School sucks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free post secondary Ed is all well and good, but my concern has always been how the western world keeps pushing back the age at which it's possible to get a decent job.
It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the TWELVE YEARS that kids already spend in school more meaningful. Somewhere in the range of grade 8-10 you've already learned the math/language skills you'll actually be making use of the rest of your life. Current education past that point serves no purpose other than to prepare you for more education.
My proposal is that somewhere around grade 10 a branching path is offered, the current model for those that want to pursue traditional education and 2 year trades type programs for those that don't.
That way we get 18 year old grads leaving high school already certified for high demand jobs.
Obviously I'm no expert but it really feels to me like we get very little for the 12 years invested in the average high school grad.
- Torger
With an ever increasing life span and an economy that has greater and greater demand for specialists and a decreasing demand for grunts... the effect is inevitable that it will take more time until a person is ready to have a job.
The idea to shave a couple of truly pointless years away from the traditional 12 of pre-university studies is a great one that I am baffled is not implemented everywhere.It will also lessen the effect you described for a short duration.
But, if things keep moving as they are, the world 50 years from now will be a different place. We will actually have to reconfigure our entire social structure to account for the fact the there simply wouldn't be as many jobs. Capitalism, for example, could very well become impractical. This is a GREAT video on the subject.
With an ever increasing life span and an economy that has greater and greater demand for specialists and a decreasing demand for grunts... the effect is inevitable that it will take more time until a person is ready to have a job.
Which is why school programs should be more focused on the end goal then on the classically educated "renaissance man" ideal that's a by product of a time when education was only available to the rich and bored.
For example my roommate found himself taking Greek and Roman studies as part of his business degree because he needed an elective. The words need and elective describing the same thing is interesting in and of itself but my point is that if programs were limited to what you'll actually make use of in careers requiring this degree then we could again shave a great deal of time and have students entering the workplace sooner.
Past about grade 10ish education should work like this
- Pick a job
- Learn what you need to know to do that job.
- Go get that a job possibly through some sort of school related internship program.
Everything else should be made entirely optional.
Modern education wastes so much time and money.
- Torger
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With an ever increasing life span and an economy that has greater and greater demand for specialists and a decreasing demand for grunts... the effect is inevitable that it will take more time until a person is ready to have a job.Which is why school programs should be more focused on the end goal then on the classically educated "renaissance man" ideal that's a by product of a time when education was only available to the rich and bored.
The problem with this is that educating for today's end goal ends up with a whole bunch of people without the skills necessary to the work environment of the day after tomorrow. We've seen this cycle over and over again in the technical fields, for example -- the graduates of the computer schools with a more "business" find themselves unable to cope with the next big wave of technology.
This isn't a new finding. The Manhattan Project, notoriously, found that it was easier to teach the physicists how to do their own engineering for the bomb than it was to teach the engineers the necessary physics.
While you might have students entering the workplace sooner, you'll also find them leaving the workplace sooner. The point of a traditional education largely to develop critical thinking and autodidactic skill sets that transfer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second and more important. We live in a democracy. We need informed citizens, not just worker bees. Schools and colleges may not be doing the best job of preparing us for that, but that isn't a reason to cut back on it further.
Well, the solution to THAT is to separate informing the citizenry from 'education.' If the only -- or even primary -- way to become an informed citizen is to attend college, there's something wrong. And a lot of what's wrong is, in fact, misguided focus on skills learning at the early grades.
It's more important for a 9th grader to understand how political discussion works than it is to understand algebra. But guess which one they reward you for teaching....
The problem with this is that educating for today's end goal ends up with a whole bunch of people without the skills necessary to the work environment of the day after tomorrow. We've seen this cycle over and over again in the technical fields, for example -- the graduates of the computer schools with a more "business" find themselves unable to cope with the next big wave of technology.This isn't a new finding. The Manhattan Project, notoriously, found that it was easier to teach the physicists how to do their own engineering for the bomb than it was to teach the engineers the necessary physics.
While you might have students entering the workplace sooner, you'll also find them leaving the workplace sooner. The point of a traditional education largely to develop critical thinking and autodidactic skill sets that transfer.
If there are skills that everyone needs (critical thinking for instance) then start teaching them at the high school level. If they're legitimately too advanced then include them in the post secondary curriculum but you will not convince me that Greek and Roman studies was anything less than a complete waste of time and money for a business student.
- Torger
Well, the solution to THAT is to separate informing the citizenry from 'education.' If the only -- or even primary -- way to become an informed citizen is to attend college, there's something wrong. And a lot of what's wrong is, in fact, misguided focus on skills learning at the early grades.
It's more important for a 9th grader to understand how political discussion works than it is to understand algebra. But guess which one they reward you for teaching....
Ninja'd
- Torger
OTOH, picking what you're going to do at 15 and not learning anything not directly related to that has it's own drawbacks. The most obvious of which is that most of us aren't doing what we thought we'd be doing at 15. Some of us aren't even doing what we wanted to be doing at 20. Or even 30.
You make it sound as though the current system isn't already rife with people who made a bad career decision and are currently seeking retraining.
At least in my model they realize that earlier.
- Torger
Which is why school programs should be more focused on the end goal then on the classically educated "renaissance man" ideal that's a by product of a time when education was only available to the rich and bored.
Oh good, further progress along the track of patching deficiencies rather than producing excellence.
(Okay, teasing, but I liked the classical education system! Aristocratic as it no doubt was.)
Which is why school programs should be more focused on the end goal then on the classically educated "renaissance man" ideal that's a by product of a time when education was only available to the rich and bored.Oh good, further progress along the track of patching deficiencies rather than producing excellence.
(Okay, teasing, but I liked the classical education system!)
And people should be free to pursue it if they have the time and money to do so.
But for those of us who just want to be qualified for a decent job as soon as possible it's frikkin painful.
- Torger
Yeah, um, I suppose you won't get completely unbiased evaluation from this classicist.
Yeah, um, I suppose you won't get completely unbiased evaluation from this classicist.
Any more than you'll get an unbiased evaluation from a high school educated career cook who now finds himself unable to continue that job due to back injury and is looking at retraining. (me incase that was too subtle)
We all have our biases so no worries ^_^
- Torger
I'm all for this, but they should make the last two years of college free. The first two years of college are just a useless rehash of highschool.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any more than you'll get an unbiased evaluation from a high school educated career cook who now finds himself unable to continue that job due to back injury and is looking at retraining. (me incase that was too subtle)
Well, that's actually a major part of my point.
If you learn (in high school) to become a cook, you will become a cook. Until you aren't any more, either because you've been injured, or because the job has changed and you're no longer qualified for it, or because the the job has simply gone away, or because you no longer want to be a cook.
If you learn (in high school) how to become a skilled person, you will become a skilled person, and you can develop that into becoming a skilled cook -- or a skilled typist -- or a skilled HVAC technician -- or a skilled surgeon. And if circumstances change, you've already learned how to retrain easily and quickly.
And, of course, the same applies in college as well; learning to be a skilled person doesn't end just because you hit your 18th birthday.
And, yes, Greek and Roman studies --- cultural studies -- is a good way to learn how to learn. You're specifically learning about how other cultures thought and how they were different than the one you were raised in (which is going to be very important if you decide or are forced to look for jobs outside your cultural comfort zone), how to read and analyze documents (which is going to be very important if you have to read and analyze other documents about your new career path), how to express yourself well, and so forth.
If you like, you can think of cultural studies as weight-lifting for the mind. You don't lift weights because, for some reason, you need that barbell to be two meters higher than it was a few seconds ago. You don't lift weights because lifting weights is itself an important skill. You lift weights because lifting weights develops a capacity in you that is generally useful. And if, for some reason, lifting weights is "not your thing," there are other ways to develop that capacity -- but doing nothing is not generally among those ways. And, typically, neither is typing.
Similarly, there are other ways to learn about other cultures than Greek and Roman studies, but courses in actuarial science typically aren't among them.
I'm all for this, but they should make the last two years of college free. The first two years of college are just a useless rehash of highschool.
You should have picked a better college.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.It's this form of political rhetoric that keeps American government from reaching compromises and getting anything done ever.
- Torger
I was partially being sarcastic. At the same time, there's a very real element to what I said in those 2 sentences. If a person truly wants America to succeed, we need the most educated workforce in the world. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.
Education is basically one of the core pillars of solving a majority of the problems people identify in the US. It would reduce crime, give people the tools to pull themselves out of poverty and ensure that as a nation we stay on the cutting edge of technology.
We constantly get this rhetoric that giving help to those who need it is a bad thing. Instead, we should just give more to those who don't need help. That doesn't make us stronger as a country, it only makes those individuals stronger.
Interesting fact: Salt Lake City has reduced their homeless population by over 70% in recent years. Their solution? Give them a place to live. It has numerous benefits:
1) When they apply for jobs, they can now accurate fill out the "address" portion
2) It makes it easier for social services to find them and assist them, for example if they need regular doctors visits and prescriptions to deal with mental health issues.
3) Salt Lake City now spends less money dealing with homeless people per person than other major cities (Salt Lake City used to spend an average of $20,000/year on each homeless person, that has dropped to $8,000/year).
A Colorado study had similar results:
each homeless on the street = $43,000/year
providing same services PLUS housing = $17,000/year
Lifting up those on the bottom makes economic sense and improves our country in other ways too (like reducing crime). That doesn't necessarily mean that every program designed to help the poor is perfect (or even good), but we have to keep arguing over whether it's even good to help them or not, so we can't have a rational discussion about how.
Well, that's actually a major part of my point.If you learn (in high school) to become a cook, you will become a cook.
I didn't. I learned from my part time job in high school to become a cook. Everything I learned from school that related to cooking I had already learned by grade 8.
Until you aren't any more, either because you've been injured, or because the job has changed and you're no longer qualified for it, or because the the job has simply gone away, or because you no longer want to be a cook.If you learn (in high school) how to become a skilled person, you will become a skilled person, and you can develop that into becoming a skilled cook -- or a skilled typist -- or a skilled HVAC technician -- or a skilled surgeon. And if circumstances change, you've already learned how to retrain easily and quickly.
I'm all for generalized education in elementary to high school. I simply contend that 12 years is too much of it. If I'd known then what I know now I'd have dropped out in grade 8, worked full time till I was 18 and then spent a year getting my GED. The last 4 years of high school taught me nothing I have ever used.
As to "learned how to retrain quickly" by your logic I went through high school and did reasonably well so I should be able to retrain quickly.
I can tell you from experience that's not the case. I'm currently looking at 2 more years worth of school for a network technician certificate and that was the fastest palatable option I could find.
And, yes, Greek and Roman studies --- cultural studies -- is a good way to learn how to learn. You're specifically learning about how other cultures thought and how they were different than the one you were raised in (which is going to be very important if you decide or are forced to look for jobs outside your cultural comfort zone), how to read and analyze documents (which is going to be very important if you have to read and analyze other documents about your new career path), how to express yourself well, and so forth.
If you like, you can think of cultural studies as weight-lifting for the mind. You don't lift weights because, for some reason, you need that barbell to be two meters higher than it was a few seconds ago. You don't lift weights because lifting weights is itself an important skill. You lift weights because lifting weights develops a capacity in you that is generally useful. And if, for some reason, lifting weights is "not your thing," there are other ways to develop that capacity -- but doing nothing is not generally among those ways. And, typically, neither is typing.
If you still need to "learn how to learn" after 12 years of school then the 12 years you've already spent have failed you. If a course can't stimulate my mind while teaching me something relevant to the end goal then that course has failed me. And finally why does not going to school = doing nothing? I learn new things and explore new topics all the time. Just yesterday I found myself reading an article on the inner workings of the sweedish parliament. I don't need school to exercise my mind I do that just fine on my own. What I need from school is a piece of paper that says I'm employable and I'd like it as soon and as cheaply as possible.
I'm sorry but I think we're coming from diametrically opposing viewpoints on this subject.
and that's ok. As in most things I suspect neither of us are 100% right.
- Torger
If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.It's this form of political rhetoric that keeps American government from reaching compromises and getting anything done ever.
- Torger
I was partially being sarcastic. At the same time, there's a very real element to what I said in those 2 sentences. If a person truly wants America to succeed, we need the most educated workforce in the world. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.
Education is basically one of the core pillars of solving a majority of the problems people identify in the US. It would reduce crime, give people the tools to pull themselves out of poverty and ensure that as a nation we stay on the cutting edge of technology.
We constantly get this rhetoric that giving help to those who need it is a bad thing. Instead, we should just give more to those who don't need help. That doesn't make us stronger as a country, it only makes those individuals stronger.
Interesting fact: Salt Lake City has reduced their homeless population by over 70% in recent years. Their solution? Give them a place to live. It has numerous benefits:
1) When they apply for jobs, they can now accurate fill out the "address" portion
2) It makes it easier for social services to find them and assist them, for example if they need regular doctors visits and prescriptions to deal with mental health issues.
3) Salt Lake City now spends less money dealing with homeless people per person than other major cities (Salt Lake City used to spend an average of $20,000/year on each homeless person, that has dropped to $8,000/year).A Colorado study had similar results:
each homeless on the street = $43,000/year
providing same services PLUS housing = $17,000/yearLifting up those on the bottom makes economic sense and improves our country in other ways too (like reducing crime). That doesn't necessarily mean that every program designed to help the poor is perfect (or even good), but we have to keep arguing over whether it's even good to help them or not, so we can't have a rational discussion about how.
I'm all for the government helping people that need it. Infact I'm all for free education. Our positions are surprisingly similar.
The post you just made is one that fosters debate and discussion and that's fantastic.
On the other hand taking the position of "Disagreeing with me makes you the bad guy" even sarcastically, just makes people defensive and entrenched.
- Torger
P.S. Did not know that about Salt Lake City, Very cool and I 100% approve.
I was partially being sarcastic. At the same time, there's a very real element to what I said in those 2 sentences. If a person truly wants America to succeed, we need the most educated workforce in the world. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.If you're a patriot, you'd support free college education for US citizens. If you don't, you hate America and want to see it fail.It's this form of political rhetoric that keeps American government from reaching compromises and getting anything done ever.
- Torger
Unfortunately, the jury is still out on the truth of the highlighted sentence above. Canada's experiences suggest that there's a point past which additional education does not particularly help society. For a while, they were running a more or less open immigration system for people with postgraduate degrees, and found they had to stop that, as immigrants were not only taking all the good jobs, but they were coming in (because Canada is a nice place to live, if you don't mind the weather) and taking all the bad ones as well.
Similarly, there have been a lot of complaints about credential inflation. My understanding is that Canada has, simultaneously, the highest percentage of people in the OECD countries with university degrees, but also the highest percentage of underemployed people and the highest percentage of university graduates living in poverty. (And un- and underemployment rates for masters' degrees are even worse.)
Ultimately, there really are only so many jobs for doctors, lawyers, physicists, and poets. At the same time, houses still need painting, leaky pipes still need fixing, dresses need dry-cleaning, and trenches need digging.
Which makes the community college proposal that much more appropriate, because it can help put students into a carpentry shop as easily as medical school -- possibly more easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you still need to "learn how to learn" after 12 years of school then the 12 years you've already spent have failed you.
Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. If you ever in your life think that you no longer need to "learn how to learn," then you never learned it in the first place.
If you still need to "learn how to learn" after 12 years of school then the 12 years you've already spent have failed you.Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. If you ever in your life think that you no longer need to "learn how to learn," then you never learned it in the first place.
I like how you addressed that quote but not the bit after it that questions why learning has to come from a school.
- Torger
I'm all for this, but they should make the last two years of college free. The first two years of college are just a useless rehash of highschool.You should have picked a better college.
I have to disagree. Most colleges rehash unless you took AP courses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of highschool is useless repetition of stuff you already know.
We did pretty much the same american history in the 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th grades. (and never got past the civil war)
All of high-school English was a useless reading of bad books.
and college continues that. I'm all for people learning stuff that they'll actually use, but not for some alleged "enrichment" or unproven appeals to the idea that it helps you learn better. If 12 years of general enrichment isn't enough, 2 more isn't going to do anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of highschool is useless repetition of stuff you already know.
We did pretty much the same american history in the 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th grades. (and never got past the civil war)
All of high-school English was a useless reading of bad books.
and college continues that. I'm all for people learning stuff that they'll actually use, but not for some alleged "enrichment" or unproven appeals to the idea that it helps you learn better. If 12 years of general enrichment isn't enough, 2 more isn't going to do anything.
Don't confuse your bad (or undervalued) experience with truth. I find that the real issue behind teaching the humanities is that the curriculum isn't rigorous or demanding enough. If you really feel that the summation of your English classes was reading then you were severely let down.
Edit: that is continuated by your own statement that your history teachers severly let you down.
I have to disagree. Most colleges rehash unless you took AP courses.I'm all for this, but they should make the last two years of college free. The first two years of college are just a useless rehash of highschool.You should have picked a better college.
Indeed. If I could get back some of the time spent on rehashing or core courses in the humanities to instead take more science courses, I would be much happier. My university had a higher number of courses required in the arts and humanities than all my friends' colleges. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Ethnomusicology and English Lit through the Middle Ages, but given a choice, I would have preferred to slip in Restoration Ecology and Population Ecology instead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally found the requirement to have courses out of major very important. Cognitive Psychology taught me more about engineering than any other course I took. I think one of the biggest problems with college right now is overspecialization. They teach the same things in multiple classes with slightly different specifics that are just enough to disguise the fact that the same solution can be applied in different fields. For instance, how much water a pipe can carry, the current through a wire, and how quickly cars move through traffic are taught in 3 different classes in 3 different majors but fundamentally all use the same equation for flow rate. We specialize too early in education and it makes it harder to learn to apply solutions to other fields.
|
|
Most of highschool is useless repetition of stuff you already know.
We did pretty much the same american history in the 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th grades. (and never got past the civil war)
All of high-school English was a useless reading of bad books.
and college continues that. I'm all for people learning stuff that they'll actually use, but not for some alleged "enrichment" or unproven appeals to the idea that it helps you learn better. If 12 years of general enrichment isn't enough, 2 more isn't going to do anything.
There's a difference between the ideal and the implementation of a concept. In theory, there is a way to teach people how to learn by teaching them all the "useless" stuff taught in high school. That this doesn't happen is less a reflection on the concept of this plan, and more on a lacking execution.Consider something along the lines of this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between the ideal and the implementation of a concept. In theory, there is a way to teach people how to learn by teaching them all the "useless" stuff taught in high school. That this doesn't happen is less a reflection on the concept of this plan, and more on a lacking execution.Consider something along the lines of this.
So what we have is a situation where
We know that the current method of teaching people to learn doesn't work.
but we know that we can teach people useful stuff.
Instead of trying to find a hypothetical way of teaching people useless stuff so that it might, hypothetically, maybe, do a better job of teaching them useful stuff ... why don't we just teach them useful stuff?
Pell Grants, man. We need more Pell Grants.
Pell Grants, man. We need more Pell Grants.Not really. We really need more direct support for public universities.
Finance them directly through taxation rather than drive tuition sky high and then pay it directly for some and make others take out ridiculous loans.
We need to decouple research and universities. That is the primary tuition cost difference between community colleges and universities; you are paying for professors to not teach, work 15 hour weeks, and publish inconclusive work every 3-4 years.
]Trade schools aren't a bad idea. We could use more of them.
They're not a replacement for colleges.
They're not the only thing you could get skipping the two year highschool rehash.
I'm not entirely sure that TheJeff understands that Pell Grants are need-based, rather than cost-based, but I feel like this whole thread is about to go down the rabbit hole, so I don't want to press the point.
Trade schools aren't a bad idea. We could use more of them.
They're not a replacement for colleges.
That's kind of the point, though, and you might be saying it too, but...
Why can't we have BOTH?
If you want to have your 'classical' education that covers numerous fields and/or you are not certain what you want to pursue, but want to be flexible so that you can adapt to what is available or later catches your interest, go to the University.
If you know that there is a particular field you know you want to specialize in for the purposes of early employment, because you enjoy that particular line of work and see no need to learn the others, or similar reasons, have a Trade School, preferably one where you can get hands-on experience, and possibly even an 'apprenticeship' or the like.
I see a lot of arguments about what boils down to "Generalists VS Specialist". The answer isn't either/or, the answer is both. We shouldn't be favoring one over the other, but finding options for both.
As much as people want to go on about the changing nature of jobs, many stay the same, while many others change. Lets raise up some students to tackle both sets of issues.
The thing is, if pell grants were adequate and truly need based people wouldn't be graduating college with $100,000 in loans. The fact that they are suggests the grants don't work.I'm not entirely sure that TheJeff understands that Pell Grants are need-based, rather than cost-based, but I feel like this whole thread is about to go down the rabbit hole, so I don't want to press the point.
Pell Grants (or any grants at all, I guess) are given to individuals. It's not a systematic solution, but that doesn't mean they don't work, it just means they weren't designed with the College Industrial Loan Complex (or whatever the hell you want to call it) in mind.
Edit: Y'know, we're talking about affordable education here, and suddenly all I can remember is the time a friend of mind was saying he couldn't afford a certain university and I was all, "My God man, just apply for financial aid, you'll get it!"
I can't think of a single school I've attended where I haven't been on scholarship, but I don't know if that's because I'm smart, or just good at working the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to decouple research and universities. That is the primary tuition cost difference between community colleges and universities; you are paying for professors to not teach, work 15 hour weeks, and publish inconclusive work every 3-4 years.Pell Grants, man. We need more Pell Grants.Not really. We really need more direct support for public universities.
Finance them directly through taxation rather than drive tuition sky high and then pay it directly for some and make others take out ridiculous loans.
hhahahhahahahahahah...
oh wait you are being serious...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuitionWhat's another $34 billion a year?Literally nothing.
The U.S. spent 6 Trillion dollars on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq with absolutely nothing to show for it. The sum of all federal student loans still outstanding is 1 Trillion.
If instead of pissing away life and treasure in the Middle East we had canceled all student debt then we could have taken the rest and funded this proposal for 134 years.
So were the Taliban really good guys? Were we wrong about them giving shelter to Al-Qaeda? Am I missing something here? Why does the War in Afghanistan always get lumped in with the War in Iraq?
|
|
So were the Taliban really good guys? Were we wrong about them giving shelter to Al-Qaeda? Am I missing something here? Why does the War in Afghanistan always get lumped in with the War in Iraq?And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuitionWhat's another $34 billion a year?Literally nothing.
The U.S. spent 6 Trillion dollars on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq with absolutely nothing to show for it. The sum of all federal student loans still outstanding is 1 Trillion.
If instead of pissing away life and treasure in the Middle East we had canceled all student debt then we could have taken the rest and funded this proposal for 134 years.
The Taliban were bad guys. They gave shelter to Al-Qaeda, though there were some hints that they could have been persuaded/bribed/threatened into changing that.
So what? Are we safer because we overthrew the Taliban? Is the world more peaceful? Are the Afghanis better off? What do we have to show for more than a decade of waste and war?
Well, there were a couple of halfway decent Hollywood movies about the war in Afghanistan, so it's not like there was no gain at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I particularly like Rambo III when discussing the US war in Afghanistan.
So were the Taliban really good guys? Were we wrong about them giving shelter to Al-Qaeda? Am I missing something here? Why does the War in Afghanistan always get lumped in with the War in Iraq?And how does(n't) he plan on paying for this?
the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuitionWhat's another $34 billion a year?Literally nothing.
The U.S. spent 6 Trillion dollars on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq with absolutely nothing to show for it. The sum of all federal student loans still outstanding is 1 Trillion.
If instead of pissing away life and treasure in the Middle East we had canceled all student debt then we could have taken the rest and funded this proposal for 134 years.
The Taliban were bad guys. They gave shelter to Al-Qaeda, though there were some hints that they could have been persuaded/bribed/threatened into changing that.
So what? Are we safer because we overthrew the Taliban? Is the world more peaceful? Are the Afghanis better off? What do we have to show for more than a decade of waste and war?
A lot of people who could have attacked America are dead. That may have not been the best outcome, but it is something.