CT LVII: Sponsored by the Birth of Ennui and Wavy Q

[Kilroy]

i mean to me, the obvious answer is to make universities almost completely funded by the government. all of our discretionary spending should be going to education. and then when they are pretty much owned by the government, these institutions wont be able to jack up their prices sky high. right now were in some kind of limbo where they get federal aid but not enough to make them do anything about tuition.

I mean I get why you're thinking this, but you have to ask yourself about the quality of service of every other completely government subsidized organization that you've dealt with and whether you'd accept that in your college...

It wouldn't be like one day you woke up and USC was completely free...

All the good programs and professors would be gone, admissions would be even more difficult, and at the end of your time there, you end up with a degree worth less than a DeVrie certificate.

[Kilroy]

People need to stop majoring in crap like art and other pointless **** that doesn't pay bills.

It's not that simple, because liberal arts degrees can be very lucrative... Look around LA, or New York...

And it's hard to find College Degrees that actually equate to high paychecks anymore. Some of the most lucrative jobs out there now require non-College, technology certificates. Which can take as long and be as expensive and some secondary education fields.

And then there's fields like those in the Field Biology realm that aren't liberal but that you can't make much money in without being published, which requires a whole other skill set from what you learned in College.

But the premiss is valid... Kids need to formulate a plan from high school through entering the job market... And the High Schools and Colleges need to do an infinitely better job at helping them do that.

[Doormatt]

i mean to me, the obvious answer is to make universities almost completely funded by the government. all of our discretionary spending should be going to education. and then when they are pretty much owned by the government, these institutions wont be able to jack up their prices sky high. right now were in some kind of limbo where they get federal aid but not enough to make them do anything about tuition.

I mean I get why you're thinking this, but you have to ask yourself about the quality of service of every other completely government subsidized organization that you've dealt with and whether you'd accept that in your college...

It wouldn't be like one day you woke up and USC was completely free...

All the good programs and professors would be gone, admissions would be even more difficult, and at the end of your time there, you end up with a degree worth less than a DeVrie certificate.

I don't really get this response. USC is a private institution, what does that have to do with public education?

And the reason a DeVrie degree is worthless is because literally anyone can get into Devrie. The prestige of a university comes from its acceptance rate, not its quality. The funny thing is the quality of education you receive at a community college is often on par or better than that of a 4 year university. And the professors at community colleges are just as quality as any. The reason most professors choose universities is research, usually community college professors are just interested in teaching and not research. A lot of them teach at 4 year universities too.

Anyways all I said was that the government needs to subsidize more of the cost. That's it. They aren't going to lose money, it's just going to be coming from a different source. They can still afford all the equipment they need and don't need to lose any programs. The management isn't going to change. Just instead of the students fronting much of the cost, the government will. Obviously I haven't sat down and planned it out entirely, but the general idea should be obvious. The reason a lot of public sector stuff sucks like health care is it's accessibility. Anyone can show up to the clinic and you can't turn them away, so you have overcrowding and overworked doctors. That's not the case with education. There are still academic requirements, I'm not saying to let everyone in. There's still a limit to student population. The professors are still going to get to do their research.

I mean if you don't agree then what do you think needs to be done?

[Doormatt]

.

[Doormatt]

People need to stop majoring in crap like art and other pointless **** that doesn't pay bills.

Ahaha see this is the problem right here. We have people brainwashed to think that you need to study to get a good job, live to work, make a lot of money, and **** anyone who tells you otherwise. We are so engrained in the capitalist machine that we are all taught in order to be successful in life you have to make a lot of money so you can buy all the things you want. I don't really think that's a healthy mentality. I'm not saying material possessions are pointless, I like owning nice things and having money, I don't have a problem with it. Hell I'm going to school to study something so I can make a lot of money too, cuz that's how the game works. The problem is we take it way too far. This is not the human condition, living to work. It's the other way around.

Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or engineer or business owner. You're essentially saying people who don't have high paying jobs are worthless to society. I mean let's be clear, the people with jobs that are paying the bills aren't contributing to society in some meaningful way that other people aren't. Teachers get paid **** compared to a lot of other professionals, and I would say there contribution to society is much greater (all subjective obviously).

[Wavy Q]

Soccer icons appear and all of a sudden Doormatt thinks he's a sociopolitical expert.

[Doormatt]

Soccer icons appear and all of a sudden Doormatt thinks he's a sociopolitical expert.

>implying

[Slava]

Mississippi never ceases to amaze me. They just passed a religious freedom act that was kicked out by Jan Brewer in Arizona.

The bill contains this troubling text:

“Laws ‘neutral’ toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.”

“Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”

The bill could allow a pharmacist to refuse to sell contraception to a particular person, and could allow a child to tell a fellow student perceived as being gay they are going to hell — and cite the law as their right to continuously bully and harass them. The bill could also be used by a corporation to refuse to pay for certain medical procedures via its health insurance program, like abortion or birth control, as in the Hobby Lobby case currently before the Supreme Court.

Standing by Governor Bryant’s side as the bill was signed was none other than the head of the certified anti-gay hate group Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. Perkins then invited Bryant on his radio show this afternoon.

Bryant proceeded to falsely state that his state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “mirrors” the federal government’s. It does not. Bryant’s characterization of his new law is false, faulty, and could easily lead to tremendous abuses.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/mi ... 4/03/85261

[EArl]

People need to stop majoring in crap like art and other pointless **** that doesn't pay bills.

Ahaha see this is the problem right here. We have people brainwashed to think that you need to study to get a good job, live to work, make a lot of money, and **** anyone who tells you otherwise. We are so engrained in the capitalist machine that we are all taught in order to be successful in life you have to make a lot of money so you can buy all the things you want. I don't really think that's a healthy mentality. I'm not saying material possessions are pointless, I like owning nice things and having money, I don't have a problem with it. Hell I'm going to school to study something so I can make a lot of money too, cuz that's how the game works. The problem is we take it way too far. This is not the human condition, living to work. It's the other way around.

Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or engineer or business owner. You're essentially saying people who don't have high paying jobs are worthless to society. I mean let's be clear, the people with jobs that are paying the bills aren't contributing to society in some meaningful way that other people aren't. Teachers get paid **** compared to a lot of other professionals, and I would say there contribution to society is much greater (all subjective obviously).

I personally don't give a rats ass about being rich, but it annoys me when people major in things like art and expect to live well off of it. There is nothing wrong with doing what you want as long as you set up your expectations of how well off you will be.

And if you want to argue about people getting paid in how they contribute to society than lets bring in sports and artist into it. They contribute entertainment. Is that as important as being a professor?
we live in a country of supply and demand and if something engineers etc are in demand than they will get the bigger wages.

[ennui]

.

Good point.

[ennui]

Plus theres an obvious solution to all this

Be born rich

[tugs]

Went to the clinic for my annual physical exam. Waiting in the desk are two beautiful nurses (I'd say 8/10). I'm in my field attire (plain white shirt, jeans, rubber shoes, trucker cap, glasses - damn what kind of attire is this) with stool and urine samples in one hand (covered, of course).

Nurse: "Yes sir?" :">

Me: "Hi, I'm here for my annual exam."

Nurse: "Oh no. We don't have laboratory today since they are attending a seminar."

Me: (disappointed since I got late taking the samples) "I thought I can come anytime from Monday to Friday?"

Nurse: "I'm really sorry. You can comeback on Monday."

Me: "..."

Nurse: (saw the samples in my hand) "Oh you already brought samples."

Me: "Nah it's ok, I still have a lot of stocks."

Nurses: *giggles* :"> <3

s'all worth it.

[Doormatt]

People need to stop majoring in crap like art and other pointless **** that doesn't pay bills.

Ahaha see this is the problem right here. We have people brainwashed to think that you need to study to get a good job, live to work, make a lot of money, and **** anyone who tells you otherwise. We are so engrained in the capitalist machine that we are all taught in order to be successful in life you have to make a lot of money so you can buy all the things you want. I don't really think that's a healthy mentality. I'm not saying material possessions are pointless, I like owning nice things and having money, I don't have a problem with it. Hell I'm going to school to study something so I can make a lot of money too, cuz that's how the game works. The problem is we take it way too far. This is not the human condition, living to work. It's the other way around.

Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or engineer or business owner. You're essentially saying people who don't have high paying jobs are worthless to society. I mean let's be clear, the people with jobs that are paying the bills aren't contributing to society in some meaningful way that other people aren't. Teachers get paid **** compared to a lot of other professionals, and I would say there contribution to society is much greater (all subjective obviously).

I personally don't give a rats ass about being rich, but it annoys me when people major in things like art and expect to live well off of it. There is nothing wrong with doing what you want as long as you set up your expectations of how well off you will be.

And if you want to argue about people getting paid in how they contribute to society than lets bring in sports and artist into it. They contribute entertainment. Is that as important as being a professor?
we live in a country of supply and demand and if something engineers etc are in demand than they will get the bigger wages.

thats not what you said, you literally called it pointless, implying that there is no value in studying those things.

look i dont really care about this anymore but youre just wrong here. supply and demand has almost nothing to do with getting bigger wages. its a factor certainly but really not a significant one. it all depends on the industry really. i brought up value they bring to society because you called it pointless, as if to say the people making a lot of money are doing something with a point (other than making money).

[Slava]

Useless is probably the wrong word but certainly its financially irresponsible to be spending 25k a year on college to study something that has an earning potential of $30k/yr once you graduate.

My parent paid for my bachelors but if I had to do it again I'd probably have tried my damn best to immigrate to US for undergrad and do a computer science degree at one of the private universities even if it meant taking on a **** load of debt. The exposure to the professors, classmates and the earning potential is totally worth it if you get to a place like Berkley or Stanford.

[Doormatt]

well theres a difference between pointless and useless too, and yes it is financially irresponsible to go to a very expensive university for a degree like that when most arts/liberal arts schools are much cheaper.

[tugs]

I say if you can migrate for cheaper universities, do it. that is if you can't apply for scholarships. we have a ton of foreigners going here to study.

depends on your field of interest of course.

[Kilroy]

i mean to me, the obvious answer is to make universities almost completely funded by the government. all of our discretionary spending should be going to education. and then when they are pretty much owned by the government, these institutions wont be able to jack up their prices sky high. right now were in some kind of limbo where they get federal aid but not enough to make them do anything about tuition.

I mean I get why you're thinking this, but you have to ask yourself about the quality of service of every other completely government subsidized organization that you've dealt with and whether you'd accept that in your college...

It wouldn't be like one day you woke up and USC was completely free...

All the good programs and professors would be gone, admissions would be even more difficult, and at the end of your time there, you end up with a degree worth less than a DeVrie certificate.

I don't really get this response. USC is a private institution, what does that have to do with public education?

Really? You don't get that USC is just an example? You could literally replace those 3 letters with any college in the country and it wouldn't change the point at all... USC is just a good school that most anyone on a Lakers forum could identify with.

And the reason a DeVrie degree is worthless is because literally anyone can get into Devrie. The prestige of a university comes from its acceptance rate, not its quality. The funny thing is the quality of education you receive at a community college is often on par or better than that of a 4 year university. And the professors at community colleges are just as quality as any. The reason most professors choose universities is research, usually community college professors are just interested in teaching and not research. A lot of them teach at 4 year universities too.

A DeVrie degree isn't worthless... That's my point... In many cases, they provide more hands on, real world experience than you can find in a 4 year institution and as a result, sometimes their graduates have an easier time finding work than those with a fresh, generic 4 yr degree.

But wouldn't "Letting anyone in" be a problem with Government Subsidized education too... In fact it would be worse, because a Government Institution literally can't turn ANYONE away...

Jr College professors can be just as good as 4 Year professors but in my personal experience, that's rare. I had some great Jr College professors but I had way more great professors in one location in my 4 year public school.

Anyways all I said was that the government needs to subsidize more of the cost. That's it. They aren't going to lose money, it's just going to be coming from a different source. They can still afford all the equipment they need and don't need to lose any programs. The management isn't going to change. Just instead of the students fronting much of the cost, the government will. Obviously I haven't sat down and planned it out entirely, but the general idea should be obvious. The reason a lot of public sector stuff sucks like health care is it's accessibility. Anyone can show up to the clinic and you can't turn them away, so you have overcrowding and overworked doctors. That's not the case with education. There are still academic requirements, I'm not saying to let everyone in. There's still a limit to student population. The professors are still going to get to do their research.

I mean if you don't agree then what do you think needs to be done?

The Government subsidizing higher education at a higher rate could help, but I can almost guarantee that they wouldn't subsidize a whole lot, and they'd increase taxes way more than the program would help the average student...

Personally, I'd like to see Tax Breaks for Corporations to Sponsor State schools. With an oversight committee in place to monitor and regulate the program. I think Corporate Sponsorship might solve a lot of problems... First it could make education cheaper for students, and it would also allow Corporations to have more say about the course of study for the schools, thus ensuring that the students left with salable skills. I think it might limit the number of useless classes and degrees. It would have to work so that no one Corporation could be the only sponsor, so that different careers could be represented. It may also increase the confidence in and reliance on, the domestic workforce... If you train them, you're more likely to employ them, and if you don't you have no excuses when the Government decides to impose tax penalties on you for continuing to hire temps from over seas.

But I would limit it to schools the Government already helps subsidize so that Private Schools don't just get richer... So I'm thinking just the State Schools. That way, if you were against the idea of Corporate America dictating what you learned, you could always go to a private school, which would likely be cheaper due to the increased competition from the funded State schools.

[Slava]

I think Corporate Sponsorship might solve a lot of problems... First it could make education cheaper for students, and it would also allow Corporations to have more say about the course of study for the schools, thus ensuring that the students left with salable skills. I think it might limit the number of useless classes and degrees. It would have to work so that no one Corporation could be the only sponsor, so that different careers could be represented. It may also increase the confidence in and reliance on, the domestic workforce... If you train them, you're more likely to employ them, and if you don't you have no excuses when the Government decides to impose tax penalties on you for continuing to hire temps from over seas.

Bingo!

[TyCobb]

My opinion is that students are the ones who make college education so damn expensive. There are too many different variables that go into repaying debt and the students who take out loans are too young and inexperienced with how the real world works, therefore making them easy to prey on. Meanwhile, the cost will continue to rise because the financial backers are trying to recoup whatever they can. I also believe that the workload is too big for an 18-22 year old to handle, which causes stress, which leads to poor decisions overall. If kids didn't feel like they have to cram all their studies in immediately after high school, and exercise some patience and financial responsibility, then they would be in much better position post-college education.

[EArl]

I think Corporate Sponsorship might solve a lot of problems... First it could make education cheaper for students, and it would also allow Corporations to have more say about the course of study for the schools, thus ensuring that the students left with salable skills. I think it might limit the number of useless classes and degrees. It would have to work so that no one Corporation could be the only sponsor, so that different careers could be represented. It may also increase the confidence in and reliance on, the domestic workforce... If you train them, you're more likely to employ them, and if you don't you have no excuses when the Government decides to impose tax penalties on you for continuing to hire temps from over seas.

Bingo!

Damn Kilroy hammered it home. A lot of companies actually do this. UCSC is always visited by the silicon valley companies (Google, apple etc) looking for prospective employees.