|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Irontruth wrote: Something to consider, in the 70's there was an increase in college graduates entering the workforce (the baby boomers were graduating). This lead to an initial dip in wages for entry level jobs requiring degrees, but as time went on, wages went back up and productivity increased faster. The overall net effect for the individuals (college graduates average $1,000,000 more in lifetime wages than non-college graduates) but had positive impacts on the overall economy as well. The 1970's was the beginning of automation replacing actual workers. The Unions slowed this down a bit for people like Bob ("Bob the Riveter" became "Bob the Pick Up Stuff That Other People Have Dropped on the Factory Floor and Put It in the Appropriate Bin for Later Use"), but after Bob retired this type of job has largely gone away.
Automation is the primary reason why Minimum Wage has not kept up with inflation and is the driver in the ever increasing efficiency of the American worker.
Depending on the field, education is a distant to very distant second place impact on our economy.
Irontruth wrote: If you want to argue for stringent standards on college degrees, I'm all for it. You'll get no complaints from me that we need high standards in education. But arguing about HOW we do it is different from arguing about IF we should do it.
Please, dig up some information that a higher educated workforce is bad for us. I'd be really interested to hear that.
My argument is that you cannot educate people beyond their abilities. You'd think you'd already know that by participating in the Paizo Message Boards! :p
And, no, I'm not excluding myself from that evaluation. :p :p
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile!
Quark Blast wrote: Hudax wrote: stuff...Research is never wasted. Research and education are the same in this regard. Education is never wasted... stuff Ha!
Nuclear bombs. You just pulled the equivalent of a Godwin, except science flavored.
Well done!
Hudax wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Hudax wrote: stuff...Research is never wasted. Research and education are the same in this regard. Education is never wasted... stuff Ha!
Nuclear bombs. You just pulled the equivalent of a Godwin, except science flavored.
Well done! At least the Nazis are mostly dead and buried.
The fallout from nuclear bomb research hasn't even reached its first half-life.
Now pardon me while I duck-and-cover from the pun back blast...
Quark Blast wrote: My argument is that you cannot educate people beyond their abilitie No one is arguing against your tautology. What people are saying is that the segment of population for whom "the fries the limit" is such a small percentage of the population that you don't build social policy around them.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: My argument is that you cannot educate people beyond their abilitie No one is arguing against your tautology. What people are saying is that the segment of population for whom "the fries the limit" is such a small percentage of the population that you don't build social policy around them. And I'm saying that the people worth educating don't need a social policy cocoon.
Free Trade has really hurt the bottom half of the American work force far more than any supposed lack of access to education.
EDIT
That and the aforementioned automation.
So...after reading this over and digesting it more, I have a few thoughts.
First...I like to consider myself fairly familiar with the US education System, as I earned my PhD last year and have witnessed the higher education at four different schools, ranging from community college to big state university.
Also, a lot of stuff that has come up in this thread has basically been discussed over and over again with my friends.
First off, for those who think that free community college will somehow "cheapen" degrees, you are too late. Easy access to college loan has would already do this. Schools don't care where their money comes from, and there is a heavy push to give students the maximum aid they are eligible via loans. Since the loans are not something people need to worry about until they are done with school, people head off to college with little worry about what they will pursue for their career. The only difference between the free community college proposal and today's loan situation is that under the former, some people may realize that higher education is not for them, and get out without owing money; people who do go one get a slightly lesser debt load.
My experience on both sides of the teacher-student divide has shown that their isn't much pressure on departments to raise graduation rates and class acceptance rates. Doing so lowers a schools reputation, and from a income viewpoint the school will still make money. More on this later.
For those who worry that college will be seen as "high school +", again this attitude is already present. There is a significant component of college students who only enroll because everyone else does, or because the parents expect it. I think its debatable how much this cheapens education...some people will go on and make use of that degree, some won't. Again, this attitude is already present.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: Let's break down your statements here.
Quark Blast wrote:
The point I was making is that until... what? ... sometime in the 1970's? A person could pay his way through college with summer work and part time work while at college.
When people could afford to pay for their own education, they could receive it and provide for themselves.
Though this isn't directly related to your point, a good part of that difference in cost, at least for public colleges, was direct state support for the schools. That's been largely replaced with government subsidized tuitions, through grants and government backed loans. The important statistic that you've not allowed for is that students are now being made to account for a greater percentage of a college or universities's operating expenses. Especially with schools like Rutgers who has taken no hit in student enrollment from raising tuition. (the middle class families who can no longer afford to send their kids to NJ's state university are being replaced by upper class families who's kids can't meet the standards for Princeton.) I think that's what I said, though from a different angle.
And often they still can afford it, by taking out crippling loans or getting grants and scholarships.
Of course, this also ties in to the general decline of the middle class.
So James Jacobs, in answering a question about religous training (schooling!) of Druids over on his answers thread, had this to say:
Quote: Religious training for clerics varies by faith, but you can look at any real-world religion to get started on how things might work. Inner Sea Gods covers the 20 core deities, giving each of them a detailed bit about what a priest's role in the faith is like; the training for that role, if not specifically mentioned in the text, should be obvious from the context.
And just as some folks are too stupid to figure out how to cast wizard spells, and some folks are too weak to be able to fight with weapons, and some folks are too awkward and clumsy to be a rogue, and some folks are too vapid and dull to be bards, some folks are just to faithless and oblivious to become clerics (and by extension, too faithless and oblivious to gain divine powers from a deity, regardless of class).
I particularly like the second paragraph for obvious reasons.
In that vein, I submit that some people are unable to capitalize on a college education. Even a 2-year core-curriculum type of degree. Hudax's hand waving allusions to Plato aside (Yes, Plato! That scion of Antiquities who promoted education for men, and only men, and upper class men at that - LOL ;D with Tears).
And as MMCJawa so helpfully points out, we have in effect already performed the educate everybody experiment and it hasn't shown obvious positive benefits on the whole.
Our real problems vis-a-vis blue collar jobs are Automation X and Free Trade.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You do know that Pathfinder is not real life, right?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: For those who worry that college will be seen as "high school +", again this attitude is already present. Its not the attitude of employers/the public I'm worried about so much as the reality. Paying a lot of money to get something that doesn't add any real value to the person seems kind of pointless. I realize this is already happening but can't see any reason to have MORE of it.
Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile! If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: And as MMCJawa so helpfully points out, we have in effect already performed the educate everybody experiment and it hasn't shown obvious positive benefits on the whole. No we haven't. What we have found out is that on the whole, the higher the grade of education completed, the better off the individual is.
In Westeren countries which do offer expanded secondary education, the average worker there is generally in much better shape than the average American worker here. Among other things, they're less likely to vote against their own interests.
Every relevant statistic that can be called up. suggests that overall raising the general education of American citizens is a GOOD thing overall. If that makes some folks cry that their education is less special because it's now less exclusive, I've got buckets for all of them.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: You do know that Pathfinder is not real life, right? Yes, but JJ's argument is a Simulationist argument so it applies here; so I quoted his authoritative statement.
I just thought it was funny (in the ironic sense) and apt. He is after all making the same argument that others find repellent - even the ones who've read Plato and apparently didn't understand him. :)
Quark Blast wrote:
And I'm saying that the people worth educating don't need a social policy cocoon. Why? Because the ones that need it aren't worth educating?
Plenty of smart driven people get turned off by a pointless education system. Plenty of smart driven people just don't have the time and money to go to college
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergurg wrote: Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile! If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking. I don't even know what that means.
Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking?
thejeff wrote: Fergurg wrote: Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile! If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking. I don't even know what that means.
Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking?
It is when you attribute concepts to Plato that aren't there in the least.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: You do know that Pathfinder is not real life, right? Yes, but JJ's argument is a Simulationist argument so it applies here; so I quoted his authoritative statement.
I just thought it was funny (in the ironic sense) and apt. He is after all making the same argument that others find repellent - even the ones who've read Plato and apparently didn't understand him. :) Of course I didn't understand it. It was all greek to me.
ow ow ow put the lamp dow ow ow ow YOu made it too easy! ow ow ow behold the violence inherent in the system! ow ow ow ow
Quark Blast wrote: Vod Canockers wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 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. There is no Federal sales tax on food in the US. As it is most sales taxes hit the poor harder than the rich. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items. That's because they're too lazy to cook and buy the taxed-up junk food instead. No, it's because they don't have money to save. Or look at it this way, if someone is making ten times what a poor person makes, do they spend ten times what that poor person does on food, clothes, and other things? Or do they put money into their retirement accounts, invest in stocks, bonds, and other non taxable items, set up savings for their kids education, and all those other things that the poor can't afford to do, because they are trying to house and feed their family?
Quark Blast wrote: I submit that some people are unable to capitalize on a college education. I won't argue with that. But they won't qualify. There are grade requirements.
Quote: Hudax's hand waving allusions to Plato aside (Yes, Plato! That scion of Antiquities who promoted education for men, and only men, and upper class men at that - LOL ;D with Tears). It was ancient Greece--a patriarchal slave-based economy. What did you expect him to think?
Thankfully Plato's treatise on "Rich White Dudes" did not stand the test of time.
Quote: It is when you attribute concepts to Plato that aren't there in the least. I didn't attribute anything to anyone. You're adding your own subtext to my words.
Quote: And as MMCJawa so helpfully points out, we have in effect already performed the educate everybody experiment and it hasn't shown obvious positive benefits on the whole. I think MMCJawa meant all the concerns people have in this thread that "might" happen, already happened a long time ago. So the worry is over nothing. 4 year degrees are already devalued, and free 2 year degrees would be "blue on black."
Vod Canockers wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Vod Canockers wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 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. There is no Federal sales tax on food in the US. As it is most sales taxes hit the poor harder than the rich. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items. That's because they're too lazy to cook and buy the taxed-up junk food instead. No, it's because they don't have money to save. Or look at it this way, if someone is making ten times what a poor person makes, do they spend ten times what that poor person does on food, clothes, and other things? Or do they put money into their retirement accounts, invest in stocks, bonds, and other non taxable items, set up savings for their kids education, and all those other things that the poor can't afford to do, because they are trying to house and feed their family? It varies by state but some states (the smarter ones) only Food Tax crap you shouldn't be eating anyway.
Read my other statements - I'm not arguing poverty doesn't suck big time. I'm arguing that bad choices compound themselves.
Good choices seem to be generally additive BTW. Like I said up thread - life is not fair.
Hudax wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I submit that some people are unable to capitalize on a college education. I won't argue with that. But they won't qualify. There are grade requirements.
Quark Blast wrote: Hudax's hand waving allusions to Plato aside (Yes, Plato! That scion of Antiquities who promoted education for men, and only men, and upper class men at that - LOL ;D with Tears). Hudax wrote: It was ancient Greece--a patriarchal slave-based economy. What did you expect him to think?
Thankfully Plato's treatise on "Rich White Dudes" did not stand the test of time.
Quark Blast wrote: It is when you attribute concepts to Plato that aren't there in the least. Hudax wrote: I didn't attribute anything to anyone. You're adding your own subtext to my words. To be pedantic - but I think this is an important point - for Plato it was Rich Dudes. Skin color mattered not to him.
Hudax wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And as MMCJawa so helpfully points out, we have in effect already performed the educate everybody experiment and it hasn't shown obvious positive benefits on the whole. I think MMCJawa meant all the concerns people have in this thread that "might" happen, already happened a long time ago. So the worry is over nothing. 4 year degrees are already devalued, and free 2 year degrees would be "blue on black."
More wasted tax dollars does not a persuasive argument make.
thejeff wrote: Fergurg wrote: Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile! If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking. I don't even know what that means.
Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking? Sort of. Depends on what you mean by "for its own sake".
Some people read Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of sounding smart and saying, "I read Plato and Shakespeare." That is simply absorbing, which is the opposite of thinking. Might as well read The Turner Diaries.
Now, if you are reading it because you enjoy it, that is different. Some people read them for the purpose of trying to understand some theory or nuance of classical literature, or even to find out why they were so great anyway. (But be careful - they are Dead White Males(tm), so don't read them near a Women's Studies graduate.)
In other words, for a purpose. In order to fulfill a specific thing.
Vod Canockers wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Vod Canockers wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: 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. There is no Federal sales tax on food in the US. As it is most sales taxes hit the poor harder than the rich. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items. That's because they're too lazy to cook and buy the taxed-up junk food instead. No, it's because they don't have money to save. Or look at it this way, if someone is making ten times what a poor person makes, do they spend ten times what that poor person does on food, clothes, and other things? Or do they put money into their retirement accounts, invest in stocks, bonds, and other non taxable items, set up savings for their kids education, and all those other things that the poor can't afford to do, because they are trying to house and feed their family? Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergurg wrote: Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money. You know, I bet we agree for completely different reasons.
Quark Blast wrote: More wasted tax dollars does not a persuasive argument make. This presumes it would be wasted.
I think it's self-evident it wouldn't be.
Fergurg wrote: Sort of. Depends on what you mean by "for its own sake".
Some people read Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of sounding smart and saying, "I read Plato and Shakespeare." That is simply absorbing, which is the opposite of thinking. Might as well read The Turner Diaries.
Now, if you are reading it because you enjoy it, that is different. Some people read them for the purpose of trying to understand some theory or nuance of classical literature, or even to find out why they were so great anyway. (But be careful - they are Dead White Males(tm), so don't read them near a Women's Studies graduate.)
In other words, for a purpose. In order to fulfill a specific thing.
What is meant by "for it's own sake" is "for the sake of learning."
I would have thought that would also be self-evident.
Hudax wrote: Quark Blast wrote: More wasted tax dollars does not a persuasive argument make. This presumes it would be wasted.
I think it's self-evident it wouldn't be.
Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: Sort of. Depends on what you mean by "for its own sake". What is meant by "for it's own sake" is "for the sake of learning."
I would have thought that would also be self-evident.
Except that you seemed to fail to notice that Plato was a misogynist elitist until it was pointed out. I mean, really, why cite Plato on social issues? He was a total idiot by modern standards - liberal or conservative. To use your phrase - "education for the sake of education" - well that's all fine but when you fail to be educated by it... what's the point?
Again, I belabor, using just the Paizo threads one can prove you cannot reach some people. I therefore think I've proven education for the sake of education is most certainly a waste starting sometime after about the 8th grade.
Also, you apparently ignored the article I cited by a well respected high school teacher with a 40+ year career.
Four Decades of Failed School Reform
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This thread is supposed to be all about how Obama is a socialist devil. Let's bring this back on topic, please.
Virgil >>> Plato, anyway.
(not a digression, either; Virgil has had a much larger and longer-lived presence in Western education over the past couple thousand years)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The whole "free access to college will degrade the worth of degrees" argument is quickly put to rest when one takes a look outside the borders of the US.
In my country education is free (i.e. tax payer paid), all through university. Heck, as I've pointed out further up-thread, you even get paid to study!
Does that mean that everyone here has a degree? Not at all. We still have a lot of unskilled labourers. We still have people who go the tradesman route. We still have people who don't graduate (due to failing grades... or going into politics ;-) ).
The key is that people CAN get a degree if they're smart enough and/or work hard enough for it. No matter what social background they might have. That's one of the main keys in upwards social mobility and breaking free from a negative social inheritance.
So a degree still matters. Some degrees might be worth "less" if a lot of people get them, but that's more a factor of the market place than access to free education.
Also, with easier access to education you're less likely to experience wild shortages of certain professions.
Not to mention, if you have a college degree you're already more likely to be able to take on a job that might not be 100% what you studied for. You'll have learned a lot of things/behaviours that you can apply to a wider variety of jobs than someone who has no/little higher education.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GentleGiant wrote:
Does that mean that everyone here has a degree? Not at all. We still have a lot of unskilled labourers. We still have people who go the tradesman route.
In America we have very poor provisions for trade educations. We have a (quite disgusting, honestly) tendency to look down on people who work in the trades, and, while we certainly have trade schools, they don't really get much in the way of support. Most of the big ones you see advertised like ITT Tech or Devry are showing off their computer technology and medical programs and maybe automotive or welding, with construction and maintenance and the like not really getting attention. Plus, ITT Tech and Devry are both extremely shady institutions, with ITT Tech having been sued by the Feds last year and both having an absolute laundry list of complaints against them. America's trade school scene is pretty bad, and we need to stop looking down on trades workers and laborers.
In fact, you know who seems to do a lot of trade schooling? The community colleges. That might we an angle worth looking into. Free community college plus buffing up the resources for the trade programs and making an effort to teach HS students that trade careers are worthwhile. Boom. Now young people have an accessible alternative path to academia.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark,
Free Trade and automation are hurting the middle and working class.
How does making education expensive improve their chances of advancing their economic standing?
Why is providing easy access to education a detriment to the working class?
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: GentleGiant wrote:
Does that mean that everyone here has a degree? Not at all. We still have a lot of unskilled labourers. We still have people who go the tradesman route.
In America we have very poor provisions for trade educations. We have a (quite disgusting, honestly) tendency to look down on people who work in the trades, and, while we certainly have trade schools, they don't really get much in the way of support. Most of the big ones you see advertised like ITT Tech or Devry are showing off their computer technology and medical programs and maybe automotive or welding, with construction and maintenance and the like not really getting attention. Plus, ITT Tech and Devry are both extremely shady institutions, with ITT Tech having been sued by the Feds last year and both having an absolute laundry list of complaints against them. America's trade school scene is pretty bad, and we need to stop looking down on trades workers and laborers.
In fact, you know who seems to do a lot of trade schooling? The community colleges. That might we an angle worth looking into. Free community college plus buffing up the resources for the trade programs and making an effort to teach HS students that trade careers are worthwhile. Boom. Now young people have an accessible alternative path to academia. It's almost like no one bothers to actual read what is being proposed.
Seriously, it's about 1/2 way down the page. It gets it's own header, divided into a couple of easy to read paragraphs. This stuff isn't hard to find.
Higher education is not ONLY college/university. It includes trade schools and job specific training.
Quote: In January 2015, the President proposed the American Technical Training Fund to award programs that have strong employer partnerships and include work-based learning opportunities, provide accelerated training, and are scheduled to accommodate part-time work. This discretionary budget proposal would fund 100 centers to help high-potential, low-wage workers gain the skills to work into growing fields with significant numbers of middle-class jobs that local employers are trying to fill, such as energy, IT, and advanced manufacturing.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: You do know that Pathfinder is not real life, right? CHOKE ON YOUR LIE!!!!!!!!!!
TOZ wrote: Fergurg wrote: Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money. You know, I bet we agree for completely different reasons. strange bedfellows, eh?
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote: GentleGiant wrote:
Does that mean that everyone here has a degree? Not at all. We still have a lot of unskilled labourers. We still have people who go the tradesman route.
In America we have very poor provisions for trade educations. We have a (quite disgusting, honestly) tendency to look down on people who work in the trades, and, while we certainly have trade schools, they don't really get much in the way of support. Most of the big ones you see advertised like ITT Tech or Devry are showing off their computer technology and medical programs and maybe automotive or welding, with construction and maintenance and the like not really getting attention. Plus, ITT Tech and Devry are both extremely shady institutions, with ITT Tech having been sued by the Feds last year and both having an absolute laundry list of complaints against them. America's trade school scene is pretty bad, and we need to stop looking down on trades workers and laborers.
In fact, you know who seems to do a lot of trade schooling? The community colleges. That might we an angle worth looking into. Free community college plus buffing up the resources for the trade programs and making an effort to teach HS students that trade careers are worthwhile. Boom. Now young people have an accessible alternative path to academia. can't favorite this enough.
Devry (don't know much about itt tech) is one of the shadiest institutions I have ever been seen, and as I live in ny, that's saying something. I would go so far as to say that shady trade schools are in part responsible for the average American attitude towards trades.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
TOZ wrote: Fergurg wrote: Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money. You know, I bet we agree for completely different reasons. Yeah, rich people view it as a tool to get more money. Poor people see it as a way to get food and a place to live. Really rich people see it as a status marker.
This isn't some philosophical difference. This is based on entirely on how much you have.
Now when you get to the middle class, and actually have some disposable income, the difference in how you view it philosophically might make an actual difference.
Hudax wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I submit that some people are unable to capitalize on a college education. I won't argue with that. But they won't qualify. There are grade requirements.
Quote: Hudax's hand waving allusions to Plato aside (Yes, Plato! That scion of Antiquities who promoted education for men, and only men, and upper class men at that - LOL ;D with Tears). It was ancient Greece--a patriarchal slave-based economy. What did you expect him to think?
Thankfully Plato's treatise on "Rich White Dudes" did not stand the test of time.
Quote: It is when you attribute concepts to Plato that aren't there in the least. I didn't attribute anything to anyone. You're adding your own subtext to my words.
Quote: And as MMCJawa so helpfully points out, we have in effect already performed the educate everybody experiment and it hasn't shown obvious positive benefits on the whole. I think MMCJawa meant all the concerns people have in this thread that "might" happen, already happened a long time ago. So the worry is over nothing. 4 year degrees are already devalued, and free 2 year degrees would be "blue on black."
Exactly. I don't think the free community college plan will worsen education or cheapen the value of the degree. Only think it will do is lesson the amount of debt people have from going to school, which is a very good thing.
Fergurg wrote: Hudax wrote: Fergurg wrote: As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.
Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile! If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking. This is because you do not understand what it is to read philosophy and literature.
Well, it WILL devalue the college education. What it won't do is devalue it entirely.
Freehold DM wrote: strange bedfellows, eh? Not really. The different reasons completely set us at odds, I imagine. But we'd have to voice the reasons to figure that out.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Well, it WILL devalue the college education. What it won't do is devalue it entirely. The value of education in a society isn't a zero-sum equation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Obama is pushing several very progressive ideas now that he has zero power to pass anything. He knows that not a single one of these ideas (that are all very popular with the voting block of the Democrats) will pass.
He is doing his part to get out the vote for 2016.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Muad'Dib wrote: Obama is pushing several very progressive ideas now that he has zero power to pass anything. He knows that not a single one of these ideas (that are all very popular with the voting block of the Democrats) will pass.
He is doing his part to get out the vote for 2016.
It's not just getting out the vote, it's dictating the discussion. GOP has been doing this for years, glad to see the DEMs catch on.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote: Quark,
Free Trade and automation are hurting the middle and working class.
1 How does making education expensive improve their chances of advancing their economic standing?
2 Why is providing easy access to education a detriment to the working class?
I take it my earlier posts were, collectively, TL/DR.
Your question 1, answer - It doesn't.
Your question 2, answer - It's not. Simply a waste of time.
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do).
Only if you assume the current education system really does select people for higher education by intelligence rather than primarily by wealth/social class. I admit a small number of the smartest, most driven kids make it out of poverty and into higher education, but plenty of those who don't are still smarter and/or more driven than many of the better off kids who do make it.
We really are failing our poorer kids. It's not just a matter of there not being anything there to build on in the first place.
Granted, that's not happening all or even mostly on the higher education level, since these kids aren't getting that far anyway and I'm not at all sure this plan is the best way to help them, but the idea that easier access to higher education for the working class and the poor is just a waste of time and money is b#+~+#*%.
thejeff wrote: We really are failing our poorer kids. It's not just a matter of there not being anything there to build on in the first place. And that failure starts with their parents 99% of the time. And that failure ends with their parents as well (at least unless/until the kids are approximately adults) 90-something%.
K-12 and higher ed can do precious little about parental failure.
thejeff wrote: Granted, that's not happening all or even mostly on the higher education level, since these kids aren't getting that far anyway and I'm not at all sure this plan is the best way to help them, but the idea that easier access to higher education for the working class and the poor is just a waste of time and money is b~+%%!!+. I've moderated my position (whatever I may have insinuated up-thread) to:
Free access to higher ed will have no net effect.
My dad's dad and his brothers (my great uncles) all had "blue collar" jobs. All were married and had kids. All had a house, at least two vehicles, and one or more recreation options (fishing boat, hunting/camping gear for the whole family, summer cabin, etc.), along with the usual episodes of bad health and other whatnot that goes along with living. None of them had higher education (unless you count some military training during mandatory enlistment).
Today, with most of the good "blue collar" jobs overseas or gone entirely (to automation), there are very few options left for that class of American worker. "Blue collar" was the American middle class and something most anyone could aspire to or remain comfortably in. All that is gone and free higher education won't bring it back.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do).
Only if you assume the current education system really does select people for higher education by intelligence rather than primarily by wealth/social class. I admit a small number of the smartest, most driven kids make it out of poverty and into higher education, but plenty of those who don't are still smarter and/or more driven than many of the better off kids who do make it.
We really are failing our poorer kids. It's not just a matter of there not being anything there to build on in the first place.
Granted, that's not happening all or even mostly on the higher education level, since these kids aren't getting that far anyway and I'm not at all sure this plan is the best way to help them, but the idea that easier access to higher education for the working class and the poor is just a waste of time and money is b!$@*$~*.
You are missing his main point, poor people=dumb.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do).
Only if you assume the current education system really does select people for higher education by intelligence rather than primarily by wealth/social class. I admit a small number of the smartest, most driven kids make it out of poverty and into higher education, but plenty of those who don't are still smarter and/or more driven than many of the better off kids who do make it.
We really are failing our poorer kids. It's not just a matter of there not being anything there to build on in the first place.
Granted, that's not happening all or even mostly on the higher education level, since these kids aren't getting that far anyway and I'm not at all sure this plan is the best way to help them, but the idea that easier access to higher education for the working class and the poor is just a waste of time and money is b!$@*$~*.
You are missing his main point, poor people=dumb. I didn't miss it. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: We really are failing our poorer kids. It's not just a matter of there not being anything there to build on in the first place. And that failure starts with their parents 99% of the time. And that failure ends with their parents as well (at least unless/until the kids are approximately adults) 90-something%.
K-12 and higher ed can do precious little about parental failure. Then what can? Why are parents in poverty so much more likely to fail their children than wealthier parents? Is it genetic? Or a "culture of poverty"?
Is there a way to break that chain?
Or is it all just individual failures of parents unrelated to poverty and mere coincidence that it happens to be poor people far more often and there's nothing than can be done?
It couldn't, for example, have anything to do with even middle class kids have much more opportunity to recover from screw-ups, being given second chances that poor kids just don't get. Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Granted, that's not happening all or even mostly on the higher education level, since these kids aren't getting that far anyway and I'm not at all sure this plan is the best way to help them, but the idea that easier access to higher education for the working class and the poor is just a waste of time and money is b~+%%!!+. I've moderated my position (whatever I may have insinuated up-thread) to:
Free access to higher ed will have no net effect.
My dad's dad and his brothers (my great uncles) all had "blue collar" jobs. All were married and had kids. All had a house, at least two vehicles, and one or more recreation options (fishing boat, hunting/camping gear for the whole family, summer cabin, etc.), along with the usual episodes of bad health and other whatnot that goes along with living. None of them had higher education (unless you count some military training during mandatory enlistment).
Today, with most of the good "blue collar" jobs overseas or gone entirely (to automation), there are very few options left for that class of American worker. "Blue collar" was the American middle class and something most anyone could aspire to or remain comfortably in. All that is gone and free higher education won't bring it back. This part I agree with and it's very much the root of the problem. If education won't fix it, and I agree it won't, though I think it can help balance opportunities, is there a way to fix it or is there no alternative but a tiny elite and the vast unwashed masses?
I also notice you don't mention why those blue collar jobs created that middle class: unions. Before unions, the equivalent kinds of blue collar were miserable working poor kinds of jobs.
And just like today, all the owners swore up and down that businesses and the economy would collapse if they had to pay workers decent wages.
Maybe it's true today, but it wasn't then. And they're still willing to lie.
|
