I'm surprised that they didn't add a military exception to it as well. My GI bill is admisistered almost exclusively through my schools veteran services office. Which would effectively increase tuition for veterans by 2k.
Well, for starters they're supposedly going to add an exception for students that can't/don't live an home and having living expenses. Which would cover most veterans. Also, I'm unsure based on the wording how this applies to VA benefits. Those may be administered through the school's vet's services office, but on the other hand they used to be paid out directly to the student (not sure how this changed with the new benefits), at which point the student then paid the school. So maybe that's good enough? If not, you can bet your sweet ass they'll fix that aspect to somehow exempt "earned" benefits like those from the VA.
How many have already lined up jobs waiting in the National heritage department of the Turkmenistan government when they graduate? When you don't know a situation don't try to make it sound better than you know.
And since we are on this level, Central Asia is a vastly wide open field with relatively low amount of English language scholars. The last important works were done in the 1960's to 1980's with little or no major scholarly work done since. The majority of work available is either in three languages, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese. The amount of Mongolian speakers where the majority of work relating to the Mongols in the Western world would be 0.5% and the translations done would be less than 0.1%. The only shcolar whose work was translated was Jagchid's and his last published and translated work was in the 90's. Its been 20 years and there as been a barren field since then.
As you can see a little research would help you save face when describing a field that is not knowledgeable to yourself.
Um, yeah, you're still a fantastically silly goose.
The major fact was that the history of universities were set up for those who would be able to afford an education in previous times. Merchants, Nobility and others who were rich enough to afford an early education apart from the basics and wanted to go further and had the means to would go to these institution.
Actually, Socrates was the son of a mason and a midwife.
However now every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to one, whether they can afford it or not and flounders their way through it coming out with nothing but debt and an Art History degree. Times this by 1000X and you have a bunch of over educated fast food servers with debt and nothing to show for it.
Certainly I'm not for banning education to those who can't afford it. Previous times showed that if a student had the potential but not the means they would be adopted and educated. What my argument is that there should be a strict limit on who gets in and who doesn't based on both merit and other factors. Those just arguing that I'm for only the rich are incorrect. Those with the mental and monetary funds without taking debt should be allowed to go in. Those without monetary funds should either be told to enter competitions to see only the brightest gets in or try to get noticed by those who could send that person to university.
The major fact was that the history of universities were set up for those who would be able to afford an education in previous times. Merchants, Nobility and others who were rich enough to afford an early education apart from the basics and wanted to go further and had the means to would go to these institution.
However now every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to one, whether they can afford it or not and flounders their way through it coming out with nothing but debt and an Art History degree. Times this by 1000X and you have a bunch of over educated fast food servers with debt and nothing to show for it.
Certainly I'm not for banning education to those who can't afford it. Previous times showed that if a student had the potential but not the means they would be adopted and educated. What my argument is that there should be a strict limit on who gets in and who doesn't based on both merit and other factors. Those just arguing that I'm for only the rich are incorrect. Those with the mental and monetary funds without taking debt should be allowed to go in. Those without monetary funds should either be told to enter competitions to see only the brightest gets in or try to get noticed by those who could send that person to university. This free for all system does not work.
The current system isn't really a free for all. There's minor schools with smaller degrees for simple advanced training, but if you want to roll out with the badass degrees you're already being tested on merit multiple times (undergrad, postgrad). With grants and loans, the defining factor of going to college is "can I get admitted/are my grades good enough", not "and do I have money". In other words: attempting to make it a merit based system instead of a class based system. The days you are throwing back to in your post were a class based system: either you were from the class that was educated, or you were lucky enough to be accepted into the family of the class that was educated. There is no merit there, there is simply access to money.
The art history thing is a complete distraction. If you think some majors should not be taught due to a lack of demand in the workforce or the lack of a market, argue that the majors should go away. But don't argue less people should go to college because they don't have money because *art history majors*. It either deserves to be an advanced field of study or it doesn't. But that has nothing to do with who deserves access to advanced fields of study.
You gave a blanket statement that the world doesn't need "art history majors" which are no more or less likely to lead to a solid career than your major. Bully for you for getting a job lined up, guess what? Many other liberal arts majors do just as well as you hopefully will.
Lets make it clear, I'm not against Art History degrees, I actually find the whole program interesting. However what I'm against is fast churning as many possible Art Degree grads who don't go into the field. I find those who actually have talent in the field get better GPAs and actually contribute much more in their field than ones who just want to graduate and have less than a 3.0 GPA.
I'd rather have say 10x Art History graduates at a 3.5 GPA or higher who are passionate about the field and can afford it as well as have the mental capacity to expand the field than 1000x grads of the same field with lower than 3.0 GPA going to work in a fast food place with tons of debt on their backs.
I think there is a saying "To the most able the prize".
And for some reason you and somebody's grandparents are the best determinant of who is most able rather than the students, teachers, and employers themselves. Interesting how that works.
He's not going to cheer for standardized testing, you can see he left a deliberate path for those less bright but with monetary funds to buy their way to higher education nonetheless.
He's not going to cheer for standardized testing, you can see he left a deliberate path for those less bright but with monetary funds to buy their way to higher education nonetheless.
well if they have the money they're obviously better than you
You gave a blanket statement that the world doesn't need "art history majors" which are no more or less likely to lead to a solid career than your major. Bully for you for getting a job lined up, guess what? Many other liberal arts majors do just as well as you hopefully will.
Lets make it clear, I'm not against Art History degrees, I actually find the whole program interesting. However what I'm against is fast churning as many possible Art Degree grads who don't go into the field. I find those who actually have talent in the field get better GPAs and actually contribute much more in their field than ones who just want to graduate and have less than a 3.0 GPA.
I'd rather have say 10x Art History graduates at a 3.5 GPA or higher who are passionate about the field and can afford it as well as have the mental capacity to expand the field than 1000x grads of the same field with lower than 3.0 GPA going to work in a fast food place with tons of debt on their backs.
I think there is a saying "To the most able the prize".
The bolded is not a college problem, it's a society problem. People go into majors out of interest, and go into jobs a decent amount of the time out of necessity. My last four managers have been english and history majors of some form. I have never worked IT with anyone with a comp sci degree. The problem is that companies want to hire people with degrees (ANY degree), so people go get any degree because it's simply a requirement to enter the workforce now.
Anywho, for your rather have 10 great ones to 1000 okay ones.. the issue you seem to be taking offense at is that the bar for an advanced degree moved. College is now commonplace, and expected. Postgrad is your 10 dudes with high GPAs and a passion for the field's intricacies.
Honestly, given my job people act shocked and offended that I dropped out of college. They'll be thrilled to have me designing things, fawn over the designs, and a casual question about where I went to school will turn the whole thing into a shit show. Because there's an assumption of a degree in any office building now. Nobody cares if you got an advanced music degree, they just care that you got any degree. And that's not a problem that you solve by denying people access to college.
If you do want to track merit regardless of background, you do need a fairly comprehensive national education system (where schools do set out to provide the totality of education and minimize reliance on parental support) and you would have to track merit from a very early age. Intervention after people graduate from their local high school is more than a decade too late. You would end up with a educational tracking system close to Germany's or Singapore's, with relatively early division of the student cohort into tiers.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
There's truth to it. My younger peers at community college run circles around me in anything math-related. Very few of them can put together a decent essay-and that's why some of them are in community college. Others are there because they are poor, but many of them can't write for shit. And don't even get me started on reading comprehension. If it weren't for Cliff's Notes/Masterplots many of them would flunk entry level college English.
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
There's truth to it. My younger peers at community college run circles around me in anything math-related. Very few of them can put together a decent essay-and that's why some of them are in community college. Others are there because they are poor, but many of them can't write for shit. And don't even get me started on reading comprehension. If it weren't for Cliff's Notes/Masterplots many of them would flunk entry level college English.
The kids in com college right now are the ones who came up fully under NCLB. I can't speak for outside of Florida, but when you teach to the test you don't teach shit.
EDIT:
And it isn't the teachers' fault, either. Just to nip that in the bud before it wanders off like a drunken monkey.
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
Well, yeah. I get all that, but NomadicCircle is apparently a history major himself so... ???
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
Well, yeah. I get all that, but NomadicCircle is apparently a history major himself so... ???
If you do want to track merit regardless of background, you do need a fairly comprehensive national education system (where schools do set out to provide the totality of education and minimize reliance on parental support) and you would have to track merit from a very early age. Intervention after people graduate from their local high school is more than a decade too late. You would end up with a educational tracking system close to Germany's or Singapore's, with relatively early division of the student cohort into tiers.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
A school system that separates cohorts of students into tiers and steers those tiers into different sorts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions might be a workable solution in the United States if race and class didn't exist.
In practice, in more places than I'd hope, you'd see the brown kids and the poor kids on the blue collar trade school who needs fancy learning track and the white kids and the rich kids on the fancy college track.
I'm not sure why he's singling out art history here, is there some sort of epidemic of directionless art history grads that I'm unaware of?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
Well, yeah. I get all that, but NomadicCircle is apparently a history major himself so... ???
He's a rare specialty. Consider it the history department's version of hipsters. Fuck those mainstream art history people, it would be cool if so many people didn't like it. Our comp sci department did much the same thing as far as the rarer sub-specialties would cop some serious superiority complexes about how everyone else shouldn't be let in to school because every idiot should already know what they're learning.
edit: most of this being conjecture based on my experience with folks in odd majors. I come from a tech background, so I think all those art/history/english majors should get jobs you fucking hippies.
If you do want to track merit regardless of background, you do need a fairly comprehensive national education system (where schools do set out to provide the totality of education and minimize reliance on parental support) and you would have to track merit from a very early age. Intervention after people graduate from their local high school is more than a decade too late. You would end up with a educational tracking system close to Germany's or Singapore's, with relatively early division of the student cohort into tiers.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
A school system that separates cohorts of students into tiers and steers those tiers into different sorts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions might be a workable solution in the United States if race and class didn't exist.
In practice, in more places than I'd hope, you'd see the brown kids and the poor kids on the blue collar trade school who needs fancy learning track and the white kids and the rich kids on the fancy college track.
Doubtless. But I daresay your present neighborhood-driven system of primary/secondary education actively sets out to magnify class differences, and your country's only defense against racial segregation in the schools is a hamhanded busing system that lays the bulk of the inconvenience on said minorities.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If you do want to track merit regardless of background, you do need a fairly comprehensive national education system (where schools do set out to provide the totality of education and minimize reliance on parental support) and you would have to track merit from a very early age. Intervention after people graduate from their local high school is more than a decade too late. You would end up with a educational tracking system close to Germany's or Singapore's, with relatively early division of the student cohort into tiers.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
A school system that separates cohorts of students into tiers and steers those tiers into different sorts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions might be a workable solution in the United States if race and class didn't exist.
In practice, in more places than I'd hope, you'd see the brown kids and the poor kids on the blue collar trade school who needs fancy learning track and the white kids and the rich kids on the fancy college track.
Doubtless. But I daresay your present neighborhood-driven system of primary/secondary education actively sets out to magnify class differences, and your country's only defense against racial segregation in the schools is a hamhanded busing system that lays the bulk of the inconvenience on said minorities.
Not especially. Though our public school system is in dire need of improvement, busing really isn't one of them.
If you do want to track merit regardless of background, you do need a fairly comprehensive national education system (where schools do set out to provide the totality of education and minimize reliance on parental support) and you would have to track merit from a very early age. Intervention after people graduate from their local high school is more than a decade too late. You would end up with a educational tracking system close to Germany's or Singapore's, with relatively early division of the student cohort into tiers.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
A school system that separates cohorts of students into tiers and steers those tiers into different sorts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions might be a workable solution in the United States if race and class didn't exist.
In practice, in more places than I'd hope, you'd see the brown kids and the poor kids on the blue collar trade school who needs fancy learning track and the white kids and the rich kids on the fancy college track.
Doubtless. But I daresay your present neighborhood-driven system of primary/secondary education actively sets out to magnify class differences, and your country's only defense against racial segregation in the schools is a hamhanded busing system that lays the bulk of the inconvenience on said minorities.
If you think that's neat, you should see how we cut funding to schools with poor students in order to somehow make them .. learn better?
I lucked way the fuck out and happened to live near a science magnet highschool. So I actually got a really solid highschool education. By sheer luck/my mother gaming the system for my future.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yes, in the US schools which perfom well (almost without exception in the more affluent neighborhoods) get extra funding while poor performing schools (located in poor, minority, and rural areas) get their funding cut. This rating is usually based on some cornucopia of state legislature decided criteria which invariably focus on test scores.
The argument is that you don't throw good money after bad, but I wonder how much better people would have done in my high school if we had our own copies of text books to take home with us for our homework.
The major fact was that the history of universities were set up for those who would be able to afford an education in previous times. Merchants, Nobility and others who were rich enough to afford an early education apart from the basics and wanted to go further and had the means to would go to these institution.
However now every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to one, whether they can afford it or not and flounders their way through it coming out with nothing but debt and an Art History degree. Times this by 1000X and you have a bunch of over educated fast food servers with debt and nothing to show for it.
Certainly I'm not for banning education to those who can't afford it. Previous times showed that if a student had the potential but not the means they would be adopted and educated. What my argument is that there should be a strict limit on who gets in and who doesn't based on both merit and other factors. Those just arguing that I'm for only the rich are incorrect. Those with the mental and monetary funds without taking debt should be allowed to go in. Those without monetary funds should either be told to enter competitions to see only the brightest gets in or try to get noticed by those who could send that person to university. This free for all system does not work.
You aren't attacking the root of the problem. The problem is not "Stupid Lib'rul kids! LOL u shudn't go 2 c0l3ge!!!" It's that jobs REQUIRE degrees before they even look at your resume in a pile. If you're lucky you can get around that but those people are the exception and not the rule. If you want to reduce the "strain" of people floundering through college aimlessly you need to fix job placement and create a guaranteed track to high-paying work for people interested in it. The problem with college isn't art history majors either. It's that people often do not know how to translate their degree directly into a high paying job, especially in the volatile economy.
Going any other way than job placement will just displace the poor and minorities. Furthermore student loan debt didn't become a problem until state universities started to have their funding cut away from them in the 70s. So it's not like that couldn't be fixed.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Of course I also have 5 figures of debt from loans to live off of, because there's like no fucking work outside what the school itself gives me around here, but the pell grant covers my tuition and books.
so as long as you're dumb and rich you can enroll as much as you want and use those degrees as toilet paper. And that's what will happen, because they won't have competition from the poor, who have the same distribution of intelligence. A brain drain of a sizeable chunk of the population would allow schools to ease scholastic requirements for acceptance to save money, since they won't be getting as many destitute intelligent applicants who have nothing to offer the institution itself financially.
It decreases class mobility and even goes against the model of a free market because it stifles competition.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
See I'd never say someone whos rich and a college student is lazy, that's ridiculous. Most people at college regardless of economic status are really trying hard.
Here's the thing though: if you get need scholarships like this guy's talking about? You can't slip. You fail a core class, you can lose your funding and be left holding a bag of debt (since you probably have loans too)
Rich parents and you fail a core class? Not so much. A poor person, someone making next to nothing (or completely nothing) who is going to college can end up homeless if they fuck up and get dropped from a class. So no, no skin in the game there!
Fuck I had to have a fucking review because I retook a class, a class I got a 95 in, because it was 2 years ago and they updated the networking curriculum (an area where much of my book smarts is woefully out of date), because financial aid students aren't supposed to retake classes
He's not going to cheer for standardized testing, you can see he left a deliberate path for those less bright but with monetary funds to buy their way to higher education nonetheless.
Eh if your family has money you can game your way past any standardized test. Just hire a squad of tutors to tell you exactly what's going to be on the test and memorize it.
He's not going to cheer for standardized testing, you can see he left a deliberate path for those less bright but with monetary funds to buy their way to higher education nonetheless.
Eh if your family has money you can game your way past any standardized test. Just hire a squad of tutors to tell you exactly what's going to be on the test and memorize it.
It takes a lot of money to bypass stupidity or laziness
Of course as a tutor myself I've shot myself in the foot several times by refusing bribes to simply do someone's work for them. With my financial situation I should totally be writing papers for people instead of accepting the meager breadcrumbs the state pays me. If I ever have children I'm going to teach them to be exploitative and devious so they can get ahead in life easier.
It takes a lot of money to bypass stupidity or laziness
Of course as a tutor myself I've shot myself in the foot several times by refusing bribes to simply do someone's work for them. With my financial situation I should totally be writing papers for people instead of accepting the meager breadcrumbs the state pays me. If I ever have children I'm going to teach them to be exploitative and devious so they can get ahead in life easier.
Are you people going to start believing me now that the profit motive is designed to train sociopathy? ;p
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Arizona isn't the only state with schools offering scholarships, so essentially they legislated their schools less competitively because the smart kids I know choose schools pretty much based on scholarships and prestige, and it looks like Arizona is going to get less potent students as a result. And that will cause a decrease in human capital.
Of course Arizona is already a shithole, so now it is just shittier.
Unfortunately many people don't have the resources to move to those states. That's who this is going to hurt. The poor & middle class students will either leave or not go to college.
Maybe, but the way I understand it, is that you can get student loans for the amount, and as I understand the need based grants you can get them from any accredited school, or am I missing something?
I mean, I'm no expert or anything, but something tells me that Arizona state schools don't attract a lot of people from other states. So, it's mostly going to be kids going there because they can't afford to go to/don't qualify for out of state schools.
So, it's mostly poor kids.
There were a lot of kids in my high school in San Diego that went to schools in Arizona (mostly ASU) because they werent smart enough to get into UCSB and didnt want to live at home and go to SDSU but still wanted to party all the time.
There were a lot of rich kids at my high school though. And thats kids going the wrong way.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
Please, everyone knows its the communications philosophy majors who arent going to get a job.
so as long as you're dumb and rich you can enroll as much as you want and use those degrees as toilet paper. And that's what will happen, because they won't have competition from the poor, who have the same distribution of intelligence. A brain drain of a sizeable chunk of the population would allow schools to ease scholastic requirements for acceptance to save money, since they won't be getting as many destitute intelligent applicants who have nothing to offer the institution itself financially.
It decreases class mobility and even goes against the model of a free market because it stifles competition.
Someone needs to pay full tuition though, right? I'm not sure that a strict merit based system (where all merit students get a free ride) plus rich kids with lower credentials getting in to foot the bill would be so bad. Isn't this basically the philosophy behind allowing atheletes into a school even though they don't have the grades/test scores to get in? You need to be smart enough, unless you bring the school money.
It takes a lot of money to bypass stupidity or laziness
Of course as a tutor myself I've shot myself in the foot several times by refusing bribes to simply do someone's work for them. With my financial situation I should totally be writing papers for people instead of accepting the meager breadcrumbs the state pays me. If I ever have children I'm going to teach them to be exploitative and devious so they can get ahead in life easier.
Are you people going to start believing me now that the profit motive is designed to train sociopathy? ;p
I thought this was just a known fact, given the number of psychopaths at the top of the corporate ladder
I would really love to see the numbers on how much money the NCAA actually brings in to schools.
And I mean profit, not just revenue.
I think its more donations than profit, and I imagine they eat through it pretty thoroughly.
I'm studying for a masters at the University of Edinburgh, no sports teams, and they seem to be doing quite well.
So, there's no way to measure the actual fiscal impact that the NCAA has on schools? That's... convenient.
It would also be nice if there were a way to measure what sort of an impact having such a thoroughly corrupt organization so entrenched with college administration has. I suspect it's not a good one.
But hey, god forbid we expect those college athletes to have any skin in the game, right? Just the poor kids who aren't any good at basketball or football.
I'm surprised that they didn't add a military exception to it as well. My GI bill is admisistered almost exclusively through my schools veteran services office. Which would effectively increase tuition for veterans by 2k.
Well, for starters they're supposedly going to add an exception for students that can't/don't live an home and having living expenses. Which would cover most veterans. Also, I'm unsure based on the wording how this applies to VA benefits. Those may be administered through the school's vet's services office, but on the other hand they used to be paid out directly to the student (not sure how this changed with the new benefits), at which point the student then paid the school. So maybe that's good enough? If not, you can bet your sweet ass they'll fix that aspect to somehow exempt "earned" benefits like those from the VA.
How many have already lined up jobs waiting in the National heritage department of the Turkmenistan government when they graduate? When you don't know a situation don't try to make it sound better than you know.
And since we are on this level, Central Asia is a vastly wide open field with relatively low amount of English language scholars. The last important works were done in the 1960's to 1980's with little or no major scholarly work done since. The majority of work available is either in three languages, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese. The amount of Mongolian speakers where the majority of work relating to the Mongols in the Western world would be 0.5% and the translations done would be less than 0.1%. The only shcolar whose work was translated was Jagchid's and his last published and translated work was in the 90's. Its been 20 years and there as been a barren field since then.
As you can see a little research would help you save face when describing a field that is not knowledgeable to yourself.
Um, yeah, you're still a fantastically silly goose.
The new gi bill pays the school directly. I fill out some paperwork and turn it in and veterans services does the rest. The only money I get paid is my book stipend and my housing allowance. And I must not be understanding the housing exception because don't most students live away from home and have to pay for room and board or rent?
I would really love to see the numbers on how much money the NCAA actually brings in to schools.
And I mean profit, not just revenue.
Very little outside of the major schools. Even there the money typically gets swallowed up by subsidizing less popular sports, particularly women's sports teams.
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm surprised that they didn't add a military exception to it as well. My GI bill is admisistered almost exclusively through my schools veteran services office. Which would effectively increase tuition for veterans by 2k.
Well, for starters they're supposedly going to add an exception for students that can't/don't live an home and having living expenses. Which would cover most veterans. Also, I'm unsure based on the wording how this applies to VA benefits. Those may be administered through the school's vet's services office, but on the other hand they used to be paid out directly to the student (not sure how this changed with the new benefits), at which point the student then paid the school. So maybe that's good enough? If not, you can bet your sweet ass they'll fix that aspect to somehow exempt "earned" benefits like those from the VA.
How many have already lined up jobs waiting in the National heritage department of the Turkmenistan government when they graduate? When you don't know a situation don't try to make it sound better than you know.
And since we are on this level, Central Asia is a vastly wide open field with relatively low amount of English language scholars. The last important works were done in the 1960's to 1980's with little or no major scholarly work done since. The majority of work available is either in three languages, Mongolian, Russian or Chinese. The amount of Mongolian speakers where the majority of work relating to the Mongols in the Western world would be 0.5% and the translations done would be less than 0.1%. The only shcolar whose work was translated was Jagchid's and his last published and translated work was in the 90's. Its been 20 years and there as been a barren field since then.
As you can see a little research would help you save face when describing a field that is not knowledgeable to yourself.
Um, yeah, you're still a fantastically silly goose.
The new gi bill pays the school directly. I fill out some paperwork and turn it in and veterans services does the rest. The only money I get paid is my book stipend and my housing allowance. And I must not be understanding the housing exception because don't most students live away from home and have to pay for room and board or rent?
Posts
Pretty sure that's how it worked when all of my ancestors got rich, basically. Maybe.
Well, for starters they're supposedly going to add an exception for students that can't/don't live an home and having living expenses. Which would cover most veterans. Also, I'm unsure based on the wording how this applies to VA benefits. Those may be administered through the school's vet's services office, but on the other hand they used to be paid out directly to the student (not sure how this changed with the new benefits), at which point the student then paid the school. So maybe that's good enough? If not, you can bet your sweet ass they'll fix that aspect to somehow exempt "earned" benefits like those from the VA.
Um, yeah, you're still a fantastically silly goose.
Actually, Socrates was the son of a mason and a midwife.
Public and Private Universities grant degrees in fields aside from Art History. Degrees that lead to a rather significant wage premium.
Perhaps a sort of standardized test that could be used by admissions offices. If only numerous versions of that idea could have been invented decades ago.
I'd appreciate it if you'd actually substantiate this claim somehow.
The current system isn't really a free for all. There's minor schools with smaller degrees for simple advanced training, but if you want to roll out with the badass degrees you're already being tested on merit multiple times (undergrad, postgrad). With grants and loans, the defining factor of going to college is "can I get admitted/are my grades good enough", not "and do I have money". In other words: attempting to make it a merit based system instead of a class based system. The days you are throwing back to in your post were a class based system: either you were from the class that was educated, or you were lucky enough to be accepted into the family of the class that was educated. There is no merit there, there is simply access to money.
The art history thing is a complete distraction. If you think some majors should not be taught due to a lack of demand in the workforce or the lack of a market, argue that the majors should go away. But don't argue less people should go to college because they don't have money because *art history majors*. It either deserves to be an advanced field of study or it doesn't. But that has nothing to do with who deserves access to advanced fields of study.
And for some reason you and somebody's grandparents are the best determinant of who is most able rather than the students, teachers, and employers themselves. Interesting how that works.
well if they have the money they're obviously better than you
The bolded is not a college problem, it's a society problem. People go into majors out of interest, and go into jobs a decent amount of the time out of necessity. My last four managers have been english and history majors of some form. I have never worked IT with anyone with a comp sci degree. The problem is that companies want to hire people with degrees (ANY degree), so people go get any degree because it's simply a requirement to enter the workforce now.
Anywho, for your rather have 10 great ones to 1000 okay ones.. the issue you seem to be taking offense at is that the bar for an advanced degree moved. College is now commonplace, and expected. Postgrad is your 10 dudes with high GPAs and a passion for the field's intricacies.
Honestly, given my job people act shocked and offended that I dropped out of college. They'll be thrilled to have me designing things, fawn over the designs, and a casual question about where I went to school will turn the whole thing into a shit show. Because there's an assumption of a degree in any office building now. Nobody cares if you got an advanced music degree, they just care that you got any degree. And that's not a problem that you solve by denying people access to college.
Not everybody goes to 'university' under such systems, but the vast majority do get tertiary education, albeit with middle tiers of technical colleges and so on. Turkmenistan isn't even industrialized, but countries which are post-industrialized states have relatively little need of hordes of unskilled high school workers and someone has to train them anyway, even for trades. Why not the state?
It's a cultural thing. My dear death eater governor went off about how "Florida doesn't need more Anthropology majors" because there's a big stigma for liberal arts degrees. People with "useful" degrees don't understand why lib arts people would waste their time (it later came out that Scott's daughter is, you guessed it, an anthro major).
In today's world, if you're not on track for a MBA or some other business degree you're going to be lolpoor forever.
Even within the liberal arts degrees there's a stigma. For example there's the old joke about English majors being unemployable, which is patently untrue. More and more the ability to write and read is a rare thing (hyperbole, but still).
There's truth to it. My younger peers at community college run circles around me in anything math-related. Very few of them can put together a decent essay-and that's why some of them are in community college. Others are there because they are poor, but many of them can't write for shit. And don't even get me started on reading comprehension. If it weren't for Cliff's Notes/Masterplots many of them would flunk entry level college English.
The kids in com college right now are the ones who came up fully under NCLB. I can't speak for outside of Florida, but when you teach to the test you don't teach shit.
EDIT:
And it isn't the teachers' fault, either. Just to nip that in the bud before it wanders off like a drunken monkey.
Only good abortion is my abortion, I guess.
A school system that separates cohorts of students into tiers and steers those tiers into different sorts of secondary and post-secondary educational institutions might be a workable solution in the United States if race and class didn't exist.
In practice, in more places than I'd hope, you'd see the brown kids and the poor kids on the blue collar trade school who needs fancy learning track and the white kids and the rich kids on the fancy college track.
He's a rare specialty. Consider it the history department's version of hipsters. Fuck those mainstream art history people, it would be cool if so many people didn't like it. Our comp sci department did much the same thing as far as the rarer sub-specialties would cop some serious superiority complexes about how everyone else shouldn't be let in to school because every idiot should already know what they're learning.
edit: most of this being conjecture based on my experience with folks in odd majors. I come from a tech background, so I think all those art/history/english majors should get jobs you fucking hippies.
Doubtless. But I daresay your present neighborhood-driven system of primary/secondary education actively sets out to magnify class differences, and your country's only defense against racial segregation in the schools is a hamhanded busing system that lays the bulk of the inconvenience on said minorities.
Not especially. Though our public school system is in dire need of improvement, busing really isn't one of them.
If you think that's neat, you should see how we cut funding to schools with poor students in order to somehow make them .. learn better?
I lucked way the fuck out and happened to live near a science magnet highschool. So I actually got a really solid highschool education. By sheer luck/my mother gaming the system for my future.
The argument is that you don't throw good money after bad, but I wonder how much better people would have done in my high school if we had our own copies of text books to take home with us for our homework.
You aren't attacking the root of the problem. The problem is not "Stupid Lib'rul kids! LOL u shudn't go 2 c0l3ge!!!" It's that jobs REQUIRE degrees before they even look at your resume in a pile. If you're lucky you can get around that but those people are the exception and not the rule. If you want to reduce the "strain" of people floundering through college aimlessly you need to fix job placement and create a guaranteed track to high-paying work for people interested in it. The problem with college isn't art history majors either. It's that people often do not know how to translate their degree directly into a high paying job, especially in the volatile economy.
Going any other way than job placement will just displace the poor and minorities. Furthermore student loan debt didn't become a problem until state universities started to have their funding cut away from them in the 70s. So it's not like that couldn't be fixed.
I am
Of course I also have 5 figures of debt from loans to live off of, because there's like no fucking work outside what the school itself gives me around here, but the pell grant covers my tuition and books.
It decreases class mobility and even goes against the model of a free market because it stifles competition.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Here's the thing though: if you get need scholarships like this guy's talking about? You can't slip. You fail a core class, you can lose your funding and be left holding a bag of debt (since you probably have loans too)
Rich parents and you fail a core class? Not so much. A poor person, someone making next to nothing (or completely nothing) who is going to college can end up homeless if they fuck up and get dropped from a class. So no, no skin in the game there!
Fuck I had to have a fucking review because I retook a class, a class I got a 95 in, because it was 2 years ago and they updated the networking curriculum (an area where much of my book smarts is woefully out of date), because financial aid students aren't supposed to retake classes
Eh if your family has money you can game your way past any standardized test. Just hire a squad of tutors to tell you exactly what's going to be on the test and memorize it.
It takes a lot of money to bypass stupidity or laziness
Of course as a tutor myself I've shot myself in the foot several times by refusing bribes to simply do someone's work for them. With my financial situation I should totally be writing papers for people instead of accepting the meager breadcrumbs the state pays me. If I ever have children I'm going to teach them to be exploitative and devious so they can get ahead in life easier.
Are you people going to start believing me now that the profit motive is designed to train sociopathy? ;p
There were a lot of kids in my high school in San Diego that went to schools in Arizona (mostly ASU) because they werent smart enough to get into UCSB and didnt want to live at home and go to SDSU but still wanted to party all the time.
There were a lot of rich kids at my high school though. And thats kids going the wrong way.
Please, everyone knows its the communications philosophy majors who arent going to get a job.
Someone needs to pay full tuition though, right? I'm not sure that a strict merit based system (where all merit students get a free ride) plus rich kids with lower credentials getting in to foot the bill would be so bad. Isn't this basically the philosophy behind allowing atheletes into a school even though they don't have the grades/test scores to get in? You need to be smart enough, unless you bring the school money.
And I mean profit, not just revenue.
I think its more donations than profit, and I imagine they eat through it pretty thoroughly.
I'm studying for a masters at the University of Edinburgh, no sports teams, and they seem to be doing quite well.
I thought this was just a known fact, given the number of psychopaths at the top of the corporate ladder
It would also be nice if there were a way to measure what sort of an impact having such a thoroughly corrupt organization so entrenched with college administration has. I suspect it's not a good one.
But hey, god forbid we expect those college athletes to have any skin in the game, right? Just the poor kids who aren't any good at basketball or football.
The new gi bill pays the school directly. I fill out some paperwork and turn it in and veterans services does the rest. The only money I get paid is my book stipend and my housing allowance. And I must not be understanding the housing exception because don't most students live away from home and have to pay for room and board or rent?
Very little outside of the major schools. Even there the money typically gets swallowed up by subsidizing less popular sports, particularly women's sports teams.
One would imagine.