has a free K-12 public education, its failure to fund higher education means that America's economy is unable to compete with other developed nations that have free universities. Furthermore, by removing the need for students to go into debt, the government would allow graduates to be more productive, and they would have more money to spend, which in turn would act as a stimulus for the economy. from: Bob Samuels: Why All Public Higher Education Should Be Free.
You reduce the unemployment rate by 2 million (given that all ages choose to go to higher level education), then what? Instead of getting government assistance in one form, they get it in another through education which is vastly more expensive, solving no budget deficit issues whatsoever, just making the problem worse.
There is also no difference between state and federal programs, the opportunity cost is still the same for both institutions. Granted the fed can print the money and inflate the currency, but is that a solution? No.
You seem to think government has infinite capital...
|
|
|
|