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.

Interesting stuff SC, I'm looking for similar opportunities in a realistic proximity now.

I fail to see how just because someone isn't rich or well-off they automatically have a "gimme" mentality. Try not talking out of your butt.

Never said everyone but sure as hell most or else you wouldnt have the working welfare politics in most of the europe.

Try not to assume things out of your butt!

It is an unavoidable side-effect of institutionalized racism and those who ignore its existance...

Kind of like the opposite side of the scale where the other end is taken up by brainwashed politically correct people believing anything they are told by the leaders.
And we all know that Institutionalized political correctness is sooo much better.

Da Boss wrote:Sourclams: I like your posts generally, but I think your posts in this thread are pretty blinkered.

That's a completely fair statement given that I'm speaking from personal experiences driven by my lower-mid middle class upbringing.

Let me ask then, what's the solution?

For those who don't share my viewpoint, what are actionable steps that somebody in dire circumstances can/should take to get ahead in life? Or is there no solution?

Sourclams: It's something that I have given a LOT of thought to, and I have not come up with any really good answers.

I think one of the ways we could solve it is by running schools in those areas a little better.
Employing a couple more teachers (with a small salary bonus to reward them for working in such difficult positions compared to their buddies in middle class areas) to reduce class sizes is one step, but it won't work on it's own. The schools also need to be designed to sort of "step in" for the kids on any number of issues. They need somewhere they can get healthy food and learn social skills, as well as somewhere quiet to do their homework or other work. They need to feel like school is something of a haven from their gakky lives. All support staff in these schools should be trained and briefed on the mission of the school, they should be considered as important in terms of educating and caring for the kids as the classroom teachers.

At the same time, discipline must be strictly maintained and good behaviour rewarded while bad is punished. Support staff would be needed in the classroom and structures would be needed to deal with particularly disruptive kids quickly and efficiently.

This would need to be in place from primary school onwards. I also think kids in these schools should get a slightly longer school day to help them catch up, and shorter summer holidays so they don't fall behind in the summer (when their middle class peers are getting some stimulation and they are mostly running feral in the streets). The school would have to be strictly monitored also, to ensure that teachers and support staff are making use of the extra funding and smaller class sizes to actually help the kids (And earn their money).

Now, the problem with that is that it means schools in these areas will cost probably double to triple the amount to run as a similar sized school in a middle class area. I would see it as an investment into making these people productive so that they are a positive force for the country and not a drain on resources, but many would object to that kind of spending. So what we generally end up with are half measures which don't succeed because the program must be comprehensive. There are some success stories though. But that is why I consider it important to break the "get a job" or "work harder " narratives because the solution I can think of will only come about with popular political support.

I think generally the pro-social welfare folks aren't disagreeing that the steps outlined in the original article are generally the kinds of things the individual should do, or should try to do. While some of the recommendations are dumb or ignorant (as Dogma point out about the Google Scholar recommend), the general advice to work hard and try to maximize your chances is not bad advice.

That being said, it's also not a substitute for a functional social safety net and systems to help the people who are stuck at/starting at the bottom through no fault of their own.

And it's also not really a response to the broader point about economic inequality and the ever-growing divide between the richest and the poorest, or even between the richest and the other 99% of us. The system isn't working fairly or equitably if the average worker has seen their income stagnate or shrink over a given period of time, but the executives at the very top have seen theirs rise astronomically.

It's a natural consequence of a Capitalist system that wealth creates more wealth. And that wealth also grants political power. While those aren't inherently terrible things, if left alone without some external re-balancing, it does mean that wealth and power get concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, and others are increasingly shut out. Is it a sign of a healthy democracy (or Republic, to be pedantic), if the only people who can afford to be elected to be national representatives are millionaires or those funded by millionaires? Does that system result in the best representation possible for those who are not millionaires themselves?

sourclams wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Sourclams: I like your posts generally, but I think your posts in this thread are pretty blinkered.

That's a completely fair statement given that I'm speaking from personal experiences driven by my lower-mid middle class upbringing.

Let me ask then, what's the solution?

For those who don't share my viewpoint, what are actionable steps that somebody in dire circumstances can/should take to get ahead in life? Or is there no solution?

The real solution is redistribution of wealth from the top 5% of US society to enable the funding of an effective public education system and adequate support services for poor families.

Melissia wrote: (it used to be that there were nowhere near enough nurses, but now nursing is so competitive that you have to have a 4.0 average just to have the opportunity to enter the lottery that is them picking who gets in their classes).

My ex-gf and my brother in law are both RNs and it was the same for him almost 15+ years ago and her 3 years ago. I think you are confusing competitiveness for limited classroom seats and wanting those seats filled with those who will pass the courses with a competitiveness in the job market. Its not a lottery, they just want the best to go to the front of the line of the wait list.

A LPN or RN who is out of work is doing something drastically wrong or prefers unemployment.

NELS1031 wrote:I think you are confusing competitiveness for limited classroom seats

There is no difference between these two.

That just means they need more teachers or classrooms for training nurses. In the workplace, there is a nursing shortage and that shortage is expected to get worse in the coming years as baby boomers age and near retirement nurses retire.

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/nursing-shortage



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

NELS1031 wrote:I think you are confusing competitiveness for limited classroom seats

There is no difference between these two.

You are only reading half the sentence, btw.

NELS1031 wrote:You are only reading half the sentence, btw.

I read the whole thing.

You seem to think that people don't compete for items of limited quantity... when really, that's what most people compete for.

Even if you get a perfect 4.0 grade average, it doesn't guarantee you'll get in any area you want. Because there's plenty of other people with a 4.0 grade average who are competing with you.

That's one of the problems many of the people in this thread seem to be ignoring. Even if you do everything right, you're still having to deal with pure luck because the people you're competing with are trying to do everything just right, too, and oftentimes it's as much up to the whims of the people making the decisions as anything.

Melissia wrote:You seem to think that people don't compete for items of limited quantity... when really, that's what most people compete for.

I'm not sure how you gathered that from anything I stated. I acknowledged that there is competition in entry to schooling but refuted (or tried to, maybe I wasn't clear) your statement that "there used to not be enough nurses" while its clear there is a worsening shortage of them.

Melissia wrote:Even if you get a perfect 4.0 grade average, it doesn't guarantee you'll get in any area you want. Because there's plenty of other people with a 4.0 grade average who are competing with you.

That's one of the problems many of the people in this thread seem to be ignoring. Even if you do everything right, you're still having to deal with pure luck because the people you're competing with are trying to do everything just right, too, and oftentimes it's as much up to the whims of the people making the decisions as anything.

In terms of what I was specifically replying too, getting into RN training programs, its a waiting list thats based on GPA. Not a lottery or anything thats up to someones "whims" (at least in Maryland schools). The higher the GPA, the higher up on the waiting list you are placed and you aren't arbitrarily displaced by someone with the same GPA who comes after you. The only reason it is so competitive like that is because there aren't enough teachers to train all of the applicants, so they want the best so their time/space isn't wasted. If you read the article or even perused it, you can see that colleges and uni's are taking steps to get more training staff in place to be able to meet that demand, ease the standards for entry and get more applicants into seats and train them up.

I acknowledge that finding a job is tough, even at the best of times, I'm merely disagreeing with your statement that the nursing industry, that is constantly hiring even at the worst economic times, is somehow oversaturated when its the limited resources and avenues of schooling that make entry into it competitive.

NELS1031 wrote:The only reason it is so competitive like that is because there aren't enough teachers to train all of the applicants, so they want the best so their time/space isn't wasted.

Which is exactly what I said, as well..

Too many applicants, not enough positions.

Melissia wrote: Which is exactly what I said, as well..

Too many applicants, not enough positions.

But you also used nursing as an example of oversaturated professions which is what I'm disagreeing with, because its recognized by people in the industry to be far from oversaturated.

addendum : Too much back and forth that I didn't intend, as civil as this has been, I'm done as its offtopic. Good luck on your job search Mel.

NELS1031 wrote:

Melissia wrote: Which is exactly what I said, as well..

Too many applicants, not enough positions.

But you also used nursing as an example of oversaturated professions which is what I'm disagreeing with, because its recognized by people in the industry to be far from oversaturated.

Perhaps, but whether it's oversaturated at the employer end or in the education level isn't entirely relevant to the person who's trying to find a job-- either way it's an insane level of competition which ends up being a matter of luck as much as anything, as one can still get a 4.0 average but not be accepted because there were too many people with 4.0 averages applying.

Pyriel- wrote:

It is an unavoidable side-effect of institutionalized racism and those who ignore its existance...

Kind of like the opposite side of the scale where the other end is taken up by brainwashed politically correct people believing anything they are told by the leaders.
And we all know that Institutionalized political correctness is sooo much better.

I agree, that is just as bad.

However it is possible to see the existance of and effects of institutionalized racism without being what you describe.

Objecting to inequality and social injustice isn't political corectness. Nice try though...

Da Boss wrote:<<Good stuff>>.[

I don't think that anything you wrote is necessarily in-actionable or foolish, but if the origination in all this difficulty is a dysfunctional familial unit where a father figure is absent, mother is out working her minimum wage no-career job, and the kids are running feral and debating the merits of pushing drugs vs getting jobs, I don't see how the most accountable, most incentivized school administration program is going to be able to overcome the violence and poor parenting that it seems we're taking for granted. Ultimately the individual has to seize upon the opportunities being provided. If people who are unqualified to raise kids are at the root of the issue, it seems like a much more proactive approach would be to disallow unqualified individuals to raise children; maybe by automatically ceding children born into X income bracket to the State via wardship programs, with fully paid delivery healthcare and one-time payments to the mother to partially compensate the emotional/physical duress of childbirth and to get her on her feet afterwards.

I mean, if legislation is the answer, then let's take it to a level that legislation can truly be the answer, with centralized federal oversight and rigorous census-taking so that it's impossible to fall through the cracks. Throw underperformers in jail, with the only way out being passing grades.

This plan offends my sensibilities and I would fight to the death anyone attempting its implementation, but that's where we have to ultimately take this process to yield maximum results for the very good of the irresponsible and downtrodden that the system thus far has failed to serve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Perhaps, but whether it's oversaturated at the employer end or in the education level isn't entirely relevant to the person who's trying to find a job-- either way it's an insane level of competition which ends up being a matter of luck as much as anything, as one can still get a 4.0 average but not be accepted because there were too many people with 4.0 averages applying.

Do you really believe that there is a glut of 4.0 GPA average students in any given field, such that a 4.0 GPA is devalued to the point of irrelevance (blind luck)?

sourclams wrote:
I don't think that anything you wrote is necessarily in-actionable or foolish, but if the origination in all this difficulty is a dysfunctional familial unit where a father figure is absent, mother is out working her minimum wage no-career job, and the kids are running feral and debating the merits of pushing drugs vs getting jobs, I don't see how the most accountable, most incentivized school administration program is going to be able to overcome the violence and poor parenting that it seems we're taking for granted. Ultimately the individual has to seize upon the opportunities being provided.

While that's true, the purpose of policy is the maximization of a desired set of results within the parameters set by fiscal, social, and political considerations. Its never going to be perfect, but it can be better or worse according to accepted measures (in this case the condition of the impoverished relative to the not-impoverished). Ultimately, I think that's what Da Boss was getting at when he spoke to breaking the "Work harder." meme that pervades much of the debate on social policy (at least in the UK and the US).

sourclams wrote:
Do you really believe that there is a glut of 4.0 GPA average students in any given field, such that a 4.0 GPA is devalued to the point of irrelevance (blind luck)?

In my experience your time is better spent earning a 3.0 GPA, and subsequently pursuing alternative qualification (internships, jobs, certifications, whatever).

GPA has almost no meaning outside the college admission process (And even there its a simple threshold consideration), and a few select fields, both due to grade inflation, and the realization that GPA is not a solid predictor of competence.

Nursing grads are oversaturated in my area, to my recollection. I know a couple of grads who've had trouble getting permanent positions.

I know I am a self made man. I invented mathematics, English, History, engineering, science, and all other subjects as well as creating the books to keep the information stored. When I make an apple pie I start by creating the universe becuase I am a self made man that has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, which I invented of course, and have relied on no one else for anything.

dogma wrote:

In my experience your time is better spent earning a 3.0 GPA, and subsequently pursuing alternative qualification (internships, jobs, certifications, whatever).

GPA has almost no meaning outside the college admission process (And even there its a simple threshold consideration), and a few select fields, both due to grade inflation, and the realization that GPA is not a solid predictor of competence.

The conversation regarding GPA thus far was about college GPA, which employers still look to as one predictor for employee performance and which graduate-level programs most certainly still take into account when considering applicants.

sourclams wrote:
The conversation regarding GPA thus far was about college GPA, which employers still look to as one predictor for employee performance and which graduate-level programs most certainly still take into account when considering applicants.

I work in an academic department at a major state university, and I can tell you for a fact that, even at the PhD level, once you crest a certain GPA (for us its 3.0) your score is irrelevant. Basically, your application gets sorted into a "review" pile which is further pared down according to whether or not you've published, whether or not you have in-field work experience, whether or not your research experience aligns with that of the professors, etc.

I'll also say that I've never encountered an employer that has ever even thought to ask me about my GPA in an interview, even though I deliberately do not have it on my CV/resume.

dogma wrote:
While that's true, the purpose of policy is the maximization of a desired set of results within the parameters set by fiscal, social, and political considerations. Its never going to be perfect, but it can be better or worse according to accepted measures.

I love these sentences.


I spend a lot of time at my local public school. It is amazing to me how fast a kid is labelled by the teachers and administrators as a "problem" child and shunted off/isolated by the system. Why? Frankly, because the teachers and administrators don't/can't take the time to work with the kids that do not have supportive home environments. It's really depressing to see, because none of these kids are inherently bad, they just learn differently and have different emotional needs than the larger majority of the children. When you work with them one-on-one as a volunteer, it is as plain on the nose on your face what they need from the system individually but will never be able to get from a "system".

So, how do you fix this? I honestly don't know. I think the first step, is to remove property taxes as the key funding metric of schools. It doesn't serve to strengthen a community, but destablizes it as those with school age kids are pitted against those without in the property tax levy elections. Plus, places that are all ready wealthy will naturally get more cash from this metric than areas that are not wealthy, thereby depriving the schools that have a higher percentage of different learners the fundign they need to address them.

Secondly, the issue is cultural. Society as a whole thinks teachers are a poor investment in time and resources. They don't think education is worth much. Of course, when it comes to their kid, it's a different story. In general, not a national priority.

sourclams wrote:Do you really believe that there is a glut of 4.0 GPA average students in any given field, such that a 4.0 GPA is devalued to the point of irrelevance (blind luck)?

Believe? No. I know it, from talking to both students and teachers. Classes are full, and there's still qualified students who haven't been able to get in.

We turned away 23 4.0 in-major students this semester, so far.

Yeah, it's not really a surprise. Lots of people are both smart enough and able to put forth the effort needed to get a 4.0 GPA in college...

It's not a matter of devaluing it so much as there's THAT many students at the moment, because lots of people who are un- or under-employed are trying to get an education to improve their lot in life.

Honestly, it has more to do with a 4.0 GPA not being indicative of competence.

To be blunt, lots of colleges suck.

dogma wrote:Honestly, it has more to do with a 4.0 GPA not being indicative of competence.

To be blunt, lots of colleges suck.

Dunno about that. But I do know that the basics classes you have to have before getting in to your majors courses are usually pretty easy no matter where you go.

dogma wrote:Honestly, it has more to do with a 4.0 GPA not being indicative of competence.

To be blunt, lots of colleges suck.

This is very, extremely true.

As you said, it's much better to have good grades, a job related to to your field and involvement in professional organizations than it is to have a 4.0 by itself. I mean, if you can swing both, good on you, but your GPA isn't really as important as people make it out to be.

Me, I've been 4.0 up until this quarter. I apparently have hit my sophomore slump, as this term I have dropped to a 3.7. The shame of it!

You will never be hired anywhere now! You have just ruined your life. Should have used your tech tools better!

Melissia wrote:But I do know that the basics classes you have to have before getting in to your majors courses are usually pretty easy no matter where you go.

No offense, but if you're attending a school with that sort of requirement set, you're already at a disadvantage; academically speaking.

State colleges are awful a preparing their students for graduate work. In general, the student has to display exceptional ingenuity in order to proceed (and even then, they tend to be behind).

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:But I do know that the basics classes you have to have before getting in to your majors courses are usually pretty easy no matter where you go.

No offense, but if you're attending a school with that sort of requirement set, you're already at a disadvantage; academically speaking.

State colleges are awful a preparing their students for graduate work. In general, the student has to display exceptional ingenuity in order to proceed (and even then, they tend to be behind).

It was either pay 50 a semester hour for the state college, or pay 500+ a semester hour for a private one.