**** Elections thread *****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

and the lack of emphasis on testing is perceived to be one of the key reasons why Finland has been doing well. Tests still are a a fairly easy way to gauge performance somewhat objectively.

---

wait, which is it? If Finland doesn't emphasize testing, and testing is how you gauge performance objectively, then how do you know if they're doing well? If you're putting ALL your stock in this PISA test, I think you're being a little glib. It's really not as simple and 'standardized' as you might think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Some say that income inequality is bad.

---

And others say it's great. Again, Income "mobility" is the key, in my opinion. Of the poorest 20% in the US, nearly 2/3 of that population advances to a higher quintile within a generation. If that were impossible, then income inequality is bad. If there is robust income mobility, then the people on the bottom are there because they've chosen to be shitty people.

Quote:

---

Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile -- 11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...nequality.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I'm not sure what your point is. Singapore is on top, top 20 is dominated by asia and northern europe. The US schools have massive amounts of homework and tests are a weekly occurrence, yet you suck on PISA. Maybe even more work is needed there?

---

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that the hardest schools show the best test results. I'm not sure volume of homework and tests translates directly to 'difficulty'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

The PISA tests are standardized, even though clearly rigged since US is not on top.

---

Sounds kinda snarky. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Finlands schools are bad. And I'm not saying that US's are good. I am saying that they seem to have entirely different goals when it comes to educating kids, hence a standardized test result is not a great basis for comparison. Plus, as I said, the test doesn't seem to be as "standardized" as one may think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Yeah, a tiny country dominating a whole global industry for 10 years is nothing, at least it in no way qualifies as engineering feat worth mentioning. Stop trolling.

---

The bolded is quite an exaggeration. McDonalds dominates Burger King. Coke dominates Pepsi. I'm not sure Nokia had that big of an advantage over Motorola, Samsung, LG, and whoever else. Nokia had a nice run....that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

If you think of the greatest minds in human history, how many of them were motivated by money?

---

Millions of them. Literally millions of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I think it'd be quite challenging to make over 50% be above average.

---

What? Are you kididing me right now? Isn't that the whole point of this argument....that Finland has so many kids acheiving at rates higher than the worldwide average? If Finland had an even distribution of below, average, and above average kids, then they would be in the middle of the pack in the world rankings. But they're not....they're at the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

wait, which is it? If Finland doesn't emphasize testing, and testing is how you gauge performance objectively, then how do you know if they're doing well? If you're putting ALL your stock in this PISA test, I think you're being a little glib. It's really not as simple and 'standardized' as you might think.

---

When the first PISA rankings came out in 2000 or so putting Finns at the top, the first reaction by Finns was that wait a minute, there's gotta be an error here. There hadn't been any emphasis on testing in education, and the success came as a complete surprise. It was just an unintentional outcome, and in its way showed that maybe something had been done right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And others say it's great. Again, Income "mobility" is the key, in my opinion. Of the poorest 20% in the US, nearly 2/3 of that population advances to a higher quintile within a generation. If that were impossible, then income inequality is bad. If there is robust income mobility, then the people on the bottom are there because they've chosen to be shitty people.

---

Well I guess I'll just have to take your word over the experts'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that the hardest schools show the best test results. I'm not sure volume of homework and tests translates directly to 'difficulty'.

---

Correlation doesth not causation imply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Sounds kinda snarky. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Finlands schools are bad. And I'm not saying that US's are good. I am saying that they seem to have entirely different goals when it comes to educating kids, hence a standardized test result is not a great basis for comparison. Plus, as I said, the test doesn't seem to be as "standardized" as one may think.

---

Then it seems like we agree. All I pointed out that there's evidence that not "all public schools systems are bad".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The bolded is quite an exaggeration. McDonalds dominates Burger King. Coke dominates Pepsi. I'm not sure Nokia had that big of an advantage over Motorola, Samsung, LG, and whoever else. Nokia had a nice run....that's it.

---

Up until 2008 Nokia had an over 40% market share, the next up was Blackberry with under 20%. This was when iPhone was already out and Nokia in decline. I'd call that domination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Millions of them. Literally millions of them.

---

That, by definition, makes absolutely no sense. Name one that's even in top 100, and we can laugh at your idea of great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What? Are you kididing me right now? Isn't that the whole point of this argument....that Finland has so many kids acheiving at rates higher than the worldwide average? If Finland had an even distribution of below, average, and above average kids, then they would be in the middle of the pack in the world rankings. But they're not....they're at the top.

---

Man I hate explaining jokes.

You're assuming that only money motivates people, and even to the extent that if your monetary advantage for succeeding in your country is smaller than it might be in some other country, no one's gonna bother. That's wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin to dissect it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Sounds legit. We've established, I think, that in Finland there basically only exists a public option for 99+% of people. In the US 10.4% attend private schools*. So how is it possible, that a system with practically only the public option performs better than one with both public and private options in stark competition with each other?

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...tes#Statistics



It's understandable you don't, no one can expect that you would know. That's why I've been trying to exaplain to you that there isn't competition, and indeed the system is seen to achieve it's results precisely due to the lack of it.



Government policies force private schools to charge tens of hundreds of thousands per semester? Which policies exactly?



Well depends what you define as niche, over half a million students attend those niches all the time, 5700 charter schools, 2700 magnet schools etc.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/pesscho...s/table_02.asp



Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. At least so far, we've been able to adapt and create new jobs to replace the lost ones. It is however quite a different challenge whether we are replacing a few thousand gas pump attendants, or losing 6% of the total jobs in 4 years: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rrester-report

Significant measures should already be underway to address this, especially in education, healthcare and social services etc.



I thought that's why we've been having this conversation. Let's recap:

1. You said "Public education is so bad."
2. I pointed out that some of the best school systems, according to statistics, are public.
3. You claim that Finland is doing better than the US due to more competition, based on one opinion piece you found, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
4. I try to show that there is no competition, or at least much less of it than in the US.
5. You declare you don't know, but it must be so because economics.

Economic theories are nice and all, but proof they are not. Wouldn't a reasonable person when faced with evidence or suggestions that conflict with their views at least entertain the thought, that there may be something else going on, not just dig in their heels? Could that, in your mind, possibly be signs of confirmation bias?

---

A big issue with this discussion is that I am not remotely prepared to discuss Finland. I am, however, prepared to discuss mechanisms that can explain why a particular school system functions the way it does.

Assuming the Finland school system does achieve better PISA results than others, by what mechanism(s) do you propose it does so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Huh? Who cares? They were relevant for less than a decade and have since been overwhelmed by Asian companies. You know....from countries that PISA says have better schools

---

This helps show why using the small pieces of data and extrapolating to the whole doesn't work that well. My Chinese studies professor claims that the testing system for Chinese pre-college is doing more harm to them than good. They do score better, but the atypically intense inefficient approach they use is costly to their psychological, social, and even professional health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Assuming the Finland school system does achieve better PISA results than others, by what mechanism(s) do you propose it does so?

---

That would have been explained in the article I posted to you when this discussion started, and I've also stated them a few times during the discussion.

In no particular order
- teacher's all have a master's degree at the minimum and the profession is respected
- single payer free education for all
- no competition between students and between schools
- short school days, very little homework or testing
- emphasis on creativity, not performance

To my understanding those are seen to be the main ones. Now, I'm not an expert on education, so I have no idea personally. That is the "official" narrative based on numerous studies on the subject, after the PISA results the world has been taking notice and watching very closely what's been done here. The whole point of the article I posted was that Americans in particular have failed to grasp the main lessons from the studies, which is exactly what you've also been doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Pigeon-holing a person as nothing more than an employee is naive both in what a person is and in what a society gains from a good citizen.
Uneducated citizens are terrible for maintaining a non-corrupt gov't.

---

I completely agree. This is a very important point. Do you think that a school system run by the government has enough incentive to teach students to be critical of the government?

That sounds like infowars-level paranoia. Do you think it'd be the individual teachers that'd teach their pupils to be obedient sheeple, or would that be an official policy set by the ministry of education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Well I guess I'll just have to take your word over the experts'.

---

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

That, by definition, makes absolutely no sense. Name one that's even in top 100, and we can laugh at your idea of great.

---

Top 100 what? Are you saying that something as subjective as intelligence has been definitively ranked down to a list of the top 100 out of every human ever? If you're trying to suggest that there is no correlation between academic aptitude and lifetime earnings....you're out of your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're assuming that only money motivates people, and even to the extent that if your monetary advantage for succeeding in your country is smaller than it might be in some other country, no one's gonna bother. That's wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin to dissect it.

---

of course people are motivated by more than money. But to say that money isn't firmly planted at or near the top of the list is absurd. If you're born into the bottom income bracket in a given country, you can make 10x more money by moving to the top. In another country with less income inequality, the increase from bottom to top is only 5x. If you're a bright motivated individual....where would you rather live? Does it really make a difference to you if schools in the 5x country have better test scores than the 10x country?

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

- teacher's all have a master's degree at the minimum

---

That would typically have a positive effect on results. The cost is, well, increased cost. All things being equal, a system that requires Master's degrees of its instructors instead of just Bachelor's degrees has higher labor costs, and more money is spent per student. This could help explain Finland's results. Where making claims about Finland gets tricky in this regard is that even though this practice does increase the amount Finland pays per child ceteris paribus, statistics almost never show ceteris paribus results, and econometric analysis may not be able to find an association between Finland making this change and having increased labor costs.

Quote:

---

and the profession is respected

---

Culture is a big deal here. Non-competitiveness of an industry can have that effect. If Finnish teaching is not that competitive, labor supply will be lower and pay will be higher, with prestige often coming along. This non-competitiveness effect doesn't necessarily make the system more robust at producing results, but it can be like an albedo effect,

Quote:

---

- single payer free education for all

---

How does this increase PISA scores?

Quote:

---

- no competition between students and between schools

---

How do you propose this increases PISA scores?

Quote:

---

- short school days, very little homework or testing

---

I'm a fan. The actual amount of production people do in a day is a bit less than our designated productive hours. One of my biggest criticisms of school (including private) is that the long days and stressful settings teach laziness more than intended. It sounds like Finland may have partially discarded the Prussian academic idea. I can see lots of good in that. The mechanism would be along the lines of how the reduced stress provides for more refreshed and more productive work. Regarding testing, I don't have a proposed mechanism, but it is clear to me that what I learn has very little to do with what I get tested on, and that trend appears to be the case for most others I know.

This strategy may be a useful innovation.

Quote:

---

- emphasis on creativity, not performance

---

Sounds like another useful innovation. Maybe Finland got lucky on the innovations it chose to implement. The vast majority of innovations don't work and we tend to find out they don't work only after implementation. We hope this happens in the private market instead of by government policy, because in the former the failed innovation tends to disappear and in the latter it tends to remain.

Quote:

---

To my understanding those are seen to be the main ones. Now, I'm not an expert on education, so I have no idea personally. That is the "official" narrative based on numerous studies on the subject, after the PISA results the world has been taking notice and watching very closely what's been done here. The whole point of the article I posted was that Americans in particular have failed to grasp the main lessons from the studies, which is exactly what you've also been doing.

---

Maybe we haven't been communicating that well. At any point in time a public system can perform better than a private one, but that doesn't make the public one better in the long term. Finland could have captured some smart innovations in a non-competitive system, but that doesn't mean a non-competitive system is how smart innovations are typically captured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

That sounds like infowars-level paranoia. Do you think it'd be the individual teachers that'd teach their pupils to be obedient sheeple, or would that be an official policy set by the ministry of education?

---

I take this to mean that you think the answer to the question regarding the government and its incentives is "yes, the government has a greater incentive to teach people to be critical of the government than not."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

At any point in time a public system can perform better than a private one, but that doesn't make the public one better in the long term.

---

I'll take that. You know you could have just said that in response to the article I posted, then again we would have missed out on this whole discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I take this to mean that you think the answer to the question regarding the government and its incentives is "yes, the government has a greater incentive to teach people to be critical of the government than not."

---

Rather "I find it very hard to believe this would incentivize anyone to teach to be less critical, at least outside of North Korea." What incentive would private schools have to teach to be more critical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Rather "I find it very hard to believe this would incentivize anyone to teach to be less critical, at least outside of North Korea."

---

Do you think the US government lies about things?

Quote:

---

What incentive would private schools have to teach to be more critical?

---

Critical of the government? Lots. People don't like being taxed, told what to do by what is essentially an outsider, etc..

Critical in general? That incentive exists too, due to things like schools in a private system only receiving funds if they have a reputation of getting the kinds of results consumers want. One of those results can be parents' kids learning how to be critical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Do you think the US government lies about things?

---

Government is made up of people, people lie, so in the sense of course. Generally as a whole, as part of some official agenda or policy, I don't think they lie on a consistent and purposeful sense, except for the past few weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Critical of the government? Lots. People don't like being taxed, told what to do by what is essentially an outsider, etc..

---

How does that relate to private schools?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Critical in general? That incentive exists too, due to things like schools in a private system only receiving funds if they have a reputation of getting the kinds of results consumers want. One of those results can be parents' kids learning how to be critical.

---

Why wouldn't or at least couldn't that work exactly the same with a public school? Private schools only receive parts of their funding from the government or not at all, they're less dependent on it. Public schools that don't meet targets can also get their board changed or the whole school closed down, and conversely are also incentivized to attract students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Government is made up of people, people lie, so in the sense of course. Generally as a whole, as part of some official agenda or policy, I don't think they lie on a consistent and purposeful sense, except for the past few weeks.



How does that relate to private schools?



Why wouldn't or at least couldn't that work exactly the same with a public school? Private schools only receive parts of their funding from the government or not at all, they're less dependent on it. Public schools that don't meet targets can also get their board changed or the whole school closed down, and conversely are also incentivized to attract students.

---

Entities within a private system are funded like private businesses. A public system is funded by tax collection. In the last five years, how many private businesses do you think have gone bankrupt? How many governments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Entities within a private system are funded like private businesses. A public system is funded by tax collection. In the last five years, how many private businesses do you think have gone bankrupt? How many governments?

---

I think comparing a private school to the whole government is a false equivalence. How many public schools have been closed or principals/board members/teachers fired? Bankruptcy is not the only negative outcome. How many bankruptcies has Trump gone through and how have they affected his career and business practices?

Whatever faith I had in American education just evaporated

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/...work-help.html

So the kid can't do math, which is bad enough

She also seemingly can't ask her mother for help

She apparently doesn't have any friends, teachers, tutors, siblings, or neighbors to ask for help. Also she apparently doesn't know how to ask google for shit.

Finally, she reaches out to the cops, for math help.

And then...

The cop gets it wrong!!

You win Finland.

I think your criteria might be better. Compare quantities of bankruptcies (relatively) in the private world to in the government world and you'll still get significantly different results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

GTFO with that man. If a woman says "yes" it's not rape. If She says "no" it is. The PISA test has alot more moving parts. I'm doing a little digging right now myself. Did you know in 2006 the US's results were disqualified because of a misprint in the test? So what are we even comparing here?

---

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Hmm, on this particular point, she can “say yes” on the spot, be into it and everything with second and third helpings and all, and then “say no” four months after the fact and it would still be considered rape in Sweden.

---

No, it would be considered as a reported incident of rape, not definitively a rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What "experts"? Are you suggesting that there is a definitive right/wrong determination on whether income inequality is a good thing or a bad things? Because there isn't. There's substantial debate supporting both sides. My personal preference, is to have income inequality along with income mobility. If there is no mobility, then inequality sucks. But if there is mobility, and you're not happy with you're income, you can do something about it. That's awesome.

---

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you want a better paycheck? or do you wanna be just a little bit better at high school algebra than everyone else?

---

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, it would be considered as a reported incident of rape, not definitively a rape.

---

Semantics

Quote:

---

The next one, however, caught Gruber out: (90 + 27) + (29 + 15) x 2

"Take the answer from the first parenthesis plus the answer from the second parenthesis and multiply that answer by two," the cop messaged.

---

Hahahaha idiot fucking cop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Do keep in mind that this can lead to an increase in crime as well.

---

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

This is not mutually exclusive. How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

---

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.

Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Semantics

---

lol, really??

Ok then. Reported rape and real rape are the same thing. So then Sweden really is the rape capital of the world, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

lol, really??

Ok then. Reported rape and real rape are the same thing. So then Sweden really is the rape capital of the world, right?

---

Thanks for that sarcastic point, as that is exactly what has been argued for a long, long time now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I guess, but that's a really convoluded connection. Yes crime and poverty are linked, but who says that those at the bottom of the income inequality scale are actually "poor". They could just be "poor-er" than those at the top. I mean, a 'poor' household in America still has three TVs, two Xbox's, and a leased car that's probably nicer than mine.

---

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.


Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

---

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

Quote:

---

How good at high school algebra would Eric Schmidt be, in your opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.


This is one of the main reasons why I’m a firm supporter of leveling the playing field and make it at least as easy as possible to get a proper education for everyone that would like one.


As Mojo correctly pointed out some posts back, it should be cumpolsory up to a certain point. You just have to expect a few things from your populace these days. Also, a well educated populace is much more difficult to fool, wuf.





Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

---

We want the same things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Not as convoluted as you may think. See, being upwardly mobile in theory, being marketed as such, and yet in practice making it absurdly hard, will lead to increases in crime in my opinion. Not everyone has the fortitude to grind in against all odds, and will take the easier road. It is easier, yet more risky, but with tremendous profits.

---

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.

Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Yes, but that was not my question to you. My question was:

---

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

We want the same things.

---

I have come to realize this. We are just in some disagreement on what is the better way to get there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What do you mean "against all odds"? How hard is it really to earn a living and not steal?

---

It is apparently very hard for a person who has absolutely nothing. Be desperate enough and you are going to get forced to take desperate measures. This compounded with the media always glorifying the lives of the haves, the phenomenon of predatory lending and debtors prisons, etc. You end up with people with immense thirst of upward mobility, but no real way to get there legit.


But I’m going off course there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It is a fact that in America, 90% of the people who live above the poverty line share three common traits. Conversely, 90% of the people who live below poverty are missing one or more of these three traits. They are:
1) Finish high school. It doesn't have to be a good school, the stats make no delineation for quality of education. You just have to show up.
2) Don't have a baby until you're at least 21 years old
3) Have that baby after you get married.


Schools are open and it's legal to buy condoms. What's "absurdly hard" about that?

---

Sure. However, two key determinants for premarital condom use is religiosity and education level. Too much religion or too little education both lead towards inadequate condom usage, ergo undesired results. Parents are also key determinants on both these things. Politicians (mostly right wing) are also crucial factors on the lower condom usage rates because of religion.


Massive catch-22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Probably pretty good. Still not seeing your point though.

---

Great. Do you believe that if he wasn’t any “probably pretty good” at high school algebra, he’d still be in the position he is now? Do bear in mind that he has a PhD in computer engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't get the question. I had to google Mr. Schmidt to find out who he is. Seems like he grew up with pretty successful parents. I'm not sure he's a great example of "income mobility". Oprah is a better example. She was a good student, mostly through hard work and parental oversight. And translated that into mobility from a life of abject poverty....to being fucking Oprah.


Would her work ethic have gotten her that much mobility in Finland? I would guess not.

---

Probably not. But failure to be Oprah would not mean living in poverty in Finland. As we know, not everyone is Oprah. And you do not need a billion dollars to live well.


Oprah paraphrases Seneca the Younger: “I feel that luck is preparation meeting opportunity.” She has demonstrated to be an extremely “Lucky” woman. There’s a reason why there aren’t many Oprah’s, other than perhaps JK Rowling.


But yes, do prepare yourself for if and when the opportunity does arise is perhaps the most important single piece of advice anyone can give.


Plus, she has a book club bearing her name. Smart is in books. Read a ton of books, and that makes you de facto smarter than the average non-book-reading Joe. Does she read the books of her book club? Is she actually an avid reader? Important questions bearing asking, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

It is apparently very hard for a person who has absolutely nothing.

---

I don't believe there are very many people like that in the US or in Finland. Poverty means something entirely different in developed countries. Like I said, a poor household in the US probably gets more cable stations than I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Massive catch-22.

---

I don't really see it that way. It's not like condoms are hard to come by. Also the religious argument is iffy. I find it hard to believe that a sinner would brazenly embrace premarital sex but then draw the line at prophylactics. My point is, that the American system is set up so that virtually anyone, regardless of class or status, can achieve "average". If some choose to squander it with horrible choices like dropping out of school, or having babies that they can't support, I don't see that as a failing, or even a shortcoming, of American education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Great. Do you believe that if he wasn’t any “probably pretty good” at high school algebra, he’d still be in the position he is now? Do bear in mind that he has a PhD in computer engineering.

---

Still not seeing your point. If he wasn't good at algebra, that wouldn't necessarily be his undoing. His aptitude for math and science led him to a certain career. If he was better at sports and arts, maybe he'd be in a different career. That doesn't mean he'd necessarily be less successful. Unless he lived in Finland, which was my point about Oprah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Probably not. But failure to be Oprah would not mean living in poverty in Finland. As we know, not everyone is Oprah. And you do not need a billion dollars to live well.

---

Ok, if this is how you feel, what's your point about Schmidt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't believe there are very many people like that in the US or in Finland. Poverty means something entirely different in developed countries. Like I said, a poor household in the US probably gets more cable stations than I do.

---

Sure. Standard of poverty is different everywhere.


Using your stance, in that case it probably would mean you are poor as well, and would also benefit greatly from additional gratis advanced educational opportunities offered to you.


See, if your standard on poverty is “how many cable channels people get” and “they get more than me”, you are boxing yourself into a particular corner. Think bigger picture brah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't really see it that way.

---

I see you don’t see it that way, and that’s ok, you can see it in whichever way you desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's not like condoms are hard to come by. Also the religious argument is iffy. I find it hard to believe that a sinner would brazenly embrace premarital sex but then draw the line at prophylactics.

---

Oh no they don’t; they fuck, they ignore wtf a condom is because they are told to ignore wtf a condom is, and then they have kids. Can’t have an abortion because their skygod told them it’s forbidden, yada yada. This is greatly documented, if you want I could conjure up some statistical black magic for you to scrutinize at will.


Education level, having kids early and religion it’s all correlated and intricately intertwined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

My point is, that the American system is set up so that virtually anyone, regardless of class or status, can achieve "average". If some choose to squander it with horrible choices like dropping out of school, or having babies that they can't support, I don't see that as a failing, or even a shortcoming, of American education.

---

Then if you can achieve better than “average” through better and free education, you are against it? You do know that “average” can be raised, right? Raising the actual “average” as a whole with a modicum of effort and you are still against it?


How about you want to go college because you want to be better than “average”; say, a cheap-ass community college. Yet you can’t afford the $9,500 annual tuition expected of you. What do you do? You either don’t go and accept your current fate or you get a student loan, which are handed out like candy. Or a sugar daddy.


This puts you in at least a $38,000 deficit upon graduation, assuming you graduate in four years. Suck at college-ing and don’t graduate, then you are stuck with that bill AND no degree.


Congratulations! You are now a modern wage slave.


Be good at college-ing to graduate in 4 years? Then obviously you have to major in something which makes a ton of money fast so that you can pay off this debt and others you have accumulated, and start thinking about buying your house and living life. This puts whole majors at a disadvantage. DUCY?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Still not seeing your point. If he wasn't good at algebra, that wouldn't necessarily be his undoing. His aptitude for math and science led him to a certain career. If he was better at sports and arts, maybe he'd be in a different career. That doesn't mean he'd necessarily be less successful. Unless he lived in Finland, which was my point about Oprah.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ok, if this is how you feel, what's your point about Schmidt?

---

Probably, and that’s OK. Just not billionaire OK though, but he’d still probably be OK.


But, he’d never be the Eric Schmidt we know if he wasn’t “probably pretty good” at high school algebra. Oprah and JK Rowling were both “probably pretty good” at high school level English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

See, if your standard on poverty is “how many cable channels people get” and “they get more than me”, you are boxing yourself into a particular corner. Think bigger picture brah.

---

The cable channels comment was hyperbolic, not meant to be taken syllable for syllable literally. Are you trying out for CNN here?

My point is that "poverty" in America comes with a fair amount of luxuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Then if you can achieve better than “average” through better and free education, you are against it? You do know that “average” can be raised, right? Raising the actual “average” as a whole with a modicum of effort and you are still against it?


How about you want to go college because you want to be better than “average”; say, a cheap-ass community college. Yet you can’t afford the $9,500 annual tuition expected of you. What do you do? You either don’t go and accept your current fate or you get a student loan, which are handed out like candy. Or a sugar daddy.


This puts you in at least a $38,000 deficit upon graduation, assuming you graduate in four years. Suck at college-ing and don’t graduate, then you are stuck with that bill AND no degree.


Congratulations! You are now a modern wage slave.

---

Easy Bernie

-what moticum of effort, specifically?
-If you are a high school graduate, and you can't earn 9500 bucks a year, you deserve to have a shit-life.
-Who said you MUST borrow all of your tuition?
-Who said you MUST finish in four years?
-Who said you MUST get a four year degree, and a 2 year degree is unacceptable?
-Who said making a financial obligation and subsequently quitting should not have a consequence?

It's 2017 man, you can take college courses while sitting on your toilet nowadays. A high school graduate should really have no problem getting an education. If it means you have to live with a roommate for a while, so be it. If it means you have to borrow money, so be it (but it really shouldn't....get a job). If getting a job means you take fewer courses at a time, and graduate in 5 years...so be it. If you don't get to live in a dorm, join a frat, drink your balls off, and get the residential college experience...so be it. If you have to get a 2 year degree, then find employment that offers tuition assistance in order to finish..so be it.

Some people have to work harder than others. Life's not fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The cable channels comment was hyperbolic, not meant to be taken syllable for syllable literally. Are you trying out for CNN here?


My point is that "poverty" in America comes with a fair amount of luxuries.

---

Only if you are trying out for Fox News


Funny anecdote: I stopped watching Fox back in like ’07. I used to watch it a ton back then though, but I can’t remember why. Maybe because it was like “American News”, must be good, whatever. If I search around long enough I can find the exact date on this board somewhere. I noticed everywhere on Fox saying “Osama” every single time they mentioned “Obama” back then.


Like someone taking off my blindfold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Easy Bernie


-what moticum of effort, specifically?

---

How about less war and allocate some of that budget towards education? That’s like, literally, 0 effort on every citizen’s part. 0. None. Nada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

-If you are a high school graduate, and you can't earn 9500 bucks a year, you deserve to have a shit-life.

---

You wouldn’t have to worry about earning that $9500 a year if you wouldn’t have to pay that tuition. You could get by with much less than that, ergo dedicating more time to, you know, your studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

-Who said you MUST borrow all of your tuition?

---

How are you going to get money if you don’t have? I am arguing for the poor here. Poor people don’t have $9,500 lying around. Much less the $70,000 it would take per annum for NYU for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

-Who said you MUST finish in four years?

---

Common BSc studies takes 4 years AFAIK. Medical is like 5 years. I don’t know (and frankly haven’t heard) about 2 year studies that aren’t like doctorate or MSc., so whatever.


Or are you now taking my every word in my example literally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

-Who said you MUST get a four year degree, and a 2 year degree is unacceptable?

---

See above. Plus, what are you arguing here exactly? The money still has to be there per year regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

-Who said making a financial obligation and subsequently quitting should not have a consequence?

---

Kids make stupid decisions all the time. It comes with being young and ignorant. However, it’s easy to prey on this stupidity, and people have been making careers out of this. Have you heard how much of an issue student loan debt has become nowadays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's 2017 man, you can take college courses while sitting on your toilet nowadays. A high school graduate should really have no problem getting an education. If it means you have to live with a roommate for a while, so be it. If it means you have to borrow money, so be it (but it really shouldn't....get a job). If getting a job means you take fewer courses at a time, and graduate in 5 years...so be it. If you don't get to live in a dorm, join a frat, drink your balls off, and get the residential college experience...so be it. If you have to get a 2 year degree, then find employment that offers tuition assistance in order to finish..so be it.


Some people have to work harder than others. Life's not fair.

---

It can be very different for literally everybody if people stopped being so dense for no reason, at least for a little while. Stopping and reasoning, thinking with the tiniest bit of empathy for a change.


Much easier said than done apparently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Only if you are trying out for Fox News

---

It's good to be #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

How about less war and allocate some of that budget towards education? That’s like, literally, 0 effort on every citizen’s part. 0. None. Nada.

---

Obama pulled us out of Iraq/Afghanistan years ago. Schools didn't improve. You really think that we can just throw more money at schools and make them better?

Also, why are you so down on the military? Military spending boosts the economy quite a bit. There are lots and lots and lots of private companies that are DoD contractors. they build planes, ships, guns, gear, and everything else. That's millions and millions of jobs. Sequestration led to massive layoffs at these companies. How did that help anything?

If you want the government to start diverting wasted money.....start looking at the Post Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

You wouldn’t have to worry about earning that $9500 a year if you wouldn’t have to pay that tuition. You could get by with much less than that, ergo dedicating more time to, you know, your studies.

---

Or.....what if college cost less than 9500? Also this idea of having "more time for your studies" is silly. There are enough hours in the day to work and go to school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

How are you going to get money if you don’t have?.

---

Prostitution....robbery....or maybe this new thing called 'Employment'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Common BSc studies takes 4 years AFAIK. Medical is like 5 years. I don’t know (and frankly haven’t heard) about 2 year studies that aren’t like doctorate or MSc., so whatever.

---

You get your degree when you've earned enough credits to qualify. Most people take four years. But depending on how heavy a course load you can handle, it could take longer or shorter than that. Associates degrees require significantly less credits than bachelors and are commonly finished in 1.5 or 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

See above. Plus, what are you arguing here exactly? The money still has to be there per year regardless.

---

It's a smaller loan. It can be paid back easier, and sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Kids make stupid decisions all the time. It comes with being young and ignorant. However, it’s easy to prey on this stupidity, and people have been making careers out of this. Have you heard how much of an issue student loan debt has become nowadays?

---

And how did it become an issue? This is a MAJOR flaw in your solution of 'throwing more money' at the problem. The only reason college is so expensive is because of the asinine inflation caused by government handing out student loans like candy. More money won't solve this problem. College simply has to get cheaper. That means LESS student loans, LESS government assistance, and colleges are left to compete with each other simply on the merits of the service that they provide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

It can be very different for literally everybody if people stopped being so dense for no reason, at least for a little while. Stopping and reasoning, thinking with the tiniest bit of empathy for a change.

---

We tried the "empathy" route. That's what CAUSED this problem. In the 90's, it was decided that college education was a "right". Hence, the government started handing out student loans like candy. What happens when a government prints shitloads of money.....INFLATION. Tuition went through the roof because the colleges were all greedy fucktards.

If these schools really had to manage their costs, and compete for student enrollment, you'd see an entirely different system in this country. But as long as people whining about how they want the 4-year, residential college experience, debt-free, and demanding their "empathy"....we're fucked.

Seriously, bananananana...

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

OR, "I don't see why the gov't needs to be so complex. I'll never need a social program, so there should be no social programs."

It seems silly to say, "Hey all slackers, get jobs and you'll be better." as though it's a serious call for policy. Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this, or that we are somehow justified in not helping our fellows when they are in times of need.

Granted, whether or not the feds need to be the ones helping is totally a separate issue than whether or not we, as a society, help people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

---

What?? Sure, I support smaller government. Not sure how I'm presenting myself as the model citizen here. I'm just saying that taxpayers handing academia a blank check has been tried...and failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

OR, "I don't see why the gov't needs to be so complex. I'll never need a social program, so there should be no social programs."

---

Why are we talking about social programs? I thought the debate was about how to pay for college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It seems silly to say, "Hey all slackers, get jobs and you'll be better." as though it's a serious call for policy. Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this, or that we are somehow justified in not helping our fellows when they are in times of need.

---

What "time of need"? We're talking about an 18 year old, presumably living with his parents, who wants to go to college. There are a myriad of ways to make that happen. Alot of them require a moticum of effort. Yet somehow we're talking about "times of need" for kids who don't get to live in a dorm and play 'frat boy' without going into debt?? Someone find me a tiny violin....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Or that we should change policy to assume that all people will do this

---

I support policy changes that encourage meritocracy. If a high school graduate can't earn a living, then the problem is in high schools, not the lack of college. That's the government's responsibility. As I said earlier, the system should be set up so everyone can acheive "average" pretty easily. If you work harder, you get farther. Makes sense to me.

If you make mistakes like dropping out, or having babies you can't support, then your quality of life should reflect that. Yes people make mistakes that are virtually impossible to overcome, and are doomed to that lower quality of life. For those people, we have safety nets like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and more. I'm fine with that.

What I see are regular kids wanting the same privileges that rich kids get. Specifically, the residential college experience. You're telling me that we need a social program to fix that inequality. I'm telling you we had one, and it failed miserably. Now I'm telling you that we really don't need one because A) It won't work, and B) even without it, kids still have the opportunity to be successful. It just so happens you have to work a little harder. Why is that so terrible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"Hey all slackers, get jobs and you'll be better."

---

Wouldn't it work? Provide care for the disabled. Don't give free housing, free food, free money, and other free stuff to people who just wanna be slackers. Then employment participation rates would skyrocket while expenditures on welfare would plummet. Cities would get cleaner, have less crime, you see where I'm going with this...

Back before the Great Depression, this was standard economic theory. How this theory got undermined is a political one and quite alarming.

You are arguing my exact points previously, prostitution, robbery, etc. My "increase crime" point from above. Employment: try learning, THEN get employed. "Oh, but fast food restaurants won't have workers" then so be it.


Pulling out of Afghanistan/Iraq, etc.: I got news for you, you are still deployed in many many many more countries than that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GNroNHCV1M&t=488s
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...e-world-119321


"What if college cost less than 9500" "College simply has to get cheaper"
Again, I got news for ya. NYU costs $70,000 per annum, accounting for dorm stay etc. If money spent in wars can be allocated to colleges, that would make the patrons having to pay less, as that's the whole fucking idea. College costs are out of control, which is why we need more of a govt. intervention. to make all colleges the same and of the same (high), as me and coccobill have been arguing for like the past few pages, and you are well on your way towards better prices for everyone. Why is that you ask?


Well, because sales. That is the reason why college in the US is so expensive. Colleges are acting more like businesses and treating students more like customers. Schools compete with each other for their customers. These costs then get passed on to the customers,ahem, I mean the students/parents.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-IuFSt5xWA




"How did student loan become an issue? a MAJOR flaw in your solution of 'throwing more money' at the problem. "


You are not throwing more money at the problem. You are throwing the same exact amount of money at the problem, except the money comes from different sources.




"We tried the "empathy" route. That's what CAUSED this problem." :facepalm:


“In the 90's, it was decided that college education was a "right". Hence, the government started handing out student loans like candy. What happens when a government prints shitloads of money.....INFLATION. Tuition went through the roof because the colleges were all greedy fucktards.” How did the printing shitloads of money happen when it came to the education of the people? Tuition went through the roof, because … check out the video above.




"If these schools really had to manage their costs, and compete for student enrollment, you'd see an entirely different system in this country.” THEY ARE competing, and that has the exact opposite effect than you are advocating for and apparently think would happen. See the vid above.




Your view is completely warped. I have to conclude you are trolling brah. Or you just have no idea as to what is going on around you, outside of your preferred eco-chamber. Not sure which is worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What?? Sure, I support smaller government. Not sure how I'm presenting myself as the model citizen here. I'm just saying that taxpayers handing academia a blank check has been tried...and failed.

---

Interesting, but nothing to do with what I said.

The word or topic of academia is nowhere in my post. Are you confusing me for someone else?

As for the model citizen part, I hope you did your hair 'cause a mirror is here.

For reference:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMM

It seems like your over-arching argument is "People should be more like me, so that the gov't can be simpler by catering to only one set of needs and provisions."

---

Nothing to do with academia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why are we talking about social programs? I thought the debate was about how to pay for college.

---

Why? IDK. It's going on.

The current topic was pondering what role the gov't takes in education will produce the best results. The schools are public schools and are therefore part of a social program. The gov't's involvement makes it a social program.

I'm exppanding from that onto a greater, more generalized observation about your overall message as a participant in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What "time of need"? We're talking about an 18 year old, presumably living with his parents, who wants to go to college. There are a myriad of ways to make that happen. Alot of them require a moticum of effort. Yet somehow we're talking about "times of need" for kids who don't get to live in a dorm and play 'frat boy' without going into debt?? Someone find me a tiny violin....

---

Ahh. The mirror bit.

I'm not talking about anyone but you. This is the first I've heard of this 18-year-old, and it's not relevant aside from exemplifying my point about your overarching political message. This whole hypothetical example, devoid of the nuance inherent in human decision-making, has nothing to do with my point, and everything to do with you setting standards for other people's behavior based on your own limited life experiences and personal capabilities.

You're saying that other people should do like you do (or would do) in that situation. If they don't, then that's their own fault and they should certainly not expect your sympathy, let alone any gov't support.

So you're the model citizaen, whose behavior sets the bar for other people's behavior.

The violin bit is childish bravado, intended to mock me or my point while over-simplifying the humanity of people you've never met.
It lends no credibility to the maturity of your position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I support policy changes that encourage meritocracy. If a high school graduate can't earn a living, then the problem is in high schools, not the lack of college. That's the government's responsibility.

---

What is and isn't the gov't's responsibility is what isn't at all clear. That's the whole point of these political conversations. We're exploring the idea-space of people with different interactions with this same society and the gov't that we find ourselves in. As member-citizens of the government, it is our collective will which is manifest in this gov't. This is why these conversations are so vital. We need to see perspectives which are dramatically different than our own and to see the relative equality (when the other people are deemed "intelligent" and "upright citizens") in both what we perceive and what others perceive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

As I said earlier, the system should be set up so everyone can acheive "average" pretty easily. If you work harder, you get farther. Makes sense to me.

---

... so it should make sense to everyone?
Everyone should be like you, the model citizen?

(Never mind that this is def. not how the system is set up. Tons of people who do not work hard at one thing have more social priveleges and advantages than people who work equally hard or harder at multiple things.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you make mistakes like dropping out, or having babies you can't support, then your quality of life should reflect that. Yes people make mistakes that are virtually impossible to overcome, and are doomed to that lower quality of life. For those people, we have safety nets like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and more. I'm fine with that.

---

Ahem...
"If you can't do the things banananananana has done, or would do, then you deserve whatever shit life is out there."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What I see are regular kids wanting the same privileges that rich kids get. Specifically, the residential college experience. You're telling me that we need a social program to fix that inequality. I'm telling you we had one, and it failed miserably. Now I'm telling you that we really don't need one because A) It won't work, and B) even without it, kids still have the opportunity to be successful. It just so happens you have to work a little harder. Why is that so terrible?

---

What you see is not what everyone sees.
In fact, as a physicist, I can assure you that there is no other presence in the known universe which shares the view of the universe you see with your eyes.
Your perspective is universally unique.

People feeling entitled to stuff is totes a human thing. Rich kids feel entitled, poor kids feel entitled, janitors and presidents... all feel entitled. I don't see how this is any part of any intelligent criticism of anything at all. Unless you're lamenting the convoluted nature of wanting things as a living being.

"You're telling me..."
No, I never told you anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you've gotten the impression that these are my positions.

"I'm telling you"
What, now? I mean... that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, so I'll not address it.

"Why is that so terrible?"
It's only terrible in the egocentric assertion that all people can be expected to handle the same stresses of their lives at least as well as you have handled the stresses of your own life. It's only terrible in the implicit idea that everyone is 100% responsible for their situation with 0% being due to outside factors beyond their control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Wouldn't it work? Provide care for the disabled. Don't give free housing, free food, free money, and other free stuff to people who just wanna be slackers. Then employment participation rates would skyrocket while expenditures on welfare would plummet. Cities would get cleaner, have less crime, you see where I'm going with this...

Back before the Great Depression, this was standard economic theory. How this theory got undermined is a political one and quite alarming.

---

It is a pipe dream relying on a vision of humans which doesn't live up to observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Employment: try learning, THEN get employed.

---

A K-12 education is sufficient to gain employment. Certainly employment that is lucrative enough to pay a college tuition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Pulling out of Afghanistan/Iraq, etc.: I got news for you, you are still deployed in many many many more countries than that..

---

OMG, just stop. Was spending on military deployment in the last decade higher or lower than in the previous decade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Again, I got news for ya. NYU costs $70,000 per annum, accounting for dorm stay etc. If money spent in wars can be allocated to colleges, that would make the patrons having to pay less, as that's the whole fucking idea.

---

First of all...NYU is a private institution. They charge what they charge. I don't know why you're focused on that one particular school so much. There are other schools that cost less than $70k. SUNY costs $6,500/yr!!!

Also...I don't get what you're complaining about anyway. There are public universities, where the government subsidizes the cost. So you've gotten your way. What's your problem? In state tuition at UMASS is only $15K, and that's a fine institution. Jack Welch went there, and he turned out ok. And there are LOTS of state-run schools that cost nearly half that.

How is your suggestion any different from say, the government giving GM money to make it so Cadillacs are affordable for everybody. Why can't some people just drive an Impala?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

College costs are out of control, which is why we need more of a govt. intervention..

---

You're not seeing the forest here. College costs are out of control BECAUSE of gov't intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Colleges are acting more like businesses and treating students more like customers. Schools compete with each other for their customers.

---

Dude....NYU, and places like it, ARE businesses. And what economics book are you reading that says competition increases prices??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

You are not throwing more money at the problem. You are throwing the same exact amount of money at the problem, except the money comes from different sources.

---

Does not compute. If the money involved is all the same.....how are you gonna make NYU cheaper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

How did the printing shitloads of money happen when it came to the education of the people? Tuition went through the roof, because … check out the video above.

---

The government doled out cash in the form of student loans. That cash wasn't diverted from other things, it was just put into the system. That's what I call 'printing money'. And I'm not watching the video because I don't have audio on my office PC. Also, I'm not really thrilled about getting my economics lessons from 20 something youtubers. Maybe find somebody with a collared shirt, they'll have more credibility.

If you're suggesting that the government inserting tons of money into the economy doesn't result in inflation, and thus doesn't result in higher prices.....I guess enjoy your video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

THEY ARE competing, and that has the exact opposite effect than you are advocating for and apparently think would happen. See the vid above.

---

What does it cost NYU to educate a kid for a year? If it's say, $65K and they charge $70K, I'd say that you're right. But the cost is a zillion times less than $65K. Tell me, what's NYU doing that costs so much more than UMASS? Are teachers really making 5x as much? Does electricity in New York cost 5x as much as electricity in Boston? There's no way that the costs of educating are so disparate so as to justify the variance in tuition. Clearly these schools are not competing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Your view is completely warped. I have to conclude you are trolling brah..

---

Your definition of trolling is completely warped

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

[A bunch of off topic stuff interspersed with personal attacks]

---

Take a time out bro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It is a pipe dream relying on a vision of humans which doesn't live up to observation.

---

What observation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Well, because sales. That is the reason why college in the US is so expensive. Colleges are acting more like businesses and treating students more like customers. Schools compete with each other for their customers. These costs then get passed on to the customers,ahem, I mean the students/parents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-IuFSt5xWA

---

Thanks for posting this. What Hank is describing is a symptom of a symptom of that which is increasing college costs. Behavior that normally increases quality and reduces costs (treating people like customers) is not true when the behavior is subsidized by the government.

Just last week I was talking with one of my economics professors about causes of rising tuition. Colleges "acting like a business" is not one of them. Government throwing ungodly amounts of money at college, greatly increasing consumer demand for college while supply is restricted, is a big reason.

If I may finish with analogy, lots of industries have reduced costs for consumers (like, thousands and thousands of times over) by acting like businesses, treating consumers like customers, seeking profit, etc.. We see this in food, housing, clothing, auto, software, hardware, energy, virtually everywhere. Where we don't see it, well, pretty much the only place we don't see it is where the government intervenes greatly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

lots of industries have reduced costs for consumers ......We see this in food, housing, clothing, auto, software, hardware, energy, virtually everywhere. Where we don't see it, well, pretty much the only place we don't see it is where the government intervenes greatly.

---

And then they tried doing the same thing to healthcare!!

If healthcare is so expensive.....make it cheaper! That will never happen as long as hospitals and doctors have no incentive to do so. And they'll never have that incentive as long as the gov't keeps subsidizing and redistributing.

You guys will like this. In labor economics class today we discussed how to determine if a college education is more beneficial than not. Without getting into details, here is the main takeaway relevant to us here:

Nobody knows. The government's economic justification for subsidizing college is based on real statistics that show a positive association with college and lifetime benefit, yet this is a meager fraction of what's going on. We don't even know if the reason for that association is that smart people choose college and not smart ones don't. In fact, not smart people entering college may actually be reducing their lifetime benefit.

Sheesh. For all we know, government policy is doing more harm than good by incentivizing college so much. Lots of economists have argued that, I would argue that, and it is classical economic theory. That theory is not in use by majority today, but it never got debunked; people just stopped liking it for political and zeitgeist reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And then they tried doing the same thing to healthcare!!

If healthcare is so expensive.....make it cheaper! That will never happen as long as hospitals and doctors have no incentive to do so

---

With Obamacare, the Democrats showed the world that they could not pass the very first exam in the very first economics class in college. Literally within the first few weeks students are taught the theory behind why we know Obamacare's claim was a lie. Obamacare claimed it would reduce costs.....by increasing demand.....and not increasing supply. This fails ECON 101.

Healthcare was a disaster before Obama though. The government restricts supply like fucking crazy, all in the name of (faux) safety. Meanwhile their (faux) safety measures have the effect of actually decreasing safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

In labor economics class today we discussed how to determine if a college education is more beneficial than not.

---

Glad your class is at least thinking critically. But unfortunately, this one is an easy answer. Yes it is more beneficial. Why? Because....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

political and zeitgeist reasons.

---

Within that zeitgeist are employers who embrace the zeitgeist philosophy that a college educated person is more desirable than a non-college educated person. Hence, non-college educated people are at an extreme disadvantage in the labor market.

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example. Which is what I suspect your class was getting at when they explored the topic of college education being not-beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Take a time out bro

---

I am disappoint.

It is a misrepresentation of my intent to say that my attempt to understand your perspective in a gestalt way is off topic.
It's a shift in the current conversation, but not in the overall goal of the conversation to understand each other's different perspectives.

If anything I said sounds insulting, then that was not intentional.
If you can't or wont engage in helping me understand you better, then that's your prerogative.

...but don't blame the mirror for your reflection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Glad your class is at least thinking critically. But unfortunately, this one is an easy answer. Yes it is more beneficial. Why? Because....



Within that zeitgeist are employers who embrace the zeitgeist philosophy that a college educated person is more desirable than a non-college educated person. Hence, non-college educated people are at an extreme disadvantage in the labor market.

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example. Which is what I suspect your class was getting at when they explored the topic of college education being not-beneficial.

---

Yes we covered how the Bachelor's degree is a signalling tool to employers (basically says I'm smart and I can do boring things all day).

Bryan Caplan is writing a book on it. We've discussed it here in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

What observation?

---

The observation that the vast majority of people who accept those free services do so only for a short-term period in which they need some community support.

Only a small %-age of people who ever receive welfare or food stamps or other individual (not corporate) subsidies are habitually claiming that benefit.

The notion that these free services are a net loss on the society is belied by the actual data of who is using these services and how much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example. Which is what I suspect your class was getting at when they explored the topic of college education being not-beneficial.

---

The main thing my professor covered on this is that a "not smart" (technical term) person can get a low enough boost in earnings from his college education relative to if he had not gone to college that he ends up making less lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Take a time out bro

---

I re-read my post to see what I did that was an attack, and there's nothing there.

Whatever you think was my judgement coming out on you was all in your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Within that zeitgeist are employers who embrace the zeitgeist philosophy that a college educated person is more desirable than a non-college educated person. Hence, non-college educated people are at an extreme disadvantage in the labor market.

---

Do you know why employers favour a college-education person over a non-college-educated person, all other things being equal? Just curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The unintended consequence of this is under-employment. College educated secretaries for example.

---

A very state-oriented perspective is the idea that we should only educate people to the degree needed to do their job, balance their checkbook, and read a label on a soup can. Other learning is argued to be a waste of society's resources.

I disagree. I would not want a society where all anyone knows is what they need to do their job.

I would be happy putting my kid (or through my taxes, other people's kids) through college to get a degree, because the very experience of learning helps them become a more well-rounded person, to think for themselves, to form arguments and use logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

The main thing my professor covered on this is that a "not smart" (technical term) person can get a low enough boost in earnings from his college education relative to if he had not gone to college that he ends up making less lifetime.

---

Fortunately, life's value is not measured in the cumulative number of dollars earned alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I re-read my post to see what I did that was an attack, and there's nothing there.

Whatever you think was my judgement coming out on you was all in your head.

---

I think the translation of his post was 'you got me.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The observation that the vast majority of people who accept those free services do so only for a short-term period in which they need some community support.

Only a small %-age of people who ever receive welfare or food stamps or other individual (not corporate) subsidies are habitually claiming that benefit.

The notion that these free services are a net loss on the society is belied by the actual data of who is using these services and how much.

---

The benefits phase out.

There's a reason why unemployment decreased at a much steeper decline after North Carolina slashed its obscene UI benefits than before.

You are definitely trolling. I’ll bite one last time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

A K-12 education is sufficient to gain employment. Certainly employment that is lucrative enough to pay a college tuition.




OMG, just stop. Was spending on military deployment in the last decade higher or lower than in the previous decade?




First of all...NYU is a private institution. They charge what they charge. I don't know why you're focused on that one particular school so much. There are other schools that cost less than $70k. SUNY costs $6,500/yr!!!


Also...I don't get what you're complaining about anyway. There are public universities, where the government subsidizes the cost. So you've gotten your way. What's your problem? In state tuition at UMASS is only $15K, and that's a fine institution. Jack Welch went there, and he turned out ok. And there are LOTS of state-run schools that cost nearly half that.

---

And Harvard Law costs $90,000 a year. NYU is just an example. Take your pick.


In Spain, actual tuition for EU residents is 0€. The Uni’s are excellent. And in Germany. Obviously you would still have to work, but to cover your own cost of living. Which would mean you have to work less, leaving more quality time between you and your books. Seems possible …

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How is your suggestion any different from say, the government giving GM money to make it so Cadillacs are affordable for everybody. Why can't some people just drive an Impala?




You're not seeing the forest here. College costs are out of control BECAUSE of gov't intervention.

---

Well, the fact that we are comparing Cadillacs is the problem. If all the schools are Cadillacs, ergo of proper yet homogeneous quality, what would be your problem then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Dude....NYU, and places like it, ARE businesses. And what economics book are you reading that says competition increases prices??

---

Treating them like businesses is the problem. Businesses go for profit. Had you had the opportunity to check out the video I posted, you would have seen what I was talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Does not compute. If the money involved is all the same.....how are you gonna make NYU cheaper?

---

Pretty simple, and I’m frankly amazed that you can’t see it. If you are buying ice cream, and you have a budget for ice cream purchasing, and you also have to buy health food, common sense would indicate that the budget for health food should be bigger than your budget of ice cream if you want to live a healthy life. Now, if you have allotted $200 total for both budgets, it stands to reason that you should not spend like $180 on ice cream and $20 on healthy foods, but rather something like $20 on ice cream since you looooove ice cream so much, and $180 on healthy foods.


You can strip ice cream from your diet without it having any negative effect on your life whatsoever. Conversely, it will have positive effects on your life (and this of your loved ones, DUCY) if you eat less ice cream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The government doled out cash in the form of student loans. That cash wasn't diverted from other things, it was just put into the system. That's what I call 'printing money'. And I'm not watching the video because I don't have audio on my office PC. Also, I'm not really thrilled about getting my economics lessons from 20 something youtubers. Maybe find somebody with a collared shirt, they'll have more credibility.

---

20-somethings that know a thing or two more about specific stuff than you or I do. Plus, calling Hank Green a 20-something is flattery to him, I’m sure.


But I won’t force you to watch anything, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you're suggesting that the government inserting tons of money into the economy doesn't result in inflation, and thus doesn't result in higher prices.....I guess enjoy your video.

---

The government isn’t making money to give out to students as student loans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What does it cost NYU to educate a kid for a year? If it's say, $65K and they charge $70K, I'd say that you're right. But the cost is a zillion times less than $65K. Tell me, what's NYU doing that costs so much more than UMASS? Are teachers really making 5x as much? Does electricity in New York cost 5x as much as electricity in Boston? There's no way that the costs of educating are so disparate so as to justify the variance in tuition. Clearly these schools are not competing.

---

You would have had more of an answer on this had you watched the video I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Your definition of trolling is completely warped

---

Not at all/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Fortunately, life's value is not measured in the cumulative number of dollars earned alone.

---

Quite right. It is a mistake for government to incentivize education based on confusing economic statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you know why employers favour a college-education person over a non-college-educated person, all other things being equal? Just curious...

---

Mostly because of supply and demand. Gov't intervention has created more college graduates and not enough jobs to go around. If you are hiring for a position that doesn't necessarily NEED a degree, yet 9 out of 10 applicants have one anyway, the 1 guy without a degree is super-fucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I would be happy putting my kid (or through my taxes, other people's kids) through college to get a degree,

---

I totally agree. And that's what we do with K-12. If the government is taking our tax dollars and pumping out under-educated people, then we need to hold the gov't accountable and demand better K-12 education. What we should NOT do is throw more tax dollars toward a government that's proven it can't do the job, and ask them to do it for 4 more years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

because the very experience of learning helps them become a more well-rounded person, to think for themselves, to form arguments and use logic.

---

This is definitely NOT what's happening on college campuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Mostly because of supply and demand. Gov't intervention has created more college graduates and not enough jobs to go around. If you are hiring for a position that doesn't necessarily NEED a degree, yet 9 out of 10 applicants have one anyway, the 1 guy without a degree is super-fucked.

---

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Why would an employer prefer someone with a college degree over someone without one, all other things being equal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I totally agree. And that's what we do with K-12. If the government is taking our tax dollars and pumping out under-educated people, then we need to hold the gov't accountable and demand better K-12 education. What we should NOT do is throw more tax dollars toward a government that's proven it can't do the job, and ask them to do it for 4 more years.

---

I can't speak to America K-12 because I've had no involvement with it. But really, it sounds a bit extreme to say the gov't is solely responsible for whatever is wrong with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This is definitely NOT what's happening on college campuses.

---

Based on what do you say this?

In the UK for example, all secondary education was free tuition until about 15 years ago, when the gov't decided it would rather spend the money on the armed forces. It would certainly have been hard to argue that free-tuition Oxford and Cambridge (mainly funded by taxpayers - with some charity and alumni funding thrown in) were doing a poor job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Thanks for posting this. What Hank is describing is a symptom of a symptom of that which is increasing college costs. Behavior that normally increases quality and reduces costs (treating people like customers) is not true when the behavior is subsidized by the government.


Just last week I was talking with one of my economics professors about causes of rising tuition. Colleges "acting like a business" is not one of them. Government throwing ungodly amounts of money at college, greatly increasing consumer demand for college while supply is restricted, is a big reason.


If I may finish with analogy, lots of industries have reduced costs for consumers (like, thousands and thousands of times over) by acting like businesses, treating consumers like customers, seeking profit, etc.. We see this in food, housing, clothing, auto, software, hardware, energy, virtually everywhere. Where we don't see it, well, pretty much the only place we don't see it is where the government intervenes greatly.

---

Full disclosure:


I highly respect the Green Bros’ because of how they managed to make a business out of education, and literally benefiting everyone.


I generally align with their views on many things, particularly on social issues.


That said, I also know that general economic theory is usually the reverse of common sense, from among many sources including the book “Why Suicide bombers should get life insurance”. And yet I do go for what I have already seen in practice on a macro scale, and that happens to be particularly apparent with this education issue. We can see many examples literally all over the world, on those that work and those that don’t.


Vultures prey. We have to (and definitely can) stop that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

And Harvard Law costs $90,000 a year. NYU is just an example. Take your pick.

---

Fine, I'll choose one of the hundreds of schools that are NOT prohibitively expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

In Spain,......

---

Ugh....I gotta be honest man, I am so friggen tired about hearing what a utopia Europe is. It's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Well, the fact that we are comparing Cadillacs is the problem. If all the schools are Cadillacs, ergo of proper yet homogeneous quality, what would be your problem then?

---

How is it that you can keep using NYU as an example, but my Cadillac analogy is a "problem"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

it stands to reason that you should not spend like $180 on ice cream and $20 on healthy foods, but rather something like $20 on ice cream since you looooove ice cream so much, and $180 on healthy foods.

---

Im not sure I follow this analogy but it seems like you're just reiterating your previous point that if we cut military spending, we could subsidize college. Again....that's ALREADY HAPPENING. Military spending has increased 1.8 times since 1960. Legislative appropriations for higher education has increase 10x. Also....within that military spending you seem to despise so much is over half a billion dollars of tuition assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

You can strip ice cream from your diet without it having any negative effect on your life whatsoever

---

Tell that to all the Northrup Grumman, DRS, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, employees who lost their job after the Sequestration spending cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

The government isn’t making money to give out to students as student loans.

---

Yes, they are.

Since I've been involved in the UK system as it's become less and less publicly-funded (free tuition) and more and more dependent on its customers (£9k a year tuition for the top tier unis), I think I can speak a bit to how making it a business has affected the quality of the education.

There is some good and some bad imo. The good is that things that were done sloppily before have been cleaned up. Exceptionally shitty lecturers are encouraged to retire early or teach less. The student is now treated as a 'customer' in the sense that they should get their money's worth.

The bad is that we spend an inordinate amount of time on marketing and trying to inflate our uni's scores on measures such as student satisfaction. The latter may sound good except that the best way to increase their satisfaction is to propagandize them by telling them how great it is to go to our uni, list all the things we do for them, and tell them how happy they are to be there. The overall satisfaction scores have not really changed despite these efforts.

Another bad is that we must treat all of our students with kid gloves. You can no longer tell a kid straight up s/he wrote a shit essay because that would impact their satisfaction. You have to say things like 'good effort, but next time try using punctuation'. I suspect a lot of them are getting a rude awakening when they go into the job market and their boss holds them to account when they fuck up.

In overall terms, I think it has had little effect on the quality of education. The only significant difference is who is paying for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Nobody knows. The government's economic justification for subsidizing college is based on real statistics that show a positive association with college and lifetime benefit, yet this is a meager fraction of what's going on. We don't even know if the reason for that association is that smart people choose college and not smart ones don't. In fact, not smart people entering college may actually be reducing their lifetime benefit.

---

Excellent. And my stance is, make it abundantly easy for smart people to enter college, without having to burden themselves with crippling student loan. The easiest way to do that is to make college free, and the money is there to do it, as we can see in countless examples around the world. The mentality (and college is a business) is all that has to change.


If you are not “smart” then you don’t care anyway.


Priorities, brah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Full disclosure:


I highly respect the Green Bros’ because of how they managed to make a business out of education, and literally benefiting everyone.


I generally align with their views on many things, particularly on social issues.


That said, I also know that general economic theory is usually the reverse of common sense, from among many sources including the book “Why Suicide bombers should get life insurance”. And yet I do go for what I have already seen in practice on a macro scale, and that happens to be particularly apparent with this education issue. We can see many examples literally all over the world, on those that work and those that don’t.


Vultures prey. We have to (and definitely can) stop that.

---

I'm a little confused on what you're getting at. Could you clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Why would an employer prefer someone with a college degree over someone without one, all other things being equal?

---

I believe I answered it.....because they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I can't speak to America K-12 because I've had no involvement with it. But really, it sounds a bit extreme to say the gov't is solely responsible for whatever is wrong with it.

---

30% of community college curriculum are remedial. If you're in the "college should be free" crowd, then that means you expect the government to pay for something twice. I consider that a failing of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Based on what do you say this?

---

Don't worry about it. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment regarding the pervasiveness of one-sided liberal discussions on college campuses. I'm not sure 'well rounded' is the right way to describe a college graduate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Excellent. And my stance is, make it abundantly easy for smart people to enter college, without having to burden themselves with crippling student loan. The easiest way to do that is to make college free.

---

This would vastly increase the incentive for not smart people to go to college

On a side note, aren't you a Glenn Greenwald guy? He talks everyday about corruption in government. Giving such an entity the keys to kids minds is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Fine, I'll choose one of the hundreds of schools that are NOT prohibitively expensive.




Ugh....I gotta be honest man, I am so friggen tired about hearing what a utopia Europe is. It's not.




How is it that you can keep using NYU as an example, but my Cadillac analogy is a "problem"?

---

Purposefully dense, I see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Im not sure I follow this analogy but it seems like you're just reiterating your previous point that if we cut military spending, we could subsidize college. Again....that's ALREADY HAPPENING. Military spending has increased 1.8 times since 1960. Legislative appropriations for higher education has increase 10x. Also....within that military spending you seem to despise so much is over half a billion dollars of tuition assistance.

---

Not nearly enough to make any positive change whatsoever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Tell that to all the Northrup Grumman, DRS, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, employees who lost their job after the Sequestration spending cuts.

---

Cry me a river

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yes, they are.

---

Where/how did you get this information? And please, don’t tell me you got it from some Fox News segment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I believe I answered it.....because they can.

---

That's very glib, but ignores the crux of my point, I assume because you don't know the answer or don't like it.

Employers prefer college education people because that education gives them an advantage in being able to learn new things and to think for themselves. If you're an employer, you'd rather have a guy you can train in two weeks and leave to get on with it than a guy you have to train for four weeks and is constantly asking you what to do next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

30% of community college curriculum are remedial. If you're in the "college should be free" crowd, then that means you expect the government to pay for something twice. I consider that a failing of government.

---

Like I said, placing all the responsibility for some people performing below-average in school on the gov't seems a bit extreme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'm a little confused on what you're getting at. Could you clarify?

---

What, you mean the "vultures are gonna vulture" commment? Student loans, predatory banks, student loans being handed out like candy knowng you can't get out of it, etc.

Preying on innocent/ignorant students, and making a business out of that.

Or did you mean something else?