NationStates Jolt Archive

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Do you plan on digging ditches?

Do you plan on digging ditches?

*shrugs* If it pays well.

Higher education means higher income on average. Why would anyone not support it?

they have machines for ditch digging now.

*shrugs* If it pays well.

Yeah, but it doesn't.

Can you expect anyone to be satisfied with a hard, shitty job that doesn't pay well?

they have machines for ditch digging now.

Operated by people who got their fat county job through nepotism.

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Nope. The world may well need ditch diggers, but that says nowt about the right to a decent education.

Higher education means higher income on average. Why would anyone not support it?

But can you honestly say that college is for everyone?

Yeah, but it doesn't.

Can you expect anyone to be satisfied with a hard, shitty job that doesn't pay well?

Actually it usually pays pretty decent, it's a government job, which means decent pay, and great benefits.

they have machines for ditch digging now.

why was i not informed of this?! damnit, now i've got to rethink my plans for the future

But can you honestly say that college is for everyone?

No. Does that mean I support not allowing everyone who wants to go to go? I'd rather people have a chance to succeed rather than not.

Operated by people who got their fat county job through nepotism.
you betcha!

but machine operators earn more money than manual laborers no matter who they work for.

Now what if the OP was "The World Needs More Wal Mart Drones"?

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Making it easier for people to go to college is not the same thing as forcing people to go to college who are not able or willing to. Don't worry, the world will still have ditch diggers.

why was i not informed of this?! damnit, now i've got to rethink my plans for the future
buggy repair is on the decline also

Actually it usually pays pretty decent, it's a government job, which means decent pay, and great benefits.

Where in the world are you? As a gov job here normaly means being paid below the rate of that for the same job in the private field.

Actually it usually pays pretty decent, it's a government job, which means decent pay, and great benefits.

That depends on where you live, of course.

Of course not everybody is qualified for higher education, and I think only someone being deliberately obtuse would assume that Obama meant EVERYBODY should go to college.

What Obama was, very clearly, saying was that ones ability, not financial means, should determine whether he goes on to higher education.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?
Why get people to dig ditches when we can get people to make machines to dig ditches?

Engineers are the new labourers. And we're all better off for it.

What Obama was, very clearly, saying was that ones ability, not financial means, should determine whether he goes on to higher education.

And let's be honest here, it doesn't take all that much ability to make it through 4 years of college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

no. Not enough.

buggy repair is on the decline also

fuck!

we need more smart people in the trades too. we should encourage smart people to become plumbers if they have an aptitude for it. (yeah i have been watching joe the plumber on tv, what a moron!)

everyone who graduates highschool should be encouraged to at least go to vo-tech to get training for a better paying job than "walmart drone" or "day laborer"

And let's be honest here, it doesn't take all that much ability to make it through 4 years of college.

Here’s the thing. I might be slightly smarter than the average bear, but I was taking college courses at the local community college at fourteen. And getting Bs. By the time I finished highschool I had enough college credit to be half way through an associate’s degree and I was 17 years old. Now true, this was Cayuga Community College not Yale, but the point stands.

Now, I ain’t no fool, but I’m no Einstein either. College isn’t that hard, especially at a community college level, and if you managed to fumble through four years of highschool, odds are you can get through at LEAST a two year community college program.

But can you honestly say that college is for everyone?

Nope that's why they make grades ... they should still have the chance even if they choose to not finish up.

Doesn't capitalism rely on a large pool of labor with little or no skill to keep that machine going? If college education was available to all without financial concerns and everyone went for it and the higher paying jobs that followed, wouldn't that leave an ever diminishing pool of drones at the bottom to dig ditches, clean toilets, wave to you at a Wal Mart, so on and so forth?

Higher education means higher income on average. Why would anyone not support it?

We are beginning the reach a point where there is a shortage of the lower income fields. plumbers can expect to make as much as doctors with in the next 10-20 years, except they will have no educational debt and and several more years of work earning experience.
every generation since the 60's has seen tuition rise due to increased demand for education, while on the other hand the return from the education shrinks.
The manufacturing sector continues to shrink as the wages they have to offer makes American factories uncompetitive with other countries.

without the bottom the top becomes meaningless. However if we were willing to accept more uneducated workers from south of the border we would not need to give up our educational dreams in the US.

It says something very disturbing about a person who argues that there's too much ejumacation going on out there, and that perhaps we need to cut back on it a bit.

It says something very disturbing about a person who argues that there's too much ejumacation going on out there, and that perhaps we need to cut back on it a bit.

That they're volunteering for the McCain/Palin campaign?

Doesn't capitalism rely on a large pool of labor with little or no skill to keep that machine going? If college education was available to all without financial concerns and everyone went for it and the higher paying jobs that followed, wouldn't that leave an ever diminishing pool of drones at the bottom to dig ditches, clean toilets, wave to you at a Wal Mart, so on and so forth?
thats why we have immigrants.

and there will always be those who cannot be bothered to go to college or get any training.

Doesn't capitalism rely on a large pool of labor with little or no skill to keep that machine going? If college education was available to all without financial concerns and everyone went for it and the higher paying jobs that followed, wouldn't that leave an ever diminishing pool of drones at the bottom to dig ditches, clean toilets, wave to you at a Wal Mart, so on and so forth?

Not really it means that the wage for these types of job would have to become more attractive, not a bad things at all really. I think that the more shitty a job is the higher wage it should command.

That they're volunteering for the McCain/Palin campaign?

That they're most likely USian, yes.

Of course not everybody is qualified for higher education, and I think only someone being deliberately obtuse would assume that Obama meant EVERYBODY should go to college.

What Obama was, very clearly, saying was that ones ability, not financial means, should determine whether he goes on to higher education.

Ive never heard of anyone being declined for government backed student loan other then poor academic performance the year before.
State school + Fafsa = just about anyone qualified can go to school.
people just bitch because they don't like paying back loans.

Doesn't capitalism rely on a large pool of labor with little or no skill to keep that machine going? If college education was available to all without financial concerns and everyone went for it and the higher paying jobs that followed, wouldn't that leave an ever diminishing pool of drones at the bottom to dig ditches, clean toilets, wave to you at a Wal Mart, so on and so forth?
Ideally, what happens is that the need for these drones is eliminated through a refinement of the systems in place - that is, ditches get dug by machine, toilets clean themselves and WalMart shopping is done online. Yes, this means less manual effort is required, but it also means that the cost of production is slashed - in other words, people need to do less of what they do in order to earn what they need to live, and so the work that previously would have been allocated to one person can be allocated to several.

Ive never heard of anyone being declined for government backed student loan other then poor academic performance the year before.
State school + Fafsa = just about anyone qualified can go to school.
people just bitch because they don't like paying back loans.

oh, gee, take on debt, what a wonderful idea. That CERTAINLY isn't causing any sorts of problems now...

thats why we have immigrants.

and there will always be those who cannot be bothered to go to college or get any training.

The bottom will always have a leak and fresh meat will always leak in. That is true.

Not really it means that the wage for these types of job would have to become more attractive, not a bad things at all really. I think that the more shitty a job is the higher wage it should command.

But as with the case with immigrants, there will always be a ready pool of fresh meat willing to do just about any work for a comparative pittance- if only because that pittance usually translates to a higher wave equivalent back home.

It says something very disturbing about a person who argues that there's too much ejumacation going on out there, and that perhaps we need to cut back on it a bit.

I'm not saying we should cut back, or deny people a chance for higher education. I'm just simply saying that college isn't for everyone. Maybe someone is better suited to be a plumber or an electrician.

But as with the case with immigrants, there will always be a ready pool of fresh meat willing to do just about any work for a comparative pittance- if only because that pittance usually translates to a higher wave equivalent back home.

Yes indeed, and that is a shame.

Not really it means that the wage for these types of job would have to become more attractive, not a bad things at all really. I think that the more shitty a job is the higher wage it should command.

then the factories move over seas. the manufacturing base is unemployed. Services industries that depend on factory workers no longer function. eventually this reaches the educated people and forces their wages down.

I'm just simply saying that college isn't for everyone.

I'm really not sure why you felt the need to say that, or who you feel you're responding to when you do.

Who exactly said otherwise?

I'm not saying we should cut back, or deny people a chance for higher education. I'm just simply saying that college isn't for everyone. Maybe someone is better suited to be a plumber or an electrician.

That's obvious.

I'm not sure from whence your confusion arose.

then the factories move over seas. the manufacturing base is unemployed. Services industries that depend on factory workers no longer function. eventually this reaches the educated people and forces their wages down.

Yes! Come comrades, riot for higher wages for menial jobs!:D

I'm really not sure why you felt the need to say that, or who you feel you're responding to when you do.

Who exactly said otherwise?

That's obvious.

I'm not sure from whence your confusion arose.

Sorry, thought Neesika was responding to my OP. I'll go sit in the corner with my M&Ms then.

Maybe someone is better suited to be a plumber or an electrician.

you can do plumbing and electrical education (?) at college :wink:

actually I do believe its the option that gets better results

Yes indeed, and that is a shame.

more like a blessing. American born factory workers make more then the average American. Shit lets let the cheap labor from other countries come here and show them what competitive wages are all about.

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Making it easier for kids who want to and are intellectually able to go to college isn't the same as forcing each and every child to go to college.

I know many people who want to go to college and probably should but for some reason or another are unable to.

I know many people who probably could go to college through financial aid and such but just don't want to.

You are bringing up a non-issue.

Also, yes, the emphasis on college is getting to be insane. I was looking through the job ads a few days ago, places want a "college degree" for $7/hr jobs?! That's idiotic. If my friend had a college degree why would she work at a call center and telemarket?

you can do plumbing and electrical education (?) at college :wink:

actually I do believe its the option that gets better results

in the US it is an apprenticeship, with testing added to ensure the would be professional knows what they are doing. also we don't consider vocational schools college.

There will never, ever, be so many people going to collage that there won't be enough people left to dig ditches. You're silly.

Also, yes, the emphasis on college is getting to be insane. I was looking through the job ads a few days ago, places want a "college degree" for $7/hr jobs?! That's idiotic. If my friend had a college degree why would she work at a call center and telemarket?

Oh tell me about it, what's even more insane is that some of these jobs that can be done with someone who has a BS or BA, are asking for people with Masters. I have a BA, I am not going to work at a call center or telemarketing for $7 an hour.

Ive never heard of anyone being declined for government backed student loan other then poor academic performance the year before.
State school + Fafsa = just about anyone qualified can go to school.
people just bitch because they don't like paying back loans.

I was repeatedly denied government loans, even for my freshman year. They said that my parents earned too much money. I was forced to go out and get private loans from Citi and Sallie Mae. So, the idea that anyone can get a government student loan rings a little hollow for me.

more like a blessing. American born factory workers make more then the average American. Shit lets let the cheap labor from other countries come here and show them what competitive wages are all about.

Meh seeing as I live and work in the UK, then of course my stance is centered around how things are here.

Good though for your homebred factory workers.:D

Oh tell me about it, what's even more insane is that some of these jobs that can be done with someone who has a BS or BA, are asking for people with Masters. I have a BA, I am not going to work at a call center or telemarketing for $7 an hour.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll work where I have to. I don't know why telemarketers think they "need" someone with a B.A. or a B.S. to work the phones.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll work where I have to. I don't know why telemarketers think they "need" someone with a B.A. or a B.S. to work the phones.

I have heard from one person who used to work at OnStar say that those with B.A. or B.S. get promoted to manager fairly quickly.

*shrugs* If it pays well.

It doesn't. End of discussion.

(And I doubt you'd choose it over another job with similar pay but less physical labor.)

Sorry, thought Neesika was responding to my OP. I'll go sit in the corner with my M&Ms then.
I was.
So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?
Your post suggests that you believe in fact your country DOES put too much emphasis on college education. That is disturbing. There will always be those who gravitate towards skilled labour...I don't for a second believe that putting more emphasis on post-secondary education would change that.

Should we be encouraging people to take up the trades instead of going to college? Absolutely not. Nor should we continue to view post-secondary education as performing a purely vocational function.

I have heard from one person who used to work at OnStar say that those with B.A. or B.S. get promoted to manager fairly quickly.

Manager pays $10/hr.
:tongue:

Manager pays $10/hr.
:tongue:

Whoo hoo! :p

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll work where I have to. I don't know why telemarketers think they "need" someone with a B.A. or a B.S. to work the phones.

Telemarketer's need a B.S. because it stands for Bull Shit, which is a core skill for any telemarketer.

It says something very disturbing about a person who argues that there's too much ejumacation going on out there, and that perhaps we need to cut back on it a bit.
Indeed. We may need ditches, but you don't need someone to dig them if someone who went to college can invent a ditch digging robot.
oh, gee, take on debt, what a wonderful idea. That CERTAINLY isn't causing any sorts of problems now...
http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg
I'm not saying we should cut back, or deny people a chance for higher education. I'm just simply saying that college isn't for everyone. Maybe someone is better suited to be a plumber or an electrician.

Ah yes, now I see your point. If we make it easier for people to go to college then we MUST be making it harder for people to enter forms of employment that don't require a college education.
http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg
Telemarketer's need a B.S. because it stands for Bull Shit, which is a core skill for any telemarketer.
I disapprove on the grounds that I'm studying for a BS, but approve on the grounds of telemarketers being the butt of a joke.

In my province of Alberta, our entire economy right now is driven by oil. That means we have tens of thousands of workers directly linked to the petroleum industry, and the ensuing explosion in the service industry to help them spend their money. High school drop out rates are at an all time high, and post-secondary enrolment is at an all time low. The feminisation of post-secondary education is shocking...the men are generally out working the rigs. So what you have is an entire province set up to encourage people to not bother with higher (or even secondary education) because we are so absolutely strapped for labour.

How is that going to pan out in the long run? An entire generation of under-educated skilled workers who rely utterly on a single industry. When that industry busts, we're going to be eyeballs deep in shit.

What you're missing, Wilgrove, is the long run view. Emphasis on a post-secondary education in North America is not particularly high as it is.

In my province of Alberta, our entire economy right now is driven by oil. That means we have tens of thousands of workers directly linked to the petroleum industry, and the ensuing explosion in the service industry to help them spend their money. High school drop out rates are at an all time high, and post-secondary enrolment is at an all time low. The feminisation of post-secondary education is shocking...the men are generally out working the rigs. So what you have is an entire province set up to encourage people to not bother with higher (or even secondary education) because we are so absolutely strapped for labour.

How is that going to pan out in the long run? An entire generation of under-educated skilled workers who rely utterly on a single industry. When that industry busts, we're going to be eyeballs deep in shit.

See, for example, Detroit.

See, for example, Detroit.

But only from a distance.

In my province of Alberta, our entire economy right now is driven by oil. That means we have tens of thousands of workers directly linked to the petroleum industry, and the ensuing explosion in the service industry to help them spend their money. High school drop out rates are at an all time high, and post-secondary enrolment is at an all time low. The feminisation of post-secondary education is shocking...the men are generally out working the rigs. So what you have is an entire province set up to encourage people to not bother with higher (or even secondary education) because we are so absolutely strapped for labour.

How is that going to pan out in the long run? An entire generation of under-educated skilled workers who rely utterly on a single industry. When that industry busts, we're going to be eyeballs deep in shit.

What you're missing, Wilgrove, is the long run view. Emphasis on a post-secondary education in North America is not particularly high as it is.
A bunch of highly educated women running the place? (I know...I know...that just jumped out at me so I swung at it...)

A bunch of highly educated women running the place? (I know...I know...that just jumped out at me so I swung at it...)

And a bunch of blue collar men with a specific skill set that is no longer economically viable.

Although I predict the need for schools providing adult secondary education upgrading will explode.

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

College education has many more benefits than just giving someone access to better paying jobs. It really does help people open their minds to new ideas.

Actually it usually pays pretty decent, it's a government job, which means decent pay, and great benefits.

WTF makes you say that?

Growing up in farm country, I've actually dug ditches. It fucking sucks and it wasn't a government job.

Nor should we continue to view post-secondary education as performing a purely vocational function.
This, goddammit, this. This, on billboards, trailing planes, sung by choirs, this. For fuck's sake, this. Why should the ditch digger not have a better understanding of the world in which he digs ditches or even simply a basic intellectual curiosity?

I didn't need a college degree to do what I do now, I didn't. And I certainly didn't need an advanced degree-I don't earn much more now than before I went. I did college for me and I don't regret any of it (okay, I regret taking so long between dropping out and getting back in, but even that worked out in a way...)

And a bunch of blue collar men with a specific skill set that is no longer economically viable.

Although I predict the need for schools providing adult secondary education upgrading will explode.
I was over simplifying for the sake of a crack, thus the 'I knows'...

This, goddammit, this. This, on billboards, trailing planes, sung by choirs, this. For fuck's sake, this. Why should the ditch digger not have a better understanding of the world in which he digs ditches or even simply a basic intellectual curiosity?

intellectual curiosity is for pussies

Here in North Carolina, the Community College System is part of the state college system. Once you get your associate degree, you can go into any state university as a junior.

On the other hand, the community colleges do teach a lot of vocational courses. The average mechanic will charge about $75/hour for labor, just to look at your car. And if you have to call a plumber on a weekend, or worse; a holiday weekend, it will cost about $150 just to show up at your door.

WTF makes you say that?

Growing up in farm country, I've actually dug ditches. It fucking sucks and it wasn't a government job.

I dug ditches in the suburbs. It also sucked and was not a government job.

This, goddammit, this. This, on billboards, trailing planes, sung by choirs, this. For fuck's sake, this. Why should the ditch digger not have a better understanding of the world in which he digs ditches or even simply a basic intellectual curiosity?

'Cuz he might not stay a reliable conservative?

I was over simplifying for the sake of a crack, thus the 'I knows'...

I know, but it's an interesting scenario overall really.

This, goddammit, this. This, on billboards, trailing planes, sung by choirs, this. For fuck's sake, this. Why should the ditch digger not have a better understanding of the world in which he digs ditches or even simply a basic intellectual curiosity? I really enjoy the phrasing of this post.

'Cuz he might not stay a reliable conservative?

It's almost as though you've suggested that education is the cure to conservatism.

:eek:

Higher education means higher income on average. Why would anyone not support it?

not necessarily. it means a higher income in your chosen feild and unless your major is a broad one, the range of jobs that will pay a college grad higher is rather narrow.

I've seen College grads be told that they were over qualified to work at bookstores and not hired because the manager knows they are only there sort term.

Also, yes, the emphasis on college is getting to be insane. I was looking through the job ads a few days ago, places want a "college degree" for $7/hr jobs?! That's idiotic. If my friend had a college degree why would she work at a call center and telemarket?
while I can agree somewhat to this point...

a job's a job.

I had a friend out of work for years because he refused to work at McD's or anything similar. we had an opening at our helpdesk and he refused to even apply because "Tech Support" was below him. even tho a high percentage of our Tech Support Personnell ends up moving into the various programming areas of our hospital.

Fortunately the world (Or the US, at least) has a more than adequate supply of would-be sports stars who think that they can get into the NFL right out of high school. I think they should keep us in ditch diggers for a good while.
It gives me great joy when I think about the kids back in Seaside, where the local community college specializes in 'hospitality training', who will probably never travel further than the neighboring towns.
I'm sure SOMEBODY on NSG has experienced the rush when you take a vacation back to some place you used to live to find one of your high school 'buddies' tarring roofs for a living.

I'm sure SOMEBODY on NSG has experienced the rush when you take a vacation back to some place you used to live to find one of your high school 'buddies' tarring roofs for a living.

not so much as a 'rush'. since you hired them to work on your home/car/appliance/etc... and thus emphasising your need of their skills. ;)

not so much as a 'rush'. since you hired them to work on your home/car/appliance/etc... and thus emphasising your need of their skills. ;)

Pfft. There's a reason I don't live on the Oregon coast anymore.
Here in AZ we have clay tile roofs ;)

It's almost as though you've suggested that education is the cure to conservatism.

:eek:
Except that the opposite is true. The more education someone gets (in the U.S. anyway) the more likely they are to vote for Conservative candidates. The exception to this rule is people with postgraduate degrees, who are a bunch of dirty pinkos anyway.

But can you honestly say that college is for everyone?

What? Obama never suggested that.

Except that the opposite is true. The more education someone gets (in the U.S. anyway) the more likely they are to vote for Conservative candidates. The exception to this rule is people with postgraduate degrees, who are a bunch of dirty pinkos anyway.

I was joking, but doesn't this depend greatly on how you define "conservative"?

Pfft. There's a reason I don't live on the Oregon coast anymore.
Here in AZ we have clay tile roofs ;)

LOL!

I always wondered why people tend to look down at the 'lowest rung' of jobs. after all, if they were not there, then that would mean you are one rung lower than you used to be.

and their jobs are important. I can't see CEO Mike taking his own garbage to the dumpsite or recycling center... and when the power goes out? who's out there fixing things to get PHD Nancy back into the chat rooms? :D

Except that the opposite is true. The more education someone gets (in the U.S. anyway) the more likely they are to vote for Conservative candidates. The exception to this rule is people with postgraduate degrees, who are a bunch of dirty pinkos anyway.

Source, female dog.

Source, female dog.

though a common understanding of the demographics would actually work too.
the pillars of the democratic party's support are African Americans, Union workers, and so on.
For various reason(oppression) most of the groups tend to be less educated.
The reason people with higher education tend to vote Republican has less to do with education and more to do with income(higher income wanting to pay less of it in taxes).
The exception to this is the Jewish demographic. they consistently vote against their normal income block for the democratic party.

though a common understanding of the demographics would actually work too.

No it wouldn't.

For all I know, you're excreting this entirely from your backside. I'm a freaking Canadian, I know jack all about your system and no, I'm not going to take your word for it.

Sheesh. Sounds like you vote Democrat.

No it wouldn't.

For all I know, you're excreting this entirely from your backside. I'm a freaking Canadian, I know jack all about your system and no, I'm not going to take your word for it.

Sheesh. Sounds like you vote Democrat.

Do you like it when US citizens who have no clue about Canadian politics come but into your politics ??? calling your health care system communist or some such ?
If you do not have a understanding of US politics then do not join into a discussion of US politics. Either listen and learn or find something more entertaining for you.

PS I vote green party.

Do you like it when US citizens who have no clue about Canadian politics come but into your politics ??? calling your health care system communist or some such ?
If you do not have a understanding of US politics then do not join into a discussion of US politics. Either listen and learn or find something more entertaining for you.

PS I vote green party.

Whether I like it or not is entirely irrelevant when posting on an international forum. I'm sorry you missed the significance of my Democrat comment.

I can join in the discussion all I want, and just as with any other topic, I am not going to nod my head and accept that you are an expert on the topic simply because you happen to be a citizen of the US.

When people yap about Canadian politics, or our healthcare system, I tend to refute them with things like oh...verifiable sources? Because unlike those of you with a massive sense of entitlement, I don't believe that you should simply accept my word as the truth.

So seeing as how you're getting all frothy at the mouth, why don't you run along and find me some proof that people with less education vote Democrat, and visa versa. It's a lot easier, and faster than prattling on like a twit about how I should just take your word for it, and a whole metric fuckload more likely to convince me.

Or instead we could send those kids to college to become the engineers and mathematicians that design robotic ditch-diggers, rendering that occupation obsolete.

Or instead we could send those kids to college to become the engineers and mathematicians that design robotic ditch-diggers, rendering that occupation obsolete.

putting hundreds, maybe thousands, of current ditch diggers out of work... you MONSTER!!! :eek:

I thought the idea behind a good general education was that you learned how to learn. So ditch-diggers would need that just as much as lazy white-collar types, because when the ditch-digging jobs get phased out by machines the diggers will need to pick up a new trade, and quick.

Considering the speed at which capital is sloshing around the globe, it's to labor's advantage to be more liquid.

Source, female dog.
My original source was the table at the back of my US History textbook, but I can't really link to that. So here are CNN polls from the past 3 presidential elections.
1996 Election exit polling (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html) - People with no High School education favored Clinton overwhelming (2:1), and as the level of education rises Clinton's lead narrows, and Dole even gets the lead for College Graduates. The trend reverses when people start going to graduate school and getting to smart for their own damn good.
2000 Election exit polling (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html) - As you can see, people with no High School education went for Gore overwhelmingly, while those with some college went for Bush (though not by so much). Once again, post-grads went for Gore.
2004 blah, blah, blah (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) - Least/Most educated vote Democrat, etc. Minor item of interest here, in that Nader steals some of Bush's thunder at the College Level. Still leaves Bush triumphant though.

It makes sense, when you consider that College grads tend to be middle/upper class professionals with middle/upper class professional backgrounds--the bread and butter of the Republican party.

My original source was the table at the back of my US History textbook, but I can't really link to that. So here are CNN polls from the past 3 presidential elections.
1996 Election exit polling (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html) - People with no High School education favored Clinton overwhelming (2:1), and as the level of education rises Clinton's lead narrows, and Dole even gets the lead for College Graduates. The trend reverses when people start going to graduate school and getting to smart for their own damn good.
2000 Election exit polling (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html) - As you can see, people with no High School education went for Gore overwhelmingly, while those with some college went for Bush (though not by so much). Once again, post-grads went for Gore.
2004 blah, blah, blah (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) - Least/Most educated vote Democrat, etc. Minor item of interest here, in that Nader steals some of Bush's thunder at the College Level. Still leaves Bush triumphant though.

It makes sense, when you consider that College grads tend to be middle/upper class professionals with middle/upper class professional backgrounds--the bread and butter of the Republican party.

Thank you! This is interesting stuff...did you notice that Jews overwhelmingly voted Democrat, women were more likely to vote Democrat than men, and Asians apparently are as Republican as Whites?

Except...your first link doesn't actually seem to support this massive shift towards the right as education levels rise...the only real variation exists at the 'no high school' level. In which case, I'm tempted to believe that the Democrats do a much better job of appealing to the average blue collar worker than the Republicans.

The third link is really cool, what with the pictures and such! Easier to read. There are some variations that contradict the previous ones if we look just at parties, not candidates, and ignore pretty much every other social factor that could play into it...but overall, there really isn't such a huge division that would support the claim that the more educated people vote Republican. It appears that non educated and hyper educated people are of a same political mind though.

I think more telling is the breakdown of votes by income actually. Overwhelmingly, the higher the income, the more Republican support.

I'm going to bookmark this and look at it again in a bit...I think the questions asked are interesting, and the various breakdowns sort of fascinating (religion and gender for example).

Or instead we could send those kids to college to become the engineers and mathematicians that design robotic ditch-diggers, rendering that occupation obsolete.
I had that discussion with my grandparents when I was little. I think it was about construction workers, and I said there is no need for those people to work in the sun like that, we can just build robots to do it.

They thought that was terribly funny, and occasionally still mention it to me. I just hope they live long enough to see houses built by robots.

They thought that was terribly funny, and occasionally still mention it to me. I just hope they live long enough to see houses built by robots.

What a wonderful day when everyman is a desk jockey of some form. Won't it be lovely. :p

I had that discussion with my grandparents when I was little. I think it was about construction workers, and I said there is no need for those people to work in the sun like that, we can just build robots to do it.

They thought that was terribly funny, and occasionally still mention it to me. I just hope they live long enough to see houses built by robots.

Well, shoot, given how far they're getting it's not hard to imagine. They're already doing advanced neurosurgery, so building houses can't be too much of a stretch from there.

What a wonderful day when everyman is a desk jockey of some form. Won't it be lovely. :p

I was hoping for a future free from having to do any work at all

Can't we have robot desk jockeys too?

I was hoping for a future free from having to do any work at all

Can't we have robot desk jockeys too?

Those will have to come later. :(

A lot easier to make a robot that can dig a ditch than it is to make a robot who can program another robot or fill out your tax forms.

I'm sorry but some things, humans just do better.

Like sex. And poetry. And smelling good.

Most people should not be in college. The college drop out rate is about 50% in the US.

I'm going to bookmark this and look at it again in a bit...I think the questions asked are interesting, and the various breakdowns sort of fascinating (religion and gender for example).
My favorite questions are in the 2000 results. Optimists voted for Gore, whereas people who thought that things were going to be "Worse" for the next generation voted for Bush.
So you can't say they didn't know what they were buying.

Or instead we could send those kids to college to become the engineers and mathematicians that design robotic ditch-diggers, rendering that occupation obsolete.

If everyone is an engineer, who is going to repair the robots? Who could afford to hire on a college grad mechanical engineer to do such a menial task? Perhaps our college graduates would do so out of the common national communistic pride?

If everyone is an engineer, who is going to repair the robots?

Robots.

Robots.

Is this that unlimited social services for all mankind I keep hearing about?

The drop-out rate for colleges is circa 46% among Caucasian Americans, and it's circa 61% for African Americans and circa 56% Hispanic Americans.
Link. (http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6422.shtml)

The drop-out rate for colleges is circa 46% among Caucasian Americans, and it's circa 61% for African Americans and circa 56% Hispanic Americans.


What is the point of that statistic? What do you think it implies?

What is the point of that statistic? What do you think it implies?That trying to go to college and borrowing money from the government or private programs when around half are likely to fail puts them in a much worse situation (financially) than they were in before they went to college.

That trying to go to college and borrowing money from the government or private programs when around half are likely to fail puts them in a much worse situation (financially) than they were in before they went to college.

I was just curious as to the breakup for race.

But yes. Dumb to send everyone to college. Unless...

Let's just make college so easy everyone can pass.

I was just curious as to the breakup for race.

But yes. Dumb to send everyone to college. Unless...

Let's just make college so easy everyone can pass.Then we degrade the quality of the US education system. It's already generally bad. College graduates are the only thing we have going for us.

Then we degrade the quality of the US education system. It's already generally bad. College graduates are the only thing we have going for us.

*laughs* Yes. I know. I wasn't being serious. I think the idea of sending EVERYONE to college is ridiculous. If you want to go, go. Why throw more government money at it that's just going to inflate the cost of tuition way past it's current bloated and arrogant price tag?

*laughs* Yes. I know. I wasn't being serious. I think the idea of sending EVERYONE to college is ridiculous. If you want to go, go. Why throw more government money at it that's just going to inflate the cost of tuition way past it's current bloated and arrogant price tag?Because the average American IQ is only 97? I don't know.

Because the average American IQ is only 97? I don't know.

You just made me throw up a little in the back of my throat.

I suppose throwing money at our schools isn't the only possible solution. But if the teachers' unions would allow me a slight faux pas, might I point my finger in a less politically acceptable direction?

Okay okay, I'm going to tackle this with a little more seriousness, cuz the gin tells me I should.

Here's the problem I see being sort of waved around with encouraging more and more people to get post-secondary education. Assuming that they come out of it with some sort of bachelor's degree. So. You have this large group of people then, with similar educational qualifications, though obviously there are specialisations, sciences, medicine, law, or heaven forbid, 18th century Russian Literature.

If we look at post-secondary education as a vocational 'up', a way to compete in the workforce for a scarce amount of jobs, then we have a problem because we've just required an insane number of years of schooling from people, in order to compete for jobs that are perhaps not that lucrative, because the really lucrative spots are few. So you have the increasingly common situation of Bachelor of Arts holders waitressing at your local Denny's.

It doesn't seem to make sense from an economic perspective, right? Used to be that finishing highschool, being somewhat rare, was a huge advantage in the job market. My generation was told that we couldn't make it out there without at least a high school diploma, and for the most part, they were right. Now, with more people getting a degree, a high school diploma just doesn't cut it. You've got this huge expense (input) to get that degree, but because of a 'glut' in the market, you aren't really all that competitive anymore, and you end up with a run of the mill job, so your output doesn't balance things out. Not to mention the impact on those who are still just getting their high school diplomas.

That's one way of looking at it. That model tells us that for economic reasons, we want to restrict the amount of people getting a higher education, because we don't actually need that many skilled people, and tertiary education should remain a small fraction in order to ensure that wages will match economic input (tuition) etc. So you have post-secondary institutions that have enrollment limits, higher academic entry requirements, more expensive tuitions...all with the hope that the amount of graduates will remain small, and extremely employable, maintaining post-secondary education a desirable, but limited option.

The other way to look at it is, as I've said before, is not in a vocational, purely economic fashion, but as a fantastic way to better educate your populace, and ensure that we continue to evolve as a society. Education for education's sake. The issue of finding work, and specialising in some lucrative set of skills is important, yes, because we are not guaranteed a living income. Nonetheless, the ability to develop critical thinking skills past high school is not something that should be discarded lightly, or for mere economic reasons.

Only a nation that fears an educated populace would seriously push a purely economic model of post-secondary education, convincing itself that said education is contrary to our best interests.

I'm hoping that made some sort of sense.

A higher level of education does not necessarily correlate to a better paying job. I work for minimum wage and only get part time hours at my 'real' job. I have a BS degree in both graphic art and business.

A higher level of education does not necessarily correlate to a better paying job. I work for minimum wage and only get part time hours at my 'real' job. I have a BS degree in both graphic art and business.

The economic argument would say that a higher education does not necessarily lead to a better paying job because too many people have a similar education, and you are no longer competitive simply with a Bachelor degree.

But I ask you, personally...if you could undo it, strip away that education because it wasn't economically lucrative...would you?

A higher level of education does not necessarily correlate to a better paying job. I work for minimum wage and only get part time hours at my 'real' job. I have a BS degree in both graphic art and business.I plan to join the Army, and, while not exactly high paying, I intend to learn at least one foreign language while I'm in the service. That would provide me with the perfect job opportunity, without ever having gone to college. Simply because of the military background, and the experience that it would give me.
You just made me throw up a little in the back of my throat.People say Americans are not the most intelligent with just cause. BUT our college graduates IQ score average is 110. Higher than every European nation*.
*Based on a 2006 study.

The economic argument would say that a higher education does not necessarily lead to a better paying job because too many people have a similar education, and you are no longer competitive simply with a Bachelor degree.

But I ask you, personally...if you could undo it, strip away that education because it wasn't economically lucrative...would you?

Few people have two degrees in different areas earned simultaneously ;).

And no, I wouldn't.. if I could reverse it I'd find more ways to get financial aid though!

*snip*

I'm hoping that made some sort of sense.

That made perfect sense. As someone still in secondary school, a constant annoyance is the complaint is "we'll never need to know [whatever we're studying]" and it's just a waste of time. In a way, that's true. History shows that for most of human history, people have gotten along just fine by knowing which plants are poisonous and how to take down a bison with a flint spear. But humans also stand out in that we can learn stuff which may not be immediately beneficial, and not only that but create a society where this "useless" knowledge is systematically transferred over many generations, and this is good, very good. A democracy where a minority control the vast majority of the material wealth should be worried, and it's the same with education.
I'm also wary of the "pragmatic" approach because it assumes that the sole goal of a person's life is material success. Without getting too spiritual or fuzzy, that seems to be an empty existence. Maybe some people do not feel enriched when their knowledge increases, but I haven't met any.
Finally, if people are still upset about the impending shortage of ditch-diggers and other low-profile jobs, I would advice them to go to any town with a sizable university. Notice who's waiting your table.

What is the point of that statistic? What do you think it implies?

It implies that we as a country got to figure out how to get more minorities to graduate in order to over come the remnants of past racism.

I plan to join the Army, and, while not exactly high paying, I intend to learn at least one foreign language while I'm in the service. That would provide me with the perfect job opportunity, without ever having gone to college. Simply because of the military background, and the experience that it would give me.
People say Americans are not the most intelligent with just cause. BUT our college graduates IQ score average is 110. Higher than every European nation*.
*Based on a 2006 study.
We also have higher university degree rates then most European nations or at least i think someone else look it up im too lazy
The issue is we have a wide gap between high school degree and university degree. Where as Europe's high schools perform better and there is a more smooth transition between high school and college education levels.

We also have higher university degree rates then most European nations or at least i think someone else look it up im too lazy
The issue is we have a wide gap between high school degree and university degree. Where as Europe's high schools perform better and there is a more smooth transition between high school and college education levels.

Whoa whoa whoa.

I mean, it's great to have opinions. And remember shit you read like, last November or something.

But really. This would be SOOOO much better with some stats. Like seriously kick ass. And useful.

Whoa whoa whoa.

I mean, it's great to have opinions. And remember shit you read like, last November or something.

But really. This would be SOOOO much better with some stats. Like seriously kick ass. And useful.I provided a link for my claims.
Here's one for the college IQ rating. 15th paragraph.
Link.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-381057/European-IQ-map-proves-Brits-brainy.html)

Ive never heard of anyone being declined for government backed student loan other then poor academic performance the year before.
State school + Fafsa = just about anyone qualified can go to school.
people just bitch because they don't like paying back loans.

In my country, I get really shitty about this attitude. We let single mothers sit on the pension, let dole-bludgers get a basically free ride, and yet uni students get a huge debt simply for trying to better themselves?

Now, I am not suggesting removal of the unemployment benefit or pension, more that people stop whining about how degrading it is to have to show evidence of job applications, or that at least some of your baby bonus of $5000 is actually going on your children. Honestly, is it really too much to ask?

If we look at post-secondary education as a vocational 'up', a way to compete in the workforce for a scarce amount of jobs, then we have a problem because we've just required an insane number of years of schooling from people, in order to compete for jobs that are perhaps not that lucrative, because the really lucrative spots are few. So you have the increasingly common situation of Bachelor of Arts holders waitressing at your local Denny's.
And I always wondered where do the Arts students go to work after graduation. It's not like they learn much in the way of useful skills there, like engineering or science, and their specific skills are low-demand ones, compared to the massive numbers of Arts students.
Now I see.


You've got this huge expense (input) to get that degree, but because of a 'glut' in the market, you aren't really all that competitive anymore, and you end up with a run of the mill job, so your output doesn't balance things out.
Medical and legal professions are immensely popular these days, yet there's not a sign of any drop in their income. So it's not always this way.


Education for education's sake. The issue of finding work, and specialising in some lucrative set of skills is important, yes, because we are not guaranteed a living income. Nonetheless, the ability to develop critical thinking skills past high school is not something that should be discarded lightly, or for mere economic reasons.
Education for education's sake is a luxury. And it should be treated as such. Running every grave digger through an Arts college won't change much in the society, except reduce the workforce size. The 12-year-long school program is already often an excess, and involves three years of education for its own sake.

And I always wondered where do the Arts students go to work after graduation. It's not like they learn much in the way of useful skills there, like engineering or science, and their specific skills are low-demand ones, compared to the massive numbers of Arts students.
Now I see.



Medical and legal professions are immensely popular these days, yet there's not a sign of any drop in their income. So it's not always this way.

doctor's incomes has decreasing for sometime.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7028/395/a

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/primary-care-doctors-income-drop-may/story.aspx?guid=72039448-C1CE-4754-A6B4-1C69D6761DEF

nurses have seen a raise in income come due to a shortage. The end of gender roles has produced a decline in people wanting to be nurses. the US now steals a lot of nurses from developing countries.

Lawyers seem to be a demand generating profession. as the more lawyers you have the easier it is to sue someone. The more law suits there are the more you need lawyers to protect yourself. The more lawyers there are the more they write laws that can only be interpenetrated by lawyers ever increasing the demand.

P.S. a Bachelor of arts is different from a arts major. Prelaw for instance is a bachelor of arts. In General a Bachelor of arts is just a more broad degree then a bachelor of science.

Education for education's sake is a luxury. And it should be treated as such. Running every grave digger through an Arts college won't change much in the society, except reduce the workforce size. The 12-year-long school program is already often an excess, and involves three years of education for its own sake.

In the US it keeps teens occupied and delays the competition with established uneducated workers for 3 years.
Besides Hitler would have become a peace loving hippy if only he had gotten into law school.

My daughter went to college. She has a BSc. in Biology and a MPH/Epidemiology. It took her a year to find a job. She finally ended up in the Air Force - making $60,000.00/annum.

My son did not go to college. He is a Navy-trained electronics technician. He's making $60,000.00/annum working in aero-space.

College is not necessary for a good job. Some sort of training out of high school is.

You're right, college is not for everyone, but if people want good jobs, they need to have technical schools and training programs available, as well as college, and they need to be able to go without ending up in massive debt.

My daughter went to college. She has a BSc. in Biology and a MPH/Epidemiology. It took her a year to find a job. She finally ended up in the Air Force - making $60,000.00/annum.

My son did not go to college. He is a Navy-trained electronics technician. He's making $60,000.00/annum working in aero-space.

College is not necessary for a good job. Some sort of training out of high school is.

You're right, college is not for everyone, but if people want good jobs, they need to have technical schools and training programs available, as well as college, and they need to be able to go without ending up in massive debt.
whats wrong with debt. They are getting training/education to make good money. Why not let them pay it back?

whats wrong with debt. They are getting training/education to make good money. Why not let them pay it back?

Why should they have to pay it back? The return on that investment is still going to be massive regardless of whether or not any money is returned.

I'd go so far to say that the only reason student loans are loans is due to the fact that no bank would be willing to give money away and that nobody has authorized the federal government to provide that kind of money. Personally, I think repayment of loans should be predicated on the academic performance of the student; the better you do, the more of your money is a grant rather than a loan and vice versa.

whats wrong with debt. They are getting training/education to make good money. Why not let them pay it back?

To the tune of $100,000.00? That's what my daughter owes. If she'd gone to medical school, it would be a hell of a lot more (do you wonder why doctors charge so much?). She's paying over $500/mo to pay this off. If she weren't in the Air Force, she'd still be living with me because she couldn't afford to live on her own. This country gets a lot more from trained professionals than it gives them - a decent education is little enough.

Why should they have to pay it back? The return on that investment is still going to be massive regardless of whether or not any money is returned.

I'd go so far to say that the only reason student loans are loans is due to the fact that no bank would be willing to give money away and that nobody has authorized the federal government to provide that kind of money. Personally, I think repayment of loans should be predicated on the academic performance of the student; the better you do, the more of your money is a grant rather than a loan and vice versa.
most of the time if their grades are that good then the student get scholarships rather then loans. Friends of mine were even able to pay back part of their loan from the first year while still in school that way(part time and summer job)

it is a bank loan just the government guarantees it and covers the interest while the student is in. there is no reason to give anyone a free ride.

besides the debt forces the student to pick a profitable education path rather then just get an arts major as a way to get the government to support him for 4-8 years.

To the tune of $100,000.00? That's what my daughter owes. If she'd gone to medical school, it would be a hell of a lot more (do you wonder why doctors charge so much?). She's paying over $500/mo to pay this off. If she weren't in the Air Force, she'd still be living with me because she couldn't afford to live on her own. This country gets a lot more from trained professionals than it gives them - a decent education is little enough.

she is paying 6,000 a year and making 60,000 dollars a year ??? I am sorry if she cant live off of 54,000 a year on her own I don't know what to say. Average income is i think 42,000 in the US.

Just for the whining we should double up her payments.

most of the time if their grades are that good then the student get scholarships rather then loans. Friends of mine were even able to pay back part of their loan from the first year while still in school that way(part time and summer job)

it is a bank loan just the government guarantees it and covers the interest while the student is in. there is no reason to give anyone a free ride.

besides the debt forces the student to pick a profitable education path rather then just get an arts major as a way to get the government to support him for 4-8 years.

Get your facts straight. My daughter made and "A" average (while working 20 hours a week) as an undergrad and was accepted into Loma Linda University's Graduate School of Public Health with no problems. at Loma Linda, she continued her part time job and maintained an "A" average. She recieved no scholarships, even though she applied for them. This was true of most of her classmates. Good grades do not mean automatic scholarships.

she is paying 6,000 a year and making 60,000 dollars a year ??? I am sorry if she cant live off of 54,000 a year on her own I don't know what to say. Average income is i think 42,000 in the US.

Just for the whining we should double up her payments.

Did you actually understand my post? I said that if she had not been able to join the Air Force, which pays her $60,000/annum, she would not have been able to live on her own. The jobs she was applying for outside the Air Force started at @$36,000/annum. With $500/mo in loan payments, plus taxes, transportation, general living expenses and various deductions, there's no way she would have been able to live on her own. Just for being a prick, you should make her payments.

Get your facts straight. My daughter made and "A" average (while working 20 hours a week) as an undergrad and was accepted into Loma Linda University's Graduate School of Public Health with no problems. at Loma Linda, she continued her part time job and maintained an "A" average. She recieved no scholarships, even though she applied for them. This was true of most of her classmates. Good grades do not mean automatic scholarships.

Interestingly enough my B average is enough to get 5,000 dollars(could get more but I don't want to live on campus) every academic year in scholarships. Given I go to a state university so 5k a year is plenty for me even more so that I get GI bill benefits.
Are you sure she isn't pulling the wool over your eyes ?
My guess her Debt and lack of scholarship is tied to her going to a private university. Look, you and her want to throw lots of money at her education that's your prerogative, its not responsibility as a tax payer to pay it. Send her to a in state school and we would talk, but my guess she wouldn't be nearly as in debt with her grade.
Maybe its just my Major but if I got to grad school it will pay for itself Ive been offered a TA position that pays tuition and gives enough extra money to live off of. So I really don't understand how she has a 4.0 and is getting more Debt.

And looking up your daughters university they claimed and won a share of the class action McDonald's vegetarian french fry lawsuit. Of course they left your daughter in debt they are a money grubbing school. How does a school claim to be a vegetarian affronted by McDonald I have no clue. the fact they did says a lot about the character of the school.

Did you actually understand my post? I said that if she had not been able to join the Air Force, which pays her $60,000/annum, she would not have been able to live on her own. The jobs she was applying for outside the Air Force started at @$36,000/annum. With $500/mo in loan payments, plus taxes, transportation, general living expenses and various deductions, there's no way she would have been able to live on her own. Just for being a prick, you should make her payments.

well duh if she didn't get a good job of course she would have to live at home. so your bitching because even though she has a good job she might not have gotten a good job ???

I'd go so far to say that the only reason student loans are loans is due to the fact that no bank would be willing to give money away and that nobody has authorized the federal government to provide that kind of money. Personally, I think repayment of loans should be predicated on the academic performance of the student; the better you do, the more of your money is a grant rather than a loan and vice versa.
The Australian system handles it quite well:

The government pays a big chunk of the costs of the degree. But in Germany for example, where the state pays all, people tend to spend 7 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/sep/25/highereducation.students1) at university, indicating that they're not hurrying up because they're not paying for it. So there is a student contribution in Australia, which is paid through the "HELP" system: every semester you have to pay a fee (it'll be A$4200 for me next year, it varies with the degree), which you can either pay straight away and get a 25% discount, or you put it on your "HELP-debt". Those loans charge interest equal to the rate of inflation (so no real interest), and are paid back through the taxation system as soon as you earn above a certain threshold.

It allows everyone to go to university if they get the grades to get admitted and the debt is generally manageable for everyone.

It allows everyone to go to university if they get the grades to get admitted and the debt is generally manageable for everyone.

Similar system in England - you go to Uni, supported by the taxpayer, are allowed access to a special type of student bank account with a £1000 overdraft and then you payback the help you've recieved when you get a job earning above a set threshold. I think most students leave with something like £12,000 ish worth of debt.

The Australian system handles it quite well:

The government pays a big chunk of the costs of the degree. But in Germany for example, where the state pays all, people tend to spend 7 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/sep/25/highereducation.students1) at university, indicating that they're not hurrying up because they're not paying for it. So there is a student contribution in Australia, which is paid through the "HELP" system: every semester you have to pay a fee (it'll be A$4200 for me next year, it varies with the degree), which you can either pay straight away and get a 25% discount, or you put it on your "HELP-debt". Those loans charge interest equal to the rate of inflation (so no real interest), and are paid back through the taxation system as soon as you earn above a certain threshold.

It allows everyone to go to university if they get the grades to get admitted and the debt is generally manageable for everyone.

Yeah, the HECS system is pretty good, except that the "certain threshold" part is out of whack. At the moment, it's about $35,000. Which lots of kids start earning REALLY quickly. It hasn't been adjusted for inflation or rising wages like the rest of the system has.

Other than that, it's a pretty decent compromise between accessability for everyone and deterring freeloaders and so forth.

I still wish it was free for all though... mum went through when it was free... it would mean that scores needed to actually get INTO the uni would go up, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Get more kids into TAFE, it would.

well duh if she didn't get a good job of course she would have to live at home. so your bitching because even though she has a good job she might not have gotten a good job ???

You know, I've observed in this, and a couple of other threads, that you have a talent for consistently missing the point. It doesn't bode well for further discussion if I'm having to constantly explain the point to you, so I will just assume that you're young, inexperienced and somewhat ignorant and go on to other, more interesting, things.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Maybe the colleges should put more emphasis on college education.

Similar system in England - you go to Uni, supported by the taxpayer, are allowed access to a special type of student bank account with a £1000 overdraft and then you payback the help you've recieved when you get a job earning above a set threshold. I think most students leave with something like £12,000 ish worth of debt.
That used to be the case. When I graduated, I'd taken a loan of just under £10,000, of which I'd spent about half. When my sister graduates in two years' time, her loan will total about £35,000 (close to $70,000) as a result of the increase in study costs and the relative lack of support she'll get from the state and the university (even scholarships and awards only really cover the cost of supplies for her coursework).

A 2 year college degree is the new high school diploma. The reason for this is the fact that the state of the nation's high school education system is basically worthless. Ditch diggers now need an associates degree in something like construction technology in order to be competitive in the ditch digging world.
IMO we should forget about making college more affordable and focus on fixing the high school situation.

It's almost as though you've suggested that education is the cure to conservatism.

:eek:

Isn't it?:D

See, for example, Detroit.

Damn, you beat me to it.

doctor's incomes has decreasing for sometime.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7028/395/a
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/primary-care-doctors-income-drop-may/story.aspx?guid=72039448-C1CE-4754-A6B4-1C69D6761DEF
It actually increased from $135,000 to $203,000. So what if inflation was faster? Most professions' income has grown much slower than inflation. Actually, many professions have barely grown in income, like $55,000->$60,000. So doctors' relative income has increased.

And, actually, a lot:

Median household income:
1991 $40,873
1993 $40,324
1995 $42,235
1997 $43,648
1999 $46,236
2001 $45,300
2003 $45,016

Avg. doctors' personal income:
1995 $135,036
2003 $203,000

Relatively:
1995: 1 doctor = 3.2 median households
2003: 1 doctor = 4.5 median households

That article saying doctors' income has fallen is being quite hypocritical, considering they actually moved up a lot in comparison to others.




In the US it keeps teens occupied and delays the competition with established uneducated workers for 3 years.
So it's not just a luxury, it's also a waste of workforce. Not that I'm arguing against the secondary school, but from the pragmatic standpoint, we already have 3 years of non-practical education for its own sake.

Would be much better to squeeze the 12-year program into 9-10 years, removing some clutter workload, and replace it with a 2-3 years professional education, for instance associate degree.

It actually increased from $135,000 to $203,000. So what if inflation was faster? Most professions' income has grown much slower than inflation. Actually, many professions have barely grown in income, like $55,000->$60,000. So doctors' relative income has increased.

And, actually, a lot:

Median household income:
1991 $40,873
1993 $40,324
1995 $42,235
1997 $43,648
1999 $46,236
2001 $45,300
2003 $45,016

Avg. doctors' personal income:
1995 $135,036
2003 $203,000

Relatively:
1995: 1 doctor = 3.2 median households
2003: 1 doctor = 4.5 median households

That article saying doctors' income has fallen is being quite hypocritical, considering they actually moved up a lot in comparison to others.

my guess was my article covered a period of decreased which appears to be abnormal. thank you for the info.



So it's not just a luxury, it's also a waste of workforce. Not that I'm arguing against the secondary school, but from the pragmatic standpoint, we already have 3 years of non-practical education for its own sake.

15 yr olds performing factory work is not just something we would tolerate well here. Well at least in my state.

Would be much better to squeeze the 12-year program into 9-10 years, removing some clutter workload, and replace it with a 2-3 years professional education, for instance associate degree.
are children at the age of 15 and 16 ready to live on their own and have the grades they cant escape from?

15 yr olds performing factory work is not just something we would tolerate well here. Well at least in my state.
Depends on which work. Exploiting children as cheap unskilled workforce is clearly bad; but early apprenticeship in skilled labor, often not at all. I've been officially employed part-time since 16, and unofficially worked since 14, and the result? I haven't paid a cent for my Master's, the company did, and while I kept working part-time, I've been through a lot of normally very expensive off-the-job training, learning tools from Pro/E to CATIA and Tribon. When going full-time, I got a huge head start, so they had to pay me accordingly. And I have "abusive" teen labor to thank for that.



are children at the age of 15 and 16 ready to live on their own and have the grades they cant escape from?
What's that obsession with living on your own? Receiving professional education that will be actually useful in life doesn't in any way imply leaving your parents' home. Just that instead of doing time in mandatory non-useful education, they'll be learning what they need to work. Whether they go to work right at 19 as associates, proceed to bachelor's, or go further, having blue collar labor skills is useful for an engineer as well, and more extensive education of nearly all workforce will help technical progress.

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

No, we don't.

We're coming closer and closer to the point where all hard manual labor of that nature can be performed entirely by machines. That means everyone will need more and more education to be able to do any sort of job.

Which means we do not put anywhere NEAR enough emphasis on college education. Me, I like the idea of making the emphasis funding. For kids.

Maybe the colleges should put more emphasis on college education.

that's asking alot... :p

We're coming closer and closer to the point where all hard manual labor of that nature can be performed entirely by machines. That means everyone will need more and more education to be able to do any sort of job.
Actually, we're already well past that point. Virtually all hard manual labor can be performed by machines today. It's just sometimes cheaper and better performed by hand.

But what about light manual labor - maintenance jobs, which can't be mechanized? More importantly, what about the ever-growing service sector? Do we really need our waiters to be Bachelors of Arts?

that's asking alot... :p

I just got the impression that American colleges were just about drinking and fucking.

So, last night Obama and McCain were discussing post-secondary education (college), and Obama was talking about how he'd make it easier for kids to go to college, and I'm sitting here thinking. "You know, the world need ditch diggers." I mean not everyone is cut out for college. Maybe they're cut out for a trade, or skilled labor. Maybe they're best at flipping burgers. I can see the rationale behind sending someone to college (higher chances of getting a job, that pays better), but really, you can have a good job and not go to college.

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

So because some people aren't cut out for college or don't want to go, we shouldn't make it easier for the people that do? Wat.

I just got the impression that American colleges were just about drinking and fucking.

What American uni gives out degrees in fucking?:confused:

What American uni gives out degrees in fucking?:confused:
They call it "Arts".

Of course not everybody is qualified for higher education, and I think only someone being deliberately obtuse would assume that Obama meant EVERYBODY should go to college.

What Obama was, very clearly, saying was that ones ability, not financial means, should determine whether he goes on to higher education.
I think Wilgrove's indirectly suggesting that you need a higher education to understand Obama's plain speech...

I'm not saying we should cut back, or deny people a chance for higher education. I'm just simply saying that college isn't for everyone. Maybe someone is better suited to be a plumber or an electrician.
Like Joe! He's suited to be a plumber!

Do we put too much emphasis on college education in this country?

Uh, no? Half your population still votes Republican, and believes people like Obama are 'arabs', while believing in ID and Creationism.

You desperately need more education, not less

I just got the impression that American colleges were just about drinking and fucking.

considering I went to college...

I can tell you it's NOT about Drinking and Fucking.

*sob*

It was all a lie!!!

considering I went to college...

I can tell you it's NOT about Drinking and Fucking.

*sob*

It was all a lie!!!

Like the cake...

Like the cake...

And degrees in fucking. I want a degree in fucking.:(

Uh, no? Half your population still votes Republican, and believes people like Obama are 'arabs', while believing in ID and Creationism.

You desperately need more education, not less

It disturbs me that you think someone that disagrees with you is obviously uneducated. You must be REALLY educated.

This thread makes me glad that I'm not going to college anytime soon.
But I do have two years and some months of special forces training ahead of me, though. :(

Actually, we're already well past that point. Virtually all hard manual labor can be performed by machines today. It's just sometimes cheaper and better performed by hand.

But what about light manual labor - maintenance jobs, which can't be mechanized? More importantly, what about the ever-growing service sector? Do we really need our waiters to be Bachelors of Arts?

What about a culture that naturally encourages people to read books and literature and be curious about their world? That's what I really feel is lacking in the U.S. We seem to want to have everything handed to us on a platter. I was considered odd in school because I liked to read. I might as well have grown a second head.

I think learning new things is fascinating but it is very difficult to encourage someone else to do the same. Most of the people I know are more worried about American Idol than reading a piece of poetry.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that with the availability of knowledge today, there really is no reason to go to college. The schooling is out there at your fingertips. Why is the U.S. not utilizing it?

What about a culture that naturally encourages people to read books and literature and be curious about their world? That's what I really feel is lacking in the U.S. We seem to want to have everything handed to us on a platter. I was considered odd in school because I liked to read. I might as well have grown a second head.

I think learning new things is fascinating but it is very difficult to encourage someone else to do the same. Most of the people I know are more worried about American Idol than reading a piece of poetry.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that with the availability of knowledge today, there really is no reason to go to college. The schooling is out there at your fingertips. Why is the U.S. not utilizing it?You and I would have gotten along fine. :D
I scored a twenty-nine on the ACT, and I'm not going to a traditional four year college. Technical or vocational school is a perfectly valid option.

And degrees in fucking. I want a degree in fucking.:(

*Gives a Ph. U.C.K.* :wink:

And degrees in fucking. I want a degree in fucking.:(

*Gives a Ph. U.C.K.* :wink:

With a Magna Cum Loud.

What about a culture that naturally encourages people to read books and literature and be curious about their world? That's what I really feel is lacking in the U.S. We seem to want to have everything handed to us on a platter. I was considered odd in school because I liked to read. I might as well have grown a second head.

I think learning new things is fascinating but it is very difficult to encourage someone else to do the same.

And you think making college mandatory, free, or otherwise used by most of the population will make more people spend their time reading?
Then try to think it over. It's uncool to read in school exactly because it's what you are forced or at least supposed to do. Things are appreciated by scarcity and devalued by availability; what would otherwise be considered a privilege, with mandatory schooling becomes an annoying duty.
If college is made for everyone, like high school, it will be the same story. Today only college graduates consider it good to read (a higher middle-upper class activity), then virtually no one will.

Artificial scarcity is in no way good, and artificial increase in availability is useful, but quite a bit is already provided. Going much further, to give college education to people who don't need it, will only degrade its quality, and drop the prestige and gains associated - thus reducing the incentive to actually learn.

The jobs she was applying for outside the Air Force started at @$36,000/annum. With $500/mo in loan payments, plus taxes, transportation, general living expenses and various deductions, there's no way she would have been able to live on her own.
Poor she! So her first considered job, without any experience, would start at $30,000 after deducting the loan payments... just 20% more than the median personal income throughout the country.

Or just 42% higher than the average for female high school graduates aged 25+.
(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)).

Not touching the question of how all these 60% of Americans who live earning less than she started at manage to live on their own, I really see how this college loan ripped her off, sure.

Actually, we're already well past that point. Virtually all hard manual labor can be performed by machines today. It's just sometimes cheaper and better performed by hand.

But what about light manual labor - maintenance jobs, which can't be mechanized? More importantly, what about the ever-growing service sector? Do we really need our waiters to be Bachelors of Arts?

If they want more money than they make through the service jobs alone, then yes.

Really, is there any HARM in having them educated?

Poor she! So her first considered job, without any experience, would start at $30,000 after deducting the loan payments... just 20% more than the median personal income throughout the country.

Or just 42% higher than the average for female high school graduates aged 25+.
(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)).

Not touching the question of how all these 60% of Americans who live earning less than she started at manage to live on their own, I really see how this college loan ripped her off, sure.

You're forgetting that standards of living are different in different areas of the country. What is a living wage in one place is starvation wage in another.

And degrees in fucking. I want a degree in fucking.:(

I remember hearing once... that there was a college of Prostitution somewhere in Europe.

if that's true... which would be the worse nightmare for the parent...

their child flunking out... or making the Dean's list?

You're forgetting that standards of living are different in different areas of the country. What is a living wage in one place is starvation wage in another.
It would matter if we had to rely solely on two sets of data - but we don't. Let's then just disregard your anecdotal example and see the statistics.

Measure Some High School High school graduate Some college Associate degree Bachelor's degree or higher Bachelor's degree Master's degree Professional degree Doctorate degree
Female, 25+ w/earnings $15,073 $21,117 $25,185 $29,510 $40,483 $36,532 $45,730 $66,055 $54,666

So, across the US, Bachelor's would typically bring a woman an income of $40,500, while high school would keep her at $21,100. After subtracting $500 for student's loan, we have $34,500 with college versus $21,100 without.
A bachelor still has 64% more even after the loan payment. And 64% more is a lot.

So if she isn't able to live on her own, it's not because of the student's loan, as college has actually greatly improved her income.



If they want more money than they make through the service jobs alone, then yes.
Really, is there any HARM in having them educated?
But who will wait our tables then? Masters of Arts?

Yes, there is harm. Work is wasted teaching them what they'll never use, both teachers' and theirs. And what's more, if higher education becomes a commonplace commodity rather than an earned privilege, it won't be valuable anymore.
Simply speaking, your daughter would be offered a $24,000 civilian job or $40,000 in the Chairforce, for her skill is no longer short in supply.

Or, actually, even less; with a 6% economic loss from wasted labor (60% losing 4 years), and actual:median ratio of 36,000/40,500=0.89, and bachelor's degree moving down to where high school is now (-20% from median, but let's take -10%), for a bachelor that would be $25,150*0.94*0.89*0.9=$20,000.
And the USAF? Just normal E3-E4 pay, since if everyone's got a degree, there obviously won't be any jumpstarting as officers without any training just because you've got one, or there wouldn't be any enlisted left.


That is, of course, if there was no economic payback from extra education, like if everyone of these extra 60% was studying Arts. If the education was professional, there would be a payback, but it probably wouldn't be high enough to cover the losses. Still, if it would, everyone who now has a degree (Bachelor, Master, Doctor, doesn't matter) would get lower income than now; just the laws of distribution.

It would matter if we had to rely solely on two sets of data - but we don't. Let's then just disregard your anecdotal example and see the statistics.

Measure Some High School High school graduate Some college Associate degree Bachelor's degree or higher Bachelor's degree Master's degree Professional degree Doctorate degree
Female, 25+ w/earnings $15,073 $21,117 $25,185 $29,510 $40,483 $36,532 $45,730 $66,055 $54,666

So, across the US, Bachelor's would typically bring a woman an income of $40,500, while high school would keep her at $21,100. After subtracting $500 for student's loan, we have $34,500 with college versus $21,100 without.
A bachelor still has 64% more even after the loan payment. And 64% more is a lot.

So if she isn't able to live on her own, it's not because of the student's loan, as college has actually greatly improved her income.




But who will wait our tables then? Masters of Arts?

Yes, there is harm. Work is wasted teaching them what they'll never use, both teachers' and theirs. And what's more, if higher education becomes a commonplace commodity rather than an earned privilege, it won't be valuable anymore.
Simply speaking, your daughter would be offered a $24,000 civilian job or $40,000 in the Navy, for her skill is no longer short in supply.

Or, actually, even less; with a 6% economic loss from wasted labor (60% losing 4 years), and actual:median ratio of 36,000/40,500=0.89, and bachelor's degree moving down to where high school is now (-20% from median, but let's take -10%), for a bachelor that would be $25,150*0.94*0.89*0.9=$20,000.
And the Navy? Even less, since if everyone's got Bachelor's degree, there obviously won't be any jumpstarting as officers without any training just because you've got a degree, or there wouldn't be any enlisted left.


That is, of course, if there was no economic payback from extra education, like if everyone of these extra 60% was studying Arts. If the education was professional, there would be a payback, but it probably wouldn't be high enough to cover the losses. Still, if it would, everyone who now has a degree (Bachelor, Master, Doctor, doesn't matter) would get lower income than now; just the laws of distribution.

It's too early in the morning for me to question your maths, so I'm going to accept it until someone else comes along to disprove it, but there is another point being missed here: tertiary education is not simply economic or vocational: it's also about betterment of self. Yeah, in the US, maybe you should fix your high school system first, but the idea of giving everyone extra learning is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, if people are more educated and enlightened, rationality will, hopefully, become something of a norm rather than an exception.

Like Joe! He's suited to be a plumber!

I'm sure he'll get around to learning how to plumb eventually :)

And you think making college mandatory, free, or otherwise used by most of the population will make more people spend their time reading?
Then try to think it over. It's uncool to read in school exactly because it's what you are forced or at least supposed to do. Things are appreciated by scarcity and devalued by availability; what would otherwise be considered a privilege, with mandatory schooling becomes an annoying duty.
If college is made for everyone, like high school, it will be the same story. Today only college graduates consider it good to read (a higher middle-upper class activity), then virtually no one will.

Artificial scarcity is in no way good, and artificial increase in availability is useful, but quite a bit is already provided. Going much further, to give college education to people who don't need it, will only degrade its quality, and drop the prestige and gains associated - thus reducing the incentive to actually learn.

Actually I was leaning the other way. I think it's ridiculous. I was asking what it is about our culture that abhors learning.