The short form is the slightly rich (the seven and eight figure net worth types, not the really rich nine and ten figure ones) have been bribing people to get their mediocre kids into college.
(the truly rich just buy the school a new gym)
They'd bribe test proctors or imposters to take SATs, bribe coaches and recruiters to claim their kids were star athletes etc.
So far it looks like 50 or so folks are going to be arrested.
And this is the key to it all: the problem is not that rich people are buying their way into college, it's that the kind-of-rich are trying to take advantage of a privilege that the really-rich don't want to share.
And this is the key to it all: the problem is not that rich people are buying their way into college, it's that the kind-of-rich are trying to take advantage of a privilege that the really-rich don't want to share.
And the schools didn't get their cut
No I am thoroughly enjoying this brief moment of justice, even if worse offenders float above it all, at least some were scooped up.
The only thing that irks me are the commentators trying to ask if an ivy league (or similar) degree is really worth all this, and the answer is yes, really, truly yes.
Time is always limited and 'what school did you go to' tells people a lot in one word. I've seen it in cut throat, supposedly meritocratic private industries where unless your answer was on a very, very short list, nothing else mattered.
I'm a public school kid (barring a brief and regretaible dalliance with NYU) and know damn well that if I had more ambition I would get myself into a graduate or executive program at one of the right schools (or at least try). And if I ever say otherwise I'm deluding myself.
Besides that, even if you can show that education at a state school is just as good, there's the connections issue. Mark Zuckerberg started his little website company in a dorm room in Harvard, yay. Well that's a lot easier when your dorm mates come from the sort of families that can drop seven figures in start up money for you, or connect you with mentors and contacts who can raise things to the next level. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who started the CUNY-Queens-Connection.com but without those contacts it would never be a world wide corporation with a billion users.
Kyoto Secunda and her clone sister still have a few years before this is an issue, but yeah, that is the score. You can do fine without the top schools in your resume, you can always go for grad school, but getting to the top... it's a big leg up if not invaluable.
Aye. But it's not only the admissions that are taken advantage of, as I understand it those with money to drop also make sure their kids get scholarship stipends - not because the kid needs it but because that too looks good on a resumé. It's not enough that Junior got into a high class school, he should also be singled out as the "promising newbie" or whatever reason there is that a well-known trust fund gives their support. Daddy donates 200K to the fund through some suitably convoluted means, Junior is singled out for his fifteen seconds of fame and awarded a stipend of 20K for "excellence" at the ceremonies.
"Woah woah woah, these people are getting their kids in to college for $500k? I had to donate a whole gym/new library! This is outrageous!" - The Ultra Wealthy
While this is good and all, corruption is bad. I hope they use this as a reason to be ever more diligent with this kind of thing. I am sure they need to be looking in to a lot more college admissions.....
Having worked at a wealthy private-esque college, the amount of bs that goes on there is hilarious. It impacts almost every feature of the school. Money speaks, always does. Always will.
I could probably rant about elitism and snobbery when it comes to Ivy League degrees and how graduates of those schools behave once they end up in tightly knit circles that shut people out with no basis in real talent, I don't really see myself in the mood.
A bunch of snobs are getting what they have coming I hope, and maybe these schools will at least put some effort in trying to be as good as they want everyone to see them as.
My response was 'and they are actually being punished for it? Huh.' It is generally accepted as a matter of course that the rich just buy their kid's way into college. I guess as you guys say they aren't rich enough to be above the law yet.
Here in the UK, attending the right private school is as good as bribe for getting into an Oxbridge University.
Doesn't matter if the kid is themselves all that smart.
I mean, you need only look at the absolute shower 'running' our country at the minute to see the sheer folly of 'he's frightfully posh, and his parents loaded, he must be competent and worked hard to get where he is'.
Here in the UK, attending the right private school is as good as bribe for getting into an Oxbridge University.
Doesn't matter if the kid is themselves all that smart.
I mean, you need only look at the absolute shower 'running' our country at the minute to see the sheer folly of 'he's frightfully posh, and his parents loaded, he must be competent and worked hard to get where he is'.
That's more a function of them all getting a degree in bare-faced lying (sorry, " philosophy, politics and economics") from Oxford instead of doing something useful.
To go back to the US scandal, though, the Ivy League universities still operate a system whereby people whose parents went there and made big donations are preferred for places.
Some of these people though....
They just seem stupid. $500,000 is enough to make a legal donation and attach of a condition of 'and take my kid'
Doing it through Mr Shady Guy who's obviously going to throw you under the bus when he inevitably gets caught just seems like a terrible plan.
Granted some paid significantly less, but they still left a heck of a paper trail (that honestly should have been apparent to the schools, I've worked in admissions, and a large pile of people go through the relevant documents for each kid, many too small and anonymous to pay off like this)
I think it is a natural parental instinct to try to get the best for your children, and pragmatically I would expect most people to leverage their resources to do this.
By shutting down legitimate ways to help their children along in life, you could encourage people into looking for illegitimate things like this!
Hopefully parents can be encouraged to channel their resources more positively in future...
Voss wrote: Some of these people though....
They just seem stupid. $500,000 is enough to make a legal donation and attach of a condition of 'and take my kid'
Doing it through Mr Shady Guy who's obviously going to throw you under the bus when he inevitably gets caught just seems like a terrible plan.
Granted some paid significantly less, but they still left a heck of a paper trail (that honestly should have been apparent to the schools, I've worked in admissions, and a large pile of people go through the relevant documents for each kid, many too small and anonymous to pay off like this)
Then again, if they were smart enough to realize that perhaps their kids wouldn't need bribery to get in in the first place...
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale of the story, privatly run education is very easily manipulated for those with money and leads ultimately in a worse education system overall.
Only when there's such a disparity, including cultural, in the difference between them.
I'm not an employer, but I do work for a large-ish organisation. From what I've seen, I think I'd favour employing someone from a less privileged background. Qualifications being the same, they're more likely to have had to work for it than someone from greater privilege. That to me speaks more of their 'value' and work ethic than someone that may well have had everything bought for them.
There is some degree of support for that point of view from research evidence, such as the higher crash out rate of middle class undergrads in UK universities.
Of course it may be that middle-class children know there is a better safety net to help them after crashing out, but this is the same thing in a different way.
However I think we are missing the bigger picture, which is that in a meritocracy like the USA, being richer is proof you are better, and of course we want the naturally better children to get into the best universities.
But, I feel we're starting to slide into Politics, so I'll end my contributions here, lest I upset the Mods (upset would be justified), and end up getting the thread closed!
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale of the story, privatly run education is very easily manipulated for those with money and leads ultimately in a worse education system overall.
Only when there's such a disparity, including cultural, in the difference between them.
I'm not an employer, but I do work for a large-ish organisation. From what I've seen, I think I'd favour employing someone from a less privileged background. Qualifications being the same, they're more likely to have had to work for it than someone from greater privilege. That to me speaks more of their 'value' and work ethic than someone that may well have had everything bought for them.
You're irrelevant. Sorry, thats just how it is.
You will not be looking at the people graduating from these schools. The people looking at these people are from those schools and the "interviews" are not really interviews. They are already known by the people running the companies and hiring them. Thats how it works.
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale of the story, privatly run education is very easily manipulated for those with money and leads ultimately in a worse education system overall.
Only when there's such a disparity, including cultural, in the difference between them.
I'm not an employer, but I do work for a large-ish organisation. From what I've seen, I think I'd favour employing someone from a less privileged background. Qualifications being the same, they're more likely to have had to work for it than someone from greater privilege. That to me speaks more of their 'value' and work ethic than someone that may well have had everything bought for them.
You're irrelevant. Sorry, thats just how it is.
You will not be looking at the people graduating from these schools. The people looking at these people are from those schools and the "interviews" are not really interviews. They are already known by the people running the companies and hiring them. Thats how it works.
Yep, i can sing a song about that.
Basically a less obvious banana-republic.
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale of the story, privatly run education is very easily manipulated for those with money and leads ultimately in a worse education system overall.
Only when there's such a disparity, including cultural, in the difference between them.
I'm not an employer, but I do work for a large-ish organisation. From what I've seen, I think I'd favour employing someone from a less privileged background. Qualifications being the same, they're more likely to have had to work for it than someone from greater privilege. That to me speaks more of their 'value' and work ethic than someone that may well have had everything bought for them.
You're irrelevant. Sorry, thats just how it is.
You will not be looking at the people graduating from these schools. The people looking at these people are from those schools and the "interviews" are not really interviews. They are already known by the people running the companies and hiring them. Thats how it works.
Which schools? Elite universities?
This isn't true for the majority of people graduating from them - though it's the case for enough that it's a severe problem.
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale of the story, privatly run education is very easily manipulated for those with money and leads ultimately in a worse education system overall.
Only when there's such a disparity, including cultural, in the difference between them.
I'm not an employer, but I do work for a large-ish organisation. From what I've seen, I think I'd favour employing someone from a less privileged background. Qualifications being the same, they're more likely to have had to work for it than someone from greater privilege. That to me speaks more of their 'value' and work ethic than someone that may well have had everything bought for them.
Probably because you, yourself, worked hard to get where you were instead of inheriting it or having it bought for you.
Those who inherit or have it bought for them look down on those who had to work their way up; they consider their birth into wealth to 'obviously' make them better so they should reap the benefits of it. And they look to surround themselves with others who believe the same.
Then you have those who could get by on inheritance, but choose to work hard to earn what they have. Some of them actually make the intellectual jump to see that being from a wealthy family does not guarantee that they see things the same way, and that poor people can work very hard indeed without getting anywhere.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is some degree of support for that point of view from research evidence, such as the higher crash out rate of middle class undergrads in UK universities.
Of course it may be that middle-class children know there is a better safety net to help them after crashing out, but this is the same thing in a different way.
However I think we are missing the bigger picture, which is that in a meritocracy like the USA, being richer is proof you are better, and of course we want the naturally better children to get into the best universities.
The US isn't a meritocracy. It's a networking system, mostly still an 'old boys club'
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Wouldn’t mind the nepotism if they didn’t also peddle the ‘pull yourself up by the boot straps’ lie.
Yeah, ah, get some bootstraps, set them up, and lift. See how high you can lift yourself using bootstraps.
If more people tried it, they'd see just how accurate the statement is in the modern economy - i.e. you can pull all you want but you won't go anywhere. It basically means the exact OPPOSITE of how it's used.
Yeah. Some say 'the American dream is dead' or on life support, but it has yet to be alive in the first place. For every person that started from near nothing and worked their way to the top there are tens of thousands who tried and failed. That the people it worked for are held up as an example of American society is just salt in the wound.
Voss wrote: Some of these people though....
They just seem stupid. $500,000 is enough to make a legal donation and attach of a condition of 'and take my kid'
Doing it through Mr Shady Guy who's obviously going to throw you under the bus when he inevitably gets caught just seems like a terrible plan.
Granted some paid significantly less, but they still left a heck of a paper trail (that honestly should have been apparent to the schools, I've worked in admissions, and a large pile of people go through the relevant documents for each kid, many too small and anonymous to pay off like this)
Then again, if they were smart enough to realize that perhaps their kids wouldn't need bribery to get in in the first place...
That's not really surprising. Some of those people were probably the same dumb kids who needed some help from their parents to get into a good college a few decades ago. It's the circle of life.
All the meritocracy comment:
Spoiler:
Voss wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: There is some degree of support for that point of view from research evidence, such as the higher crash out rate of middle class undergrads in UK universities.
Of course it may be that middle-class children know there is a better safety net to help them after crashing out, but this is the same thing in a different way.
However I think we are missing the bigger picture, which is that in a meritocracy like the USA, being richer is proof you are better, and of course we want the naturally better children to get into the best universities.
The US isn't a meritocracy. It's a networking system, mostly still an 'old boys club'
Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay[2][12][13][14][15] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, being the combination of the root of Latin origin "merit" (from "mereō" meaning "earn") and the Ancient Greek suffix "-cracy" (meaning "power", "rule").[16] (The purely Greek word is axiocracy (αξιοκρατία), from axios (αξιος, worthy) + "-cracy" (-κρατία, power).) In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group.
USC says students connected to cheating scheme will be denied admission
All University of Southern California applicants who are connected to the admissions cheating scheme will be denied admission, university spokesman Gary Polakovic said Wednesday.
A case-by-case review will be conducted for students who are already enrolled at USC and may be connected to the scheme. USC will "make informed, appropriate decisions once those reviews have been completed. Some of these individuals may have been minors at the time of their application process," he said.
The announcement comes a day after the nationwide scandal exposed what federal prosecutors describe as a corrupt exchange of wealth, fame and influence for student admissions to the nation's most elite universities.
Oh and the kids with the youtube shows are losing their sponsors.
To be fair, unless the kid knew this was being done, I have a hard time directing any ire at them. Their parents were douche bags, but I could see this happening without the student ever knowing about it, or not realizing exactly what it was.
In that sense, I wouldn't be on board with punishing the students who thought unawares that they had gotten into school just like everyone else. That's me being generous though, and how much the students knew I bet is likely to end up being really fuzzy.
The article says that the academically inadequate children of parents who cheat to get them into university are a burden on everyone else, consuming excessive teaching resources, and gaming the system to ensure they get "good" grades.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yeah, it's hard to blame the individual children for the sins of their parents.
They will get the punishment of losing their places.
Losing the place isn't punishment. It may feel like it to the child, but they had no right to it in the first place. Had their child not had their parents input they would have not got in, so would not have had the place, and only gained it wrongfully. taking something away someone has no right to is not punishment, even though they may be upset. The people who lose are the ones who lost out on a place because it was taken by someone less qualified, unless they took places the colleges could not otherwise fill.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, unless the kid knew this was being done, I have a hard time directing any ire at them. Their parents were douche bags, but I could see this happening without the student ever knowing about it, or not realizing exactly what it was.
In that sense, I wouldn't be on board with punishing the students who thought unawares that they had gotten into school just like everyone else. That's me being generous though, and how much the students knew I bet is likely to end up being really fuzzy.
Don't the kids themselves have to fill in the applications? Not sure how it works in the US but I definitely remember that in the UK it was the applicant that was required to fill in most of the application form when applying to University, with small amounts needing to be filled out by others. The onus was put on the applicant themselves to make sure everything was correct on the form as they would be held responsible for any misinformation that was supplied.
I'm amazed at how easy it seems to have been to circumvent the admissions process at some of these institutions. I can almost understand the children of a big donor being given preferential treatment (daddy paid for the new library so you get a free ride through admissions) but this seems to have happened without collusion from the universities themselves, which speaks volumes about how lax the admissions system are.
Slipspace wrote: Don't the kids themselves have to fill in the applications?
Yes, but the honest truth about the US is that everyone lies on applications. We just call it "fudging the truth" or "selling yourself." You'd be amazed some of the things people say you should put on applications, and when I say "but that isn't true" the response is always "who cares?" Getting past application processes is an entire industry unto itself now, and that industry is shady as feth, incredibly dishonest, and making a killing because getting past application processes is integral to everything now and the processes are all loaded to begin with. There is honestly imo a cultural aspect to this controversy no one is talking about but maybe that's for another thread.
For this specific case, the ring leader marketed himself as a service and it isn't immediately clear how much of what that "service" was doing the kids knew about. The exact mechanics of how involved they were hasn't been expanded on. Did they fill out their own applications? Did the people running the scam "review" said applications before mailing it off (I've seen ads for services like that in the past)? There's some, like the girl who never played Tennis who was marketed as a tennis player to schools, but did she know people were marketing her as a tennis player?
There are some, like the girl who should have known she didn't even take the ACT let alone score a 30, who I think obviously should have known something was up or they're even dumber than their parents must think they are. There are others where the right amount of youthful naivety and duplicity on the part of the organizers could leave people having no idea what was going on, or that it was illegal. Some students have already voluntarily withdrawn, and props to them I guess, but for others I hate to imagine being told "we know you're on your last semester and you actually did really well and got accepted into pre-med, but even though you did all the work for once in your life and succeeded well we're throwing you out because your parents are dicks."
The schools are though doing what I'd do. Investigate each case and address them by their immediate merits. Probably the only thing they really can do.
Thanks for explaining. The lying on your applications in general is undoubtedly a whole other topic, but if you're supposed to have completed the form yourself the kids don't really have a leg to stand on, legally speaking.
It's also interesting that the Hollywood celebrity angle is what put this in the news in the first place, but it also seems to be taking the spotlight away from the whole university admission process in general, especially when it comes to the uni's themselves doing their due diligence. A lot of the things that have been reported on are the kind of things I wouldn't even attempt because they sound too stupid to work. Just lying about sporting achievements, for example.
Slipspace wrote: It's also interesting that the Hollywood celebrity angle is what put this in the news in the first place,
What's really interesting about it is how much of a stretch it is. On the whole, barely any celebrities are involved. It's mostly upper upper middle class/lower lower upper class business types and entrepreneurs who were involved. What few Hollywood celebrities are actually implicated are all either past their prime or fairly obscure currently.
A lot of the things that have been reported on are the kind of things I wouldn't even attempt because they sound too stupid to work. Just lying about sporting achievements, for example.
It's probably in part related to the schools involved. These schools can charge ludicrous prices for only moderately better education because of their reputations as the best. As a result, a lot of these schools, and their alumni, have developed insular cliques, cliques Singer used to get students into schools.
The real issue isn't that the schools didn't do due diligence (they didn't), but the nepotism inherent to elite universities. Which is ironic. It's that nepotism largely that makes degrees from these schools so valuable, and legal realm is probably one of the greatest examples. Four universities basically staff the entire US court system at this point. Looking at who is sitting behind benches and at the top of law firms, one would think only four universities are capable of producing capable lawyers. Just try to get on the Supreme Court without a degree from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, or Stanford.
Dr Dre knows the score, you don't go through a middle man, you go right to the source. $70 MILLION dollar donation to USC and shockingly his daughter gets in.
Now I'm sure it was a legit donation, if he just wanted to buy a seat he could've gotten one for a lot less, but you can also be damn sure his daughter's application got a second, third and fourth look.
Maybe mask names in applications? Yeah sure sometimes it would be clear as glass who the application is from but it would help the process.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Dr Dre knows the score, you don't go through a middle man, you go right to the source. $70 MILLION dollar donation to USC and shockingly his daughter gets in.
Now I'm sure it was a legit donation, if he just wanted to buy a seat he could've gotten one for a lot less, but you can also be damn sure his daughter's application got a second, third and fourth look.
Maybe mask names in applications? Yeah sure sometimes it would be clear as glass who the application is from but it would help the process.
Whats weird is that USC is not that good a school. Its rankings are strictly meh.
It's not high overall, but like Pennsylvania State (not to be confused with Univsersity of Pennsylvania) USC is considered on the tier of "Ivy League Lite" universities.
Again though, this is mostly a matter of reputation more than reality.
Frazzled wrote: When I was in Cali, throwing sabre toothed tigers into the LaBrea tarpits because thats how I rolled, most of the UC schools were considered superior.
USC was for future real estate agents/developers and their future cheerleader wives.
Doesn't sound like that has really changed.
Yeah that was my feeling too, but I chalked it up to East Coast Elitism.
Frazzled wrote: When I was in Cali, throwing sabre toothed tigers into the LaBrea tarpits because thats how I rolled, most of the UC schools were considered superior.
USC was for future real estate agents/developers and their future cheerleader wives.
Doesn't sound like that has really changed.
Yeah that was my feeling too, but I chalked it up to East Coast Elitism.
EDIT: I am not intending to slam USC. It is a good school. Its just not UCLA or UC Berkeley level.
What strikes me as funny is the very same sort of folks that wave their Sociology or Poli-Sci degree at other people are somehow shocked that American Universities are a scam.
Man, must really be insane that those "totally unbiased" Activists-turned-professors with six-figure-salaries spent all that time telling everyone about the evils of capitalism.
And there you are, with student loans you won't pay back until you're old enough to collect social security.
Don't worry, guys- some folks are laughing because "lol rich kids". Guys like me are laughing because "IMAGINE MY SHOCK".
You know, for all my time in community colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities, I don't once recall ever having a professor rail against the evils of capitalism, nor know ever have a class with a former activist as a teacher, nor did I know anyone who was under the impression that entrance into colleges and universities did not entail a notable degree of corruption, particularly at the big-name level. The nepotism has always been acknowledged, the entire concept of "legacies" openly ridiculed even while being indulged in.
Hell, I can tell you at least a dozen of my grad school class was there as a result of...significantly higher than normal tuition payments, usually funded by someone's parent at a large foreign gov/economic institution. That was an open secret.
I think the big shock here is more about the absurdity involved in this particular instance. There's a lot of it
Vaktathi wrote: You know, for all my time in community colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities, I don't once recall ever having a professor rail against the evils of capitalism, nor know ever have a class with a former activist as a teacher, nor did I know anyone who was under the impression that entrance into colleges and universities did not entail a notable degree of corruption, particularly at the big-name level. The nepotism has always been acknowledged, the entire concept of "legacies" openly ridiculed even while being indulged in.
The fastest way to know who a) never went to college, or b) sucked at college, is to see how long it takes them to start ranting about political bias at colleges. Which isn't to say there isn't any, but I've been to three different college campus' in my life, and I wouldn't say any of them were anymore political than anywhere else I've ever been. Not every campus is Berkeley. Most of them are pretty mundane places.
I think the big shock here is more about the absurdity involved in this particular instance. There's a lot of it
To be fair, while the self-aware are not shocked by this at all, I think there's probably lots of people out there who are because this is counter to how we presume these processes to work. I do think people erroneously believe admission systems to be more meritorious than they really are.
Vaktathi wrote: You know, for all my time in community colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities, I don't once recall ever having a professor rail against the evils of capitalism, nor know ever have a class with a former activist as a teacher, nor did I know anyone who was under the impression that entrance into colleges and universities did not entail a notable degree of corruption, particularly at the big-name level. The nepotism has always been acknowledged, the entire concept of "legacies" openly ridiculed even while being indulged in.
Oh, were I less concerned about being harassed IRL by some of the people on this page, I'd invite you to my local college. And this is not in a 'blue state' or even a 'blue city'.
To summarize one of my first experiences in a certain class:
PROF: "Water is not wet."
ME: "I'm not sure I understand. But according to the definition, water is wet and with this water I can show you that it is demonstrably wet."
PROF: "I am using an abstract definition of 'wet' that does not match the English Webster's definition of 'wet', therefore you are now wrong and suddenly your essay barely passes despite the trend of significantly higher marks for essays you put less effort into."
ME: "I would like to speak with you after class."
PROF: "No."
Had it not been for a very helpful veteran-supportive Ombudsman, I'd have had more problems. Fortunately I was able to drop this class and get something different with a sane professor.
And yeah, the people who buy education are openly acknowledged by most sensible people. Just as much as we knew in high school why Butterfingers Bubba that could barely spell his name was a starting wide receiver with a B+ average in every class, and the actual talented athletes were on the sidelines. I'm just shocked that despite years of me and others saying "We need to do a thorough review and audit of every educational institution in the country from the Preschools to Universities", people act like we're asking for witch-pyres and Year Zero initiatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The fastest way to know who a) never went to college, or b) sucked at college, is to see how long it takes them to start ranting about political bias at colleges. Which isn't to say there isn't any, but I've been to three different college campus' in my life, and I wouldn't say any of them were anymore political than anywhere else I've ever been. Not every campus is Berkeley. Most of them are pretty mundane places..
And those folks buying their kids' way into Harvard certainly would claim that there was no financial corruption in schools, that it was perfectly fair and anyone who thought otherwise had no real experience and was just too stupid to get into Harvard.
Amazing how things are 'just dandy' when it makes you feel good and works to your benefit, isn't it?
Oh, were I less concerned about being harassed IRL by some of the people on this page, I'd invite you to my local college. And this is not in a 'blue state' or even a 'blue city'.
To summarize one of my first experiences in a certain class:
PROF: "Water is not wet."
ME: "I'm not sure I understand. But according to the definition, water is wet and with this water I can show you that it is demonstrably wet."
PROF: "I am using an abstract definition of 'wet' that does not match the English Webster's definition of 'wet', therefore you are now wrong and suddenly your essay barely passes despite the trend of significantly higher marks for essays you put less effort into."
ME: "I would like to speak with you after class."
PROF: "No."
Had it not been for a very helpful veteran-supportive Ombudsman, I'd have had more problems. Fortunately I was able to drop this class and get something different with a sane professor.
Honestly, this says more about you than him cause I'm completely unclear how this is political at all. I'm also surprised you seriously have never heard anyone use that anecdote before. That was the first example I ever got when the professor was explaining rhetoric, and if that was your literal response you completely missed the point, so a lower grade doesn't shock me.
Though I too have often been surprised by how well I did on things I barely tried on vs things I tried really hard on. Eventually decided there is such a thing as trying too hard.
"We need to do a thorough review and audit of every educational institution in the country from the Preschools to Universities", people act like we're asking for witch-pyres and Year Zero initiatives.
Honestly, this says more about you than him cause I'm completely unclear how this is political at all. I'm also surprised you seriously have never heard anyone use that anecdote before. That was the first example I ever got when the professor was explaining rhetoric, and if that was your literal response you completely missed the point, so a lower grade doesn't shock me.
Considering we have a forum with a 'no politics' rule, I am deliberately dumbing down the example to a simple form to avoid certain bad actors coming in and screaming like I've goose-stepped into a room and set fire to a crib full of toddlers. And in truth because I really, REALLY don't want that specific topic to come up here.
LordofHats wrote: Though I too have often been surprised by how well I did on things I barely tried on vs things I tried really hard on. Eventually decided there is such a thing as trying too hard.
Oh, I'll give you that. But usually that's what I expect as a result from playing Mortal Kombat 4 and doing bong rips at 2 AM vs. actually trying to play the game with both eyes open. It may be a 'coincidence', but there was also the combination of the gentleman professor being considerably rude (and I was not the only person that had a complaint against him). For all I know, I caught him on a bad day or he was beyond the point of giving a damn what they did to him for speaking his mind.
And what struck me as odd is in another class, I had a more outspoken professor that was very much the opposite of me in terms of beliefs but I can honestly say he was one of the most pleasant people I've ever known and I enjoyed talks with him, because he was a respectful person and would listen to people and acknowledge their statements as having merit when they did. Lovely guy, now owns a florist and thought it was hilarious I also used to work in one, despite being... well, 'me'.
I'd say it's a bit overdue, because I can tell you that my stepmother recently retired as a high school teacher, from public schools- and she taught US Government, and boy were there some interesting interpretations of a few things in that book. Some real doozies in the History books, too.
I went to Berkeley, and the professors really weren't that political. Well, there was the one prof who insisted Bolsheviks were pushing the gay agenda to suppress the real Assyrian Civilization, but he was in the math department.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I went to Berkeley, and the professors really weren't that political. Well, there was the one prof who insisted Bolsheviks were pushing the gay agenda to suppress the real Assyrian Civilization, but he was in the math department.
So the University isn't political, but for some reason it's a magnet for radicals that throw molotov cocktails and trash an entire town.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm thinking you might have missed a few things.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I went to Berkeley, and the professors really weren't that political. Well, there was the one prof who insisted Bolsheviks were pushing the gay agenda to suppress the real Assyrian Civilization, but he was in the math department.
So the University isn't political, but for some reason it's a magnet for radicals that throw molotov cocktails and trash an entire town.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm thinking you might have missed a few things.
No, you pretty much summed it up. The administration were pretty much business as usual, and most professors were devoted to their own academic niches. The student body, as well as the aging hippy population native to the area but not actually involved with the university, as well as some highly motivated agitators from Oakland and SF...they were very political.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: No, you pretty much summed it up. The administration were pretty much business as usual, and most professors were devoted to their own academic niches. The student body, as well as the aging hippy population native to the area but not actually involved with the university, as well as some highly motivated agitators from Oakland and SF...they were very political.
So basically it's a university with the absolute worst townies in the country.
...and I thought our 40-something unemployed alumni getting DUI's during football season was sad.
Considering we have a forum with a 'no politics' rule, I am deliberately dumbing down the example to a simple form
Oh. Okay.
It may be a 'coincidence', but there was also he combination of the gentleman professor being considerably rude (and I was not the only person that had a complaint against him). For all I know, I caught him on a bad day or he was beyond the point of giving a damn what they did to him for speaking his mind.
Well I've certainly experienced professors who are quite smug, but I doubt that is politics as much as simple arrogance. One history professor I knew had one hell of a chip on his shoulder and seemed to resent anyone who actually knew the answers to his more obscure/complex questions. I knew one because I'd played Medieval II Total War and he thought I was lying about where I learned about the long bow, which I didn't thing was a particularly hard to learn detail about the Battle of Agincourt. Another class I had with him focused on the Unification of Germany, which none of us knew jack about, and wow was he smug about it XD
Some real doozies in the History books, too.
My grad class spent an entire afternoon once looking over examples our professor brought from various history text books, cause history text books in general are littered with errors, or at least things that are thought/accepted to be errors today. Part of it is that a lot of the core text used for such books was generated back in the late 50s and early 60s and major companies, like McGraw-Hill, never really bother adapting it. When I was in highschool my text book for Civics was written in 1976. Pretty surreal how different things are looked at today relative to when that was written.
Well I've certainly experienced professors who are quite smug, but I doubt that is politics as much as simple arrogance. One history professor I knew had one hell of a chip on his shoulder and seemed to resent anyone who actually knew the answers to his more obscure/complex questions. I knew one because I'd played Medieval II Total War and he thought I was lying about where I learned about the long bow, which I didn't thing was a particularly hard to learn detail about the Battle of Agincourt. Another class I had with him focused on the Unification of Germany, which none of us knew jack about, and wow was he smug about it XD
Oh, you would have giggled yourself red if you'd been with me having some discussions with other students about countries they've never been to and people they've never met, because despite me living in that country and spending time with those people and eating at their tables- I wouldn't know anything about it according to someone who reworded a Wikipedia article and used the 'source-snagging' method to make it look like their own research.
Oh, and FYI- this was community college and even that kind of work was beneath their standards.
LordofHats wrote: My grad class spent an entire afternoon once looking over examples our professor brought from various history text books, cause history text books in general are littered with errors, or at least things that are thought/accepted to be errors today. Part of it is that a lot of the core text used for such books was generated back in the late 50s and early 60s and major companies, like McGraw-Hill, never really bother adapting it. When I was in highschool my text book for Civics was written in 1976. Pretty surreal how different things are looked at today relative to when that was written.
These were new enough to have an entire chapter about our most recent president (and no, that's not the problem- I actually liked the guy).
Vaktathi wrote: You know, for all my time in community colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities, I don't once recall ever having a professor rail against the evils of capitalism, nor know ever have a class with a former activist as a teacher, nor did I know anyone who was under the impression that entrance into colleges and universities did not entail a notable degree of corruption, particularly at the big-name level. The nepotism has always been acknowledged, the entire concept of "legacies" openly ridiculed even while being indulged in.
The fastest way to know who a) never went to college, or b) sucked at college, is to see how long it takes them to start ranting about political bias at colleges. Which isn't to say there isn't any, but I've been to three different college campus' in my life, and I wouldn't say any of them were anymore political than anywhere else I've ever been. Not every campus is Berkeley. Most of them are pretty mundane places.
I think the big shock here is more about the absurdity involved in this particular instance. There's a lot of it
To be fair, while the self-aware are not shocked by this at all, I think there's probably lots of people out there who are because this is counter to how we presume these processes to work. I do think people erroneously believe admission systems to be more meritorious than they really are.
I've been to four, and paid the bills for two more. My Cali undergrad was more political in that there were marches every week, but it was pretty much just a nice social activity.
U Texas is more political than my schools, and more political than A & M by a good bit. They also have fratboy problems. Is there a relationship? On the other hand they have a building with real cool 3D printers you can make stuff in.
Vaktathi wrote: You know, for all my time in community colleges, liberal arts schools, and universities, I don't once recall ever having a professor rail against the evils of capitalism, nor know ever have a class with a former activist as a teacher, nor did I know anyone who was under the impression that entrance into colleges and universities did not entail a notable degree of corruption, particularly at the big-name level. The nepotism has always been acknowledged, the entire concept of "legacies" openly ridiculed even while being indulged in.
Oh, were I less concerned about being harassed IRL by some of the people on this page, I'd invite you to my local college. And this is not in a 'blue state' or even a 'blue city'.
To summarize one of my first experiences in a certain class:
PROF: "Water is not wet."
ME: "I'm not sure I understand. But according to the definition, water is wet and with this water I can show you that it is demonstrably wet."
PROF: "I am using an abstract definition of 'wet' that does not match the English Webster's definition of 'wet', therefore you are now wrong and suddenly your essay barely passes despite the trend of significantly higher marks for essays you put less effort into."
ME: "I would like to speak with you after class."
PROF: "No."
Had it not been for a very helpful veteran-supportive Ombudsman, I'd have had more problems. Fortunately I was able to drop this class and get something different with a sane professor.
And yeah, the people who buy education are openly acknowledged by most sensible people. Just as much as we knew in high school why Butterfingers Bubba that could barely spell his name was a starting wide receiver with a B+ average in every class, and the actual talented athletes were on the sidelines. I'm just shocked that despite years of me and others saying "We need to do a thorough review and audit of every educational institution in the country from the Preschools to Universities", people act like we're asking for witch-pyres and Year Zero initiatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The fastest way to know who a) never went to college, or b) sucked at college, is to see how long it takes them to start ranting about political bias at colleges. Which isn't to say there isn't any, but I've been to three different college campus' in my life, and I wouldn't say any of them were anymore political than anywhere else I've ever been. Not every campus is Berkeley. Most of them are pretty mundane places..
And those folks buying their kids' way into Harvard certainly would claim that there was no financial corruption in schools, that it was perfectly fair and anyone who thought otherwise had no real experience and was just too stupid to get into Harvard.
Amazing how things are 'just dandy' when it makes you feel good and works to your benefit, isn't it?
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
Frazzled wrote: I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
I want to sit with your dad in the garage with a case of beer and a newspaper. I bet there's some interesting things he has to say.
The fact that your professor wasn't willing to go through with it suggests that he doesn't really believe Bishop Berkeley's* theory of immaterialism, but doesn't tell you if it's true or not.
*after whom the city and university in California are named.
Frazzled wrote: I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
I want to sit with your dad in the garage with a case of beer and a newspaper. I bet there's some interesting things he has to say.
Not Online!!! wrote: Maybee he thinks more along the scenario of the brain in a jar, he would still feel pain in that scenario so ehh.
As it happens, brains do not contain any pain nerve cells. This makes it possible to do brain surgery on conscious subjects using local anaesthetic on the skin and meninges.
It also means you could hit a brain in a jar with a brick and it would not feel anything, even if material reality actually existed.
Not Online!!! wrote: Maybee he thinks more along the scenario of the brain in a jar, he would still feel pain in that scenario so ehh.
As it happens, brains do not contain any pain nerve cells. This makes it possible to do brain surgery on conscious subjects using local anaesthetic on the skin and meninges.
It also means you could hit a brain in a jar with a brick and it would not feel anything, even if material reality actually existed.
The brain in a Jar is a supposed mindexperiment.
Basically irl you are nothing but a Brain in a jar, that get's a reallife simulated.
Even tough you technically don't exist you think you do because your life is simulated as if you would exists.
It has nothing to do with Nerves etc.
Edit: in english it's brain in avat, i just searched it.
EDIT: I am not intending to slam USC. It is a good school. Its just not UCLA or UC Berkeley level.
So nothing you'd spend $70 million to get your kid in?
I think Fraz would spend $70 million renaming a school to "Weinerdog Technical University" before he spent that money on something as mundane as sending his kid to said school
EDIT: I am not intending to slam USC. It is a good school. Its just not UCLA or UC Berkeley level.
So nothing you'd spend $70 million to get your kid in?
I think Fraz would spend $70 million renaming a school to "Weinerdog Technical University" before he spent that money on something as mundane as sending his kid to said school
Well now I know what I am doing if I win the big Lotto tomorrow...
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
Well, "there is no reality, just perception" is possibly the most inane way of phrasing the concept so I find it difficult to fault weinerdog granddad.
So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
lol are you saying this system is rigged?!
Those people all pulled or had their bootstraps pulled for them, fair and square.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy). The Wife had the same problem in her masters in social work. You had professors who never worked in the field that would say ivory tower nonsense to their students, when a third of the students had been in the industry and would call them on their bs.
Thats why I liked night classes the best. These were part timers teaching the classes who actually worked in the field and didn't spiel nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: But what about the eagle that flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
Some of them are supercool though, like MIT.
UT just helped discover two more planets. Aggieville has its own tank!
hotsauceman1 wrote: So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
lol are you saying this system is rigged?!
Those people all pulled or had their bootstraps pulled for them, fair and square.
Get a pair of bootstraps, put them in place, pull hard and see how high you get off the ground.
Having your bootstraps pulled by others is the only way it works.
This makes it clear why some parties are all about the bootstraps...
Get a pair of bootstraps, put them in place, pull hard and see how high you get off the ground.
Having your bootstraps pulled by others is the only way it works.
This makes it clear why some parties are all about the bootstraps...
Well if you're not smart enough to tie shoelaces and have to wear velcro straps on your shoes- you're probably going to spend most of your life using simple tools with no moving parts or sharp edges, just saying (this is a joke about the phrase, not you specifically).
And all jokes aside, it's odd you say that because in the United States it's assessed that around 70% of millionaires are self-made. So I reject the notion that the only way to get anywhere is to take it from someone else.
Also, the sad truth is that a lot of success that leads to wealth depends entirely on making risky decisions, decisions that can very often lead to financial loss- sometimes outright ruin. A lot of people aren't willing to do that, which is understandable.
The thing is, I've never had anyone yanking my bootstraps or underwear band or any other garment to put me somewhere to succeed- I'm also not rich, but I pay the bills and live comfortably enough to enjoy a few pleasant things once all my needs are taken care of. Certainly, I will not be able to own a new sports car (at least not without making some serious budgeting adjustments which I don't think are worth the sports car), and I won't own a mansion (because I could honestly live happily in a one-bedroom cabin), and I certainly feel no need to keep up with the Joneses and the things I enjoy are usually simple small things. Everything I have- I worked for, I earned it, and nothing was handed to me. The only thing I have ever been given was one piece of property I inherited which actually was a financial burden because of ludicrous inheritance and property taxes- I had to actually sell the property just to cover those taxes and I think I walked away with just enough to get a new sofa so I considered it a win.
And while I won't speculate on your situation because I know all people have their very own individual circumstances... I can tell you that I've seen lots of people who believe they are in a bad spot and struggling simply because they cannot afford a flashy new device, or they mismanage their finances and do not prioritize things, or they simply have this idea that being successful means wearing a ten thousand dollar suit and living in a massive penthouse apartment.
Nah, in my opinion success is a matter of personal satisfaction. I lenjoy my job, I'm happy with my home, I have a few small luxuries, no debts, and a reliable vehicle. Even in the material sense, I feel like I'm a wealthy man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So we are a pretty much in agreement that higher up colleges are just old boys clubs facilitating the nepotism and cronyism in the higher part of are govt though right?
It should come as a shock to no one that anyone can be bought for the right price.
The parents can be called scum for trying to buy their kids' way into a University. But then again, when you love your children enough- you do everything in your power to help them succeed. I just think that some parents don't stop and consider the consequences of doing that, and how that isn't really helping their child. I mean, you can tell your kid that he's a fantastic athlete and buy his way onto the football team, but he's gonna realize you were full of sh*t when he gets destroyed on the field and embarrasses himself.
The University can be called scum just as well- because if you're trying to claim you're producing the best and the brightest, and you're letting people buy that kind of prestige rather than actually earning it.. then you can pretty much consider your credibility in the toilet, and credibility is one of those things that is a bit harder to buy than a Yale admission.
I mean... it's not like these kids were gonna actually use these degrees, though. Let's be real.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy). The Wife had the same problem in her masters in social work. You had professors who never worked in the field that would say ivory tower nonsense to their students, when a third of the students had been in the industry and would call them on their bs.
Thats why I liked night classes the best. These were part timers teaching the classes who actually worked in the field and didn't spiel nonsense.
Ah. I had some that did, though they weren't as bad as the pure ivory tower folks. My granting writing 'practice' in management courses was terrible, it was effectively an exercise in pure nonsense that would never get passed, because we were encouraged to just make up BS numbers rather than offend the professors sensibilities (that most 50/50 grants from government programs would be forced to hire people part time and not bother to pay health insurance because they wouldn't be able to afford their half of the grant to get the matching funds). Yet she'd insist we write in three full-time employees with full benefits rather than one full and two part time, which was far more common in our field, though often a lot of places put up with one full and one part, or just one.
But yeah, in other courses I'd be the 'had work in the field' student and listen to a torrent of nonsense about what professionals would 'never do' and things that 'just weren't done that way.' They didn't like being told that most active work sites routinely did things 'that way,' and almost no one adopted the latest standard because the rest of their system wasn't set up that way and it would cost too much money and man-hours to change, and they didn't have enough of either.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy).
Why? Whether you think something is silly or not is irrelevant. Anyone reacting to well-established, and frequently-employed philosophical concepts, in a philosophy class no less, whether or not they personally think it's worthwhile or valid or nonsensical obfuscation, with 'I'll hit you with a thing hahaha' probably shouldn't be in education.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy).
Why? Whether you think something is silly or not is irrelevant. Anyone reacting to well-established, and frequently-employed philosophical concepts, in a philosophy class no less, whether or not they personally think it's worthwhile or valid or nonsensical obfuscation, with 'I'll hit you with a thing hahaha' probably shouldn't be in education.
Thats a rather silly position to take just because you don't like someone's argument. And yes, it is a fairly valid counter point to the statement of "There is no reality, only perception". Its just been phrased is a direct and crude manner.
Philosophy, among other subjects, is rather stuffed full of nonsense like that statement. People who are too deep into it really need to be brought back to reality sometimes, and that really goes for all intellectuals.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy).
Why? Whether you think something is silly or not is irrelevant. Anyone reacting to well-established, and frequently-employed philosophical concepts, in a philosophy class no less, whether or not they personally think it's worthwhile or valid or nonsensical obfuscation, with 'I'll hit you with a thing hahaha' probably shouldn't be in education.
Thats a rather silly position to take just because you don't like someone's argument. And yes, it is a fairly valid counter point to the statement of "There is no reality, only perception". Its just been phrased is a direct and crude manner.
Philosophy, among other subjects, is rather stuffed full of nonsense like that statement. People who are too deep into it really need to be brought back to reality sometimes, and that really goes for all intellectuals.
Yeah, but saying something like "If I hit you with this desk" is the kind of thing that gets you removed from a classroom, and for good reason too.
My daughter recently graduated college. She received a merit scholarship that paid about half her tuition, the rest was me and student loans.
I raised her on my own and hadn't set much aside for college. The cost was more than $65k a year all in. While I could cover that, it would have been a stretch. The fact I didn't have to meant I received financial relief after an extended period of extreme parenting, for which I am grateful.
I understand the perspective that deserving students are losing seats to the rich. The other side to this argument is money for scholarships needs to come from somewhere. Not every school has a huge endowment and not every deserving student can afford to be there. I'm not sure donors would be as generous with colleges that denied admission to their kids. An inability to fundraise means higher expenses to students over time, which puts more deserving students at a further disadvantage.
Honestly, if colleges want to admit a few kids each year based on wealth, I would be okay with that so long as it's not going into the pocket of a crooked coach. I'd say it would be better to encourage this practice and be open around where the money is going specifically to avoid wealthy parents pursuing alternate forms of admissions.
Just my $0.02 cents. Feel free to continue to pillory.
techsoldaten wrote: My daughter recently graduated college. She received a merit scholarship that paid about half her tuition, the rest was me and student loans.
I raised her on my own and hadn't set much aside for college. The cost was more than $65k a year all in. While I could cover that, it would have been a stretch. The fact I didn't have to meant I received financial relief after an extended period of extreme parenting, for which I am grateful.
I understand the perspective that deserving students are losing seats to the rich. The other side to this argument is money for scholarships needs to come from somewhere. Not every school has a huge endowment and not every deserving student can afford to be there. I'm not sure donors would be as generous with colleges that denied admission to their kids. An inability to fundraise means higher expenses to students over time, which puts more deserving students at a further disadvantage.
Honestly, if colleges want to admit a few kids each year based on wealth, I would be okay with that so long as it's not going into the pocket of a crooked coach. I'd say it would be better to encourage this practice and be open around where the money is going specifically to avoid wealthy parents pursuing alternate forms of admissions.
Just my $0.02 cents. Feel free to continue to pillory.
While that is true, in this case, very little money actually went to the school, it went to people who could get them into schools under the table, like coaches being paid to lie about athletic ability or in one case paying doubles to take SAT.
My personal opinion is that schools are mostly there to get students in and out. They rely on students like me, I went in, did my classes and leave. They essentially got nothing from me.
Im personally lucky to have fallen into a career, but most are not.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy). The Wife had the same problem in her masters in social work. You had professors who never worked in the field that would say ivory tower nonsense to their students, when a third of the students had been in the industry and would call them on their bs.
Thats why I liked night classes the best. These were part timers teaching the classes who actually worked in the field and didn't spiel nonsense.
Yeah the thing is, there's a pretty wide gulf between "calling someone on their BS" and "threatening to stove someone's head in with a desk because you don't like what they're saying". A smug professor without practical experience(a quality that isn't actually *necessary* to be correct in your assertions, assuming you've actually taken the time to grasp the subject) is someone I'd choose not to socialise with. A person who's first reaction to a mild disagreement with a smug professor is to threaten violence is someone I'd call the police to have sectioned. Yet constantly, the former is presented as deserving whatever they get, and the latter are presented as borderline folk heroes, it's mental.
techsoldaten wrote: My daughter recently graduated college. She received a merit scholarship that paid about half her tuition, the rest was me and student loans.
I raised her on my own and hadn't set much aside for college. The cost was more than $65k a year all in. While I could cover that, it would have been a stretch. The fact I didn't have to meant I received financial relief after an extended period of extreme parenting, for which I am grateful.
I understand the perspective that deserving students are losing seats to the rich. The other side to this argument is money for scholarships needs to come from somewhere. Not every school has a huge endowment and not every deserving student can afford to be there. I'm not sure donors would be as generous with colleges that denied admission to their kids. An inability to fundraise means higher expenses to students over time, which puts more deserving students at a further disadvantage.
Honestly, if colleges want to admit a few kids each year based on wealth, I would be okay with that so long as it's not going into the pocket of a crooked coach. I'd say it would be better to encourage this practice and be open around where the money is going specifically to avoid wealthy parents pursuing alternate forms of admissions.
Just my $0.02 cents. Feel free to continue to pillory.
Or, you know, you could just nix the whole nonsensical system and make higher education free at the point of use like a lot of other developed countries. Or at the very least, cap tuition at a sane level and offer every student a zero-interest loan that they only have to start paying back after their income rises beyond a reasonable threshold(say, the average salary obtained by graduates in that field).
Over here tuition is a few K a year, it's covered by the government, and if you're in a low-income situation you can even get a bursary to help cover your living expenses. That applies for both academic and practical qualifications. It's not a cheap policy by any means, but few worthwhile investments are cheap, and that's what free higher education is; an investment in your nation's economy and culture. It's not as great down in England & Wales where they do have tuition fees, but even then the situation is nowhere near as bad as America.
I had the interesting experience in that for a short period of time Dad and I were going to the same school, and even took the same philosophy professor (at different times during the day). When the professor brought up an argument that there is no reality, just perception, Dad sparked up and asked is he picked up the desk and hit him over the head with it, it wouldn't be real? Dad offered to test the theory. The prof asked me later and I reminded him Dad was in Korea, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and was a former DI. Yes he absolutely would have...
See, I always wonder - do people think this kind of story makes them look good? Like "hurr hurr, them snotty inturlekshooals made an argument I dunt like, so I said I'd smash 'em inna conkers!" doesn't make the professor look like the bad buy, at least to anyone sane.
No. It means arguing sillingness to people who have seen things is stupid (well plus Dad was a bit crazy).
Why? Whether you think something is silly or not is irrelevant. Anyone reacting to well-established, and frequently-employed philosophical concepts, in a philosophy class no less, whether or not they personally think it's worthwhile or valid or nonsensical obfuscation, with 'I'll hit you with a thing hahaha' probably shouldn't be in education.
Thats a rather silly position to take just because you don't like someone's argument. And yes, it is a fairly valid counter point to the statement of "There is no reality, only perception". Its just been phrased is a direct and crude manner.
Philosophy, among other subjects, is rather stuffed full of nonsense like that statement. People who are too deep into it really need to be brought back to reality sometimes, and that really goes for all intellectuals.
First. Telling people that infantile, violent threats, tongue in cheek or not, are inappropriate for a classroom environment is entirely reasonable. He'd be out of my class immediately. Fortunately, I've never had someone behave in such a juvenile fashion in any of mine, though, and I've taught a lot of people who baulked at the material we were dealing with.
Second. It is not valid retort. The entire point is that we can only know that we percieve things - my being able to perceive injury to myself does not prove its reality. I don't think it's a very useful concept, but it is logically consistent.
Third. Your personal distaste for a subject, or your (or society's) belief that it is of no practical use or intellectual value, however well-grounded, does not mean that its practitioners need be 'brought back to reality', whatever that might mean.
The entire point is that we can only know that we percieve things - my being able to perceive injury to myself does not prove its reality. I don't think it's a very useful concept, but it is logically consistent.
It is useful, in that it makes you think about the difference between what is or isn't real, and what you perceive to be real. That's of vital importance when it comes to the power of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials, for example, or in the treatment and understanding of mental illness or in accident investigation.
Yodhrin wrote: Or, you know, you could just nix the whole nonsensical system and make higher education free at the point of use like a lot of other developed countries.
Spoiler:
It's very hard to discuss this topic without dipping your toe into the amorphous blob we're defining as "politics". This is going to be another good test for the Dakka Politics Ban - the idea that anything that is even a whiff of touching a government service, action, or policy is now lockable arguably isn't what the original ban intended, I don't think, and now is resulting in unintended consequences like the cthulhu sourcebooks being burned getting locked. So if this gets locked, I'm not aiming for it, but there are themes in this topic that are inherently third-rail as we're apparently now defining it.
Unless it's a private college, colleges in the US are government institutions and even the private colleges are heavily impacted by government policy. One of the big arguments is that the reason tuition has become outlandish in the US is that we guarantee student loans to every single person, which gives colleges an incentive to steadily increase tuition rates. You can get scholarships of course, but most people don't get free rides unless they're also star athletes. So, you're probably going to need student loans. This is bad for a lot of reasons, I think - coupled with the current emphasis we have on needing a degree even for jobs that really don't require one results in a lot of debt slavery for giant chunks of the lives of US citizens. If you're old, please don't say "in my day, I just worked part time to pay for tuition and didn't pay any loans", yes Old Economy Steve, we know, but in your day a full time job also meant raising a family, comfortable home ownership and retiring on a pension.
There are interlocking problems here. One thing would be an expansion of student loan forgiveness programs for people who take specific jobs - for example, if you're a teacher and you work in a poor or underserved community for X long, you are eligible to have your student loans forgiven. In reality, this program doesn't work at all because it's almost impossible to discharge those loans even if you do everything right. Another thing is the aforementioned tuition inflation due to the availability of guaranteed student loans. Move them back to private institutions like banks? Doesn't fix anything as long as they are guaranteed, and increases debt slavery. Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy again? Fixes the lifetime debt slavery, but now loan will be impossible to get (or the government gets soaked). Institute higher leaning like they have in the UK? Sure it works in a ton of countries, but in the US, it's sooocialism. Reduce the emphasis on getting a degree for literally any entry level job? Sounds great, no idea how to make it happen. Increase the emphasis on trade schools? Same, sounds great, how does it happen?
None of these problems are going to be addressed because there is a perception that campuses are politically biased, so one side of our intensely tribal political structure is strongly disincentivized to do anything that will directly benefit the other side /Shrug
The entire point is that we can only know that we percieve things - my being able to perceive injury to myself does not prove its reality. I don't think it's a very useful concept, but it is logically consistent.
It is useful, in that it makes you think about the difference between what is or isn't real, and what you perceive to be real. That's of vital importance when it comes to the power of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials, for example, or in the treatment and understanding of mental illness or in accident investigation.
That's fair, though I do think the posters calling it nonsense are erring more towards the purest, and furthest extents, of thought experiment applications of the concept.
Easy E wrote: Ultimately, doesn't almost everyone in the US buy their way into college?
In the sense that we usually pay tuition, yes.
But not in the sense that our parents bribed their way past the admission process.
Yes, but isn't ones ability to pay said tuition a big indicator of if you will get "accepted" or not. If you can;t pay, you probably aren't getting in.... with a few scholarship exceptions.
techsoldaten wrote: My daughter recently graduated college. She received a merit scholarship that paid about half her tuition, the rest was me and student loans.
I raised her on my own and hadn't set much aside for college. The cost was more than $65k a year all in. While I could cover that, it would have been a stretch. The fact I didn't have to meant I received financial relief after an extended period of extreme parenting, for which I am grateful.
I understand the perspective that deserving students are losing seats to the rich. The other side to this argument is money for scholarships needs to come from somewhere. Not every school has a huge endowment and not every deserving student can afford to be there. I'm not sure donors would be as generous with colleges that denied admission to their kids. An inability to fundraise means higher expenses to students over time, which puts more deserving students at a further disadvantage.
Honestly, if colleges want to admit a few kids each year based on wealth, I would be okay with that so long as it's not going into the pocket of a crooked coach. I'd say it would be better to encourage this practice and be open around where the money is going specifically to avoid wealthy parents pursuing alternate forms of admissions.
Just my $0.02 cents. Feel free to continue to pillory.
Or, you know, you could just nix the whole nonsensical system and make higher education free at the point of use like a lot of other developed countries. Or at the very least, cap tuition at a sane level and offer every student a zero-interest loan that they only have to start paying back after their income rises beyond a reasonable threshold(say, the average salary obtained by graduates in that field).
Over here tuition is a few K a year, it's covered by the government, and if you're in a low-income situation you can even get a bursary to help cover your living expenses. That applies for both academic and practical qualifications. It's not a cheap policy by any means, but few worthwhile investments are cheap, and that's what free higher education is; an investment in your nation's economy and culture. It's not as great down in England & Wales where they do have tuition fees, but even then the situation is nowhere near as bad as America.
Yeah. I feel you.
A big part of the reason US higher ed is so expensive has to do with student loan system. The availability of low-cost, high availability loans from the government combined with private lenders has created conditions where colleges ask for a large tuition because the majority of students can qualify for the loans. Alongside this problem, state legislatures have been affected by declining tax revenues for funding higher education, this gave us a system where the cost of college is primarily absorbed by the student. There's also consumer preference at work, many people perceive the more expensive education is the superior one and there are good reasons to question that logic.
There are a lot of different ideas out there about how the system should be adjusted, it's not as simple as saying higher education should cost less / government should pay for it. Funding for primary and secondary schools in the US is a joke, there's been a big privatization effort throughout the US for the last 20 years that has left many (most?) school systems underfunded. It's hard to make the case for spending government dollars on college when we are doing so little for basic education. On the other hand, the simplest way to cut down on the cost of tuition would be to scale back the amount of federally-insured loan dollars available annually, which would leave out a lot of people who can't afford the deferred-interest that comes with private loans. Plus it would increase the debt of those who do qualify once they graduate.
There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
techsoldaten wrote: There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
I think there's a reverse side of the coin to this, and as said by one of my older white bearded professors from Freshman year;
"Getting a job was, and remains, an irrelevancy to the higher education system."
By that he was pointing out that up until about the 1950s, higher education systems had zero to do with getting people work. They were mostly about education in and of itself. Some fields required it (law, teaching, medicine, engineering), but part of the growing pain that I think has gone unnoticed is that in the past 200 years human societies have transitioned from a system in which the highly educated fulfilled specialized roles in society to all of society expecting people to be highly educated (at least to a general level). The university system was never designed or devised to be a gateway into employment in and of itself, but social expectations and the job market have turned in such a way that what people expect from universities slightly differs from what the self image of what universities want to achieve. People expect these systems to prepare people to enter the workforce, even though frankly most work doesn't require that level of education at all. We simply demand that young people "prove themselves" by spending tens of thousands of dollars to enter the workforce because socially we've come to associate education with a certain quality of character.
There's a catch-22 involved here for higher education. They're expected to make "proper adults" who know how to recite some boxed version of the liberal arts, and provide necessary skills to enter the work force except the former is irrelevant to the later, and the later at complete odds with the former.
Get a pair of bootstraps, put them in place, pull hard and see how high you get off the ground.
Having your bootstraps pulled by others is the only way it works.
This makes it clear why some parties are all about the bootstraps...
Well if you're not smart enough to tie shoelaces and have to wear velcro straps on your shoes- you're probably going to spend most of your life using simple tools with no moving parts or sharp edges, just saying (this is a joke about the phrase, not you specifically).
Thus demonstrating you don't know what a bootstrap is.
A bootstrap is a device for putting on tight boots. It's basically a leather strap that goes around the bottom of the boot, to give you extra leverage while pulling on your boots. With the advent of lacings and zippers and yes, velcro, they have gone out of fashion.
As I said. Put on some boots, apply the bootstrap, stand up and pull. You go nowhere because you cannot pull yourself up in that manner.
No, becoming self-sufficient - or even wealthy - does not require taking from someone else. But it DOES requires skills and contacts a poor person is unlikely to have, especially as schools in poor neighborhoods get more and more marginalized. It doesn't matter how hard you pull, if you were never given the opportunity to learn you go nowhere.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree with a large amount of it. However, one must bear in mind that budgeting is a skill like any other. Again, if one is never taught that skill...
It starts with education, and equal education for all. Not 'all the best for the richest and only a token effort for the poor'. PUBLIC education, not privatized; privatized only helps the rich at the expense of the poor.
For what America spends on education we should be the best in the world. We're not, of course, not even close. Our teacher pay lags behind that of many other nations that spend less per student. Why? Where does the money go? It's clearly not going to the teachers, nor is it going toward resources for the classroom. Given the age and condition of many school buildings it's not going there either.
Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Highly likely, I imagine. It's something that needs looking into, that's for certain.
As far as the sports programs go... that would be my ideal position too. But I've seen some sources recently that show the sports programs, as expensive as they are, actually generate net income for the school. If the sports program does actually generate a revenue stream that is used for something beyond the sports and phys-ed program... is that not a good thing?
techsoldaten wrote: There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
I think there's a reverse side of the coin to this, and as said by one of my older white bearded professors from Freshman year;
"Getting a job was, and remains, an irrelevancy to the higher education system."
YES.
Understanding what university education has been for almost a thousand years (and what almost all education has been for several millennia) would really solve many of its issues. It's the very modern perception that education is meant to make you employable that leads to the commercialisation of universities, league tables, competition and so on and the consequent impacts that has on the costs of attending, the desperation of some parents to get their kids in, the nepotism that is embedded in attendance of some institutions, the mental health problems inherent in the stress it places on students applying etc.
techsoldaten wrote: There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
I think there's a reverse side of the coin to this, and as said by one of my older white bearded professors from Freshman year;
"Getting a job was, and remains, an irrelevancy to the higher education system."
YES.
Understanding what university education has been for almost a thousand years (and what almost all education has been for several millennia) would really solve many of its issues. It's the very modern perception that education is meant to make you employable that leads to the commercialisation of universities, league tables, competition and so on and the consequent impacts that has on the costs of attending, the desperation of some parents to get their kids in, the nepotism that is embedded in attendance of some institutions, the mental health problems inherent in the stress it places on students applying etc.
On the flipside, if you take that away, 90% of the existing colleges will be out of business within two years...
techsoldaten wrote: There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
I think there's a reverse side of the coin to this, and as said by one of my older white bearded professors from Freshman year;
"Getting a job was, and remains, an irrelevancy to the higher education system."
YES.
Understanding what university education has been for almost a thousand years (and what almost all education has been for several millennia) would really solve many of its issues. It's the very modern perception that education is meant to make you employable that leads to the commercialisation of universities, league tables, competition and so on and the consequent impacts that has on the costs of attending, the desperation of some parents to get their kids in, the nepotism that is embedded in attendance of some institutions, the mental health problems inherent in the stress it places on students applying etc.
On the flipside, if you take that away, 90% of the existing colleges will be out of business within two years...
The degree conveyer belt institutions would shut - a good thing - but institutions actually conducting research-centred teaching would be fine. They wouldn't be generating monstrous income to funnel into high level administration any more but I'm pretty indifferent to that.
They would try to punish those of us doing the teaching a bit more, tightening wages further, but on the other hand they wouldn't still expect us to basically do double our hours for free to meet the expectations of students that feel they're buying themselves a future job, so in real hourly rates we'd probably come out on top.
techsoldaten wrote: There are a lot of other issues involved in reforming the 'system,' but the most basic metric is whether or not someone can find gainful employment based on what they learn in college. I see a lot of people graduating with degrees that don't match up with the demands of the job market and the way they are struggling. There's some introspection Universities themselves need to do around their curriculum and the overall cost of administrative staff, intra-institutional politics is an insane blood sport that doesn't really concern itself with post-graduate professional outcomes. This part of the problem is going to take a generation to solve, way too many entrenched interests and faculty taking activist positions.
I think there's a reverse side of the coin to this, and as said by one of my older white bearded professors from Freshman year;
"Getting a job was, and remains, an irrelevancy to the higher education system."
YES.
Understanding what university education has been for almost a thousand years (and what almost all education has been for several millennia) would really solve many of its issues. It's the very modern perception that education is meant to make you employable that leads to the commercialisation of universities, league tables, competition and so on and the consequent impacts that has on the costs of attending, the desperation of some parents to get their kids in, the nepotism that is embedded in attendance of some institutions, the mental health problems inherent in the stress it places on students applying etc.
On the flipside, if you take that away, 90% of the existing colleges will be out of business within two years...
The degree conveyer belt institutions would shut - a good thing - but institutions actually conducting research-centred teaching would be fine. They wouldn't be generating monstrous income to funnel into high level administration any more but I'm pretty indifferent to that.
They would try to punish those of us doing the teaching a bit more, tightening wages further, but on the other hand they wouldn't still expect us to basically do double our hours for free to meet the expectations of students that feel they're buying themselves a future job, so in real hourly rates we'd probably come out on top.
Why do you think that? You're effectively arguing a reversion to 19th century educational levels no? Mayhaps I am misperceiving your statement. Can you clarify?
EDIT: This is why humanities are in crisis. Students have moved away from pursuing them for gainful employment.
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Highly likely, I imagine. It's something that needs looking into, that's for certain.
As far as the sports programs go... that would be my ideal position too. But I've seen some sources recently that show the sports programs, as expensive as they are, actually generate net income for the school. If the sports program does actually generate a revenue stream that is used for something beyond the sports and phys-ed program... is that not a good thing?
Is it? Is a system where the coach is the highest paid employee in the college and the young men and women going to school ostensibly for an education are actually part of a second-rate, exploitative NBA\NFL\what have you?
My point, just to be clear, isn't that universities shouldn't change, but rather that society at large and higher education need to get on the same damn page about what's supposed to being going on at these institutions and how their services can and should fit in with the broader world. There's a complete contradiction at present imo with what universities and socities want and try to achieve through one another.
And as for sports programs, yes they often are net income generators. Unfortunately, that net income generally just goes right back into sports.
Education should be about education. It should not be the education system's responsibility to babysit your kids with after school activities parents and communities are absolutely capable of funding and organizing independent of schooling. We don't even need to get rid of sports scholarships, just separate the sports infrastructure from education. Schools should be about schooling, not who is going to beat who in the present round of athletic competition.
LordofHats wrote: My point, just to be clear, isn't that universities shouldn't change, but rather that society at large and higher education need to get on the same damn page about what's supposed to being going on at these institutions and how their services can and should fit in with the broader world. There's a complete contradiction at present imo with what universities and socities want and try to achieve through one another.
.
Sure, as a parent I paid (am paying BIG bucks) so that they can become educated with the skills necessary to be successful in their chosen careers. I don't rate universities higher than welding school, just different.
Our world would literally crumble without builders. Our homes wouldn’t have running water or central heating without plumbers. Remove electricians from the same equation, and it’s back to living in caves, more or less.
Farmers, whether crops or beefs/porks are also essential
Weavers, seamstresses or just sewing machine operators. How d’you like your clothes, eh?
Them and all the hundreds of little jobs that keep us as a civilisation ticking over are arguably more essential that Doctors, Politicians and Lawyers. Nurses? Why aren’t they paid anywhere near as well as Doctors? They’re often the poor sod doing the actual dirty work
Yes automation is coming. But that can only do so much. I know my job is safe, as it’s all about judgement, and finding a fair outcome. A lawyer can be replaced. An Investigator cannot.
Something I particularly hate is the concept that some work should be low paid. Such as Burger Flippers, Street Cleaners, Shop Workers. Whilst I get that other jobs require more, that should only mean those jobs are better paid.
One of the greatest shames in the U.K. is the concept of working benefits. Government handouts to those working full time, yet still cannot make ends meet. What is that, if not the abject failure of capitalism? Especially when you see major corporations looking at their balance sheet, and deciding to cut jobs because they only made say, £90,000,000.00 in profit...as if that’s somehow a failure and a sign of a company on the Rocks.
Sorry. My socialism is showing. I apologise not for my leanings, but me ranting. Don’t want to get the thread closed because politics!
Our world would literally crumble without builders. Our homes wouldn’t have running water or central heating without plumbers. Remove electricians from the same equation, and it’s back to living in caves, more or less.
Farmers, whether crops or beefs/porks are also essential
Weavers, seamstresses or just sewing machine operators. How d’you like your clothes, eh?
Them and all the hundreds of little jobs that keep us as a civilisation ticking over are arguably more essential that Doctors, Politicians and Lawyers. Nurses? Why aren’t they paid anywhere near as well as Doctors? They’re often the poor sod doing the actual dirty work
Yes automation is coming. But that can only do so much. I know my job is safe, as it’s all about judgement, and finding a fair outcome. A lawyer can be replaced. An Investigator cannot.
Something I particularly hate is the concept that some work should be low paid. Such as Burger Flippers, Street Cleaners, Shop Workers. Whilst I get that other jobs require more, that should only mean those jobs are better paid.
One of the greatest shames in the U.K. is the concept of working benefits. Government handouts to those working full time, yet still cannot make ends meet. What is that, if not the abject failure of capitalism? Especially when you see major corporations looking at their balance sheet, and deciding to cut jobs because they only made say, £90,000,000.00 in profit...as if that’s somehow a failure and a sign of a company on the Rocks.
Sorry. My socialism is showing. I apologise not for my leanings, but me ranting. Don’t want to get the thread closed because politics!
Rant on brother! But we should probably move tback to the education issue as thats moving to politics.
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Highly likely, I imagine. It's something that needs looking into, that's for certain.
As far as the sports programs go... that would be my ideal position too. But I've seen some sources recently that show the sports programs, as expensive as they are, actually generate net income for the school. If the sports program does actually generate a revenue stream that is used for something beyond the sports and phys-ed program... is that not a good thing?
Is it? Is a system where the coach is the highest paid employee in the college and the young men and women going to school ostensibly for an education are actually part of a second-rate, exploitative NBA\NFL\what have you?
I'm with LordofHats on this one.
Players should be paid salaries imo. If they are making the school money, they should make money. Not this "Oh, we are giving them a scholarship and a good education" crap. No, those guys are out there working, they deserve to be paid. I am really tired of this "something for nothing" mentality that was set up by previous generations. Interns should be paid living wages. School Athletes should be paid living wages. Not tokens, not scholarships, not free swag or whatever. Cash in hand. Schools make more than enough off their sports programs to do that.
Our world would literally crumble without builders. Our homes wouldn’t have running water or central heating without plumbers. Remove electricians from the same equation, and it’s back to living in caves, more or less.
Farmers, whether crops or beefs/porks are also essential
Weavers, seamstresses or just sewing machine operators. How d’you like your clothes, eh?
Them and all the hundreds of little jobs that keep us as a civilisation ticking over are arguably more essential that Doctors, Politicians and Lawyers. Nurses? Why aren’t they paid anywhere near as well as Doctors? They’re often the poor sod doing the actual dirty work
Yes automation is coming. But that can only do so much. I know my job is safe, as it’s all about judgement, and finding a fair outcome. A lawyer can be replaced. An Investigator cannot.
Something I particularly hate is the concept that some work should be low paid. Such as Burger Flippers, Street Cleaners, Shop Workers. Whilst I get that other jobs require more, that should only mean those jobs are better paid.
One of the greatest shames in the U.K. is the concept of working benefits. Government handouts to those working full time, yet still cannot make ends meet. What is that, if not the abject failure of capitalism? Especially when you see major corporations looking at their balance sheet, and deciding to cut jobs because they only made say, £90,000,000.00 in profit...as if that’s somehow a failure and a sign of a company on the Rocks.
Sorry. My socialism is showing. I apologise not for my leanings, but me ranting. Don’t want to get the thread closed because politics!
Well technically you don't need socialism for that, you just need propperly implemented social policy.
But same difference really, you can't even utter such ideas sometimes without beeing called a stalinist or vice versa a faschi (or if you happen to speak german a nutzi).
I blame the social media for that one, since fringe elements have gotten in essence a huge megaphone and now everyone is panicking.
As for education, i belive two things need to happen atleast for "higher" education :
First: equality of chance needs to be reestablished as good as possible, that means away with affirmative action and buyable slots for students. ( basically all need to meet the requirements due to their own strength, i am however not against things like stipendia or cheap loans in order to get people from lower levels of society in universities.)
Secondly: the Bologna Credit system needs to die, atleast for social studies like Philosophy. I have seen students get a degree in Philosophy on the back on 6 small irrelevant paper yet they couldn't even argue dualistic positions.
AdeptSister wrote: Can we not bring up Affirmative Action? It really is a small percentage compared to the slots for athletes, the rich, and legacies in colleges.
Actually i meant the concept as a whole, not the Programm.
Due to conflicts in regard to meritocratic Basis.
AdeptSister wrote: Can we not bring up Affirmative Action? It really is a small percentage compared to the slots for athletes, the rich, and legacies in colleges.
And, more importantly, it exists to offset existing prejudice and bring admissions more in line with what a truly merit-based system would produce rather than special privileges given to people who don't deserve them and couldn't otherwise get in.
I find the issue with the humanities isn't so much that they don't lead to gainful employment, but employment with them often requires some roundabout thinking on part of the graduate.
I eventually got a job as a researcher for a defense contractor who has nothing but engineers and was actively looking for other perspectives, so they hired me (historian), a lit major, and a linguist just to bring alternate approaches to information onto their research team. It's not history work really, so much as applying the historical approach to research to present problems which isn't remotely the thing I went to school expecting to wind up doing.
LordofHats wrote: I find the issue with the humanities isn't so much that they don't lead to gainful employment, but employment with them often requires some roundabout thinking on part of the graduate.
I eventually got a job as a researcher for a defense contractor who has nothing but engineers and was actively looking for other perspectives, so they hired me (historian), a lit major, and a linguist just to bring alternate approaches to information onto their research team. It's not history work really, so much as applying the historical approach to research to present problems which isn't remotely the thing I went to school expecting to wind up doing.
That is a very intelligent move on the part of the contractor. I find getting a different perspective is shockingly undervalued in the professional sphere. Unfortunately for many college graduates.
Vulcan wrote: As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree with a large amount of it. However, one must bear in mind that budgeting is a skill like any other. Again, if one is never taught that skill...
If you can't figure out how to budget- as in, "Not spend all your money on things you don't need and prioritize what you do need" then you could tie his bootstraps to a rocket ship and launch it to Saturn and he'd still end up at the bottom tier, because there's absolutely nothing you can teach a person to improve their life if they're that dumb.
Let's not sit here and pretend that these simple life skills that every one of us are something that required a professional to show us, and that being poor growing up will mean you're actually slowed- because I grew up poor, with a lot of poor people- and let me tell you, those are the ones that can budget better than most.
Vulcan wrote: As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree with a large amount of it. However, one must bear in mind that budgeting is a skill like any other. Again, if one is never taught that skill...
If you can't figure out how to budget- as in, "Not spend all your money on things you don't need and prioritize what you do need" then you could tie his bootstraps to a rocket ship and launch it to Saturn and he'd still end up at the bottom tier, because there's absolutely nothing you can teach a person to improve their life if they're that dumb.
Let's not sit here and pretend that these simple life skills that every one of us are something that required a professional to show us, and that being poor growing up will mean you're actually slowed- because I grew up poor, with a lot of poor people- and let me tell you, those are the ones that can budget better than most.
Actually they are shown to be the ones who budget the worst. They see money as a fleeting thing and generally try to spend it as quickly as they can instead of saving for rainy days.
Also, budgeting is a skill that is taught because it takes an understanding of math and problem solving. You were taught how to budget by your parents because of how they are with their money. Some people do not have parents. I do not have a father and my mother was never at home. I was never taught money skills or how to budget. I had to learn the hard way on my own and I have made a lot of mistakes along the way.
Saying somebody should be able to learn how to do it on their own while saying you were taught how to budget growing up is the strangest way I have ever seen a person phrase an argument. Bravo.
I feel like budgeting is one of those things that seems simple but in reality has lots of pit falls. It's easy to say "well everyone should know not to spend all your money on things you don't need and prioritize" but most people don't have the money to budget for their battery dying three months from now, let alone the money to budget even if they considered the possibility. Sometimes you just get screwed. Someone I know bought used tires for $100 last month. They're already worthless despite being in fairly good condition when she bought them. Now she needs new tires all over again.
One or two unexpected expenses are enough to utterly wreck a budget, at which point the budget isn't the issue as much as not having money to budget to begin with.
Vulcan wrote: As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree with a large amount of it. However, one must bear in mind that budgeting is a skill like any other. Again, if one is never taught that skill...
If you can't figure out how to budget- as in, "Not spend all your money on things you don't need and prioritize what you do need" then you could tie his bootstraps to a rocket ship and launch it to Saturn and he'd still end up at the bottom tier, because there's absolutely nothing you can teach a person to improve their life if they're that dumb.
Except there are plenty of examples of people who are born wealthy, have no understanding of how to spend wisely, yet are still wealthy at the end of the day. Right off the bat that says there is more to budgeting than spending & prioritization; that does not address income, how much effort is needed to earn that income, how much money is needed to earn that income, how much to save, what form to actually save in, and so on...
'Not spending your money on things you don't need, and prioritize what you do' is more of a one-sentence summary of a larger concept. Like if I described cooking as "mixing the proper ingredients and heating until it's done."
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Highly likely, I imagine. It's something that needs looking into, that's for certain.
As far as the sports programs go... that would be my ideal position too. But I've seen some sources recently that show the sports programs, as expensive as they are, actually generate net income for the school. If the sports program does actually generate a revenue stream that is used for something beyond the sports and phys-ed program... is that not a good thing?
Is it? Is a system where the coach is the highest paid employee in the college and the young men and women going to school ostensibly for an education are actually part of a second-rate, exploitative NBA\NFL\what have you?
I'm with LordofHats on this one.
True, but if you remove the revenue stream the sports program generates now tuition has to be even higher to maintain the same non-sports programs.
Believe me, I WANT it to be as simple as you say it is. I DON'T want sports coaches to be the best-paid state employees... by huge margins. I DON'T want college sports to be recruiting grounds for professional sports with all the corruption THAT brings. But... it's not that simple.
Things rarely are that simple, once you take an objective look at them.
If the team was just a team, you'd probably be right.
But a team isn't just a team.
Sports franchises are massive financial traps. Just ask any city that footed the bill for the local team's massive multi-hundred million dollar stadium and see if the city has actually repaid tax payers yet for the cost (nevermind the underlying issue of why multi-billion dollar industries like professional sports can't foot the bill for their own stadiums). The same is true of universities. UVA down the road has a basketball stadium that coast a couple hundred million.
You'll never convince me that money couldn't have been better spent on something else, especially when most of the profit from it doesn't go back to UVA. And that's without going into the wonky way sports mess with academics. The Slippery Rock campus of PASSHE only exists because the school hosts a division II basketball team. That's literally the only reason the doors weren't boarded up years ago.
Vulcan wrote: Where is the money going then? THAT is the immediate problem, I think...
Mostly overpaid upper admins who have "ideas" on how to fix education that never work who get fired when their ideas backfire and replaced with someone else who has new "ideas."
And sports programs, which in all honesty, should be completely disconnected from the education system imo.
Highly likely, I imagine. It's something that needs looking into, that's for certain.
As far as the sports programs go... that would be my ideal position too. But I've seen some sources recently that show the sports programs, as expensive as they are, actually generate net income for the school. If the sports program does actually generate a revenue stream that is used for something beyond the sports and phys-ed program... is that not a good thing?
Is it? Is a system where the coach is the highest paid employee in the college and the young men and women going to school ostensibly for an education are actually part of a second-rate, exploitative NBA\NFL\what have you?
I'm with LordofHats on this one.
True, but if you remove the revenue stream the sports program generates now tuition has to be even higher to maintain the same non-sports programs.
This is untrue. Tuition is intentionally bloated in order to get the most money they can out of a person. Those tuitions could be dropped A LOT and there would be no need for the sports team revenue. Either way, if a team is making money off the players, the players deserve a cut.
