Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

I just now turned it on. What did she say?

"Something something... we can't say what's going to happen today or next year. But of course we're interested in the future of the country, etc."

That's a not great paraphrase but this is the first time (?) Hilldawg hasn't denied it at all.

 

[RDreamer]

If she's still healthy enough 4 years from now she's definitely running. There's no way she doesn't. I'd put money on it.

 

[Tim-E]

"Something something... we can't say what's going to happen today or next year. But of course we're interested in the future of the country, etc."

That's a not great paraphrase but this is the first time (?) Hilldawg hasn't denied it at all.

She has previously flat-out said she wasn't going to run, so yes, this is definitely a change in tone for her.

If Obama can survive these Benghazi attacks without a scratch, they won't phase Hilldawg four years from now. I've said it before, but as long as Obama makes it through this term with a few big accomplishments and without much scandal, she will coast through a general election. She's absurdly popular and has spent the last two decades being a target from the right. She's a great SoS and is on the side of popular opinion on most social issues. She will make any Republican candidate look like a child when foreign policy comes up.

Gimme dat Clinton/Schweitzer ticket.

 

[Snake]

If Hillary runs in 2016 do you think the Republicans will try and nominate someone serious (who will still lose) or just let a joker like Rand Paul or Rick Santorum get the nom (and barely scrape together 150 EVs)?

 

[RDreamer]

Gimme dat Clinton/Schweitzer ticket.

I'd seriously love to see how the Republicans would try and attack that.

 

[Tim-E]

I'd seriously love to see how the Republicans would try and attack that.

I think she would make North Carolina safe D and put WV, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana in contention.

Dear god, I don't need to be talking about electoral maps this early. Help me.

 

[Oblivion]

Since Palin's not working at Fox anymore, perhaps this opens up room in her schedule (LOL) for running against Hilldawg? :O

 

[RDreamer]

Since Palin's not working at Fox anymore, perhaps this opens up room in her schedule (LOL) for running against Hilldawg? :O

Oh god, just imagine the debates that would produce.

 

[Tim-E]

Since Palin's not working at Fox anymore, perhaps this opens up room in her schedule (LOL) for running against Hilldawg? :O

It'd be hilarious if the party decided to go for purity in their candidate and choose someone like her. I've also noticed that Santorum has been throwing himself out there at pro-life rallies. Let's hope some of last season's cast returns for the new season.

The last two Republican candidates were the second place candidate in the previous open primary. If Santorum won the nomination I'd die from laughter.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's funny seeing Santorum try so hard, and a little sad too. He's a true believer yet if given a chance, his base would reject him in a heart beat for a sexier more accessible candidate. Luckily the fundamentalists don't have a W Bush in the wings: all their candidates are fringe folks who can't attract regular, non-crazy people.

Palin won't run. Running for VP was the last hard thing she did in her life, and from here on out she'll be riding a gravy train to the bank. I'm guessing she'll release a book in 2015 that gets folks amped, she'll flirt with a run, maybe jab whoever the establishment candidates are (Christie, Jeb Bush types), etc...then announce she isn't running. Basically the exact same playbook she ran in 2011/2012.

 

[Chichikov]

Palin won't run. Running for VP was the last hard thing she did in her life, and from here on out she'll be riding a gravy train to the bank. I'm guessing she'll release a book in 2015 that gets folks amped, she'll flirt with a run, maybe jab whoever the establishment candidates are (Christie, Jeb Bush types), etc...then announce she isn't running. Basically the exact same playbook she ran in 2011/2012.

She'll be doing gold infomercials by 2015.
At least I hope she does.

 

[Link]

I'd seriously love to see how the Republicans would try and attack that.

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

 

[RDreamer]

BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!

In that case they'd sail straight to the White House.

 

[Link]

I agree. I never said it would be effective.

 

[Byakuya769]

Do I really need to purchase an AR-15 for the rabid, kill your family, 50lbs. coyote epidemic? I need to act before Obama makes his move against my freedom.

 

[Chichikov]

In that case they'd sail straight to the White House.

McCain bitterness is going to break the IBU scale.

Edit: I also see the usual suspects breaking record of inappropriateness and awkwardness attacking her on the Lewinsky thing.

 

[Tim-E]

Who needs to personally own an AR-15 to kill wolves when Sarah Palin's already got you covered? She's even got a helicopter!

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Do I really need to purchase an AR-15 for the rabid, kill your family, 50lbs. coyote epidemic? I need to act before Obama makes his move against my freedom.

I don't know, do you live on a farm in a pretty isolated rural area with your primary source of income being livestock?

 

[RustyNails]

Can Joe Biden become the VP again in 2016? He should be the VP of forever as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Chichikov]

Who needs to personally own an AR-15 to kill wolves when Sarah Palin's already got you covered? She's even got a helicopter!

No need to pick a fight with hunters over gun control.
You may not like hunting, you probably culturally quite removed from your average hunter, but I promise you, on most issues (yes, including gun control) they generally side with reason.

 

[Tim-E]

No need to pick a fight with hunters over gun control.
You may not like hunting, you probably culturally quite removed from your average hunter, but I promise you, on most issues (yes, including gun control) they generally side with reason.

I don't see how you took my joke about Sarah Palin riding helicopters to hunt is me picking a fight with anyone, but okay.

Also, you'd be very wrong in assuming that I'm removed from hunting culture, considering I grew up in (and still live in) rural West Virginia surrounded by reasonable gun owners and hunters. I'd say nearly ever male I grew up around was an avid hunter and I've fired hunting rifles at many times throughout my life. I know their reasons for wanting to own firearms are mostly reasonable.

 

[Jooney]

Just reduce your income. That will lead to increased income.

flawless victory.

 

[Chichikov]

I don't see how you took my joke about Sarah Palin riding helicopters to hunt is me picking a fight with anyone, but okay.

Also, you'd be very wrong in assuming that I'm removed from hunting culture, considering I grew up in (and still live in) rural West Virginia surrounded by reasonable gun owners and hunters. I'd say nearly ever male I grew up around was an avid hunter and I've fired hunting rifles at many times throughout my life. I know their reasons for wanting to own firearms are mostly reasonable.

I think I meant to quote Byakuya769's post.
And for some reason I thought you come for a different background, but I'm terrible at keeping track of those things.

p.s.
You should read the Onion's Biden book(ish).
Vis a vis nothing but your avatar.

 

[Tim-E]

p.s.
You should read the Onion's Biden book(ish).
Vis a vis nothing but your avatar.

I've been meaning to since I found out about it. Their caricature of Biden is one of the best things in existence.

 

[Jooney]

Just catching up with the last few pages and had some thoughts that may or may not make me sound like a jackass.

One of the realisations I have come to after following American politics for so long is how I, as an Australian, have taken for granted the systems and services we have in place to ensure a level of economic comfort and security. The student loans and education system is a great example of this.

In Australia, our tuition is paid for by the government, which is indexed at an incredibly low interest rate. Once you have finished your degree, your paycheck is deducted a small payment automatically to pay off your loan. The amount taken out is proportional to your salary.

It's an incredible simple and stress-free system that allows almost all those who want to go to university (college) to do so.

The idea that your parents have to scrimp and save to send their children to college, or that you have to take out giant loans from big banks to pay for your education, to having the constant stress of having a giant debt hanging over your head, is a completely foreign concept down here.

 

[Chichikov]

I've been meaning to since I found out about it. Their caricature of Biden is one of the best things in existence.

I loved it.
Yeah, it's practically one stretched joke, but I'm sucker for that type of humor.

Speaking of the onion:
The Onion Demands John Kerry Tell The Truth About His Swift Boat Service

 

[The Librarian]

Just catching up with the last few pages and had some thoughts that may or may not make me sound like a jackass.

One of the realisations I have come to after following American politics for so long is how I, as an Australian, have taken for granted the systems and services we have in place to ensure a level of economic comfort and security. The student loans and education system is a great example of this.

In Australia, our tuition is paid for by the government, which is indexed at an incredibly low interest rate. Once you have finished your degree, your paycheck is deducted a small payment automatically to pay off your loan. The amount taken out is proportional to your salary.

It's an incredible simple and stress-free system that allows almost all those who want to go to university (college) to do so.

The idea that your parents have to scrimp and save to send their children to college, or that you have to take out giant loans from big banks to pay for your education, to having the constant stress of having a giant debt hanging over your head, is a completely foreign concept down here.

Welp, I'm jealous.

 

[Black Mamba]

North Carolina lawmakers have drafted legislation that would ban welfare recipients and people in bankruptcy from buying lottery tickets in the state, according to several news reports.

The bill draft would punish vendors for selling lottery tickets to someone who they know is on welfare or in bankruptcy, according to ABC 11 in Raleigh. The lawmakers behind it believe it's counterproductive for the government to accept money from welfare recipients who are struggling to get by.

"We're giving them welfare to help them live, and yet by selling them a ticket, we're taking away their money that is there to provide them the barest of necessities," state House Majority Leader Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam (R), who is helping draft the bill, told ABC 11. Stam added that the lottery "is essentially a scam," the news outlet reported. Stam also said that some of the North Carolina lottery advertising is "just fraudulent," according to the Raleigh News & Observer.

Some lottery critics claim that the lottery is a tax on the poor, the uneducated, and the elderly, who are more likely to buy lottery tickets. For example, the poorest counties in North Carolina have the highest spending per capita on lottery tickets, according to North Carolina Policy Watch (via Business Insider).

Lottery ticket buyers have almost no chance of winning the jackpot. However, lottery sales around the country have been breaking records.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/welfare-lottery-ban_n_2552885.html?utm_hp_ref=business

The party of small government and letting you be free!


Rather just ban state lotteries, though.

 

[Jimothy]

Just catching up with the last few pages and had some thoughts that may or may not make me sound like a jackass.

One of the realisations I have come to after following American politics for so long is how I, as an Australian, have taken for granted the systems and services we have in place to ensure a level of economic comfort and security. The student loans and education system is a great example of this.

In Australia, our tuition is paid for by the government, which is indexed at an incredibly low interest rate. Once you have finished your degree, your paycheck is deducted a small payment automatically to pay off your loan. The amount taken out is proportional to your salary.

It's an incredible simple and stress-free system that allows almost all those who want to go to university (college) to do so.

The idea that your parents have to scrimp and save to send their children to college, or that you have to take out giant loans from big banks to pay for your education, to having the constant stress of having a giant debt hanging over your head, is a completely foreign concept down here.

I'm already 14k in debt and I'm only a sophomore. Fun times in Murica.

 

[Jooney]

Welp, I'm jealous.

The sad thing about your system is that it is so short sighted. It puts the short term financial gain of financial institutions ahead of the long-term economic interests of the country. American's 20th century advantage in education and innovation is over; other countries are rapidly catching up because they have invested in education and in their people.

 

[Black Mamba]

I think those calling for free university education for all is missing the point of college.

At the same time, the enormous costs to college are also too much.

There should be a happy medium. costs are too high but they shouldn't be zero.

 

[Jooney]

I think those calling for free university education for all is missing the point of college.

At the same time, the enormous costs to college are also too much.

There should be a happy medium. costs are too high but they shouldn't be zero.

It shouldn't be free, but it should be reasonably priced, and accessible to all (or at least almost all) to those who want it. A high cost education is not only a disincentive to individuals but harmful to the long-term interests of the country.

An education should be seen as an investment in your people. In my example, the government invested a relatively low amount in my education. Thanks to this, I have been able to secure a well paying job where I pay back the cost of my education multiple times over in taxes.

 

[RDreamer]

I think those calling for free university education for all is missing the point of college.

At the same time, the enormous costs to college are also too much.

There should be a happy medium. costs are too high but they shouldn't be zero.

It should be nationalized (in order to control costs) and then paid back in proportion to what you make afterwards for however many years.

 

[pigeon]

I think those calling for free university education for all is missing the point of college.

At the same time, the enormous costs to college are also too much.

There should be a happy medium. costs are too high but they shouldn't be zero.

I want to hear more about this, because you usually have strong arguments. What do you view as the point of college?

 

[Clevinger]

LOL Scott Walker

You're almost two years late with that, my man.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't know, do you live on a farm in a pretty isolated rural area with your primary source of income being livestock?

Whatever the merit of your argument, social policy will always have negative ramifications for some people. In this case, a very narrow segment of people you are talking about who might occasionally have a legitimate use for assault rifles are somewhat inconvenienced. So be it.

I think those calling for free university education for all is missing the point of college.

At the same time, the enormous costs to college are also too much.

There should be a happy medium. costs are too high but they shouldn't be zero.

I don't see why it shouldn't be zero. A lot of countries make it zero. Also, I don't know that anybody is calling for free university education for everybody. I think the request is free university education for those who want it and qualify for it per some criteria. As society grows wealthier over time, however, access to free university education to those who want it should also increase (i.e., the criteria for it is lowered).

 

[Black Mamba]

It shouldn't be free, but it should be reasonably priced, and accessible to all (or at least almost all) to those who want it. A high cost education is not only a disincentive to individuals but harmful to the long-term interests of the country.

An education should be seen as an investment in your people. In my example, the government invested a relatively low amount in my education. Thanks to this, I have been able to secure a well paying job where I pay back the cost of my education multiple times over in taxes.

Hey, I agree. Like I said, there needs to be a happy medium.

The UC system in California used to be built for that. Costs have tripled in the last decade, which is ridiculous.

And I think there should be a system in place to help pay off the final 2 years for certain students who are doing well at university. Why not reward those proving themselves?

Our middle and high school educations are in much worse shape, though, and need to be addressed as well. University is just a monetary problem and much easier to fix.

I don't see why it shouldn't be zero. A lot of countries make it zero. Also, I don't know that anybody is calling for free university education for everybody. I think the request is free university education for those who want it and qualify for it per some criteria. As society grows wealthier over time, however, access to free university education to those who want it should also increase (i.e., the criteria for it is lowered).

Some are calling for free uni for all. If everyone can get university for free, you're going to have a misallocation of resources (human capital). Money is a way to prove you really need it and are committed to it.

 

[RDreamer]

You're almost two years late with that, my man.

Oh dammit, a friend of mine posted that, and usually he's on the ball. Imma have to give him a piece of my mind!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Also that we are pushing everyone to college instead of also trades.
There is good demand for skilled workers.

 

[Black Mamba]

I want to hear more about this, because you usually have strong arguments. What do you view as the point of college?

The purpose of college, in general, is to signal to prospective employers you're a high skilled worker and not a low skilled worker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#A_basic_job-market_signalling_model

Empirical evidence has been shown. Those who go 2-3 years of college and drop out make, on average, the same as those with just a HS degree.

For the most part, all that matters is that piece of paper you get. It's nothing but a signal. Of course there are exceptions but in general this is how it works.


If everyone goes to college, it's really hard for employees to more efficiently pick out the right workers. Money being a barrier to entry is a way to deal with this issue. Again, I'm not for putting people into $100k in debt over it. And things like Law Schools are basically cheating students out of their future wages.

But there are better ways to dealing with it. The UCs tried to make it cheaper and did for a while. Like I said, you could reward those doing well through the first 2 years.

 

[Kusagari]

Some are calling for free uni for all. If everyone can get university for free, you're going to have a misallocation of resources (human capital). Money is a way to prove you really need it and are committed to it.

That's not really the case, though. Kids aren't actually paying "real" money they're paying with student loans and not thinking about it as they rack up tons of debt.

 

[empty vessel]

Some are calling for free uni for all. If everyone can get university for free, you're going to have a misallocation of resources (human capital). Money is a way to prove you really need it and are committed to it.

Not all resources must be allocated "correctly." Or, to put it differently, humans are the judge of what allocations are "correct," which is just another way to say what allocations individuals prefer, since there is no objectively "correct" allocation. The "market" is a mechanism for allocation that humans invented and which some humans assert results in "correct" allocations, which by that they mean--although they won't say--an allocation preferred by them. But, any fool can see that those allocations are all kinds of fucked up.

In short, the correct allocation of university education is whatever we want it to be. I happen to think university education benefits individuals and society regardless of whether it is something the individual requires for whatever role he or she will eventually play in society.

The purpose of college, in general, is to signal to prospective employers you're a high skilled worker and not a low skilled worker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#A_basic_job-market_signalling_model

Empirical evidence has been shown. Those who go 2-3 years of college and drop out make, on average, the same as those with just a HS degree.

For the most part, all that matters is that piece of paper you get. It's nothing but a signal. Of course there are exceptions but in general this is how it works.

Viewing university education in this manner is the problem with society. For the love of god, quit it. Not everything has to reduce to economic activity. People attend college, in general, to get a college education. If the purpose of college is to get a piece of paper to signal to employers, then it ought to be abolished entirely, not reformed.

 

[RDreamer]

The purpose of college, in general, is to signal to prospective employers you're a high skilled worker and not a low skilled worker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#A_basic_job-market_signalling_model

Empirical evidence has been shown. Those who go 2-3 years of college and drop out make, on average, the same as those with just a HS degree.

For the most part, all that matters is that piece of paper you get. It's nothing but a signal. Of course there are exceptions but in general this is how it works.

If the purpose of college is just to signal you're a high skilled worker and get a piece of paper, then why should it cost? Shouldn't we allow as many people as are able to become skilled workers?

Some are calling for free uni for all. If everyone can get university for free, you're going to have a misallocation of resources (human capital). Money is a way to prove you really need it and are committed to it.

Here you say money is a way to prove you need it and are committed to it?

So you're saying the purpose of college is to say you're well off enough to spend money on it and thus must be a skilled worker?

 

[Black Mamba]

That's not really the case, though. Kids aren't actually paying "real" money they're paying with student loans and not thinking about it as they rack up tons of debt.

Yes, they are. Are you arguing that no kids avoid college because of monetary concerns? That is far from the truth.

Not all resources must be allocated "correctly." Or, to put it differently, humans are the judge of what allocations are "correct," which is just another way to say what allocations individuals prefer, since there is no objectively "correct" allocation. The "market" is a mechanism for allocation that humans invented and which some humans assert results in "correct" allocations, which by that they mean--although they won't say--an allocation preferred by them. But, any fool can see that those allocations are all kinds of fucked up.

In short, the correct allocation of university education is whatever we want it to be. I happen to think university education benefits individuals and society regardless of whether it is something the individual requires for whatever role he or she will eventually play in society.

This is a strange approach. You're basically arguing the libertarian argument that whatever humans decide collectively is always right even if it's inefficient. Very weird considering I thought you were a socialist.


Employees use universities to help them figure out which people to hire. If every single person goes to university, then employees are guessing and this is highly inefficient. granted they guess now too, but the risk of being wrong is a lot lower. It would be inefficient to just have everyone go to college.

At the same time, even just allowing it free to all would make it inefficient as those who shouldn't be there are.

I do agree university is good for everyone in a vacuum because the more educated and the more experienced the better, but there are downsides and those are related to the issue of signalling.

Again, the issues of finance can be dealt with in numerous ways. People entering massive debt is not the way it should go but neither is the other extreme. As usual, the sensible solution lies in the middle.

 

[Jooney]

The purpose of college, in general, is to signal to prospective employers you're a high skilled worker and not a low skilled worker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)#A_basic_job-market_signalling_model

Empirical evidence has been shown. Those who go 2-3 years of college and drop out make, on average, the same as those with just a HS degree.

For the most part, all that matters is that piece of paper you get. It's nothing but a signal. Of course there are exceptions but in general this is how it works.

I agree that a completed degree is a signal and an indicator to prospective employers that an individual has a demonstrated commitment to achievement.

However college is more than that. It's the learning of a practical set of skills, the improvement of written and oral communication skills, enhanced problem solving and analytical skills, and exercise of critical thinking. Not to mention the soft skills gained from mixing with people from diverse backgrounds.

To put all of this either beyond the price some people are willing to pay, or just as bad, to make people suffer an incredible debt to gain this experience, is deterimental to society.

 

[RDreamer]

Employees use universities to help them figure out which people to hire. If every single person goes to university, then employees are guessing and this is highly inefficient. granted they guess now too, but the risk of being wrong is a lot lower. It would be inefficient to just have everyone go to college.

At the same time, even just allowing it free to all would make it inefficient as those who shouldn't be there are.

I do agree university is good for everyone in a vacuum because the more educated and the more experienced the better, but there are downsides and those are related to the issue of signalling.

Again, the issues of finance can be dealt with in numerous ways. People entering massive debt is not the way it should go but neither is the other extreme. As usual, the sensible solution lies in the middle.

I really don't get your reasoning here. Employers should use universities to help them figure out which people to hire, because those people that graduated from the universities should be qualified then. What exactly are they guessing if everyone went? How is that inefficient? Instead of picking from 1 or 2 kids who are qualified they'd be picking from 3 or 4 or whatever. What's the risk? They should all be qualified? Unless you're saying the education isn't what makes them qualified and something else is... Unless you're trying to say that college just signifies that you have enough money to go and it helps employers weed out who's rich enough to likely be a better person for them or something, but I don't think you are. That's kind of what your reasoning is pointing to, though.

 

[Black Mamba]

If the purpose of college is just to signal you're a high skilled worker and get a piece of paper, then why should it cost? Shouldn't we allow as many people as are able to become skilled workers?

It's not to become a high skilled worker. You're already a high skilled worker when you enter college. You go to college to prove it.

Here you say money is a way to prove you need it and are committed to it?

Willing to pay for college is a barrier for entry.

It's about costs and signalling. If there are no costs to signal to the employer, there is no signal. There are two costs. Money and time/effort. If you take away the money aspect, then you have to make college a lot tougher than it is right now, because it's not hard at all unless you're in STEM.

So you're saying the purpose of college is to say you're well off enough to spend money on it and thus must be a skilled worker?

No, I'm saying the purpose of college is to signal you're a high skilled worker. If you're willing to pay for that signal (whether now or in the future) is the cost to acquiring that signal. If you know you're a high skilled worker, you should be willing to pay that signal (again, at a lower level than it currently is).

As I just mentioned, one failure of the system is daddy warbucks spending for their idiot child to go through university.

I agree that a completed degree is a signal and an indicator to prospective employers that an individual has a demonstrated commitment to achievement.

However college is more than that. It's the learning of a practical set of skills, the improvement of written and oral communication skills, enhanced problem solving and analytical skills, and exercise of critical thinking. Not to mention the soft skills gained from mixing with people from diverse backgrounds.

To put all of this either beyond the price some people are willing to pay, or just as bad, to make people suffer an incredible debt to gain this experience, is deterimental to society.

For the employer none of that matters because they don't know it until they hire you. I mean, those are all potentially beneficial things to you as a person, but employers only care about that paper, as evidenced by those going to 3 years of college and quitting. Surely, they got a lot of what you said, but even leaving because your mom died and you had to take a full time job to support your little siblings ruins your prospects for signalling.

 

[el jacko]

The other side of the "prove you have the dedication for college" is that most universities have minimum standards to be met before they let you attend. Even if all universities were free, anyone couldn't just enter since they'd have to meet the academic standards of said university.

Most European institutions are free to EU citizens, maybe with administration fees of a few hundred dollars. We really are out of line with the rest of the world on this one.

 

[Black Mamba]

I really don't get your reasoning here. Employers should use universities to help them figure out which people to hire, because those people that graduated from the universities should be qualified then. What exactly are they guessing if everyone went? How is that inefficient? Instead of picking from 1 or 2 kids who are qualified they'd be picking from 3 or 4 or whatever. What's the risk? They should all be qualified? Unless you're saying the education isn't what makes them qualified and something else is... Unless you're trying to say that college just signifies that you have enough money to go and it helps employers weed out who's rich enough to likely be a better person for them or something, but I don't think you are. That's kind of what your reasoning is pointing to, though.

You're under the assumption that universities make all people high skilled workers.

The reality is that most high skilled workers attend university while low skilled workers opt not to.

There is evidence out there for the Spence Model which demonstrates that low skilled workers are aware of who they are and make the choice not to attend college because they know they won't make up the costs of college through work after it. You don't convert low skilled workers to high skilled workers.

Now, if we had a real education system from primary through secondary school that wasn't horseshit and 95% of students are high skilled workers, we'd be in a completely different scenario. But that's not how it is. And allowing low skilled workers to go to university would hurt everyone.

We like to pretend that what we learn at university is actually useful or makes us better workers, but outside some exceptions, it is negligible. You are who you are by the time you're 18.

Not the best approach this question, but you ever know someone who was a dumbass in middle school and high school and then suddenly stopped being a dumbass after college (and I don't mean doing drugs or something)?

The other side of the "prove you have the dedication for college" is that most universities have minimum standards to be met before they let you attend. Even if all universities were free, anyone couldn't just enter since they'd have to meet the academic standards of said university.

Most European institutions are free to EU citizens, maybe with administration fees of a few hundred dollars. We really are out of line with the rest of the world on this one.

Their lower education rungs are a lot better than ours. We are also a nation of 310 million people with the most diverse economy in the world. I wish we were as good as Europe at the Secondary school level.

 

[RDreamer]

I have to say, Black Mamba, that's the strangest reading of the purpose of College I've ever heard, and I'm still trying to parse it. My initial thought is if that's how you really view it the implications would be that it's incredibly inefficient in the long run. If you're already a highly skilled worker, why are we forcing you to go through 4 years for essentially nothing? I mean if you literally learn nothing that qualifies you for a job, just spend four years showing your dedication to something, then that's really just inefficient as all hell to everyone involved.