Education

[UtahBill]

Wrong!
GOOD teachers are underpaid and underappreciated! That would be perhaps one teacher in 10 or maybe even 20. The problem is that you can't get rid of the duds. They get the same pay and bennies and retirements, just as if they were the "underpaid and unappreciated GOOD teachers."

union rules, you can't pay good teachers better than bad ones....right?

 

[UtahBill]

Teachers need to undergo rigorous psychological and philosophical examination before being building a career.

They should only be allowed to teach in communities which match their psychological and philosophical profiles. No brainwashing allowed.

you can't wash what some kids don't have, and the condition is inherited...

 

[Josie]

Wrong!
GOOD teachers are underpaid and underappreciated! That would be perhaps one teacher in 10 or maybe even 20. The problem is that you can't get rid of the duds. They get the same pay and bennies and retirements, just as if they were the "underpaid and unappreciated GOOD teachers."

I agree with this. I get tired of people saying all teachers are underpaid when the almost-retired teacher down the hall sits on her ass all day while the kids work on worksheets and computers and she gets paid more than twice the amount of the great new teacher who is works her ass off to help each of her kids, rarely even getting a chance to sit down. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[UtahBill]

Students should have manners.
Respect is earned, manners are ever present.

manners includes respecting those who are working hard to educate the kids.....they went to college, chose to teach, that deserves SOME respect....

 

[UtahBill]

The difference may be hard to perceive, but as an example.....

I've just met you, my new supervisor, Boo Radley.
Having no other knowledge of you, other than your name and your position, I can not infer any other information about your abilities.
I will be cordial and pleasant to you, but I can't possibly respect you, because I've yet to observe your abilities, for which I could deem as excellent or some other title of respect.

Respect is earned based on the knowledge of the abilities of the individual, being respected.
Manners are a set of behavior, one uses in all/most circumstances.

Kids should have manners, then show respect, if it is warranted.
No person gets an automatic show of respect, for existing.

that is backwards, show respect til they prove they don't deserve it....that is called common courtesy.....

 

[UtahBill]

I'm not in the military and even if I were, I'd have manners but wouldn't necessarily have respect for my superiors, unless they've earned it.
You can't force someone to respect you.

I do not respect all my current supervisors now and go against what they say, when it does not serve the best interest of my fellow employees or the work we need to do.
Being in a position doesn't mean someone is deserving of respect.

of course, in the military, respect isn't required, but you damn well better follow orders anyway...:lol:

 

[justabubba]

The students live the same lifestyle as a slacker who doesn't get a full-time job until he is 22. Make that 25 for Law students and you'll begin to understand why lawyers are so greedy, making up for lost time. And an oncologist doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old! Few psychologically normal people could put up with that, including those who could have cured cancer. So we get childish escapist freaks who haven't come up with a cure, have they?

Second, the jealous and hostile attitude that would allow this indentured servitude acts as if only the student gets the reward, not business and society. This is just the opposite attitude we have towards recruiting college athletes. Until we get the same attitude of pleasing the normal desires of the talented first before we ask, not tell, them to participate, we'll be stuck with this obsolete aristocratic system designed only for those with independent incomes. We act as if someone has to sacrifice his personal life and personality to get the reward. Instead, the talented should ask what those who will also benefit from his talent will pay him to develop that talent. Any country that pays its students a decent salary plus free tuition will get the most talented and get them to study will lead the world and leave us in the dust.

we presently have a school system which pays the students' parents for their child to attend school
in my state, students can attend public school until the age of 22
while attending public school, the student's whose parent(s) is/are on the dole, receive extra money in their monthly check plus additional housing benefits because this child remains enrolled
unfortunately, this incentive often produces the wrong result
instead of striving to graduate high school in four years, the students of welfare families often do little to progress toward graduation. if they graduate with their peers, then their family no longer receives the added income resulting from an enrolled student
so, we then pay money which is not being earned, only because the student is enrolled
the students intentionally postpone earning their HS diploma
the other students are then subjected to these unmotivated older students, disrupting the learning of those who actually attend school to graduate with good grades and the knowledge needed to advance into a career

i wonder if we pay students to attend college as well as pick up their tab for tuition and other expenses necessary to graduate, will that similarly motivate 'professional students' whose objective is not to graduate but to remain in school as long as possible so that they can receive a stipend without having to work at a job to receive it

my son's former girl friend was a swedish college student who was also a leader of her student union. her expenses were largely covered by the state. now, if she is representative of the talent which could be expected from such a system, i would want to subscribe to it
but then we have very different cultures and attitudes towards work and education

 

[PrometheusBound]

Well I don't agree with free college or paying for students to go to school, but I do understand your point. 4+++ years can be a long time without a decent income. I suspect thats a lot of the reason that a lot of students drop out of college. I assume when youare saying that our system is "aristocratic" you are refering to the fact that some students have to come from wealthy families to be able to afford many years of education without a salary. I do see your point there.

I would suggest some sort of paid apprentiship program combined with normal college classes and requirements, rather than just paying students to go to college. Maybe something like 5 hours a day at the apprentiship thing (which would earn college credit) then two or three hours of traditional classes. Maybe you are suggesting something similar, I'm not sure.

That's a start on the road forward. Also, eliminate courses that are not related to the job. That was my original idea: pre-med students would work in hospitals, pre-law would do jury duty. Cub reporters used to be gofers who would watch and be instructed by the professional journalists.

But college athletes get expensive housing, expensive food, expensive entertainment, and free tuition. This tells me that the universities care about them the most and know how to treat them. No apprenticeship there, working as batboys, groundskeepers, etc. So that should be the ultimate model in order to get the most talented and get them to study. As for athletes making money for their school, High IQs would contribute as much in endowments if they weren't bitter about college as work without pay.

People rewarded up front for their talent could pay a flat surtax rate once they make over $70,000. But again, college athletes don't have to pay anything back.

But I see that I myself could have put up with your apprenticeship system. Since I was a National Merit scholar, the rest of society has lost out more than I did. Ungrateful Americans are misled into acting as if it would have only been for my benefit, as if there were a major in casino gambling enabling me to make money without helping business or society. Even if there had been such a selfish option, I still never would have put up with four years without a full time job. It would have crippled me; the reward for college education is a Golden Wheelchair.

 

[justabubba]

That's a start on the road forward. Also, eliminate courses that are not related to the job. That was my original idea: pre-med students would work in hospitals, pre-law would do jury duty. Cub reporters used to be gofers who would watch and be instructed by the professional journalists.

But college athletes get expensive housing, expensive food, expensive entertainment, and free tuition. This tells me that the universities care about them the most and know how to treat them. No apprenticeship there, working as batboys, groundskeepers, etc. So that should be the ultimate model in order to get the most talented and get them to study. As for athletes making money for their school, High IQs would contribute as much in endowments if they weren't bitter about college as work without pay.

People rewarded up front for their talent could pay a flat surtax rate once they make over $70,000. But again, college athletes don't have to pay anything back.

But I see that I myself could have put up with your apprenticeship system. Since I was a National Merit scholar, the rest of society has lost out more than I did. Ungrateful Americans are misled into acting as if it would have only been for my benefit, as if there were a major in casino gambling enabling me to make money without helping business or society. Even if there had been such a selfish option, I still never would have put up with four years without a full time job. It would have crippled me; the reward for college education is a Golden Wheelchair.

your posts scream angst about your educational attainment, or lack thereof

 

[PrometheusBound]

we presently have a school system which pays the students' parents for their child to attend school
in my state, students can attend public school until the age of 22
while attending public school, the student's whose parent(s) is/are on the dole, receive extra money in their monthly check plus additional housing benefits because this child remains enrolled
unfortunately, this incentive often produces the wrong result
instead of striving to graduate high school in four years, the students of welfare families often do little to progress toward graduation. if they graduate with their peers, then their family no longer receives the added income resulting from an enrolled student
so, we then pay money which is not being earned, only because the student is enrolled
the students intentionally postpone earning their HS diploma
the other students are then subjected to these unmotivated older students, disrupting the learning of those who actually attend school to graduate with good grades and the knowledge needed to advance into a career

i wonder if we pay students to attend college as well as pick up their tab for tuition and other expenses necessary to graduate, will that similarly motivate 'professional students' whose objective is not to graduate but to remain in school as long as possible so that they can receive a stipend without having to work at a job to receive it

my son's former girl friend was a swedish college student who was also a leader of her student union. her expenses were largely covered by the state. now, if she is representative of the talent which could be expected from such a system, i would want to subscribe to it
but then we have very different cultures and attitudes towards work and education

Only the best students will be selected, because practically everyone will want to compete for the few openings if they receive a salary. Just like any other job, if they don't perform they get fired. It should be easy to discourage and prevent professional students, which sounds like a strawman anyway.

 

[imagep]

That's a start on the road forward. Also, eliminate courses that are not related to the job. That was my original idea: pre-med students would work in hospitals, pre-law would do jury duty. Cub reporters used to be gofers who would watch and be instructed by the professional journalists.

But college athletes get expensive housing, expensive food, expensive entertainment, and free tuition. This tells me that the universities care about them the most and know how to treat them. No apprenticeship there, working as batboys, groundskeepers, etc. So that should be the ultimate model in order to get the most talented and get them to study. As for athletes making money for their school, High IQs would contribute as much in endowments if they weren't bitter about college as work without pay.

People rewarded up front for their talent could pay a flat surtax rate once they make over $70,000. But again, college athletes don't have to pay anything back.

But I see that I myself could have put up with your apprenticeship system. Since I was a National Merit scholar, the rest of society has lost out more than I did. Ungrateful Americans are misled into acting as if it would have only been for my benefit, as if there were a major in casino gambling enabling me to make money without helping business or society. Even if there had been such a selfish option, I still never would have put up with four years without a full time job. It would have crippled me; the reward for college education is a Golden Wheelchair.

One of the colleges that my son applied at offered him a full ride to the school, but it was broken down into multiple small scholarships, each scholarship was offered in the form of a contract to perform specific duties, and if he enroled he was required to sign the contracts and submit them. Most every college likes to have a variety of music ensembles, it's a prestege thing for colleges; an opera; a symphonic band; an orchistra; jazz band; marching band; etc. He's a music major and a fairly decent musician, he had to agree to play in certain ensembles for his scholarship money.

Although there was no direct pay beyond the cost of tution/housing/food, it seemed like a reasonable deal to me. The school gets the prestege that it desires by being able to have large ensembles, my son got the opportunity to attend college at almost no cost and the performance experiance playing in large ensembles.

 

[PrometheusBound]

your posts scream angst about your educational attainment, or lack thereof

Selfish economic snobbery. Ever since this indentured servitude became a requirement for success, the economy has been continuously failing. So those who succeed in it have nothing to be proud of.

I am almost totally self-educated; college is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. I can judge the intellectual achievements of Diploma Dumboes, and their ignorant and dysfunctional English is a clue to how they couldn't be effectively educated in anything. I was a National Merit scholar, but I saw no duty to sacrifice so that business and society could freeload off my abilities. Being a Cash Cow for the corporations would have been nothing to be proud of.

 

[imagep]

Also, eliminate courses that are not related to the job.

There is value in students taking a well balanced curriculum, and it would be very difficult to determine what classes are related to the job.

Like would art be related to being an architect? Most people would probably say no, but I would say "most definately", architecture is melding of art and engineering and functional design.

Is an accounting class related to a business management degree? Of course.

Is a business management class beneficial to the accountant or economist? Absolutely.

So that accounting class or management class would most certainly be valueless for the architect...right? Wrong, absolutely wrong.

Subjects like management, accounting, finance, English, foreign languages, mathmatics, arts, history, science, psychology, sociology, logic, and even philosophy are valuable to everyone except for maybe zombies. In my day to day job, I will use a little knowlege from all of those subjects. Just for my personal entertainment, I once wrote my own college curriculum, with the intent that the person taking this curriculum would become a very well educated individual who could have a reasonably intellegent conversation about just about anything. I ended up with about 160 credit hours, and thats before I got to any "major" classes. I mean intellegent people should be fairly informed about mathmatics, and language, and writting, and logic, and history, and political science, and about the human mind and how it works, and how to relate to other people from a variety of academic, social-economic-demographic, and vocational backgrounds.

If you look up the curriculum for most professional majors (as opposed to liberal arts degrees), they are highly concentrated degrees. A mechanical engeering degree may take 120 credit hours, but 90 of those hours are in math, science and engineering. The remaining 30 hours are still in subjects that are valuable for every college grad, like english, foreign language, sociology, psychology and history. My son is a music ed major and music and education classes comprise 110 of the 140 credit hours he will need to graduate. The other classes are in things like history and english and psychology and other stuff that every teacher should be fairly knowlegeable about. There are really no classes on his curriculum that are a "waste".

As an employer, my least valuable employee is the employee who had the personality of a robot and a skillset that is limited to just one narrow field. My most valuable employees are critical thinkers with a broad knowledge of, well, everything!

 

[justabubba]

Selfish economic snobbery. Ever since this indentured servitude became a requirement for success, the economy has been continuously failing. So those who succeed in it have nothing to be proud of.

i see the opposite
look at the unemployment stats
those with higher education are doing well; generally employed
those high school graduates, not so much
and the drop outs. their plight is an awful one. living in an information age while having no information skills to sell

I am almost totally self-educated; college is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. I can judge the intellectual achievements of Diploma Dumboes, and their ignorant and dysfunctional English is a clue to how they couldn't be effectively educated in anything. I was a National Merit scholar, but I saw no duty to sacrifice so that business and society could freeload off my abilities. Being a Cash Cow for the corporations would have been nothing to be proud of.

your above post speaks to what you missed by failing to attain a college education
perspective
make that informed perspective


actually, if you had pointed to the GI Bill as an example of what could be realized by paying for the costs of education plus a living stipend, it would have reinforced your original argument

 

[imagep]

Selfish economic snobbery. Ever since this indentured servitude became a requirement for success, the economy has been continuously failing. So those who succeed in it have nothing to be proud of.

I am almost totally self-educated; college is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. I can judge the intellectual achievements of Diploma Dumboes, and their ignorant and dysfunctional English is a clue to how they couldn't be effectively educated in anything. I was a National Merit scholar, but I saw no duty to sacrifice so that business and society could freeload off my abilities. Being a Cash Cow for the corporations would have been nothing to be proud of.

I see what you are saying.

But many of us find that we need college creditials to get the types of jobs we desire. Teachers/doctors/lawers/nurses/engineers/scientists/designers/managers/accountants/economists/etc often have to have a college degree or two just to get an interview, and many jobs require not only college, but licensing and tests and apprentiships. At second job out of college the HR manager told me that it didn't take a specific degree or even a college diploma to do my job, but that they company only hired college grads because college grads tended to do better than non-college grads. My college degree may be a worthless piece of paper, but I wouldn't have even gotten an interview for that job without that piece of paper.

The job I have now does not require a college degree. Actually, just anyone can do it. But I think that I am better at my job because of my college experiance.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do know (vocation)?

 

[PrometheusBound]

One of the colleges that my son applied at offered him a full ride to the school, but it was broken down into multiple small scholarships, each scholarship was offered in the form of a contract to perform specific duties, and if he enroled he was required to sign the contracts and submit them. Most every college likes to have a variety of music ensembles, it's a prestege thing for colleges; an opera; a symphonic band; an orchistra; jazz band; marching band; etc. He's a music major and a fairly decent musician, he had to agree to play in certain ensembles for his scholarship money.

Although there was no direct pay beyond the cost of tution/housing/food, it seemed like a reasonable deal to me. The school gets the prestege that it desires by being able to have large ensembles, my son got the opportunity to attend college at almost no cost and the performance experiance playing in large ensembles.

Too bad there can't be ensembles of classes in accounting, chemistry, etc.

 

[imagep]

actually, if you had pointed to the GI Bill as an example of what could be realized by paying for the costs of education plus a living stipend, it would have reinforced your original argument

A while back on a different thread, someone was arguing for free college based on the fact that "some people just couldn't afford college". I listed no less than two dozen opportunities for affording colleges, military service one one of those. The poster answed every item on my list with something like "maybe I don't want to do that" or "I am not cut out for that" or "I don't have any special skills or tallents" or "I only made average grades" or "I don't know of any private scholarships" or "I don't belong to any organizations" etc.

College benefits were one of the many reasons I joined the military, and being part of the military helped make college possible for me.

For some people it's just easier to make up excuses for not attending college, than it is to figure out the ways and means to college.

 

[PrometheusBound]

There is value in students taking a well balanced curriculum, and it would be very difficult to determine what classes are related to the job.

Like would art be related to being an architect? Most people would probably say no, but I would say "most definately", architecture is melding of art and engineering and functional design.

Is an accounting class related to a business management degree? Of course.

Is a business management class beneficial to the accountant or economist? Absolutely.

So that accounting class or management class would most certainly be valueless for the architect...right? Wrong, absolutely wrong.

Subjects like management, accounting, finance, English, foreign languages, mathmatics, arts, history, science, psychology, sociology, logic, and even philosophy are valuable to everyone except for maybe zombies. In my day to day job, I will use a little knowlege from all of those subjects. Just for my personal entertainment, I once wrote my own college curriculum, with the intent that the person taking this curriculum would become a very well educated individual who could have a reasonably intellegent conversation about just about anything. I ended up with about 160 credit hours, and thats before I got to any "major" classes. I mean intellegent people should be fairly informed about mathmatics, and language, and writting, and logic, and history, and political science, and about the human mind and how it works, and how to relate to other people from a variety of academic, social-economic-demographic, and vocational backgrounds.

If you look up the curriculum for most professional majors (as opposed to liberal arts degrees), they are highly concentrated degrees. A mechanical engeering degree may take 120 credit hours, but 90 of those hours are in math, science and engineering. The remaining 30 hours are still in subjects that are valuable for every college grad, like english, foreign language, sociology, psychology and history. My son is a music ed major and music and education classes comprise 110 of the 140 credit hours he will need to graduate. The other classes are in things like history and english and psychology and other stuff that every teacher should be fairly knowlegeable about. There are really no classes on his curriculum that are a "waste".

As an employer, my least valuable employee is the employee who had the personality of a robot and a skillset that is limited to just one narrow field. My most valuable employees are critical thinkers with a broad knowledge of, well, everything!

These frills are a leisure-class intrusion, reflecting students with all the time in the world and a guaranteed job their fathers set them up with. If you want your employees to be broadly educated, give them library cards. Besides, the academic viewpoint implanted by these courses either narrows the mind into some politically correct fantasy or turns off students so much that they reject the whole subject of the course and never want to learn anything about it on their own afterwards.

 

[PrometheusBound]

A while back on a different thread, someone was arguing for free college based on the fact that "some people just couldn't afford college". I listed no less than two dozen opportunities for affording colleges, military service one one of those. The poster answed every item on my list with something like "maybe I don't want to do that" or "I am not cut out for that" or "I don't have any special skills or tallents" or "I only made average grades" or "I don't know of any private scholarships" or "I don't belong to any organizations" etc.

College benefits were one of the many reasons I joined the military, and being part of the military helped make college possible for me.

For some people it's just easier to make up excuses for not attending college, than it is to figure out the ways and means to college.

The problem with the slogan, "To Get a Good Job, Get a Good Education" is that it really means the absurd, "To Get a Good Job, Go Four Years Without a Job," which is equivalent to not being able to become a military officer unless you spend four years at the lowest rank without possibility of promotion. But an even deeper fallacy in their preaching is that we never ask ourselves why are the employers the ones telling us what they want. In a democracy, it should be us telling them, "If you want the most talented employees, pay them a salary plus free tuition just like you pay for any other investment." For some people, it's just easier to make excuses for their failure to attract the best people through their authoritarian attitude towards talent. To them, college is the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggheads, all free of charge to them.

 

[justabubba]

A while back on a different thread, someone was arguing for free college based on the fact that "some people just couldn't afford college". I listed no less than two dozen opportunities for affording colleges, military service one one of those. The poster answed every item on my list with something like "maybe I don't want to do that" or "I am not cut out for that" or "I don't have any special skills or tallents" or "I only made average grades" or "I don't know of any private scholarships" or "I don't belong to any organizations" etc.

College benefits were one of the many reasons I joined the military, and being part of the military helped make college possible for me.

For some people it's just easier to make up excuses for not attending college, than it is to figure out the ways and means to college.

the focus is misplaced. our colleges are doing well
look how many come from afar to get an advanced degree in our universities

basic education needs to be our focus
very few things are more important than the way we educate our children
our very future will be shaped by our successes and failures
and i fear for a future shaped primarily by the failures of our public schools
30% of our kids are dropping out of school without getting a high school diploma
this is an epidemic
meanwhile our education leaders are administering an enema as the cure
while the reich wing is blaming the teachers. the ones who are successfully teaching the other 70% who achieve some educational success

 

[imagep]

These frills are a leisure-class intrusion, reflecting students with all the time in the world and a guaranteed job their fathers set them up with. If you want your employees to be broadly educated, give them library cards. Besides, the academic viewpoint implanted by these courses either narrows the mind into some politically correct fantasy or turns off students so much that they reject the whole subject of the course and never want to learn anything about it on their own afterwards.

We are a fairly rich nation, I don't see anything wrong with these "frills", especially if they resulted in better work performance. Life isn't all about working on the assembly line.

Maybe we could have two different higher education systems that run paralell. One sytem is the traditional college degree that offers a liberal arts education in addition to courses in the major area, and takes 4 normal academic years to get, and they other would only have the major classes and could be accomplished in two or three normal academic years.

Assuming that any type of career specific internships or ojt or apprentiships are equal between the major classes only degree and the degree that includes some liberal arts classes, I'd bet the students who took the broader curriculum would be more sought after straight out of college and would advance more quickly.

 

[imagep]

The problem with the slogan, "To Get a Good Job, Get a Good Education" is that it really means the absurd, "To Get a Good Job, Go Four Years Without a Job," which is equivalent to not being able to become a military officer unless you spend four years at the lowest rank without possibility of promotion.

When I was enlisted, I always thought that officers should spend some time as low ranking enlisted soldiers so that they can learn to relate to the enlisted person better. Ya, you see it as being ludicris, I see it as being a really good idea.

But an even deeper fallacy in their preaching is that we never ask ourselves why are the employers the ones telling us what they want. In a democracy, it should be us telling them, "If you want the most talented employees, pay them a salary plus free tuition just like you pay for any other investment." For some people, it's just easier to make excuses for their failure to attract the best people through their authoritarian attitude towards talent. To them, college is the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggheads, all free of charge to them.

As a small business owner, I can promise you that there is no way I can afford to pay a college student a full salary plus the cost of college. They don't yet have the skills to be worth that much, and there is no way that I can force them to continue working for me after college, and based upon the handful of interns that I have gotten from the local community college, I probably wouldn't want to hire them. Here's the deal, for the most part, students want to be just students, and even if they work a job while attending college they are not particularly interested in that job. Part of the value of college is that it is a growing up process. An intermediary stage between childhood and adulthood. There's value to the traditional college education just from the growing up experiance.

Honestly, I don't normall hire anyone who had beyond an associates degree. You don't have to have a degree to work in my industry. But if I did need people with degrees, I would expect to have to pay them more than their non-degreed counterparts. Better compensation and a more satisfying job is the primary reason for going to college, and a higher paying job is the reward.

I was able to make it through college without a dime of parental support. It's possible for any college deserving person to do that, their are many routes to take. I didn't need our educational system to be free, and I didn't need our educational system to provide me with a paycheck. I found the funding for college and the funding for my living expenses pretty much own my own.

 

[imagep]

the focus is misplaced. our colleges are doing well
look how many come from afar to get an advanced degree in our universities

basic education needs to be our focus
very few things are more important than the way we educate our children
our very future will be shaped by our successes and failures
and i fear for a future shaped primarily by the failures of our public schools
30% of our kids are dropping out of school without getting a high school diploma
this is an epidemic
meanwhile our education leaders are administering an enema as the cure
while the reich wing is blaming the teachers. the ones who are successfully teaching the other 70% who achieve some educational success

I agree. As far as individual success, having a high school diploma is exceptionally important. Some high school drop outs become successful and the high school diploma does not guarantee success as an adult, but for most individuals a diploma does open some doors that would have otherwise been locked shut. I see graduating from high school as just the starting point of a journey for success.

There are also a lot of people on this forum who would suggest that only 70% deserve a high school diploma, and who point out that many of our jobs don't require a high school diploma. They have a point.

 

[UtahBill]

Only the best students will be selected, because practically everyone will want to compete for the few openings if they receive a salary. Just like any other job, if they don't perform they get fired. It should be easy to discourage and prevent professional students, which sounds like a strawman anyway.

why bother with all that, why don't we just give everyonoe a few million dollars up front and have them retire at age 20......

I hear a lot of whining and excuse making....if you want an education, pay for it.

 

[UtahBill]

Selfish economic snobbery. Ever since this indentured servitude became a requirement for success, the economy has been continuously failing. So those who succeed in it have nothing to be proud of.

I am almost totally self-educated; college is for people too dumb to learn anything on their own. I can judge the intellectual achievements of Diploma Dumboes, and their ignorant and dysfunctional English is a clue to how they couldn't be effectively educated in anything. I was a National Merit scholar, but I saw no duty to sacrifice so that business and society could freeload off my abilities. Being a Cash Cow for the corporations would have been nothing to be proud of.

college is where you get an education, your first job is where you will get training....THEN you might be close to earning your keep...