Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arizona: College is only for the rich and athletes

1679111215

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    No education ever. Simple as that. Of course, that would be my reasoning if I supported his ideas.

    Most governments have no use for an untrained high school graduate; they would want them to be educated first prior to serving their bond.

    There are. Manual labor, private army for life, ditch diggers [cause of the youtube clip} and other professions that require untrained high school graduates.

    I dare spacekungfuman to say that this was what he had in mind. I severely doubt so.

    Never mind the point that the state is supposed to benefit by investing in human capital here; that is why the education becomes before the service, not vice versa. Regardless, if governments in the first world could profitably employ unskilled labor like this, it would have a lot less unemployment.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    No education ever. Simple as that. Of course, that would be my reasoning if I supported his ideas.

    Most governments have no use for an untrained high school graduate; they would want them to be educated first prior to serving their bond.

    There are. Manual labor, private army for life, ditch diggers and other professions that require untrained high school graduates.

    Who, exactly, in the modern United States, is chomping at the bit to employ hundreds of thousands of manual laborers?

    If the government is supposed to offer hundreds of thousands of additional high school graduates lifetime employment in the armed forces, why not spend a fraction of that money to send them to college?

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Here is an idea that provides real "skin in the game." Why not require anyone who accepts state aid to provide some sort of civil service for a couple of years after graduation. Then the state could see a direct return on its investment by guaranteeing that it will have educated people available for beaurocratic positions. You could even pay less than you would pay to "real" government workers to reflect the money the government already laid out towards school. Best of all, when they entered the private jobs market, they would have their degree plus two years of experience on their resume.
    I imagine the time provided after graduation would be proportional to the amount of money received, but other than that I think this is a good idea. If I could get my doctorate in political science funded by the state I would gladly work in some capacity for the government for a few years. Specializing in electoral politics and history makes it somewhat hard to apply my skills directly, but if a 501(c)(4) organization devoted to voter education, outreach, and registration were getting government funding, that'd be a great fit. It's a pity this system doesn't actually exist.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    Would there be some problem with setting up a financial penalty? Do your two years of beurocratic labor, or pay back the twenty grand... your choice buddy.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    And being a ESOL student shouldn't matter, not based on your prescription.

    Ha! Funny. I'm not an ESL student if that's what your wondering. This is a forum, not an academia center for excellence in English writing. I'm not going to go all "grammatically" correct for people that have no bearing on my education.

    I thought you were from Asia or something, my bad.

    But your ideas on who deserves university are still ridiculous.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Seriously, the developed West do not have agricultural economies where unskilled labour is an undisputed positive. Sending surplus labour to the farms results in theft, damage to your valuable agricultural machinery, and irregularity in deliveries and production. The West is rich because of massive amounts of human and physical capital accumulated over time, not because it has prodigious labour.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Here's another problem: what if the graduate gets a better private sector job offer?

    This is a question that I think you'll find worth seriously examining: if someone who received financial aid graduates with a 4.0 GPA and is offered a job with benefits and a good salary out of college, that graduate could potentially be providing more for the tax base by paying at a higher tax bracket, and additionally, his skills are immediately helping grow the private sector.

    Also, what if he wants to pursue a higher degree out of his undergraduate program? If he's a competitive candidate for a medical school or a research program somewhere, surely that's a better use of that person's two years than minding a bank of parking meters or something.

    I don't think it's necessarily an unworkable idea. It's certainly a better idea philosophically than the one proposed in Arizona's state legislature. I just think it would be really, really difficult to turn into a working policy on such a large scale. The bill to enact it would probably be a hundred pages long once you'd worked out all the different things the state realized they'd want to provide exemptions for.

    SammyF on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    And being a ESOL student shouldn't matter, not based on your prescription.

    Ha! Funny. I'm not an ESL student if that's what your wondering. This is a forum, not an academia center for excellence in English writing. I'm not going to go all "grammatically" correct for people that have no bearing on my education.

    I thought you were from Asia or something, my bad.

    But your ideas on who deserves university are still ridiculous.

    I still find this ridiculous. There are still British school systems in Iran, especially if you go privately. Not everyone from "Asia" speaks 0% English or needs ESL just to survive here in university.

    Not with some sort of ESL program no, but I think he was just referring to the fact that English is your second language in general.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    ronya wrote:
    Seriously, the developed West do not have agricultural economies where unskilled labour is an undisputed positive. Sending surplus labour to the farms results in theft, damage to your valuable agricultural machinery, and irregularity in deliveries and production. The West is rich because of massive amounts of human and physical capital accumulated over time, not because it has prodigious labour.

    This in particular makes the claims that the American higher education system is a failure because it's allowed people who aren't the sons and daughters of an economic elite to get a higher education all the more ludicrously out of touch with reality.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    Would there be some problem with setting up a financial penalty? Do your two years of beurocratic labor, or pay back the twenty grand... your choice buddy.

    And you're back to exactly the same problem as "student loan debt", only worse (in view of the government) because you can pay off your debt by showing up at work and slacking. You have zero incentive to not effectively conduct a work-to-rule strike for the entirety of your bond, because you are not one of those aiming for a civil service career.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    And being a ESOL student shouldn't matter, not based on your prescription.

    Ha! Funny. I'm not an ESL student if that's what your wondering. This is a forum, not an academia center for excellence in English writing. I'm not going to go all "grammatically" correct for people that have no bearing on my education.

    I thought you were from Asia or something, my bad.

    But your ideas on who deserves university are still ridiculous.

    I still find this ridiculous. There are still British school systems in Iran, especially if you go privately. Not everyone from "Asia" speaks 0% English or needs ESL just to survive here in university.

    I don't expect people who aren't from majority English countries to know how to speak English, and it wasn't a slight toward you in anyway. Just a preemption for the "I don't speak English" defense.

    Like I said, no offense on that point intended. If there has been I apologize.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    You know, I am kind of curious TNC. What is it that you think is difference between the classes. Is it just the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, or something inherent?

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    I would think that what a dishonorable discharge from public service would imply about a person's work ethic and sense of personal responsibility would probably be enough. You can default on a loan for any number of reasons, some of which may not be viewed as your fault, but choosing not to provide promised government services for pay seems like something that most employers would be very concerned by.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    I would think that what a dishonorable discharge from public service would imply about a person's work ethic and sense of personal responsibility would probably be enough. You can default on a loan for any number of reasons, some of which may not be viewed as your fault, but choosing not to provide promised government services for pay seems like something that most employers would be very concerned by.

    That is kind of a point. There's a difference between a bad credit score and a bankruptcy for instance.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    Would there be some problem with setting up a financial penalty? Do your two years of beurocratic labor, or pay back the twenty grand... your choice buddy.

    And you're back to exactly the same problem as "student loan debt", only worse (in view of the government) because you can pay off your debt by showing up at work and slacking. You have zero incentive to not effectively conduct a work-to-rule strike for the entirety of your bond, because you are not one of those aiming for a civil service career.

    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    We tend to want equality of opportunity over in this parts, and astonishingly enough this means that those born without financial means or capacity are entitled to means being provided to them

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    Would there be some problem with setting up a financial penalty? Do your two years of beurocratic labor, or pay back the twenty grand... your choice buddy.

    And you're back to exactly the same problem as "student loan debt", only worse (in view of the government) because you can pay off your debt by showing up at work and slacking. You have zero incentive to not effectively conduct a work-to-rule strike for the entirety of your bond, because you are not one of those aiming for a civil service career.

    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    We tend to want equality of opportunity over in this parts, and astonishingly enough this means that those born without financial means or capacity are entitled to means being provided to them

    No they absolutely are not! As long as they're entitled to financial means being provided on their behalf. Either works really.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Here's another problem: what if the graduate gets a better private sector job offer?

    This is a question that I think you'll find worth seriously examining: if someone who received financial aid graduates with a 4.0 GPA and is offered a job with benefits and a good salary out of college, that graduate could potentially be providing more for the tax base by paying at a higher tax bracket, and additionally, his skills are immediately helping grow the private sector.

    Also, what if he wants to pursue a higher degree out of his undergraduate program? If he's a competitive candidate for a medical school or a research program somewhere, surely that's a better use of that person's two years than minding a bank of parking meters or something.

    I don't think it's necessarily an unworkable idea. It's certainly a better idea philosophically than the one proposed in Arizona's state legislature. I just think it would be really, really difficult to turn into a working policy on such a large scale. The bill to enact it would probably be a hundred pages long once you'd worked out all the different things the state realized they'd want to provide exemptions for.

    The weakest part of the workforce is skilled labor.

    Florida and Texas, where both Governors Rick are having a dick measuring contest about being Job Creators, have this problem:

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/feb/23/seeking-skilled-workers-ar-361865/

    This is something that should be presented as an option for all students. We want a public school system where students can walk out prepared to enter the workforce or the university system. But the point is for kids to have options and not get stuck in some medieval cycle of "I was a shit cleaner, as was my father and his father before him.

    The jobs for "generic unskilled labor" aren't there.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    I am seeing a compelling argument to make college entrance entirely meritocratic and payed for with taxes.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    Lawndart on
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    No education ever. Simple as that. Of course, that would be my reasoning if I supported his ideas.

    Most governments have no use for an untrained high school graduate; they would want them to be educated first prior to serving their bond.

    There are. Manual labor, private army for life, ditch diggers and other professions that require untrained high school graduates.

    Who, exactly, in the modern United States, is chomping at the bit to employ hundreds of thousands of manual laborers?

    If the government is supposed to offer hundreds of thousands of additional high school graduates lifetime employment in the armed forces, why not spend a fraction of that money to send them to college?

    Because they aren't meant to be in University. They don't have the funds nor the capacity to do so. If they did they would flounder and suck resources from students who really need an education to go forward. The fact is, not everyone is meant to go and that you need to be highly skilled to go. I'm not just using the US as an example, but general terms. I realize that its for Arizona, but its still vaild for a wide variety of places.

    Okay. Right now, in the bolded you are implying that everyone who is born poor is not capable of receiving an education, because they do not have the funds for it, and further, they don't actually need one anyway.

    Please explain why being poor means you do not need an education, and why those who are wealthy need one.

    MechMantis on
  • EupfhoriaEupfhoria Registered User regular
    Eupfhoria wrote: »
    ...university should be about... Only those with the monetary funds to do so as well as those who are smart enough to find a career in academia.

    and there's no one who goes to college to prepare for a career in jobs that aren't 'academia'? right...

    and to echo some of the sentiments in the 'civility in discourse thread', these ideas you are espousing deserve no respect. They are fucking stupid. Really, only rich people or those who are ignorant of what these ideas would actually entail would ever agree with you.

    To further echo some sentiments from the civility thread, you have just succeeded in making yourself look like the unreasonable, closed minded person in this discussion.

    well, if if being completely opposed to ideas that, as far as I can tell, boil down to 'only people who already have the money to do so should go to college' is being close minded, I guess I am.

    And to be clear, TheNomadicCircle may be an intelligent individual, but the ideas that are being presented are not. I myself have occasionally had some fucking stupid ideas, and if I ever convey them here, or anywhere else, I encourage you to point them out in the same manner.



  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    I would think that what a dishonorable discharge from public service would imply about a person's work ethic and sense of personal responsibility would probably be enough. You can default on a loan for any number of reasons, some of which may not be viewed as your fault, but choosing not to provide promised government services for pay seems like something that most employers would be very concerned by.

    That is kind of a point. There's a difference between a bad credit score and a bankruptcy for instance.

    anecdote time: I studied in Singapore for a while; the country is hot on staffing its famously high-skilled civil service via student bonds. Ratios are high enough that the top schools in every cohort can easily have half their student population snagging scholarships for bonds that may last up to six years or thereabouts

    Employers just don't care, and thus default is a problem, mitigated only the extent that the country can make it problematic for defaulting students to return (authoritarian state, blah blah blah). Think about it this way: someone else has already interviewed and vetted this student for you. Why wouldn't you want to snag them away from their bond?

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Being born to the right family certainly takes an effort.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Here's another problem: what if the graduate gets a better private sector job offer?

    This is a question that I think you'll find worth seriously examining: if someone who received financial aid graduates with a 4.0 GPA and is offered a job with benefits and a good salary out of college, that graduate could potentially be providing more for the tax base by paying at a higher tax bracket, and additionally, his skills are immediately helping grow the private sector.

    Also, what if he wants to pursue a higher degree out of his undergraduate program? If he's a competitive candidate for a medical school or a research program somewhere, surely that's a better use of that person's two years than minding a bank of parking meters or something.

    I don't think it's necessarily an unworkable idea. It's certainly a better idea philosophically than the one proposed in Arizona's state legislature. I just think it would be really, really difficult to turn into a working policy on such a large scale. The bill to enact it would probably be a hundred pages long once you'd worked out all the different things the state realized they'd want to provide exemptions for.

    The weakest part of the workforce is skilled labor.

    Florida and Texas, where both Governors Rick are having a dick measuring contest about being Job Creators, have this problem:

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/feb/23/seeking-skilled-workers-ar-361865/

    This is something that should be presented as an option for all students. We want a public school system where students can walk out prepared to enter the workforce or the university system. But the point is for kids to have options and not get stuck in some medieval cycle of "I was a shit cleaner, as was my father and his father before him.

    The jobs for "generic unskilled labor" aren't there.

    Well said. :^:

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Adoption and patronage are regrettably not sufficient to provide equality of opportunity...

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Still not seeing why it shouldn't be made entirely meritocratic if your desire is to cut out the lazier students. Being born in to a rich family demonstrates nothing but luck.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Yes, see, it is the unfairness of life which we want to do something about. That's quite the whole point, if you will.

    (Am I going to get Edmund Burke quoted at me in a moment?)

    ronya on
  • EupfhoriaEupfhoria Registered User regular
    You know, I am kind of curious TNC. What is it that you think is difference between the classes. Is it just the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, or something inherent?

    Its the will, means of that particular person to gain that wealth and the specific thing to get him above the social standing he was currently at. Using his knowledge to build more on the opportunity rather than get the "piece of paper" type of mentality that needs to be stamped out. And it can only be stamped out by rigorous competition and through adoption.patronage in a family with means who has taken a liking to that student.

    again, only rich people and geniuses who attract the attentions of a wealthy sponsor should go to college.

    so, there's no one out there who wasn't born a genius (ie 99.9% of the human race), and simply needed further education to become highly capable/successful in their field?

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    TNC is right that too many people go to college, he's wrong that we need unskilled labor.

    We need more welders and plumbers and shit like that, the US needs to better route people into the trades or higher education, because the focus on college and only college is partially responsible for our dropout rate. Partially it's the ridiculous social stigma.

    I mean a welder or a plumber is probably going to do better than a computer science major financially, but the latter has a much higher social standing is considered more respectable. It's kind of counter to the "money is everything" thing that defines every other aspect of our society

    That said, learning how to learn is pretty important, and I'd love it if even trades people got associates degrees, if we could somehow make that essentially free. Basic economics, writing, and research are pretty important skills.

    override367 on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    Adoption and patronage are regrettably not sufficient to provide equality of opportunity...

    Life isn't fair. And by taking one more average person...

    Specifically, average poor people. And plenty of smart, poor people.

    But an idiot rich kid can totally have daddy pay their way through life.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    I would think that what a dishonorable discharge from public service would imply about a person's work ethic and sense of personal responsibility would probably be enough. You can default on a loan for any number of reasons, some of which may not be viewed as your fault, but choosing not to provide promised government services for pay seems like something that most employers would be very concerned by.

    That is kind of a point. There's a difference between a bad credit score and a bankruptcy for instance.

    anecdote time: I studied in Singapore for a while; the country is hot on staffing its famously high-skilled civil service via student bonds. Ratios are high enough that the top schools in every cohort can easily have half their student population snagging scholarships for bonds that may last up to six years or thereabouts

    Employers just don't care, and thus default is a problem, mitigated only the extent that the country can make it problematic for defaulting students to return (authoritarian state, blah blah blah). Think about it this way: someone else has already interviewed and vetted this student for you. Why wouldn't you want to snag them away from their bond?

    That's a better point than the first point. Alright, I'm back to, "If you default you get stuck with the bill."

    How's that go yo?

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    You know, I am kind of curious TNC. What is it that you think is difference between the classes. Is it just the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, or something inherent?

    Its the will, means of that particular person to gain that wealth and the specific thing to get him above the social standing he was currently at. Using his knowledge to build more on the opportunity rather than get the "piece of paper" type of mentality that needs to be stamped out. And it can only be stamped out by rigorous competition and through adoption.patronage in a family with means who has taken a liking to that student.

    But again, the ability to obtain patronage has only a tangential relationship to the ability to learn the skills needed to do your job. I want the architect I hire to be good at being an architect. I don't really care if he's good at charming wealthy folks.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • MechMantisMechMantis Registered User regular
    MechMantis wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    No education ever. Simple as that. Of course, that would be my reasoning if I supported his ideas.

    Most governments have no use for an untrained high school graduate; they would want them to be educated first prior to serving their bond.

    There are. Manual labor, private army for life, ditch diggers and other professions that require untrained high school graduates.

    Who, exactly, in the modern United States, is chomping at the bit to employ hundreds of thousands of manual laborers?

    If the government is supposed to offer hundreds of thousands of additional high school graduates lifetime employment in the armed forces, why not spend a fraction of that money to send them to college?

    Because they aren't meant to be in University. They don't have the funds nor the capacity to do so. If they did they would flounder and suck resources from students who really need an education to go forward. The fact is, not everyone is meant to go and that you need to be highly skilled to go. I'm not just using the US as an example, but general terms. I realize that its for Arizona, but its still vaild for a wide variety of places.

    Okay. Right now, in the bolded you are implying that everyone who is born poor is not capable of receiving an education, because they do not have the funds for it, and further, they don't actually need one anyway.

    Please explain why being poor means you do not need an education, and why those who are wealthy need one.

    Please note where I said that being poor doesn't mean you deny all education. It means you go to a certain level and if you are smart enough you get through by adoption/patronage or get to go to other vocations where the person can thrive.

    This is true, it doesn't deny all education. It only denies you the education you can't pay for.

    The education that, currently, according to all common wisdom, is the stuff worth having.

    Also, the stuff that actually makes you somewhat competitive in the job market.

    Further, I can't think of anyone, and I mean anyone in my family/personal life who'dve been able to simply up-front the cost of four years of college without having received such an education, or more, beforehand. Guess I would have simply gotten screwed in your system.

    As a further thought experiment: One of those people holds a doctorate from Princeton.

    His father would never have been able to pay up front the cost of a doctorate.

    Nor would his father's father etc. etc.

    What you are suggesting is a reversion to Medieval Europe.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Scholarships in return for a government bonds already exist. But say you want it to be sufficiently common so that you can fund tens of thousands of students every year, instead of the handful already aiming for a civil service career track anyway. Then you have to answer this question:

    What penalty do you imagine you could impose for non-performance of said civil service bond that you can't impose for a student loan debt to the state already?

    You would have the equivalent of the "dishonorable discharge" which can make someone effectively unemployable.

    Being dishonorably discharged makes someone effectively unemployable because it isn't just assigned willy-nilly for things unrelated to your work performance, like defaulting on your student loans/bonds. You may observe that having a horrible credit rating today doesn't impinge on your career, at least directly. So why would private-sector employers take this into account? Are you proposing to penalize employers if they dare to employ someone who failed to serve their bond?

    I would think that what a dishonorable discharge from public service would imply about a person's work ethic and sense of personal responsibility would probably be enough. You can default on a loan for any number of reasons, some of which may not be viewed as your fault, but choosing not to provide promised government services for pay seems like something that most employers would be very concerned by.

    That is kind of a point. There's a difference between a bad credit score and a bankruptcy for instance.

    anecdote time: I studied in Singapore for a while; the country is hot on staffing its famously high-skilled civil service via student bonds. Ratios are high enough that the top schools in every cohort can easily have half their student population snagging scholarships for bonds that may last up to six years or thereabouts

    Employers just don't care, and thus default is a problem, mitigated only the extent that the country can make it problematic for defaulting students to return (authoritarian state, blah blah blah). Think about it this way: someone else has already interviewed and vetted this student for you. Why wouldn't you want to snag them away from their bond?

    Are you talking about people taking jobs outside of Singapore? America makes it more difficult to take jobs in other countries, thanks to our world wid system of taxation. You basically have to be willing to leave the country completely in order to work outside America anyway.

    If we think that we are not going to get enough people honoring their commitments, then we could impose fines in addition to requiring repayment. I definitely think that the logistical problems have solutions, even if we can't think of them right now.

Sign In or Register to comment.