cooljeanius
Member
Yes, in fact, that would make me even more likely to go to college, because then I would be sure that I'd be able to afford it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Black Mamba
Member
Interesting. Well, I'd say you'd be a rare case.
It's also interesting you'd forego 4 years of salary, too.
ErasureAcer
Banned
I may not agree with all of Hilary's positions on issues like videogames causing violence but she sure seems likable. I love how she used her age in the interview as a plus.
In your "world without college", you are still going to have similar numbers of people gravitating towards and applying for particular fields, and will still have differences in intelligence, education, skills, and personality.
All your "world without college" premise does is lower the average level of education and the complexity of industry/society.
But given you assert college mostly doesn't educate you at all, you aren't going to agree with that. So this is getting us nowhere.
Let's just end this by saying I disagree with almost all of your view on college.
Black Mamba
Member
Depends on the fields. Sure, I don't think more people will apply to engineering. But you'll have more people applying for certain jobs than prior.
Not sure how there will be much differences in education at the HS level. Intelligence isn't that measurable (might be able to point out the morons and geniuses, but other than that) and hard to figure out who is skilled without actually hiring them.
Okay, let's look at lawyers. That is a field that is crowded, btw. Take away those top of the line graduates and take away people with connections. How are the others mostly picked?
So many law graduates have given up. Smart ones that would make great lawyers, too. There's too many of them and firms are struggling to figure out who to pick. Because law schools have become cash cow machines, even to misleading potential students about their prospects, the degree isn't worth much anymore. They saturated the market and it's kind of fucked right now. Too many people chasing too few jobs and too many low tier lawyers randomly being placed in jobs at the expense of high tiered ones. And this is in a place with high barriers of cost to entry reside (law school ain't cheap).
I never said college doesn't educate you. You get educated. I just argued that what you learn (especially outside STEM) doesn't mean much with regards to work and is even diminished in general (you don't retain a lot over time).
No problem. But most of the empirical data seems to back me up (I posted some earlier).
I'd just like to reiterate my argument is that it's okay to have some cost of barrier for college. I don't believe the high debt levels students accumulate today is good; i don't want that. And I think we can set up the system so that good students can be paid back what they've done in college and try to get poor students with potential into college easier. I'm for all of this.
But empirical evidence does seem to indicate college, with relation to the labor force, only matters so far as the actual degree is considered and I also think the other stuff about college is nice and great but mostly fluff when you break it down (diversity of people is the one thing it truly has going for it).
ClassyPenguin
Banned
lol wut
Are you even aware of what the fuck you are saying? Most of the people that I know with arts and film degrees got into a job in their field because of the experience of classes and equipment due to to college.
This seems to be the gist of your argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P5ooazR3_Qo
Black Mamba
Member
You're only arguing film students that apply for film jobs get film jobs. Well, yeah. How many math majors are trying to get jobs in film?
This is just people self-selecting themselves.
And in a depressed economy with only 3 million job openings there are more applicants than ever applying for the same job and so screeners have to try and whittle it down even more (ie certain majors biased against, speaking of which film has one of the highest unemployment rates for recent grads). In a normal economy with many job prospects, just having the degree would matter a lot more. Now GPA and other things are having an affect when in the past they really didn't.
And there are always exceptions. It probably does tend to help to have experience with actual equipment if the field uses that equipment. But this isn't a lot of fields. How many art and film majors are actually trying to go into that? Psych? Communications? Poli-Sci? The answer isn't much.
edit: to that youtube, my argument isn't that only some majors matter. My argument is that getting the degree matters regardless of major but that some majors are more directly related to labor than most. In our depressed economy, more factors are being added.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
College is a waste of time.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Definitely agree with Black Mamba here. Almost done with college, never did an internship and once I get my first job I'm not going to have any idea what to do. I would have learned much more if someone had given me a job 5 years a go and letting me start by doing the simplest tasks in my field. While I should have gone out and found an internship or two myself (which plenty of people do), they are not required at my university and you're in no way encouraged to go out and do it, which doesn't really help. When I hear the stories of my peers who have done internships, almost everything we're doing at university is irrelevant on a day to day basis at a real job. Definitely feels like a waste of time.
Just watched the joint Obama / Hillary interview and yes, it definitely had a "passing of the torch" vibe to it.
But I have to say, it's a terrible reality that "the permanent campaign" is with us. To come out of an 18 month election and almost go straight to 2016 speculation is an awful waste of time, energy and focus. Instead of spending that bandwidth of discussion about the probability of who may or may not be able to solve the issues of today four years from now, that you spend the time and energy solving the problems of the day, today?
A crazy naive idea, I know.
But I have to say, it's a terrible reality that "the permanent campaign" is with us. To come out of an 18 month election and almost go straight to 2016 speculation is an awful waste of time, energy and focus. Instead of spending that bandwidth of discussion about the probability of who may or may not be able to solve the issues of today four years from now, that you spend the time and energy solving the problems of the day, today?
A crazy naive idea, I know.
Avon Barksdale
Member
The media loves a political circus, unfortunately.
That Bams X Hill, interview lacked substance, also what's with Hill's coke bottle lenses? Didn't someone notice the massive amount of awkward reflections going on there? Some of the interview's editing was a bit abrupt and obvious in its lack of continuity, even by typical truncated interview standards. Hill also had some reeal bad jokes like,
"We don't have any tea. We've got some water here is the best I can tell. But you know, this has been just the most extraordinary honor."
boo
"We don't have any tea. We've got some water here is the best I can tell. But you know, this has been just the most extraordinary honor."
boo
Got it. Still, will someone think of the (literal) optics?
The Librarian
Banned
I hope she does. It's the Democrats' best chance of holding onto the presidency in 2016, and she's also the Democrat's best chance of capturing the House. Women vote more than men, and with her on the ticket, not only will the gender gap probably widen among the women that already vote, but even more women will turn out to vote. We'll deliver.
The Librarian
Banned
I know. But in this case they are clearly aware of their electoral deficiencies and if they don't try to repair their relationship with Latinos they are going to be hurting in the future. Even though 2010 brought on a wave of stupid, there are some in the party who ultimately want to do what it takes to win. The party big wigs are realizing that obstruction in every instance is not a popular way to govern and if they continue it then they will pay for it.
hey man, they're just asking questions!
And it's to the detriment of the citizenry. The pipeline in which you can "get stuff done" seems to shrink with every election cycle.
p.s. props to the username ...
PhoenixDark
Banned
The only hinderance would be Boehner: if a bipartisan bill passed by the senate is introduced on the floor, it would pass the house; it only needs 18 republican votes to pass and should get triple that. That of course hinges on this unity lasting in the senate. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill becomes less popular among republicans as Obama gets more involved, despite it already looking almost exactly like his 2008 plan. I'm sure McCain and others are chomping at the bits to walk away after Obama says something that hurts their feelings in the SOTU.
Also if it passes Rubio deserves some credit for shoring up the right flank. He has spent the last couple months going on right wing media outlets selling the general reform ideas, including a pathway to citizenship but not by that name. This is the same Obama plan they have called amnesty for years, and I'd imagine Obama will remind them of that as soon as possible. Still, Hannity and O'Reilly have been on record supporting reform for awhile, and if Fox holds their fire it could pass easily; the establishment GOP recognizes they have to do this.
Also if it passes Rubio deserves some credit for shoring up the right flank. He has spent the last couple months going on right wing media outlets selling the general reform ideas, including a pathway to citizenship but not by that name. This is the same Obama plan they have called amnesty for years, and I'd imagine Obama will remind them of that as soon as possible. Still, Hannity and O'Reilly have been on record supporting reform for awhile, and if Fox holds their fire it could pass easily; the establishment GOP recognizes they have to do this.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020229663_immigrationrubioxml.html
I even heard Haley Barbour on Bloomberg TV talking about making a decision that is best for the economy in regards to what type of immigration reform we need.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Yup, the fix is in. I think they recognize it has to pass. This all seems to come out of a calculation that passing reform, then nominating Rubio will guarantee Hispanic support and thus the White House. Good luck with that
soul creator
Member
Adam Lanza died a day before the media says he did! This government database says so!
(funny how the government suddenly becomes trustworthy with this particular piece of info)
Sirpopopop
Member
My problem is that college shouldn't be a mandatory requirement to get glorified office clerical positions, that one is qualified to work at without a college degree. On an individual level, the benefit of being a "well-informed" citizen is not worth going into debt at the tune of $50,000.
Yeah, I can let differing opinions go, but if someone posts conspiracy level shit or something that's outright wrong/a lie I get on that shit.
I had a girl who I thought was smart post something blatantly stupid and easily proven wrong about Obama the other day, so I called her out on it and pointed out why it was wrong. She just responds then basically good on you for doing research, but I just posted this because I hate Obama. I had to keep responding, this time with something like well, ok, but I hope your real reason to hate him is real, unlike this. Then she goes on with 'well, I don't want to facebook this stuff.... but I work hard for my money only for it to be given out to lazy people, etc'
It was beyond fucking ridiculous.
Shadow Hog
Member
IIRC you'd already posted that in this thread - at least, up to the part where you said "well, I hope your real reason to hate him is real". I think that last part's new.
So here's the thing -- Mamba is right. The primary purpose of college is to prove to employers you can get through college. It's great that there are lots of oeople who still believe in college, but that doesn't make him wrong. The thing is that that's the big problem with college, because it creates an impressive set of perverse incentives when a college's value is measured by how difficult they make it to graduate. If anything, that process alone is probably responsible for most of the problems with college today -- just look at graduate school, where the same factors have been operating for longer and at a higher level. It's also why you see people who really believe in college get shellshocked when they graduate and are treated like every other card-puncher rather than like people who worked are at education.
I'm not sure it's possible to run the clock back -- I don't think we've ever been able to lower the expected level of education. But that's exactly why we need to formalize college, the way we formalized primary and secondary school, as something everybody goes to -- otherwise we'll get another permanent underclass situation where the only way to get a job that pays is to have enough money for college already. I say "get," but of course, this is already the situation for millions of Americans.
I'm not sure it's possible to run the clock back -- I don't think we've ever been able to lower the expected level of education. But that's exactly why we need to formalize college, the way we formalized primary and secondary school, as something everybody goes to -- otherwise we'll get another permanent underclass situation where the only way to get a job that pays is to have enough money for college already. I say "get," but of course, this is already the situation for millions of Americans.
Yeah, the discussion went a bit further than what I posted, and got more baffling. I just hated the dismissal of everything and how she obviously wanted to stop the conversation, but then just had to add some stupid shit about her hard earned money to the end of it all. Couldn't follow her own advice and let it go. I still don't know why she hates Obama, considering she seems completely and utterly beyond ill-informed. Like, not even weird tea partier level informed even. She just doesn't know jack shit except she hates the dude.
Yeah, he'll definitely run again. He got 2nd last time. Do you really think he'd sit out after that? I don't think the dude's smart enough to realize why he got second and why he will absolutely never get the nomination.
No, you're right there. The details are fucked up, but the concept of learning more than what you need for a job isn't really a bad thing and I didn't feel like passing on the idea I had for that post.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
You guys are misunderstanding the missions of colleges. They, like the Fed, have a dual mandate: train students in a variety of subject matters so that they can analyze data from multiple viewpoints and to increase humanity's store of knowledge through research.
You focus on the first part and say it isn't worth what you paid for. That could be true depending on the cost of your tuition, but you did pick up valuable skills while in college. Some of those could be learning how to write thought provoking papers or how to deliver presentations. You also get exposed to a more multicultural society compared to one you have at a local high school. This allows for the challenging of ideas by other students and better prepares you for operating in a less homogeneous social setting than you are use to. College is about challenging its students to think logically and be more open to other ways of doing things. Do all get that benefit? Probably not.
The other area of the mandate, research, is probably of equal or more value than the instructing side of college. It all depends on how you look at it, but college is more than a diploma mill.
You focus on the first part and say it isn't worth what you paid for. That could be true depending on the cost of your tuition, but you did pick up valuable skills while in college. Some of those could be learning how to write thought provoking papers or how to deliver presentations. You also get exposed to a more multicultural society compared to one you have at a local high school. This allows for the challenging of ideas by other students and better prepares you for operating in a less homogeneous social setting than you are use to. College is about challenging its students to think logically and be more open to other ways of doing things. Do all get that benefit? Probably not.
The other area of the mandate, research, is probably of equal or more value than the instructing side of college. It all depends on how you look at it, but college is more than a diploma mill.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I hope she smacks down the Fox Interviewer with the fury of 1000 suns.
RustyNails
Member
What is gop's incentive with immigration reform? The legislation is bound to become part of Obama's legacy, not theirs. If I was gop I'd double down on scaring white people with words like amnesty. Atleast I will win in my gerrymandered district.
The Librarian
Banned
This part is confusing to me too. I think it's because they're going to try as much as possible, but if this passes Obama gets the credit, then when Hillary runs in 2016 she can say, "Look what we did under Democratic President Barack Obama." Comparatively, the GOP candidate will only have empty promises. What's he going to offer them?
Given the choice between trying to decide on just what amount of artificial barriers to higher education are needed to accommodate HR departments, or the problem of fixing our badly flawed economy to account for a much better educated populace, I think I'll take door number two.
Somehow I think it would be a problem that a having lot of educated people would be useful in solving.
Somehow I think it would be a problem that a having lot of educated people would be useful in solving.
To basically show hispanics that the GOP doesn't hate them. They could say "Hey, we helped pass immigration reform"
The incentive is that going forward they won't lose more of the hispanic vote. I don't think they want 2014 to turn into what 2012 was for them, too, and it would be a good possibility if they piss off a bunch of hispanics and get people mobilized against them.
This is actually the interesting problem. The GOP as a whole has a strong interest in not being the party that killed immigration AGAIN, and anyone who wants to run in 2016 needs to be able to say they supported a path to citizenship. But each individual GOP Congressperson, as ever, is strongly motivated to oppose "amnesty." This is what torpedoed W.'s attempt -- now we see if it happens again. I suspect we'll see another Hastert Rule violation with only 20-30 Republicans voting for the bill. Of course, this will do very little to fix the GOP's presentation problem, nor will it break apart the Obama coalition, which has if anything solidified since the election around socially liberal values. It's a victory for intersectionality!
The Librarian
Banned
I didn't misunderstand it -- universities deliberately obscured it! When it comes to research, who does the work? Graduate students -- they're involved in a lot of the research and experiments, and even when they're not directly holding the shovel, they teach the classes so the professors can focus on research. And how much do these workers get paid? They don't. In fact, a lot of them pay for the privilege of being research and teaching assistants! If research is such an important mandate for colleges, how can they make it work without paying their labor? They do it by deliberately conflating the mandates and telling graduate students that unpaid, unrewarding labor is a fundamental part of the educational process. siphoning off their enthusiasm for learning and advancing themselves to support the research establishment! I support public research and I want it to succeed and survive -- that's why I think we should target it specifically for support and funding. Right now it's just attached, leech-like, to the neck of public education, with predictable results for both.
adamsappel
Member
It's chAmping at the bit.
She's probably racist.
Re: college. I think college is something that more people should be exposed to, for educational and social reasons. However, it doesn't need to be a four-year process. I'm not a college graduate (left college when my wife got a job), but I have fulfilled all the requisites of my major. I could take 18 hours of elective gym classes and earn a diploma. College should be a two- or three-year program, with a majority of your classes in your field of study. The expense becomes much less, you don't have people taking bullshit communications classes to get easy A's and fill an elective requirement, etc.
CharlieDigital
Banned
It is a 2-3 year program - if you can finish the credits in that time span. Graduation is not tied to time, but to credit requirements.
Plenty of people in my extended family finished in 3 or 3.5 years. Easy to do if you take a few extra credits or complete credits over the summer.
College is not career training nor should it be. I think it's good to expose people to different areas of academic study as I don't think 18 year olds really know what career they want. We have a family friend who went into college thinking she wanted to be a journalist and came out with a bachelors in mathematics instead and is teaching high school math now. I myself went in for bio-med and came out in computer science with a minor in math but almost enough credits to have a minor in psychology as well (which I had no interest in prior to taking a required course in college).
Do you know why, despite China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan dominating the US in raw academic scores, we still excel in creation of new intellectual property? Because we don't view life as single track and pre-programmed. We allow people to create, to discover, and find themselves -- failure: it's in our culture. I'm not saying we shouldn't promote vocational training for those that desire it, but I'm pointing out that just as college isn't for everyone, vocational training isn't either. Many people take a lifetime to discover themselves and their interests; college is a chance to broaden their understanding of academic disciplines and find their career of interest. Some fail, even in those 3-4 years, and some succeed but the experience is open ended and I think that is important.
adamsappel
Member
I'm saying college should be 64-80 credits, instead of 128 (or whatever it is, I've been away from college for 20 years).
How is college not career training? Yes, many people switch majors, and psychology degrees are nigh useless, but for people who do know what they want to do, it shouldn't have 2 years of extraneous, expensive learning added to it.
How is college not career training? Yes, many people switch majors, and psychology degrees are nigh useless, but for people who do know what they want to do, it shouldn't have 2 years of extraneous, expensive learning added to it.
Mamba why do you believe that making college free would somehow lower admissions standards?? And you're totally ignoring the fact that the student would still have to graduate and get good grades in order to put on their resume. Most jobs ask for transcripts.
It seems like you saw free college for all and automatically jumped to the completely extreme end of the spectrum where every joe blow in the country who graduates high school is somehow going to go to college and somehow graduate with a 3.0 gpa and make it harder for employers to find "good" candidates.
And if the cost of college is currently a barrier to entry for people who SHOULD BE in college then the system is already broken.
It seems like you saw free college for all and automatically jumped to the completely extreme end of the spectrum where every joe blow in the country who graduates high school is somehow going to go to college and somehow graduate with a 3.0 gpa and make it harder for employers to find "good" candidates.
And if the cost of college is currently a barrier to entry for people who SHOULD BE in college then the system is already broken.
Free college for all should raise standards from now. Now colleges have a profit incentive to lower standards and let anyone in regardless of they should be there or would even do well there. And they have a profit incentive to keep them going throughout the program in order to keep getting money. With college's incentive on teaching people and testing capabilities, you could have higher standards. You'd effectively want only the better people making it through.
Cost shouldn't be the barrier to entry into getting a good job in life. It should be ability and hard work.
- Status