Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The cost of a BA/BS is utterly irrelevant to the fact that many more people than 30 years ago actually get one. Arguing that point is like arguing the sky is blue, i.e. I'm not willing to do so. Don't take my word for it, go do the research if you're interested.

And the numbers of people who had them 30 years ago is utterly irrelevant when discussing modern day job requirements and comparative difficulty in attaining said degrees financially.

A Bachelor's Degree is what a High School degree used to be, i.e. the bare minimum one needs to be eligible for a lot of jobs.

Then I'll quote myself. Because apparently we're going in circles here.

Right now its far harder to receive a college degree than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Drying up financial aid and the meteoric rise of college costs past inflation is doing a pretty good job of this alone. Combine this with the increasing focus on a trained workforce in america and the job flight of untrained high payed factory work and you've got a rather obvious recipe for difficulty when compared to what came before. People can't afford the colleges they need for jobs, those jobs then don't hire them, thus the next generation can afford education even less, thus they get even fewer jobs. All the while job flight for trained work leaves the country as well.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

There are certain sorts of jobs which need a degree (or better) because they are bloody hard. Examples: doctor, lawyer, engineer, psychologist...

In the UK we have the situation that the government wants 50% of the population to go to university. Which is all well and good but it assumes firstly that 50% or the population is capable of getting through a proper degree course and secondly that there are jobs needing those graduates.

Of course it isn't true, so we have universities offering degrees in golf course management, hair dressing, and such like. These are nonsense degrees cobbled together from a bunch of modules to make up sufficient academic credits to justify the awarding of a degree.

The problem with it is that employers aren't fooled. At least five years ago the company I work for started to automatically favour graduates from proper universities like UCL or Imperial College, because we knew the content and rigour of the courses there was far above similar courses at University of Thames Ditton (made-upname) or wherever.

I see this myself when I look at undergraduate CVs. (I recruit two students every year.) The level of qualifications of a lot of the students is frankly poor, starting from GCSE onwards.

Sadly, graduates from UTD still have the same student debts as an Imperial graduate, but a much less valuable qualification.

For US readers, a 'good' UK BA or BSc is about the same as your MA level, but I'm sure that is changing.

ShumaGorath wrote:Right now its far harder to receive a college degree than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Define "harder," I guess? Considering how many more people are getting them and dealing with the costs of doing so, I fail to see your argument. If it was harder to get a college degree than it was 10 years ago, wouldn't you see less, not more, people getting them?

I think you are extrapolating personal financial experience into a social mode, mode in the mathematical sense, of experiences which is not the case. With the accessibility of Federal college loan programs some sort of Bachelor's Degree is more attainable now than ever. I'd say that makes it easier financially, not harder, to receive a college degree. You don't need all the money up front anymore.

The only other reasonable measures of difficulty would be acceptance rates (plenty of places to go, you talked about community college enrollment and they count, my cousin got his BS from a community college and now makes a crapton of money coaching high school sports and teaching, owned his own home a decade earlier than anyone else in my extended family), or the difficulty of the actual studies themselves.

One might argue that scholastically it is actually easier now to receive a Bachelor's Degree than before, depending on what you study. A lot of Bachelor's programs are glorified trade school programs, not the education in the liberal sense that they used to be. Communications majors (me at undergrad) are a great example...my program of study wasn't nearly as difficult as the Engineering students I was friends with, but on paper a Bachelor's is a Bachelor's when it comes to applying for many office jobs, some of which pay in the low 30's in my neck of the woods which is not bad for just getting out of college with only a BA or a BS.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are certain sorts of jobs which need a degree (or better) because they are bloody hard. Examples: doctor, lawyer, engineer, psychologist...

In the UK we have the situation that the government wants 50% of the population to go to university. Which is all well and good but it assumes firstly that 50% or the population is capable of getting through a proper degree course and secondly that there are jobs needing those graduates.

Of course it isn't true, so we have universities offering degrees in golf course management, hair dressing, and such like. These are nonsense degrees cobbled together from a bunch of modules to make up sufficient academic credits to justify the awarding of a degree.

The problem with it is that employers aren't fooled. At least five years ago the company I work for started to automatically favour graduates from proper universities like UCL or Imperial College, because we knew the content and rigour of the courses there was far above similar courses at University of Thames Ditton (made-upname) or wherever.

I see this myself when I look at undergraduate CVs. (I recruit two students every year.) The level of qualifications of a lot of the students is frankly poor, starting from GCSE onwards.

Sadly, graduates from UTD still have the same student debts as an Imperial graduate, but a much less valuable qualification.

For US readers, a 'good' UK BA or BSc is about the same as your MA level, but I'm sure that is changing.

Yeah, we have the same issue in Australia. They've been increasing the number of university spots, assuming that if you educate someone there'll be technical job there for them when they're done. And assuming that everyone who got a degree would be an elite thinker.

What we've ended up with is a lot of very basic white collar jobs that now need degrees. What used to be done by accounting assistants and senior bookkeepers is now handled by graduates.

Cairnius wrote:
One might argue that scholastically it is actually easier now to receive a Bachelor's Degree than before, depending on what you study. A lot of Bachelor's programs are glorified trade school programs, not the education in the liberal sense that they used to be. Communications majors (me at undergrad) are a great example...my program of study wasn't nearly as difficult as the Engineering students I was friends with, but on paper a Bachelor's is a Bachelor's when it comes to applying for many office jobs, some of which pay in the low 30's in my neck of the woods which is not bad for just getting out of college with only a BA or a BS.

In my experience the opposite is true. Since graduating every position I have applied for has requested, at the very least, my transcript and a scholastic recommendation. According to my friends in HR there are two reasons for this:
1) The BA/BS is so ubiquitous that it cannot be used to distinguish between candidates.
2) It usually only takes one glance at someone's transcript to understand the motivation behind an application; thereby filtering out the over-educated who intend to depart in short order.

reds8n wrote:

We need evil so we can do good

I don't think that is true at all.

If all "evil was magically wiped from the world it would still be possible to do good, like saving someone's life in an accident, or helping those still les well off than yourself. Or donating organs, blood etc etc.

But reds8n, you just proved my point.

Accident=bad/evil, saving someone from an accident=good. Being less well off=bad/evil, helping them=good. Losing organs/blood= bad/evil, donating=good.

If no one was less well off, in an accident/tragedy, or an sort of malicious activity then you can't very well help them. For example, if no one got sick or hurt then we wouldn't need doctors. Its just humans trying to make balance in a world that believes in entropy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shuma, you need to work on things that the country can't ship out, like medicine.

I hear ya about costs though. Unless you get a scholarship you're almost screwed.

An accident isn't evil.

It's not EVIL if I trip over and spill my drink.

You're confusing the words evil and bad, they're not the same thing.

And even if no one got sick or hurt we could still use doctors ( or what that worlds equivalent would be) for research to improve the human body and so on.

Good things are still quite possible to happen without evil. It would still be quite possible to fall in love for example.

trying to make balance in a world that believes in entropy.

I@m sorry this sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

"believes" in entropy ? WTF ?

Joan Rivers believes in entropy.

Well, entropy is spontaneous change and spontaneous change is often known as chaos, the universe isn't balanced, its chaotic.

If we didn't get sick or hurt then that means we're pretty darn invincible and wouldn't need doctors. I think that you're getting doctors and scientists confused. A scientist would work on improving the human body, a doctor more or less just fixes it. A scientist makes drugs, a doctor prescribes them.

Now who going around and saying love is good? I love to kill people is not something a good person to say, but love is rather subjective as it is an emotion and applies differently to everyone. Kind of like evil being subjective(but lets stick with normal human beliefs).

Do you enjoy getting hurt by slipping on some spilt milk? Unless you do, its bad. The opposite of bad is good last time I checked. So unless something bad happens then you can't do good.

I can't help you up if you don't fall, I can't give you a band-aid if you don't bleed, I can't show you the error of your ways if you don't make the error to begin with.

Yin and Yang my freind, Yin and Yang.

Some say she bathes in it.

I suspect she might even be the cause of it, as she is clearly a survivor from whatever universe existed before the big bang. Like Galactus, only with worse. fashion sense.


Meanwhile...

Your definition of entropy is incorrect.


1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.


.. and...

Doctors are a type of scientist. And presumably then scientists would replace doctors. And ? This does not argue or disprove the point I made at all.

You appear to be confusing love and enjoyment.

I can give you a present ( one which you'd like presumably) without needing anything bad to happen.

I can't give you a band-aid if you don't bleed

Rubbish, of course you can. I might not need it, but it would be good to have in case.

Why would you ever need a band aid if nothing bad would happen. Chances are band aids would never have been invented, along with atomic power, highways, jet flight, duck tape, kevlar, DEET, coagulating factor, pressure trousers, etc. if we didn't have bad things that warranted their invention.

If you love some one you are enjoying them and their presence. Loving and liking are just different levels of enjoyment I believe.

The second law can also be used to predict whether a physical process will proceed spontaneously. Spontaneous changes in isolated systems occur with an increase in entropy.
Isn't a steady deterioration of a society a loss of order and an increase in anarchy and chaos?
Definition fight begin.

You could give me a present, but if I wasn't less well off or in need of a present then well, its not really good.

Like that episode of MASH when it was winter and they were sent mosquito netting.

You very rarely need a present or a gift, but it is good to receive one.

I don't need warhammertoyofyourchoice but it would be good to have one.

If you love some one you are enjoying them and their presence. Loving and liking are just different levels of enjoyment I believe.

Not always. I love my parents, but if we spend more than 10 minutes in the same room we argue like nobodies business.

And if they are different then they are not the same are they, so loving is different to liking. Thank you.

Your arguments as to whether things would or wouldn't be invented is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You said "X" and and I proved this was demonstratably false.

Are you seriously saying that the Christian God needs Satan... really ?

halonachos wrote:If you love some one you are enjoying them and their presence. Loving and liking are just different levels of enjoyment I believe.

I'm guessing you've never been in love. While we use the same word to describe loving our new shoes and loving our partner, they are very, very different things.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you love some one you are enjoying them and their presence. Loving and liking are just different levels of enjoyment I believe.

I'm guessing you've never been in love. While we use the same word to describe loving our new shoes and loving our partner, they are very, very different things.

Unless its Malfred of course, in which case it does mean the same thing.

reds8n wrote:
Your arguments as to whether things would or wouldn't be invented is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

That sir is false.

If no one ever bled(bad) then band-aids would never have been invented(band-aids being invented is good)
So we need bad so we can counter act with good. Pressure trousers were invented thanks to the Vietnam War, it tried to prevent wounded soldiers from going into shock(bad).

Seeing as though I was able to show that your belief, that my invention argument was false, was invalid perhaps the belief that you posted about enjoyment being different from love is invalid.

But maybe I could say this, there is something that you enjoy enough about your parents that causes you to love them. Its probably not looks unless your name is Oedipus. But there is some fact or something that happened that makes you enjoy them.

I don't love my uncle because there is nothing I enjoy about him. He blatantly insulted my mother, my brother, and I for no reason. He's a sweaty 400 pound moron. There are basicly no traits in him that I enjoy in the least.

If you meet a woman and she is attractive then you enjoy her looks, if she has other features like a common interest then you enjoy that. If you have enough things to enjoy or enjoy a certain trait to an extreme then you may fall in love.


About the presents. If you have no lack for warhammer figures then you don't need and may in fact not want a warhammer figure, but instead want something else. However, if there is no want then there is no need to give.
Wanting something is bad because you have a lack of it and need to fill that lack.

halonachos wrote:
That sir is false.

No, it isn't. Again, as usual, you fail to see the wood for the trees.

If no one ever bled(bad) then band-aids would never have been invented(band-aids being invented is good)
So we need bad so we can counter act with good. Pressure trousers were invented thanks to the Vietnam War, it tried to prevent wounded soldiers from going into shock(bad).

Bleeding isn't "bad" in every circumstance for starters, nor is it evil-- which is the crux of the issue at hand. You keep throwing up all these BS smokescreen arguments that dance around the issue but never actually addresses any of the points.

And that argument is totally irrelevant as, again, you're changing the parameters of the discussion when you don't have an answer. If things hadn't been invented then you couldn't reference them or use them either... and ? No one is disputing that. I'll say it again : you said that if I wasn't bleeding you couldn't give me a band aid. I point out that this is rubbish. This could just as easily be a balloon or a banana or , and let's hope not, one of Mr. Malfred's socks. My needing it or not is irrelevant to the actuality of you being able to give said item. Just like the present analogy.

Seeing as though I was able to show that your belief, that my invention argument was false, was invalid perhaps the belief that you posted about enjoyment being different from love is invalid.

Except of course ypou haven't shown that at all.

And even if you had this does not follow. Just because, for example, you've been frequently incorrect about things in your life it does not defaultly mean that you incorrect always or here too.

even though you are.

But
About the presents. If you have no lack for warhammer figures then you don't need and may in fact not want a warhammer figure, but instead want something else. However, if there is no want then there is no need to give.
Wanting something is bad because you have a lack of it and need to fill that lack.

Again that's nonsensical. How is wanting something "bad" ? The whole point i made was there is no need to give, but it can be good to do so. And none of what you've just typed addresses or counters the example above. Chnaging the situation to a different situation with different variables isn't debating.

You're shooting down your own arguments now.

Shopkeeper: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse!

Homer: Ooh, that's bad.

Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!

Homer: That's good.

Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.

Homer: That's bad.

Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings.

Homer: That's good!

Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
[Homer looks puzzled]

Shopkeeper: ...That's bad.

Halonachos, I can tell you're a young guy who's beginning to think about the world and form his own personal philosophies, etc. That's all positive.

However (and putting this back on topic), I recommend you do some coursework in philosophy or something similar. The world's great thinkers spent a lot of time ruminating on the nature of good and evil. By studying them, I think you might learn a few things and begin to understand the fundamental problems with your premises and then what that does to the rest of your arguments.

Oh, and Ahtman wins the thread.

gorgon wrote:Oh, and Ahtman wins the thread.

Like a sniper with 2 squadrons of sentient scout robots (all with lasers on their heads) circulating around the target of choice; thus tactical efficiency takes excellent form through the Simpsons (simpletons) zen like commentary.

GO AHTMAN!

I have studied basic philosophy, and all I've learned is that philosophy doesn't answer anything, but gives wonderful ideas.(Also the main course mainly stuck to utilitarian and kantian ethics, Bentham and Kant and Mills. Plato and Socrates of course.)

For example towards reds8n, yin and yang, newton's laws of physics all point towards something. This something is that each has an opposite. Newton's law saying that each action has an opposite and equal reaction, yin and yang saying that evil and good must be in balance, I mean there are so many things that hinge on having a cause that is negative.

As to the whole thing about satan being necessary, yes. I don't believe that good can exist without evil, nor can evil exist without good.

I will say what if we had a utopia and everyone was just existing and that it was built near a cliff. Everyone coexists and everything is fine. There is no definition of good and no definition of bad. One day a man looks over the cliff and leans to far and falls to his death. The rest of the utopia would most likely do something to remedy the situation by building a fence on the cliff's edge.

A man died(bad) and so a fence was put up to prevent further deaths(good).

Now lets say they preventively put up a fence and no one died. Unfortunately to know that putting up the fence would save lives they also know that people could die if they fell off of the edge. So they have a knowledge of bad and decide to do good upon it.


So reds8n, back to your bleeding problem. If I have no knowledge(present, past, future) of bad(because I am arguing that we couldn't have good WITHOUT bad and arguing what it would be like if bad DIDN'T exist), and I came across a band aid, obviously it would have no use to me. However, I would see it as trash because it has no use and if I pick it up I then have some useless thing in my hand. Now you don't give trash to someone right? That's not good, so if I do give you trash then that would be bad and then to decide not to give it to someone would be good. I then have knowledge about good and bad.

Lets go to a random gift( gift x lets say). I know that you want gift x and only gift x, however if I get it for you then that would be good and if I don't it would be bad, although I could just burn down the gift shop for even making this conundrum possible, that would be evil.

By knowing consequences we know that some are good and some are bad and others are downright dickish.


Want of food=bad, want of family=bad, want of money=bad. Whenever you want something, then you obviously don't have it so that would be negative.

Now if you don't want something and I give something to you and it is good, then I know that if I do give you something that is a luxury(like a nice red balloon) it is good. However I also know that if I don't give you something that is a luxury(like a nice blue balloon) then it could be bad. Like if I went somewhere fancy and didn't get a souvenir for you, even if you don't want it that would be wrong.





Oh and ahtman does win the thread plain and freakin simple wins the race.