I honestly think one solution might be to stop sending people to college. It's not necessary in most cases; people don't value the well-rounded education. They're looking for job training at a university. That's what technical schools are for!
I don't think this is accurate at all.
So, we need to send more people to four-year universities because it's necessary, and people appreciate the education they get there (even though most of it - by design - is not particularly applicable to any given job)?
What's inaccurate about it? Why?
Not particularly applicable to any specific job, but generally applicable to your life.
University should be teaching you to think and act independantly by making you responsible for yourself and your education. Then you get graded on what you have done.
If your a slacker who cant wake up on time for classes and never studies, you fail at school, and will probably fail at life.
If you manage to be a self starter and motivate yourself to study and participate, its an extremely rewarding experience that will well prepare you for the workforce, and most likely the management track for the company you join.
Not particularly applicable to any specific job, but generally applicable to your life.
University should be teaching you to think and act independantly by making you responsible for yourself and your education. Then you get graded on what you have done.
If your a slacker who cant wake up on time for classes and never studies, you fail at school, and will probably fail at life.
If you manage to be a self starter and motivate yourself to study and participate, its an extremely rewarding experience that will well prepare you for the workforce, and most likely the management track for the company you join.
The worst part about the "graduation inflation" is that it's progressed into jobs as well. I've seen plenty of listings for jobs that could easily be done by a high school grad (or even a competent student), asking for a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience and stuff. And if you happen to speak Swahili, that'd be a bonus.
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
I am all for the philosophical appeal of making education strictly a state-level-and-lower thing. In a perfect world, that's totally what I would like to see. But pragmatically, there are many states that are poor, unorganized, or flatly stupid when it comes to educating their children. Yes, I'm pretty much talking about the south and parts of the midwest here.
We know how to fuck up an education system perfectly well here in California, too, Jeffe. :P
A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay proceeding for 120 days in the case of a detainee held at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who is accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship, an al-Qaeda strike that killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.
The decision throws into some disarray the administration's plan to buy some time as it reviews individual detainee cases as part of its plan to close the prison. The Pentagon may now be forced to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent. In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors to seek 120-day suspensions of legal proceedings in the cases of 21 detainees who have been charged.
The request was quickly granted in other cases when prosecutors told military judges that "the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."
But Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, said he found the government's reasoning "unpersuasive."
He'll go along with the fucking sham trials set up by George W Bush but won't delay them when his Commander and Chief wants to review them while he completely revamps the entire process. IIANM this is the same judge that refused evidence of Administration complicity or support for the Abu Gharib torture cases.
I can see a judge telling the administration to jump in a lake, but a serving member of the country's armed forces?
They're supposed to do that too when asked to do something terribad. If he had refused to perform the trials down there in the first place we'd all have cheered. I just don't get why he's doing this now. Forcing the case to ensure a miscarriage of justice in our own little Star Chamber that's going to get retried/overturned later anyway just seems like wasting people's time.
Guh, I didn't read this properly and hadn't considered that this one was already set down for trial. My bad.
I presume that the prosecutors of cases that are yet to be scheduled are just not pushing for listing dates?
Honestly, considering the massive scope of the economic problem, I'd rather the government were doing something, even if it turns out to not help at all. Because this situation is partly a crisis of confidence, inaction is worse than actions that fail.
inaction during a time of crisis is bad, the biggest crisis was back in october. people are used to the economy being crap. if you think the waving of hands to show that the government is doing something will make people suddenly stop thinking that the economy is bad.... well you're wrong.
I for one wish that the feds would focus on funding grade/high schools in low-income states more than they do.
I went to a really shitty, rural high school in a poor state, and the amount of suck was unbelievable. Almost all of the teachers were locals, born and bred, who came back from college and got a job in the school system because A) It's not much work and It's one of the 5% or so jobs around there that actually even require a college degree.
I had a few good teachers, but a lot of em didn't give a shit. There was one english teacher who instant messaged on her computer all through class; another who used it as a pulpit to unload her personal problems about her divorce. One teacher - a basketball coach/social studies teacher - would stand in the doorway for weeks on end talking to some dude about his fantasy basketball team after a perfunctory 10-minute lecture. I remember thinking at the time it wouldn't have been so lame if he'd been talking about the real basketball team.
Of course, the students were unmotivated, but why shouldn't they be? Most of their parents (probably 70-80%) didn't have any expectation that they'd go to college or even leave that pissant little town. Nobody ever expected them to do anything. I remember one kid that, in retrospect, was extremely intelligent. In grade school he would order lots of insects and animals through the mail, and studied the phylogeny of these things and what have you in his free time. He was also really into things like chemistry and other sciences. But, unfortunately for him, he lived in a trailer and his dad was abusive. Now he's got a decent job - skilled labor - but he could have done a lot more if anybody had ever given him the chance. Another kid I knew was known for two things - being the toughest dude in school and his artistic abilities. He had more natural talent than a lot of the people whose work I see hanging up in the student center, but of course nobody ever taught him that was something that needed to be cultivated.
Meanwhile, I see people on my campus now who are basically dumbasses, but had the good fortune to have parents who lived in the suburbs/were middle class.
There's so much wasted potential that went through my school - and, I'm sure, lots of schools like it all over the country - but there's nobody that's going to draw it out of the students without good teachers, and they're not going to live in shitty areas without being well-compensated. Is there some sort of program to offer bonus incentives to high-performing teachers who go to disadvantaged schools? Because I could really get behind a program like that.
The worst part about the "graduation inflation" is that it's progressed into jobs as well. I've seen plenty of listings for jobs that could easily be done by a high school grad (or even a competent student), asking for a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience and stuff. And if you happen to speak Swahili, that'd be a bonus.
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
Yep, it's ridiculous. I have an Associate's Degree; it is essentially worthless unless I turn it into a Bachelor's. I might as well not have it at all.
I wish I could think of some way to fix this issue. I have this feeling that simply throwing more money at education will simply exacerbate the issue. In the short term, perhaps more people will manage to get college degrees. And then employers will adjust, and we'll all need more education.
I will admit that I am entirely disillusioned with our education system as a whole, though. If there was some way to have a do-over, to extricate it from the rest of our society and fix it from the ground up, I would embrace it in a heartbeat.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
There's so much wasted potential that went through my school, but there's nobody that's going to draw it out of the students without good teachers, and they're not going to live in shitty areas without being well-compensated. Is there some sort of program to offer bonus incentives to high-performing teachers who go to disadvantaged schools? Because I could really get behind a program like that.
As of now the only bonuses I know of that are common nationwide are bonuses/incentives for teaching at schools with high poverty rates (measured, at least from what I hear, by percentage on free/reduced lunch programs).
Aside from that, it's largely on more local levels to do what they can to attract people. There's the insane bonuses you hear about out of Alaska, for instance. But if you're just in a podunk area of some midwestern or western state, you're pretty much fucked. The pool they have to draw any incentives from comes from their own local property taxes (not much) or from the state (and most are broke).
Basically it's not easy to fund schools in areas of low population density, because the spending:student ratio is pretty insane to begin with even before you try to attract high-caliber teachers to the bowels of hell.
EDIT: I guess I'm an exception, in that I'm finishing my degree in engineering, one of the fields in which four years of study is pretty much warranted. Though yeah, I'm still bitter about the two semesters or so of random shit like Native American Studies I had to take to appease the university's diversity requirements. Let me learn the shit I need, and move on with my life. I'm already well rounded, you fucks.
What exactly is causing the continuing loss of jobs? The financial players have loosened back up and are lending to each other. Is it driven by fear or are we still getting hit by unexpected devaluations somewhere?
People aren't buying things. This is leading to layoffs, and so people are worried about their next paycheck and so aren't buying things.
And individual companies are often slow to respond, what we're seeing here is the realization that years of bad management promoting outsourcing, plant closure and job loss to improve short term profits has shockingly been a bad idea in the long term. Many of these employees 'should' probably have been fired back in October (from the companies perspective)
However, saving isn't necesarily a bad thing. If people put their money into savings accounts the banks will invest them. If people pay off credit cards then the banks will have more money to loan out in a better way. Saving is good for the economy too, it's just not so speedy as spending. Hopefully what the bailout will do is boost spending by the government enough, that the people can build up some savings before they start spending.
What we really want is growth built on the back of personal savings, not personal debt.
EDIT: I guess I'm an exception, in that I'm finishing my degree in engineering, one of the fields in which four years of study is pretty much warranted. Though yeah, I'm still bitter about the two semesters or so of random shit like Native American Studies I had to take to appease the university's diversity requirements. Let me learn the shit I need, and move on with my life. I'm already well rounded, you fucks.
Engineering and other highly technical fields I feel do deserve an extensive upper education program. They're what upper education excels at. It's elsewhere that we need to take a serious look at what we are doing.
English is my personal pet peeve. I think the whole department is focused on all the wrong things, and does more harm than good to our society. It ought to be called "Writing", and study the various fields contained therein.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I honestly think one solution might be to stop sending people to college. It's not necessary in most cases; people don't value the well-rounded education. They're looking for job training at a university. That's what technical schools are for!
I don't think this is accurate at all.
So, we need to send more people to four-year universities because it's necessary, and people appreciate the education they get there (even though most of it - by design - is not particularly applicable to any given job)?
What's inaccurate about it? Why?
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
As of now the only bonuses I know of that are common nationwide are bonuses/incentives for teaching at schools with high poverty rates (measured, at least from what I hear, by percentage on free/reduced lunch programs).
Aside from that, it's largely on more local levels to do what they can to attract people. There's the insane bonuses you hear about out of Alaska, for instance. But if you're just in a podunk area of some midwestern or western state, you're pretty much fucked. The pool they have to draw any incentives from comes from their own local property taxes (not much) or from the state (and most are broke).
Basically it's not easy to fund schools in areas of low population density, because the spending:student ratio is pretty insane to begin with even before you try to attract high-caliber teachers to the bowels of hell.
Are you saying the spending:student ratio is high nationwide, or that it's especially high in BFE?
I actually had what I'd heard about Alaska in mind when I typed that up. My idea was something like this: Teacher Joe makes $n teaching at Wyndham's Academy for Promising Young Caucasians. He is somehow audited over a period of years and is found to be an effective instructor in terms of getting students involved and (ideally) raising scores like GPA or CATS or whatever. The feds come and offer him $n x 1.5 or so if he'll go and teach at Shitcouse County High, plus some tasty gov't benefits he might not have been getting if he was teaching at a private school. Hopefully, a certain percentage of Teacher Joes who get this offer take it up and over a period of years Shithouse isn't quite as shitty anymore.
And yeah, it would take $Texas to get great teachers out in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure it's not practical to staff entire schools with good teachers, but a few decent ones might be possible, and I think it would make at least some difference. Either that, or they could have some sort of official whose entire job was to police the teachers and keep them up to code (sounds fascist, I know, and especially prone to abuse, but some of these schools really need it). Who knows, maybe having some real talent in these schools would make the local teachers look bad enough that they would try a little bit harder, if only to save face. Some sort of community program to get parents involved in their children's education would be great, too, if you could figure out the necessary demonic pacts that would be required to implement them.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
I honestly think one solution might be to stop sending people to college. It's not necessary in most cases; people don't value the well-rounded education. They're looking for job training at a university. That's what technical schools are for!
I don't think this is accurate at all.
So, we need to send more people to four-year universities because it's necessary, and people appreciate the education they get there (even though most of it - by design - is not particularly applicable to any given job)?
What's inaccurate about it? Why?
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Nothing wrong with apprenticeships, for the right fields. Which is why they still exist today.
I don't really see how having a well-rounded education helps you relate to people better on a personal level. On a managerial level, sure--understanding the different kinds of work you may be supervising--but I think it's a bit odd to train everybody around positions comprising a very small percentage of the workforce (leadership positions).
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The worst part about the "graduation inflation" is that it's progressed into jobs as well. I've seen plenty of listings for jobs that could easily be done by a high school grad (or even a competent student), asking for a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience and stuff. And if you happen to speak Swahili, that'd be a bonus.
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
Yep, it's ridiculous. I have an Associate's Degree; it is essentially worthless unless I turn it into a Bachelor's. I might as well not have it at all.
I wish I could think of some way to fix this issue. I have this feeling that simply throwing more money at education will simply exacerbate the issue. In the short term, perhaps more people will manage to get college degrees. And then employers will adjust, and we'll all need more education.
I will admit that I am entirely disillusioned with our education system as a whole, though. If there was some way to have a do-over, to extricate it from the rest of our society and fix it from the ground up, I would embrace it in a heartbeat.
When did you ever think an Associates meant shit? except as a stepping stone to a bachelors? 2 years of higher education at a community college does not strike me as giving you the same critical thinking skills and writing abilities that 4 years at a liberal arts school (might, if you go to class) give you. It's basically like an add on to a high school diploma for those who did really bad in high school.
Nothing wrong with apprenticeships, for the right fields. Which is why they still exist today.
I don't really see how having a well-rounded education helps you relate to people better on a personal level. On a managerial level, sure--understanding the different kinds of work you may be supervising--but I think it's a bit odd to train everybody around positions comprising a very small percentage of the workforce (leadership positions).
I think of it as being kind of the same reason our schools have sports and athletics. Unless you're in a physical job the sport itself probably didn't help you that much as far as acquiring skills, but learning to work as a group, think quickly in adverse situations, etc. is a desirable trait to have. Even academic scholarships are easier to get if you're on a sports team, and there's a reason for it.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
To give an example, I'm a smog technician in California, ASE-certified and all that. Starting from zero knowledge of cars, going to community college and finishing up with the state-mandated smog courses takes about 2 years. You can get good training of working on cars via apprenticeships, but that won't teach you the theory required to do in-depth diagnosis.
I honestly think one solution might be to stop sending people to college. It's not necessary in most cases; people don't value the well-rounded education. They're looking for job training at a university. That's what technical schools are for!
I don't think this is accurate at all.
So, we need to send more people to four-year universities because it's necessary, and people appreciate the education they get there (even though most of it - by design - is not particularly applicable to any given job)?
What's inaccurate about it? Why?
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Nothing wrong with apprenticeships, for the right fields. Which is why they still exist today.
I don't really see how having a well-rounded education helps you relate to people better on a personal level. On a managerial level, sure--understanding the different kinds of work you may be supervising--but I think it's a bit odd to train everybody around positions comprising a very small percentage of the workforce (leadership positions).
Well, being generally knowledgeable and well-informed does tend to beat ignorance, at least on a personal level. You don't want to be like all those Paultards who most likely never attended a class outside of the engineering department, do you?
I honestly think one solution might be to stop sending people to college. It's not necessary in most cases; people don't value the well-rounded education. They're looking for job training at a university. That's what technical schools are for!
I don't think this is accurate at all.
So, we need to send more people to four-year universities because it's necessary, and people appreciate the education they get there (even though most of it - by design - is not particularly applicable to any given job)?
What's inaccurate about it? Why?
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Nothing wrong with apprenticeships, for the right fields. Which is why they still exist today.
I don't really see how having a well-rounded education helps you relate to people better on a personal level. On a managerial level, sure--understanding the different kinds of work you may be supervising--but I think it's a bit odd to train everybody around positions comprising a very small percentage of the workforce (leadership positions).
You don't see why learning things outside your discipline might have value? Because an engineer will never have to use English to write a report... and a reporter might never have to use math or speak another language?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The worst part about the "graduation inflation" is that it's progressed into jobs as well. I've seen plenty of listings for jobs that could easily be done by a high school grad (or even a competent student), asking for a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience and stuff. And if you happen to speak Swahili, that'd be a bonus.
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
Yep, it's ridiculous. I have an Associate's Degree; it is essentially worthless unless I turn it into a Bachelor's. I might as well not have it at all.
I wish I could think of some way to fix this issue. I have this feeling that simply throwing more money at education will simply exacerbate the issue. In the short term, perhaps more people will manage to get college degrees. And then employers will adjust, and we'll all need more education.
I will admit that I am entirely disillusioned with our education system as a whole, though. If there was some way to have a do-over, to extricate it from the rest of our society and fix it from the ground up, I would embrace it in a heartbeat.
When did you ever think an Associates meant shit? except as a stepping stone to a bachelors? 2 years of higher education at a community college does not strike me as giving you the same critical thinking skills and writing abilities that 4 years at a liberal arts school (might, if you go to class) give you. It's basically like an add on to a high school diploma for those who did really bad in high school.
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
We could add incentives for the creation of 4-year degrees in traditionally 2-year fields.
Basically it's not easy to fund schools in areas of low population density, because the spending:student ratio is pretty insane to begin with even before you try to attract high-caliber teachers to the bowels of hell.
Are you saying the spending:student ratio is high nationwide, or that it's especially high in BFE?
Especially high in BFE. The cost per student doesn't scale linearly...basically it's a fuckload cheaper per student to run a school with 2,000 kids than one with 47.
And you're basically wanting to add even greater cost by trying to attract teachers to places that nobody with better options will choose to live in.
Good luck with that. Especially funding it. States don't have the money (except Alaska, apparently, probably due to oil) and the feds don't care (and probably don't have the money either). Our state is having trouble instituting cost-of-living raises next year for any of our teachers, including the ones serving full classrooms.
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Because students don't learn effectively without some sort of motivation. How many times have you heard a university student bitching about chemistry or math because "I'll never use this in the real world" or some such nonsense?
The worst part about the "graduation inflation" is that it's progressed into jobs as well. I've seen plenty of listings for jobs that could easily be done by a high school grad (or even a competent student), asking for a 4-year degree and 2 years of experience and stuff. And if you happen to speak Swahili, that'd be a bonus.
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
You need specialized training to be a doctor, or an engineer, or a lawyer. You don't need special training to fill out TPS reports or the vast majority of other desk jockey jobs that form the basis for most of middle class America. But now, all of the sudden, we're demanding that professional secretaries have a four-year degree just because there is such a glut of people at four-year universities who have no bloody business being there, and are only there because it's extremely profitable to the universities to let them be.
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
This aint rocket science.
I don't think the reality of how low the bar had really been set for admission into four-year schools until I started tutoring and grading papers for underclassmen. The writing was so bad it should've been embarrassing to an 8th-grader, let alone someone at a university.
The first two years ought to be a filtering-out time, but it's not profitable to filter these idiots out, so they keep lowering the bar to push them through...
Basically it's not easy to fund schools in areas of low population density, because the spending:student ratio is pretty insane to begin with even before you try to attract high-caliber teachers to the bowels of hell.
Are you saying the spending:student ratio is high nationwide, or that it's especially high in BFE?
Especially high in BFE. The cost per student doesn't scale linearly...basically it's a fuckload cheaper per student to run a school with 2,000 kids than one with 47.
And you're basically wanting to add even greater cost by trying to attract teachers to places that nobody with better options will choose to live in.
Good luck with that. Especially funding it. States don't have the money (except Alaska, apparently, probably due to oil) and the feds don't care (and probably don't have the money either). Our state is having trouble instituting cost-of-living raises next year for any of our teachers, including the ones serving full classrooms.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
We could add incentives for the creation of 4-year degrees in traditionally 2-year fields.
Wait, I don't understand the point of this. If jobs want 2 year certified laborers, and that is sufficient for them, why suddenly extend the degree program unnecessarily?
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
This aint rocket science.
and here I am quoting myself, but . .
undergrad is completely what you make of it. It's a chance to educate your mind to deal with new information and situations for the rest of your life. A lot of people spend 4 years boozing and never thinking about what they're doing, but trust me - I'm a much smarter and capable person for having gotten my BS in economics, and this applies to all areas of life, not just economic analysis.
And I still had time to get hammered at least 3 nights a week
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
This aint rocket science.
There must be something of value in the first two years to build upon. Your argument basically amounts to "just because". It's like saying you have to do the hokey pokey before you can run a mile.
Even if it's just to shore up those who didn't pay attention in high school, I don't see why I should have to pay for their mistakes.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
We could add incentives for the creation of 4-year degrees in traditionally 2-year fields.
Wait, I don't understand the point of this. If jobs want 2 year certified laborers, and that is sufficient for them, why suddenly extend the degree program unnecessarily?
So they'll be even better at their jobs and won't have to listen to how great Ron Paul is, from the employer's view, and so you have better credentials and maybe had time to diversify for backup professions for the employee.
Especially high in BFE. The cost per student doesn't scale linearly...basically it's a fuckload cheaper per student to run a school with 2,000 kids than one with 47.
And you're basically wanting to add even greater cost by trying to attract teachers to places that nobody with better options will choose to live in.
Good luck with that. Especially funding it. States don't have the money (except Alaska, apparently, probably due to oil) and the feds don't care (and probably don't have the money either). Our state is having trouble instituting cost-of-living raises next year for any of our teachers, including the ones serving full classrooms.
I know it isn't practical, really. It just bothers me that we blew trillions of dollars in Iraq and have very little to show for it, while states like the one I grew up in are trapped in a vicious downward spiral. Anybody that does get a decent education/job skills moves as far away as they can - Nashville, Louisville, the coasts, wherever. Meanwhile, their hometowns gets less educated and more impoverished every year as a result. This means the state makes less money, which means there's less money for education...and so it goes, as Kurt says. There doesn't seem to be any solution that wouldn't require massive outside intervention.
You don't see why learning things outside your discipline might have value? Because an engineer will never have to use English to write a report... and a reporter might never have to use math or speak another language?
An engineer won't have to use the skills learned in the English class we're forced to take to write a report...it's a completely different style of writing. Also, I really don't think my course in Native American Studies is really going to benefit me in my career...however this "diversity" core class with required attendance did mean I got to miss the inauguration of the first minority president of this country. Because that makes sense.
Oh, and my music class. Sure I'll be using that.
My psychology class is iffy, and while it might benefit me as a person I don't see how it has any bearing on my career. So yeah.
History? Same.
Learning things outside my discipline may have value, but not so much value that I can understand requiring it. Absent these four core classes alone I could have already started work a couple months ago. Figure five months of salary at $22K, plus the $8K it's costing me to go, and I'm not seeing how I'm getting thirty fucking thousand dollars of value out of these courses. I wonder which stimulates the economy more...me spending $8K to go to school (much of it on your dime, no less) or me making (and spending) over $20K?
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
This aint rocket science.
There must be something of value in the first two years to build upon. Your argument basically amounts to "just because". It's like saying you have to do the hokey pokey before you can run a mile.
Even if it's just to shore up those who didn't pay attention in high school, I don't see why I should have to pay for their mistakes.
There is something of value. If you dont take complete bullshit classes and actually try to apply yourself. College requires you to be an adult about your choices if you really want to get something out of it. Although I'm sure it helps if you're at a school with lots of other smart motivated people, and not at an easy as hell community college.
This is exactly why we need more 2 year certifications for skilled labor as opposed to just pushing for everyone to get a 4 year degree.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
We could add incentives for the creation of 4-year degrees in traditionally 2-year fields.
Wait, I don't understand the point of this. If jobs want 2 year certified laborers, and that is sufficient for them, why suddenly extend the degree program unnecessarily?
So they'll be even better at their jobs and won't have to listen to how great Ron Paul is, from the employer's view, and so you have better credentials and maybe had time to diversify for backup professions for the employee.
We need laborers now, and we can do so at lower cost simultaneously by funding 2 year programs. High schools can and should be improved for general knowledge, but we don't need the government spending extra time and supporting the extension of college programs, intended purely as job training, to become overall knowledge building.
You've got to leave some responsibility for that to the person.
You don't see why learning things outside your discipline might have value? Because an engineer will never have to use English to write a report... and a reporter might never have to use math or speak another language?
An engineer won't have to use the skills learned in the English class we're forced to take to write a report...it's a completely different style of writing. Also, I really don't think my course in Native American Studies is really going to benefit me in my career...however this "diversity" core class with required attendance did mean I got to miss the inauguration of the first minority president of this country. Because that makes sense.
Oh, and my music class. Sure I'll be using that.
My psychology class is iffy, and while it might benefit me as a person I don't see how it has any bearing on my career. So yeah.
History? Same.
Learning things outside my discipline may have value, but not so much value that I can understand requiring it. Absent these four core classes alone I could have already started work a couple months ago. Figure five months of salary at $22K, plus the $8K it's costing me to go, and I'm not seeing how I'm getting thirty fucking thousand dollars of value out of these courses. I wonder which stimulates the economy more...me spending $8K to go to school (much of it on your dime, no less) or me making (and spending) over $20K?
This. These sorts of things should be the kind of thing a person is expected to pursue on his own, for personal enrichment.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
Not particularly applicable to any specific job, but generally applicable to your life.
University should be teaching you to think and act independantly by making you responsible for yourself and your education. Then you get graded on what you have done.
If your a slacker who cant wake up on time for classes and never studies, you fail at school, and will probably fail at life.
If you manage to be a self starter and motivate yourself to study and participate, its an extremely rewarding experience that will well prepare you for the workforce, and most likely the management track for the company you join.
MWO: Adamski
All because everyone has a degree now, and they need to make the requirements ridiculous just to cut the applications down to a manageable number. So you basically have to go to college now, even if you have no interest or business being there.
And this was stuff I was seeing years ago, nevermind now that unemployment's 5 or 6 or whatever % it is today.
We know how to fuck up an education system perfectly well here in California, too, Jeffe. :P
Underemployment is at 13.5%
I presume that the prosecutors of cases that are yet to be scheduled are just not pushing for listing dates?
inaction during a time of crisis is bad, the biggest crisis was back in october. people are used to the economy being crap. if you think the waving of hands to show that the government is doing something will make people suddenly stop thinking that the economy is bad.... well you're wrong.
I went to a really shitty, rural high school in a poor state, and the amount of suck was unbelievable. Almost all of the teachers were locals, born and bred, who came back from college and got a job in the school system because A) It's not much work and
I had a few good teachers, but a lot of em didn't give a shit. There was one english teacher who instant messaged on her computer all through class; another who used it as a pulpit to unload her personal problems about her divorce. One teacher - a basketball coach/social studies teacher - would stand in the doorway for weeks on end talking to some dude about his fantasy basketball team after a perfunctory 10-minute lecture. I remember thinking at the time it wouldn't have been so lame if he'd been talking about the real basketball team.
Of course, the students were unmotivated, but why shouldn't they be? Most of their parents (probably 70-80%) didn't have any expectation that they'd go to college or even leave that pissant little town. Nobody ever expected them to do anything. I remember one kid that, in retrospect, was extremely intelligent. In grade school he would order lots of insects and animals through the mail, and studied the phylogeny of these things and what have you in his free time. He was also really into things like chemistry and other sciences. But, unfortunately for him, he lived in a trailer and his dad was abusive. Now he's got a decent job - skilled labor - but he could have done a lot more if anybody had ever given him the chance. Another kid I knew was known for two things - being the toughest dude in school and his artistic abilities. He had more natural talent than a lot of the people whose work I see hanging up in the student center, but of course nobody ever taught him that was something that needed to be cultivated.
Meanwhile, I see people on my campus now who are basically dumbasses, but had the good fortune to have parents who lived in the suburbs/were middle class.
There's so much wasted potential that went through my school - and, I'm sure, lots of schools like it all over the country - but there's nobody that's going to draw it out of the students without good teachers, and they're not going to live in shitty areas without being well-compensated. Is there some sort of program to offer bonus incentives to high-performing teachers who go to disadvantaged schools? Because I could really get behind a program like that.
Yep, it's ridiculous. I have an Associate's Degree; it is essentially worthless unless I turn it into a Bachelor's. I might as well not have it at all.
I wish I could think of some way to fix this issue. I have this feeling that simply throwing more money at education will simply exacerbate the issue. In the short term, perhaps more people will manage to get college degrees. And then employers will adjust, and we'll all need more education.
I will admit that I am entirely disillusioned with our education system as a whole, though. If there was some way to have a do-over, to extricate it from the rest of our society and fix it from the ground up, I would embrace it in a heartbeat.
As of now the only bonuses I know of that are common nationwide are bonuses/incentives for teaching at schools with high poverty rates (measured, at least from what I hear, by percentage on free/reduced lunch programs).
Aside from that, it's largely on more local levels to do what they can to attract people. There's the insane bonuses you hear about out of Alaska, for instance. But if you're just in a podunk area of some midwestern or western state, you're pretty much fucked. The pool they have to draw any incentives from comes from their own local property taxes (not much) or from the state (and most are broke).
Basically it's not easy to fund schools in areas of low population density, because the spending:student ratio is pretty insane to begin with even before you try to attract high-caliber teachers to the bowels of hell.
EDIT: I guess I'm an exception, in that I'm finishing my degree in engineering, one of the fields in which four years of study is pretty much warranted. Though yeah, I'm still bitter about the two semesters or so of random shit like Native American Studies I had to take to appease the university's diversity requirements. Let me learn the shit I need, and move on with my life. I'm already well rounded, you fucks.
And individual companies are often slow to respond, what we're seeing here is the realization that years of bad management promoting outsourcing, plant closure and job loss to improve short term profits has shockingly been a bad idea in the long term. Many of these employees 'should' probably have been fired back in October (from the companies perspective)
However, saving isn't necesarily a bad thing. If people put their money into savings accounts the banks will invest them. If people pay off credit cards then the banks will have more money to loan out in a better way. Saving is good for the economy too, it's just not so speedy as spending. Hopefully what the bailout will do is boost spending by the government enough, that the people can build up some savings before they start spending.
What we really want is growth built on the back of personal savings, not personal debt.
Engineering and other highly technical fields I feel do deserve an extensive upper education program. They're what upper education excels at. It's elsewhere that we need to take a serious look at what we are doing.
English is my personal pet peeve. I think the whole department is focused on all the wrong things, and does more harm than good to our society. It ought to be called "Writing", and study the various fields contained therein.
Because smart businesses look for people with a well rounded education, who know how to relate to people and can use skills garnered in other areas to better their work productivity in their chosen field. I mean, the way you describe, why not fucking go back to apprenticeships?
Are you saying the spending:student ratio is high nationwide, or that it's especially high in BFE?
I actually had what I'd heard about Alaska in mind when I typed that up. My idea was something like this: Teacher Joe makes $n teaching at Wyndham's Academy for Promising Young Caucasians. He is somehow audited over a period of years and is found to be an effective instructor in terms of getting students involved and (ideally) raising scores like GPA or CATS or whatever. The feds come and offer him $n x 1.5 or so if he'll go and teach at Shitcouse County High, plus some tasty gov't benefits he might not have been getting if he was teaching at a private school. Hopefully, a certain percentage of Teacher Joes who get this offer take it up and over a period of years Shithouse isn't quite as shitty anymore.
And yeah, it would take $Texas to get great teachers out in the middle of nowhere. I'm sure it's not practical to staff entire schools with good teachers, but a few decent ones might be possible, and I think it would make at least some difference. Either that, or they could have some sort of official whose entire job was to police the teachers and keep them up to code (sounds fascist, I know, and especially prone to abuse, but some of these schools really need it). Who knows, maybe having some real talent in these schools would make the local teachers look bad enough that they would try a little bit harder, if only to save face. Some sort of community program to get parents involved in their children's education would be great, too, if you could figure out the necessary demonic pacts that would be required to implement them.
like what kind of skilled labor? because "skilled labor" tends to have unions that train members via apprenticeship, so there already exists this. Just because they dont shove it in your face in high school doesnt mean it's not there.
Then there are plenty of technical schools for lots of IT shit and whatnot.
Nothing wrong with apprenticeships, for the right fields. Which is why they still exist today.
I don't really see how having a well-rounded education helps you relate to people better on a personal level. On a managerial level, sure--understanding the different kinds of work you may be supervising--but I think it's a bit odd to train everybody around positions comprising a very small percentage of the workforce (leadership positions).
When did you ever think an Associates meant shit? except as a stepping stone to a bachelors? 2 years of higher education at a community college does not strike me as giving you the same critical thinking skills and writing abilities that 4 years at a liberal arts school (might, if you go to class) give you. It's basically like an add on to a high school diploma for those who did really bad in high school.
Welders, computer and nuclear technicians, cardio techs, etc. These are jobs that certainly can have paid-for apprenticeships, but a lot of them also require a certification program or associate's degree. There's also a shortfall in supply(for sure in Texas, I believe it's nationwide as well).
Governments too often provide funding and incentives for 4 year colleges, but not the 2 years for the jobs that we really need.
To give an example, I'm a smog technician in California, ASE-certified and all that. Starting from zero knowledge of cars, going to community college and finishing up with the state-mandated smog courses takes about 2 years. You can get good training of working on cars via apprenticeships, but that won't teach you the theory required to do in-depth diagnosis.
Well, being generally knowledgeable and well-informed does tend to beat ignorance, at least on a personal level. You don't want to be like all those Paultards who most likely never attended a class outside of the engineering department, do you?
You don't see why learning things outside your discipline might have value? Because an engineer will never have to use English to write a report... and a reporter might never have to use math or speak another language?
If the first two years of school are so worthless, why don't we just cut them out entirely? Why spend thousands of dollars and all that time for nothing?
And they are that worthless. Or at least, I thought so.
We could add incentives for the creation of 4-year degrees in traditionally 2-year fields.
Especially high in BFE. The cost per student doesn't scale linearly...basically it's a fuckload cheaper per student to run a school with 2,000 kids than one with 47.
And you're basically wanting to add even greater cost by trying to attract teachers to places that nobody with better options will choose to live in.
Good luck with that. Especially funding it. States don't have the money (except Alaska, apparently, probably due to oil) and the feds don't care (and probably don't have the money either). Our state is having trouble instituting cost-of-living raises next year for any of our teachers, including the ones serving full classrooms.
Because the second two years build on the first two years. If you cut the first two years out, then all you have is two years.
This aint rocket science.
Because students don't learn effectively without some sort of motivation. How many times have you heard a university student bitching about chemistry or math because "I'll never use this in the real world" or some such nonsense?
Scooter was spot-on:
You need specialized training to be a doctor, or an engineer, or a lawyer. You don't need special training to fill out TPS reports or the vast majority of other desk jockey jobs that form the basis for most of middle class America. But now, all of the sudden, we're demanding that professional secretaries have a four-year degree just because there is such a glut of people at four-year universities who have no bloody business being there, and are only there because it's extremely profitable to the universities to let them be.
EDIT:
I don't think the reality of how low the bar had really been set for admission into four-year schools until I started tutoring and grading papers for underclassmen. The writing was so bad it should've been embarrassing to an 8th-grader, let alone someone at a university.
The first two years ought to be a filtering-out time, but it's not profitable to filter these idiots out, so they keep lowering the bar to push them through...
We could try busing.
Wait, I don't understand the point of this. If jobs want 2 year certified laborers, and that is sufficient for them, why suddenly extend the degree program unnecessarily?
Can we get back to the crazy shenanigans of Congress? And the awesometude of Obamarama?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
and here I am quoting myself, but . .
undergrad is completely what you make of it. It's a chance to educate your mind to deal with new information and situations for the rest of your life. A lot of people spend 4 years boozing and never thinking about what they're doing, but trust me - I'm a much smarter and capable person for having gotten my BS in economics, and this applies to all areas of life, not just economic analysis.
And I still had time to get hammered at least 3 nights a week
There must be something of value in the first two years to build upon. Your argument basically amounts to "just because". It's like saying you have to do the hokey pokey before you can run a mile.
Even if it's just to shore up those who didn't pay attention in high school, I don't see why I should have to pay for their mistakes.
So they'll be even better at their jobs and won't have to listen to how great Ron Paul is, from the employer's view, and so you have better credentials and maybe had time to diversify for backup professions for the employee.
An engineer won't have to use the skills learned in the English class we're forced to take to write a report...it's a completely different style of writing. Also, I really don't think my course in Native American Studies is really going to benefit me in my career...however this "diversity" core class with required attendance did mean I got to miss the inauguration of the first minority president of this country. Because that makes sense.
Oh, and my music class. Sure I'll be using that.
My psychology class is iffy, and while it might benefit me as a person I don't see how it has any bearing on my career. So yeah.
History? Same.
Learning things outside my discipline may have value, but not so much value that I can understand requiring it. Absent these four core classes alone I could have already started work a couple months ago. Figure five months of salary at $22K, plus the $8K it's costing me to go, and I'm not seeing how I'm getting thirty fucking thousand dollars of value out of these courses. I wonder which stimulates the economy more...me spending $8K to go to school (much of it on your dime, no less) or me making (and spending) over $20K?
There is something of value. If you dont take complete bullshit classes and actually try to apply yourself. College requires you to be an adult about your choices if you really want to get something out of it. Although I'm sure it helps if you're at a school with lots of other smart motivated people, and not at an easy as hell community college.
We need laborers now, and we can do so at lower cost simultaneously by funding 2 year programs. High schools can and should be improved for general knowledge, but we don't need the government spending extra time and supporting the extension of college programs, intended purely as job training, to become overall knowledge building.
You've got to leave some responsibility for that to the person.
This. These sorts of things should be the kind of thing a person is expected to pursue on his own, for personal enrichment.