|
Question about Student Loan Reform; ...recently enacted by Obama
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 27 2011, 06:14 AM (724 Views)
|
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 27 2011, 08:33 PM
Post #26
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- Horace
-
Seems like a feedback loop to me. The more people who can afford college, the more people colleges will let in. There'll never be any shortage of excuses to lower standards, what with all the problems we have letting great minds go to waste in our high schools due to under-funding of teacher pensions and computer labs and such.
Precisely why the problem lies in admissions, not affordability.
- Quote:
-
"Learning nothing of any value" was hyperbole, but it strikes me that, from a societal perspective, the value of what we learn in university is never objectively compared against the price we pay to learn it.
That's because such a thing is impossible to quantify. If by "objective comparison" you're implying some sort of concrete metric then that misses the point. Such thinking is contrary to many great achievements made throughout history. It's narrow-minded, obtuse and ultimately detrimental.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Oct 27 2011, 08:35 PM
Post #27
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
It seems today that colleges are in the business of selling debt, not education or careers.
They have massive sunk costs that are recovered only one way : tuition. All the better if they can get the gov to back those loans.
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Good, if unethical, business plan.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 27 2011, 08:37 PM
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- ivorythumper
- Oct 27 2011, 08:35 PM
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Good, if unethical, business plan. Exactly. The problem's not with Barry (although this new program's pretty messed up), it's at the universities.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 27 2011, 08:45 PM
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 08:33 PM
- Horace
-
Seems like a feedback loop to me. The more people who can afford college, the more people colleges will let in. There'll never be any shortage of excuses to lower standards, what with all the problems we have letting great minds go to waste in our high schools due to under-funding of teacher pensions and computer labs and such.
Precisely why the problem lies in admissions, not affordability. I'm barely interested in where anybody wants to draw their line for what is the "fundamental problem". (Causes can always be traced as far back as one wants to go - where one stops and proclaims "fundamental" says more about their biases and personal interests than anything else.)
I'm more interested in the fact that the subject of the thread, from what I've gathered from the posts and without watching the video, seems to contribute to the effect of that infinite chain of causes.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
"Learning nothing of any value" was hyperbole, but it strikes me that, from a societal perspective, the value of what we learn in university is never objectively compared against the price we pay to learn it.
That's because such a thing is impossible to quantify.
It doesn't strike me that it would be. Compare people with similar quantifiable intellectual ability and different formal educational levels in their ability to do useful things in jobs nominally requiring that education.
By that metric, education would come up lacking to a degree that would astonish people IMO.
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |
|
ivorythumper
|
Oct 27 2011, 08:49 PM
Post #30
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
- Posts:
- 50,664
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #164
- Joined:
- April 24, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 08:37 PM
- ivorythumper
- Oct 27 2011, 08:35 PM
Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Good, if unethical, business plan.
Exactly. The problem's not with Barry (although this new program's pretty messed up), it's at the universities. It certainly is Barry's problem if in 2010 he changed the law to facilitate that.
|
|
The dogma lives loudly within me.
|
| |
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 27 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- Horace
-
I'm barely interested in where anybody wants to draw their line for what is the "fundamental problem". (Causes can always be traced as far back as one wants to go - where one stops and proclaims "fundamental" says more about their biases and personal interests than anything else.)
I'm more interested in the fact that the subject of the thread, from what I've gathered from the posts and without watching the video, seems to contribute to the effect of that infinite chain of causes.
That's absurd. Every situation has a number of causes, but they aren't given equal weight. Changing the most relevant initial conditions is the way to bring desirable outcomes. It has nothing to do with bias and personal interest and everything to do with understanding cause and effect.
- Quote:
-
It doesn't strike me that it would be. Compare people with similar quantifiable intellectual ability and different formal educational levels in their ability to do useful things in jobs nominally requiring that education.
By that metric, education would come up lacking to a degree that would astonish people IMO.
Quantifiable intellectual ability. Their ability to do useful things in jobs.
Narrow-minded and obtuse thinking IMO.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 27 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 10:11 PM
- Horace
-
I'm barely interested in where anybody wants to draw their line for what is the "fundamental problem". (Causes can always be traced as far back as one wants to go - where one stops and proclaims "fundamental" says more about their biases and personal interests than anything else.)
I'm more interested in the fact that the subject of the thread, from what I've gathered from the posts and without watching the video, seems to contribute to the effect of that infinite chain of causes.
That's absurd. Every situation has a number of causes, but they aren't given equal weight. Changing the most relevant initial conditions is the way to bring desirable outcomes. It has nothing to do with bias and personal interest and everything to do with understanding cause and effect.
I'm giving more practical weight to the thing that's changing right now and that we might have some political control over. I'm giving less practical weight to entrenched ideas and systems that have an inertia that we're not likely to overcome.
Other weighting would seem ... academic.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
It doesn't strike me that it would be. Compare people with similar quantifiable intellectual ability and different formal educational levels in their ability to do useful things in jobs nominally requiring that education.
By that metric, education would come up lacking to a degree that would astonish people IMO.
Quantifiable intellectual ability. Their ability to do useful things in jobs. Narrow-minded and obtuse thinking IMO.
Be thankful that you're afforded the luxury of not having to worry about doing useful things, and of considering the very idea as obtuse and narrow minded.
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 27 2011, 11:20 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 10:22 PM
I'm giving more practical weight to the thing that's changing right now and that we might have some political control over. I'm giving less practical weight to entrenched ideas and systems that have an inertia that we're not likely to overcome.
Other weighting would seem ... academic.
That's some rather ineffective problem-solving. Do you continue to bail out your bathwater when it's overflowing, because that's what's "changing right now," or do you first turn the faucet off? Taking the defeatist approcah and leaving systems that "have too much inertia" to their own is no way to fix any problem. You don't let a bad situation get worse simply because the underlying causes are too hard to fix, that's ridiculous. It should already be a given that defeatist attitudes and lackadaisical decision-making are ineffective.
- Quote:
-
Be thankful that you're afforded the luxury of not having to worry about doing useful things, and of attacking the very idea as obtuse and narrow minded. 
My point, as well-illustrated from your response above, was that you seem unwilling or unable to see past the surface of the issue, or at least past your own personal values. If university only meant "learning useful things in jobs," I never would have gone, and that includes undergraduate education. I learned the knowledge and skills necessary to make it in today's job market by the time I was in high school.
Universities are money-making organizations, there's no question about that. But their agenda has nothing whatever to do with what its students actually get out of the experience. College students are subjected to myriad situations unique to universities that help them in ways no other institution could. I shouldn't have to spell out the examples in which a college education makes someone a "well-rounded individual."
I realize you might not care about that or see it as a benefit. While I'd remind you that there are many other values that carry just as much merit as "the ability to do useful things in jobs," I'll stick with this since that's where you're coming from.
We live in a capitalist society. In a capitalist society, individuals are free to trade goods and services in an open market, and this freedom to compete in the marketplace includes the freedom to fail and make mistakes. Our economic system could not exist if it did not allow for this failure to happen. The best way to compete in such a system is to diversify. Those that acquire more skills, experience and knowledge stand the best chance at success and I'm not just talking about those most obvious.
In a university, cultivating the mindset and problem-solving skills necessary to succeed in this society has just as much to do with classroom learning as it does with volunteering for campus charity organizations, competing for school scholarships, taking part in intramurals or other club activities, engaging in writing, science and art competitions, getting wasted at parties and making bad decisions (or choosing not to), working on assignments with people you would otherwise never talk to, speaking with long-time experts in dozens of different fields and arguing with your roommates over stupid **** late at night. You can't put a tangible metric on experiences such as those, but I guaran-damn-tee they relate directly in helping university students contribute to society and succeed in life.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 28 2011, 12:19 AM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 11:20 PM
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 10:22 PM
I'm giving more practical weight to the thing that's changing right now and that we might have some political control over. I'm giving less practical weight to entrenched ideas and systems that have an inertia that we're not likely to overcome.
Other weighting would seem ... academic.
That's some rather ineffective problem-solving. Do you continue to bail out your bathwater when it's overflowing, because that's what's "changing right now," or do you first turn the faucet off? Taking the defeatist approcah and leaving systems that "have too much inertia" to their own is no way to fix any problem. You don't let a bad situation get worse simply because the underlying causes are too hard to fix, that's ridiculous. It should already be a given that defeatist attitudes and lackadaisical decision-making are ineffective. Well turning off a tap is actually easier than bailing water. Not sure that's a good analogy.
- Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Be thankful that you're afforded the luxury of not having to worry about doing useful things, and of attacking the very idea as obtuse and narrow minded. 
My point, as well-illustrated from your response above, was that you seem unwilling or unable to see past the surface of the issue, or at least past your own personal values. If university only meant "learning useful things in jobs," I never would have gone, and that includes undergraduate education. I learned the knowledge and skills necessary to make it in today's job market by the time I was in high school. Universities are money-making organizations, there's no question about that. But their agenda has nothing whatever to do with what its students actually get out of the experience. College students are subjected to myriad situations unique to universities that help them in ways no other institution could. I shouldn't have to spell out the examples in which a college education makes someone a "well-rounded individual."
You wouldn't say that to a smart and effective person who happened not to go to college. What's more, you wouldn't even think it, if you were interacting with them.
Do you even have any friends who didn't go to college?
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Oct 28 2011, 07:19 AM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 11:53 AM
... mediocre minds will stay in school forever, learning nothing of any value, wasting their lives and other people's money ... Like this?
|
|
|
| |
|
kathyk
|
Oct 28 2011, 08:41 AM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 7,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #115
- Joined:
- April 22, 2005
|
Has anyone read PD's book? Does anyone know what he concludes the solution is? Is it just fine and dandy to leave it to market forces?
|
|
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
|
| |
|
Chris Aher
|
Oct 28 2011, 09:56 AM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 790
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #50
- Joined:
- April 19, 2005
|
I read P*D's book last year and posted this commentary:
- Quote:
-
I finished reading Piano*Dad's book yesterday. Here are my observations:
This book makes a good argument that the real reasons that the price of college has increased at a faster rate that the overall rate of inflation are due to external economic factors that reflect cost pressures inherent in the nature of higher education. The main thrust is that a number of specialized service industries that require a highly educated workforce providing 'artisan' services have an inherently higher cost structure and this is reflected in the price of these services. These include medicine, dentistry and legal services. Comprehensive statistics are presented demonstrating the cost curve of these, which are then contrasted with artisan industries that don’t require the same level of education, expertise and capital investment. These industries (for example, hair care) have a cost and price structure that tracks general inflation much more closely.
The authors set about refuting a number of the 'usual suspects' that the media has made much of. They make a good case that higher education actually costs more than even full tuition actually pays for and is, in fact subsidized in a number of different ways both direct and indirect. This is reminiscent of my days at Lincoln Center during the seventies. Back then, The NY Philharmonic lost $20 per seat on a sold out house. The authors finish by making a proposal to provide direct subsidies to all students as a means of ensuring that all students have access to higher education regardless of means.
There is a fundamental assumption that permeates the book. That is that a college degree is a desirable commodity across a very large percentage of the population. As a corporate manager in a complex industry with several decades hiring experience, I suspect that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in this. A college degree has little actual value to society if it doesn’t represent a body of knowledge, discipline and experience that entirely too often is missing. In my experience, degrees are not created equal and since they have become so prevalent these days, the value has been diminished. Of course a degree from a top school in a rigorous discipline is a very strong indication of value, but these are not the majority of degrees granted by any means. The cost of providing education of questionable value to students is probably a significant factor to the overall cost of our higher education system. I sometimes think (in my more cynical moments) that the real purpose of having a large number of mediocre students enrolled in mediocre programs is to delay their entry in the labor market for a few years.
A couple of nits to pick:
1. The authors state in the beginning of the book that it is not possible to separate the costs of various components of the academy, teaching, research, administration, etc. This kind of cost allocation analysis is routinely done in the corporate world. I just did an analysis of this type last week. We call it a segmentation analysis. It involves a certain amount of educated guesswork but when it is assembled across the whole company, a reasonably coherent picture is arrived at. I see no reason why this could not be done in the university setting.
2.The authors indicate that government subsidies only started in a large way in the 60s. I feel that although the GI Bill (1944) was not intended to be a subsidy but (as the authors indicate, deferred compensation), it in fact had that effect and should be considered such. The land grants in the 19th century that got the big Midwestern universities off the ground could also be considered subsidies.
With regard to the concept of direct subsidy to all qualified students, New York had such a program in the 60s. The Regents Scholarship program granted all students who scored above a certain mark on a fairly rigorous exam a stipend that was applied to tuition for any college in NY. A score above another much higher level provide a much more significant grant that would cover more than half of the tuition to a top tier school in those days. I've heard that that program has been significantly watered down because the demographic of the exam results was considered not desirable. I don't know if this is true.
In summation, this is a very interesting book that provided me with much food for thought. I agree with the authors that the 'usual suspects' are probably symptoms and not the disease. I also suspect that a number of sociological and demographic factors contribute significantly.
P*D and his colleague basically argue that the price(what each student ultimately pays) should be mitigated by by returning the subsidy level to the public universities back to earlier levels by direct grants to students. They don't really address cost (what it costs to operate the universities) containment strategies.
In my own case, 40 years ago, I paid my student loan back in full, in cash, the day the first payment was due. The banker probably thought I was a drug dealer but I worked 2 jobs and saved every penny. It was about half a years earnings IIRC. I ate a lot of rice that year.
Regards, Chris
|
Regards, Chris
|
| |
|
Luke's Dad
|
Oct 28 2011, 10:23 AM
Post #38
|
- Posts:
- 25,628
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
I find the idea of subsidizing the students more directly than the universities interesting. With more grant opportunites, I would imagine you would likely see an increase in the number of students in college, as their would be fewer students leaving school early as they run out of money, and more students enrolling that wouldn't have otherwise because they had more of an opportunity. I would imagine that you would mostly see an improvement in midlevel degree programs and in two year degree or certification programs. More people going for LN or RN nursing degrees, for instance, whereas otherwise they may have just become PCA's.
|
|
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
|
| |
|
kathyk
|
Oct 28 2011, 01:09 PM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 7,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #115
- Joined:
- April 22, 2005
|
- Chris Aher
- Oct 28 2011, 09:56 AM
I read P*D's book last year and posted this commentary: - Quote:
-
I finished reading Piano*Dad's book yesterday. Here are my observations:
This book makes a good argument that the real reasons that the price of college has increased at a faster rate that the overall rate of inflation are due to external economic factors that reflect cost pressures inherent in the nature of higher education. The main thrust is that a number of specialized service industries that require a highly educated workforce providing 'artisan' services have an inherently higher cost structure and this is reflected in the price of these services. These include medicine, dentistry and legal services. Comprehensive statistics are presented demonstrating the cost curve of these, which are then contrasted with artisan industries that don’t require the same level of education, expertise and capital investment. These industries (for example, hair care) have a cost and price structure that tracks general inflation much more closely.
The authors set about refuting a number of the 'usual suspects' that the media has made much of. They make a good case that higher education actually costs more than even full tuition actually pays for and is, in fact subsidized in a number of different ways both direct and indirect. This is reminiscent of my days at Lincoln Center during the seventies. Back then, The NY Philharmonic lost $20 per seat on a sold out house. The authors finish by making a proposal to provide direct subsidies to all students as a means of ensuring that all students have access to higher education regardless of means.
There is a fundamental assumption that permeates the book. That is that a college degree is a desirable commodity across a very large percentage of the population. As a corporate manager in a complex industry with several decades hiring experience, I suspect that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in this. A college degree has little actual value to society if it doesn’t represent a body of knowledge, discipline and experience that entirely too often is missing. In my experience, degrees are not created equal and since they have become so prevalent these days, the value has been diminished. Of course a degree from a top school in a rigorous discipline is a very strong indication of value, but these are not the majority of degrees granted by any means. The cost of providing education of questionable value to students is probably a significant factor to the overall cost of our higher education system. I sometimes think (in my more cynical moments) that the real purpose of having a large number of mediocre students enrolled in mediocre programs is to delay their entry in the labor market for a few years.
A couple of nits to pick:
1. The authors state in the beginning of the book that it is not possible to separate the costs of various components of the academy, teaching, research, administration, etc. This kind of cost allocation analysis is routinely done in the corporate world. I just did an analysis of this type last week. We call it a segmentation analysis. It involves a certain amount of educated guesswork but when it is assembled across the whole company, a reasonably coherent picture is arrived at. I see no reason why this could not be done in the university setting.
2.The authors indicate that government subsidies only started in a large way in the 60s. I feel that although the GI Bill (1944) was not intended to be a subsidy but (as the authors indicate, deferred compensation), it in fact had that effect and should be considered such. The land grants in the 19th century that got the big Midwestern universities off the ground could also be considered subsidies.
With regard to the concept of direct subsidy to all qualified students, New York had such a program in the 60s. The Regents Scholarship program granted all students who scored above a certain mark on a fairly rigorous exam a stipend that was applied to tuition for any college in NY. A score above another much higher level provide a much more significant grant that would cover more than half of the tuition to a top tier school in those days. I've heard that that program has been significantly watered down because the demographic of the exam results was considered not desirable. I don't know if this is true.
In summation, this is a very interesting book that provided me with much food for thought. I agree with the authors that the 'usual suspects' are probably symptoms and not the disease. I also suspect that a number of sociological and demographic factors contribute significantly.
P*D and his colleague basically argue that the price(what each student ultimately pays) should be mitigated by by returning the subsidy level to the public universities back to earlier levels by direct grants to students. They don't really address cost (what it costs to operate the universities) containment strategies. In my own case, 40 years ago, I paid my student loan back in full, in cash, the day the first payment was due. The banker probably thought I was a drug dealer but I worked 2 jobs and saved every penny. It was about half a years earnings IIRC. I ate a lot of rice that year. Regards, Chris Thanks Chris. In summary, there is no pat, easy answer.
|
|
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 28 2011, 01:40 PM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Axtremus
- Oct 28 2011, 07:19 AM
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 11:53 AM
... mediocre minds will stay in school forever, learning nothing of any value, wasting their lives and other people's money ...
Like this? Impressive! I guess God does exist after all...
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 28 2011, 04:04 PM
Post #41
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- Horace
- Oct 28 2011, 12:19 AM
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 11:20 PM
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 10:22 PM
I'm giving more practical weight to the thing that's changing right now and that we might have some political control over. I'm giving less practical weight to entrenched ideas and systems that have an inertia that we're not likely to overcome.
Other weighting would seem ... academic.
That's some rather ineffective problem-solving. Do you continue to bail out your bathwater when it's overflowing, because that's what's "changing right now," or do you first turn the faucet off? Taking the defeatist approcah and leaving systems that "have too much inertia" to their own is no way to fix any problem. You don't let a bad situation get worse simply because the underlying causes are too hard to fix, that's ridiculous. It should already be a given that defeatist attitudes and lackadaisical decision-making are ineffective.
Well turning off a tap is actually easier than bailing water. Not sure that's a good analogy. - Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Be thankful that you're afforded the luxury of not having to worry about doing useful things, and of attacking the very idea as obtuse and narrow minded. 
My point, as well-illustrated from your response above, was that you seem unwilling or unable to see past the surface of the issue, or at least past your own personal values. If university only meant "learning useful things in jobs," I never would have gone, and that includes undergraduate education. I learned the knowledge and skills necessary to make it in today's job market by the time I was in high school. Universities are money-making organizations, there's no question about that. But their agenda has nothing whatever to do with what its students actually get out of the experience. College students are subjected to myriad situations unique to universities that help them in ways no other institution could. I shouldn't have to spell out the examples in which a college education makes someone a "well-rounded individual."
You wouldn't say that to a smart and effective person who happened not to go to college. What's more, you wouldn't even think it, if you were interacting with them. Do you even have any friends who didn't go to college? I thought you might mention this.
For one, yes I absolutely would say that, but what I would or would not say to anyone is irrelevant to whether or not the points I'm making have any credibility. You receive unique benefits from going to university, just as you receive unique benefits from joining the work force early, joining the armed forces, etc. Every situation has its benefits and shortcomings but we're not talking about every situation here, are we.
As to who I know and who I don't, a line of questioning just as irrelevant, I started making a long list of folks I know who didn't go to college, some of which didn't even finish high school. (I grew up in a rural area, you see. "Rural Route 1" was the start of my original address.) Some were good friends of mine and I think about them often.
But then I deleted the list because it's irrelevant and none of that is any of your ****ing business.
It's very difficult to accurately assess the benefits of going to college, and many of the things I mentioned vary greatly from school to school. (Fortunately, there's a big enough choice in the U.S. for students to find a place more or less catered to what they're looking to get out of the experience). I'm simply making a case for the institution in general since, well, I happen to be back into it and you seem to think it's a waste of time.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 28 2011, 06:04 PM
Post #42
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 28 2011, 04:04 PM
- Horace
- Oct 28 2011, 12:19 AM
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 27 2011, 11:20 PM
- Horace
- Oct 27 2011, 10:22 PM
I'm giving more practical weight to the thing that's changing right now and that we might have some political control over. I'm giving less practical weight to entrenched ideas and systems that have an inertia that we're not likely to overcome.
Other weighting would seem ... academic.
That's some rather ineffective problem-solving. Do you continue to bail out your bathwater when it's overflowing, because that's what's "changing right now," or do you first turn the faucet off? Taking the defeatist approcah and leaving systems that "have too much inertia" to their own is no way to fix any problem. You don't let a bad situation get worse simply because the underlying causes are too hard to fix, that's ridiculous. It should already be a given that defeatist attitudes and lackadaisical decision-making are ineffective.
Well turning off a tap is actually easier than bailing water. Not sure that's a good analogy. - Quote:
-
- Quote:
-
Be thankful that you're afforded the luxury of not having to worry about doing useful things, and of attacking the very idea as obtuse and narrow minded. 
My point, as well-illustrated from your response above, was that you seem unwilling or unable to see past the surface of the issue, or at least past your own personal values. If university only meant "learning useful things in jobs," I never would have gone, and that includes undergraduate education. I learned the knowledge and skills necessary to make it in today's job market by the time I was in high school. Universities are money-making organizations, there's no question about that. But their agenda has nothing whatever to do with what its students actually get out of the experience. College students are subjected to myriad situations unique to universities that help them in ways no other institution could. I shouldn't have to spell out the examples in which a college education makes someone a "well-rounded individual."
You wouldn't say that to a smart and effective person who happened not to go to college. What's more, you wouldn't even think it, if you were interacting with them. Do you even have any friends who didn't go to college?
I thought you might mention this. For one, yes I absolutely would say that, but what I would or would not say to anyone is irrelevant to whether or not the points I'm making have any credibility. You receive unique benefits from going to university, just as you receive unique benefits from joining the work force early, joining the armed forces, etc. Every situation has its benefits and shortcomings but we're not talking about every situation here, are we. As to who I know and who I don't, a line of questioning just as irrelevant, I started making a long list of folks I know who didn't go to college, some of which didn't even finish high school. (I grew up in a rural area, you see. "Rural Route 1" was the start of my original address.) Some were good friends of mine and I think about them often. But then I deleted the list because it's irrelevant and none of that is any of your ****ing business. It's very difficult to accurately assess the benefits of going to college, and many of the things I mentioned vary greatly from school to school. (Fortunately, there's a big enough choice in the U.S. for students to find a place more or less catered to what they're looking to get out of the experience). I'm simply making a case for the institution in general since, well, I happen to be back into it and you seem to think it's a waste of time. I think our concept of "intelligence" and "education" is shifting and will continue to shift now that the internet is here. 100 years ago, if you were exposed to a piece of information - an answer (even if not the correct one) to a question - you were smart.
If you read books, and remembered enough of what you'd read to drop it into conversation, you were smart.
It's not like that anymore. Now it's the ability to collate and come to terms with essentially infinite information.
That marginalizes a large portion of our historic concept of "intelligence". And that's a good thing.
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |
|
John D'Oh
|
Oct 28 2011, 06:11 PM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 53,798
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #276
- Joined:
- October 19, 2005
|
- Horace
- Oct 28 2011, 06:04 PM
I think our concept of "intelligence" and "education" is shifting and will continue to shift now that the internet is here. 100 years ago, if you were exposed to a piece of information - an answer (even if not the correct one) to a question - you were smart.
If you read books, and remembered enough of what you'd read to drop it into conversation, you were smart.
It's not like that anymore. It certainly isn't. We're completely surrounded by unbelievably large amounts of total crap. People cut and paste vast swathes of other people's drivel, and occasionally even try and pass it off as their own thinking or, God forbid, what passes for wit.
Take Oscar Wilde, for example. Thank God the poor sod's dead - if he was alive today he'd spend his days arguing about gay marriage on internet forums ad nauseum rather than being clever and hilarious.
|
|
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
|
| |
|
Axtremus
|
Oct 28 2011, 07:10 PM
Post #44
|
- Posts:
- 35,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- April 18, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 28 2011, 04:04 PM
I'm simply making a case for the institution in general since, well, I happen to be back into it and you seem to think it's a waste of time. Well, if you go back to school to become a doctor or lawyer or engineer or scientist or nurse or accountant or mechanic or carpenter or welder or plumber or electrician ... that would be different.
|
|
|
| |
|
Copper
|
Oct 28 2011, 07:14 PM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 29,871
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #426
- Joined:
- February 14, 2007
|
- Axtremus
- Oct 28 2011, 07:10 PM
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 28 2011, 04:04 PM
I'm simply making a case for the institution in general since, well, I happen to be back into it and you seem to think it's a waste of time.
Well, if you go back to school to become a doctor or lawyer or engineer or scientist or nurse or accountant or mechanic or carpenter or welder or plumber or electrician ... that would be different.
OK, so just jobs and lifestyles that you approve.
That makes sense.
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
|
| |
|
Aqua Letifer
|
Oct 28 2011, 08:29 PM
Post #46
|
- Posts:
- 45,861
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #262
- Joined:
- September 22, 2005
|
- Horace
- Oct 28 2011, 06:04 PM
I think our concept of "intelligence" and "education" is shifting and will continue to shift now that the internet is here. 100 years ago, if you were exposed to a piece of information - an answer (even if not the correct one) to a question - you were smart.
If you read books, and remembered enough of what you'd read to drop it into conversation, you were smart.
It's not like that anymore. Now it's the ability to collate and come to terms with essentially infinite information.
That marginalizes a large portion of our historic concept of "intelligence". And that's a good thing.
Post-modernism at its worst.
Most people around here think as you. Access to information has marginalized the need to remember it, they say. I find that laughable.
My first major in undergrad was mathematics. The faculty was an old sector of the school, and the classrooms didn't look nearly so glam and modern as the tech and business schools. We didn't use Smartboards, Blackboard or online supplementals, we used chalk and blackboards, textbooks that have been around for many decades, filled with concepts and principles hundreds of years old. For the most part, we were forbidden to use any kind of calculator, even the crap free ones you get at your bank for being a member. At the time, I remember bitching about this often. But when I switched majors, my faculty changed over to the technology portion of the school. HUGE money pit there, they got all the flash toys. Modern building, professors direct from the field and not cooped up in their school offices for decades, everything was cutting edge. We took a mathematics assessment exam the first week of one of the courses, to see whether or not you needed to show up for the math tutoring sessions. I was one of the very few who became exempt. My fellow students all knew how to use the lab equipment but they didn't have a good grasp on what they were doing conceptually.
Here, when I hear someone mention how fresh and new Two and a Half Men was, how innovative it was because there doesn't seem to be any good-natured protagonist to act as a foil, etc., I just have to shake my head. If the person who said that had read Aristotle's poetics, for example, he'd know that two thousand years ago, comedy was defined as a situational story in which the characters are lower portrayals than that of reality. Just about every comedy works this idea on some level. When I hear people tell me that they liked Harry Potter because they've never read anything like it, I know that they've been neglecting the fairy stories and mythological tales that have been around since about 900.
And this isn't a high horse thing, I get burned by this just as much. Many things I considered new and innovative turn out to be modern reproductions of very old ideas. Just like the math example, these situations are only evidence of my own lack of understanding.
Yes, this information is all out there, ready to be discovered. But this particular kind of investigation is hard to do via computer, and access to Wikipedia just doesn't cut it more often than not. Second, even to perform this sort of investigation, to truly know the origins of things, to have the depth of knowledge that full understanding requires, you have to be curious and willing enough to even begin searching.
Regarding knowledge, you just plain need it for intelligent thought and decision making. Any fool can look something up, it's not about that. That's just surface stuff, it's not what's important. The point is, knowing things builds the foundations you need to have perspective, to gain context with whatever it is you're studying, and most importantly, to make new connections between ideas, new relationships out of thoughts and ideas that were previously considered separate. Internet surf all you want but you can't do these things without first having that foundation.
|
|
I cite irreconcilable differences.
|
| |
|
Horace
|
Oct 29 2011, 09:53 AM
Post #47
|
- Posts:
- 17,851
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #101
- Joined:
- April 20, 2005
|
- Aqua Letifer
- Oct 28 2011, 04:04 PM
I'm simply making a case for the institution in general since, well, I happen to be back into it and you seem to think it's a waste of time. For the record, I would never presume to have an opinion about whether anybody in particular is wasting time going to school. I did not have you or anybody else in mind when I wrote anything I wrote in this thread.
|
|
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
|
| |