Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste.
Threeshades wrote: Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste. The truth of the matter is that the people in a position to effect that change DONT want to encourage the country to flourish but instead want to experience the most extreme opulence known in the history of mankind.
That opulence would be far greater in a flourishing country.
Sissyl wrote: That opulence would be far greater in a flourishing country. Perhaps, but the U.S. is flourishing enough to provide that level of opulence. Plus the people are all at least 65 years old, and they literally do not care about what happens after they die. Vindictive Nihilism at its finest.
I quote Schlock mercenary: Getting rid of a gerontocracy is always good, clean fun.
I dunno. Blood is a difficult stain to remove.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Maxim 34: If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote: My concern is the law of supply and demand.
Simply put, the more common something is, the less value it has, and the more likely it moves from luxury to necessity. For example, fifty years ago, it was possible to be successful even if you didn't graduate high school; harder, but possible. Now, with more and more people having college degrees, it is becoming necessary to have a degree to even get an entry level position in more and more places. I remember applying to work at a car rental facility and they wouldn't even give me an application because I didn't have a Bachelor's degree.
To answer phones at the front counter.
The more that college is subsidized, the more it will turn from people going there to learn because they want to advance themselves and their careers to what high school has become - rooms full of seat warmers who are only there because the other choice was flipping burgers part time.
Where have you been? The idea of college as a glorified job/career preparation center has been mainstream for decades. Or perhaps you're afraid of collage no longer being a form of exclusive crowd, that they might start letting THEM in. Whoever They are.
When goblins find apple booze soaked towels this true.
Threeshades wrote: Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste. The real problem is keeping education away from the less intelligent. The poor/rich-divide argument has no merit.
You cannot educate me to be a useful quantum theorist and you cannot educate half of the population to be much more than a "you want fries with that?" salesperson.
Half the people are below average and always will be. To educate them further, to give them a college degree (and let's be honest here - it would be a matter of giving them a degree) will make a college education about as meritorious as a high school diploma now is. Which is to say, the diploma in hand will mean that you showed up to class something like half the time (or better) and didn't get below a "C-" (on average).
Quark Blast wrote: Threeshades wrote: Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste. The real problem is keeping education away from the less intelligent. The poor/rich-divide argument has no merit.
You cannot educate me to be a useful quantum theorist and you cannot educate half of the population to be much more than a "you want fries with that?" salesperson.
Half the people are below average and always will be. To educate them further, to give them a college degree (and let's be honest here - it would be a matter of giving them a degree) will make a college education about as meritorious as a high school diploma now is. Which is to say, the diploma in hand will mean that you showed up to class something like half the time (or better) and didn't get below a "C-" (on average). Except that our current plan is largely based not on "intelligence", but on wealth/poverty.
Both on cost of college education and on quality of pre-college education.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Threeshades wrote: Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste. The real problem is keeping education away from the less intelligent. The poor/rich-divide argument has no merit.
You cannot educate me to be a useful quantum theorist and you cannot educate half of the population to be much more than a "you want fries with that?" salesperson.
Half the people are below average and always will be. To educate them further, to give them a college degree (and let's be honest here - it would be a matter of giving them a degree), will make a college education about as meritorious as a high school diploma now is. Which is to say, the diploma in hand will mean that you showed up to class something like half the time (or better) and didn't get below a "C-" (on average). Except that our current plan is largely based not on "intelligence", but on wealth/poverty.
Both on cost of college education and on quality of pre-college education. Not true. If you're poor - like poverty line poor - you can get a full ride scholarship. Several from my public high school have/are doing just that. The one's the current system screws over are the ones that aren't quite middle class and not exceptionally intelligent (but still above average) - no free tuition/books/subsidized housing for them. They take it on the chin.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
The real problem is keeping education away from the less intelligent. The poor/rich-divide argument has no merit.
Except that our current plan is largely based not on "intelligence", but on wealth/poverty.
Both on cost of college education and on quality of pre-college education. Not true. If you're poor - like poverty line poor - you can get a full ride scholarship. Several from my public high school have/are doing just that. The one's the current system screws over are the ones that aren't quite middle class and not exceptionally intelligent (but still above average) - no free tuition/books/subsidized housing for them. They take it on the chin. If you're poor, you face an awful lot of challenges just getting the basic education needed to be accepted to college in the first place. Best predictor of education attainment is wealth/poverty level.
thejeff wrote: If you're poor, you face an awful lot of challenges just getting the basic education needed to be accepted to college in the first place. Best predictor of education attainment is wealth/poverty level. Yes, I agree. Poverty sucks - no exceptions.
But just giving away a college education won't make a poor below-average-INT person any more capable outside the burger and fries arena.
Like grade inflation, it only lowers the bar for anyone to step over. And when that happens employers start using a different bar to screen out potential "qualified" applicants.
In the mean time our government has blown tax dollars better spent elsewhere and raised the hopes of people who have no hope of actually getting something useful out of "earning" a college degree.
It's a big waste. Not big as in invade-Iraq, but still a waste.
Quark Blast wrote:
But just giving away a college education won't make a poor below-average-INT person any more capable outside the burger and fries arena.
There is a vast swath of humanity in between flipping burgers and quantum physics that can learn carpentry, masonry, high school councilor, cnc mlling, hvac basic computer operations, 3d printing, art, vet tech, contracting, commercial driving... good paying jobs that can get you respect and don't have a higher death rate than being a cop.
I think the larger problem is that the people in power simply don't need these jobs to be here. They're perfectly fine with the intellectual property and money being in america while the manufacturing and production arms of the economy are overseas where the labor is cheap, gets shot if they get uppity, and can wallow around in the factories air pollution and like it.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: But just giving away a college education won't make a poor below-average-INT person any more capable outside the burger and fries arena. There is a vast swath of humanity in between flipping burgers and quantum physics <snip>... Strictly speaking it's less than half the population. And some of that half is wealthy enough to afford college, and some of that half is poor enough to get a 'free-ride' (or close to it) already, and some of that half simply doesn't want to go to college.
The problem then is sending the bottom-half-plus remainder to college and dumbing down what it means to have a college degree.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I think the larger problem is that the people in power simply don't need these jobs to be here. They're perfectly fine with the intellectual property and money being in america while the manufacturing and production arms of the economy are overseas where the labor is cheap, gets shot if they get uppity, and can wallow around in the factories air pollution and like it. Yes. It seems that though Bill Gates and others like him give enormous amounts to charitable education causes, most of those programs do statistically the same as public schools. The only measurable result they get is the tax write off.
I think that statistical parity (between public schools and the efforts of the Gates Foundation, e.g.) comes from the fact that they are throwing "top flight" education on below average kids.
Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned.
Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it.
Reality check.
The proposal is for community college, not 'real' college.
It will not undervalue a for year degree and two year degrees are pretty lowly valued already.
Also, history proves the argument wrong since U noncredit of California used to be free and wasn't considered worthless.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty.
Quark Blast wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: But just giving away a college education won't make a poor below-average-INT person any more capable outside the burger and fries arena. There is a vast swath of humanity in between flipping burgers and quantum physics <snip>... Strictly speaking it's less than half the population. And some of that half is wealthy enough to afford college, and some of that half is poor enough to get a 'free-ride' (or close to it) already, and some of that half simply doesn't want to go to college.
The problem then is sending the bottom-half-plus remainder to college and dumbing down what it means to have a college degree.
BigNorseWolf wrote: I think the larger problem is that the people in power simply don't need these jobs to be here. They're perfectly fine with the intellectual property and money being in america while the manufacturing and production arms of the economy are overseas where the labor is cheap, gets shot if they get uppity, and can wallow around in the factories air pollution and like it. Yes. It seems that though Bill Gates and others like him give enormous amounts to charitable education causes, most of those programs do statistically the same as public schools. The only measurable result they get is the tax write off.
I think that statistical parity (between public schools and the efforts of the Gates Foundation, e.g.) comes from the fact that they are throwing "top flight" education on below average kids.
Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. a) I don't think "average" is the point where you're not mentally capable of anything beyond flipping burgers. So it's still a vast swath.
b) It's not entirely clear that the enormous amounts given to charitable education causes actually result in "top flight" educations. Top flight education doesn't tend to look a lot like either charter schools or public school. Look where the elites send their kids.
c) Most importantly, what I think you're missing is the strict correlation between poverty and low education. One interpretation is that poor people are dumb and tend to have dumb kids, so there's no point in wasting much education on them. You're coming perilously close to this. There's a lot of evidence that actually being poor not only means you're likely exposed to less education, but that it actually makes it harder to learn. The extra stresses that come with poverty make learning harder, regardless of your basic intelligence or what kind of school you're in.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Krensky wrote: Reality check.
The proposal is for community college, not 'real' college.
It will not undervalue a for year degree and two year degrees are pretty lowly valued already.
Also, history proves the argument wrong since U noncredit of California used to be free and wasn't considered worthless.
The irony in this post is side-splitting hilarious.
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about.
Free college education is a great idea... But in practice, it's really difficult to pull off satisfactorily. I'm not saying it can't be done, only that it's pretty difficult.
There are two countries I know... US and Brazil. I guess the majority of people here know how college education works in the US, so let me tell how public education works in Brazil, just to put things in perspective...
First off, here is the deal. What defines the quality of any educational institution is its students, not its professors. Proof of this is that many teachers and professors work in two or more educational institutions with widely varying degrees of quality.
Anyway...
In Brazil, most of the top colleges and universities are public. OTOH, basic education in public schools is really freaking bad.
Why? Well.. If you have the choice between getting free education and paid education, and both of them have the same quality, which one you'll pick? The free one, of course. That means most students will try to go for the public college, but those colleges simply can't host every student. So how to select which ones should be allowed to enroll?
A couple of extensive tests, of course. Testing students' knowledge in a variety of areas, which weigh differently depending on what course they're applying for. That means that the most apt students are the ones who get to go the best colleges. That's only fair, right?
Well... Kinda...
The best students are the ones who could afford better education, and possibly a preparatory course too. Not surprisingly, those are the students who come from wealthier families.
So, in practical terms, the students who get free college education are the ones who have more money. And the ones who lack the same wealth are forced to either not go to college or pick a paid one (and there are many private colleges and universities that are really good, but they are usually not cheap).
So, the real question is... How do we create free college education without
a- discriminating who can and who can't apply
b- losing quality of education.
Ideally, education would be so well funded that we'd have enough public schools to accept every student without suffering a decrease in quality (which is particularly difficult to achieve in large nations, like the US, and even more so in large 3rd world nations, like Brazil).
Sadly... I don't think that'll happen anytime soon... Education doesn't provide immediate visible results, it takes time. So it tends to be undervalued by the communities that need it the most...
thejeff wrote: a) I don't think "average" is the point where you're not mentally capable of anything beyond flipping burgers. So it's still a vast swath. The numbers may be large (depends on how you count) but the proportion will be small. I have a friend who loves to read - ever since he was given Head Start attention circa Kindergarten - and reads all the time. However, he is sitting at right about a 10 for INT and so what he reads reflects that. Better than not reading - no argument there - but he'll be lucky if he makes assistant manager someday at the burger place.
The point being - a college education (even CC) will not help him more than OTJ training in life. Subsidizing OTJ for him, for a job he actually wants to do, will be money better spent than two years at college learning the "core curriculum" - things that do not interest him and never will.
thejeff wrote: b) It's not entirely clear that the enormous amounts given to charitable education causes actually result in "top flight" educations. Top flight education doesn't tend to look a lot like either charter schools or public school. Look where the elites send their kids. Yes, but my point is that the amount spent per child by Gates-level enterprises rivals upper class private education and the results... well, they look a lot like public school results.
thejeff wrote: c) Most importantly, what I think you're missing is the strict correlation between poverty and low education. One interpretation is that poor people are dumb and tend to have dumb kids, so there's no point in wasting much education on them. You're coming perilously close to this. There's a lot of evidence that actually being poor not only means you're likely exposed to less education, but that it actually makes it harder to learn. The extra stresses that come with poverty make learning harder, regardless of your basic intelligence or what kind of school you're in. No, I'm not pulling the Idiocracy card in this discussion.
I'm saying equal access for equal merit.
And yes I know that growing up very poor impacts everything else in one's life. Growing up poor, in and of itself, will most likely result in less merit vis-a-vis college education.
BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about. Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on.
BigDTBone wrote: Krensky wrote: Reality check.
The proposal is for community college, not 'real' college.
It will not undervalue a for year degree and two year degrees are pretty lowly valued already.
Also, history proves the argument wrong since U noncredit of California used to be free and wasn't considered worthless.
The irony in this post is side-splitting hilarious. I blame my phone autotype and being rushed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about. Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on. Yes, your Fordship.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about. Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on. Yes, your Fordship. Well, other than that Ford was jerk and that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for an individual business - just one that's necessary for survival of a democracy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: a) I don't think "average" is the point where you're not mentally capable of anything beyond flipping burgers. So it's still a vast swath. The numbers may be large (depends on how you count) but the proportion will be small. I have a friend who loves to read - ever since he was given Head Start attention circa Kindergarten - and reads all the time. However, he is sitting at right about a 10 for INT and so what he reads reflects that. Better than not reading - no argument there - but he'll be lucky if he makes assistant manager someday at the burger place.
The point being - a college education (even CC) will not help him more than OTJ training in life. Subsidizing OTJ for him, for a job he actually wants to do, will be money better spent than two years at college learning the "core curriculum" - things that do not interest him and never will.
thejeff wrote: b) It's not entirely clear that the enormous amounts given to charitable education causes actually result in "top flight" educations. Top flight education doesn't tend to look a lot like either charter schools or public school. Look where the elites send their kids. Yes, but my point is that the amount spent per child by Gates-level enterprises rivals upper class private education and the results... well, they look a lot like public school results.
thejeff wrote: c) Most importantly, what I think you're missing is the strict correlation between poverty and low education. One interpretation is that poor people are dumb and tend to have dumb kids, so there's no point in wasting much education on them. You're coming perilously close to this. There's a lot of evidence that actually being poor not only means you're likely exposed to less education, but that it actually makes it harder to learn. The extra stresses that come with poverty make learning harder, regardless of your basic intelligence or what kind of school you're in. No, I'm not pulling the... It seems to me that your appreciation of your own intelligence as well as the people around you is in dire need of improvement with respect to accuracy.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Threeshades wrote: Sissyl wrote: Uhm, guys... there has been so much talk about how brilliant socialized health care is, and everyone's been looking at Sweden as the bright shining example. As a Swede, I think the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education is far, far more important. There is a reason why Sweden has done as well as it has in research and technology. Let's face it: No country that wants to flourish can afford to let bright young people flip burgers. Believe me when I say 34 billion dollars is a VERY small price to pay. This, a million times.
Not only because research and technology. All corners of the economy thrive if the right people get the education they need to work there.
Keeping college education away from the less wealthy will just ensure that most of the potential in the country goes to waste. The real problem is keeping education away from the less intelligent. The poor/rich-divide argument has no merit.
You cannot educate me to be a useful quantum theorist and you cannot educate half of the population to be much more than a "you want fries with that?" salesperson.
Half the people are below average and always will be. To educate them further, to give them a college degree (and let's be honest here - it would be a matter of giving them a degree), will make a college education about as meritorious as a high school diploma now is. Which is to say, the diploma in hand will mean that you showed up to class something like half the time (or better) and didn't get below a "C-" (on average). Except that our current plan is largely based not on "intelligence", but on wealth/poverty.
Both on cost of college education and on quality of pre-college education. Not true. If you're poor - like poverty line poor - you can get a full ride scholarship. Several from my public high school have/are doing just that. The one's the current system screws over are the... Poverty line poor is an astonishingly hard line to reach, depending on the state you live in. That's like saying UNCF is going to give me a free ride to college because I'm black. I didn't qualify for poverty line stuff or UNCF stuff either. Guess I took it on the chin even though I'm so far away from middle class it's a hazy outline on the horizon.
1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.
In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
2) Free post-secondary education does not automatically mean college or university.
In fact, if you actually go check out current proposals (linkified if you're lazy) you'll note that technical programs and on the job training are ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. Citing the exclusion of these programs as part of your opposition to the proposal seems a little silly. Know what you're against before you decide you're against it.
3) The level of complexity in the world is ever increasing.
Jobs will continue to become more layered and specialized. While schooling now is already more advanced than it was 100 years ago (go check out 3rd grade math from then and compare it today, it's more advanced), that trend is going to continue. People are going to need more and more education to do what future decades determine are menial jobs. In addition with out our cultural system is set up, more and more aspects of being a citizen require more and more knowledge. Planning for retirement is a part time job now that if done well can take 10-20 hours per week. It requires math skills and economics to do well. Society continues to grow more and more complex and require additional skills to be successful in.
Janitors will have to have a basic understanding of economics and investments to plan for their own retirement, otherwise they will place a heavier burden on the government when they are no longer able to work.
Freehold DM wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: stuff It seems to me that your appreciation of your own intelligence as well as the people around you is in dire need of improvement with respect to accuracy. How so?
Irontruth wrote: 1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.
In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
2) Free post-secondary education does not automatically mean college or university.
In fact, if you actually go check out current proposals (linkified if you're lazy) you'll note that technical programs and on the job training are ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. Citing the exclusion of these programs as part of your opposition to the proposal seems a little silly. Know what you're against before you decide you're against it.
Well, maybe I am on board with this.
OTJ is far more worthwhile than any 1st-two-years college core curriculum.
I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Irontruth wrote: 1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.
In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
...
Getting back to your point 1) though...
If the funding is coming from the Feds (taxpayers), then there will be a strong incentive to show results. That means, like "No Child Left Behind", the more kids you "pass" or "graduate" the easier it will be for the college to get further Federal largess.
That is not a good situation.
Boomers went to college - often using the GI Bill - at a time when their tuition really did pay for their education.
Scouting for college myself I've spent not a few hours over at ratemyprofessors.com for the colleges I'm looking at and there you'll see good evidence of professors using multiple-guess testing and otherwise "going through the motions". As my counselor said, to prepare me for eventual college, (paraphrasing here):
"You are largely responsible for the quality of your education. Don't depend on the professors to teach you but instead seek to learn from them by asking questions whenever you don't understand."
Fergurg wrote: I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
fygm tng.
I have a sneaking suspicion you were looking for the least excuse to oppose this and that a hastily read and interpreted part of the proposal simply gave you the impetus you needed.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: 1) Free college education does not automatically mean you are guaranteed to get a degree.
In the US, state colleges and universities were either free or so cheap you could pay your way through working a menial labor job for several decades. It's not uncommon among the baby boomer generation for example that they graduated either with no debt or minimal debt, while receiving little money from their parents. During this period of cheap/free school graduation was not automatic. Therefore we know that this assumption is false.
...
Getting back to your point 1) though...
If the funding is coming from the Feds (taxpayers), then there will be a strong incentive to show results. That means, like "No Child Left Behind", the more kids you "pass" or "graduate" the easier it will be for the college to get further Federal largess.
That is not a good situation.
Boomers went to college - often using the GI Bill - at a time when their tuition really did pay for their education.
Scouting for college myself I've spent not a few hours over at ratemyprofessors.com for the colleges I'm looking at and there you'll see good evidence of professors using multiple-guess testing and otherwise "going through the motions". As my counselor said, to prepare me for eventual college, (paraphrasing here):
"You are largely responsible for the quality of your education. Don't depend on the professors to teach you but instead seek to learn from them by asking questions whenever you don't understand." you are seriously building an argument based on hours spent going through ratemyprofessors.com?
Freehold DM wrote: Fergurg wrote: I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
fygm tng. If you're going to live on our planet, you have to speak the language.
Freehold DM wrote: I have a sneaking suspicion you were looking for the least excuse to oppose this and that a hastily read and interpreted part of the proposal simply gave you the impetus you needed. Why would I need an excuse?
Freehold DM wrote: you are seriously building an argument based on hours spent going through ratemyprofessors.com? As opposed to what?
Srsly pretending to dialog with someone by occasionally sniping at their posts?
...taking several minutes to page through Freeholds posts...
Oop! Never mind. Answered my own question.
Fergurg wrote: Freehold DM wrote: Fergurg wrote: I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
fygm tng. If you're going to live on our planet, you have to speak the language.
Freehold DM wrote: I have a sneaking suspicion you were looking for the least excuse to oppose this and that a hastily read and interpreted part of the proposal simply gave you the impetus you needed. Why would I need an excuse? Because you weren't interested in this idea working as much as you were interested in finding a reason for it to not work.
Quark Blast wrote: Freehold DM wrote: you are seriously building an argument based on hours spent going through ratemyprofessors.com? As opposed to what?
Srsly pretending to dialog with someone by occasionally sniping at their posts?
...taking several minutes to page through Freeholds posts...
Oop! Never mind. Answered my own question.
this is a messageboard,not a real time chat, so dialogues are going to be badly broken up by the time someone has to respond to a query, sniping or not.
The original question regarding taking ratemyprofessors.com seriously with respect to the viability of a program on the part of the US government to provide (sorta kinda)free community college for some (I won't pretend all) remains. If you are honestly putting those two on the same level, maybe I was wrong about what I said earlier.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about. Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on. Yes, your Fordship. Well, other than that Ford was jerk and that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for an individual business - just one that's necessary for survival of a democracy. I guess Aldous Huxley is a bit obscure for this venue.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark blast wrote: Educating kids beyond their INT is like giving me course work on quantum theory - it's a demonstrable waste of time and money. However well intentioned. Right, but for all but a few people that have severe handicaps there's something thats not beyond their int that will give them a better life than burger flipping. They might not design their Flipsomatic robot replacement but they can learn how to fix it. Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty. It shouldn't be a horrible mind numbing life it should be a horrible mind numbing few years you get to complain to your grandkids about. Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on. Yes, your Fordship. Well, other than that Ford was jerk and that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for an individual business - just one that's necessary for survival of a democracy. I guess Aldous Huxley is a bit obscure for this venue. you could have gone in a Howard Taft direction. That would have taken the obscurity crown,as it were.
Fergurg wrote: I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
Except that you'd only be paying tax on the gains, not the savings itself and for most middle lower class families (who dot net use 529s anyway) the expansion of the AOTC makes it a wash.
Krensky wrote: Fergurg wrote: I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.
I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.
Except that you'd only be paying tax on the gains, not the savings itself and for most middle lower class families (who dot net use 529s anyway) the expansion of the AOTC makes it a wash. The way that works is that the 529's help pay for tuition at the current rate, meaning that when it comes due, the difference between then and now is considered a gain. That is what would be taxed, in order to help pay for the tuition of those whose parents didn't do that.
Should the government also come into my house and take food out of my fridge to help feed the children of parents who didn't buy food?
Fergurg wrote:
Should the government also come into my house and take food out of my fridge to help feed the children of parents who didn't buy food?
More like should the government use the sales tax from food to pay for a food stamp program.
And my answer is the same to both: if you're going to call yourself a progressive knock it off with the regressibe fundting. On the other hand it beats not doing it at all.
Fergurg wrote: Why would I need an excuse? You need an excuse because there is no valid argument against the proposal.
|
